Salem Lutheran Home

2027 COLLEGE AVENUE, ELK HORN, IA 51531 (712) 764-4201
For profit - Corporation 64 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
30/100
#300 of 392 in IA
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Salem Lutheran Home has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality and care. They rank #300 out of 392 nursing homes in Iowa, placing them in the bottom half of all facilities statewide. The trend is improving, as the number of reported issues decreased from 14 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is average with a 3/5 rating, but the turnover rate is concerning at 67%, which is higher than the state average. Notably, the facility has incurred $25,448 in fines, which is higher than 76% of Iowa facilities, raising red flags about compliance. Although there are some strengths, such as average RN coverage, there are serious weaknesses as well. For instance, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision, leading to a resident falling out of a lift and suffering a compression fracture. Additionally, there were incidents of poor sanitary practices during meal service that could risk residents' health. Overall, families should weigh these factors carefully when considering Salem Lutheran Home for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
30/100
In Iowa
#300/392
Bottom 24%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
14 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$25,448 in fines. Lower than most Iowa facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Iowa. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
36 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 14 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Iowa average (3.0)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 67%

20pts above Iowa avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $25,448

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Staff turnover is elevated (67%)

19 points above Iowa average of 48%

The Ugly 36 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Jun 2025 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, family interview, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, family interview, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 residents personal property was protected from loss or theft (Resident #14). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: Review of Resident #14's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99 indicating the resident was unable to perform the interview. The MDS further revealed diagnoses of progressive neurological conditions, cancer, non-Alzheimer's dementia, depression, and altered mental status. Interview 6/23/25 at 1:34 PM with Resident #14's family member revealed that Resident #14 was missing her wedding ring, and a birthstone ring. The family member then revealed that the facility was aware, and had not replaced the items. The family member further revealed that the rings were missing a couple months ago, and had notified the facility. Review of a facility provided document titled, Inventory of Personal Effects with a signature date of 8/13/18 revealed an entry under the jewelry section of the form saying ring, and watch. Review of the Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR) page titled, Progress Notes revealed an entry 4/30/25 at 1:41 PM that Social Services spoke with Resident #14's Family member about missing items and an investigation. Further review of this entry revealed that Social Services was going to speak with the Administrator and will follow up with Resident #14's family member on how to move forward. Further review of the Progress Notes revealed another entry 4/30/25 at 2:57 PM revealing Social Services had informed Resident #14's family member they had spoken with the Administrator, and the family member was welcome to proceed with filing with the sheriff's department. The entry further revealed that the facility would continue to look for the lost items. Interview 6/25/25 at 8:52 AM with Social Services revealed that She did file a grievance for the missing items for Resident #14, and that the items were never found or replaced. Social Services further revealed that inventory sheets should be completed at admission and updated at Care Plan meetings. Interview 6/25/25 at 10:22 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that inventory sheets should be updated and correct as this was an expectation. The DON further revealed that her expectation would be for items to be replaced if lost. Review of a facility provided undated policy titled, Inventory of Personal Effects revealed: a. Inventory of personal effects should be completed on admission, and updated as new articles are acquired.
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on document review, staff interviews, and the facility policy review, the facility failed to implement the abuse and neglect policy by not completing background checks prior to staff employment ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on document review, staff interviews, and the facility policy review, the facility failed to implement the abuse and neglect policy by not completing background checks prior to staff employment for 1 out of 5 staff reviewed. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: A review of personnel file of Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), revealed the background check was completed 3/15/25 while the hired date was 10/8/24. Background check was not completed prior to hire date. In an interview with Staff H, Human Resources, on 06/24/25 02:29 pm, she stated during an internal audit they didn't locate a background check on Staff G, LPN and they completed one immediately on 3/15/25. During an interview with the DON on 6/24/25 at 2:35 pm, she confirmed that the facility failed to complete a required background check prior to hiring Staff G. Review of the facility provided policy titled Abuse and Neglect-Rehab/Skilled, Adult Day Services, Therapy & Rehab revised 4/7/2025 documented: The location will not knowingly employ or otherwise engage individuals who have been found guilty of abusing, neglecting, exploiting, misappropriating property or mistreating residents/clients by a court of law or have had a finding entered into the state nurse aide registry concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents/clients or misappropriation of their property or have a disciplinary action in effect against his or her professional license by a state licensure body as result of a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents/clients or misappropriation of resident/client property.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on electronic health record review, resident interview, personnel file review, facility policy review, and staff interview...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on electronic health record review, resident interview, personnel file review, facility policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to investigate and report alleged violations related to mistreatment to officials including the State Survey Agency in an appropriate time frame for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #37). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #37 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS reflected Resident #37 diagnoses of cerebrovascular accident (CVA), transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke, hemiplegia or hemiparesis, and diabetes mellitus. The MDS further documented Resident #37 required total dependence of staff for performing toilet transfers and toileting hygiene. During interview on 6/24/25 at 11:16 am Resident #37 stated Staff F, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was providing cares to her before bed time on 2/5/25 and left her on the bed pan for 5 hours without the call light within reach. Resident #37 revealed a few days later Staff F returned to work, was providing cares to her again and was not respectful during the interaction. When Resident #37 asked for a blanket, Staff F was talking over the resident and was not picking out the right blanket. She became frustrated and threw the pile of blankets on the resident's lap and told her to pick the one she wanted. Resident #37 stated Staff F was acting drunk. Resident #37 stated she told Staff F to leave the room and she did. Resident #37 further revealed she did not report Staff F to the management out of fear that Staff F was friends with the Director of Nursing but she spoke with one of the nurses after the incident who is now the Director of Nursing (DON) but at that time was in a different role at the facility and was told steps will be taken. Resident #37 reported she has not had Staff F provide any further cares to her and most likely no longer worked at the facility. A review of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) for Resident #37 lacked documentation of the 2/5/25 events regarding Staff F left Resident #37 on the bed pan without a call light for 5 hours and no assessments were documented on the cognitive or physical condition of the resident following the incident. A review of the Facility Reported Incidents to the State Agency for Resident #37 did not return results that the facility reported an incident between the resident and Staff F. During an interview with the DON on 6/24/25 at 2:35 pm who took the position less than 3 months ago, stated to her knowledge there was no investigation completed by the previous administration about Resident #37 incident that occurred in February. She confirmed the administration was aware about the events as they were discussed during the routine management meetings. She also confirmed she did not file a report of possible abuse to the State Agency as she believed the previous administration was working on it. The DON also stated that she expected her staff to report any abuse allegations to the management within 2 hours and the management or staff have the knowledge how to report abuse and the reporting information is posted by the time clock. Review of Staff F personnel file document titled Corrective Action Notice dated 3/7/25 documented last day of employment 3/7/25 with the reason for termination due to lack of attendance. Review of the facility provided policy titled Abuse and Neglect-Rehab/Skilled, Adult Day Services, Therapy & Rehab revised 4/7/2025 documented: Alleged or suspected violations involving any mistreatment, neglect, exploitation or abuse including injuries of unknown origin will be reported immediately to the administrator. In the absence of the administrator from the location, the following individuals have the administrative authority of the administrator for purposes of immediate reporting of alleged violations: the director of nursing services or the supervisor of social services. These designated individuals are delegated the authority by the administrator to: 1. Intervene in any situation in order to protect residents. 2. Remove any individual from the location if necessary for the protection of residents/clients or employees, including but not limited to employees, visitors, contractors or family members. 3. Call local law enforcement for assistance with interventions necessary for the protection of residents or employees. 4. Call 911 for any type of emergency assistance. PROCEDURE 1. If an employee receives an allegation of abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of resident/client property or witnesses suspected abuse, neglect or misappropriation of resident/client property, the employee will take measures to protect the resident/client, provided the safety of the employee is not jeopardized. The employee will then report the allegation to a supervisor. 2. The program coordinator, charge nurse or licensed nurse will be notified immediately, assess the situation to determine whether any emergency treatment or action is required and complete an initial investigation. If this is an injury of unknown origin, he or she also will attempt to determine the cause of the injury. The coordinator or charge nurse also will ensure that any potential for further abuse is eliminated by taking one of the following actions: 3 b, If this is an allegation of employee to resident/client abuse, the employee will be removed from providing direct care to all residents/clients. Additionally, the employee will be placed on suspension pending the results of the internal investigation. Another employee will be assigned to complete the care of the resident/client. c. Designated agencies will be notified in accordance with state law, including the State Survey and Certification Agency. If applicable, Adult Protective Services will be notified where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care centers. i. If there is an allegation of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident/client property, and/or there is serious bodily injury, then it will be reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation is made.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to refer 2 residents with a negative Level I result for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to refer 2 residents with a negative Level I result for the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), who were later identified with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or other related condition, to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASRR evaluation and determination for 2 out of 2 residents reviewed for PASRR requirements (Resident #16, #20). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Finding include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #16 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) did not indicate a summary score. The MDS documented an admission date of 6/14/23. The MDS documented high-risk drug classes use and indicated Resident #16 was taking antipsychotic, antianxiety, antidepressant, and anticonvulsant medications. The Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented Resident #16 had the following diagnoses: psychological insomnia, major depressive disorder, schizotypical disorder, and anxiety disorder. During the EHR review for Resident #16, no current PASRR Level II was located. In an interview with the DON on 6/25/25 at 9:10 am, she confirmed Resident #16 did not have a PASRR Level II since admission to the facility. 2. Review of Resident #20's MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 14 indicating intact cognition. The MDS further revealed diagnoses of progressive neurological conditions, anxiety disorder, depression, psychotic disorder, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. Review of a facility provided document titled, Notice of PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) level 1 screen outcome dated 10/28/21 revealed no active diagnosis for psychosis or visual hallucinations. The document further revealed should there be an exacerbation related to mental illness or a discrepancy in the reported information, a status change should be submitted for evaluation. Review of the EHR page titled, Medical Diagnosis revealed diagnosis of major depressive disorder with a date of 11/2/21, unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known psychological condition with a date of 11/27/23, and visual hallucinations with a date of 5/19/25. Interview 6/25/25 at 8:17 AM with Staff C Social Services revealed that another PASRR should have been completed. Staff C then revealed the expectation would be that the PASRR be completed again with a new diagnosis. Interview 6/25/25 at 11:04 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed her expectation would be for PASRR assessments to be completed correctly. Review of a facility provided policy titled, Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) with a revision date of 12/30/24 revealed: a. If the resident is diagnosed with a mental disorder while in the location, social services, or the designated individual, will contact the designated state agency for a Level II screening.
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 record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide quality of nursing care by leaving a resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide quality of nursing care by leaving a resident on a bed pan for an extensive period of time without a call light and not documenting the event for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #37). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #37 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS reflected Resident #37 diagnosis of cerebrovascular accident (CVA), transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke, hemiplegia or hemiparesis, and diabetes mellitus. The MDS further documented Resident #37 required total dependence on staff for performing toilet transfers and toileting hygiene. During an interview on 6/24/25 at 11:16 am Resident #37 stated Staff F, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was providing toileting hygiene on 2/5/25 and left her on the bed pan for 5 hours without a call light within reach. Resident #37 voiced with teary eyes she was laying in bed in a lot of pain and no once came to check on her during the night while she was on the bed pan and she was hurting. She located a call light in the drawer of the nightstand after 5 hours and pressed it for staff assistance. Staff came in and assisted her off the bed pan. Resident #37 revealed she reported it to a nurse and the facility installed an additional call light above the bed. A review of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) for Resident #37 lacked documentation of the 2/5/25 events regarding Staff F leaving Resident #37 on the bed pan without a call light for 5 hours and no assessments were documented on the cognitive or physical condition of the resident following the incident. During an interview with the DON on 6/24/25 at 2:35 pm confirmed the incident was brought up to her by Resident #37 and other staff knew and also the EHR for Resident #37 lacked documentation about the incident and lacked documented health assessments. She confirmed the administration was aware about the events as they were discussed during the routine management meetings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #8's MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 13 indicating intact cognition. The MDS further revealed Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #8's MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 13 indicating intact cognition. The MDS further revealed Resident #8 utilizes oxygen therapy. Review of Resident #8's EHR page titled, Physician's orders revealed an order for oxygen 1 Liters Per Minute (LPM) per nasal cannula at night while sleeping. Interview 6/23/25 at 1:02 PM with Resident #8 revealed that she just puts the oxygen on, and is unsure how often the tubing is changed. Observation 6/23/25 at 1:02 PM oxygen tubing was noted to be dated 4/16/25, and humidification bottle was noted to be dated 4/23/25. Interview 6/24/25 at 10:37 AM with Staff A RN (Registered Nurse) revealed she works here every other weekend with an agency, and oxygen tubing is to be changed weekly on Wednesdays. Staff A then revealed that there is a book that shows oxygen tubing is to be changed weekly on Wednesday nights. Review of an undated facility provided document titled, Master Schedule 6p-6a Center Nurse, revealed Wednesdays oxygen tubing and nebulizer tubing are to be changed. No sign off sheets for oxygen being completed. Interview 6/24/25 at 10:44 AM with Staff B revealed that oxygen tubing is to be changed weekly, and that night watch completes this. Staff B further revealed that there is a book at the nursing stations and provided the book, but could not provide a sign off sheet. Interview 6/24/25 at 10:49 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that oxygen tubing should be changed weekly, and this would be her expectation. Review of a facility provided policy titled, Oxygen Administration with a revision date of 7/28/24 revealed: a. Disposable equipment should be changed weekly or according to manufacturer's instruction and marked with date and initials. Based on observations, electronic health record (EHR) reviews, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice for 2 of 2 residents reviewed, requiring the use of oxygen (Resident #32, Resident #8). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #32 dated 4/1/25 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9/15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses that included: coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, venous insufficiency (chronic) peripheral, obstructive sleep apnea, and shortness of breath. The MDS documented Resident #1 required oxygen. Resident #32's Care Plan dated 6/25/25 identified a focus area of oxygen therapy related to congestive heart failure. Interventions for staff included oxygen therapy as needed per order. The 6/25 Medication Administration Record (MAR)-Treatment Administration Order (TAR) did not provide orders or instructions for changing oxygen tubing. On 6/23/25 at 1:32 PM Resident #32 stated he used oxygen whenever he needed it and he was able to put it on himself. Observation on 6/23/25 at 1:32 PM observed oxygen tubing wrapped on top of the oxygen concentrator. The tubing was not dated. Observation on 6/24/25 at 8:30 AM observed undated oxygen tubing on top of the oxygen concentrator. EHR Clinical Physician Orders revealed an order written on 6/24/25 to change oxygen tubing, label with the date every Wednesday night, at bedtime every Wednesday for oxygen; a revision date of 6/24/25 and start date of 7/2/25.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #9's MDS dated [DATE] revealed an admission date to the facility from a short-term general hospital stay 5...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #9's MDS dated [DATE] revealed an admission date to the facility from a short-term general hospital stay 5/13/24. The MDS further revealed Resident #9 utilizes an indwelling catheter. Review of Resident #9's EHR page titled, Clinical Physician ' s Orders revealed an order for coudé (a type of urinary catheter with a curved or bent tip) catheter for infection control with a date of 4/22/25. Observation 6/25/25 at 11:06 AM Staff D Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) brought Resident #9 into the bedroom to empty Resident #9's catheter drainage bag. Staff D then donned a gown and gloves with no hand hygiene. Staff D then obtained a urine graduate and placed it on a barrier on the floor. Staff D then drained the drainage bag without cleaning the drainage port of the drainage bag. After the drainage bag was emptied Staff D cleansed the drainage port with an alcohol wipe. Staff D then emptied the graduate. Staff D donned the gloves and gown with no hand hygiene and left the room. Interview 6/25/25 at 12:46 PM with the Infection Preventionist (IP) revealed that hand hygiene should be completed, and EBP should be worn at appropriate times. This is expected during catheter care, and wound care. Interview 6/25/25 at 1:05 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that hand hygiene should be completed, and EBP should be worn at the appropriate times. The DON further revealed that hand hygiene and EBP should be at the appropriate times during catheter care, and wound care. Review of a facility provided policy titled, Hand Hygiene with a revision date of 3/29/22 revealed: a. All employees in patient care areas will adhere to the 4 Moments of Hand Hygiene and 2 Zones of Hand Hygiene. 1. Entering Room 2. Before Clean Task 3. After Bodily Fluid/Glove Removal 4. Exiting Room 5. Zones: Patient zone and Health-care zone Review of another facility provided policy titled, Standard, Enhanced Barrier, and Transmission-Based Precautions with a revision date of 4/6/25 revealed: a. Enhanced barrier precautions are also used for residents with chronic wounds (i.e., pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, unhealed surgical wounds, and venous stasis ulcers) and residents with indwelling medical devices (i.e., central lines, hemodialysis catheters, indwelling urinary catheters, feeding tubes, and tracheostomies), even if the resident is not known to be infected or colonized with a multi-drug resistant organism (MDRO). High-contact resident care activities include transfers, dressing, assisting during bathing, providing hygiene, changing briefs or assisting with toileting, working with resident in therapy gym (specifically when anticipating close physical contact while assisting with transfers and mobility), changing linens, device care or use (central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy), and wound care. Based on observation, Electronic Health Record (EHR) reviews, staff interviews, and policy reviews the facility failed to implement appropriate hand hygiene and infection control practices to mitigate the spread of pathogens during resident cares for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #32, Resident #9). The facility failed to utilize hand hygiene, appropriate glove use, maintain clean and dirty environment/practices, and Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #32 dated 4/1/25 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9/15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses that included: coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, venous insufficiency (chronic) peripheral, obstructive sleep apnea, and shortness of breath. The document revealed the resident had venous and arterial ulcers, application of non-surgical dressings, and application of dressings to feet. Resident #32's Care Plan dated 6/26/26 revealed a Focus Area for impaired skin integrity with a revision date of 6/19/25. The Interventions on the Care Plan for staff included a history of wound care orders with the current wound care to bilateral lower extremities (BLE) three times daily (TID) and as needed (PRN) for saturation. Clean BLE with wound cleaner, apply Hydrofera Blue to weeping areas, abdominal (ABD) pads, and gauze with a revision date of 6/26/25. A Focus Area for EBP related to wounds and wound care to BLE revealed Interventions for staff to don gown and gloves when performing high contact care activities including: dressing, bathing, transferring, providing hygiene such as shaving or brushing teeth, changing linens, repositioning, checking and changing, device care and/or use, and wound care with an initiation date of 6/25/25. The 6/25 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed wound care to BLE TID for saturation. Clean BLE with wound cleaner, apply Hydrodera Blue to weeping areas, ABD pads, and gauze with a start date of 6/23/25, The document also contained an order for PRN cleanse any open areas to buttocks with wound spray then foam bordered dressing; change every 2-3 days or PRN for loosening or drainage with a start date of 3/11/25. Observed on 6/23/25 at 1:30 PM signage for EBP on Resident #32's door. Continuous observation on 6/25/25 at 7:18 AM of Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), completing Resident #32's BLE wound care with the Infection Preventionist (IP) present. A. Staff E in the resident's room with gown on and donning gloves. Staff E stated had completed washing her hands just prior to donning gloves. B. Staff E stated the resident had just come from the shower and did not require the use of wound cleaner. C. Staff E had supplies in a plastic wash basin on the table. D. The resident elevated his legs with the use of the recliner. E. Staff E opened the ABD package and placed it on an incontinence pad on her lap. F. The Hydrofera Blue Classic pads were opened, 3 individual packages, and placed on the resident's right lower extremity (RLE). The staff removed one of the pads, placed it on her lap, and then replaced it on the resident's leg. G. The ABD pads were taken from the staff's lap and placed on the Hydrofera Blue Classic pads. The Kerlix (gauze) was opened and wrapped around the resident's RLE. H. The staff placed tape to secure the Kerlix, donned the resident's gripper sock, and slipper. The bandage was not dated. I. Staff E proceeded to the left lower extremity (LLE) touching the leg, looking at the wounds, and at a new area where the resident complained of pain. J. Staff E stopped, removed gloves, moved the gown to access hand sanitizer on scrubs, and donned new gloves. K. Staff E started opening 2 packages of Hydrofera Blue Classic pads and placed them on the resident's LLE. L. The staff opened an ABD pad package and tucked under her arm, while trying to manage the Hydrofera Blue Classic pads. The staff stated she sometimes brings a Certified Nurses Assistant (CNA) to assist with holding bandages, and requested the IP to assist with holding bandages. M. The IP completed hand hygiene, donned gloves and gown to assist. Staff E stated she didn't realize the IP would need to wear a gown to assist. N. The IP held the Hydrofera Blue Classic pads in place while Staff E placed the ABD pad. Staff E obtained the Kerlix gauze, dropped the package on the floor, picked it up and continued to open it, and wrapped the resident's LLE. O. Staff E placed the resident's gripper sock and slipper on the LLE without dating the bandage. P. Staff E removed the gown and gloves, and completed hand hygiene. Q. Resident #32 complained of pain on his buttocks and requested his PRN patches. Staff E donned gloves, looked at the resident's buttocks, obtained patches from his wound care dressing drawer, and placed 2 patches. R. The resident continued to request a third patch. Staff E looked at the area the resident was touching and stated there was no area that was compromised, but agreed to place a patch. The staff removed her gloves, went to the medical cart in the hallway, and returned with an additional patch. S. Staff E completed hand hygiene, donned gloves, and placed the 3rd patch per resident request. Staff assisted the resident with pulling up his LE garments. The patches were not dated. Staff E demonstrated inconsistent hand hygiene practices with glove removal/application, did not utilize a gown with patch placement on the resident's buttocks, did not maintain clean and dirty environments when opening packages, placement and removal of bandages, and placement of opened bandages on incontinence pad and under her arm. On 6/25/25 at 7:50 AM the IP stated concerns with techniques during the wound care included: not dating any of the dressings, holding open bandages against the staff's body, obtaining items from the floor without changing gloves with hygiene, not maintaining clean and dirty techniques. The IP stated a gown should have been utilized with the dressing application to the buttocks. On 6/25/25 at 8:25 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated personal protective equipment (PPE) related to EBP should be utilized whenever staff were completing wound care to BLE's. The DON stated she did not expect the nurse to wear a gown when applying dressing(s) to the buttocks as the wounds were on the BLE's. The DON did not expect the CNAs to utilize PPE as they were not doing wound care to the resident's BLE. The DON concurred the staff should have maintained a dirty and clean environment during wound care. Reviewed the EBP signage on Resident #32's door with the DON, and the DON stated she focused on the use of PPE during wound care dressing. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention EBP sign on Resident #32's door revealed providers and staff must wear gloves and gown during high contact resident care activities including dressing, bathing, transferring, hygiene, changing briefs or assisting with toileting, and wound care.
Oct 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, facility camera footage review, staff interviews, resident interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, facility camera footage review, staff interviews, resident interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) was free from financial exploitation. The facility reported a census of 45 residents. Findings include: According to the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of 7/30/24 documented Resident #1 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. A BIMS score of 15 suggested no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented the following diagnoses for Resident #1: atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, depression, spinal stenosis, pulmonary hypertension, sleep apnea, proteinuria, long term use of insulin, and morbid obesity. The Care Plan had the following focus areas: Resident #1 was on diabetic therapy (initiated 7/11/24), the resident has diabetes mellitus (initiated 7/11/24), and had a potential nutritional problem related to the diagnoses of morbid obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression, and GERD (initiated 7/26/24). On 10/15/24 at 3:19 PM observed Staff H Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) retrieve Resident #1's Ozempic pen box from the medication room. The box was sealed closed to indicate it had not been opened yet. The box is white with the left top and bottom corners to be red in color. Resident #1's name was printed on the prescription sticker and indicated it contained one pen for three injections. When view the side of the box, a picture of the pen is shown. The pen and pen cap are light blue in color with the center of the pen containing a white medication label. The following Progress Notes were documented for Resident #1: a) On 9/13/24 at 8:38 AM resident aware her Ozempic Pen-injector needs to be ordered. b) On 9/14/24 at 12:12 PM someone in the business office informed this nurse pharmacy is not sending Ozempic injection for Resident #1 that was due yesterday (9/13/24). Given paper where pharmacy delivered a quantity of 3 on 9/7/24. No staff signature noted. This nurse and staff nurse in the building looked on Center and [NAME] halls, injector pen was not located. c) On 9/16/24 at 3:03 PM a facsimile (fax) was sent to Resident #1's primary care provider (PCP) that resident was unable to get her 9/13/24 dose of Ozempic and that pharmacy will be sending one today. When available the dose will be given upon arrival. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) will be changed to be administered weekly on Mondays. d) On 9/16/24 at 3:04 PM the pharmacy was contacted and will send out Resident #1's Ozempic today. Review of a Pharmacy Facility Delivery Log with a delivered date of 9/7/24 listed Resident #1's Ozempic injector pen was delivered to the facility. Staff I Agency Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) signed the form as receiving the medication. The August 2024 TAR contained the following orders: a) Ozempic (0.25 or 0.5 milligram (MG)/DOSE) Subcutaneous Solution Pen-injector 2MG/3 (milliliter) ML (Semaglutide) Inject 0.5 mg subcutaneous one time a day every Friday related to type 2 diabetes mellitus. The order was documented to be given during the morning medication pass; between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM. The order was signed out as being given on 8/16/24, 8/23/24, and 8/30/24. The September 2024 TAR contained the following orders: a) Ozempic (0.25 or 0.5mg/dose) Subcutaneous Solution Pen-injector 2MG/3ML (Semaglutide) Inject 0.5 mg subcutaneous one time a day every Friday related to type 2 diabetes mellitus with a start date of 9/06/2024 and discontinued date of 09/16/2024. The order was documented to be given during the morning medication pass between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM. The order was signed out as being given on 9/6/24 and on 9/13/24 Staff B Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) documented see nurse's note. b) Ozempic (0.25 or 0.5mg/DOSE) Subcutaneous Solution Pen-injector 2MG/3ML (Semaglutide) Inject 0.5 mg subcutaneous one time a day every Monday related to type 2 diabetes mellitus with a start date of 9/23/24. The order was signed out as being given on 9/23/24 and 9/30/24 by Staff C RN. The facility provided a paper that documented Resident #1's Ozempic pen had a co-pay cost of $1097.88. The Staffing Agency interview of Staff D dated 10/11/24 at 2:05 PM revealed the following: Staff D reported no issues during the shift as she worked with another Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). Staff D stated she restocked the carts with insulin, as advised by the charge nurse; this included Ozempic that she received from the refrigerator. Staff D acknowledged she put them all in her pocket because she had other things in her hands. She completed a glucose check and gave residents their insulin's then put the Ozempic pen in the medication cart. Staff D indicated when she left her shift, it was in the medication cart. The off going nurse told her to restock the insulin's as they were low. When the same nurse came in the next day, Staff D advised that she had restocked the medication cart with the insulin's. On 10/16/24 at 2:16 PM the facility's camera footage was reviewed with the Human Resources Director. The footage reviewed on 9/8/24 revealed the following of Staff D Agency Registered Nurse (RN): -9:25:06 PM entered the medication room and propped the door open. She brought in a laptop with her. -9:26:45 PM removed one insulin pen from a large green box. -9:27:03 PM removed a 2nd box, put it back and took 1 light blue pen from a red/white box. -9:27:23 PM put the red/white box back in the refrigerator. -9:27:30 PM put the pens in her left scrub top pocket. -9:27:31 PM looked up at the camera. -9:27:32 PM removed the pens from her pocket. -9:27:58 PM put two pens on top of the medication cart, removed one insulin pen from the medication cart and placed it on top of the medication cart. -9:29:30 PM puts a light blue pen in her left scrub top pocket. -9:30 PM-9:32 PM goes to Resident #9's room. -9:32:56 PM stopped to the right of Resident #1's room, leaning on the hand rails. Does not enter Resident #1's room. On 10/15/24 at 3:23 PM Staff H stated she worked the day Resident #1's Ozempic pen was delivered on 9/7/24. Staff I Agency LPN signed for the pen then brought it down to her to be stored in the medication room. Staff H stated she then put the pen in the medication room's refrigerator. The box it came in was sealed, not opened when she placed it in the refrigerator. She reported there was only one pen in the box and it comes with another box that contains the needle caps that go on the pens for administration. There are 6 needle caps with each box delivered. She verified it was the same box observed by the surveyor with her present. Staff H vaguely remembers Staff D but knows they do not restock insulin's during the overnight shift, she would not have asked her to do that. She stated nurses will replace the insulin pens once they are empty. Staff H also stated they do not keep Ozempic pens in the medication cart because it is only given weekly. Staff H stated prior to the pen missing they would store them on the second shelf in the medication room refrigerator. Since this incident, they now store them in a lock box on the counter, counted and recorded at each shift change. When asked who has access to the medication room where the pens are stored, she stated only the nurses. On 10/16/24 at 11:37 AM Resident #1 was sitting in her room in her recliner. She stated she receives her Ozempic injections once a week and she is finally feeling better since starting it. Resident #1 indicated when she first started the medication she was not feeling well; nausea, vomiting, and stomachs. She acknowledged the facility had to push one of her doses back a few days because someone had stolen the pen. Since then they have it back on schedule but on a different day. Resident #1 stated she was unsure who took the pen but reported the facility replaced the pen for her. Resident #1 denies having issues with delays in her injections since that pen was stolen. On 10/16/24 at 12:18 PM Staff C stated she did not see the Ozempic pen in the medication cart nor do they store it in the medication cart. She also indicated the nurses do not restock the medication carts with insulin pens. The insulin pens and Ozempic pen are stored in the medication room refrigerator. On 10/18/24 at 10:56 AM Staff D RN stated she worked at the facility one overnight shift through an agency. Staff D stated she only worked one shift because apparently there was an Ozempic pen that was missing and the facility alleged she took it. When asked how the facility determined that she stated she was in the medication room to get the insulin pens and Ozempic pen. They told her they saw her on video removing the Ozempic pen from the medication room refrigerator. The night she worked the nurse she relieved had asked her to restock the insulin's in the medication cart for the hall she was working on. She acknowledged she removed the Ozempic pen from the box in the refrigerator located in the medication room. She noted several insulin pens needed to be restocked that night and she needed one of the insulin's so she got that one out of the refrigerator. Staff D indicated they store the Ozempic pen in the medication cart and that the off going nurse stated that pen needed to be in the medication cart. Staff D indicated the overnight nurse was responsible for stocking the medication carts. When asked what happened to the Ozempic pen, she stated she remembered she completed a blood sugar check but not sure what exactly happened to it. She stated she did not take it, thought maybe she set it down somewhere and did not pick it up. She also thought maybe when one the insulin pens was empty maybe she accidentally discarded the Ozempic pen in the sharps container. Staff D then stated she can't take Ozempic because it throws her Rheumatoid Arthritis in to a flare up. She added she had her own prescription back in June but had to stop because of the side effects. Staff D also stated she had no desire or reason to take the stupid pen and if the facility had talked to her about it, she would have reimbursed the cost of the pen. On 10/22/24 at 11:56 AM the Administrator stated the DON had called her on a Sunday to report the Ozempic pen was missing. They knew the pen was delivered to the facility on 9/7/24 so they started to watch the video footage from that date. As they watched the footage they saw Staff D handled the Ozempic pen. This was the first and only shift Staff D had worked at the facility. They had a call in and Staff D came in to cover that shift. On 10/22/24 at 12:29 PM the DON stated as soon as she was made aware of the Ozempic pen missing, she went looking for it. She looked in all the medication carts, the resident's room, everywhere she could think of. When called the pharmacy to let them know they could not find it. They told her that if they found it, it could stay out of the refrigerator for 56 days. The Health Information Manager and herself looked in the sharps container of the medication carts and it was not in there. The HR Director and the Administrator came and got her so she could see what they saw on the camera footage. She could not believe that she saw Staff D handling and putting the Ozempic pen in her pocket. The DON stated there was no reason Staff D should have handled the Ozempic pen that night because it's only administered weekly. Review of the facility's Abuse and Neglect policy with a revision date of 7/22/24 documented residents have the right to be free from misappropriation of resident property.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, facility investigative file, staff interviews, resident interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure staff followed professional standards while administ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, facility investigative file, staff interviews, resident interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure staff followed professional standards while administering medications for 4 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #3, #4, #5, and #6). The facility reported a census of 45 residents. Findings include: 1. According to the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of 9/16/24 Resident #3 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (MDS) score of 14. A BIMS score of 14 suggested no cognitive impairment. On 10/16/24 at 11:30 AM Resident #3 was sitting in her recliner in her room listening to an audiobook with her oxygen on via nasal cannula from an oxygen concentrator. When asked if she felt her medications were being given as ordered she stated oh gosh yes, at least she thought. She added she has to be careful because she takes a lot of pills because of her heart failure. She had recent been to the hospital because she was short of breath and found to have a lot of fluid around her heart. She is feeling much better now and they had to since increase her oxygen requirements. 2. According to the annual MDS assessment tool with a reference date of 8/9/24, Resident #4 had BIMS score of 14. A BIMS score of 14 suggested no cognitive impairment. On 10/16/24 at 11:25 AM resident was lying in bed in her room. When asked if she receives her medications as ordered, she stated there was an incident recently. She was getting her bath and realized she had not received her medications. She asked Staff A Registered Nurse (RN) where her medications were. Staff A reported to her he put them on her bedside table, but when she returned to her room she stated they were not on the table. When he brought her medications in after she told him that, he only brought in her blood pressure medication. She added she counts her pills and knew she had more than one pill. Resident #4 stated Staff A knows pharmacy sends extra pills, so she could have received all of her pills that day. When asked how long ago this happened, she stated about two weeks ago. 3. According to the annual MDS assessment tool with a reference date of 9/17/24, Resident #5 had a BIMS score of 15. A BIMS score of 15 suggested no cognitive impairment. On 10/16/24 at 2:41 PM Resident #5 stated she receives her medications most of the time. When asked to elaborate on that, she stated Staff A did not give her all of her medications one day and gave her clonazepam late. She indicated this happened about 3-4 weeks ago. Another nurse came on and noticed this, then it was given to her. Resident #5 reported that only happened once but she has heard other residents having issues with not getting their medications. When asked which residents have complaint, she could not remember their names. 4. According to the quarterly MDS assessment tool with a reference date of 7/18/24, Resident #6 had a BIMS score of 15. A BIMS score of 15 suggested no cognitive impairment. On 10/17/24 at 9:05 AM Resident #6 stated she sometimes does not receive all of her medications. When asked how Staff A was with getting her medications for her, she stated bad. When asked what was going on for her to say that, she stated they are supposed to take her pulse right when she gets up because of her pacemaker. The doctor wants her pulse measured before she starts her day which is usually about 6:30 AM. But when Staff A is working, he would not check her pulse until after 1:30 PM which is usually after she rides the bike in therapy. At that time, it's not an accurate reading because she has been up and moving all day. After he takes her pulse, he then administers her medications, which is usually about 2:00 PM. When asked if she gets her medications in the morning, she indicated no. She added Staff A would give all of her medications at that time; about 2:00 PM. The facility's investigation file contained the following summary of events: -On 9/26/24 at 4:58 AM a message from the overnight shift nurse that she had found multiple pills in the sharps container. She reported that on 9/25/24 the sharps container was emptied before end of shift around 6:40 AM. Investigation on pills still going, but was able to narrow down a shift and nurse working this shift. The overnight shift nurse also reported that on 9/25/24 an extra pill was found in a pill package for one resident that was not given, the narcotic count was off, but was able to administer that medication. -On 9/26/24 at 1:30 PM the Director of Nursing (DON), Administrator and Human Resource Director called and spoke to Staff A. He stated that he was questioning why he works here because he felt frustrated being put on a side that he had not worked on. When asked why he didn't ask for help, he stated he didn't know, he didn't think about that. Staff A stated that he did not get any complaints, that he did not give anyone the wrong medications and did not forget any medications besides a Clonazepam. When the Staff E RN and him were doing count, they noticed that it was off. Both nurses went to ask if she wanted it, resident refused, and Staff A stated he did not know where the Clonazepam went, as he has never wasted medications at this facility before. The DON gave him education on the process of wasting medications (2 signatures of 2 nurses for narcotics and place in the drug buster) and that medications cannot go into the trash can. Staff A acknowledged he has thrown medications into the sharps container. On Wednesday 09/25/24 he threw a cup full away due to them falling on the floor (in the sharps container). When asked how many he stated maybe 8 and for a resident but not 100% sure. Staff A thought it happened around the morning medication pass. Staff A was told that because this was under investigation that he will be on suspension pending investigation, and he said that's fine. The facility was able to identify 16 resident's medications that were located in the sharps container. On 10/16/24 at 1:09 PM Staff E Registered Nurse (RN) stated she had followed Staff A RN for the second day in a row and residents were complaining about not receiving their medication when he was working. She stated Resident #5, #6, #9, and #10 were a few residents that had stated they were not receiving their medications. Staff E stated she worked the night before residents were complaining about that. It was part of her routine to check the sharps container on her medication cart and replace it if it was full. That night it was full, she changed it out with an empty sharps container. She came in the following day for her next shift, Staff A had worked the first shift. She noticed the sharps container was full and saw there were pills in it. Staff E stated she dumped the container out, then sent a text to the DON at about 3:00 AM-4:00 AM to let her know what she had found. The DON let her know she would investigate it when she gets to the facility. She had sent her a text back after 6:30 AM. When asked why she stated sting during her interview with the facility, she stated she was a little frustrated because the DON was not responding to her messages about what was found and Staff A was over an hour late to his shift, which meant she could not leave. She acknowledged she was being sassy when the facility was asking her questions about finding the pills in the sharps container. Staff E indicated on that same day when she first got to the facility, Resident #5 was talking to Staff A, telling him she did not feel well. She indicated her and Staff A were completing their narcotic count and she noticed Resident #5's clonazepam was still in the medication cassette. It was signed out on the MAR and the count sheet as being given. Staff A ended up administering the medication to Resident #5. Staff E stated she does not put medications in the sharps container unless it's over the counter medications. On 10/16/24 at 1:33 PM Staff F Certified Medication Aide (CMA) stated Staff E was stocking the medication cart, which she does every night to make sure everything is full and ready for the next shift. Staff E would always check the sharps container too because it seemed to be full a lot. Staff F indicated she worked the night shift on the morning Staff E found the pills in the sharps container. When Staff E held up the sharps container, there was not just a couple of pills in there, there was a lot which was very unusual. Staff E took everything out and put all the pills in a plastic bag. Staff E started to take notes, sent a text to the DON. When asked if any residents made comments to her about not receiving their medications, Staff F stated there were quiet a few complaining they did not think they received their medications. She over heard Resident #5, #6, and #10. Staff F added this was not the first time she had heard residents complaining about not getting their medications. When asked how long this had been going on she guessed maybe a week or two. On 10/17/24 at 10:11 AM Staff G Agency LPN stated she was working on the opposite side of the facility the night Staff E found the pills in the sharps container. Staff E told her at the first part of their shift that a lot of residents were complaining about not getting their medications. Later that same shift Staff E brought over some papers needed to get printed and told her she found a lot of pills in the sharps container. Staff G told Staff E that it was weird they were in there and questioned when the sharps container was changed out. Staff E told her she just changed it out. Staff G went on about getting her tasks completed when at about 4:00 AM, she got a message on her walkie talkie asking her to come to look at something. Staff G told Staff E she needed to finish assisting a resident and she would be over. When she went to where Staff E was working, she was standing in front of the medication cart and Staff F was standing in the doorway. Staff G noticed the top of the medication cart was full of all kinds of pills, off to the side was an empty sharps container. Staff G was taken back by this and was able to identify a few medications as an antibiotic, gabapentin, and a buspar that Resident #3 takes. That pill stood out to her because it's odd shaped. Staff G went and got a baggie for Staff E to put the pills in then Staff G went back to work. At about 5:00 AM Staff E brought over a yellow envelope to put in the locked medication room and let her know the DON would pick it up when she arrived at work. She had a feeling that he did not like to do his medication pass because is was not one to move too quickly when starting his tasks while in training. Staff G added a lot of residents know how many pills they get, what they take and when they take them. On 10/22/24 at 9:50 AM an attempt to contact Staff A was made. Staff A did not answer his phone, a voicemail was left and a text message was sent. At the conclusion of the investigation, no return call was received. On 10/22/24 at 11:56 the Administrator stated they provided education to staff on not using the sharps container when disposing of medications. During their interview with Staff A he stated he thought he dropped 8 pills and put them in the sharps container and he knew about Resident #5 not getting her Clonazepam but Staff E gave it once they noticed it was not given. When she told him, they found 41 pills in the sharps container, he stated oh wow that's a lot. The Administrator stated there were morning, afternoon, evening and bedtime medications in the sharps container. Staff E did acknowledge she put over the counter medications in the sharps container. On 10/22/24 at 12:29 PM the DON stated she received a picture on her cell phone from Staff E of all the pills that were found in a sharps container. Staff E also left her a voicemail. Staff E stated in a nutshell, there were residents complaining that Staff A was not giving them their medications so she set something up to catch him. Once in the building the DON assessed all the residents on that hall, interviewed them and staff members. They reviewed camera footage as well and it appeared Staff A administered medications but with some of the camera angles it was hard to tell if he was or wasn't giving residents their medications. When they went through the pills and the MARs, they were able to identify most of the pills were Resident #3's. They could not figure out why some of the medications were given but others were in the sharps container. The facility provided a document titled Medication: Administration Including Scheduling and Medication Aides, with a revision date of 5/21/24. The purpose of this policy was to administer medications correctly and in a timely manner.
Aug 2024 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, resident interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a bed hold notic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, resident interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a bed hold notice with the resident or resident's responsible person when residents transferred out of the facility for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Residents #12). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #12 documented a discharge from the facility with return anticipated. Review of Resident #12's Progress Notes revealed the following information: a. On 7/14/24 Resident #12 admitted to the hospital. b. On 7/16/24 Resident #12 returned to the facility at 3:00 PM. Review of the Resident #12's census tab revealed the following information: a. 7/14/24 hospital start date b. 7/16/24 hospital end date The MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #12 documented a reentry into the facility on 7/16/24. Review of Resident #12's clinical record revealed the facility lacked a bed hold notice for the hospital admission on [DATE]. The Bed Hold policy last reviewed 12/7/24 identified at the time of discharge the state-specific form will be provided to resident and/or representative, which specifies the duration of the bed-hold policy under the state plan and the facility policy regarding bed-holds. The designated staff will review the Notice of Bed-Hold Policy and explain that future admission is based on bed availability and criteria listed in the Notice of Bed-Hold Policy. In an interview on 8/10/24 at 2:45 PM, the Administrator and Director of Nursing reported she expected staff to complete bed hold forms with the resident and/or representative for hospital transfers.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to complete a Pre-admission Screening an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to complete a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #20), who was diagnosed with new mental disorder diagnoses since admission to the facility. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: Review of Resident #20's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating no cognitive deficit. The MDS further revealed diagnoses of anxiety disorder, depression, and psychotic disorder. Review of a facility provided document titled, The Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I Screen Outcome, dated 10/28/21 revealed a summary of findings indicating that Resident #20 did not show evidence of a serious mental illness or an intellectual or developmental disability (IDD) that appears to require PASRR intervention. The document provided the resident had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, recurrent, in remission, and medication Citalopram 20mg/day. Additional medication of Risperidone .5 mg/day for Dementia. The document further revealed that should there be a discrepancy in the reported information, a status change should be submitted for further evaluation. Review of Clinical Referral for psychiatry dated 4/7/23 revealed Resident #20 had increased hallucinations and paranoia. The Psychiatrist added a new diagnosis of unspecified paranoia. The Psychiatrist also increased the resident's Risperdal. The Psychiatrist signed the document. The electronic health record (EHR) review of medical diagnoses for Resident #20 revealed Parkinson's Disease, major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate, generalized anxiety disorder, unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition, and depression, unspecified. The medical diagnosis of unspecified psychosis was added to the diagnosis list on 11/7/23 and occurred during the stay in the facility. Clinical Physician Orders documented the following orders: Alprazolam .25 mg/day for generalized anxiety disorder, Citalopram Hydrobromide 20mg - 1.5 tablet/day for depression, unspecified, Risperidone Disintegrating .25 mg/day for other hallucinations, and Risperidone .5 mg/day for sleep related to Parkinson's Disease. On 8/10/24 at 1:22 PM Staff B, Social Services, stated a new PASRR would be completed if there were a change in behaviors noted with a resident. The staff stated the MDS Coordinator would have previously notified the staff if there were a change/addition of diagnosis. On 8/10/24 at 2:55 PM the Administrator stated she did not know a lot about PASRR regulations except to know that one is required upon admission. Review of the facility policy, Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Rehab/Skilled reviewed 12/11/23 revealed that if a resident is diagnosed with a mental disorder while in the facility contact will be made with the designated state agency for a Level II screening.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to develop a resident-centered comprehensive care plan for 3 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #5...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to develop a resident-centered comprehensive care plan for 3 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #5, #18, and #39). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #5 dated 7/16/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of cancer, Non-Alzheimer's dementia, seizure disorder, anxiety, depression, and insomnia. It also revealed the resident was independent with eating, required setup assistance with oral hygiene, and moderate to maximum assistance with all other Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). It further indicated the resident took antipsychotic and antidepressant medications within the last 7 days. The Clinical Physician Orders dated 8/10/24 included the following prescribed medications: a) Prozac Capsule 20 MG (FLUoxetine HCl) Give 20 mg by mouth in the morning related to major depressive disorder, recurrent, mild. Target behavior: self-isolation, refusing/non-participation in self-care. Make progress note if behaviors present. b) Quetiapine Fumarate Oral Tablet 100 MG (Quetiapine Fumarate) Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to unspecified mental disorder due to known physiological condition. Target Behavior: verbalization of paranoia, refusal of care, talking to herself-make progress note if target behavior noted The Care Plan included the psychotropic medications but failed to include the target behaviors for staff to monitor. 2. The quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #18 dated 7/23/24 revealed a BIMS score of 06 out of 15 which indicated severely impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of anxiety, depression, concussion with loss of consciousness, cerebral infarction (stroke caused by blocked blood vessel to the brain), schizotypal disorder (personality disorder causing eccentric behavior and anxiety with close relationships), and metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction caused by chemical imbalances in the blood). It revealed the resident required setup assistance with oral hygiene, supervision with eating, and was dependent with all other Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). It further indicated the resident took antipsychotic, antidepressant, antianxiety, and hypnotic medications within the last 7 days. The Clinical Physician Orders dated 8/10/24 included the following prescribed medications: a) Abilify Oral Tablet 20 MG (Aripiprazole) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to concussion with loss of consciousness of 30 minutes or less, subsequent encounter. b) Trazodone HCl Oral Tablet 100 MG (Trazodone HCl) Give 0.5 tablet by mouth one time a day for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) with Shizotypal behaviors/aggression 50 mg total. c) Duloxetine HCl Oral Capsule Delayed Release Particles 30 MG (Duloxetine HCl) Give 1 capsule by mouth two times a day related to schizotypal disorder. d) Seroquel Oral Tablet 50 MG (Quetiapine Fumarate) Give 50 mg by mouth two times a day for Dx: MOD. e) Buspirone HCl Oral Tablet 10 MG (Buspirone HCl) Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day related to anxiety disorder, unspecified; major depressive disorder, single episode, unspecified. The physician orders failed to include target behaviors for each psychotropic medication order. The Care Plan initiated 6/14/23 included the psychotropic medications and hollering out as a behavior but failed to include target behaviors for his other psychotropic medications for staff to monitor. 3. The quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #39 dated 7/16/24 revealed a BIMS score of 06 out of 15 which indicated severely impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of anxiety, depression, and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed moods. It revealed the resident required setup assistance with dressing, supervision with bathing, and was independent with all other Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). It further indicated the resident took antidepressant and antianxiety medications within the last 7 days. The Clinical Physician Orders dated 8/10/24 included the following prescribed medications: a) Bupropion HCl ER (SR) Oral Tablet Extended Release 12 Hour 150 MG (Bupropion HCl) Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning related to major depressive disorder, recurrent, unspecified. b) Clonazepam Oral Tablet 1 MG (Clonazepam) Give 1 mg by mouth two times a day related to anxiety disorder, unspecified (f41.9); major depressive disorder, recurrent, unspecified. c) Hydroxyzine HCl Oral Tablet 25 MG (Hydroxyzine HCl) Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for Anxiety and itching related to anxiety disorder, unspecified. d) Venlafaxine HCl ER Capsule Extended Release 24 Hour 150 MG Give 2 capsule by mouth at bedtime related to major depressive disorder, recurrent, unspecified. The physician orders failed to include target behaviors for each psychotropic medication order. The Care Plan initiated 3/03/22 included the psychotropic medications but failed to include target behaviors for staff to monitor. A document titled Care Plan - R/S, LTC, Therapy & Rehab revised 11/01/23 indicated each resident will have an individualized, person-centered, comprehensive plan of care that will include measurable goals and timetables directed toward achieving and maintaining the resident's optimal medical, nursing, physical, functional, spiritual, emotional, psychosocial, and educational needs. On 8/11/24 at 2:12 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated staff should follow the Care Plan policies.
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** 2. According to the MDS assessment dated [DATE] Resident #42 was not able to participate and score on the BIMS indicating severe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. According to the MDS assessment dated [DATE] Resident #42 was not able to participate and score on the BIMS indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident had diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease with late onset. The assessment section entitled Functional Abilities and Goals (GG) revealed Resident #42 required complete dependence on staff for self care, mobility and positioning. The resident required the use of a wheelchair (w/c) Observed Resident #42 on 8/20/24 at 9:12 AM positioned in a tilt in space w/c with the resident tilted in a posterior position. Observed Resident #42 on 8/10/24 at 1:28 PM lying in a wide bed positioned in the lowest position with a fall mat beside the bed and a call light in place. Observed Resident #42 on 8/10/24 at 4:15 PM lying in a low wide bed with a fall mat beside the bed and a call light next to the resident. Observed Resident #42 on 8/11/4 at 10:00 AM in a low wide bed with a fall mat beside the bed and a call light next to the resident. Resident #42's Care Plan revealed a focus area for falls with interventions for staff including: scoop mattress on the bed dated 7/19/23, fall pad and wide bed in room dated 8/5/24. On 8/10/24 at 1:07 PM Staff C, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated fall interventions for Resident #42 included a bigger bed, the bed positioned in a low position, floor mat at all times and the call light directly beside the resident where she can reach it. The w/c should be reclined back when positioned in it. On 8/10/24 at 1:17 PM Staff D, CNA, stated she was not aware of all the fall interventions for the resident as she had been gone from the facility. The staff stated she would ask the nurse for the interventions and since the resident required 2 staff for transfers would learn them then. On 8/10/24 at 3:11 PM Staff E, Charge Nurse/Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) sated the fall interventions for Resident #42 included a low and wide bed, fall mat, and the night stand was moved away from the bed as that is what the resident hit. The staff stated the w/c is also tilted back to improve the resident's posture to prevent leaning forward. 3. According to the MDS assessment dated [DATE] Resident #16's BIMS score was a 6/15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident had a diagnosis of unspecified dementia and other hypertrophic osteoarthropathy at multiple sites. The assessment section entitled Functional Abilities and Goals (GG) revealed Resident #16 required substantial to dependence on staff for self care, mobility and positioning. The resident required the use of a w/c. On 8/9/24 at 1:12 PM observed Resident #16 with edema wear for bilateral lower extremities. On 8/10/24 at 9:06 AM observed Resident #16 seated in a w/c with elevating leg rests elevated approximately 45 degrees. The resident was wearing edema wear. On 8/10/24 at 10:43 AM observed Resident #16 seated in w/c with leg rests elevated with edema wear on. Resident #16's Care Plan did not reference edema or edema wear. The facility provided document, [NAME] CNA, indicated the resident wore edema wear. On 8/10/24 at 1:04 PM Staff C stated she knew Resident #16 wore edema wear. The staff stated she knew about the edema wear as it was on the paper at the nurses station. The staff provided a document, [NAME] CNA, that provided notes on each resident including edema wear for Resident #16. On 8/10/24 at 3:11 PM Staff E stated the CNA's and nurses have quick notes at the nurses station for easy reference on the residents. The staff stated they should be updated with the care plans. On 8/10/24 at 3:12 PM the Administrator stated care plans should match current interventions and be updated. The CNA/nurse cheat notes at the nurses stations should match the care plans. On 8/11/24 at 11:00 AM the Director of Nursing, DON, stated ideally the care plans and nurses/CNA's quick notes at the nurses station should match. The DON acknowledged that they do not currently match. The DON stated she was in the process of updating the care plans to ensure the quick notes and care plans match. The DON stated part of the process will be interviewing the staff to ensure the correct interventions are in place. The facility 's policy, Care Plan - R/S, LTC, Therapy and Rehab, reviewed/revised on 11/1/23 revealed the care plan should be reviewed, evaluated and updated when a resident has a significant change. The document also revealed the care plan will be modified to reflect the care currently required/provided for the resident. Based on clinical record review, resident interview, policy review and staff interview the facility failed to revise and update a care plan to include current transfer needs for 3 out of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #24, Resident #42, and Resident #16). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings Included: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated 611/24 for Resident #24 documented diagnoses of pain in the left knee, muscle weakness and heart failure. The MDS showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. The Progress Notes for Resident #24 showed the following: a. On 8/6/24 at 3:08 PM Resident #24 returned back to the facility after a procedure. Resident #24 reported having pain down her left leg. b. On 8/7/24 at 6:47 PM Resident #24 required a total lift to transfer to the wheelchair. In an interview on 8/9/24 at 1:46 PM, Resident #24 reported she received a Kyphoplasty procedure due to a compression fracture. Resident #4 reported she is still recovering and required the use of a mechanical lift for transfers. Observation 8/10/24 at 2:10 PM showed staff used a mechanical lift to transfer Resident #24 from the wheelchair to the recliner. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #24 instructed staff to use a forward wheeled walker and assist of one person for transfers during the day, and a non-mechanical stand aide with assist of one person at night. The Care Plan policy last revised 11/1/23 identified the plan of care will be modified to reflect the care currently required/provided for the resident. In an interview on 8/10/24 at 2:45 PM, the Administrator and Director of Nursing reported they expected care plans to be revised to show current transfer needs of residents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, clinical record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were followed for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #46) reviewed. The facility identified a c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, clinical record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were followed for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #46) reviewed. The facility identified a census of 49 residents. Findings include: On 8/09/24 at 1:22 PM, an observation revealed Resident #46's oxygen flow meter was set to 4 liters per minute (LPM). The resident stated he required oxygen continuously. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #46 dated 7/02/24 indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated completely intact cognition. It included diagnoses of Atrial Fibrillation (irregular heart beat), Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Heart Failure, and deep venous thrombosis (DVT - blood clot in deep veins). It revealed the resident was independent with eating and oral hygiene but required moderate to maximum assistance with all other Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and received oxygen therapy upon admission and in the 14-day look-back period. A physician order dated 6/30/24 revealed the resident was to receive oxygen at two (2) LPM during the day and 3 LPM at night for COPD. The Electronic Health Record (EHR) included progress notes that revealed the resident had continuous oxygen at his home and was ordered oxygen at 2 LPM during the day and 3 LPM at night for COPD. The August 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the resident received 4 LPM on 8/09/24. The Care Plan revised 8/09/24 directed staff to provide oxygen therapy per order. On 8/10/24 at 3:50 PM, a subsequent observation revealed the resident's oxygen flow meter was set to 3 LPM. A policy titled Oxygen Administration, Safety, Mask Types - R/S, LTC, Therapy & Rehab revised 7/08/24 directed staff to turn the oxygen concentrator's flow rate control slowly clockwise until the center of ball in flow rate indicator moves up to number of liters per minute as ordered by physician. On 8/11/24 at 2:12 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated staff should follow the physician's order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to identify target behaviors for psychotropic mediation use for 2 of 3 residents reviewed ( Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to identify target behaviors for psychotropic mediation use for 2 of 3 residents reviewed ( Resident #18 & #39). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #18 dated 7/23/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 06 out of 15 which indicated severely impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of anxiety, depression, concussion with loss of consciousness, cerebral infarction (stroke caused by blocked blood vessel to the brain), schizotypal disorder (personality disorder causing eccentric behavior and anxiety with close relationships), and metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction caused by chemical imbalances in the blood). It revealed the resident required setup assistance with oral hygiene, supervision with eating, and was dependent with all other Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). It further indicated the resident took antipsychotic, antidepressant, antianxiety, and hypnotic medications within the last 7 days. The Clinical Physician Orders dated 8/10/24 included the following prescribed medications: a) Abilify Oral Tablet 20 MG (Aripiprazole) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to concussion with loss of consciousness of 30 minutes or less, subsequent encounter. b) Trazodone HCl Oral Tablet 100 MG (Trazodone HCl) Give 0.5 tablet by mouth one time a day for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) with Shizotypal behaviors/aggression 50 mg total. c) Duloxetine HCl Oral Capsule Delayed Release Particles 30 MG (Duloxetine HCl) Give 1 capsule by mouth two times a day related to schizotypal disorder. d) Seroquel Oral Tablet 50 MG (Quetiapine Fumarate) Give 50 mg by mouth two times a day for Dx: MOD. e) Buspirone HCl Oral Tablet 10 MG (Buspirone HCl) Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day related to anxiety disorder, unspecified; major depressive disorder, single episode, unspecified. The physician orders failed to include target behaviors for each psychotropic medication order. The Care Plan initiated 6/14/23 included the psychotropic medications and hollering out as a behavior but failed to include target behaviors for his other psychotropic medications for staff to monitor. 2. The quarterly MDS for Resident #39 dated 7/16/24 revealed a BIMS score of 06 out of 15 which indicated severely impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of anxiety, depression, and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed moods. It revealed the resident required setup assistance with dressing, supervision with bathing, and was independent with all other Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). It further indicated the resident took antidepressant and antianxiety medications within the last 7 days. The Clinical Physician Orders dated 8/10/24 included the following prescribed medications: a) Bupropion HCl ER (SR) Oral Tablet Extended Release 12 Hour 150 MG (Bupropion HCl) Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning related to major depressive disorder, recurrent, unspecified. b) Clonazepam Oral Tablet 1 MG (Clonazepam) Give 1 mg by mouth two times a day related to anxiety disorder, unspecified; major depressive disorder, recurrent, unspecified. c) Hydroxyzine HCl Oral Tablet 25 MG (Hydroxyzine HCl) Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for Anxiety and itching related to anxiety disorder, unspecified. d) Venlafaxine HCl ER Capsule Extended Release 24 Hour 150 MG Give 2 capsule by mouth at bedtime related to major depressive disorder, recurrent, unspecified. The physician orders failed to include target behaviors for each psychotropic medication order. The Care Plan initiated 3/03/22 included the psychotropic medications but failed to include target behaviors for staff to monitor. The facility did not provide a policy regarding psychotropic medications or Gradual Dose Reductions (GDRs). On 8/11/24 at 2:12 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) guidelines should be followed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, menu review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to properly prepare and serve the appropriate portions of pureed diets for 3 of 3 residents and minced and moist diets for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, menu review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to properly prepare and serve the appropriate portions of pureed diets for 3 of 3 residents and minced and moist diets for 7 of 7 residents. The facility reported a census of 49. Findings include: The facility's lunch menu for 8/10/24 identified the following items to be served as part of the following planned textured diets. A) Pureed diet: 5 fluid ounces (fl oz) of ground/minced baked pork chop 4 fl oz of mashed potatoes 4 fl oz of pureed carrots (substitution for buttered summer squash) 1 each pureed bread slice 3 fl oz pureed peaches 8 fluid oz 2% milk 6 fl oz black coffee or tea B) Minced & Moist diet: 4 fluid ounces (fl oz) of pureed baked pork chop 4 fl oz of mashed potatoes 4 fl oz of pureed carrots (substitution for buttered summer squash) 1 each pureed bread slice 4 fl oz pureed peaches 8 fluid oz 2% milk 6 fl oz black coffee or tea Continuous observation of lunch preparation and service began on 8/10/24 at 10:20 AM. Staff I, Cook, stated she was preparing minced & moist diets for 9 servings. She minced 9 pork chops and 2 cups of chicken broth in the blender and poured the unmeasured contents into a steam pan and placed it back in the oven. At 10:30 AM, Staff I blended three (3) pork chops, an unmeasured amount of chicken broth, and two (2) tablespoons (tbs) of thickener in a blender. She poured the contents into a measuring pitcher and stated it was two (2) cups. At 10:45 AM, Staff I blended 12 ounces of carrots in the blender and poured the unmeasured contents into a steam pan. She indicated it was for minced & moist diets. She blended 12 ounces of carrots with a hand blender and measured 1 ½ cups. She indicated it was for pureed diets. At 11:00 AM, Staff J, Dietary Assistant (DA) prepared 1½ cups of minced peaches and poured the unmeasured contents into 3 separate bowls. At 11:30 AM, Staff I identified the following serving size dishers used to provide diet portions: 1) 3-oz disher for pureed pork chop 2) 4-oz disher for minced & moist pork chops 3) 4-oz disher for both pureed and minced & moist carrots The volume method (total volume/# of servings) used for alternate texture diets indicated the following dishers to be used based on the volume method: 1) #6 disher (5 1/3 oz) for pureed pork chop 2) #8 disher (4 oz) for pureed carrots The total volume of minced & moist pork chops and carrots was not measured; therefore, the appropriate serving size was not determined. On 8/10/24 at 1:15 PM, the Dietary Manger (DM) stated staff used the volume method and not the alternate texture conversion chart. On 8/10/24 at 2:44 PM, Staff I stated she did not measure the minced & moist meat. A policy titled Portion Control - Food and Nutrition revised 2/19/24 indicated the portion control chart is posted in the kitchen for reference by employees unless another such chart is preferred. It revealed a #6 disher was needed for 5 1/3-ounce portion size. On 8/11/24 at 2:08 PM, the Administrator stated staff should measure the volume correctly and follow the appropriate chart.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to properly protect resident information from unauthorized access. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Find...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to properly protect resident information from unauthorized access. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: On 8/09/24 at 3:45 PM, an observation revealed an open laptop screen with visible resident Electronic Health Record (EHR) information. A sheet was face-up on the cart with resident names, room numbers, blood glucose results, and insulin. At 3:47 PM, Staff D, Certified Nurse Aide, (CNA) stated staff usually did not leave the information visible and the screen is usually locked. At 3:50 PM, Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN) stated she used the sheet as her cheat sheet so she would not forget the information. A policy titled Confidentiality revised 5/06/24 indicated individuals who have access to confidential information must ensure that such info4matinon, in whatever form it exists, is handled strictly in accordance with the policy and applicable legal, accreditation and regulatory requirements regarding safeguarding confidential information. On 8/11/24 at 2:08 PM, the Administrator stated staff should follow Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) policies.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

2. On 8/09/24 at 12:20 PM, Staff H, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) assisted two (2) residents (Resident #14 & #42) with eating lunch. Staff H wiped Resident #42's mouth with her right hand then grabbed Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 8/09/24 at 12:20 PM, Staff H, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) assisted two (2) residents (Resident #14 & #42) with eating lunch. Staff H wiped Resident #42's mouth with her right hand then grabbed Resident #14's knife with the same hand, and cut the resident's meat. She used her left hand and attempted to feed Resident #14 as Resident #14 grabbed the same knife. Staff H used her right hand, took the knife from Resident #14, and held the resident's left arm down as she fed her. Staff H turned toward Resident #42 and grabbed the resident's cloth napkin, and wiped Resident #42's mouth. No hand hygiene was performed throughout the observation. A policy titled Hand Hygiene revised 3/29/22 indicated all employees are responsible for maintaining adequate hand hygiene by adhering to specific infection control practices. On 8/11/24 at 2:08 PM, the Administrator stated staff should follow the facility policy. 3. On 8/09/24 at 3:07 PM, observed the indwelling catheter drainage bag hanging on the side of the resident's trash can. The resident stated that is where staff normally hung it. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #35 dated 7/25/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated completely intact cognition. It included diagnoses of urine retention, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA - brief blockage of blood flow to the brain), and multiple left rib fractures. It indicated the resident was independent with eating, required set-up assistance with oral hygiene, moderate assistance with toileting hygiene, maximal assistance with bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene and moderate to maximal assistance with all forms of mobility. The MDS also revealed the resident had an indwelling catheter and a urinary tract infection within the previous 30 days. The Progress Note dated 7/28/24 indicated the resident had hematuria (blood in the urine) in the catheter drainage bag. A subsequent progress note dated 8/01/24 revealed the resident received an antibiotic for a urinary tract infection. The Care Plan dated 8/08/24 revealed the resident required staff to manage the indwelling catheter and directed staff to assist with peri-care if needed. On 8/11/24 at 10:45 AM, Staff A, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) and Staff G, CNA were observed providing Resident #35's catheter and peri-care. Staff A and Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN) transferred the resident from her recliner to her bed. Staff A held the gait belt with her gloved right hand. Staff F hung the drainage bag on bed frame. Staff A and Staff B assisted the resident to a lying position and pulled her pants down. Staff F refastened the drainage tubing to the resident's left leg, washed her hands and exited. Staff A changed her gloves, got a urine collection container and placed it on paper towel on the floor. She grabbed the package of hygiene wipes, removed one and wiped the resident's right groin area then the left groin area. She grabbed a new hygiene wipe and cleaned the indwelling catheter tubing insertion site. She moved the drainage bag to a lower spot on the bed frame and repositioned the resident toward the wall. She applied barrier cream to the resident's buttocks, changed gloves, and put briefs on the resident. She grabbed the drainage bag with her left hand, opened the drainage bag spigot with her right hand, drained the urine, closed the spigot, grabbed an alcohol swab with her right hand and cleaned the spigot. She emptied the urine in the toilet and changed her gloves. No hand hygiene was performed throughout the procedure. At 2:02 PM, Staff A stated she should have performed hand hygiene after moving the resident's walker but did not due to resident safety related to other resident equipment such as oxygen tubing. A policy titled Catheter: Care, Insertion & Removal, Drainage Bags, Irrigation, Specimen- AL, R/S, & LTC revised 7/30/24 directed staff to perform hand hygiene between resident contact and catheter care. It also directed staff to use a fluid-impermeable pad under the urine collection container. On 8/11/24 at 2:08 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated staff should follow the procedure for donning & doffing gloves for catheter care and emptying the catheter drainage bag. Based on observation, facility policy and staff interview, the facility failed to provide proper hand hygiene during toileting and urinary catheter care for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #1, Resident #35) observed. The facility also failed to perform hand hygiene between feeding two (2) residents. The facility reported a total census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. Observation on 08/10/24 at 2:08 PM, Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) donned personal protective equipment (PPE) then assisted Resident #10 to the bathroom. Staff A lowered the resident's pants and incontinence brief then assisted the resident to sit on the toilet. Staff A removed and discarded soiled gloves, reached beneath her PPE gown, and retrieved hand sanitizer. Staff A performed hand hygiene then donned new gloves. After Resident #10 attempted to have a bowel movement, Staff A cleansed Resident # 10's buttock, pulled up his incontinence brief and pants, then sat the resident back on the toilet. Staff A removed and discarded soiled gloves. Staff A failed to perform hand hygiene, then donned new gloves. Staff A placed a graduated measuring container directly on the floor then emptied the urine into the colander. Staff A cleansed the urine catheter drainage spout, placed the spout back into the holder, removed and discarded soiled gloves. Staff A failed to perform hand hygiene, then donned new gloves. The Catheter policy last revised 7/30/24 instructed staff to perform hand hygiene after removing gloves. The policy also showed the procedure for catheter drainage required staff to avoid placing the graduated measuring container directly on the floor by placing a barrier between the graduated measuring container and the floor. The Personal Protect Equipment policy last revised 12/4/23 instructed staff to wear PPE gowns appropriate to the tasks being performed, to protect skin and prevent soiling or combination of clothing during procedures and resident care activities when contact with blood, body fluids, secretions or excretions is anticipated. In an interview on 8/10/24 at 2:45 PM, the Administrator and Director of Nursing reported that staff are expected to perform hand hygiene after removing gloves, use PPE per policy and place a barrier between the graduated measuring container and the floor.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain sanitary practices by failing to prevent cross-contamination while serving food. The facility reported a censu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain sanitary practices by failing to prevent cross-contamination while serving food. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: On 8/10/24 at 11:45 AM a continuous observation revealed, Staff I used tongs to move plastic wrap from pan with rolls then grabbed a roll with the same tongs and placed it on a resident's plate. She also used the same tongs to remove aluminum foil from a casserole pan. Staff I placed butter packets on residents' plates which directly touched the residents' food throughout meal service. At 12:04 PM, Staff I placed her right hand on the steam table counter and waited for a staff member to take the prepared plate from her left hand. She grabbed dedicated food scissors and cut a resident's meat into bite sized portions, placed the scissors on the steam table counter where her hand had been, picked up the scissors and cut two (2) more residents' meat into bite sized portions. At 12:10 PM, Staff I moved 2 pans from the left side of the steam table area and continued serving food without performing hand hygiene. A policy titled Food Handling - Food and Nutrition revised 6/25/24 indicated proper utensils such as tissue, spatula, tongs, and single-use gloves are used for food handling. On 8/11/24 at 2:08 PM, the Administrator stated staff should follow the policy regarding safe food handling.
May 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, electronic health record (EHR) review, document review, resident interviews, and staff interviews the fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, electronic health record (EHR) review, document review, resident interviews, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide nursing staff to assure residents safety by not responding to call lights in a timely manner for 2 of 5 resident reviewed (Resident #9 and #10). The facility reported a census of 52 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #9 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #9 as frequently incontinent of urine and occasionally incontinent of bowel. On 5/14/24 at 1:52 PM Resident #9 stated she used her call light all the time and it was the only way she could get help. Resident #9 stated the staff frequently took longer than 15 minutes to respond to her call light. Resident #9 stated the staff needed more help. Resident #9 stated she turned the call light on that morning because she wanted to get out of bed. Resident #9 stated she waited and waited and waited and finally the staff came and got her out of bed. Resident #9 stated the response took way too long that morning. Resident #9 stated she knew how long the staff took to respond to the call light because she could read the clock and that the current time was 1:55 PM. Review of EHR revealed Resident #9 resided in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Review of document titled [NAME]-Care Report (call light log) dated 5/14/24 revealed on 5/14/24 at 6:03 AM room [ROOM NUMBER]'s call light was turned on. The response time on the call light in room [ROOM NUMBER] at 6:03 AM was 47 minutes and 59 seconds. Review of video footage with the Administrator for the hall with room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed from 6:00 AM - 6:30 AM on 5/14/24 no staff entered the room to answer the call light. Video footage review was only for a 30 minute duration. On 5/14/24 at 11:00 AM Staff A stated he did not feel there was enough nursing staff to care for the residents appropriately and the staff work short all the time. Staff A stated sometimes when staff call in, the staff is not replaced. Staff A stated that call lights did take longer than 15 minutes to be responded to at times. Staff A stated it happened that morning and room [ROOM NUMBER] was on longer than 15 minutes that morning. On 5/14/24 at 11:00 AM Staff B stated she also did not feel there was enough nursing staff to care for the residents appropriately and the staff worked short all the time. Staff B stated sometimes when staff call in the staff is not replaced. Staff B stated that call lights did take longer than 15 minutes to be responded to at times and room [ROOM NUMBER] was on longer than 15 minutes that morning. 2. The MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #10 documented he scored 15 on the BIMS indicating intact cognition. The MDS documented the resident as dependent on staff for toileting hygiene and partial assist/moderate assist with toilet transfers. On 5/14/24 at 9:50 AM Resident #10 stated it seems like only agency staff are working because the staff are always different on the night and weekends. He stated he usually does not use his call light but when he does it will take longer than 15 minutes to answer the light on the evening and overnight shifts. He stated this has happened in the last month. Review of document titled [NAME]-Care Report (call light log) dated 5/14/24 revealed on 5/9/24 at 4:56 PM room [ROOM NUMBER]'s call light was turned on. The response time on the call light in room [ROOM NUMBER] was 21 minutes and 7 seconds. Review of policy titled, Call Light - R/S, LTC, Therapy and Rehab with revised 8/1/23 documented the purpose was to promptly answer the residents call light and to respond to the residents request as soon as possible. On 5/14/24 at 11:15 AM the Administrator stated the facility did have a call light report that could be run. The Administrator stated when reviewing over the last month she had noticed call lights lasting longer than 15 minutes a couple of times. The Administrator stated the facility's expectation was that the call light will be answered within 15 minutes.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide appropriate infection prevention practices when completing blood sugar monitoring for 3 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #4, #5, and #6). The facility reported a census of 52 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #4 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented Resident #4 had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes Mellitus. Review of Resident #4's Clinical Physician Orders documented an order dated 10/10/23 for blood glucose monitoring 4 times a day. On 5/14/24 at 11:30 AM observed Resident #4 being pushed down the hall by Staff C into an unoccupied room. Staff C returned to the medication cart to retrieve the blood glucose machine and supplies. Staff C applied gloves without completing hand hygiene. Staff C entered the room and cleansed Resident #4's right hand index finger with an alcohol wipe. Staff C returned to the medication cart, obtained keys from her pocket, unlocked the medication cart, wrapped blood glucose machine in cleansing wipe, removed insulin from medication cart and drew up insulin. Staff C locked the medication cart, entered Resident #4's room, and administered insulin in Resident #4's right upper arm. Staff C returned to the medication cart, put medication away and charted on the computer. Staff C removed her gloves. Staff C locked the medication cart, returned to Resident #4, and pushed Resident #4 in a wheelchair back to the therapy department. Staff C returned to the medication cart and pushed the medication cart down the hall to another resident's room. Staff C removed medication and began to administer this resident's medication without hand hygiene. 2. The MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #5 had a BIMS score of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented Resident #5 had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes Mellitus. Review of Resident #5's Clinical Physician Orders documented an order dated 2/29/24 for blood glucose monitoring before meals and at bedtime. On 5/14/24 at 11:41 AM observed Staff D remove the blood glucose machine from the medication cart and apply gloves without hand hygiene. Staff D knocked on the door for Resident #5 and entered the room. Staff D cleansed Resident #5's ring finger on his left hand and utilized the lancet to obtain a blood sample. Staff D used a cotton ball to remove the 1st drop of blood. Staff D left the room, returned to the medication cart, removed gloves completed hand hygiene. 3. The MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #6 had a BIMS score of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented Resident #6 had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes Mellitus. Review of Resident #6's Clinical Physician Orders documented an order dated 4/9/22 for blood glucose monitoring before meals and at bedtime. On 5/14/24 at 11:21 AM observed Staff C remove the blood glucose machine from the medication cart and apply gloves. Staff C did not complete hand hygiene. Staff C entered Resident #6's room. Staff C dropped the lancet on the ground in Resident #6's room, picked the lancet up off the ground and continued to use it. Staff C cleansed Resident #6's ring finger on her right hand with an alcohol wipe. Staff C returned to the medication cart in the hallway. Staff C obtained the insulin and a syringe from a medication cart and administered the insulin. Staff C returned to the medication cart and charted on the computer. Staff C removed gloves and completed hand hygiene. Review of policy titled, Hand Hygiene revised 3/29/22 revealed hand hygiene would be completed when entering a resident's room, prior to clean task, after bodily fluid/glove removal, exiting room, before preparing or administering medication, before donning gloves, and after removing gloves regardless of task completed. On 5/16/24 at 2:45 PM the Administrator stated the facility's expectation was that hand hygiene would have been completed prior to and after entering a resident's room, also prior to any medication administration. The Administrator stated hand hygiene would be completed when gloves were removed, and hand hygiene would be completed after leaving the room.
Jun 2023 15 deficiencies 2 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #25's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #25's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated that Resident #25 required extensive assistance of two persons with bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use. In addition, she required total dependence on two persons for transfers, and extensive assistance of one person for personal hygiene. The assessment indicated that Resident #25 could not ambulate (walk) and needed one person to push her wheelchair. The MDS included diagnoses of cancer, heart failure, diabetes, depression, and a compression fracture of the spine (broken bone caused by weakness in the back). On 5/30/23 at 10:53 AM Resident #25 stated she fell out of a lift and fractured her back. She stated she went to the hospital and had a raging urinary tract infection (UTI), fluid on her heart, and a fracture in her back. In another interview the same day at 1:05 PM, the resident explained that she fell out of a standing lift, as Staff D, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), operated it. She reported that she did not have anyone else in the room when it happened. Resident #25 added that staff now use a full-body mechanical lift to transfer her. Resident #25 explained that oftentimes the staff transfer her alone when there is supposed to be two people. On her wall at the head of the bed, observed a sign that instructed to only use a nonmechanical stand-to-sit for Resident #25. The Health Status Note dated 4/16/23 at 9:00 PM indicated that Resident #25 reported that her pain management routine worked and she slept better. She added that she could get around better with her medication schedule with the Tylenol and tramadol (pain medication). The Health Status Note dated 4/18/23 at 12:54 PM written by Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN), indicated that a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) reported that Resident #25 did not stand well in the mechanical standing lift with an assist of one. The CNA described that Resident #25 pulled her arms up and bent her knees. The Health Status Note dated 4/19/23 at 1:38 AM documented by Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), that Resident #25 continued to have difficulty standing with transfers. The Health Status Note dated 4/25/23 at 6:54 AM labeled Late Entry written by Staff F indicated Resident #25 complained of shortness of breath, shallow respirations, poor eye contact, flat voice, and diminished lung sounds. Resident #25 had stable vital signs, oxygen saturation of 98% on room air, denies pain while in bed, and when up has pain of 7 of out 10 (0 no pain, 10 the most pain). The nurse encouraged Resident #25 to increase their activity. The Communication - Other Note dated 4/25/23 at 2:50 PM listed that the nurse requested a muscle relaxer per therapy recommendation. The Communication/Visit with Physician Note dated 4/25/23 at 8:30 PM labeled Late Entry detailed new orders by the provider. Resident #25 will have X-rays on the next day of the T-Spine (upper middle back), and L-Spine (middle to lower back). In addition, the provider provided an order for baclofen (muscle relaxer) one tablet three times a day as needed for back spasms. The nurse notified the family and updated the clinical record. The Health Status Note dated 4/26/23 at 11:56 AM indicated that Resident #25 had an X-ray. She continued to complain of pain with activity. The Lab/Diagnostics Note dated 4/27/23 at 5:41 AM listed that the facility received the x-ray results and faxed them to the Primary Care Provider (PCP). The Health Status Note dated 4/27/23 at 9:30 AM written by Staff F indicated that Resident #25 continued to complain of sharp pain on her left of her back radiating to the flank area (lower left side of back) without radiation to her left arm. Vital signs remain stable with an oxygen saturation of 88% (normal is 90% and above), blood pressure of 126/58, temperature of 95 (average 98.6), pulse of 88 (typical range 60-100), and respirations (typical range 12-20). As the staff assisted Resident #25 to the bath chair in the standing mechanical lift, she complained of a sharp pain in her left side of her back. Resident #25 received her scheduled Tramadol (pain medication) and Tylenol earlier in the morning. The Communication/Visit with Physician Note on 4/27/23 at 10:12 AM identified the nurse called the PCP's office to provide an update on Resident #25's condition. The Communication/Visit with Physician Note on 4/27/23 at 1:41 PM indicated that the facility received a fax from the physician that dictated that Resident #25 had chronic (long-term) degenerative changes. The physician directed to schedule an appointment with her PCP in the office unless she would not wait. The nurse updated the resident and her niece then got a bed hold agreement. The nurse provided a report to the emergency room (ER). The Health Status Note dated 4/27/23 at 1:50 PM recorded that Resident #25 went to the ER with staff in the facility van. The ED Provider Notes dated 4/27/23 at 2:37 PM listed Resident #25's chief complaint as a report of slipping from the sit-stand machine and jarred her back making her pain worse in her back around to her abdomen. Resident #25 came to the ER for an evaluation of mid back pain. She reported when in a lift the machine came down somewhat quickly and stopped. As that happened she developed immediate onset of mid back pain. Resident #25 denied extension of the pain into her legs but did feel like it came across her upper abdomen to her chest. She reports a history of chronic low back pain but explained her current pain is different. Resident #25 denied any exacerbation of her regular back pain. She tried tramadol that day with little or no relief. Resident #25 did have an X-ray the day before that had negative results of any acute fracture. The assessment revealed that Resident #25 had some tenderness at approximately T-11 on palpation (a type of touch used to assess). The Discharge instructions directed to increase her tramadol to 50 milligrams (mg) three times a day for one week and continue Tylenol. Apply ice to the affected area for 20 minutes per hour while awake for that day and the next day. If worsening or changing symptoms contact the clinic and follow-up as needed. The Final Impression list thoracic back sprain, initial encounter. The Progress Notes dated 4/29/23 at 9:29 AM indicated that Resident #25 had back pain of the thoracolumbar region for greater than six weeks. She started on a muscle relaxant and received tramadol for her pain without improvement. The etiology of the pain could be from a kidney infection, however, due to the musculoskeletal nature, regarding the full-boy mechanical lift incident in the nursing home, proceed with CT scans to rule out a compression fracture or any other potential etiology of her back pain while hospitalized . The CT Thoracic Spine without contrast dated 4/29/23 impression listed the following a. Inferior endplate fracture at the T8 b. Degenerative change of the spine. There is central canal stenosis and neurol foraminal narrowing at T10-11. c. Small effusions with bibasilar atelectasis d. Findings suggesting pulmonary edema. The Progress Notes dated 4/30/23 at 8:23 AM indicated that Resident #25 told her PCP that she had an incident at the nursing home where she fell. She described the incident as the staff tried to transfer her and pivot her standing, her legs gave out and she went down rather hard on her buttocks into the chair. She reported that she felt the worsening back pain at that time but could not remember when the incident occurred. The Communication/Visit with Physician on 5/2/23 at 3:57 AM the facility received Resident #25's X-ray results the PCP wrote that the X-rays on 4/26/23 with negative results. The X-ray results on 4/29/23 revealed a compression fracture at her T-8. The PCP questioned if Resident #25 had a fall. The nurse responded that they did not know of any falls but she did use a sit to stand with a sling. Resident #25 chicken wings (bends her arms at an upward angle) and needs to sit quickly. The Communication/Visit with Physician dated 5/2/23 at 2:21 PM indicated the PCP reviewed the X-Ray and Resident #25 remained in the hospital. The PCP wrote that Resident #25 reported that she fell at the nursing home. The PCP explained that Resident #25 had a compression fracture of her T-8. The PCP indicated that her record did not have any documented falls. On 5/31/23 at 1:35 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) reported that they did not do an investigation or report regarding resident's compression fracture findings due to the hospital discovering it. She explained that they reviewed their records and found no staff reports or documentation of a fall. On 5/31/23 at 2:45 PM Staff F reported that she did not think that she documented on 4/18 that anyone told her that Resident #25 had problems with the mechanical standing lift, and if she did, she couldn't remember. She denied remembering any incidents or concerns with Resident #25 using the stand. On 5/31/23 at 3:06 PM Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), remarked that she could not remember documenting on 4/19 that Resident #25 had difficulty with the mechanical standing lift. She reported that she did not know about any incidents with Resident #25 using the stand and complaining of back pain. When asked what she would do if that someone reported that to her, she replied that she would let therapy know, but therapy said resident did fine with the mechanical standing lift so to keep using it. On 5/31/23 at 3:20 PM Staff H, Occupational Therapist (OT), explained that that all staff received training that they could always do more for the resident, but not less. She stated if the staff or the resident felt uncomfortable using the standing mechanical lift or standing lift, they could always use a full-body mechanical lift to transfer the resident without having to call them before using it, and have the nurse notify them of the concern to address it the following day. She stated that Resident #25 did do well with the lift in therapy and that in her opinion, Resident #25 tried harder for them (therapy). She also felt that Resident #25 felt more comfortable with some staff than others. She stated that staff use chicken winging, but it can present differently from one staff member to another, such as elbows pointed out away from the body or pointing upwards like a flapping motion. On 6/1/23 at 10:30 AM Resident #25's physician from the ER explained her compression fracture was consistent with a sudden stop coming down in the lift. 3. Resident #42's MDS assessment dated [DATE] listed a readmission date of 2/17/23 from an acute hospital. The MDS identified a BIMs score of 14, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated that Resident #42 required extensive assistance of two persons with bed mobility and toilet use. The MDS listed that Resident #42 required total dependence of two persons with transfers and could not ambulate. The MDS identified that Resident #42 had an indwelling catheter. The MDS identified Resident #42 is at risk for developing pressure ulcer and that he had an unhealed stage 2 pressure ulcer during the seven-day lookback period. The MDS included diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), obstructive uropathy, end stage renal disease, and malnutrition. On 5/30/23 at 1:28 PM Resident #42 reported that he went to the hospital a couple of days ago. The Care Plan Focus revised on 7/21/22 indicated that Resident #42 had an indwelling catheter related to benign prostatic hyperplasia with obstructive uropathy (prostate gland enlargement with obstructed urinary flow). The Care Plan intervention dated 12/9/21 directed the staff to monitor for signs and symptoms of a urinary tract infection such as pain, burning, blood tinged urine, cloudiness, no output, deepening of urine color, increase pulse, increased temperature, urinary frequency, foul smelling urine, fever, chills, altered mental status, change in behavior, and change in eating patterns. The Transfer to Hospital V5 note dated 2/13/23 at 3:23 p.m. indicated that Resident #42 went to the hospital due to urosepsis (severe UTI). The eAdmin Record (Default Note) dated 2/16/23 at 1:26 p.m. indicated that Resident #42 remained in the hospital. The Last BM and Admit/Re-Admit note dated 2/17/23 at 7:13 p.m. indicated that Resident #42 had a septic UTI that required hospitalization. Resident #42 required physical therapy for strengthening. A Physician order dated 2/17/23 directed staff to administer Apixaban (anticoagulant/blood thinner) 2.5mg (milligrams) two times a day for atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rate). The Care Plan revised on 5/17/23 identified Resident #42 was on anticoagulant therapy and directed staff to monitor, document and report to the doctor as needed for signs and symptoms of anticoagulant complications such as bruising. The Health Status note dated 5/20/23 at 3:58 p.m. indicated that Resident #42 had strong smelling dark urine. The note directed to push fluids. The Communication/Visit with Physician dated 5/23/23 at 1:38 p.m. identified that Resident #42 saw the physician for nursing home rounds. The physician gave no new orders. The Health Status note dated 5/24/23 at 12:07 a.m. documented that Resident #42 experienced confusion. He attempted to change the channel on his tv with his recliner remote. The Care Plan Review note dated 5/26/23 at 7:46 a.m. indicated that Resident #42 used apixaban without adverse reactions. The Health Status dated on 5/27/23 at 2:09 p.m. listed that the nurse faxed the physician on 5/26/23 due to Resident #42's strong smelling urine that contained mucus and his confusion. At the time of the note, the physician had not responded to the fax. Resident #42 appeared slumped in the chair most of the time, with purple urine in his urinary catheter. He reported being fine just tired. The nurse noted his vital signs with in normal range for him. Resident #42 described his urine flowing across the floor that made a puddle in front of him that he could see. The nurse looked at the floor and noted it as dry. The nurse visited with the ER staff about Resident #42 and received an order to send him for an evaluation. At 2:40 PM Resident #42 left the facility in route to the hospital with his family following. Resident #42's After Visit Summary from the ER dated 5/27/23 listed a diagnosis of a urinary tract infection with hematuria (blood in urine). The form instructed the facility to administer Bactrim DS as ordered. The Health Status note on 5/28/23 at 2:26 a.m. indicated that Resident #42 returned to the facility at 7:35 p.m. with a diagnosis of a UTI and a new order to start Bactrim DS (antibiotic) by mouth twice a day for five days. The Order Details dated 5/29/23 identified an order for Bactrim DS Oral Tablet 800-160 milligrams (MG) one tablet two times a day for a UTI for 5 days. Resident #42's clinical record lacked documentation, assessment, treatment, and follow up on Resident #42's urinary symptoms after 5/20/23 until 5/27/23. On 6/1/23 at 7:25 a.m. observed Resident #42 lying in bed with his catheter drainage bag hanging from the bed and touching the floor. The urinary catheter contained pink tinged urine in the tubing and the bag. Resident #42's arms appeared to have extensive bruising (dark in color), the left arm looked to have an old scabbed skin tear. Staff C, LPN, reported that Resident #42 commonly had bruises to his arms. On 6/1/23 at 1:07 p.m. Staff S, License Practice Nurse (LPN), acknowledged that he made an entry in the progress notes on 5/20/23 regarding Resident #42's dark and strong-smelling urine. Staff S reported having concern because he knew Resident #42 had a history of UTIs and sepsis. Staff S stated he thought he faxed the physician but could not state for sure. Staff S explained that he only worked weekends and did not know what happened on Monday through Thursday. Staff S verified that he sent Resident #42 to the ER the following Saturday (5/27) due to Resident #42 appearing dopey, slouchy, and had purple colored urine. On 6/1/23 at 1:38 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) reported that she could not locate a physician notification on or after 5/20/23 until Resident #42 went to the ER. On 6/1/23 at 4:51 p.m. the DON reported the facility did not have a policy for UTIs. The Change in Condition Policy revised 3/29/23 instructed the purpose of the policy related to the following: 1.To improve communication between nurses and a provider with nursing is monitoring a change in condition. 2. To enhance the nursing evaluation of and documentation of a resident who has a condition change. 3. To provide a standard format to collect pertinent clinical data prior to contacting the provider when there is a condition change. 4. To standardize shift to shift communication about a resident change in condition On 6/5/23 at 10:52 a.m. the DON stated she expected the nurse to notify the Physician with a condition change and to complete a follow-up urinary assessment. On 6/5/23 at 4:25 p.m. observed Resident #42's bilateral arms and hands with extensive dark colored bruising. Observed two black colored scabbed areas to the left wrist area and one black colored scab to the left elbow area. Observed Resident #42's bilateral arms were very dry. Resident #42 reported the bruising occurred from bumping his arms. On 6/5/23 at 4:30 p.m. Staff T, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) reported Resident #42's arms usually appear like that. Staff T, CNA stated Resident #42 picks at his arms at times and usually wears short sleeve shirts. Review of Resident #42's clinical record lacked documentation, assessment, and treatment on the bruises and scabbed areas to the bilateral arms and hands. In addition, the record lacked a skin assessment, an incident report, notification to the physician or his family. The clinical record lacked an intervention or treatment to reduce the risk of further bruising. The clinical record contained no request for labs related to his use anticoagulant therapy and bruising. The facility policy titled Skin Assessment Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Documentation revised 4/26/23 documented if staff observed a bruise, contusion, abrasion, or skin tear on a resident, staff should report it to the nurse immediately. The policy further directed to monitor the bruise/contusion/skin tear/abrasion every week, document any changes and/or progress towards healing, and update the resident's Care Plan. On 6/5/23 at 5:10 p.m. the DON explained that she expected an assessment of bruises and scabbed areas with documentation according to the facility policy. Based on facility record review, hospital record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to investigate a change in condition for three of three residents reviewed (Residents #22, #25, and #42). Two of the residents had a sudden increase of pain (Residents #22 and #25). Resident #22 walked independently in the facility and experienced a bout of dizziness causing her to fall on 5/13/23. At the time of the fall, Resident #22 denied pain but started to report pain later that evening and requested pain medication. Resident #22 did not use any as needed medication until after her fall on 5/13/23. Resident #22 received no evaluation by a provider until 5/17/23. During the hospital stay, the staff determined Resident #22 had multiple compression fractures in her back. Resident #22 received treatment to one of the compression fractures involving an invasive procedure. Resident #25 received a scheduled pain medication for chronic pain and used a standing lift for transfers. Resident #25 reported that she had an increase in pain after a staff member transferred her with the standing mechanical lift. The facility failed to determine when the injury occurred and failed to have Resident #22 evaluated following her increased pain until Resident #22 requested to go to the emergency room. After a change in condition, the facility sent Resident #25 to the hospital who discovered a compression fracture. In addition, the facility failed to assess Resident #42 who had a history of urinary tract infections (UTI) and sepsis (an infection that is so severe it spreads to the blood) when he experienced signs and symptoms of a UTI. The facility did not provide interventions to Resident #42 until he transferred to the emergency room (ER) seven days after the first documented symptom. Findings include: 1. Resident #22's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated the Resident #22 required limited assistance of one person with dressing. She could independently move in bed, walk in her room, walk in the corridor, use the toilet, and complete her personal hygiene. Resident #22 used a walker and a wheelchair. She could stabilize herself without staff assistance but was not steady with moving from a seated to a standing position, turning around, moving on and off the toilet, and surface-to-surface transfer. Resident #22 received a scheduled pain medication in the previous five days of the lookback period. She had one fall without injury since the previous assessment. The Care Plan Focus revised 6/9/22 indicated that Resident #22 had a risk for falls related to her history of falls. The interventions directed the staff to monitor her for significant change in gait, mobility, positioning device, standing balance, sitting balance, and lower extremity joint function. On 6/1/23 at 2:10 PM observed Resident #22 in her recliner in her room. Resident #22 said that she did not have pain but she did have a lot of pain before and after her back surgery. She said that she got getting dizzy and that's what caused her falls. The Incident Report dated 5/13/23 at 10:30 AM indicated that Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), witnessed Resident #22 fall backwards to the floor landing on her buttocks, then she laid herself down. The Incident Note dated 5/13/23 at 10:30 AM labeled as a Late Entry listed that Staff K witnessed Resident #22 fall. She walked form her bathroom to her chair and fell backward landing on her buttock, then she laid herself down. Resident #22's had range of motion (ROM) within her normal limits. She denied pain and did not hit her head. The staff assisted her with two and a mechanical lift to bed. The nurse notified the Director of Nursing (DON), the physician, and the daughter. The eAdmin Record (Default Note) on 5/13/2023 at 7:07 PM indicated that Resident #22 received a tramadol HCl Oral Tablet 50 milligrams (MG) for back and shoulder pain. Resident #22's family remained at her bedside and requested as needed (PRN) administration as soon as possible (ASPA) as she rarely had such a high pain level. The eAdmin Record (Default Note) on 5/14/23 at 7:45 AM listed that Resident #22 complained of pain from her fall the day before. The eAdmin Record (Default Note) on 5/15/23 at 12:13 AM recorded that Resident #22 could not sleep and requested a PRN pain medication due to pain all over. The Care Plan Review note dated 5/15/23 listed that Resident #22 had one fall during the lookback without injury. She met her pain goal with routine Tylenol. The eAdmin Record (Default Note) on 5/16/23 at 7:30 AM documented that Resident #22 reported back pain. The Communication/Visit with Physician on 5/16/23 at 7:33 PM indicated that Resident #22 had a lot of pain at the start of the shift. She reported the pain came from a fall over the weekend. The physician gave an order for an X-ray of her spine. At 5:45 PM she received the X-ray. In addition, the physician gave an order for a urinalysis (UA). The physician reported that too much tramadol could cause hallucinations. The Health Status Note dated 5/17/23 at 4:15 AM Resident #22 experienced hallucinations and complained of pain but did not know why. Resident #22's May 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) listed the following orders and usage: a. 3/24/23 - Tramadol 50 milligrams (mg) one tab three times as day as needed (PRN) for pain. i. Resident #22 did not use the medication until the 13th. ii. Resident #22 received on 5/13 for pain of 6/10, 5/14/23 for pain 8/10, and 5/15/23 for pain of 5/15. b. 3/24/23 - Tramadol 50 MG a half tablet three times a day PRN pain. i. Resident #22 did not use the medication until the 13th. ii. Resident #22 received a half tablet of Tramadol on 5/15 for pain of 8/10. 5/16 for pain of 4/10. The Transfer to Hospital V5 on 5/17/23 at 3:34 PM revealed the nurse sent Resident #22 to the hospital due to complaints of pain rated 8 out of the 10-pain scale (0 no pain, 10 worst pain ever) in her left and right scapula. The Provider Progress Notes dated 5/20/23 at 6:47 PM lists Resident #22's assessment finding as a closed fracture of multiple thoracic vertebrae and an acute cystitis without hematuria (bladder infection without blood in the urine). The Plan directed that the MRI showed a burst fracture (A type of traumatic spinal injury in which a vertebra breaks from a high-energy axial load such as traffic collisions or falls from a great height or high speed, and some kinds of seizures), with shards of vertebra penetrating surrounding tissues and sometimes the spinal canal) at C7 and an endplate compression fracture of L1. The MRI Thoracic Spine without Contrast Results dated 5/20/23 indicated that the evaluation of Resident #22's thoracic spine demonstrates mild exaggeration of the normal thoracic kyphosis. Resident #22 had vertebral body hemangiomas (common vascular lesion found within the vertebral body of the thoracic and lumbar spine) on the T12, T11, and T4. Resident #22 had a T6 burst fracture with fracture line extending to involve the back and front cortex (an outer or surrounding layer of an organ or body part) of the vertebrae. The Provider Progress Notes dated 5/26/23 at 9:54 AM indicated that Resident #22 had a fall two weeks before. She had increased pain since that time. The pain increases with movement and appears constant within the mid back. The pain severity ranges from 6-9 out of 10 on the pain scale. The MRI (specialized assessment images of the body) demonstrated an acute (short-term) supra endplate compression (a type of vertebral fracture that occurs when the vertebrae compress and collapse) of the T6 vertebral body with approximately 50% loss of height. The note indicated to proceed with vertebroplasty (a procedure involving special cement injected into a fractured vertebra - with the goal of relieving spinal pain and restoring mobility). The Discharge summary dated [DATE] included four diagnoses Resident #22 received treatment for in the hospital. a. Osteoporosis b. Closed fracture of multiple thoracic vertebrae c. Closed stable burst fracture of the sixth thoracic vertebra with delayed healing. d. Closed fracture of lumbar vertebra, unspecified fracture morphology, unspecified lumbar vertebral level. The Discharge Summary directed the nursing facility to schedule the Prolia injection (injection used to treat bone loss). On 6/1/23 at 3:40 PM Resident #22's Representative (RR #22) said that they got a call from the facility after her fall on 5/13 that Resident #22 had a great deal of pain. She thought they facility called her over a weekend, and they brought in a portable X-ray machine on a Monday or Tuesday. Resident #22 had surgery and then she fell again the day she went back to the facility. On 6/5/23 at 1:37 PM a Clinic Nurse verified that the clinic received a call from the facility on 5/13/23 regarding Resident #22's fall. She did not see in the notes that the doctor responded with any specific questions or new orders. On 6/5/23 at 9:35 AM Staff K said that as she walked down the hallway, she saw Resident #22 fall back as she transferred to her chair. She said that Resident #22 denied pain at the time, she called an on-call nurse, and left a message. She denied knowing if the doctor called back for a follow up or if anyone followed up later with the doctor. On 6/6/23 at 8:11 AM the DON said that she expected the nurse to call the on-call doctor who worked as the emergency room (ER) doctor over a weekend, if an incident occurred at the facility. The DON agreed that someone followed-up with the doctor when Resident #22 continued to have pain after her fall.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, emergency room, hospital and facility record review, the facility failed to provide adequate nursing superv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, emergency room, hospital and facility record review, the facility failed to provide adequate nursing supervision to prevent injuries for 3 of 4 residents reviewed (Residents #22, #25, and #33) for falls. In addition, the facility failed to complete neurological assessments for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #22) reviewed for falls. Despite the facility documenting that Resident #25 had difficulties with standing with her transfers using the mechanical standing lift, no one adjusted the transfer technique to ensure her safety with transfers. Due to the staff continuing to transfer Resident #25 with an unsafe technique, she fell out of the standing lift resulting in a compression fracture in her back. Resident #33 had a history of falls and the facility added interventions to the Incident Report or the Progress notes but never updated the Care Plan to reflect the interventions. In addition, the facility knew that some of the interventions did not work but did not modify the intervention. The facility could not provide documentation to verify the implementation or modification of the interventions. On the fourth fall, Resident #33 fell fracturing her hip and required surgery to repair it. Resident #22 experience an unwitnessed fall that resulted in an emergency room visit following her discharge earlier in the day from the hospital. See F684 regarding additional information related to Resident #22. Findings include: Resident #25's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated that Resident #25 required extensive assistance of two persons with bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use. In addition, she required total dependence on two persons for transfers, and extensive assistance of one person for personal hygiene. The assessment indicated that Resident #25 could not ambulate (walk) and needed one person to push her wheelchair. The MDS included diagnoses of cancer, heart failure, diabetes, depression, and a compression fracture of the spine (broken bone caused by weakness in the back). On 5/30/23 at 10:53 AM Resident #25 stated she fell out of a lift and fractured her back. She stated she went to the hospital and had a raging urinary tract infection (UTI), fluid on her heart, and a fracture in her back. In another interview the same day at 1:05 PM, the resident explained that she fell out of a standing lift, as Staff D, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), operated it. She reported that she did not have anyone else in the room when it happened. Resident #25 added that staff now use a full-body mechanical lift to transfer her. Resident #25 explained that oftentimes the staff transfer her alone when there is supposed to be two people. On her wall at the head of the bed, observed a sign that instructed to only use a nonmechanical stand-to-sit for Resident #25. The Health Status Note dated 4/16/23 at 9:00 PM indicated that Resident #25 reported that her pain management routine worked and she slept better. She added that she could get around better with her medication schedule with the Tylenol and tramadol (pain medication). The Health Status Note dated 4/18/23 at 12:54 PM written by Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN), indicated that a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) reported that Resident #25 did not stand well in the mechanical standing lift with an assist of one. The CNA described that Resident #25 pulled her arms up and bent her knees. The Health Status Note dated 4/19/23 at 1:38 AM documented by Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), that Resident #25 continued to have difficulty standing with transfers. The Health Status Note dated 4/25/23 at 6:54 AM labeled Late Entry written by Staff F indicated Resident #25 complained of shortness of breath, shallow respirations, poor eye contact, flat voice, and diminished lung sounds. Resident #25 had stable vital signs, oxygen saturation of 98% on room air, denies pain while in bed, and when up has pain of 7 of out 10 (0 no pain, 10 the most pain). The nurse encouraged Resident #25 to increase their activity. The Communication - Other Note dated 4/25/23 at 2:50 PM listed that the nurse requested a muscle relaxer per therapy recommendation. The Communication/Visit with Physician Note dated 4/25/23 at 8:30 PM labeled Late Entry detailed new orders by the provider. Resident #25 will have X-rays on the next day of the T-Spine (upper middle back), and L-Spine (middle to lower back). In addition, the provider provided an order for baclofen (muscle relaxer) one tablet three times a day as needed for back spasms. The nurse notified the family and updated the clinical record. The Health Status Note dated 4/26/23 at 11:56 AM indicated that Resident #25 had an X-ray. She continued to complain of pain with activity. The Lab/Diagnostics Note dated 4/27/23 at 5:41 AM listed that the facility received the x-ray results and faxed them to the Primary Care Provider (PCP). The Health Status Note dated 4/27/23 at 9:30 AM written by Staff F indicated that Resident #25 continued to complain of sharp pain on her left of her back radiating to the flank area (lower left side of back) without radiation to her left arm. Vital signs remain stable with an oxygen saturation of 88% (normal is 90% and above), blood pressure of 126/58, temperature of 95 (average 98.6), pulse of 88 (typical range 60-100), and respirations (typical range 12-20). As the staff assisted Resident #25 to the bath chair in the standing mechanical lift, she complained of a sharp pain in her left side of her back. Resident #25 received her scheduled Tramadol (pain medication) and Tylenol earlier in the morning. The Communication/Visit with Physician Note on 4/27/23 at 10:12 AM identified the nurse called the PCP's office to provide an update on Resident #25's condition. The Communication/Visit with Physician Note on 4/27/23 at 1:41 PM indicated that the facility received a fax from the physician that dictated that Resident #25 had chronic (long-term) degenerative changes. The physician directed to schedule an appointment with her PCP in the office unless she would not wait. The nurse updated the resident and her niece then got a bed hold agreement. The nurse provided a report to the emergency room (ER). The Health Status Note dated 4/27/23 at 1:50 PM recorded that Resident #25 went to the ER with staff in the facility van. The ED Provider Notes dated 4/27/23 at 2:37 PM listed Resident #25's chief complaint as a report of slipping from the sit-stand machine and jarred her back making her pain worse in her back around to her abdomen. Resident #25 came to the ER for an evaluation of mid back pain. She reported when in a lift the machine came down somewhat quickly and stopped. As that happened she developed immediate onset of mid back pain. Resident #25 denied extension of the pain into her legs but did feel like it came across her upper abdomen to her chest. She reports a history of chronic low back pain but explained her current pain is different. Resident #25 denied any exacerbation of her regular back pain. She tried tramadol that day with little or no relief. Resident #25 did have an X-ray the day before that had negative results of any acute fracture. The assessment revealed that Resident #25 had some tenderness at approximately T-11 on palpation (a type of touch used to assess). The Discharge instructions directed to increase her tramadol to 50 milligrams (mg) three times a day for one week and continue Tylenol. Apply ice to the affected area for 20 minutes per hour while awake for that day and the next day. If worsening or changing symptoms contact the clinic and follow-up as needed. The Final Impression list thoracic back sprain, initial encounter. The Health Status Note dated 4/27/23 at 6:15 PM written by Staff F indicated that Resident #25 returned to facility, refused supper, and requested to go to her room. She appeared alert and oriented. When the nurse went to give Resident #25 her evening medications, she noted involuntary jerking of resident's head and arms. She further documented that Resident #25 appeared pale and had a clear but vague speech. Resident #25 could not hold her medication cup but could to take her medications without difficulty. The Health Status Note dated 4/27/23 at 8:15 PM written by Staff F described Resident #25 as continuing to act different from usual, she could not feed herself, she did not speak, and had weak extremities. The Communication - Other Note dated 4/27/23 at 8:20 PM identified that the nurse called the ER and notified them of Resident #25's condition. The ER recommended sending her to the ER for an evaluation. The nurse contacted 911. The ED Provider Notes dated 4/27/23 at 9:47 PM listed a chief complaint of an altered mental status. The nursing home staff reported that she could not speak, feed herself, or stand. The nursing home staff indicated this started after returning from the ER that afternoon. The note listed that Resident #25 came to the ER earlier in the day and had a negative work-up at that time. After returning to the nursing home, she became more lethargic, could not speak, or feed herself. Resident #25 returned to the hospital in an ambulance and could not give any history but could follow commands. Her physical exam revealed that she opened her eyes to a sternal rub (type of touch used when unable to arouse) and could make eye contact. She had generalized weakness but not focal deficits noted. The Plan/Medical Decision-Making section listed the hospital would admit her for neurological (neuro) checks and telemetry (heart monitoring). The provider indicated that they did not know the cause of her delirium but would check a urinalysis (UA) to rule out a cystitis (bladder infection). The Communication - Other Note dated 4/27/23 at 10:56 PM listed that the facility received a call from the ER nurse. The ER nurse reported they planned to keep Resident #25 for observation that night. The ER completed a CT Scan (special imaging) the revealed no changes. The ER planned to check neurological (neuro) checks (assessment to determine changes in the brain). They reported that she continued to be twitchy at times. Resident #35 had on and off issues with being able to talk, knowing her name, and knowing what was happening. The History and Physical dated 4/28/23 at 9:14 AM repeated the information from the ED Provider note from 4/27/23. The note added that the hospital found her to have nasty looking urine. They admitted her and started her on ceftriaxone (an antibiotic) with a diagnosis of acute delirium. The morning of 4/28/23 Resident #25 observed awake and responding appropriately. She appeared very somnolent, very cool, and clammy. The Assessment section listed delirium, permanent atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rate), type 2 diabetes mellitus with other specified complication. The Plan listed to admit her to acute care, already started on ceftriaxone for pretty nasty looking urine. Her last culture did grow Proteus (bacteria), which should be susceptible to ceftriaxone. The Communication - Other Note dated 4/29/23 at 1:06 AM identified that the nurse called the hospital for an update on Resident #25. The hospital reported that Resident #25 had congestive heart failure, elevated renal function, a urinary tract infection (UTI), an okay chest X-ray, and a negative CT of her head. Resident #25 received oxygen and albuterol treatments (inhaled steroids to open the lungs). She continued to have confusion and inability to track. The Progress Notes dated 4/29/23 at 9:29 AM indicated that Resident #25 had back pain of the thoracolumbar region for greater than six weeks. She started on a muscle relaxant and received tramadol for her pain without improvement. The etiology of the pain could be from a kidney infection, however, due to the musculoskeletal nature, regarding the full-boy mechanical lift incident in the nursing home, proceed with CT scans to rule out a compression fracture or any other potential etiology of her back pain while hospitalized . The CT Thoracic Spine without contrast dated 4/29/23 impression listed the following a. Inferior endplate fracture at the T8 b. Degenerative change of the spine. There is central canal stenosis and neurol foraminal narrowing at T10-11. c. Small effusions with bibasilar atelectasis d. Findings suggesting pulmonary edema. The Progress Notes dated 4/30/23 at 8:23 AM indicated that Resident #25 told her PCP that she had an incident at the nursing home where she fell. She described the incident as the staff tried to transfer her and pivot her standing, her legs gave out and she went down rather hard on her buttocks into the chair. She reported that she felt the worsening back pain at that time but could not remember when the incident occurred. The Communication/Visit with Physician on 5/2/23 at 3:57 AM the facility received Resident #25's X-ray results the PCP wrote that the X-rays on 4/26/23 with negative results. The X-ray results on 4/29/23 revealed a compression fracture at her T-8. The PCP questioned if Resident #25 had a fall. The nurse responded that they did not know of any falls but she did use a sit to stand with a sling. Resident #25 chicken wings (bends her arms at an upward angle) and needs to sit quickly. The Communication/Visit with Physician dated 5/2/23 at 2:21 PM indicated the PCP reviewed the X-Ray and Resident #25 remained in the hospital. The PCP wrote that Resident #25 reported that she fell at the nursing home. The PCP explained that Resident #25 had a compression fracture of her T-8. The PCP indicated that her record did not have any documented falls. On 5/31/23 at 1:35 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) reported that they did not do an investigation or report regarding resident's compression fracture findings due to the hospital discovering it. She explained that they reviewed their records and found no staff reports or documentation of a fall. On 5/31/23 at 2:45 PM Staff F reported that she did not think that she documented on 4/18 that anyone told her that Resident #25 had problems with the mechanical standing lift, and if she did, she couldn't remember. She denied remembering any incidents or concerns with Resident #25 using the stand. On 5/31/23 at 3:06 PM Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), remarked that she could not remember documenting on 4/19 that Resident #25 had difficulty with the mechanical standing lift. She reported that she did not know about any incidents with Resident #25 using the stand and complaining of back pain. When asked what she would do if that someone reported that to her, she replied that she would let therapy know, but therapy said resident did fine with the mechanical standing lift so to keep using it. On 5/31/23 at 3:20 PM Staff H, Occupational Therapist (OT), explained that that all staff received training that they could always do more for the resident, but not less. She stated if the staff or the resident felt uncomfortable using the standing mechanical lift or standing lift, they could always use a full-body mechanical lift to transfer the resident without having to call them before using it, and have the nurse notify them of the concern to address it the following day. She stated that Resident #25 did do well with the lift in therapy and that in her opinion, Resident #25 tried harder for them (therapy). She also felt that Resident #25 felt more comfortable with some staff than others. She stated that staff use chicken winging, but it can present differently from one staff member to another, such as elbows pointed out away from the body or pointing upwards like a flapping motion. On 6/1/23 at 10:30 AM Resident #25's physician from the ER explained her compression fracture was consistent with a sudden stop coming down in the lift. 2. Resident #33's MDS dated [DATE] assessment identified a BIMs score of score of 99, which indicating that Resident #33 could not complete the interview. The MDS identified a completed staff assessment for mental status that indicated Resident #33 had moderately impaired decision making. The MDS identified Resident #33 required supervision and assistance of one person with bed mobility. The MDS described Resident #33 as independent with transfers and ambulation. The MDS indicated that Resident #33 required limited assistance of one person for toilet use. The MDS documented Resident #33 had occasional incontinence of bladder. The MDS included diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease, malnutrition, anxiety, and depression. The Incident Report (IR) labeled Found on Floor dated 1/4/23 at 9:30 a.m. indicated that the staff found Resident #33 on the floor with her pants and briefs around her knees. Resident #33 could not describe what happened. The Immediate Action Taken identified the nurse requested a urinalysis (UA) and wound culture from the Primary Care Provider (PCP) due to her high blood sugars. Resident #33's Falls Tool assessment dated [DATE] listed a score of 20, indicating a high risk for falls. The Incident note dated 1/5/23 at 5:22 a.m. identified that a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) found Resident #33 lying on the floor with her supper tray. Resident #33's clinical record lacked an IR or a Fall Tools Assessment related to the fall on 1/5/23. The Health Status note dated 1/5/23 at 5:41 p.m. indicated the staff attempted the whole shift to obtain a urine specimen. Resident #33 did not understand the need and moved the collection hat from the toilet several times. The staff did get the wound culture. The clinical record lacked documentation that of completion of the 30 minutes checks for the 1/12/23 fall intervention. The IR labeled Slipped or Fell dated 1/12/23 at 7:25 p.m. identified that the nurse heard a loud thud and found Resident #33 lying on her right side next to the toilet with her head under the sink holding on to a dry brief and a dry pair of pants. Resident #33 reported she slipped while going to the bathroom. The IR documented an immediate intervention of 30-minute checks. Resident #33's Falls Tool assessment dated [DATE] listed a score of 19, indicating a high risk for falls. The IR labeled Found on Floor dated 1/21/23 at 7:00 p.m. indicated that a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) found Resident #33 on the floor by her bathroom with her head facing towards the bathroom lying on her right side. The IR listed an immediate intervention of a motion alarm in her room to alert staff when she went to the bathroom. Resident #33's Care Plan lacked documentation of the intervention of a motion alarm following the fall on 1/21/23. Resident #33's Falls Tool assessment dated [DATE] listed a score of 19, indicating a high risk for falls. The IR labeled Found on Floor dated 2/21/23 at 7:45 p.m. indicated that the staff found Resident #33 on the floor in her room. The staff assisted Resident #33 to bed with a mechanical lift. After getting off the floor, Resident #33 started complaining of pain. The nurse sent her to the emergency room for possible fracture to her left hip. The IR lacked documentation if the motion sensor was in place and functioning at the time of the fall. The Immediate Action's description indicated the nurse put a pressure mat alarm to her recliner. The Transfer to the Hospital V5 note dated 2/21/23 at 8:15 p.m. indicated that Resident #33 went to the hospital due to a fall with a pain level of 10 on the pain scale of 0 meaning no pain and 10 meaning excruciating pain. The Health Status note dated 2/21/23 at 11:51 p.m. documented that the staff heard a loud noise in Resident #33's room at 7:45 p.m. Upon entering the room, they found Resident #33 on the floor rolling around calling for her mother. The nurse called for assistance of another nurse then assessed Resident #33. The assessment revealed that Resident #33 complained of significant pain in her left thigh/hip area. When the nurse palpated (assessment touch) the area during her assessment, Resident #33 did not respond with pain and the nurse did not notice shortness of her left leg at that time. After the staff assisted her with two people off the floor with a full-body mechanical lift and put her in her chair, she continued to complain of pain to her left thigh/hip. At 8:05 p.m. the nurse contacted the emergency room (ER) and received an order to transfer Resident #33 to the ER. The nurse contacted emergency medical services (EMS) who arrived and transported Resident #33 to the ER. The ER called the facility to notify them that Resident #33 fractured her left hip and they transferred her to another hospital. Resident #33's Falls Tool assessment dated [DATE] listed a score of 19, indicating a high risk for falls. The hospital's Discharge Documents dated 2/28/23 listed Resident #33's principal discharge diagnosis as a left intertrochanteric fracture (hip fracture) following an intramedullary nail (a type of repair in hip surgery) with a left hip hematoma (large bruise), anemia (low blood volume), and hypotension (low blood pressure). The Reason for admission indicated that Resident #33 fell at the nursing home and fractured her hip. Resident #33 did not appear lucid at the time of admission but her daughter consented to her having hip surgery. The documents included an order to for treatment of an incisional wound. The Last BM and Admit/Readmit note dated 2/28/23 at 3:10 p.m. recorded that Resident #33 went to the hospital for a left hip fracture. Resident #33 required the skilled services of a daily assessment, blood transfusion two times, and diabetes management. On 6/1/23 at 10:00 a.m. Staff M, Restorative Aide, described herself as the person responsible for checking the resident alarms in the facility. Staff M stated she put the alarms in place and check them on the 5th of each month. Staff M reported Resident #33 had an assigned motion sensor prior to her fall when she fractured her hip. Staff M reported that Resident #33 would turn around the motion sensor or put it in a drawer to prevent it from alerting the staff. Staff M stated after her fall with fracture, they decided to switch to a pressure alarm. Staff M reported that she tracked and documented the alarms on a flow sheet. On 6/1/23 at 10:17 a.m. Staff N, Certified Medication Aide (CMA), reported that Resident #33 used to have a motion sensor in her room. Staff N stated the motion sensor chimed at the nurses' desk. Staff explained that the alarm stop chiming after Resident #33 moved out of the way of the alarm. Staff N added that if staff are not at the nurses' station or in the hallway, they could not hear the chimes from the motion sensor. Staff N reported that sometimes she found the motion alarm turned towards the wall and she would correct it. Staff N explained that Resident #33 knew the purpose of the alarm. Staff N reported that Resident #33 received the pressure alarm after her fall with fracture. On 6/1/23 at 11:00 a.m. Staff I, Registered Nurse (RN)/MDS Coordinator, acknowledged and verified that Resident #33's Care Plan did not have the motion sensor added it. Staff I reported they placed the motion sensor in Resident #33's room and put the base for the motion sensor at the nurses' station. Staff I stated the motion sensor chimed at the desk while the resident is near the sensor and then it stopped chiming when she moved out of range. Staff I verified that staff could not hear the chimes if they are not close to the nurses' desk if it chimed. Staff I expressed that she hated alarms. The Weekly Monitoring of Alarms form indicated the staff checked Resident #33 pull tab alarm on 2/31/23 (2/28/23 last day in February 2023). The form lacked any documentation regarding a motion sensor for Resident #33. The Weekly Monitoring of Alarms form included a scribbled section that Resident #33 had a pull tab alarm. Above the scribble listed a chair pressure alarm. The form indicated that someone checked the alarm on 3/26/23 and changed the sensor mat on 4/5/23. The form included scratched out documentation for the battery change due date and the 5 for 4/5/23 with an 8 written above. The Fall Prevention and Management policy revised 3/29/23 listed the purpose of the policy as the following: a. To promote resident well-being by developing and implementing a fall prevention and management program b. To identify risk factors and implement interventions before a fall occurs c. To give prompt treatment after a fall occurs d. To prevent further injury e. To provide guidance for documentation. The policy directed staff after a fall to complete an Incident Report in risk management, complete a Fall Tool assessment, and update the Care Plan with any changes or new interventions. The Procedure directed the staff to not move the resident. In addition, the policy instructs to not move the resident has a suspected hip fracture. The Alarms - Bed, Chair, and Door policy revised 8/24/22 listed the Purpose of the policy as to ensure dignified and appropriate use of alarms based on the resident's condition and identify a process used to check the facility alarms. The policy further directed the Rehab or Nursing staff to check the motion sensor daily to check the alarms functionality. Staff should check the resident's condition to determine if the resident benefited from the use of an alarm. On 6/5/23 at 10:52 a.m. the DON reported that she expected the staff to assess the effectiveness of a fall intervention. If the intervention did not work, she expected them to change the intervention. On 6/5/23 at 5:15 p.m. the DON verified that she could not locate the 30-minute checks for 1/12/23. On 6/6/23 at 3:02 p.m. the DON reported that she expected the nurse to complete a Fall Risk evaluation quarterly and after a fall. 3. Resident #22's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated the Resident #22 required limited assistance of one person with dressing. She could independently move in bed, walk in her room, walk in the corridor, use the toilet, and complete her personal hygiene. Resident #22 used a walker and a wheelchair. She could stabilize herself without staff assistance but was not steady with moving from a seated to a standing position, turning around, moving on and off the toilet, and surface-to-surface transfer. Resident #22 received a scheduled pain medication in the previous five days of the lookback period. She had one fall without injury since the previous assessment. The Care Plan Focus revised 6/9/22 indicated that Resident #22 had a risk for falls related to her history of falls. The interventions directed the staff to monitor her for significant change in gait, mobility, positioning device, standing balance, sitting balance, and lower extremity joint function. On 6/1/23 at 2:10 PM observed Resident #22 in her recliner in her room. Resident #22 said that she did not have pain but she did have a lot of pain before and after her back surgery. She said that she kept getting dizzy and that's what caused her falls. The Discharge summary dated [DATE] included four diagnoses Resident #22 received treatment for in the hospital. a. Osteoporosis b. Closed fracture of multiple thoracic vertebrae c. Closed stable burst fracture of the sixth thoracic vertebra with delayed healing. d. Closed fracture of lumbar vertebra, unspecified fracture morphology, unspecified lumbar vertebral level. The Discharge Summary directed the nursing facility to schedule the Prolia injection (injection used to treat bone loss). On 6/1/23 at 3:40 PM Resident #22's Representative (RR #22) said that they got a call from the facility after her fall on 5/13 that Resident #22 had a great deal of pain. She thought the facility called her over a weekend, and they brought in a portable X-ray machine on a Monday or Tuesday. Resident #22 had surgery and then she fell again the day she went back to the facility. The Incident Note dated 5/26/23 at 11:58 PM indicated that the nurse went to Resident #22's room at 8:00 PM and found her lying on the floor by her bed on her left side. She appeared wrapped up in her bed pad and complained of pain when moved. Resident #22 had increased confusion talking about nonexistent children that she needed to find and that she had mouse traps around her bed. Resident #22 could not say what happened due to her confusion and hallucinations. Resident #22's Representative (RR #22) arrived while Resident #22 remained on the floor. She requested to have her evaluated at the hospital due to her having vertebroplasty (a procedure involving special cement injected into a fractured vertebra - with the goal of relieving spinal pain and restoring mobility) that morning. At 10:20 PM the hospital called to notify that Resident #22 would return to the facility by ambulance. They reported that she appeared alert, oriented, doing well, and walking ok. RR #22 questioned if she could have a motion alarm that night. The Neuro Check - V 4 dated 5/26/23 at 8:15 PM indicated that Resident #22 had weakness to all her extremities, confusion, and hallucination. The Neuro Check - V 4 dated 5/26/23 at 8:45 PM lacked an assessment of her eyes, hand strength, or orientation with the vital signs from the 8:15 PM assessment. The Comments section described Resident #22 as stable and the facility waited for the ambulance. On 6/5/23 at 8:06 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) said that when a fall occurred the team met to discuss the incident, but, they did not necessarily do a root cause analysis or document the meetings. On 6/6/23 at 8:11 AM the DON provided a hard copy the neurological assessments and referred to the electronic assessments that included eye assessment, hand strength and orientation. She said that she expected the staff to take a set of vitals and complete all the areas of the assessment when a resident had an unwitnessed fall.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident's current code status was available...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident's current code status was available for 1 out of 16 residents reviewed (Resident #201). Findings include: Resident #201's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] listed an admission date of [DATE] from an acute hospital. The MDS identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of renal disease, depression, arthritis, and right side back pain with sciatica. Review of the facility's Code Status Binder revealed a form titled Iowa Physician Orders Scope of Treatment (IPOST). The IPOST indicated that Resident #201 chose to have a Do Not Attempt to Resuscitate (DNR) status with comfort measures only. The IPOST documented comfort measures included the use of medications by any route, positioning, wound care, with other measures to relieve pain and suffering. Use of oxygen, suction, and manual treatment of airway obstruction as needed for comfort. No transfer to hospital for life-sustaining treatment. The form indicated that if the facility could not meet Resident #201's comfort needs Resident #201 wanted transferred. Resident #201 signed the IPOST on [DATE] and the physician signed it on [DATE]. Review of Physician Orders in the clinical record lacked documentation of the DNR order or comfort measures. On [DATE] at 12:30 p.m. Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN), reported that the facility kept a printed list of resident's code status at the medication cart. Staff F reported that the nurses would reference the list if a resident was to code (heart and respirations stop). Staff F stated the facility printed the list every couple of days and the facility printed the current list on [DATE]. Staff F verified that the current list did not included Resident #201. Staff F explained that the nurse must add the code status orders to the physician orders in the clinical record. Staff F reported the order would auto populate to the resident's face sheet and the code status list. Staff F acknowledged and verified that Resident #201's clinical record did not include her code status in the physician orders. On [DATE] at 4:00 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) verified that Resident #201's physician's orders did not include her DNR status orders in the electronic clinical record. The DON reported that she would correct it. The DON added that the facility planned to complete an audit on all the residents' charts. On [DATE] at 11:40 a.m. Staff Q, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), reported if a resident coded, she would look for code status in the clinical record or on the code status list located on the medication or treatment cart. Staff Q, reported that if the clinical record or the list did not include the resident's code status, she would look for the IPOST in the binder kept at nurses' station or in the attachments on the computer which would delay the process of starting a code. On [DATE] 11:50 a.m. Staff C, LPN, reported the first place she would look for a resident's code status is on the code status list on the medication or treatment cart. Staff C stated if the list did not include the resident she would look for the IPOST in the computer. She added that nurses' station had a binder with IPOST forms. Staff C acknowledged and verified looking for the IPOST would delay the process of starting a code. Staff C explained the person responsible for updating the code in the computer is the nurse who received the signed IPOST. The Advance Directive including Cardiopulmonary (CPR) and Automated External Defibrillator (AED) policy revised [DATE] directed the nursing staff each day to print a report of all advance directive orders and keep in a three-ring binder easily accessible to nursing staff. The policy documented this is necessary to ensure the important information is available if the facility experienced a power outage or other disruption in access to the electronic medical record. On [DATE] at 10:52 a.m. the Director of Nursing explained that she expected the nurse to enter the DNR order in the computer on admission.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to notify the family for a significant c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to notify the family for a significant change in condition for 1 of 16 residents reviewed (Residents #42) for pressure ulcers. Findings include: Resident #42's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 14, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated that Resident #42 required extensive assistance of two persons with bed mobility and toilet use. The MDS listed that Resident #42 required total dependence of two persons with transfers and could not ambulate. The MDS identified that Resident #42 had an indwelling catheter. The MDS identified Resident #42 is at risk for developing pressure ulcer and that he had an unhealed stage 2 pressure ulcer during the seven-day lookback period. The MDS included diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), obstructive uropathy, end stage renal disease, and malnutrition. The Communication - Other note on 5/3/23 at 10:27 p.m. described a new open area to Resident #42's left buttock. The nurse applied duoderm (a type of dressing) and collagen powder (wound treatment). The nurse faxed the Physician to notify them of the change. The Communication - Other note on 5/5/23 at 11:19 a.m. identified that the Physician gave orders to use collagen powder and duoderm daily. Resident #42 had an appointment with a wound nurse to evaluate area. The Health Status note on 5/19/2023 at 3:30 p.m. listed that the facility received a fax from the wound nurse with wound care recommendations. The Clinical Physician Orders included an order dated 5/19/23 for staff to apply collagen to his wound bed and cover with an adhesive foam border to his left gluteal area, cover perineal (peri-) wound area with 3M Cavilon barrier (protection from water) on bath days and as needed. The clinical record lacked documentation that the facility notified Resident #42's family of his new pressure area on 5/3/23. The clinical record lacked documentation of notification to the family of treatment orders received on 5/5/23 and/or the wound nurse's recommendations from 5/19/23. The Notification of Changes policy revised 11/29/22 directed that the facility must immediately notify the Resident's Representative when there is a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, psychosocial status, and when there is a need to alter treatment including changing or adding a new form of treatment. On 6/5/23 at 10:52 a.m., The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged and verified the facility did not notify Resident #42's family of his pressure area on 5/3/23.
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 F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and chart review the facility failed to prevent the mishandling of a resident's narcotic medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and chart review the facility failed to prevent the mishandling of a resident's narcotic medications for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #38). Findings include: Resident #38's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] listed a re-admission date of 4/19/23 from another nursing home or swing bed. The MDS identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating intact cognitive ability. The MDS listed that Resident #38 activities of daily living (ADL) only occurred once or twice in the lookback period. The Care Plan Focus revised 4/28/23 indicated that Resident #38 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related To hypertension (high blood pressure), a recent fall with a right hip fracture and repair, evidenced by the need for assistance with ADLs On 5/30/23 at 10:30 AM observed Resident #36 dressed and sitting in her recliner in her room. She said that she did not have any pain or concerns about her care. The Incident Note dated 4/12/23 at 7:59 AM indicated that Resident #38 fell. Resident #38's Representative notified that she will go to the ER for X-Rays. The Health Status Note dated 4/12/23 at 7:14 PM listed that the hospital called to notify the facility of Resident #38's admission to the hospital due to a hip fracture. The Last BM and Admit/Re-Admit Note dated 4/19/23 at 1:58 PM identified that Resident #38 returned to the facility from the hospital with an order of oxycodone (opioid pain medication) for pain. The Clinical Physician Orders included an order dated 4/19/23 at 3:30 PM for oxycodone 5 milligrams (mg) every 6 hours as needed (PRN) for pain related to a displaced fracture of the right femur. Resident #38's April 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated that she received Oxycodone HCL tablet 5 mg on 4/21/23 at 7:38 AM. Resident #38's May 2023 MAR indicated that she received Oxycodone HCL tablet 5 mg a. 5/13 at 11:52 AM b. 5/15 at 6:30 PM c. 5/16 at midnight d. 5/16 at 5:41 AM On 6/1/23 at 10:20 AM Staff I, Registered Nurse (RN), explained as she read the nurses' notes on the morning of 5/16/23, she noticed that Resident #38 had three doses of Oxycodone the day before. Staff I reported this as very unusual for her as she didn't typically have much pain. Staff I reported her concern to the Director of Nursing (DON) that Resident #38 received the PRN doses together. With Staff L, Human Resources, they viewed the facility's video tapes of the activities of the night nurse, Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). They discovered that Staff K did not interact with Resident #38 at the administration times documented for the Oxycodone. Staff I said that Staff K started as an agency staff member and only worked a total of three shifts. Of the 5 times Resident #38 received the Oxycodone, the documentation indicated Staff K gave it to her. Staff I said that on the morning of 5/16/23 she went in, asked Resident #38 how she slept, and if she had any pain. Resident #38 told her that she slept very well and did not have pain at all. On 6/1/23 at 11:50 AM Staff L provided a viewing of the facility video throughout the night of 5/15/23 from 6:00 PM until 6:00 AM on 5/16/23. At the beginning of the shift, noted Resident #38 in the dining room at 6:05 PM. Staff K did not interact with her as she sat at the table. She wheeled herself back to her room at 6:18 PM. Resident #38 did not come out of her room the entire night. At 9:00 PM Staff K went down the hallway near Resident #38's room, with the medication cart but she did not go in her room. Staff K did not go into that hallway for the rest of the night. At 5:00 AM she went down that hallway of Resident #38's room and went into a resident's room. It's unclear which room she went into. On 6/1/23 at 2:50 PM Staff G, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA), said that she worked the 10 PM - 6 AM shift on 5/15/23. She remembered that Staff K went out of the building several times throughout the night to have a cigarette. She did not notice how long she went or any unusual behavior. Staff G said that she had a couple of residents ask for Tylenol that night and Staff G gave those doses, but she did not remember anyone asking for anything stronger. On 6/5/23 at 1:11 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) provided a packet of facility policies and expectations for agency staff. She said that she had just initiated an acknowledgement sheet for the agency staff to sign that indicates that they understand and will abide by the facility policies. She did not have an acknowledgement signature from Staff K. On 6/5/23 at 9:35 AM Staff K reported that the facility had several residents with scheduled narcotics. She added that one lady and one man had PRN pain medications that she administered. She did not remember how many doses she gave or the resident's names. The Abuse and Neglect policy dated 10/13/22 instructed that the resident had a right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility record review, hospital record review, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to investigate the sudden increase of pain for a resident who received scheduled pain medication for chronic pain who used a standing lift for transfers for one of one resident reveiwed (Resident #25). Despite reports that Resident #25 had difficulty standing with the standing mechanical lift, the facility did not investigate the concern. Without investigation of the concern, the staff continued to transfer Resident #25 with the standing mechanical lift. After a change in condition, the facility sent Resident #25 to the hospital who discovered a compression fracture. Findings include: Resident #25's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated that Resident #25 required extensive assistance of two persons with bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use. In addition, she required total dependence on two persons for transfers, and extensive assistance of one person for personal hygiene. The assessment indicated that Resident #25 could not ambulate (walk) and needed one person to push her wheelchair. The MDS included diagnoses of cancer, heart failure, diabetes, depression, and a compression fracture of the spine (broken bone caused by weakness in the back). On 5/30/23 at 10:53 AM Resident #25 stated she fell out of a lift and fractured her back. She stated she went to the hospital and had a raging urinary tract infection (UTI), fluid on her heart, and a fracture in her back. In another interview the same day at 1:05 PM, the resident explained that she fell out of a standing lift, as Staff D, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), operated it. She reported that she did not have anyone else in the room when it happened. Resident #25 added that staff now use a full-body mechanical lift to transfer her. Resident #25 explained that oftentimes the staff transfer her alone when there is supposed to be two people. On her wall at the head of the bed, observed a sign that instructed to only use a nonmechanical stand-to-sit for Resident #25. The Health Status Note dated 4/16/23 at 9:00 PM indicated that Resident #25 reported that her pain management routine worked and she slept better. She added that she could get around better with her medication schedule with the Tylenol and tramadol (pain medication). The Health Status Note dated 4/18/23 at 12:54 PM written by Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN), indicated that a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) reported that Resident #25 did not stand well in the mechanical standing lift with an assist of one. The CNA described that Resident #25 pulled her arms up and bent her knees. The Health Status Note dated 4/19/23 at 1:38 AM documented by Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), that Resident #25 continued to have difficulty standing with transfers. The Health Status Note dated 4/25/23 at 6:54 AM labeled Late Entry written by Staff F indicated Resident #25 complained of shortness of breath, shallow respirations, poor eye contact, flat voice, and diminished lung sounds. Resident #25 had stable vital signs, oxygen saturation of 98% on room air, denies pain while in bed, and when up has pain of 7 of out 10 (0 no pain, 10 the most pain). The nurse encouraged Resident #25 to increase their activity. The Communication - Other Note dated 4/25/23 at 2:50 PM listed that the nurse requested a muscle relaxer per therapy recommendation. The Communication/Visit with Physician Note dated 4/25/23 at 8:30 PM labeled Late Entry detailed new orders by the provider. Resident #25 will have X-rays on the next day of the T-Spine (upper middle back), and L-Spine (middle to lower back). In addition, the provider provided an order for baclofen (muscle relaxer) one tablet three times a day as needed for back spasms. The nurse notified the family and updated the clinical record. The Health Status Note dated 4/26/23 at 11:56 AM indicated that Resident #25 had an X-ray. She continued to complain of pain with activity. The Lab/Diagnostics Note dated 4/27/23 at 5:41 AM listed that the facility received the x-ray results and faxed them to the Primary Care Provider (PCP). The Health Status Note dated 4/27/23 at 9:30 AM written by Staff F indicated that Resident #25 continued to complain of sharp pain on her left of her back radiating to the flank area (lower left side of back) without radiation to her left arm. Vital signs remain stable with an oxygen saturation of 88% (normal is 90% and above), blood pressure of 126/58, temperature of 95 (average 98.6), pulse of 88 (typical range 60-100), and respirations (typical range 12-20). As the staff assisted Resident #25 to the bath chair in the standing mechanical lift, she complained of a sharp pain in her left side of her back. Resident #25 received her scheduled Tramadol (pain medication) and Tylenol earlier in the morning. The Communication/Visit with Physician Note on 4/27/23 at 10:12 AM identified the nurse called the PCP's office to provide an update on Resident #25's condition. The Communication/Visit with Physician Note on 4/27/23 at 1:41 PM indicated that the facility received a fax from the physician that dictated that Resident #25 had chronic (long-term) degenerative changes. The physician directed to schedule an appointment with her PCP in the office unless she would not wait. The nurse updated the resident and her niece then got a bed hold agreement. The nurse provided a report to the emergency room (ER). The Health Status Note dated 4/27/23 at 1:50 PM recorded that Resident #25 went to the ER with staff in the facility van. The ED Provider Notes dated 4/27/23 at 2:37 PM listed Resident #25's chief complaint as a report of slipping from the sit-stand machine and jarred her back making her pain worse in her back around to her abdomen. Resident #25 came to the ER for an evaluation of mid back pain. She reported when in a lift the machine came down somewhat quickly and stopped. As that happened she developed immediate onset of mid back pain. Resident #25 denied extension of the pain into her legs but did feel like it came across her upper abdomen to her chest. She reports a history of chronic low back pain but explained her current pain is different. Resident #25 denied any exacerbation of her regular back pain. She tried tramadol that day with little or no relief. Resident #25 did have an X-ray the day before that had negative results of any acute fracture. The assessment revealed that Resident #25 had some tenderness at approximately T-11 on palpation (a type of touch used to assess). The Discharge instructions directed to increase her tramadol to 50 milligrams (mg) three times a day for one week and continue Tylenol. Apply ice to the affected area for 20 minutes per hour while awake for that day and the next day. If worsening or changing symptoms contact the clinic and follow-up as needed. The Final Impression list thoracic back sprain, initial encounter. The Progress Notes dated 4/29/23 at 9:29 AM indicated that Resident #25 had back pain of the thoracolumbar region for greater than six weeks. She started on a muscle relaxant and received tramadol for her pain without improvement. The etiology of the pain could be from a kidney infection, however, due to the musculoskeletal nature, regarding the full-boy mechanical lift incident in the nursing home, proceed with CT scans to rule out a compression fracture or any other potential etiology of her back pain while hospitalized . The CT Thoracic Spine without contrast dated 4/29/23 impression listed the following a. Inferior endplate fracture at the T8 b. Degenerative change of the spine. There is central canal stenosis and neurol foraminal narrowing at T10-11. c. Small effusions with bibasilar atelectasis d. Findings suggesting pulmonary edema. The Progress Notes dated 4/30/23 at 8:23 AM indicated that Resident #25 told her PCP that she had an incident at the nursing home where she fell. She described the incident as the staff tried to transfer her and pivot her standing, her legs gave out and she went down rather hard on her buttocks into the chair. She reported that she felt the worsening back pain at that time but could not remember when the incident occurred. The Communication/Visit with Physician on 5/2/23 at 3:57 AM the facility received Resident #25's X-ray results the PCP wrote that the X-rays on 4/26/23 with negative results. The X-ray results on 4/29/23 revealed a compression fracture at her T-8. The PCP questioned if Resident #25 had a fall. The nurse responded that they did not know of any falls but she did use a sit to stand with a sling. Resident #25 chicken wings (bends her arms at an upward angle) and needs to sit quickly. The Communication/Visit with Physician dated 5/2/23 at 2:21 PM indicated the PCP reviewed the X-Ray and Resident #25 remained in the hospital. The PCP wrote that Resident #25 reported that she fell at the nursing home. The PCP explained that Resident #25 had a compression fracture of her T-8. The PCP indicated that her record did not have any documented falls. On 5/31/23 at 1:35 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) reported that they did not do an investigation or report regarding resident's compression fracture findings due to the hospital discovering it. She explained that they reviewed their records and found no staff reports or documentation of a fall. On 5/31/23 at 2:45 PM Staff F reported that she did not think that she documented on 4/18 that anyone told her that Resident #25 had problems with the mechanical standing lift, and if she did, she couldn't remember. She denied remembering any incidents or concerns with Resident #25 using the stand. On 5/31/23 at 3:06 PM Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), remarked that she could not remember documenting on 4/19 that Resident #25 had difficulty with the mechanical standing lift. She reported that she did not know about any incidents with Resident #25 using the stand and complaining of back pain. When asked what she would do if that someone reported that to her, she replied that she would let therapy know, but therapy said resident did fine with the mechanical standing lift so to keep using it. On 5/31/23 at 3:20 PM Staff H, Occupational Therapist (OT), explained that that all staff received training that they could always do more for the resident, but not less. She stated if the staff or the resident felt uncomfortable using the standing mechanical lift or standing lift, they could always use a full-body mechanical lift to transfer the resident without having to call them before using it, and have the nurse notify them of the concern to address it the following day. She stated that Resident #25 did do well with the lift in therapy and that in her opinion, Resident #25 tried harder for them (therapy). She also felt that Resident #25 felt more comfortable with some staff than others. She stated that staff use chicken winging, but it can present differently from one staff member to another, such as elbows pointed out away from the body or pointing upwards like a flapping motion. On 6/1/23 at 10:30 AM Resident #25's physician from the ER explained her compression fracture was consistent with a sudden stop coming down in the lift.
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 facility record review, facility policy review, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to revise and update...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility record review, facility policy review, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to revise and update the Care Plan to address the increased needs of Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #25). Findings include: Resident #25's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated that Resident #25 required extensive assistance of two persons with bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use. In addition, she required total dependence on two persons for transfers, and extensive assistance of one person for personal hygiene. The assessment indicated that Resident #25 could not ambulate (walk) and needed one person to push her wheelchair. The MDS included diagnoses of cancer, heart failure, diabetes, depression, and a compression fracture of the spine (broken bone caused by weakness in the back). On 5/30/23 at 10:53 AM Resident #25 stated she fell out of a lift and fractured her back. She stated she went to the hospital and had a raging urinary tract infection (UTI), fluid on her heart, and a fracture in her back. In another interview the same day at 1:05 PM, the resident explained that she fell out of a standing lift, as Staff D, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), operated it. She reported that she did not have anyone else in the room when it happened. Resident #25 added that staff now use a full-body mechanical lift to transfer her. Resident #25 explained that oftentimes the staff transfer her alone when there is supposed to be two people. On her wall at the head of the bed, observed a sign that instructed to only use a nonmechanical stand-to-sit for Resident #25. The Care Plan Focus revised 6/23/22 listed that Resident #25 had a self-care deficit with ADLs due to a history of a fracture of her lower left femur. The Care Plan included the following interventions: a. Bed mobility - i. 6/23/22 - Turn from side to side with assistance of bilateral assist bars. ii. 12/7/22 - Lying to sitting: assist of one staff iii. 12/7/22 - Sitting to lying assist of one staff b.11/23/21 - Resident requires assist of one person with dressing and grooming, allow her to do what she can c. 5/26/23 - Toilet Use: Resident requires assist of one person with toileting transfers using sit to stand lift and large harness, toileting hygiene and clothing management, she is occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder. d. 5/26/23 - Transfer Between Surfaces: Transfer with sit to stand lift with large harness and assist of one staff. The Care Plan lacked revisions on bed mobility, dressing, and grooming since Resident #25's return from the hospital on 5/9/23. In addition, the Care Plan lacked documentation to show that Resident #25 transferred with the full-body mechanical lift instead of the sit to stand lift. The Care Plan - R/S, LTC, Therapy and Rehab policy revised 9/22/22 instructed to modify the plan of care to reflect the care currently required/provided for the resident. In addition, the Care Plan directed the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to review Care Plans at least quarterly. The IDT should review, evaluate, and update the Care Plan when a resident has a significant change in their condition. On 6/1/23 at 11:55 AM the Director of Nursing agreed that they should have updated the Care Plan upon return from the hospital.
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

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide care and services according to accepted standards of clinical practice for 2 of 16 residents reviewed (Residents #45 and #33). The facility failed to obtain weights as ordered by the physician for Resident #45. In addition, the facility failed to document the administration of medications, blood sugars, and bed time (HS) snacks for a diabetic resident. Findings include: 1. Resident #45's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of prostate cancer, coronary artery disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), and malnutrition. The Order Details dated 4/4/23 directed to weigh Resident #45 three times a week and report a weight loss or gain of three to five pounds. Resident #45's April 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) included an order dated 4/5/23 to weight him three times per week, then report weight loss or gain of three to five points. In the morning of every Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday. The TAR lacked documentation to indicate the staff completed the order on 4/17, 4/26, and 4/29/23. In addition, the order included documentation without a weight to see the nurses' notes for 4/8 and 4/22. The TAR included the following weights a. 164.2lbs (pounds) on 4/5/23 b. 157.6lbs on 4/10/23 c. 153.4lbs on 4/24/23 The clinical record lacked documentation that the facility notified Resident #45's Physician or family of the 6.6lb weight loss. Resident #45's May 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) included an order dated 4/5/23 to weight him three times per week. Then report weight loss or gain of three to five points. In the morning of every Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday. The TAR lacked documentation to indicate the staff completed the order on 5/6/23. In addition, the order included documentation without a weight to see the nurses' notes for 5/13, 5/15, 5/17, 5/20, and 5/27. The TAR included the following weights a. 148.8lbs on 5/1/23 b. 143.6lbs on 5/3/23 The clinical record lacked documentation that the facility notified the family of the 4.6lb weight loss between 4/24/23 and 5/1/23. In addition, the record lacked documentation that the facility notified the Physician or the family for a weight loss of 5.2lbs. The Clinical Record lacked documentation of the reason Resident #45 did not weighed for the dates listed on the MARS indicating to look at the nurses' notes. The eAdmin Record (Default Note) on 4/22/23 at 11:55 a.m. indicated that the facility did not weigh Resident #45 due to staffing. The eAdmin Record (Default Note) on 5/15/23 at 11:55 a.m. indicated that the facility did not weigh Resident #45 due to his COVID isolation. A facility policy titled Physician Orders revised 3/29/23 documented the purpose of the policy was the following: 1. Provide individualized care to each resident by obtaining appropriate, accurate and timely physicians orders. 2. Provide a procedure that facilitates the timely and accurate process of physician orders. A facility policy titled Weight and Height revised 9/22/22 documented the purpose of the policy was the following: 1. To ensure that the resident maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status regarding weight. 2. To report changes in the resident's clinical condition (significant weight change) immediately to physician and family and/or resident. 3. To accurately measure weight or height. 4. To monitor weight loss or gain in a resident 5. To monitor gradual loss of height. On 6/5/23 at 10:52 a.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) reported she expected staff to follow the physician orders. 2. Resident #33's MDS dated [DATE] assessment identified a BIMs score of score of 99, which indicating that Resident #33 could not complete the interview. The MDS identified a completed staff assessment for mental status that indicated Resident #33 had moderately impaired decision making. The MDS included diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease, malnutrition, anxiety, and depression. The Clinical Physician's Orders reviewed on 5/31/23 at 8:51 AM included the following orders: a. 4/4/23 - Give Resident #33 a HS snack to defer hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) in the morning (am). b. 5/17/23 - Inject 6 units of Humalog Injection Solution 100 units/ml (milliliter) subcutaneously at bedtime for diabetes. c. 4/30/23 - Inject 8 units of Novolog Injection Solution subcutaneously at supper for diabetes. d. 3/2/23 - Complete an accucheck (blood sugar) two times a day in the AM and HS related to type 2 diabetes. Resident #33's May 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) lacked documentation for the following medications and treatment to indicate that she received the orders based on the physician's order on the following days: 1. HS Snack - 5/25, 5/26 2. Humalog 6 units at bedtime - 5/25, 5/26 3. Novolog 8 units at supper - 5/1, 5/7, and 5/12 4. HS Accucheck - 5/25, 5/26 The Medications: Insulin Administration policy revised 4/26/23 instructed that the purpose of the policy is to administer insulin injection correctly. The policy further directed staff to document dosage, time, and site of the injection on the MAR or TAR. On 6/5/23 at 10:52 a.m. the DON reported she expected the staff to document administrations and refusals of medication and treatments.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, facility record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure residents received the necessary interventions and care consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent deterioration of a wound, heal a stage 2 pressure ulcer, and prevent the development of new ulcers for 2 of 2 residents reviewed (Residents #251 and #24). The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment identifies the definition of pressure ulcers: Stage I is an intact skin with non-blanchable redness of a localized area usually over a bony prominence. Darkly pigmented skin may not have a visible blanching; in dark skin tones it may appear with persistent blue or purple hues. Stage II is partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, without slough (dead tissue, usually cream or yellow in color). May also present as an intact or open/ruptured blister. Stage III Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible but has no bone, tendon or muscle exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. May include undermining and tunneling. Stage IV is full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle. Slough or eschar (dry, black, hard necrotic tissue). may be present on some parts of the wound bed. Often includes undermining and tunneling or eschar. Unstageable Ulcer: inability to see the wound bed. Findings include: 1. Resident #24's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 5, indicating severe cognitive deficits. Resident #24 required extensive assistance from two persons for bed mobility, toilet use, and hygiene. The MDS described Resident #24 as always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The MDS included diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, malnutrition (inadequate amount nutrition), cellulitis (red, swollen, skin infection), and gout (red, swollen, extremely pain area on the body, usually the big toe). The MDS listed that Resident #24 had a risk for pressure ulcers. The MDS identified that Resident #24 did not have pressure ulcers. On 5/31/23 at 7:47 AM observed Staff O, Certified Nurse Aides (CNA), and Staff P, CNA, provided perineal care to Resident #24. As they completed the care, his wound treatment patch came loose from the coccyx area. His right buttock wound lacked a dressing. Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), gathered supplies and provided a new treatment covering. The two areas looked open, red, and bleeding. Staff C commented that he received the same treatment for a while and it did not seem to be doing the trick. The following are a series of observations of Resident #24: a. 5/31/23 at 8:18 AM sitting in a wheel chair (WC) at the breakfast table b. 5/31/23 at 9:00 AM sitting in the commons area by the nurse's station in his WC. c. 5/31/23 at 10:03 AM sitting in his WC in the chapel. d. 5/31/23 at 10:11 AM sitting in his WC pushed up to the table in common area and sleeping in the chair. e. 5/31/23 at 10:51 AM sitting in his WC in commons area sleeping. f. 5/31/23 at 11:22 AM sitting in his WC in the commons area talking to staff. g. 5/31/23 at 11:37 AM sitting in his WC in the commons area sleeping h. 5/31/23 at 12:01 PM at the dinner table in his WC i. 5/31/23 at 12:37 PM in his WC at the lunch table with staff helping him to eat. j. 5/31/23 at 1:01 PM sitting in his WC in the commons area sleeping k. 5/31/23 at 1:48 PM lying in his bed The Care Plan Focus revised 4/5/23 identified that Resident #24 had actual skin impaired due to immobility (lack of movement) and weakness. The Care Plan included an Intervention to reposition Resident #24 at least every two hours as he allowed. The Wound Data Collection - V 2 assessment dated [DATE] at 2:42 PM identified that Resident #24 had a new open area to his coccyx that measured 2.0 centimeters (cm) by (x) 1.0 cm. The wound bed contained 100 % epithelization (the regrowth of new skin over a partial-thickness wound surface or in scar tissue forming on a full-thickness wound). The Wound Data Collection - V 2 assessment dated [DATE] at 10:18 PM indicated that Resident #24 still had an open wound on their coccyx. The assessment lacked measurements but indicated the wound margins appeared pink and it had a dressing of duoderm (a type of dressing for pressure ulcers) on it. The Wound Data Collection - V 2 assessment dated [DATE] at 10:21 AM indicated that Resident #24's open wounds continued to measure 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm. The Wound RN assessment dated [DATE] at 10:23 AM listed the open area to Resident #24's coccyx as a stage two pressure ulcer. The Healing process section recorded the wound decreased in size. The facility's modifications of interventions included repositioning, support surfaces, moisture/incontinence protection, friction/shear management, wound treatment, and pain treatment. The author documented the notification of the physician and to continue with the current plan of treatment. The Wound Data Collection - V 2 assessment dated [DATE] at 10:02 AM indicated that Resident #24's open wounds measured 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm. The wound contained 25% granulation tissue (new connective tissue and microscopic blood vessels that form on the surfaces of a wound during the healing process). The wound edges appeared pink and intact. The dressing and/or Treatment section listed a dressing of collagen and duoderm every three days and as needed. The Wound Data Collection - V 2 assessment dated [DATE] at 10:26 AM indicated that Resident #24's open wound measured 1.5 cm x 0.7 cm. The wound contained 100% epithelized tissue with pink and intact surrounding skin. The Wound RN assessment dated [DATE] at 10:26 AM indicated that Resident #24 had a healing stage 2 pressure ulcer. The Healing process section recorded the wound decreased in size. The facility's modifications of interventions included repositioning, support surfaces, nutritional, moisture/incontinence protection, friction/shear management, wound treatment, and pain treatment. The assessment directed to continue with the current plan of treatment. The Wound Data Collection - V 2 dated 5/2/23 at 1:49 PM indicated that Resident #24's coccyx open wound measured 1.5 cm x 0.7 cm. The wound contained 25% epithelial tissue and 75% granulation tissue. The wound margins appeared macerated (soft, wrinkled tissue due to moisture). The Wound Data Collection - V 2 dated 5/9/23 at 4:45 PM indicated that Resident #24's coccyx wound measure 2 cm x 0.7 cm. The wound contained 100% granulation tissue with macerated surrounding skin. The assessment indicated the wound had collagen powder and a duoderm patch. The Wound Data Collection - V 2 assessment dated [DATE] at 11:55 AM indicated that Resident #24's coccyx wound measured 3 cm x 0.3 cm. The wound contained 100% granulation tissue. The surrounding skin appeared pink and intact. The assessment indicated the wound had collagen powder and a duoderm patch. The Wound RN assessment dated [DATE] at 12:20 PM indicated that Resident #24 had a stage 2 pressure ulcer. The Healing process section recorded the wound got smaller in width. The facility's modifications of interventions included repositioning, support surfaces, nutritional, moisture/incontinence protection, friction/shear management, wound treatment, and pain treatment. The assessment directed to continue with the current plan of treatment. The Wound Data Collection - V 2 assessment dated [DATE] at 9:35 AM identified that Resident #24 had an open area to his coccyx. The wound had 75% granulation tissue. The assessment indicated the wound had collagen powder and a duoderm patch. The comments indicated that the healing appeared smaller than last seen. The Wound Data Collection - V 2 assessment dated [DATE] at 11:20 AM identified that Resident #24 had an open area to his coccyx that measured 2.7 cm x 0.2 cm. The wound had 100% granulation tissue. The assessment indicated the wound had collagen powder and a duoderm patch. The Wound Data Collection - V 2 assessment dated [DATE] at 7:46 AM identified that Resident #24 had a wound to his right buttocks that measured 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm. The assessment indicated the wound had collagen powder and a duoderm patch change every three days and as needed. The Comments section indicated his wound appeared basically closed at the time and directed that he needed repositioned more often to get off his buttocks. The Wound RN assessment dated [DATE] at 9:52 PM indicated that Resident #24 had an unstaged pressure ulcer to his buttocks. The Healing process section recorded the wound decreased in size without signs of infection. The facility's modifications of interventions included repositioning, support surfaces, nutritional, moisture/incontinence protection, friction/shear management, wound treatment, and pain treatment. The assessment directed to continue with the current plan of treatment. On 6/1/23 at 9:59 AM the Hospice Nurse explained that she had not seen Resident #24's coccyx and buttocks wounds because whenever she came to visit, he is usually in the wheelchair or in the recliner. She said that when she visited him on 5/31, she saw him in bed for the first time. She reported that many of the times she visited Resident #24, he had different staff working with him who are not familiar with him or the history of the wounds. The Hospice Nurse said they got a new treatment order for Resident #24 after Staff C told her the day before that the current treatment did not seem to work. On 6/6/23 at 8:11 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) said they encouraged the staff to put Resident #24 in bed at least once per shift. The Pressure Ulcers policy dated 2/10/23 instructed that residents with pressure ulcers will receive the necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent the development of new pressure ulcers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to complete dialysis assessments before a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to complete dialysis assessments before and after outpatient hemodialysis treatments for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #42). Finding include: Resident #42's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 14, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated that Resident #42 required extensive assistance of two persons with bed mobility and toilet use. The MDS listed that Resident #42 required total dependence of two persons with transfers and could not ambulate. The MDS identified that Resident #42 had an indwelling catheter. The MDS included diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), obstructive uropathy, end stage renal disease, and malnutrition. Resident #42 received dialysis while a resident of the facility in the last 14 days in the lookback period. The Care Plan Focus revised 5/17/23 identified Resident #42 needed hemodialysis (the process of running the blood through an external machine to rid the blood of toxins). The Interventions directed the following: a. 9/13/22 - Staff obtain vital signs before and after dialysis and obtain weight per protocol. b. 12/17/21 - Staff to monitor access to the left arm for redness, swelling, warmth or drainage and report to the health care provider as needed. c. Do not to take blood pressure in the left arm. d. 12/9/21 - Monitor/document for peripheral edema. e. 12/9/21 - Monitor/document/report to health care provider as needed (PRN) for signs and symptoms (s/s) of the following: Bleeding, hemorrhage, bacteremia, septic shock. f. 12/9/21 - Monitor/document/report to health care provider PRN for s/s of renal insufficiency: changes in level of consciousness, changes in skin turgor, oral mucosa, changes in heart and lung sounds. Resident #42's May 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR)/Treatment Administration Record (TAR) lacked direction to complete a daily assessment, a pre (before) hemodialysis assessment, or a post (after) hemodialysis assessment on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Review of May 2023 calendar listed that Resident #42 had hemodialysis appointments on 5/1/23, 5/3/23, 5/5/23, 5/8/23, 5/10/23, 5/12/23, 5/15/23, 5/17/23, 5/19/23, 5/22/23, 5/24/23, 5/26/23, 5/29/23, and 5/31/23. The clinical record lacked completed pre and post dialysis assessments for Resident #42 on 5/3/23 and 5/5/23. The following days in May 2023 included partially completed pre and post dialysis assessments for Resident #42 a. 1 - Pre-dialysis access site - no thrills/bruits documented as assessed Post-dialysis access site - no thrills/bruits documented as assessed b. 10 - Pre-dialysis access site not assessed (dressing, redness, drainage, pain/burning, thrills/bruits) Post-dialysis access site - no thrills/bruits documented as assessed c. 12 - Pre-dialysis access site - no thrills/bruits documented as assessed and resident status blank Post-dialysis access site - no thrills/bruits documented as assessed d. 15 - Incomplete post-dialysis assessment only included the vital signs with the nurse signature and date blank e. 17 - Pre-dialysis access site not assessed. Post-dialysis assessment blank f. 19 - Post-dialysis assessment blank d. 22 - Pre-dialysis resident status not assessed Post-dialysis resident status not assessed 5/24 - Pre-dialysis nurse signature and date blank Post-dialysis access site lacked documentation of the thrills/bruits, a nurse signature, and the date. 5/26 - Post-dialysis access site not assessed 5/29 - Pre-dialysis resident status and dialysis access site not assessed Post-dialysis access site - no thrills/bruits documented as assessed 5/31 - Pre-dialysis access site - no thrills/bruits documented as assessed Post-dialysis access site - no thrills/bruits documented as assessed The Clinical Record lacked an evaluation on non-dialysis days in the month of May 2023. A facility policy titled Dialysis Services revised 9/22/22 stated the purpose of the policy is to provide dialysis services to residents when necessary. On 6/5/23 at 10:52 a.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) reported that she expected the nurse to complete dialysis assessments before and after dialysis, including vital signs, the dialysis access site for bleeding, check for the thrills/bruits, and the resident's status to ensure no changes. The DON remarked that she expected the nurse to fill out the dialysis assessment form entirely. On 6/5/23 at 1:07 p.m. the DON acknowledged and verified that Resident #42 did not have completed dialysis assessments from 5/3 and 5/5.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #251's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #251's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated that Resident #251 required extensive assistance of two persons with bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene. Resident #251 required total dependence of two persons for transfers and toilet use. Resident #251 did not ambulate and used a wheelchair with the assistance of one person. The MDS included diagnoses of anemia, heart failure, pneumonia, arthritis, malnutrition, depression, respiratory failure, and morbid obesity. The Care Plan Focus revised 3/21/23 identifies that Resident #251 has a potential for impaired skin integrity related to morbid obesity and incontinence AEB the moisture area to his buttocks. The Care Plan included a Goal that Resident #251 would not have complications related to his moisture area on his buttocks and it will heal by the review date. The Intervention revised 5/23/23 directed to monitor location, size, and treatment of skin injury. Report abnormalities, failure to heal, maceration, signs or symptoms of infection to his health care provider. The Order Summary Report dated 5/31/23 included the following orders a. 2/16/21 - Moisture banter ointment twice daily (BID) as indicated to keep irritants or moisture from skin surface b. 5/19/23 - Barrier cream with zinc to buttocks BID and as needed (PRN) every morning and at bedtime for prevention. c. 5/19/23 - Calmoseptine to Resident #251's right buttock twice daily every morning and at bedtime. On 5/31/23 at 11:15 AM observed Staff A, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA), and Staff B, CNA provide Resident #251 incontinence care. Staff A removed a urine saturated brief off Resident #251. Staff A folded the brief in on itself and tossed it in the waste can. When the wet brief hit the bottom, it made a significant thud noise and the liner came off the sides of the waste can. Observed open areas to Resident #251's left upper buttock, his left, and his right posterior perineal (peri) areas. Observed two new areas to his right inner thigh. Staff B stated she needed to notify Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), and paged her on the radio. The clinical record review completed on 6/1/23 at 7:30 AM lacked documentation of new wounds to Resident #251's right inner thigh, notification to the physician, or new treatment orders. On 6/1/23 at 11:55 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) reported she thought Resident #251's chart included documentation. She reviewed the medical record, but could not find anything. The DON went to find Staff C. On return, the DON stated that Staff C told her that she looked at the area. She noted it appeared red and excoriated but it did not have open areas. After the interview, the DON went and inspected Resident #251's inner thighs. The DON initially looked on the left inner thigh and reported that she did not see anything. After learning that Resident #251's area appeared on the right side, she verified the area as red and excoriated. When instructed to look further in and she agreed that Resident #251 did have an open area. She told Resident #251 that she would need to come back to measure it. The DON confirmed the nurse should have documented the area. The Skin Assessment Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Documentation Requirements - Rehab/Skilled revised 4/26/23 listed the Purpose as to accurately document observations and assessments of residents. The Policy directed that an in-service for nursing and other disciplines would occur as necessary related to the instruction on accurate documentation. The section labeled Documentation listed the following assessments (UDA) to document a new skin concern: a. Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk UDA b. Positioning Assessment and Evaluation UDA c. Skin Observation UDA d. Wound Data Collection UDA e. Wound RN Assessment UDA Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a complete and accurate medical record for 2 of 16 residents reviewed (Residents #45 and #251). After Resident #45 fell, their clinical record lacked a progress note related to the incident. During incontinence cares, the facility staff observed open areas to Resident #251. After reporting the concerns to the nurse, the clinical record lacked documentation of his open areas. Findings include: Resident #45's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. Resident #45 required limited assistance of one person with bed mobility, transfers, and ambulation in his room. The MDS indicated that he required extensive assistance of one person with toilet use. The MDS included diagnoses of prostate cancer, coronary artery disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), and malnutrition. The Incident Report dated 4/21/23 at 2:00 p.m. listed that Resident #45 fell due to one of his brakes not working. Resident #45's clinical record lacked documentation related to his fall on 4/21/23, including an assessment following the fall. On 6/5/23 at 10:52 a.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) reported that she expected the staff to document a fall in the resident's progress notes. The Fall Prevention and Management - Rehab/Skilled, Therapy and Rehab policy revised 3/29/23 indicated the Purpose of the policy to provide guidance for documentation. The Procedure instructed that if a fall occurred unwitnessed, the facility requires the nurse to do neurological checks and document them in the medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility failed to follow hand hygiene and gloving practices consistent with accepted standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #45) while providing catheter care. Findings include: Resident #45's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. Resident #45 required limited assistance of one person with bed mobility, transfers, and ambulation in his room. The MDS indicated that he required extensive assistance of one person with toilet use. The MDS listed that Resident #45 had an indwelling catheter. The MDS included diagnoses of prostate cancer, obstructive uropathy (obstructed urinary flow), and a urinary tract infection (UTI) in the last 30 days. The Care Plan Focus revised 3/17/23 indicated that Resident #45 had a suprapubic catheter (a tube through the stomach that drains urine into a bag outside the body) due to prostate cancer and uropathy. The Care Plan Interventions dated 4/1/22 directed the staff to: a. Perform catheter care every shift and as needed. b. Monitor for signs and symptoms of a UTI. The Transfer to Hospital V5 note dated 3/25/23 at 1:15 p.m. indicated the provider returned the facility's call and directed to send Resident #45 to the emergency room (ER) for an evaluation. At 1:15 p.m. the nurse spoke with the ER nurse who reported that they admitted Resident #45 to the hospital for a UTI. The eAdmin Record (Default Note) dated 4/4/23 at 11:15 AM recorded that Resident #45 returned to the facility from the hospital. On 5/31/23 at 10:54 a.m. observed Staff R, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), complete catheter care for Resident #45. Staff R completed hand hygiene and applied a pair of gloves. Staff R assisted Resident #45 with pulling down his pants and his brief by rolling him back and forth in bed. While wearing the same gloves, Staff R removed a wipe from the container on the bedside table, then cleansed the catheter tubing and the suprapubic site with the wipe. Observed a small amount of dried brown drainage around the suprapubic catheter site. Staff R changed their gloves in the bathroom, then removed a new wipe and cleaned the suprapubic site again to make sure to remove all the dried drainage. Staff R removed their gloves, applied a cleansing cream (non-rinse) and applied new pair of gloves. Staff R opened the bedside drawer and took out a package of four by four (4x4) gauze, opened the package, applied one 4x4 to the suprapubic site, and secured it with a piece of tape. Staff R while wearing the same pair of gloves turned Resident #45 back and forth to pull up his pants. Staff R reported the Cleansing Cream as a quick way to clean his hands. On 5/31/23 at 11:15 a.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that she expected staff to change their gloves after turning the resident and before doing catheter care. The DON reported that she expected the staff to use hand sanitizer or wash their hands when changing their gloves, not the cleansing cream. The DON added that she expected the nurses to apply the dressing to the suprapubic site. On 5/31/23 at 6:06 p.m., the DON reported the facility did not have a gloving policy. The Hand Hygiene policy revised 3/29/22 listed the purpose of the policy as the following: a. To define terms related to hand hygiene b. To guide compliance for hand hygiene with the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization's Moment of Hand Hygiene recommendations. c. To establish hand hygiene as the single most important factor in preventing the spread of disease-causing organisms to patients and personnel in health care settings. d. To provide guidance regarding lotion use, glove use, and fingernail care. The policy directed health care workers to use alcohol-based hand sanitizer or soap and water to clean their hands: a. When entering a resident's room. b. If using gloves to perform a clean/aseptic procedure, staff must complete hand hygiene before applying gloves. c. After removing their gloves regardless of the task completed. d. After contact with the patient's non-intact skin, wound dressings, secretions, excretions, and mucous membranes. e. When moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care. f. When entering healthcare zone (supply drawers, linen drawers, or cupboards) g. When exiting a resident's room. The policy instructed to change gloves when moving from a dirty to clean or sterile activity while performing hand hygiene in between changing gloves.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of the facility schedule and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty for 8 hours a day, 7 days per week. The facility reported a census of 49 resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility schedule and staff interviews, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty for 8 hours a day, 7 days per week. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings included: The review of the facility's April 2023 nursing staff schedule lacked a RN on duty for 8 hours on the following days: a. 4/29/23 b. 4/30/23 The review of the facility's May 2023 nursing staff schedule lacked a RN on duty for 8 hours on the following days: a. 5/6/23 b. 5/20/23 c. 5/27/23 d. 5/28/23 On 6/1/23 at 6:45 AM, Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), reported the facility did not have eight hours of RN coverage on the weekends. On 6/1/23 at 12:14 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON), confirmed that the facility lacked RN coverage on the dates listed. The DON acknowledged that she expected the facility to have 8 hours of RN coverage every day. The facility failed to provide a policy related to RN staffing requirements.
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations interviews and record review the facility failed to destroy and have an accurate account for discontinued ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations interviews and record review the facility failed to destroy and have an accurate account for discontinued narcotic medications for 2 of 2 residents reviewed (Residents #25 and #101). Resident #25 and Resident #101 had their narcotic medications discontinued but the pills remained in the medication storage room and the medication cart. Findings include: 1. Resident #25's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Resident #25 required total dependence for transfers with help of 2 persons. The MDS indicated that Resident #25 received no opioids in the previous seven days of the lookback period. The Care Plan Focus revised 6/23/22 indicated that Resident #25 had chronic pain and discomfort related to a history of a fractured ankle and arthritis as evidenced by (AEB) her experiencing pain at times. The Interventions directed a Black Box Warning related to Tramadol due to a risk of medication errors. The information continued to direct the Health care providers to counsel patients and/or their caregivers, with every prescription, on safe use, serious risks, storage, and disposal of these products. The Clinical Physician Orders reviewed on 6/5/23 at 10:28 AM included a discontinued order dated 5/9/23 for tramadol 50 milligrams (mg) one tablet every morning and at bedtime related to left knee pain. Resident #25's Individual Narcotics Record related to tramadol 50 MG listed the last count on 5/12/23 of 30 pills. An observation on 5/30/23 of the medication storage room revealed 30 tabs of Resident #25's discontinued tramadol 50 MG. 2. Resident #101's MDS assessment dated [DATE] listed an admission date of 5/1/23 from an acute hospital. The MDS identified a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated that Resident #101 required limited assistance from one person for transfers and walking. The MDS described Resident #101 as in constant pain. The MDS indicated that Resident #101 did not receive an opioid in the previous seven days of the lookback period. Resident #101's Census listed that he admitted to hospice services on 5/27/23 and discharge from the facility on . The Care Plan Focus dated 5/1/23 indicated that Resident #101 had acute and chronic pain related to prostate cancer AEB the use of pain medications and verbal complaints of pain. The Interventions included a Black Box Warning for Oxycodone due to addiction, abuse, and misuse. The information continued to direct the Health care providers to counsel patients and/or their caregivers, with every prescription, on safe use, serious risks, storage, and disposal of these products. The Clinical Physician Orders reviewed on 6/5/23 at 10:42 AM included an order discontinued on 5/27/23 for oxycodone 5 MG three times a day related to malignant neoplasm (cancer). Resident #101's Individual Narcotic Record listed a count of 56 tabs of oxycodone in the medication storage room prescribed to Resident #101. The form indicated that on 5/25/23, the facility moved 10 pills from the medication room to the medication cart. The last entry on 5/27/23, identified 8 tablets left in the medication cart drawer. On 6/1/23 at 8:39 AM observed Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), looked through the cassettes of narcotics. She reported that she did not see Resident #101's oxycodone. She explained that he had red cassettes due to him receiving hospice services. Upon a second inspection, Staff C found his left-over oxycodone in blue cassettes due to the discontinuation of the order before his admission to Hospice. The observation confirmed that Resident #101 had 56 tablets in the medication storage room and 8 tablets in a cassette still in the medication cart. On 6/6/23 at 8:11 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) said that the pharmacy recommended that they keep discontinued medications for 10 days before destroying them just in case the provider reordered the medications. On 6/06/23 at 2:14 PM the Pharmacist explained that he was working on a policy regarding the storage and holding of scheduled medication. He said that the intended situation of holding onto scheduled medications for 10 days related to the following instances: a. If the resident did not use an as-needed (PRN) medication for 10 days they could consider destroying the pills. b. If a certain medication did not work and the resident started a new trial on a different medication, the facility could hold the initial medication for 10 days. In case the other option did not work and they could restart the initial one. The intent of storing medications for 10 days did not include discontinued scheduled medications. The Medications: Controlled policy revised 12/5/22 direct to follow the state regulations for the disposition and destruction of medications. All discontinued schedule II-controlled medications must be in a locked box in the medication room as soon as they get discontinued. The facility should continue to count the controlled medications with two nurses until the medication is disposed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to serve hot food to residents in their rooms. The facility reported a census of 48 residents. Findings include: On 5/31/23 at...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, resident, and staff interviews the facility failed to serve hot food to residents in their rooms. The facility reported a census of 48 residents. Findings include: On 5/31/23 at 11:34 AM observed the [NAME] check the temperature of the food on steam table within appropriate temperatures. After serving the dining room residents, the [NAME] prepared the room trays. On 5/31/23 at 12:43 PM observed 10 resident room trays and an extra tray placed in an enclosed food carrier. Someone immediately paged to notify the staff that South room trays were ready. On 5/31/23 at 12:46 PM witnessed three room trays ready for the [NAME] Hall. The staff paged that the [NAME] Hall trays were ready. Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), retrieved the [NAME] food cart and deliver the three trays. On 5/31/23 at 1:00 PM watched Staff A take the South cart from the kitchen. Staff A served the final room tray at 1:15 PM. Observed Staff A take the temperature of the extra tray. The temperature measured 111 degrees Fahrenheit. On 6/1/23 at 11:55 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) agreed that they may need to look at getting another type of carrier. The DON reported that she expected the residents to receive hot food.
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

  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • 36 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $25,448 in fines. Higher than 94% of Iowa facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (30/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 30/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Salem Lutheran Home's CMS Rating?

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

How is Salem Lutheran Home Staffed?

CMS rates Salem Lutheran Home's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 67%, which is 20 percentage points above the Iowa average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 90%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Salem Lutheran Home?

State health inspectors documented 36 deficiencies at Salem Lutheran Home during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 34 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Salem Lutheran Home?

Salem Lutheran Home is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 64 certified beds and approximately 50 residents (about 78% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ELK HORN, Iowa.

How Does Salem Lutheran Home Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, Salem Lutheran Home's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (67%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Salem Lutheran Home?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Salem Lutheran Home Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Salem Lutheran Home 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 2-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 Salem Lutheran Home Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Salem Lutheran Home is high. At 67%, the facility is 20 percentage points above the Iowa average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 90%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Salem Lutheran Home Ever Fined?

Salem Lutheran Home has been fined $25,448 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Iowa average of $33,333. 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 Salem Lutheran Home on Any Federal Watch List?

Salem Lutheran Home 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.