Exira Care Center

411 South Carthage, Exira, IA 50076 (712) 268-5393
Non profit - Corporation 60 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
51/100
#186 of 392 in IA
Last Inspection: August 2025

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

Overview

Exira Care Center has received a Trust Grade of C, indicating it is average and in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #186 out of 392 facilities in Iowa, placing it in the top half, and is #2 out of 2 in Audubon County, meaning there is only one local option that ranks higher. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 3 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is relatively stable with a turnover rate of 37%, which is better than the state average of 44%, but it offers less RN coverage than 97% of Iowa facilities, raising concerns about the level of nursing oversight. There have been some serious issues; for example, one resident was able to leave the building unnoticed, and there were failures to provide adequate emergency water supplies and proper diabetic diets for several residents. Overall, while there are some staffing strengths, the facility has critical areas needing improvement.

Trust Score
C
51/100
In Iowa
#186/392
Top 47%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
37% turnover. Near Iowa's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$22,880 in fines. Higher than 53% of Iowa facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Iowa. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (37%)

    11 points below Iowa average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Iowa average (3.1)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 37%

Near Iowa avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $22,880

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Aug 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews and clinical record review the facility failed to adequately supervise residents in the l...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews and clinical record review the facility failed to adequately supervise residents in the locked Chronic Confusion or Dementing Illness (CCDI) unit for 1 of 6 residents. The facility reported a census of 44 residents. Findings include: According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #30 was severely cognitively impaired and had delusions. She used a walker and required supervision for transfers and toileting. Her diagnoses included: cerebrovascular accident (CVA), dementia and asthma. The Care Plan for Resident #30, updated on 6/18/25, showed that she had self-care deficits, secondary to chronic confusion and dementia. The resident was an elopement risk, disoriented to place and wandered aimlessly. Staff were to distract the resident from wandering and offer diversions. Resident #30 had communication problems, was rarely understood, and was at risk for falls related to altered mobility and unsteady gait. She had poor safety awareness. Staff were directed to anticipate and meet her needs. The following documentation was found in the Nursing Progress Notes: On 6/24/25 at 2:31 PM, the resident was hitting staff with a hanger, her dementia with behaviors was getting more frequent and severe. On 6/16/25 at 7:30 AM, Resident #30 was found sitting on her bottom in her room. She said she was trying to get dressed for the day. On 7/28/25 at 6:30 AM, the resident was found sitting on the floor in her room. On 7/22/25 at 9:28 PM, the resident was combative towards staff and other residents. On 8/04/2025 at 1:13 PM, observed a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) assist Resident #30 to walk around the CCDI unit. The resident was agitated and insisted on the full attention of the staff member. On 8/05/2025 at 6:26 AM, upon entry into the CCDI unit, 2 residents were sitting in chairs by the television. The door to the nurse's station was open, there was a purse, some papers and sanitizer on the counter. There were no staff members in the area. One resident in a recliner had her eyes closed as she fidgeted with her blanket. One resident was sitting in a high-back chair with her legs resting on the seat of a walker. Resident #30 then walked out of her room with her walker. She was wearing pajamas and had shoes on her feet. She said: I don't know where my family is then asked: do you remember where I sit? She then walked closer to another resident and said: I was thinking of my mother, she's coming? Resident #30 said that her back hurt and she wanted to sit down. At 6:36 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) came in the door with the treatment cart. The DON said that Staff H was the CNA for the morning and that she was probably in a room giving a resident a shower. At 6:43 AM Staff H came out of the resident's room to the common's area. On 8/05/2025 at 9:53 AM, Staff H said that she usually tried to get the showers done before the other residents got out of bed. She said that one of them had been in the chair by the TV before she started showering another resident. She agreed that Resident #30 tended to get easily agitated and she needed close supervision. On 8/06/2025 at 11:59 AM, the DON agreed that it was a problem to leave residents unattended in the CCDI Unit. She said that going forward, they have arranged for a bath aide to come over to the unit to do the baths and showers to ensure that proper supervision. The DON agreed that Resident #30 was unpredictable and needed supervision. A facility policy dated 11/1/24, showed that there would be at least one member of the nursing staff on the unit at all times. Other staffing would be provided according to the needs of the residents on the unit at a given time. One CNA with appropriate CCDI training would be on the unit at all times.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews and clinical record review the facility failed to provide adequate urinary catheter care for 2 of 2 residents reviewed. Resident #1 had chronic urinary tract infections and staff failed to monitor his output as ordered. Resident #28 had an order to not insert more than 10 milliliters (ml) of fluid in the catheter balloon. Staff failed to transcribe the specific order and administered fluid according to the catheter package. The facility reported a census of 44 residents.Findings include: 1. According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #28 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8 (moderate cognitive deficit). He required partial assistance with toileting, transfers, and dressing. The resident had an indwelling catheter and diagnoses that included: coronary artery disease, dementia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH), retention of urine and edema. The Care Plan, updated on 6/5/25, showed that Resident #28 had self-care performance deficit related to dementia. He was at risk for infection related to a suprapubic urinary catheter. Staff were to monitor and document output each shift, and to observe for signs and symptoms of urinary tract infections such as pain, burning, blood tinged urine, cloudiness, no output, and deepening of urine color. According to the orders tab, Resident #28 had a Physician's Order, dated 2/27/24 at 2:00 PM, to document urinary output every shift. A Transfer Report from the primary physician dated 6/5/25, showed that on that date, the doctor place a new 24 French catheter and directed staff to not put more than 10ml in the balloon. The doctor had removed 22ml in the balloon at the appointment, and indicated that if the catheter continued to leak, he will need bladder Botox injections. The catheter order entered in the electronic record on 6/5/25 at 12:36 PM lacked direction on the amount of fluid to insert into the balloon. On 8/05/25 at 7:06 AM, Staff D, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) said that they documented all output for urinary catheters and reported to the nurses at the end of each shift. On 8/05/25 at 8:06 AM, Resident #28 was in the recliner and said they preferred to sleep in the chair because the bed was not very comfortable. Staff D and Staff C, CNA prepared to get him cleaned up and dressed for the day. The resident was wearing a brief that was heavily soiled and he said that he did have some leaking from his catheter. Further inspection of the catheter site revealed that there was blood at and around the catheter site. Staff C said that they would notify the nurse. On 8/05/25 at 9:57 AM, Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN) said that if there wasn't an order for how much fluid to put in the catheter balloon, she would call the doctor for clarification or she would go by the amount on the catheter bag. She pulled a 24 French catheter from the shelve and demonstrated that it said to use 30 ml.A review of the nursing notes on 8/06/25 at 9:54 AM, showed that the most recent progress note was dated 7/21/25 at 3:31 PM. The chart lacked documentation that the nurse had assessed the issue or that it had been addressed. On 8/6/25 at 9:55 AM Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) said that she was not aware that the catheter site was sore and it was not passed on in report. On 8/6/25 at 9:32 AM, Staff A, LPN She said that the CNA's would come and tell the nurses per shift of the catheter output. She acknowledged that it didn't always get done, or the CNA's would forget to let the nurse know. On 8/06/25 at 10:24 AM, Staff E, LPN said if there was nothing specified on the order for amount to put in the catheter bulb, she would go with whatever was on the package. She said that the CNA's have been getting better about telling them the output but they need a better process that was consistent so they had accurate information. According to the Medication Administration/Treatment Administration (MAR/TAR) for Resident #28, in the month of May, there was no output documented on 7 days. The June MAR/TAR showed no output on 2 days, and the July MAR/TAR showed no output documented on 4 days. 2. The MDS dated [DATE], showed that Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 14 (intact cognitive ability). The resident was totally dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, dressing and transfers. He had an indwelling catheter, and his diagnoses included: atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) and septicemia, The Care Plan for Resident #1, reviewed on 7/7/25, showed that the resident used antidepressant medication and was on diuretic therapy, staff were to administer medications as ordered. The resident had a cerebral vascular accident (CVA), chronic pain, and was at risk for complications related to diabetes mellitus. Staff were to observe and monitor for side effects. Resident #1 had an indwelling catheter related to urinary retention, staff were to monitor and document intake and output as pre facility policy. On 8/04/25 at 1:16 PM, Resident #1 was in his bed. There was a catheter tube draped down the side of the bed and the bag rested in a tub on the floor. The resident said that earlier in the summer, he had been very sick with a urinary tract infection and sepsis. A review of the record revealed an order dated 5/12/25 at 11:14 AM, to record output every shift. The MAR/TAR for July for Resident #1 showed that on 5 days there was no urine output. On 8/06/25 at 12:13 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) said that she was aware that output for catheters had not been getting monitored as it should. She was not aware that Resident #28 had a specific order for no more than 10ml in the bulb of catheter, and said this should have been entered along with the order. The DON said that the nurses would enter notes when there were any new issues. She acknowledged that the blood around the catheter site for Resident #28, on 8/6/25 should have been noted and addressed. The DON said that given the history of urinary tract infections and sepsis for Resident #1, it was important for staff to be aware of his daily output. An undated facility policy titled: Urinary Drainage Bag-Closed, showed that staff were to record the output in the medical record and to report if there was any change in odor, color, consistency, blood, mucous or leaking bag.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, document review, resident interview, and staff interviews the facility failed to consistently monitor meal intakes for residents for sufficient nutrition to maintain proper weight for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #6). The facility reported a census of 44 residents. Findings include:Review of Resident #6's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating intact cognition. The MDS further revealed diagnoses of stroke, hyponatremia (low sodium levels in the blood), non-Alzheimer's dementia, and hemiplegia (paralysis or severe weakness on one side of the body).Interview 8/04/25 at 11:23 AM with Resident #6 revealed that she has lost some weight, and that she is on a mechanical soft diet. Resident #6 further revealed that she is on a supplement as well. Review of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) for Resident #6 revealed on 1/12/25 Resident #6 weighed 147 pounds. On 7/27/25 Resident #6 weighed 133 pounds which is a -9.52% Loss.Further review of the EHR page titled, Clinical Physician's Orders revealed an order for a regular diet with mechanical soft texture. Further review revealed an order dated 6/17/25 for house nourishment with protein powder TID (three times a day) with meals and ice cream related to weight loss. Follow up interview 8/05/25 at 11:47 AM with Resident #6 revealed that she did not want to eat breakfast this morning. Resident #6 then revealed that she just isn't that hungry anymore, and does not require that much food. Resident #6 revealed that she does eat her ice cream, and she isn't starving. Interview 8/05/25 at 11:45 AM Interview with Staff G Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) revealed that staff are to document the intakes of residents on a paper in the staff charting room. Staff G then provided the documentation book for the meal intakes. Review of a facility provided document with a date of July 2025 revealed documentation for the intakes of meals and supplements for Resident #6. Review of this document noted intakes for meals and supplements on 9 of the 31 days, with nothing charted on the supper meals or supplements except for one day during the month of July. Review of another facility provided document with a date of August 2025 revealed documentation for the intakes of meals and supplement for Resident #6. Review of this document revealed no documentation on the 1st of August for meal intakes of supplement intake. The document further revealed no documentation for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th supper entries. Review of the EHR page titled, Progress Notes revealed an entry dated 6/17/25 entered by the contract dietician that Resident #6 had a weight warning. The entry revealed a weight of 136 pounds on 6/13/25. The entry indicates weight loss is 8.7% in the last 90 days, and that Resident #6 remains on a mechanical soft diet plus house nourishment with extra protein powder three times a day at meals. The entry further revealed that the writer would alert the primary care provider to the weight loss, and would add ice cream to the house nourishment. Further review of the progress notes revealed an entry from the contract dietician on 6/26/25 that Resident #6 had a weight of 130 pounds on 6/23/25 with a weight loss of 6 pounds in the past 10 days with an overall loss of 7.8% in the last 30 days. Another entry dated 7/10/25 revealed a current weight of 133 pounds and Resident #6 was up 3 pounds since the provider notification of loss. The note further indicated that meal intake is around 50% with frequent refusal of meals and supplements. Interview 8/05/25 at 1:18 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) revealed that meal intakes should be documented to monitor. The ADON revealed that documenting is a requirement. Interview 08/06/25 at 9:40 AM with the Administrator revealed the facility doesn't have a policy related to monitoring meal intakes. Interview 8/06/25 10:00 AM with the dietician revealed that she would expect meal intakes to be monitored, and charted so as to be able to effectively communicate with the physician for residents with weight loss.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately document resident medication administration for 2 of 13 residents (Resident #1 and #2). The paper Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Residents #1 and #2 showed many days blanks, indicating that the medications had not been given. The facility reported a census of 44 residents. Findings include: 1) The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed that Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 (intact cognitive ability). The resident was totally dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, dressing and transfers. He had an indwelling catheter, diagnoses included: atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) septicemia.The Care Plan, last reviewed on 7/7/25, showed that Resident #1 used antidepressant medication and was on diuretic therapy. Staff were to administer medication as ordered by the physician. The resident was at risk for complications related to diabetes mellitus and congestive heart failure. A review of the April 2025 MAR for Resident #1 revealed that on April 18th and 19th the chart lacked documentation of administration of 16 different morning medications. 2) According to the MDS dated [DATE], Resident #2 had a BIMS score of 3 (severe cognitive deficits). He required substantial assistance for dressing, and was totally dependent for transfers. Resident #2 was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder and his diagnoses included: cancer, anemia, hypertrophy of kidney, macular degeneration and arthritis. The Care Plan updated on 6/26/25, showed that Resident #2 was on antidepressant and antianxiety medication, staff were to observe for and report indications of adverse effects. The resident was on hospice services related to end stage disease. Review of the MAR/TAR for Resident #2 for the month of May 2025, showed that on the 19th, 20th, and 21st, 10 different morning medications had not been given. The chart lacked explanation of the missing documentation. On 8/6/25 at 9:32 AM, Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) acknowledged that the medication documentation was not always accurate. She said she could not be sure, but she thought it was a documentation problem and the medications were given. Staff A said that the cassettes with the pills have a day of the week on them so if a day was missed, they would know because the pills would still be in the cassette. On 8/06/25 at 12:08 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) said that they became aware that some of the documentation was not being completed so they did an audit in June. They were in communication with the pharmacy to ensure that the medications were actually being given and it was a documentation issue, she said that the cassettes went back to the pharmacy weekly and the pharmacy reported that they didn't have unexplained left-over pills. They have addressed the issue with the nurses that they identified that have missed documentation. According to the facility staff education for Medication Administration Monitoring Tool, the expectation was that medication would be charted immediately after administration.
Nov 2024 3 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, clinical record review, facility document review, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to supervise a cognitively impaired resident. Sta...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, clinical record review, facility document review, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to supervise a cognitively impaired resident. Staff were unaware Resident #1 left the building on 10/31/24. Staff last saw Resident #1 at approximately 12:45 PM. The door alarm sounded at 1:01 PM, staff responded, took approximately 5 steps outside, did not see anyone, walked back in the facility, disarmed the door alarm and went back to work. At 1:30 PM a different staff member came into the back-parking lot, saw a car backed up against the curb and was blocking the parking lot. Staff realized it was Resident #1 in the driver's seat with the car running and the doors locked. The responding staff member failed to do a thorough check around the facility, failed to notify nursing staff that she did not see anyone, and failed to initiate a head count to ensure all residents were accounted for. The facility reported a census of 38 residents. On 11/7/24 at 4:20 PM the State Survey Agency informed the facility of the staff's failure to supervise a cognitive impaired resident creating an Immediate Jeopardy situation resulting in the resident leaving the building unattended, without the staff's knowledge on October 31, 2024. The facility staff removed the immediacy on November 4, 2024 when the staff implemented the following Corrective Actions: a) On 10/31/24 immediate education and coaching with staff on the facility's door alarm response procedure. b) On 10/31/24 all door alarms and wander guard alarms were checked for proper functioning. c) On 11/1/24 elopement drills were completed successfully. d) On 11/4/24 staff completed door response education. The facility updated the wandering assessment in their Electronic Health Record (EHR) to be completed on admission, 72 hours after admission and quarterly. e) Elopement drills will continue every quarter, alternating shifts for three quarters and reviewed at Quality Assurance (QA) meetings. If the drill is not successfully completed, they will increase the frequency to weekly. The scope lowered from a J to a D at the time of the survey after ensuring the facility implemented education about their policy and procedure with missing resident exercises. Findings include: On 11/7/24 at 11:32 AM Resident #1 sat at the dining room table with her peers. A wanderguard alarm was visible on her left ankle. At 2:13 PM pushed the 200 hall exit door egress bar. An alarm sounded at the door and increased in sound once the door was opened. Once outside and the door closed, the alarm still sounded. At 2:14 PM staff walked outside, surveyed the area and located the surveyor around the corner of the building. The alarm sounded until staff returned inside and deactivated the alarm. Once out the exit door, a sidewalk led to the street with a wheelchair accessible portion on the sidewalk. There is a parking lot once across the street. The area is flat and visible once around a small curve in the roadway. According to a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of 10/9/24 Resident #1 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8. A BIMS score of 8 suggested mild cognitive impairment. Resident #1 had experienced hallucinations and delusions due the review period. The MDS documented she wandered 1 to 3 days during the review period. Resident #1 had no upper or lower extremity impairments, she utilized a walker and wheelchair for mobility. Resident #1 required supervision or touching assistance when going from a sitting to standing position. She was independent when ambulating. The MDS documented she did not utilize a wander/elopement alarm. The following diagnoses were listed for Resident #1: moderate dementia with psychotic disturbance, heart failure, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorder, depression, spinal stenosis, and repeated falls. The Care Plan Focus Area documented Resident #1 had poor safety awareness and dementia that could lead to wandering. The Focus Areas included a hand written note dated 9/4/24 this area was met and will be continued. The care plan documented wanderguard in the intervention/tasks section of the care plan. The care plan lacked interventions for staff to attempt when she is wandering and/or exit seeking. The care plan lacked documentation about her elopement as well. The Progress Notes documented the following for Resident #1: a) On 9/17/24 at 1:26 PM resident left the facility with her daughter for a hair appointment. b) On 10/7/24 at 1:30 PM resident returned to the facility with hospice orders but family stated they are still undecided. c) On 10/9/24 at 11:12 AM hospice at the facility and spoke with family and resident to admit to hospice care. d) On 10/13/24 at 5:36 AM hospice notified due to resident continuing to have severe back pain and her Fentanyl patch is not effective yet for pain control. e) On 10/14/24 at 10:05 AM the resident had some delirium and being off before her hospitalization. Resident #1 still sees little kids in her room but does not say anything because they will think she is crazy. She does still look for her husband occasionally, will pack up her belongings because she believes she is going home soon. She does make delusional statements frequently and wanders prior to her hospital stay. f) On 10/31/24 at 3:01 PM the resident has been extremely confused today (more than normal). Told this nurse that she started her period and wasn't prepared. Her adult brief was checked and there was no sign of blood, she was given a pad insert. After lunch she stated she needed to go to 4H and had already been there this morning. She stated she needed to find her car, wandered down another hallway, eventually opened the exit door and went out into the parking lot. She walked over to a staff's parked car and got inside. The door alarms sounded, staff found Resident #1 in the car and brought her back into the facility. Vital signs completed, no injuries noted, she will be an assist of one moving forward. Her family, hospice, and primary care provided (PCP) were notified. g) On 11/1/24 at 11:36 AM resident was less confused today, came out for breakfast meals, took her medications. No wandering noted, a urine sample was collected. h) On 11/2/24 at 9:27 PM had increased wandering throughout the facility this evening. She looked to be exit seeking. When asked what she was doing, she stated her husband was waiting in the car for her. She then continued to walk down hall one. An hour later, she was found pacing the hallway again, this time she stated my mother is coming to get me. After some convincing from the aides, she went back to her room. Resident is experiencing increased confusion and is becoming irritable. Will continue to monitor. i) On 11/3/24 at 1:22 PM resident has been having increase confusion the past couple of weeks (more than she normally is). Starting to revert back in time, looking for husband, etc. A urine sample was obtained but it showed no Urinary Tract Infection. Staff and family wondered if the Fentanyl patch could be a cause or her dementia is worsening. j) On 11/4/24 at 2:10 AM staff went to check on resident and resident's refrigerator was unplugged and moved away from the wall, everything was out of the closet and in a laundry basket, hangers were all over the floor and resident had bed covered with things, resident had taken the string out of her jacket and knotted it around a bunch of hangers. k) On 11/5/24 at 2:30 PM she was wandering in hall one with a plant, a vase of flowers and a handful of clothes hangers in her arms, saying she was moving across the hall to #109. Redirected her back to her room where she had taken all of her clothes out of closet and had them folded in piles. Advised her to sit in her recliner and rest for a while. She was wandering without walker or cane. Stated her back was hurting she was given Tylenol for pain. The facility's investigation contained the following interviews and summary: a) On 11/5/24 Staff B wrote she witnessed Resident #1 sitting, resting at the top of the 200 hall at 12:45 PM on 10/31/24. She stated she was resting when asked if she needed help. b) An undated note from Staff A Non-Certified Aide documented at 1:30 PM she came into the back parking lot and saw a car tire was backed up against the curb, blocking the parking lot. She realized it was Resident #1 in the driver's seat, so she got out of her car, asked her to unlock the door. Staff A then opened the door, put the car in park and took the keys out of the car. Staff A then called the facility to have someone come out to help. Staff F Registered Nurse (RN) and the Director of Nursing (DON) came out and brought Resident #1 inside. c) An undated note from Staff C Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) documented she saw the 200 hall exit door go off so she went to check it. She took a couple steps outside to check if anyone was out there but she did not see anyone. She needed help clearing the door alarm, so another staff member got it. d) A note dated 10/31/24 from Staff D CNA documented she saw Resident #1 in the 200 hall at 12:45 PM. Staff D was on her way to eat lunch. She heard Staff B CNA try to redirect Resident #1 and thought the situation was being handled. e) The DON received report from Staff H Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), that Staff A was on the phone and that Resident #1 was in the employee parking lot in the front seat of an employee vehicle at 1:34 PM, on 10/31/24. Staff F and the DON went to the parking lot to investigate. Resident was sitting in the front seat of an employee vehicle; Staff A was with her. She looked to be unharmed or uninjured. She was escorted back to the building. The DON interviewed Staff A and had her write a statement. It was discovered that Staff C had responded to the door alarm at that 200 hall exit door and did not see anyone. When speaking with other CNAs it was discovered that Staff D and Staff B last saw Resident #1 at 12:45 PM, just before she exited the building. Staff B tried to redirect the resident. When interviewing Staff G she stated that Resident #1 had been more confused than normal possibly related to her recent order of a Fentanyl patch for back pain. Earlier that day she reported the increased confusion to the resident's Primary Care Provider (PCP) and the Hospice Nurse. After Resident #1 was escorted back into the facility, she was assessed; her vitals were normal and no injuries were noted. The facility provided a documented tilted Location Event Report 200 Hall Exit. The door alarm was activated on 10/31/24 at 1:01 PM and deactivated on 10/31/24 at 1:06 PM. On 11/7/24 at 1:01 PM Staff C stated she was working on the 300 hall the day Resident #1 left the building. She was checking on residents when her pager sounded indicating the 200 hall door was opened. She went down to the door, outside about five steps, did not see anyone so she cleared the alarm. She went straight to the door as soon as she saw the message on her pager. She thought the pager went off about 1:45-1:50 PM. When asked where she looked while she was outside, she indicated she peaked around the corner of the building, looked the opposite direction but did not think to look in the cars that were in the parking lot. There were staff member's cars in the parking lot when she went out there but did not look in them. Staff C denied knowing if a head count was completed since this happened at the end of her shift. Staff C indicated Resident #1's confusion has gotten worse; she packs items up in her room and says she needs to get out of here. On 11/7/24 at 1:41 PM call to Staff A with no answer, a message was left on her voicemail and a text message was sent to return the call. At the conclusion of the investigation, Staff A had not returned the call. On 11/7/24 at 1:44 PM Staff B stated after lunch on 10/31/24 Resident #1 was sitting on her walker on the 200 hall at about 12:45 PM. Staff B asked if she needed anything, the resident indicated she was resting. Staff B stated the next thing she knew, Resident #1 was outside in an employee's car. Staff B denied hearing the door alarm sounding because she was on her 15-minute break at approximately 12:50/12:55 PM. Staff B stated while she was out on her break she did not see Resident #1 outside. Staff B indicated she was working on the 200 hall that day, not the 100 hall where the resident resides. When she saw her at dinner she appeared to be a little lost. On 11/7/24 at 1:57 PM Staff F RN stated she got a call from Staff A on 10/31/24, indicating they found Resident #1 in the driver's seat of a staff member's car. When Staff F arrived, Staff A had the driver's side door open as the resident sat in the car. The car was backed up against the sidewalk's curb. Once around the building, there's a curve in the road that comes around the building. The car was not in a parking stall, it looked like it rolled back out of a parking stall. The car was not on and not in gear when she arrived. The resident had placed her walker in the back seat. Staff F stated she went outside about 1:30 PM after Staff A called. Resident #1 was assisted inside to the facility, but did not say anything as to what she was doing. Staff F indicated she was working in the office that day and did not see how Resident #1 was prior to her exiting the building. On 11/7/24 at 2:46 PM Staff E Assisted Living Aide stated she was running late to work on 10/31/24. She parked her car in the parking lot at the back of the facility. She stated there's a curve in the road, to the left was a corn field and to the right was the building. She parked her car facing the corn field in a parking lot. Later in the day, she took the garbage out, noticed there were nursing home staff members at her car and her car was backed up to the curb. Her car was resting on the curb that was behind the parking spot where she parked her car for the day. The resident was already out of her car and in the building with staff members. She was unable to recall where her keys were once she put her car in park, she was running later to her shift and just wanted to get clocked in before it showed she was late. Resident E denied finding damage to her car. On 11/7/24 at 2:35 PM Staff G stated Resident #1 had increased confusing that was worsening on 10/31/24. She indicated it was normal for her to walk around quite a bit and that day she had wandered down to the 200 hall. She indicated the hospice nurse and Social Worker spoke of how confused she was. That morning at breakfast, Resident #1 usually took her morning pills before she would leave the table. That day after breakfast she got up from the table and went to the bathroom. When Resident #1 did not come back done to get her medications, Staff G went down to her room and found her in her bathroom. Resident #1 stated she had started her period then later told her she need to go to the 4H building. She was off from her normal confusion. Staff G stated Resident #1 was very outgoing, independent and would walk around to different halls. While Staff G was in report, someone reported to her Resident #1 was found in a staff member's car that had backed up in a curb. She indicated this was probably about 1:45 PM. Staff were able to get Resident #1 in to the building. She remembered hearing the door alarm sounding and Staff C went to check, stated it was all clear. On 11/7/24 at 3:09 PM Resident #1 was sitting in a chair in her room by the window, wanderguard visible on her left ankle. Resident #1 remembered leaving the facility and getting in to a car. When asked why she was leaving she stated we were leaving to go back to the motel we were staying at. Resident #1 stated her husband was here to pick her up but he was driving the car. Now she's resting in the sunlight waiting for a ride. On 11/7/24 at 3:16 PM Staff D stated she saw Resident #1 on the 200 hall and Staff B redirected her, this was approximately at 12:50 PM. Staff D stated when the 200 hall door alarm sounded, Staff C went to the check to see what was going on, she did not see anyone but was unsure what Staff C did after that as she was answering call lights. Staff D stated this was approximately about 1:00 PM. When asked how Resident #1 was prior to leaving the building that day, she stated she was a little bit confused but did not work her hall that much. She added her behavior was strange that morning; she wanted to know if the facility had stairs to go to the dining room. Staff D assured the resident she just needed to go up the hall to the dining room. When the exit doors are opened staff get a page on their pagers but they can hear the alarm on the door when it's been engaged. On 11/8/24 at 11:40 the DON stated a staff member approached her in the hall and stated she needed to go out to the parking lot because Staff A found Resident #1 in the parking lot. She grabbed Staff F to go outside with her right away. When they arrived to the parking lot outside of the 200 hall's exit door, Resident #1 was sitting in an employee's car with Staff A standing at the driver's side opened door. Staff A had opened the door, put the car in park and shut the car off. The DON noted Resident #1's walker was in the back seat, she looked unharmed so they helped her out of the vehicle and back inside. Resident #1 did have her wanderguard on at that time. Staff G completed the head to toe assessment once back in the facility. After the incident, she read the nurse's note and did not realize she was so confused. They started to decrease her Fentanyl patch dosage as they thought it was causing her confusion. A urine sample was collected to rule out a urinary tract infection, the urine sample came back negative. They have discussed moving her to the memory care unit but they would like to see how she does after they lower her Fentanyl dosage. They have noticed she seems to be doing better, still talks about going out but has not found her near any exits. The facility's Door Alarm Response Policy with an effective date of 7/19/24 and revised date of 10/31/24. The policy is to assure prompt response to door alarms/alerts. Staff to check the system for location of door alarming. Staff to immediately respond to the door that is alarming. Staff to walk to the door, walk outside, scan the facility grounds to identify the source of alarm. If the source of the alarm is a resident, assist the resident back in to the facility and notify the nurse on duty. Once the door is checked and the resident's safety is assured, reset the door alert. If the source of the alarm is not identified, account for location of all residents. If the resident is unaccounted for, immediately implement the missing resident policy. The facility's Missing Resident and Tenant Policy with an effective date of 7/14/24 and reviewed date of 11/1/24. The purpose of the policy is to ensure prompt and appropriate response by the staff and emergency personnel in an effort to maintain resident safety. In the event a resident is missing, the following steps shall be taken: - Search the building thoroughly. Look in closets, bathrooms, non-resident areas and in each and every bed. In the majority of incidents when a resident is missing, he/she is subsequently found in the facility, usually in an unexpected area. - Search the immediate grounds surrounding the building. - Notify the Administrator/DON to assist in the search. - Whoever is in charge of the facility should file a Missing Person's Report with the police.
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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 resident's (Resident #1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 resident's (Resident #1) Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately completed. The facility reported a census of 38 residents. Findings include: On 11/7/24 at 11:32 AM Resident #1 sat at the dining room table with peers eating her lunch, wanderguard observed to be located on her left ankle. Review of Resident #1's census tab in her Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented her admission date as 5/2/24. According to the admission MDS assessment tool with a reference date of 5/15/24 it documented Resident #1 wandered daily. The MDS also documented a wander/elopement alarm was not used. According to the Quarterly MDS assessment tool with a reference date of 8/15/14 it documented Resident #1 wandered daily. The MDS also documented a wander/elopement alarm was not used. According to the Significant Change MDS assessment tool with a reference date of 8/15/14 it documented Resident #1 wandered 1 to 3 days during the 7-day review period. The MDS also documented a wander/elopement alarm was not used. The Care Plan Focus Area documented Resident #1 had poor safety awareness and dementia that could lead to wandering. The Focus Areas included hand written documentation dated 9/4/24 this was met and will be continued. The care plan documented wanderguard in the intervention/tasks section of the care plan. A document titled Elopement Risk Assessment Check List dated 5/2/24 documented Resident #1 had previous history of wandering, at home. Diagnosis of dementia, episodes of disorientation, episodes of non-acceptance of placement. High level of elopement risk, a wanderguard was put in place. A facsimile (fax) sent to Resident #1's physician documented the following note: Resident was admitted [DATE], staff noted wandering and exit seeking behavior upon admission, wanderguard placed on 5/6/24, family agreeable. On 11/8/24 at 2:05 PM Resident #1's physician indicated they agreed with the wanderguard being placed. On 11/7/24 at 1:01 PM Staff C Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated Resident #1 had wanderguard on but was unsure how long she has had it. On 11/7/24 at 1:44 PM Staff B CNA stated she thought Resident #1 wore a wanderguard on her ankle but was unsure how long she has had it. On 11/7/24 at 2:45 PM Staff D CNA stated Resident #1 wore a wanderguard but was unsure how long she has had it. On 11/8/24 at 11:40 AM the Director of Nursing was made aware the MDS assessments that were completed since Resident #1's admission did not document the use of a wanderguard/elopement alarm. She acknowledged the MDS assessments should have documented that Resident #1 wore a wanderguard. At 1:53 PM the DON indicated they currently follow the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) for MDS assessments.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 residents' (Resident #1 and #3) care plans included interventions for staff to follow should th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 residents' (Resident #1 and #3) care plans included interventions for staff to follow should these residents exhibit wandering/eloping behaviors. Resident #1's care plan failed to include that she had eloped from the building on 10/31/24 and was found in a staff member's car. The facility reported a census of 38 residents. Findings include: 1. According to a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of 10/9/24 Resident #1 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8. A BIMS score of 8 suggested mild cognitive impairment. Resident #1 had experienced hallucinations and delusions during the review period. The MDS documented she wandered 1 to 3 days during the review period. Resident #1 had no upper or lower extremity impairments, she utilized a walker and wheelchair for mobility. Resident #1 required supervision or touching assistance when going from a sitting to standing position. She was independent when ambulating. The MDS documented she did not utilize a wander/elopement alarm. The following diagnoses were listed for Resident #1: moderate dementia with psychotic disturbance, heart failure, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorder, depression, spinal stenosis, and repeated falls. The Care Plan Focus Area documented Resident #1 had poor safety awareness and dementia that could lead to wandering. The Focus Areas included a hand written note dated 9/4/24 this area was met and will be continued. The care plan documented wanderguard in the intervention/tasks section of the care plan. The care plan lacked interventions for staff to attempt when she is wandering and/or exit seeking. The care plan lacked documentation about her elopement on 10/31/24. The Progress Notes documented the following for Resident #1: a) On 10/14/24 at 10:05 AM the resident had some delirium and being off before her hospitalization. Resident #1 still sees little kids in her room but does not say anything because they will think she is crazy. She does still look for her husband occasionally, will pack up her belongings because she believes she is going home soon. She does make delusional statements frequently and wanders prior to her hospital stay. b) On 10/31/24 at 3:01 PM the resident has been extremely confused today (more than normal). Told this nurse that she started her period and wasn't prepared. Her adult brief was checked and there was no sign of blood, she was given a pad insert. After lunch she stated she needed to go to 4H and had already been there this morning. She stated she needed to find her car, wandered down another hallway, eventually opened the exit door and went out into the parking lot. She walked over to a staff's parked car and got inside. The door alarms sounded, staff found Resident #1 in the car and brought her back into the facility. Vital signs completed, no injuries noted, she will be an assist of one moving forward. Her family, hospice, and primary care provided (PCP) were notified. c) On 11/4/24 at 2:10 AM staff went to check on resident and resident's refrigerator was unplugged and moved away from the wall, everything was out of the closet and in a laundry basket, hangers were all over the floor and resident had bed covered with things, resident had taken the string out of her jacket and knotted it around a bunch of hangers. d) On 11/5/24 at 2:30 PM she was wandering in hall one with a plant, a vase of flowers and a handful of clothes hangers in her arms, saying she was moving across the hall to #109. Redirected her back to her room where she had taken all of her clothes out of closet and had them folded in piles. Advised her to sit in her recliner and rest for a while. She was wandering without walker or cane. Stated her back was hurting, she was given Tylenol for pain. A document titled Elopement Risk Assessment Check List dated 5/2/24 documented Resident #1 had previous history of wandering, at home. Diagnosis of dementia, episodes of disorientation, episodes of non-acceptance of placement. High level of elopement risk, a wanderguard was put in place. 2. The quarterly MDS assessment tool with a reference date of 10/12/24 documented Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 4. A BIMS score of 4 suggested severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented she wandered daily and utilized a wander/elopement alarm daily. The following diagnoses were documented for Resident #3: dementia with anxiety, stroke and had a pacemaker. The Care Plan Focus Area documented Resident #1 had poor safety awareness and dementia that could lead to wandering. The Focus Areas included a hand written note dated 10/30/24 this area was met and will be continued. The care plan documented wanderguard in the intervention/tasks section of the care plan. The care plan lacked interventions for staff to attempt when she is wandering and/or exit seeking. The Progress Notes documented the following for Resident #3: a) On 9/23/24 at 2:51 PM Resident #3 was out in the 100 hall by the exit door with the door alarm sounding. Staff went to the door and redirected Resident #3 back inside without difficulty. b) On 9/24/24 at 4:36 AM Resident #3 agitated throughout shift periodically. Wandering the halls saying that she has things to do and places to go. Frequently forgetting walker. Redirection made her agitated with staff. Defensive of her daughter when staff was caring for her. Calmed down some by the time staff was done taking care of daughter. This nurse tucked resident in her daughter's recliner in daughter's room. Resident seemed to relax and was thankful to this nurse with tears in her eyes. Has been about 30 minutes since interaction and resident seems to be staying comfortable in daughters recliner at this time. c) On 9/24/24 at 5:42 AM sending facsimile to the primary care provider to advise. Resident has frequent overnights of wandering. Residents daughter if effected by this by resident waking her up and doing things in her room. Staff redirects resident frequently throughout evening and night. Wondering if we could add a medication for sleep or increase melatonin dose. d) On 9/28/24 at 1:15 AM resident was up wandering in the halls most of night, she becomes irritable easily and is writing nonsensical notes. It is difficult for her to follow directions. A snack provided which she did sit down and eat. e) On 10/22/24 at 12:56 AM resident having increased wandering around building, going through her room, and going through her daughter's room. Daughter expressed concern about resident's lack of sleep due to disease process. Daughter states resident has been awake since 3:00 AM on Sunday and hasn't slept. Resident frequently forgets to have walker with her. Staff is redirecting, reminding resident to have walker. Resident favors being with daughter in her room most of the day and night. Staff recently tried to get resident to go to her room to lay down but resident refused. Resident was tucked into daughter's recliner, chair reclined, and warm blanket applied with regular blanket to promote rest for resident. Eyes closed at this time. Daughter in bed by her with call light in reach due to resident's non-use of call light. Frequently checking resident at this time. f) On 10/25/24 at 11:26 AM spoke with Resident #3's family about the benefits of moving the resident to the Chronic Confused Dementing Illness (CCDI) unit. g) On 11/7/24 at 1:12 PM resident alert and pleasant, adjusting well to the CCDI unit. On 11/8/24 at 9:47 AM Resident #3 on the CCDI unit, standing with a staff member talking about wanting to leave out the doors. Staff let the resident know she did not have the code to get out the door. The resident questioned how others were getting in and out. Staff member asked if the resident wanted to sit down to eat her donut. Resident #3 agreed if the staff sat and had a donut with her. Resident #3 sat in her recliner, with her feet reclined and watched television. On 11/7/24 at 11:45 AM the Director of Nursing stated the paper care plans that were found in the binders at the nurse's station were the most current care plans. The care plans in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) are used as a template when creating the resident's care plans. During a follow up interview on 11/8/24 at 11:40 AM stated the interventions for residents that have wandering behaviors or at risk for elopement would be found under the chronic confusion section of the care plans. The care plans of Resident #1 and Resident #3 were reviewed with the DON. Interventions specific for wandering or elopement risk residents were not located on the care plans of the two resident reviewed. The DON stated she did not think to put Resident #1's elopement on her care plan. She indicated the care plans are updated and revised quarterly and as needed per standard nursing practice.
Dec 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed physic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed physician orders to treat an infection and prevent subsequent hospitalization for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1). Findings include: Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6, indicating impaired cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of cancer, septicemia (infection in the blood), and urinary tract infection. The care plan last revised on 10/11/23 for Resident #1 did not have a focus area for an actual or potential for urinary tract infection. The MD/Nurse Communication form on 9/8/23 reflected the Primary Care Provider (PCP) ordered a UA with culture. The Health Status Note dated 9/9/23 at 12:12 PM, the PCP ordered a urinalysis (UA) with a culture and sensitivity (C&S) due to behavior concerns. The Health Status Note on 9/11/23 at 10:50 AM, the facility collected the UA, took it to the hospital lab, and faxed the results to the PCP. The Urinalysis Report dated 9/11/23 indicated the PCP ordered Cephalexin 500 mg by mouth twice a day for 5 days. Review of the Order Summary Report for Resident #1 revealed Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse, entered the antibiotic order for cephalexin 500 mg two times a day for a UTI into the system on 9/11/23. The Order Note dated 9/11/23 at 5:00 PM listed that the system identified a possible drug allergy to the cephalexin 500 milligrams (mg). Review of the September 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) lacked the order for the cephalexin 500 mg by mouth twice a day for 5 days initiated on 9/11/23. Resident #1's record lacked documentation related to the antibiotics on 9/12/23. The Health Status Note on 9/13/23 at 9:52 AM, the resident had not started the antibiotic cephalexin due to listed allergies to penicillin and Bactrim. The C&S was to be back on 9/14/23. The facility contacted the Pharmacy, who reported the PCP wanted to go forward with the cephalexin. The facility sent a fax to the PCP for clarification on starting the cephalexin on that date. The MD/Nursing Communications form dated 9/13/23 included the progress note related to Resident #1 not starting her antibiotic and the request on when to start the medication. The PCP responded she did order it and said to give it but since no one did that, she guessed they were awaiting the C&S while her infection builds. The Health Status Note on 9/13/23 at 1:24 PM, the facility received a fax reply from the PCP to wait for C&S to initiate antibiotic. The Health Status Note on 9/14/23 at 3:00 PM, reflected that Resident #1 continued the antibiotic per the orders and displayed no side effects of the antibiotic. The Health Status Note on 9/14/23 at 9:28 PM, indicated Resident #1 continued the antibiotic for UTI. Resident #1 continued having frequency issues and not feeling well. The Health Status Note on 9/15/23 at 11:16 PM, the facility called Resident #1's daughter regarding a changed in condition. She gave approval to send the resident to the emergency room for evaluation. Resident #1 transferred to the hospital at 9:40 PM. The Health Status Note on 9/15/23 at 11:36 PM, indicated Resident #1 admitted to the hospital with a high lactic acid level (indicator of a severe infection), high white count (indicator of an infection), and a low hemoglobin (indication of a decreased supply of oxygenated blood). The Health Status Note on 9/19/23 at 10:45 AM, the resident returned to the facility under hospice care. In an interview on 12/21/23 at 7:55 AM, Staff B, LPN, stated she believed she gave Resident #1 the prescribed cephalexin on the evening of 9/14/23. She stated she knew of an issue with the cephalexin (antibiotic) and possible allergy to it related to her known allergy to penicillin. She stated the PCP had concerns with Resident #1's UTI infection getting worse if they did not give the medication. She added the medication was in the medication cart and she felt she gave the antibiotic to the resident. She stated she signed for the medication on the MAR. When told the MAR did not contain an order for the medication, she stated per appropriate medication administration she should not gave the medication without a written order on the MAR. She acknowledged that she documented giving the medication in the progress notes. In an interview on 12/21/23 at 8:00 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated it was the expectation when an order came in, whether written or faxed, the nurse who received it make a copy of the order and send it to the pharmacy and write the new order on the MAR. The second check was to occur when the assigned staff entered the order into Point Click Care (PCC - the electronic health record). The third check occurred when Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN), went through the copies to ensure the medical record contained an accurate order. The DON stated Staff C checked the orders every other day, unless they worked the floor and then it could take up to a week. The DON expected the staff to complete three checks when giving medication per the facility protocol. The first check occurred when medication staff completed the five rights of medication administration and ensured the medication matched the MAR. The second check occurred when popping the medication out of the cassette to ensure it matched the MAR. The third check occurred right before giving the medication to ensure the accurate medication. The nurse was to sign the MAR immediately after giving the medication. Review of the facility's undated Medication Administration Monitoring Tool directed staff to check the MAR and identify the medications prior to administration and then charted immediately after administration.
Jul 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure one resident out of 12 sampled residents (Resident (R) 4) had an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. Failure to code the MDS correctly can lead to inaccurate federal reimbursements, an inaccurate assessment, and care planning of the resident. Findings include: Review of the RAI Manual, dated 10/1/19, indicated, . It is important to note here that information obtained should cover the same observation period as specified by the MDS items on the assessment and should be validated for accuracy (what the resident's actual status was during that observation period) by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) completing the assessment.'' R4's Face Sheet listed an admission date of 6/5/23. R4's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated that they used an anticoagulant for seven out of seven days during the lookback period. R4's Orders lacked documentation of a prescribed anticoagulant. During an interview on 7/11/23 at 2:13 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reviewed the MDS record for R4 and confirmed the admission MDS documented the use of an anticoagulant for seven days. Review of R4's physician's orders, with the ADON, confirmed R4 did not have a prescription for an anticoagulant during the lookback period. During an interview on 7/11/23 at 2:17 PM, the ADON verified the admission MDS assessment was incorrect and should have a zero for number of days R4 received an anticoagulant.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered Comprehensive Care plan for one of 12 s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered Comprehensive Care plan for one of 12 sampled residents (Resident (R) 31). On admission R31's assessment reflected them as high-risk for falls and the Care Plan did not address person-centered interventions for falls. This deficient practice may result in interventions not identified to prevent resident falls. Findings include: R31's undated Face Sheet listed an admission date of 4/21/22. The face sheet included a diagnosis of unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbances. R31's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] reflected a fall risk score of 14, where a risk assessment of greater than 10 indicated a High Risk for falls. R31's Care Plan lacked person-centered interventions to address their high risk of falls During an interview on 2/12/23 at 11:16 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed R31's Care Plan lacked interventions addressing the fall risk score of 14 upon admission. The facility did not provide a policy for Care Planning.
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 F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review the facility failed to update the Care Plan Focus related to a resident's fall risk with new interventions to prevent falls after a resident fell for one of 12 sampled residents (Resident (R)31). This deficient practice placed the resident at greater risk of future falls and injury. Findings include: R31's undated Face Sheet listed an admission date of 4/21/22. The face sheet included a diagnosis of unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbances. R31's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated R31 required limited assistance of one person with walking in her room, walking in the corridor, toilet use, personal hygiene, locomotion on unit and off the unit. R31's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed a fall risk of 14, where a risk assessment of greater than 10 indicated a High Risk for falls. Review of R31's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed a fall risk of 14. The Incident Note dated 2/25/23 at 3:50 AM indicated that the staff found R31 on the floor complaining of pain in her left leg. The assessment revealed her left leg rotated outward with her right knee bent. After notifying her daughter, the nurse transferred R31 to the emergency room (ER). R31's X-ray report dated 2/25/23 revealed a left hip fracture. R31's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed a fall risk of 15. The Incident Note dated 3/30/23 at 9:33 PM reflected that staff found R31 on the floor complaining of pain in her right wrist and ankle. The assessment revealed a hematoma to her right wrist and she had full range of motion to all four extremities. After her assessment, two Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) assisted her to bed and the nurse applied ice to her right wrist. The Health Status Note dated 3/31/23 at 1:52 PM reflected that the X-Ray revealed a fracture to R31's right wrist. The Incident Note dated 5/10/23 at 10:52 PM indicated that the staff found R31 on the floor, with a three centimeter cut on her temple, her fourth and fifth fingers bleeding. The nurse assessed her and treated her wounds. At the time of assessment, she complained of right hip pain but after her assessment revealed no abnormal findings, R31 walked with assistance to the bathroom. The Care Plan Focus reviewed 3/15/23 listed R31 had a risk for falls due to an assistive device for ambulation, chronic confusion, and a history of falls. The Interventions include: a. Fall risk assessment quarterly or sooner if indicated. b. Orthostatic blood pressure monthly if able and allows. c. Physical Therapy (PT) d. Occupational Therapy (OT) e. 2/25/23 - Sent to ER for further evaluation. f. 3/31/23 - Do not leave alone in room while awake as allows. g. 3/31/23 - Wrap right wrist, use ice, and as needed (PRN) pain medications. h. 5/10/23 - PT to evaluate and treat. The Care Plan lacked interventions following the 5/10/23 addition. On 7/10/23 at 3:49 PM, observed R31's room, with her out of the room, noted the bed in low position with a floor mat positioned in the middle of the room, not near the bed. The Care Plan lacked the observed interventions. On 7/11/23 at 2:15 PM witnessed R31 ambulating in the hallway, with a gait belt around her waist using a front wheel walker with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) for support. During an interview on 7/12/23 at 9:40 AM, the Social Services Director explained the Medicare meeting included a review of resident fall incident reports, review of possible causes, go over interventions if adequate and if working, and immediate new interventions. Meeting minutes were documented by the Director of Nursing (DON) and interventions to be added to the care plan. During an interview on 7/13/23 at 2:36 PM, the DON explained the residents' falls were discussed at the Medicare meeting and root causes were identified and interventions put into place. The DON confirmed R31's Care Plan did not reflect the interventions discussed. The DON explained interventions that had been put into place to prevent additional falls following each fall a. R31 received a low bed and fall mat b. R31, when out of her room, was always supervised; c. R31 received close care during the night; however, these were not documented in the medical record. The DON confirmed the discussions about the causes of the falls and new interventions implemented were but documented in the medical record. The undated Falls policy directed that falls will be discussed at Medicare meetings [and will] determine potential causes for the fall, add teaching, and/or interventions to the plan of care to prevent another fall from occurring.
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, review of the facility policy, review of menus, and interview with staff, the facility failed to provide a diabetic diet for three of three residents (Resident (R) 14, R25, and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, review of the facility policy, review of menus, and interview with staff, the facility failed to provide a diabetic diet for three of three residents (Resident (R) 14, R25, and R20) with physician orders for a diabetic diet. Findings include: The undated Diet Orders policy instructed that diets will be offered as ordered by the physician. The undated Diets Available on the Menu policy directed the main diet orders that will be offered are regular/no added salt, mechanical soft, puree, gluten free, house diabetic (regular with diet syrup and jellies and half portions of desserts), and small portions. The untitled and undated facility menu with matching spread sheet referred to four diets, a regular diet, a regular diet with small portions, a mechanical diet, and a pureed diet. The facility menu and matching spread sheet lacked a menu for diabetic diets and/or no Regular with half portion desserts, diet syrups, and jellies. The July 2023 physician's orders for R14, R25, and R20 provided by the Dietary Manager included the current physician's orders for a diabetic diet for each of the noted residents. During an interview on 7/10/23 at 12:41 PM, when asked about the food, R20 stated he had to ask for small portions and staff keep loading his plate. R20 stated he was a diabetic and trying to do what is best. On 07/11/23 during lunch meal from 11:10 AM to 11:40 AM witnessed all 36 diets served without a diabetic menu despite three physician orders for diabetic diets. R25 and R20 were served full portions of desserts on 7/11/23 at 11:15 AM and 11:20 AM respectively despite having physician's orders for diabetic diets. On 07/11/23 at 11:30 AM the Dietary Manager reported that she gave R25 the wrong cake from the cart. The Dietary Manager indicated, they would need to make a cart for diabetics. During an interview on 7/13/23 at 9:45 AM, the Registered Dietitian (RD) revealed diabetics were addressed by physician orders calling for a regular diet with half portions of desserts and diet syrups and jellies. The RD went on to verify R14, R25, and R20 had diabetic diet physician orders, not regular diet order with half portions of desserts and diet jellies and syrups. On 7/13/23 at 10:10 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) explained the three diabetic diets were transcribed incorrectly and would be changed.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0922 (Tag F0922)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interviews, observations, and review of facility policies the facility failed to ensure procedures were developed to ensure water was available when normal water supply was lost. This failure...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, observations, and review of facility policies the facility failed to ensure procedures were developed to ensure water was available when normal water supply was lost. This failure had the potential to affect all 36 residents. Findings include: On 7/11/23 at 11:00 AM observed an emergency water supply consisting of two gallons and two 24 packs of eight-ounce water bottles in a closet in the closed dementia unit. In addition, noted 20 gallons of water and four cases of 16.9-ounce bottled water in the front storage area. The undated Emergency Water Loss Policy reflected that the policy lacked a reference to bottled water storage within the building, how to make use of existing potable and non-potable water stored in the building such as water from toilet tanks or hot water tanks, and a method of distribution. In addition, the policy referred to water storage areas using bathtubs. The facility has two whirlpool bathtubs, all other resident areas utilize showers. On 7/13/23 at 10:15 AM the Administrator acknowledged that the facility lacked water storage areas and a lack of a method of distribution. He also acknowledged that the policy lacked a reference to use of existing water stored within the building.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the most recent survey results and the previous three years of surveys including annual surveys, complaint surveys, infection control su...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the most recent survey results and the previous three years of surveys including annual surveys, complaint surveys, infection control surveys, and life safety code surveys in a readily accessible location. This has the potential to affect all 36 residents. Findings include: On 7/11/23 at 2:30 PM observed a sign posted in the main lobby area that directed The most recent survey can be found in a red binder near the dining area. On 7/11/23 at 2:30 PM observed the red binder labeled Survey near the dining area contained one survey dated 12/31/19. During an interview on 7/11/23 at 2:35 PM, the Administrator verified the red binder contained only one survey and indicated they had other surveys in a binder in their office. On 7/13/23 at 10:00 AM, the red binder no longer had the previous survey of 12/31/19 and contained only the annual survey dated 5/12/22. The red binder lacked annual life safety code surveys, complaint surveys, or other surveys.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 37% turnover. Below Iowa's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 14 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $22,880 in fines. Higher than 94% of Iowa facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade C (51/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 51/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Exira Care Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Exira Care Center Staffed?

CMS rates Exira Care Center's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 37%, compared to the Iowa average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Exira Care Center?

State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at Exira Care Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 12 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Exira Care Center?

Exira Care Center is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 60 certified beds and approximately 44 residents (about 73% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Exira, Iowa.

How Does Exira Care Center Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?

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

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Exira Care Center?

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

Is Exira Care Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Exira Care Center has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Iowa. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Exira Care Center Stick Around?

Exira Care Center has a staff turnover rate of 37%, which is about average for Iowa nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Exira Care Center Ever Fined?

Exira Care Center has been fined $22,880 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Iowa average of $33,308. 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 Exira Care Center on Any Federal Watch List?

Exira Care Center 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.