New London Specialty Care

100 Care Circle Street, NEW LONDON, IA 52645 (319) 367-5753
Non profit - Corporation 43 Beds CARE INITIATIVES Data: November 2025 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#363 of 392 in IA
Last Inspection: March 2025

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

Overview

New London Specialty Care has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality of care. With a state rank of #363 out of 392 in Iowa, they are in the bottom half of facilities, and they rank last in Henry County at #6 of 6. While there has been some improvement in overall issues, with reports of critical incidents dropping from 5 in 2023 to 0 in 2025, the facility still has serious weaknesses. Staffing is a relative strength, rated at 4/5 stars, with a turnover rate of 43%, slightly below the state average, but the RN coverage is only average. Specific incidents of concern include multiple allegations of abuse involving residents, where one resident exhibited inappropriate behaviors towards others, raising serious safety issues. While the facility has no fines recorded, which is a positive sign, the overall environment raises significant red flags for families considering care for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Iowa
#363/392
Bottom 8%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 0 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
43% turnover. Near Iowa's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Iowa facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 40 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Iowa. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 5 issues
2025: 0 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (43%)

    5 points below Iowa average of 48%

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

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Iowa average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 43%

Near Iowa avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: CARE INITIATIVES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record

4 life-threatening
Feb 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (R)138) in the sample of 16, le...

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 ensure one resident (R)138) in the sample of 16, legs were elevated when seated in a wheelchair or in bed, per the physician's orders. The facility's deficient practice increased R138's risk of increased edema in his legs, skin breakdown and discomfort. Findings include: Review of R138's undated admission RECORD provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed admission date of 02/17/23 with multiple diagnoses to include cellulitis to the left lower limb, non-pressure chronic ulcer of other part of left lower leg, and acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of unspecified lower extremity. Review of R138's Physician's Orders under Orders tab located on her Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed, .Elevate legs when sitting . dated 02/17/23. Review of R138's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) 02/23 under Orders tab located in the EMR revealed, .Elevate legs when sitting every shift -Start Date-02/17/2023 . -Hold Date from 02/19/2023 .to 02/19/2023 . with staff initials entered on day, evening, and night for 02/19/23-02/23/23, indicating the order was followed. Review of R138 's comprehensive Care Plan under Care Plan tab located on his EMR revealed, .venous wounds to right and left lower extremities. I have diagnosis of cellulitis, am obese, and limited mobility . please see TAR Date Initiated: 02/20/2023 . During an observation on 02/20/23 at 1:48 PM R138 was sitting in a wheelchair in his room. R138's legs were not elevated. During an observation on 02/20/23 at 1:52 PM R138 requested assistance to bed to have his legs elevated from the facility staff. LPN 1 stated to R138 that he needed to stay up in his wheelchair until physical therapy arrived in his room to conduct an evaluation. R138's legs were not elevated while seated in the wheelchair. During an observation on 02/23/23 at 8:40 AM, R138 was sitting on his wheelchair in the day area of the facility. R138's legs were not elevated while seated in the wheelchair. During a phone interview on 02/23/23 at 10:42 AM Physician (DR) 2 stated he ordered R 138's legs to be elevated on 02/17/23. DR 2 stated R138 was morbidity obese and did not walk around. During an observation and interview on 02/23/23 at 12:12 PM, R138 was seated in a wheelchair and his feet were on the floor, legs and feet swollen and not elevated per physician's order. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 6 stated at this time that R138's feet were tender; his legs were purplish/red/pink and very swollen. CNA 6 stated it was nursing assistants' responsibility to elevate resident's legs. Review of R138's [NAME], CNA 6 verified R138's [NAME] did not include information regarding elevating his legs while sitting. CNA6 stated that she was unaware his legs needed to be elevated while he was sitting up. CNA 6 stated the wheelchair R138 was seated in did not have the ability to elevate his legs. CNA 6 stated that staff kept R138's legs elevated when his was in bed by elevating the lower part of his bed. During an observation on 02/23/23 at 1:43 AM, R138 was seated in his wheelchair and his legs were not elevated. During an interview on 02/23/23 at 1:47 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 stated R138 was admitted to the facility with cellulitis. LPN1 stated the nurse was responsible for ensuring R138's legs were elevated when seated in his wheelchair LPN 1 stated the order to elevate his legs was on R138's TAR. LPN 1 stated R138's wheelchair, he was using earlier that morning, did not have the capabilities to elevate his legs. LPN1 stated the facility did not have footrest for that wheelchair. LPN1 stated the staff should have assisted R138 to bed or find a stool or something to elevate his legs when he was seated in the wheelchair. During an interview on 02/23/23 at 6:41 PM, the DON stated she expected the staff to elevate R138's legs per physician's orders. The DON stated the nursing staff were to ensure the CNAs elevated R138's legs when he was seated in the wheelchair. The DON verified that the care plan indicated to see the TAR.
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 observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to implement weight loss interventions fo...

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 implement weight loss interventions for one (Resident (R)4) of two residents reviewed for nutrition in a total sample of 16 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Nutrition (Impaired)/Unplanned Weight Loss or Gain, revised 09/17, revealed 1. Residents/patients will maintain acceptable nutritional status unless unavoidable due to underlying medical conditions or personal preferences. 2. Interventions for weight gain, anorexia, and weight loss will take into account resident/ patient goals and wishes. 3. Causes of undesirable weight gain and loss will be identified and managed appropriately. Review of R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD), date of 02/08/23, and located in the MDS tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R4 was admitted on [DATE], had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, indicating R4 was cognitively intact, was independent with eating, had weight loss, and was not on a physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen. Review of R4's care plan dated 05/23/22 located in the EMR under the Care Plan tab revealed a focus area I have been provided with a diet order for regular, regular texture, thin liquid diet, a goal I will follow my diet as ordered, and interventions I have expressed that I would like to lose weight and Provide me with NIP [nutrition intervention protocol] as ordered. Review of R4's 01/04/23 diet order located in the EMR under the Orders tab revealed Regular/NAS [no added salt] diet, Level 7 Regular texture, Level 0 Thin consistency, B [breakfast]-fortified Hot Cereal, L [lunch]-Magic Cup [protein/calorie dense dessert], D [dinner]-Cottage Cheese. Review of R4's 02/06/23 Nutritional assessment dated [DATE] located in the EMR under the Assessment tab revealed .3. Details of weight change -20 lbs. [pounds] (12%) x 90 days, sig [significant] wt [weight] loss .Diet: reg [regular] diet, reg texture, thin liquids Supplements: none. NIP: B - fortified hot cereal, double protein L - magic cup D - cottage cheese Eats: <75% with 7 meal refusals during the past 2 wks [weeks]. Review of R4's weight history located in the EMR under the Vitals/Weight tab revealed a 26.2-pound (15%) weight loss in four months: On 02/16/23 at 145.2 lbs. On 02/09/23 at 146.0 lbs. On 02/02/23 at 143.5 lbs. On 01/26/23 at 144.0 lbs. On 01/16/23 at 145.0 lbs. On 01/12/23 at 147.0 lbs. On 01/05/23 at 146.5 lbs. On 12/29/22 at 156.0 lbs. On 12/22/22 at 151.0 lbs. On 12/15/22 at 157.0 lbs On 12/08/22 at 156.0 lbs On 12/01/22 at 159.0 lbs On 11/24/22 at 162.5 lbs On 11/17/22 at 157.2 lbs On 11/03/22 at 164.0 lbs On 10/27/22 at 171.0 lbs On 10/23/22 at 171.4 lbs Review of R4's percentage of amount eaten for 01/24/23 through 02/22/23, located in the EMR under the Task tab, revealed R4 consumed 71% of her meals at 50% or less, including refusals (60 of 84 meals at 0-50%). On 02/21/23 at 12:35 PM, R4's lunch tray consisted of Dorito chicken, Spanish rice, carrots, and bread. R4 was not served the gelatin per the menu or a Magic Cup per her diet order. No diet card was on the tray. R4 consumed 25% of her meal. During an interview on 02/21/23 at 12:39 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)3, was asked if there was no diet card or ticket on the tray, how did she know what diets residents were supposed to get. She stated she referred to the [NAME] (brief overview of information). On 02/22/23 at 12:40 PM, R4's lunch tray was observed on the hall cart heading to R4's room. No Magic Cup was on her tray as indicated in the diet order. On 02/22/23 at 12:43 PM, dietary staff (DS)1 was observed assembling the lunch trays on the tray line and was asked should R4 have received a Magic Cup as there wasn't one on her tray. DA1 checked the NIP list taped to the counter and stated she overlooked it and would get her one. On 02/22/23 at 1:05 PM, R4's lunch tray was served with chicken fried steak, mashed potatoes, corn, and bread as per the menu. R4 had consumed about 50% of her meal. No Magic Cup was noted on her tray. R4 was asked if she was aware she had lost weight and she said yes she'd been cutting back. R4 confirmed she doesn't get Magic Cups. R4 stated if it's like ice cream she would love to have a Magic Cup. On 02/22/23 at 6:00 PM, R4's dinner tray was observed served in her room. Her meal tray consisted of peaches, bread, salad, and goulash as per the menu. No Cottage Cheese was noted to be included on her tray per the diet order On 02/22/23 at 6:02 PM, CNA7 was observed passing hall trays. CNA7 was asked how she knew residents received the correct diet. CNA7 stated she knew the residents and what diets they get such as pureed, ground, or regular. CNA7 asked if R4 should have received cottage cheese and CNA7 stated she didn't know. On 02/22/23 at 6:04 PM, DS2 was asked if R4 should have received cottage cheese. DS2 stated her resident list didn't include cottage cheese but she would check. DA2 then went into the kitchen and a few minutes later DS2 came out with a dish of cottage cheese. DS2 confirmed R4 was supposed to get cottage cheese and took it down the hall to R4's room. During an interview on 02/23/23 at 8:48 AM, MDS Coordinator (MDSC) and Director of Nurse (DON) were asked about R4's weight loss of 15% since 10/22. MDSC stated she was aware of R4's weight loss and that R4 expressed to the Registered Dietitian (RD) her desire to lose weight. MDSC and DON stated the RD had interventions in place for R4. MDSC was asked what was R4's goal weight and her weight loss plan.? DON stated R4's weight loss was also due to edema in her lower legs and R4 was on Lasix (diuretic medication). MDSC was asked why it wasn't care planned for a planned weight loss and not documented about the effects the Lasix may be having on R4's weight. DON was asked if it was okay for Lasix to cause 15% of weight loss in four months. DON stated, 'No. The surveyor informed the DON that three meals were observed when R4 didn't receive her fortified items. DON was asked if R4 wanted to lose weight, why is her diet fortified. The DON stated it was for the protein. During a telephone interview on 02/23/23 at 1:36 PM, the RD was asked about R4's weight loss and she stated she was aware. RD stated R4 was on several nutrition interventions. The RD stated R4 was on the NIP that included additional items with her meals. R4 received cottage cheese at dinner, double protein and fortified hot cereal at breakfast and ice cream at lunch. RD stated R4 was at her goal weight now, Body Mass Index of 23.4, however, she wasn't aware R4 wanted to lose weight. RD agreed it wouldn't be appropriate for R4 to be managing her weight loss and it should be care planned.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, record review and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure, one resident (R136) of three sampled residents for respiratory care, oxygen was adm...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, record review and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure, one resident (R136) of three sampled residents for respiratory care, oxygen was administered per physician's prescribed flow rate of 2 liters per minute. The facility's deficient practice increased R136 risk of respiratory complications including elevated serum carbon dioxide. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Oxygen Administration 10/10 provided by the Administrator revealed The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration Adjust the oxygen delivery device so that .the proper flow of oxygen is being administered . Review of R136's undated admission RECORD provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed admission dated of 02/15/23 with diagnosis chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of R136's Physician's Orders under Orders tab located on her Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed . Oxygen continuously at 2 LPM [liters per minute] per nasal cannula . dated 2/15/23. Review of R136's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated 02/23 under Orders tab located in the EMR revealed . Oxygen continuously at 2 LPM per nasal cannula ., 2/15/23 with staff initials entered for AM [morning] from 02/16/23-02/21/23 MID [midday] 02/17/23-02/21/23 and HS [bedtime] from 02/15/23-02/17/23, -2/19/23-02/20/23. Review of R136's comprehensive Care Plan under Care Plan tab located on his EMR revealed .oxygen therapy related to congestive heart failure .Administer my oxygen as ordered . dated 02/16/23. During an observation on 02/20/23 at 1:25 PM, R136's oxygen was administered at a flow rate of 2.5 liters per minute. During an observation on 02/21/23 at 3:10 PM, R136's oxygen was administered at a flow rate of 3 liters per minute. During an observation on 02/22/23 at 8:27 AM, R136's oxygen was administered at a flow rate of 3 liters per minute. During an observation and interview on 02/22/23 at 9:23 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 confirmed R136's oxygen was administered at a flow rate of 3 liters per minute. LPN 1 stated nursing staff were responsible for ensuring R136's oxygen was administered at the prescribed flow rate daily and documenting on his MAR. LPN 1 stated R136's oxygen flow rate was ordered for 2 liters per minute. During an interview on 02/23/23 at 1:07 PM, the Physician (DR)1 stated she expected the facility staff to follow R136's physician's orders for his flow rate of oxygen. DR1 stated the importance of his oxygen flow rate order was to ensure he did not develop carbon dioxide retention.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0711 (Tag F0711)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the physician clarified orders for a resident's gallbladder tube [A thin tube is placed into the gallbladder that drains blocked and infected gallbladder fluid.], urostomy [surgical procedure that creates a stoma (artificial opening) for the urinary system.] or CPAP [continuous positive airway pressure machine used for treatment of sleep apnea] settings for one resident (R) 136) out of 16 sampled residents. The facility's deficient practice increased R136's risk of respiratory, urinary and gallbladder complications. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Physician Services 02/21 provided by the Administrator revealed The medical care of each resident is supervised by a licensed physician .orders for the resident's immediate care and needs can be provided by physician .nurse practitioner (NP) .Supervising the medical care of residents includes .prescribing medications and therapy . Review of the facility's policy titled Ureterostomy Care provided by the Administrator revealed, .The purposes of this procedure are to promote cleanliness and to protect peristomal skin from irritation, breakdown and infection .Review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident .the type of the appliance . Review of R136's undated admission RECORD provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed admission on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses to include spina Biffa, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and type 2 diabetes. Review of R136's Physician's Orders dated 02/23 under Orders tab located on her Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the following: a.urostomy every evening shift every 5 day(s) related to URINARY TRACT INFECTION, SITE NOT SPECIFIED SEPSIS, UNSPECIFIED ORGANISM dated 02/15/23 R136's physician order failed to identify the type of appliance, changing the pouch system, emptying the pouch or the urinary collection bag, protecting the skin around the stoma, recording the output, monitoring for complications or what to do every five days. b.Gall bladder drain every morning and at bedtime drain gallbladder drain until no drainage medical group manages dated 02/15/23 . R136's physician order failed to identify flushing the drain, recording the output, monitoring insertion site, monitoring the drain for displacement or dislodgement, monitoring for complications, and changing the dressing around the insertion site with frequency and directions. c.CPAP nightly per home settings one time a dated 02/20/23. R136's physician order failed to identify the CPAP settings. Review of R136's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated 02/23 under Orders tab located on his EMR revealed the following: a.urostomy every evening shift every 5 day(s) dated 02/15/23 . with staff's initials entered on 02/15/23 and 02/20/23. b.Gall bladder drain every morning and at bedtime drain gallbladder drain until no drainage Dr. [NAME] at [NAME] medical group manages dated 02/15/23 with staff's initials entered for 02/16/23-02/21/23 for AM [morning] and staff's initials entered for 02/15/23- 02/20/23 (excluding 02/18/23) for HS [bedtime], indicating R136's drain was emptied. c.CPAP nightly per home settings one time a day dated 02/20/23 , indicating the patient-specific settings were not included. Review of R136's comprehensive Care Plan under Care Plan tab located on his EMR revealed the following: a.urostomy for urine drainage .02/15/23 .assess .signs/symptoms that my ostomy is not functioning properly .02/15/23 observe .skin daily for irritation and redness ., indication no intervention for type of urostomy pouch appliance, changing the appliance, monitoring the stoma site, emptying the drainage, changing the drainage collection bag or monitoring the output of urine. b.surgical incision on right abdomen related to gallbladder drain. Date Initiated: 02/16/23 .Monitor for changes in my skin status that may indicate worsening of my surgical incision/wound and notify the doctor ., indicating there was no intervention for dislodgement, displacement, changing dressing around his insertion site, or emptying his drain and monitoring output of his drain. c.wear a CPAP nightly per home settings .02/20/23 ., without specific intervention for CPAP machine settings. Review of R136's Progress Notes dated 02/15/23 provided by the DON revealed .Patient has a ileal conduit, urostomy bag that is changed every 5 days as needed .Patient has a gallbladder drain since 01/12 that is drained twice a day .Patient uses .Bipap [Bilevel positive airway pressure] at night .ASSESSMENT AND PLAN .COPD .Bipap nightly .History of cholecystectomy .drain to be flushed .Urinary diversion site .urostomy bag to be changed every 5 days and as needed . electronically signed by NP on 02/20/23. During an observation on 02/20/23 at 11:38 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 of R136 sitting on wheelchair in his room. R136 stated he had a urostomy. R136's drainage tube was connected to a urinary collection bag under his wheelchair. R136 stated he had a gallbladder drain During an interview on 02/22/23 at 11:47 AM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated that she and the physician wrote R136's orders for R136's care. NP verified R136's gallbladder tube orders were incomplete. NP stated flushing the drain, cleaning the port prior to flushing, changing insertion site dressing, monitoring form complications should be included on his orders. NP stated her expectation for the facility clinical staff was to call the provider for orders if the resident's gallbladder tube was dislodged or blocked. NP verified R136's CPAP orders did not include the setting and should have specific settings. NP stated the doctor and NP signed off and reviewed the resident's physician's orders monthly. NP verified R136's orders for his urostomy tube were incomplete and did not include changing the dressing at the insertion site, monitoring for complications, and emptying the drain. NP stated she was unsure why his physicians' orders were not completed. During an interview on 02/22/23 12:19 PM the DON verified R136's physician's orders were incomplete for his biliary tube and should include orders for assessing the insertion site, changing the dressing around the insertion site, and assessing and monitoring for complications of gallbladder/biliary tube including dislodgement and blockage of the tube. The DON verified R136's CPAP orders and urostomy tube orders were incomplete. During an interview on 02/23/23 at 01:07 PM, Physician (DR)1 stated she provided care for R136, however, had not seen the resident at the facility since his admission DR1 stated her NP had seen R136. DR 1 stated R136's physician's orders were incomplete for his urostomy, CPAP and his gallbladder tube. DR 1 stated R136's CPAP orders should include the specific settings for his CPAP machine and the facility staff should clarify his home settings with the office that performed his sleep study and prescribed his CPAP machine. DR1 stated R136's gallbladder drain order should include the correct type of tube he had, with an order to document the output of his drain, change his insertion site dressing and assess and monitor (displacement or dislodged tube) and his insertion site. DR1 stated R136's gallbladder tube orders should have been clarified by the facility staff. DR1 stated R136's urostomy tube were incomplete and should include monitor and assess his insertion site, and his output, change his bag instructions (including leakage from bag), care for insertion site including cleaning was incomplete. DR1 stated she assumed the staff at the facility would clarify the orders with the discharging hospital on admission to the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

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 ensure the appropriate use of antibiot...

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 ensure the appropriate use of antibiotic therapy for one (Resident (R)24) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in a total sample of 16 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Urinary Tract Infections/Bacteriuria, revised 09/17, revealed 1. The staff and physicians shall accurately identify UTIs [Urinary Tract Infections] and differentiate true infections from bacteriuria 3. The facility shall follow practices that are consistent with reliable evidence about bacteriuria and UTIs.Nurses should observe, document, and report signs and symptoms (for example, fever or hematuria) in detail and avoid premature diagnostic conclusions .New onset of nonspecific or general symptoms alone (change in mental status, decline in appetite, etc.) is not enough to diagnose a UTI. Urine odor, color and clarity also are not adequate to indicate bacteriuria or a UTI .8. The physician should consider stopping or reducing doses of antibiotics or switching parenteral to oral antibiotics in individuals with uncomplicated UTIs who have been afebrile and asymptomatic for at least 48 hours. Review of the facility's protocol titled McGeer Criteria: Antibiotic Prescribing for Urinary Tract infections, dated 2012, revealed Without Urinary Catheter Criteria I and 2 must be Present: l. At least one of the following: Acute dysuria or acute pain, swelling, or acute tenderness of the testes, epididymis, or prostate. Fever or leukocytosis And at least one of the following subcriteria: Acute costovertebral angle/pain/tenderness Suprapubic pain Gross hematuria New or marked increase in incontinence. New or marked increase in urgency. New or marked increase in frequency Suprapubic pain Gross hematuria New or marked increase in incontinence. New or marked increase in urgency. New or marked increase in frequency. 2. One of the following: At least 10 3 cfu [colony-forming units]/mL [milliliter] of no more than two species of microorganisms in voided urine sample At least 10 2 cfu/mL of any number of organisms in a specimen collected by in-and-out catheter. Review of R24's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD), date of 01/18/23, and located in the MDS tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R24 was admitted on [DATE], had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15, indicating R24 was moderately impaired in cognition, required limited assistance for toileting, and was frequently incontinent of urine. Review of R24's care plan dated 02/17/23 located in the EMR under the Care Plan tab revealed I am on antibiotic therapy Keflex [antibiotic medication] related to UTI. Review of R24's Physician Orders dated 02/15/23 located in the Orders tab of the EMR, revealed an order for Keflex Oral Capsule 500 MG [milligram] (Cephalexin), Give 1 capsule by mouth three times a day for UTI for 7 Days AND Give 1 capsule by mouth one time only for UTI until 02/15/2023. Review of R24's Nurses Note dated 02/12/23 located in the Progress Note tab of the EMR, revealed Res [resident] urine has foul smelling odor noted. Urine is cloudy and Res is having increased incontinence, then denying staff to change brief. Physician [DR2]) messaged to make aware and request new orders. Res is afebrile. Temp [temperature] 97.8. Res denies pain or discomfort with urination. Will continue to monitor. Review of R24's Focused Evaluation Note dated 02/15/23 located in the Progress Note tab of the EMR, revealed Antibiotic Use Urinary tract infection Initial dose of ATB [antibiotic] given as ordered for UTI. Res. denies any pain or disc. [discomfort] or dysuria. Res. is incont. [incontinent] of urine and difficult to do Peri-cares at times. Much encouragement at those times and res. will be cooperative. Review of R24's communication note from the Patient portal provided by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)2, dated 02/14/23, revealed Fax [facsimile] sent on 2/12/2023-Resident's urine has foul smell and is cloudy. Resident denies pain/discomfort with urination. Resident having increased incontinence and refused to be toileted/changed. Resident remains afebrile. Temp 97.8. Any new orders? .DR2 2/14/2023 (17 hours ago) Medication allergies reviewed by Dr. Start keflex 500 mg tid [three times daily] x 7 days for UTI. Interview on 02/21/23 at 9:14 AM, R24 stated she wasn't in any pain or discomfort. During an interview on 02/21/23 at 2:41 PM, LPN2 was asked about R24's urinalysis results. LPN2 stated she was unable to find a urinalysis. LPN2 then checked online and found a communication note in the Patient Portal. LPN 2 confirmed there was no UA [urinary analysis] performed. During an interview on 02/22/23 at 5:21 PM, the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON), was asked about R24's antibiotic prescribed for a UTI and that no UA was performed. ADON stated R24 had been on Bactrim [antibiotic] in 10/22 due to a UTI. So, when R24's urine had a foul smell, the doctor felt it necessary to prescribe another antibiotic. ADON was asked about antibiotics prescribed without a UA and asked about the facility's policy revealed urine color/odor/clarity didn't necessarily mean a UTI. The ADON stated R24's UTI was not counted as an infection and not added to their tracking/trending due to there being no evidence of a UTI from a UA. During an interview on 02/22/23 at 5:37 PM, the DON was asked about R24's prescribed antibiotic for a UTI without a UA or other confirmation. The DON stated R24's use of the antibiotic didn't meet the McGeer criteria for infection, however, the physician wanted R24 to be on it. The DON confirmed DR2 did not order a UA to confirm it. The DON stated they can make recommendations to the doctors but if they prescribe the antibiotic, they must follow the order. The DON agreed her staff could document their discussions with the physicians if an antibiotic was prescribed without evidence and the physician still insisted the antibiotic be ordered. During a telephone interview on 02/23/23 at 10:30 AM, DR2 was asked about what the facility staff told him about R24's UTI symptoms. DR2 stated he knew R24 had dementia and was incontinent. DR2 stated R24's symptoms did include increased incontinence and increased urinary frequency. When DR2 was asked what criteria he used in prescribing an antibiotic. He stated he couldn't use a criteria in patients with dementia and incontinent of urine. DR2 went on to say he didn't order a UA due to the urine culture would be multiflora because that's what happens when the staff use a hat to collect the urine. DR2 stated he wants to use the antibiotic stewardship program, but it didn't cover patients who were incontinent and had dementia. DR2 stated due to R24's incontinence and dementia, he made a judgement call to not ordered a UA because of the possibility of contamination due to urinary incontinence and dementia as even a clean catch would still be contaminated and it would be hard on R24 to straight catheterize her. MR2 stated R24 had a history of UTIs and incontinence. During an interview on 02/23/23 at 1:48 PM, LPN 1 was asked how they would know if R24's urine was cloudy if R24 was incontinent and wore a brief. LPN 1 stated that R24 does toilet and a sample could be collected.
Nov 2022 18 deficiencies 4 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, clinical record review, the facility failed to report all allegations of abuse. A resident sexual abused ano...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, clinical record review, the facility failed to report all allegations of abuse. A resident sexual abused another resident who resided at the facility when Resident #5 touched the breast of Resident #1 and Resident #7. Resident #5 had a history of behaviors. Resident #1 stated the fact that Resident #5 touched her breast made her feel like she wanted to kill him. Record review revealed other instances of allegations of abuse, and staff interview revealed an alleged incident involving Resident #2 and Resident #5 that did not get reported. This resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy to residents who currently resided at the facility. Facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #5 dated 6/29/22 revealed the resident had been rarely to never understood. Per this assessment, Resident #5 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. Per the assessment, Resident #5 had verbal behavior symptoms towards others which occurred daily. The Care Plan dated 9/2/22 documented, I display socially inappropriate/disruptive behavior. I sometimes display sexually inappropriate behaviors. Interventions dated 9/2/22 included the following: a. I will be placed at a table by myself for meals. b. Activities staff to visit with me and provide diversional activities. c. Administer my behavior medications as ordered by physician. d. Encourage my family/responsible party to visit. e. Monitor and document my behavior. f. Praise me for demonstrating desired behavior. g. Remove me from public area's when behavior is disruptive and unacceptable. h. Talk with me in a calm voice when my behavior is disruptive. Interventions dated 10/27/22 included the following: a. I am receiving psych services. b. I will be having a medication review with my doctor. The Care Plan dated 9/15/22 documented, I have a behavior problem, I yell and repeat things frequently. Interventions per the Care Plan documented the following: a. Date initiated 8/16/22: Divert my attention. Remove me from situations as needed and take me to an alternate location as needed. b. Date initiated 9/8/22: I may need to be reminded to keep my hands to myself. c. Date initiated 8/16/22: Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others. Progress Notes for Resident #5 documented the following: The Orders-Administration Note dated 7/27/22 at 10:04 PM documented, Resident being sexually inappropriate. The Orders-Administration Note dated 7/30/22 at 11:44 PM documented, Resident was being sexually inappropriate today. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/2/22 at 10:06 PM documented, Sexually inappropriate behaviors. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/4/22 at 10:07 PM documented, Resident continues to struggle with keeping his hands to himself. Grabbing at both staff and other residents. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/8/2022 at 11:17 PM documented, Resident continues to be difficult to keep from touching others. The Care Plan Conference Summary dated 8/9/22 at 3:30 PM documented, reviewed care plan for nursing, dietary, social work and activities. Resident's son was notified that resident has been having inappropriate behaviors. Resident's son stated that he would approve a psych consult and to keep him updated. The Einteract Summary dated 8/10/22 at 12:52PM documented, in part, physician order and family request resident transferred to ED (emergency department) for psych/behavioral evaluation. Primary Care Provider Feedback: Primary Care Provider responded with the following feedback: A. Recommendations: Send to ED for psych/behavioral evaluation .C. New Intervention Orders: a.Other b. redirection. Review of the SNF/NF (Skilled Nursing Facility/Nursing Facility) to Hospital Transfer Form dated 8/10/22 documented the risk alert for other had been selected, with intrusive and sexual behaviors documented. The behavioral issues and interventions section documented, intrusive behaviors. Resident is grabbing staff inappropriately. Resident is trying to grab other female residents and enter female residents rooms. Resident is making inappropriate sexual behaviors toward staff and other residents. The Mental Status Evaluation documented the following symptoms or signs: sexual outbursts and inappropriate grabbing. The Behavioral Evaluation section documented the following symptoms or signs: sexual outbursts, grabbing staff and attempting to grab other residents inappropriately. Trying to enter female residents rooms. Review of Hospital Paperwork for Resident #5, admission and discharge date [DATE], documented, History of Present Illness: Patient is a man who presents from nursing facility with concern for agitation. Apparently he has recently been sexually inappropriate at his nursing facility, today he cornered another resident and was screaming at her. These behaviors were abnormal for him. Patient denies any wrongdoing. He does not seem to recall yelling at anyone or doing anything wrong. The Nurses Note dated 8/10/22 at 5:37 PM documented, Received call from hospital regarding resident status, Resident is being released d/t (due to) not meeting criteria for Geri Psych. Nurse suggested facility seek outpatient psychiatric treatment. The Orders-Administration Noted dated 8/10/2022 at 10:45 PM documented, in part, Resident was sent to hospital for psych eval d/t (due to) constant inappropriate behavior. Review of Discharge Instructions dated 8/10/22 documented the diagnosis from the resident's hospitalization on 8/10/22 as agitation. The SS: Social Services Behavior History Evaluation-V3 dated 8/16/22 documented the following question (Q) and answer (A): Q: 1. Making noises, grinding teeth, moaning, crying, strange noises, screaming and/or disruptive sounds? A: a. Yes Q: 1b. If yes, is there a known trigger for this behavior? A: when he is around other people Q: Effective Intervention? A: we try to ask him to be nice and respect others Q: 13. Sexual acting out; explicit talk; physical sexual advances? A: b. no The Incident,Accident,Unusual Occurrence Note dated 9/2/2022 at 11:00 AM documented, This nurse walked up the hallway. This is nurse noticed this resident sitting next to resident Resident #7 in lobby. Resident #7 stated that this resident grabbed her right breast and tried to rub her leg. This resident immediately removed from Resident #7. Administrator and Director of Nursing notified of incident. The Nurses Note dated 9/2/22 at 1:27 PM documented, POA (Power of Attorney) notified for resident to be sent to behavioal health unit. Review of Inpatient Discharge Instructions dated 9/2/22 documented the following reason for visit: Inappropriate sexual behavior current nursing home towards another resident. Review of the SS Social Services Behavior History Evaluation-V3 assessment dated [DATE] documented the following question (Q) and answer (A): Q: 13. Sexual acting out; explicit talk; physical sexual advances? A: a.Yes. The assessment also documented Resident #5 had displayed sexual acting out behavior. Known triggers for the behavior documented, not sure. The response to the question of effective intervention documented, staff askes him to stop and talks to him about his behavior. The Progress Note by a Nurse Practitioner of the facility, date of service 9/21/22, documented the resident had been seen for follow-up hospital. History of Present (HPI) related to this visit documented, in part, Patient went to ER (emergency room) for psych evaluation after inappropriate behaviors. Patient reports he believes he got back a week ago. No other content of the note referenced Resident #5's behaviors. The Med Management Note dated 9/29/22 documented a chief complaint of inappropriate behaviors and agitation. The HPI section documented, in part, 9/29/22 Resident #5 is a male with history of inappropriate behaviors, seen today for initial interview per facility request for medication management. Staff report Resident #5 has always made some inappropriate comments and redirected easily. Recently Resident #5 grabbed a female residents breast and put his hand down the back of her shirt and a complaint was filed with the state. Resident #5 was sent to a BHU and returned on Lexapro (antidepressant) 10 mg (milligram) daily. Staff report he returned in better mood and did well for about a week, and now he is back to same behaviors. Resident #5 does yell out and cause disruption in the dining room and gets into arguments with other male residents. Resident #5 does ask the female staff to go to bed with him. The Review of Systems section documented the following per the Psychiatric section: staff report inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors; irritable mood and gets into arguments with other male residents with yelling. The Med Management Note dated 10/13/22 for Resident #5 documented, in part, the following: HPI Resident #5 is a male with history of inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors, along with getting into arguments with other male residents. The Psychiatric History section documented, in part, Recent admission to BHU for sexually inappropriate behavior towards staff and other female residents. The Review of Systems section documented the following per the Psychiatric section: staff report inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors; irritable mood and gets into arguments with other male residents with yelling. The SPN-Focused Evaluation Note dated 10/26/22 at 11:08 AM documented, No injuries noted to Left arm from being punched in the left arm by another resident. Doctor notified. On 10/27/22 at 1:15 PM, Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), had been queried about Resident #5's behaviors. Staff A explained Resident #5 tried to grab her by the gait belt, and would smack butt with a fly swatter. Staff A explained a lot of other women staff and residents had a problem with Resident #5 grabbing, touching, and saying things. Staff A identified a resident who did not like seeing the behavior, as well as a resident who had been bothered by Resident #5's behavior. Staff A explained Resident #5 would call people honey, and asked residents and staff to pull his [NAME] out. Staff A explained this occurred always, and she had witnessed this. When queried what she would do if the resident had sexual behaviors towards residents, Staff A responded she tried to shut down the situation, and would take the resident back to their room. Per Staff A, the resident wheeled around and rolled up on others. On 10/27/22 at 1:25 PM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff B, CNA, explained they had seen where the resident would holler a lot and had been grabby towards females in the building. Staff B explained the resident liked to grab for peoples behinds and would grab for their belly. Staff B later clarified the behaviors had been towards staff. Staff B explained the other day Resident #5 and another male had gotten into an argument. Staff B also explained Resident #5 liked to go into other people's rooms, and explained a female resident had not been happy when Resident #5 had gone into her room. When specifically queried more about this, Staff B explained they only had known what the female resident had told her. When queried about Resident #5's behaviors towards residents, Staff B explained not as she had seen. When queried about Resident #5 having said anything to female residents, Staff B explained sometimes Resident #5 would say he wanted to go into the bathroom with them, and Staff B tried to avoid that. When queried what Staff B would do in this situation, Staff B explained she would normally just say we are not doing that and direct the resident back to his room. When queried if Resident #5 would be receptive, Staff B explained the resident did listen every now and then, and would sometimes be frustrated. On 10/27/22 at 2:19 PM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) explained the resident did a lot of repeating very loud and could be disruptive. Staff C explained other residents would egg Resident #5 on as well. Per Staff C, Resident #5 did say inappropriate things sexually to staff and occasionally to the female residents, which had been why the resident sat by themself at the table. Staff C explained she had heard Resident #5 say to other female residents something like, gonna put my [NAME] in it. Staff C explained usually [NAME] was involved, and Resident #5 said they were going to put it somewhere to residents and staff. Per Staff C, she would explain it was not appropriate and to not talk like that. Staff C explained Resident #5 would usually quit. When queried if Resident #5 had touched any residents, Staff explained Resident #5 would get real close to them, and other residents would egg him on. Per Staff C if redirection didn't stop the behavior she would remove Resident #5 from the situation. Staff C explained usually Resident #5 settled down, and she had not had to remove him. Staff C acknowledged Resident #5 did know better, part of it was his dementia, and the resident knew better. Staff C explained a female resident one time had hollered at her (Staff C) to please get Resident #5 away from her. Staff C acknowledged Resident #5 could move himself in his wheelchair, and would roll up next to other residents until he received redirection. On 10/31/22 at 3:33 PM, Staff G, Registered Nurse (RN) had been queried about Resident #5's behaviors. Staff G explained she had never seen Resident #5 do anything physically. Staff G explained Resident #5 talked constantly and said all kinds of stuff. Per Staff G, Resident #5 had asked staff to lay down with him and give him a kiss, and got kind of inappropriate. Per Resident #5, there had been a couple women that Resident #5 had always wanted to talk to. Staff G explained Resident #5 liked to talk to Resident #12. Per Staff G, Resident #2 had told her Resident #5 had been making her uncomfortable. Staff G explained if memory served right there had been an accusation of Resident #5 touching someones knee or something on the porch. Staff G questioned if she had been thinking about the right time. When queried whose knee Resident #5 had touched, Staff G responded with Resident #2. When queried about the note she had input about Resident #5 grabbing at residents and staff, Staff G responded one of the CNAs had said the resident had grabbed her arm and pulled in bed. Per Staff G, Resident #5 made inappropriate remarks typically to staff. Staff G further explained Resident #5 had been sent out to geri psych, and had been sent back. Per Staff G, she had not seen Resident #5 touch Resident #2, Resident #2 had told Staff G, and Staff G had heard Resident #2 yell at Resident #5. Staff G explained Resident #5 had been on the porch, and Resident #2 had been on their way out of the porch. When queried who she had told, Staff G responded she had told whoever she had been working with that day. Staff G explained she could not remember if she had told the Director of Nursing (DON), or the other nurse. Staff G explained she had been at the facility one of the times Resident #5 had gone out. Staff G explained the resident had come back after supper. Per Staff G, she explained she seemed to remember Resident #5 saying he got in trouble again but was back. When queried if she would chart if she had told The DON or the Administrator, Staff G explained she should have charted in a note if they had been told. When it had been shared that Staff G had put in the note about Resident #5 having been sent out from the facility in August, Staff G explained she thought it would have been her to do the notification as she had put in the note. On 11/1/22 at 11:31 AM, Staff H, CNA explained she had worked at the facility for a few weeks, and acknowledged she had worked with Resident #5 before. When queried about the resident's behaviors, Staff H explained the resident had been sexual towards her, and she had seen him try to do things to other people and would tell him to quit. Staff H explained the resident had said some things to residents and staff. When queried as to what Resident #5 had said to residents, Staff H explained the resident made indecent proposals and said things. Staff H explained the resident liked to talk about his genitals in the middle of lunch and would say stuff. When queried if this had been when other residents had been around, Staff H responded it had been. When queried about touching, Staff H responded she had not seen Resident #5 try to touch residents, and the resident had tried touching staff. When queried as to why Resident #5 had been eating at a table by themself, Staff H explained she was not sure. Per Staff H, they had started putting a male resident next to him, but the resident had to be moved to another table for other reasons. When queried how other residents reacted, Staff H explained that a lot of them antagonized it so Resident #5 would keep going and thought it was funny. When queried how the resident would be antagonized, Staff H responded they would usually yell at Resident #5 to go back to his room, which got Resident #5 going more. Staff H further explained it would spiral, but it did not usually take long to get both parties to stop. Staff H explained someone would tell both of them to stop saying things and to leave each other alone. On 11/1/22 at 1:23 PM, Staff K, the facility's previous Activities Director, explained the following about Resident #5 's behaviors: Per Staff K Resident #5 was just loud, and she had never seen Resident #5 touch a resident or be inappropriate with a resident. Staff K explained the resident's previous occupation and explained the resident was used to joking. Staff K further explained with anything Resident #5 said to you, you could tell him don't say that and Resident #5 was apologetic. Staff K explained she felt like the other residents were mean to Resident #5, and being kind to others had been brought up in resident council. Staff K explained with Resident #5 it was like a stream of consciousness ran out of his mouth. On 11/2/22 at 8:18 AM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff L, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), explained Resident #5 was very sexually oriented. Per Staff L, Resident #5 often invited people to be his honey and the resident said that he needed someone to sleep with and to lay down. Per Staff L, this behavior had been mostly towards staff. When queried about behaviors towards residents, Staff L explained they would sometimes catch the resident at night trying to knock on females doors. Staff L explained they would tell Resident #5 he could not do that because they were sleeping. Staff L confirmed the resident used a wheelchair, and explained the resident did not sleep at night, would sleep during the day, and would be up all night. Per continued interview with Staff L on 11/2/22 at approximately 8:20 AM, Staff L, Resident #5 used to be boyfriend and girlfriend with Resident #12. When asked about when the residents had been boyfriend and girlfriend, Staff L explained it had been before the first time Resident #12 had left the facility for inappropriate behavior. Staff L explained Resident #5 and Resident #12 used to sit and eat dinner together, and Resident #12 used to let Resident #5 in her room, but Staff L did not see what had gone on. Staff L explained that sometimes at 2:00 AM Resident #5 and Resident #12 would sit and talk together in the dining room, as both residents did not sleep well. When asked if she had been aware of any concerns or complaints which involved Resident #5, Staff L acknowledged this had occurred with Resident #2. Per Staff L, Resident #2 had told Staff L stop him from coming this way, and per Staff L Resident #2 had said didn't you hear he touched me inappropriately? Per Staff L, this occurred in the middle of August or so. When queried as to why the resident ate at a table by himself, Staff L explained this was about the resident's loud booming voice. 2. The MDS for Resident #2 dated 10/19/22 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated intact cognition. 3. The MDS assessment for Resident #7 dated 8/30/22 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated the resident had been cognitively intact. The Progress Note dated 9/2/22 present in Resident #7's clinical record documented, Resident stated that resident Resident #5 grabbed her right breast. Resident also stated that Resident #5 tried to rub her leg. Resident #5 immediately removed away from resident. No injuries noted. Administrator and Director of Nursing notified of incident. Mother was called and notified of incident. Education given to staff regarding Resident #5. On 11/1/22 at 1:59 PM, Resident #7 had been observed in their room in bed. When asked how other residents treated her, Resident #7 responded good. Resident #7 denied concerns, then explained the guy touched me, and explained it had been taken care of. Resident #7 then identified the guy as Resident #5. Per Resident #7, it had happened about a month ago. When queried where she had been touched, Resident #7 responded the thigh, crotch, and breast. When queried how it had made her feel, Resident #7 responded, creepy. When queried about safety, Resident #7 explained she was safe here (at the facility) now because he's gone. Resident #7 explained the situation had occurred in the lobby, and other residents had been around. Per Resident #7, she had notified staff and the Director of Nursing (DON). On 11/1/22 at 2:03 PM, Staff I, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) explained the following: Staff I had walked by Resident #7, and Resident #7 told Staff I that Resident #5 had grabbed her right breast and thigh. Per Staff I, she had made sure the resident were separated out in the common area. Staff I acknowledged she had not seen the interaction, and Resident #7 had voiced it. Staff I explained she had told the DON, and had communicated to staff they needed to keep watch on Resident #5. Staff I explained it had been reported, and residents were immediately separated. 4. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #1 dated 7/13/22 revealed the resident scored 10 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #1 dated 10/5/22 revealed the resident scored 6 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severely impaired cognition. On 10/27/22 at 10:28 AM, an interview had been conducted with Resident #1. Resident #1 identified Resident #5 by first name, and explained the first time Resident #5 had met Resident #1, Resident #5 had grabbed her boob. Per Resident #1, this had occurred in the dining room when they had just started to eat supper. Per Resident #1, Resident #5 had grabbed and ran off. Resident #1 explained the resident had also hit on her twenty-three year old granddaughter, and Resident #1 had threatened to throat punch Resident #5. Resident #1 explained conversation had occurred with her family, and Resident #1 expressed he's (Resident #5) not assaulting me? When queried how the touching had made her feel, Resident #1 responded it had made her feel like she wanted to kill Resident #5. Resident #1 explained Resident #5 said things like, come here honey let's go to my room, and the resident would be brought to his table. Resident #1 explained a couple times the resident had tried to reach out for her breast, and had not made physical contact as she would not let Resident #5 close enough. When queried about feeling safe at the facility, Resident #1 responded, in part, she was safe to stay [at the facility] as long as Resident #5 left her alone. When queried about who had been present when she had been touched, Resident #1 responded just the nurses. When queried as to how often Resident #5 tried to touch Resident #1, Resident #1 responded every chance that Resident #5 got close. Resident #1 explained they did not need to have someone try to hit on them at their current stage in their life. 5.On 10/25/22 during a confidential interview, an anonymous resident explained there had been a man, identified by the resident as Resident #5, who would come knock on their door in the middle of the night. Per the anonymous resident, the response had been the resident (male) had dementia. The anonymous resident explained everyone knew about it. On 10/27/22 at approximately 8:15 AM, the anonymous resident expressed concern with having her door open at night with her rear end exposed, in regard to potential physical contact occurring. Resident #5 explained they would pepperspray them. 6. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #12 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. Resident #12 had been previously identified during an interview with Staff L as Resident #5's girlfriend. 7. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 scored 15 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated intact cognition. During an interview on 10/27/22 at 4:55 PM, Resident #6 explained they would punch Resident #5 if the resident did not shut his mouth. Per Resident #6, Resident #5 had been vulgar, and said things to people that should not be said. Resident #6 explained others live here (at the facility) too. When queried about the type of things that had been said, Resident #6 explained Resident #5 had said things such as, hey baby to residents and staff. Resident #6 explained Resident #5 was mouthy, threatened to punch him (Resident #6) out, and that it happened all the time. Resident #6 explained he felt/responded to bring it on. Resident #6 further explained he did not like the way Resident #5 talked to women and guys. Resident #6 explained one day Resident #5 had gone to [a female], had said weird things, and went to her table. Per Resident #6, something had been said like come to my bedroom, and he (Resident #6) had not liked that. Resident #6 further explained Resident #5 had asked him how he held his penis with one hand. Resident #6 explained this had made him angry. Per Resident #6, others were tired of Resident #5 too, and explained it would come to a head pretty soon. Resident #6 explained Resident #5 did not want to shut their [expletive] mouth. Resident #6 had been queried what they did in this situation, explained they would remove themselves from the situation. When queried if staff spoke with Resident #6 about the situation, Resident #6 responded that staff did not care. 8. The MDS assessment for Resident #8 dated 10/5/22 revealed Resident #8 scored 3 out of 15 on a BIMS assessment, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Per this assessment, Resident #8 had no physical or verbal behavioral symptoms towards others, or other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others. On 10/31/22 at 1:17 PM, Resident #8 had been queried how other residents at the facility treated him, and responded good. When queried about problems, concerns, or statements which made him feel uncomfortable, Resident #8 mentioned Resident #5's name. Resident #8 explained it was not towards him but to other residents. Per Resident #8, Resident #5 would say to the female residents, Hey why don't you go to my room and take off your clothes and stuff like that. When queried about which specific ladies had been told, Resident #8 responded he thought a resident who no longer resided at the facility. When queried how it had made him feel, Resident #8 responded like he wanted to get in a fight with Resident #5, but he had not done so. When queried if there had been a specific resident that Resident #5 had made the comment to, Resident #8 explained he thought a resident who he named, and further explained the resident no longer resided at the facility. Resident #8 had been queried if there had been a situation where any of the following had occurred between Resident #5 and Resident #8: touched, kicked, hit, or punched. Resident #8 responded I hit him (Resident #5) in the arm once. When queried what had brought the situation to that point, Resident #8 explained Resident #5 had said something. When queried about the timeframe the incident had occurred, Resident #8 explained fairly recently. On 11/1/22 at 8:53 AM, the Administrator explained Resident #5 did not have any other facility reported incidents or incident reports other than 9/2/22 and 10/26/22. On 11/7/22 at 3:50 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) had been queried about staff reporting. When queried about staff education on reporting, the DON explained that staff did online training, and the information would be reviewed when staff did their onboarding. The DON also explained staff had six months to complete Dependent Adult Abuse training. When queried about what should be reported, the DON explained any incidents which is considered abuse should be reported. The DON explained the current process was to report to the Charge Nurse, DON, and to the Administrator. Per the DON, they always let staff report to the Charge Nurse anything they saw concerning happening, any aggression, or any abuse of any sort. The DON explained the previous way it had been done was staff would go to the Charge Nurse, who would report to the DON or to the Administrator. When queried about the time frame for reporting, the DON explained staff needed to report right away. On 11/7/22 at 3:54 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) had been queried as to the process that should happen if a staff member charted inappropriate behavior, or grabbing at other residents. The DON responded staff needed to let them know if this had been happening, and if charting it it needed to be reported because that behavior was inappropriate or abuse. Per the DON, the physician would be notified. On 11/8/22 at 4:05 PM, the DON had been queried if staff had reported behaviors to her about Resident #5 and other residents. The DON explained the resident was loud, repeated himself, and was persistent. When queried if staff had reported the resident asking people to pull his genitals out, the DON explained she had never heard that. When queried if the statement the resident wanted to go to the bathroom with other residents had come up, the DON acknowledged this had not been told to her. When queried about Resident #5 knocking on doors at nighttime, the DON explained for the most part the resident slept all night and she had not heard that the resident had been knocking on people's doors at night. The DON acknowledged Resident #5's behaviors towards residents needed to be reported, if it was actively happening redirection was needed and staff would stay with the resident, it would be reported, then investigated. On 11/8/22 at 12:32 PM, the facility's Administrator had been queried about reporting, and explained any complaints of abuse or anything they may see should be reported to the immediate supervisor, and that immediate supervisor would comes to the Administrator and the Director of Nursing. The Administrator further explained if the person that saw it felt they did not get the right response they could go to management immediately as well. The facility Administrator acknowledged if staff had charted or seen behaviors, they should have told the Charge Nurse or supervisor what they had seen. The Administrator acknowledged she had not been informed of Resident #5 knocking on doors at night, or certain statements made by the resident. The Facility Policy titled, Timely Abuse Reporting dated 11/19 documented, All allegations of resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, injuries of unknown origin and misappropriation should be reported immediately to the Charge Nurse. The Charge Nurse is responsible for immediately reporting allegations of abuse to the Administrator, or designated representative. All allegations of resident abuse shall be reported to the[TRUNCATED]
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, staff and resident interviews and Policy review, the facility failed to take measures to fully investigate allegations of abuse and failed to prevent and protect residents from further potential abuse during the investigation. A resident sexually abused another resident who resided at the facility when Resident #5 touched the breast of Resident #1 and Resident #7. Resident #1 stated the fact that Resident #5 touched her breast made her feel like she wanted to kill him. Resident#1 stated Resident #5 has made ongoing physical attempts to reach out and touch her breast. Record review revealed a history of inappropriate behaviors and a lack of protective measures taken or investigations completed. Staff interview revealed an alleged incident involving Resident #2 and Resident #5 that did not get reported to the State Agency, and staff were unable to recall some specific details about the alleged event. This resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy to residents who currently resided at the facility. The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings Include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #5 dated 6/29/22 revealed the resident rarely to never understood. Per this assessment, Resident #5 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and had verbal behavior symptoms towards others which occurred daily. The Care Plan dated 9/2/22 documented, I display socially inappropriate/disruptive behavior. I sometimes display sexually inappropriate behaviors. Interventions on the Care Plan dated 9/2/22 included the following: a. 9/2/22 I will be placed at a table by myself for meals. b. Activities staff to visit with me and provide diversional activities. c. Administer my behavior medications as ordered by physician. d. Encourage my family/responsible party to visit. e. Monitor and document my behavior. f. Praise me for demonstrating desired behavior. g. Remove me from public areas when behavior is disruptive and unacceptable. h. Talk with me in a calm voice when my behavior is disruptive. Interventions on the Care Plan dated 10/27/22 included the following: a. I am receiving psych services. b. I will be having a medication review with my doctor. The Care Plan dated 9/15/22 documented, I have a behavior problem, I yell and repeat things frequently. Interventions per the Care Plan documented the following: a. Date initiated 8/16/22: Divert my attention. Remove me from situations as needed and take me to an alternate location as needed. b. Date initiated 9/8/22: I may need to be reminded to keep my hands to myself. c. Date initiated 8/16/22: Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others. Progress Notes for Resident #5 documented the following: a. The Orders-Administration Note dated 7/27/22 at 10:04 PM documented, Resident being sexually inappropriate. b. The Orders-Administration Note dated 7/30/22 at 11:44 PM documented, Resident was being sexually inappropriate today. c. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/2/22 at 10:06 PM documented, sexually inappropriate behaviors. d. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/4/22 at 10:07 PM documented, Resident continues to struggle with keeping his hands to himself. Grabbing at both staff and other residents. e. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/8/2022 at 11:17 PM documented, Resident continues to be difficult to keep from touching others. The Care Plan Conference Summary dated 8/9/22 at 3:30 PM documented, reviewed Care Plan for Nursing, Dietary, Social Work and Activities. Resident's son was notified the resident has been having inappropriate behaviors. Resident's son states that he would approve a psych consult and to keep him updated. The Einteract Summary dated 8/10/22 at 12:52 PM documented, in part, documented by Physician Order and family request, the resident transferred to the Emergency Department (ED) for psych/behavioral evaluation. Primary Care Provider Feedback: Primary Care Provider responded with the following feedback: A. Recommendations: Send to ED for psych/behavioral evaluation. B. New Intervention Orders: a. Other. b. Redirection. Review of the Skilled Nursing Facility/Nursing Facility (SNF/NF) to Hospital Transfer Form dated 8/10/22 documented the risk alert for other had been selected, with intrusive and sexual behaviors documented. The behavioral issues and interventions section documented, intrusive behaviors. Resident is grabbing staff inappropriately. Resident is trying to grab other female residents and enter female residents' rooms. Resident is making inappropriate sexual behaviors toward staff and other residents. The Mental Status Evaluation documented the following symptoms or signs: sexual outbursts and inappropriate grabbing. The Behavioral Evaluation section documented the following symptoms or signs: sexual outbursts, grabbing staff and attempting to grab other residents inappropriately. Trying to enter female residents' rooms. Review of Hospital Paperwork for Resident #5, admission and discharge date [DATE], documented, History of Present Illness: Patient is an [age redacted]-year-old man who presents from a Nursing Facility with concern for agitation. Apparently he has recently been sexually inappropriate at his nursing facility, today he cornered another resident and was screaming at her. These behaviors were abnormal for him. Patient denies any wrongdoing. He does not seem to recall yelling at anyone or doing anything wrong. The Nurses Note dated 8/10/22 at 5:37 PM documented, Received call from [Hospital Name] regarding resident status, Resident is being released due to (d/t) not meeting criteria for Geri Psych. Nurse suggested facility seek Outpatient Psychiatric Treatment. The Orders-Administration Noted dated 8/10/2022 at 10:45 PM documented, in part, Resident was sent to [name redacted] for psych evaluation d/t constant inappropriate behavior. Review of Discharge Instructions dated 8/10/22, documented the diagnosis from the resident's hospitalization on 8/10/22 as agitation. The Social Services Behavior History Evaluation-V 3 dated 8/16/22 documented the following question (Q) and answer (A): Q: 1. Making noises, grinding teeth, moaning, crying, strange noises, screaming and/or disruptive sounds? A: a. Yes Q: 1 b. If yes, is there a known trigger for this behavior? A: When he is around other people. Q: Effective Intervention? A: We try to ask him to be nice and respect others. Q: 13. Sexual acting out; explicit talk; physical sexual advances? A: b. No The Incident/Accident/Unusual Occurrence Note dated 9/2/2022 at 11:00 AM documented, this nurse walked up the hallway. This nurse noticed the resident sitting next to Resident #7 in lobby. Resident #7 states that this resident grabbed her right breast and tried to rub her leg. This resident immediately removed from resident [number redacted]. Administrator and Director of Nursing notified of incident. The Nurses Note dated 9/2/22 at 1:27 PM documented, the Resident #5's Power of Attorney (POA) notified for resident to be sent to [Facility Name in City Name Redacted]. Review of Inpatient Discharge Instructions dated 9/2/22 documented the following reason for visit: Inappropriate sexual behavior current nursing home towards another resident. Review of the Social Services Behavior History Evaluation-V 3 assessment dated [DATE] documented the following question (Q) and answer (A): Q: 13. Sexual acting out; explicit talk; physical sexual advances? A: a. Yes. The assessment also documented Resident #5 had displayed sexual acting out behavior. Known triggers for the behavior documented, not sure. The response to the question of effective intervention documented, staff asks him to stop and talks to him about his behavior. The Progress Note by a Nurse Practitioner of the facility, date of service 9/21/22, documented the resident had been seen for follow-up hospital. History of Present Illness (HPI) related to this visit documented, in part, Patient went to emergency room (ER) for a psych evaluation after inappropriate behaviors. Patient reports he believes he got back a week ago. No other content of the note referenced Resident #5's behaviors. The Medication Management Note dated 9/29/22, documented a chief complaint of inappropriate behaviors and agitation. The HPI section documented, in part, 9/29/22 - Resident #5 is a [age redacted] year old (y/o) male with history of inappropriate behaviors, seen today for initial interview per facility request for medication management. Staff report Resident #5 has always made some inappropriate comments and redirected easily. Recently Resident #5 grabbed a female resident's breast and put his hand down the back of her shirt and a complaint was filed with the state. Resident #5 was sent to a Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) and returned on Lexapro (antidepressant) 10 milligrams (mg) daily. Staff report he returned in a better mood and did well for about a week, and now he is back to same behaviors. Resident #5 does yell out and cause disruption in the dining room and gets into arguments with other male residents. Resident #5 does ask the female staff to go to bed with him. The Review of Systems section documented the following per the Psychiatric section: staff report inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors; irritable mood and gets into arguments with other male residents with yelling. The Medication Management Note dated 10/13/22 for Resident #5 documented, in part, the following: HPI - Resident #5 is a [age redacted] y/o male with history of inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors, along with getting into arguments with other male residents. The Psychiatric History section documented, in part, recent admission to BHU for sexually inappropriate behavior towards staff and other female residents. The Review of Systems section documented the following per the Psychiatric section: staff report inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors; irritable mood and gets into arguments with other male residents with yelling. The SPN-Focused Evaluation Note dated 10/26/22 at 11:08 AM documented, No injuries notes to Left arm from being punched in the left arm by another resident. Dr. [Name Redacted] notified. On 10/27/22 at 1:15 PM, Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), had been queried about Resident #5's behaviors. Staff A explained Resident #5 tried to grab her by the gait belt, and would smack her butt with a fly swatter. Staff A explained a lot of other women staff and residents had a problem with Resident #5 grabbing, touching, and saying things. Staff A identified a resident who did not like seeing the behavior, as well as a resident who had been bothered by Resident #5's behavior. Staff A explained Resident #5 would call people honey, and asked residents and staff to pull his [NAME] out. Staff A explained this occurred always, and she had witnessed this. When queried what she would do if the resident had sexual behaviors towards residents, Staff A responded she tried to shut down the situation, and would take the resident back to their room. Per Staff A, the resident wheeled around in a wheelchair and rolled up on others. On 10/27/22 at 1:25 PM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff B, CNA, explained they had seen where the resident would holler a lot and had been grabby towards females in the building. Staff B explained the resident liked to grab for peoples behinds and would grab for their belly. Staff B later clarified the behaviors had been towards staff. Staff B explained the other day Resident #5 and another male had gotten into an argument. Staff B also explained Resident #5 liked to go into other people's rooms, and explained a female resident had not been happy when Resident #5 had gone into her room. When specifically queried more about this, Staff B explained they only had known what the female resident had told her. When queried about Resident #5's behaviors towards residents, Staff B explained none as she had seen. When queried about Resident #5 having said anything to female residents, Staff B explained sometimes Resident #5 would say he wanted to go into the bathroom with them, and Staff B tried to avoid that. When queried what Staff B would do in this situation, Staff B explained she would normally just say to Resident #5 we are not doing that and direct the resident back to his room. When queried if Resident #5 would be receptive, Staff B explained the resident did listen every now and then, and would sometimes be frustrated. On 10/27/22 at 2:19 PM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) explained the resident did a lot of repeating very loud and could be disruptive. Staff C explained other residents would egg Resident #5 on as well. Per Staff C, Resident #5 did say inappropriate things sexually to staff and occasionally to the female residents, which had been why the resident sat by themselves at the table. Staff C explained she had heard Resident #5 say to other female residents something like, gonna put my [NAME] in it. Staff C explained usually [NAME] was involved, and Resident #5 said they were going to put it somewhere to residents and staff. Per Staff C, she would explain it was not appropriate and to not talk like that. Staff C explained Resident #5 would usually quit. When queried if Resident #5 had touched any residents, Staff explained Resident #5 would get real close to them, and other residents would egg him on. Per Staff C if redirection didn't stop the behavior she would remove Resident #5 from the situation. Staff C explained usually Resident #5 settled down, and she had not had to remove him. Staff C acknowledged Resident #5 did know better, part of it was his dementia, and the resident knew better. Staff C explained a female resident one time had hollered at her (Staff C) to please get Resident #5 away from her. Staff C acknowledged Resident #5 could move himself in his wheelchair, and would roll up next to other residents until he received redirection. On 10/31/22 at 3:33 PM, Staff G, Registered Nurse (RN) had been queried about Resident #5's behaviors. Staff G explained she had never seen Resident #5 do anything physically. Staff G explained Resident #5 talked constantly and said all kinds of stuff. Per Staff G, Resident #5 had asked staff to lay down with him and give him a kiss, and got kind of inappropriate. Per Resident #5, there had been a couple women that Resident #5 had always wanted to talk to. Staff G explained Resident #5 liked to talk to Resident #2. Per Staff G, Resident #2 had told her Resident #5 had been making her uncomfortable. Staff G explained if memory served right there had been an accusation of Resident #5 touching someone's knee or something on the porch. Staff G questioned if she had been thinking about the right time. When queried whose knee Resident #5 had touched, Staff G responded with Resident #2. When queried about the note she inputted about Resident #5 grabbing at residents and staff, Staff G responded one of the CNAs had said the resident had grabbed her arm and pulled in bed. Per Staff G, Resident #5 made inappropriate remarks typically to staff. Staff G further explained Resident #5 had been sent out to Geri Psych, and had been sent back. Per Staff G, she had not seen Resident #5 touch Resident #2, Resident #2 had told Staff G, and Staff G had heard Resident #2 yell at Resident #5. Staff G explained Resident #5 had been on the porch, and Resident #2 had been on their way out of the porch. When queried who she had told, Staff G responded she had told whoever she had been working with that day. Staff G explained she could not remember if she had told the Director of Nursing (DON), or the other nurse. Staff G explained she had been at the facility one of the times Resident #5 had gone out. Staff G explained the resident had come back after supper. Per Staff G, she explained she seemed to remember Resident #5 saying he got in trouble again but was back. When queried if she would chart if she had told the DON or the Administrator, Staff G explained she should have charted in a note if they had been told. When it had been shared that Staff G had put in the note about Resident #5 having been sent out from the facility in August, Staff G explained she thought it would have been her to do the notification as she had put in the note. On 11/1/22 at 11:31 AM, Staff H, CNA explained she had worked at the facility for a few weeks, and acknowledged she had worked with Resident #5 before. When queried about the resident's behaviors, Staff H explained the resident had been sexual towards her, and she had seen him try to do things to other people and would tell him to quit. Staff H explained the resident had said some things to residents and staff. When queried as to what Resident #5 had said to residents, Staff H explained the resident made indecent proposals and said things. Staff H explained the resident liked to talk about his genitals in the middle of lunch and would say stuff. When queried if this had been when other residents had been around, Staff H responded it had been. When queried about touching, Staff H responded she had not seen Resident #5 try to touch residents, and the resident had tried touching staff. When queried as to why Resident #5 had been eating at a table by themselves, Staff H explained she was not sure. Per Staff H, they had started putting a male resident next to him, but the resident had to be moved to another table for other reasons. When queried how other residents reacted, Staff H explained that a lot of them antagonized it so Resident #5 would keep going and thought it was funny. When queried how the resident would be antagonized, Staff H responded they would usually yell at Resident #5 to go back to his room, which got Resident #5 going more. Staff H further explained it would spiral, but it did not usually take long to get both parties to stop. Staff H explained someone would tell both of them to stop saying things and to leave each other alone. On 11/1/22 at 1:23 PM, Staff K, the facility's previous Activities Director, explained the following about Resident #5's behaviors: Per Staff K Resident #5 was just loud, and she had never seen Resident #5 touch a resident or be inappropriate with a resident. Staff K explained the resident's previous occupation and explained the resident was used to joking. Staff K further explained with anything Resident #5 said to you, you could tell him (Resident #5) don't say that and Resident #5 was apologetic. Staff K explained she felt like the other residents were mean to Resident #5, and being kind to others had been brought up in resident council. Staff K explained with Resident #5 it was like a stream of consciousness ran out of his mouth. On 11/2/22 at 8:18 AM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff L, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), explained Resident #5 was very sexually oriented. Per Staff L, Resident #5 often invited people to be his honey and the resident said that he needed someone to sleep with and to lay down. Per Staff L, this behavior had been mostly towards staff. When queried about behaviors towards residents, Staff L explained they would sometimes catch the resident at night trying to knock on females doors. Staff L explained they would tell Resident #5 he could not do that because they were sleeping. Staff L confirmed the resident used a wheelchair, and explained the resident did not sleep at night, would sleep during the day, and would be up all night. Per continued interview with Staff L on 11/2/22 at approximately 8:20 AM, Staff L, explained Resident #5 used to be boyfriend and girlfriend with Resident #12. When asked about when the residents had been boyfriend and girlfriend, Staff L explained it had been before the first time Resident #12 had left the facility for inappropriate behavior. Staff L explained Resident #5 and Resident #12 used to sit and eat dinner together, and Resident #12 used to let Resident #5 in her room, but Staff L did not see what had gone on. Staff L explained that sometimes at 2:00 AM Resident #5 and Resident #12 would sit and talk together in the dining room, as both residents did not sleep well. When asked if she had been aware of any concerns or complaints which involved Resident #5, Staff L acknowledged this had occurred with Resident #2. Per Staff L, Resident #2 had told Staff L stop him from coming this way, and per Staff L Resident #2 had said didn't you hear he touched me inappropriately? Per Staff L, this occurred in the middle of August or so. When queried as to why the resident ate at a table by himself, Staff L explained this was about the resident's loud booming voice. 2. The MDS for Resident #2 dated 10/19/22 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated intact cognition. 3. The MDS Assessment for Resident #7 dated 8/30/22 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated the resident had been cognitively intact. The Progress Note dated 9/2/22 present in Resident #7's clinical record documented, Resident states that Resident #5 grabbed her right breast. Resident also stated that Resident #5 tried to rub her leg. Resident #5] immediately removed away from resident. No injuries noted. Administrator and Director of Nursing notified of incident. Mother, [Name Redacted], called and notified of incident. Education given to staff regarding Resident #5. On 11/1/22 at 1:59 PM, Resident #7 observed in their room in bed. When asked how other residents treated her, Resident #7 responded good. Resident #7 denied concerns, then explained the guy touched me, and explained it had been taken care of. Resident #7 then identified the guy as Resident #5. Per Resident #7, it had happened about a month ago. When queried where she had been touched, Resident #7 responded the thigh, crotch, and breast. When queried how it had made her feel, Resident #7 responded, creepy. When queried about safety, Resident #7 explained she was safe here (at the facility) now because he's gone. Resident #7 explained the situation had occurred in the lobby, and other residents had been around. Per Resident #7, she had notified staff and the Director of Nursing (DON). On 11/1/22 at 2:03 PM, Staff I, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) explained the following: Staff I had walked by Resident #8, and Resident #8 told Staff I that Resident #5 had grabbed her right breast and thigh. Per Staff I, she had made sure the resident were separated out in the common area. Staff I acknowledged she had not seen the interaction, and Resident #7 had voiced it. Staff I explained she had told the DON, and had communicated to staff they needed to keep watch on Resident #5. Staff I explained it had been reported, and residents were immediately separated. 4. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #1 dated 7/13/22 revealed the resident scored 10 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #1 dated 10/5/22 revealed the resident scored 6 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severely impaired cognition. On 10/27/22 at 10:28 AM, an interview had been conducted with Resident #1. Resident #1 identified Resident #5 by first name, and explained the first time Resident #5 had met Resident #1, Resident #5 had grabbed her boob. Per Resident #1, this had occurred in the dining room when they had just started to eat supper. Per Resident #1, Resident #5 had been grabbed and ran off. Resident #1 explained the resident had also hit on her twenty-three year old granddaughter, and Resident #1 had threatened to throat punch Resident #5. Resident #1 explained the conversation had occurred with her family, and Resident #1 expressed he's (Resident #5) not assaulting me? When queried how the touching had made her feel, Resident #1 responded it had made her feel like she wanted to kill Resident #5. Resident #1 explained Resident #5 said things like, come here honey let's go to my room, and the resident would be brought to his table. Resident #1 explained a couple times the resident had tried to reach out for her breast, and had not made physical contact as she (Resident #1) would not let Resident #5 close enough. When queried about feeling safe at the facility, Resident #1 responded, in part, she was safe to stay at the facility as long as Resident #5 left her alone. When queried about who had been present when she had been touched, Resident #1 responded just the nurses. When queried as to how often Resident #5 tried to touch Resident #1, Resident #1 responded every chance that Resident #5 got close. Resident #1 explained they did not need to have someone try to hit on them at their current stage in their life. 5. On 10/25/22 during a confidential interview, an anonymous resident explained there had been a man, identified by the resident as Resident #5, who would come knock on their door in the middle of the night. Per the anonymous resident, the response had been the resident (male) had dementia. The anonymous resident explained everyone knew about it. On 10/27/22 at approximately 8:15 AM, the anonymous resident expressed concern with having her door open at night with her rear end exposed, in regard to potential physical contact occurring. Resident #5 explained they would pepper spray them. 6. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #12 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. Resident #12 had been previously identified during an interview with Staff L as Resident #5's girlfriend. 7. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 scored 15 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated intact cognition. During an interview on 10/27/22 at 4:55 PM, Resident #6 explained they would punch Resident #5 if the resident did not shut his mouth. Per Resident #6, Resident #5 had been vulgar, and said things to people that should not be said. Resident #6 explained others live here (at the facility) too. When queried about the type of things that had been said, Resident #6 explained Resident #5 had said things such as, hey baby to residents and staff. Resident #6 explained Resident #5 was mouthy, threatened to punch him (Resident #6) out, and that it happened all the time. Resident #6 explained he felt/responded to bring it on. Resident #6 further explained he did not like the way Resident #5 talked to women and guys. Resident #6 explained one day Resident #5 had gone to a female, had said weird things, and went to her table. Per Resident #6, something had been said like come to my bedroom, and he (Resident #6) had not liked that. Resident #6 further explained Resident #5 had asked him how he (Resident #6) held his penis with one hand. Resident #6 explained this had made him angry. Per Resident #6, others were tired of Resident #5 too, and explained it would come to a head pretty soon. Resident #6 explained Resident #5 did not want to shut their [expletive] mouth. Resident #6 had been queried what they did in this situation, explained they would remove themselves from the situation. When queried if staff spoke with Resident #6 about the situation, Resident #6 responded that staff did not care. 8. The MDS Assessment for Resident #8 dated 10/5/22 revealed Resident #8 scored 3 out of 15 on a BIMS Assessment, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Per this assessment, Resident #8 had no physical or verbal behavioral symptoms towards others, or other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others. On 10/31/22 at 1:17 PM, Resident #8 had been queried how other residents at the facility treated him, and responded good. When queried about problems, concerns, or statements which made him feel uncomfortable, Resident #8 mentioned Resident #5's name. Resident #8 explained it was not towards him but to other residents. Per Resident #8, Resident #5 would say to the female residents, Hey, why don't you go to my room and take off your clothes and stuff like that. When queried about which specific ladies had been told, Resident #8 responded he thought a resident who no longer resided at the facility. When queried how it had made him feel, Resident #8 responded like he wanted to get in a fight with Resident #5, but he had not done so. When queried if there had been a specific resident that Resident #5 had made the comment to, Resident #8 explained he thought a resident who he named, and further explained the resident no longer resided at the facility. Resident #8 had been queried if there had been a situation where any of the following had occurred between Resident #5 and Resident #8: touched, kicked, hit, or punched. Resident #8 responded I hit him (Resident #5) in the arm once. When queried what had brought the situation to that point, Resident #8 explained Resident #5 had said something. When queried about the timeframe the incident had occurred, Resident #8 explained fairly recently On 11/1/22 at 8:53 AM, the Administrator explained Resident #5 did not have any other facility reported incidents or incident reports other than 9/2/22 and 10/26/22. On 11/7/22 at 3:54 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) had been queried as to the process that should happen if a staff member charted inappropriate behavior, or grabbing at other residents. The DON responded staff needed to let them know if this had been happening, and if charting it, it needed to be reported because that behavior was inappropriate or abuse. Per the DON, the physician would be notified. On 11/8/22 at 4:05 PM, the DON had been queried if staff had reported behaviors to her about Resident #5 and other residents. The DON explained the resident was loud, repeated himself, and was persistent. When queried if staff had reported the resident asking people to pull his genitals out, the DON explained she had never heard that. When queried if the statement the resident wanted to go to the bathroom with other residents had come up, the DON acknowledged this had not been told to her. When queried about Resident #5 knocking on doors at nighttime, the DON explained for the most part the resident slept all night and she had not heard that the resident had been knocking on people's doors at night. The DON acknowledged Resident #5's behaviors towards residents needed to be reported, if it was actively happening redirection was needed and staff would stay with the resident, it would be reported, then investigated. On 11/8/22 at 12:32 PM, the facility's Administrator had been queried as to what would trigger an investigation, and responded any reports of abuse. The Facility Policy titled Mandatory Reporting Abuse Investigation dated 2019 documented, All Allegations of Resident abuse should be reported immediately to the charge nurse. The Charge Nurse is responsible for immediately reporting the allegations of abuse to the Director of Nursing, Administrator, or designated representative. Should an incident or suspected incident of resident abuse (as defined above) be reported or observed, the Administrator or his/her designee will designate a member of management to investigate the alleged incident. The Administrator or designee will designate a member of management to investigate the alleged incident. The Administrator or designee will complete documentation of the allegation of resident abuse and collect any supporting documents relative to the alleged incident and complete the following: a. Review documentation in resident record (including review of assessment and resident injury). b. Assess the resident for injury if the allegation involved physical or sexual abuse. c. Provide proper notifications to Primary Care Provider, responsible party, etc. d. Attempt to obtain [TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, clinical record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to maintain a safe envir...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, clinical record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to maintain a safe environment free from resident sexual abuse, verbal abuse, and physical abuse from residents at the facility when Resident #5 touched the breast of Resident #1 and Resident #7, made sexual comments to Resident #6, physically touched Resident #2, and Resident #5 was hit by Resident #8. Resident #1 stated the fact that Resident #5 had touched her breast made her feel like she wanted to kill him (Resident #5), and stated Resident #5 had made ongoing physical attempts to reach out and touch her breast. During a confidential interview an anonymous Resident expressed concern of having her door open with her bottom exposed at night for fear of attempted physical contact. Resident #6 expressed anger related to sexual comments that had been made, and expressed threats of violence towards Resident #5 if the resident did not shut their mouth. Resident #8 stated Resident #5 had made sexual comments to another resident. Resident #8 explained he felt like he wanted to get in a fight with Resident #5. This resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy when actual severe psychosocial harm occurred for residents who resided at the facility. The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #5 dated 6/29/22 revealed the resident had been rarely to never understood. Per this assessment, Resident #5 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. Resident #5 had verbal behavior symptoms towards others which occurred daily. The Care Plan dated 9/2/22 documented, I display socially inappropriate/disruptive behavior. I sometimes display sexually inappropriate behaviors.Interventions dated 9/2/22 included the following: a. I will be placed at a table by myself for meals. b. Activities staff to visit with me and provide diversional activities. c. Administer my behavior medications as ordered by physician. d. Encourage my family/responsible party to visit. e. Monitor and document my behavior. f. Praise me for demonstrating desired behavior. g. Remove me from public area's when behavior is disruptive and unacceptable. h. Talk with me in a calm voice when my behavior is disruptive. Interventions dated 10/27/22 included the following: a. I am receiving psych services. b. I will be having a medication review with my doctor. The Care Plan dated 9/15/22 documented, I have a behavior problem, I yell and repeat things frequently. Interventions per the Care Plan documented the following: a. Date initiated 8/16/22: Divert my attention. Remove me from situations as needed and take me to an alternate location as needed. b. Date initiated 9/8/22: I may need to be reminded to keep my hands to myself. c. Date initiated 8/16/22: Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others. Progress Notes for Resident #5 documented the following: The Orders-Administration Note dated 7/27/22 at 10:04 PM documented, Resident being sexually inappropriate. The Orders-Administration Note dated 7/30/22 at 11:44 PM documented, Resident was being sexually inappropriate today. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/2/22 at 10:06 PM documented, Sexually inappropriate behaviors. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/4/22 at 10:07 PM documented, Resident continues to struggle with keeping his hands to himself. Grabbing at both staff and other residents. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/8/2022 at 11:17 PM documented, Resident continues to be difficult to keep from touching others. The Care Plan Conference Summary dated 8/9/22 at 3:30 PM documented, reviewed care plan for nursing, dietary, social work and activities. Resident's son was notified that resident has been having inappropriate behaviors. Resident's son stated that he would approve a psych consult and to keep him updated. The Einteract Summary dated 8/10/22 at 12:52 PM documented, in part, physician order and family request resident transferred to ED (emergency department) for psych/behavioral evaluation. Primary Care Provider Feedback: Primary Care Provider responded with the following feedback: A. Recommendations: Send to ED for psych/behavioral evaluation .C. New Intervention Orders: a.Other b. redirection. Review of the SNF/NF (Skilled Nursing Facility/Nursing Facility) to Hospital Transfer Form dated 8/10/22 documented the risk alert for other had been selected, with intrusive and sexual behaviors documented. The behavioral issues and interventions section documented, intrusive behaviors. Resident is grabbing staff inappropriately. Resident is trying to grab other female residents and enter female residents rooms. Resident is making inappropriate sexual behaviors toward staff and other residents. The Mental Status Evaluation documented the following symptoms or signs: sexual outbursts and inappropriate grabbing. The Behavioral Evaluation section documented the following symptoms or signs: sexual outbursts, grabbing staff and attempting to grab other residents inappropriately. Trying to enter female residents rooms. Review of Hospital Paperwork for Resident #5, admission and discharge date [DATE], documented, History of Present Illness: Patient is an [age redacted]-year-old man who presents from nursing facility with concern for agitation. Apparently he has recently been sexually inappropriate at his nursing facility, today he cornered another resident and was screaming at her. These behaviors were abnormal for him. Patient denies any wrongdoing. He does not seem to recall yelling at anyone or doing anything wrong. The Nurses Note dated 8/10/22 at 5:37 PM documented, Received call from hospital regarding resident status, resident was being released d/t (due to) not meeting criteria for Geri Psych. Nurse suggested facility seek outpatient psychiatric treatment. The Orders-Administration Noted dated 8/10/2022 at 10:45 PM documented, in part, Resident was sent for psych eval d/t (due to) constant inappropriate behavior. Review of Discharge Instructions dated 8/10/22 documented the diagnosis from the resident's hospitalization on 8/10/22 as agitation. The SS: Social Services Behavior History Evaluation-V3 dated 8/16/22 documented the following question (Q) and answer (A): Q: 1. Making noises, grinding teeth, moaning, crying, strange noises, screaming and/or disruptive sounds? A: a. Yes Q: 1b. If yes, is there a known trigger for this behavior? A: when he is around other people Q: Effective Intervention? A: we try to ask him to be nice and respect others Q: 13. Sexual acting out; explicit talk; physical sexual advances? A: b. no The Incident,Accident,Unusual Occurrence Note dated 9/2/2022 at 11:00 AM documented, This nurse walked up the hallway. This nurse noticed this resident sitting next to resident [Resident #7] in lobby. Resident [Resident #7] stated that this resident grabbed her right breast and tried to rub her leg. Resident #5 immediately removed from Resident #7. Administrator and Director of Nursing notified of incident. The Nurses Note dated 9/2/22 at 1:27 PM documented, POA (Power of Attorney) notified for resident to be sent to a behavioral health unit. Review of Inpatient Discharge Instructions dated 9/2/22 documented the following reason for visit: Inappropriate sexual behavior current nursing home towards another resident. Review of the SS Social Services Behavior History Evaluation-V3 assessment dated [DATE] documented the following question (Q) and answer (A): Q: 13. Sexual acting out; explicit talk; physical sexual advances? A: a.Yes. The assessment also documented Resident #5 had displayed sexual acting out behavior. Known triggers for the behavior documented, not sure. The response to the question of effective intervention documented, staff askes <sic> him to stop and talks to him about his behavior. The Progress Note by a Nurse Practitioner of the facility, date of service 9/21/22, documented the resident had been seen for follow-up hospital. History of Present (HPI) related to this visit documented, in part, Patient went to ER (emergency room) for psych evaluation after inappropriate behaviors. Patient reported he believes he got back a week ago. No other content of the note referenced Resident #5's behaviors. The Med Management Note dated 9/29/22 documented a chief complaint of inappropriate behaviors and agitation. The HPI section documented, in part, 9/29/22 Resident #5 is a male with history of inappropriate behaviors, seen today for initial interview per facility request for medication management. Staff report Resident #5 has always made some inappropriate comments and redirected easily. Recently Resident #5 grabbed a female residents breast and put his hand down the back of her shirt and a complaint was filed with the state. Resident #5 was sent to a BHU and returned on Lexapro (antidepressant) 10 mg (milligram) daily. Staff report he returned in better mood and did well for about a week, and now he is back to same behaviors. Resident #5 does yell out and cause disruption in the dining room and gets into arguments with other male residents. Resident #5 does ask the female staff to go to bed with him. The Review of Systems section documented the following per the Psychiatric section: staff report inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors; irritable mood and gets into arguments with other male residents with yelling. The Med Management Note dated 10/13/22 for Resident #5 documented, in part, the following: HPI Resident #5 male with history of inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors, along with getting into arguments with other male residents. The Psychiatric History section documented, in part, Recent admission to BHU for sexually inappropriate behavior towards staff and other female residents. The Review of Systems section documented the following per the Psychiatric section: staff report inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors; irritable mood and gets into arguments with other male residents with yelling. The SPN-Focused Evaluation Note dated 10/26/22 at 11:08 AM documented, No injuries noted to Left arm from being punched in the left arm by another resident. Doctor notified On 10/27/22 at 1:15 PM, Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), had been queried about Resident #5's behaviors. Staff A explained Resident #5 tried to grab her by the gait belt, and would smack butt with a fly swatter. Staff A explained a lot of other women staff and residents had a problem with Resident #5 grabbing, touching, and saying things. Staff A identified a resident who did not like seeing the behavior, as well as a resident who had been bothered by Resident #5's behavior. Staff A explained Resident #5 would call people honey, and asked residents and staff to pull his [NAME] out. Staff A explained this occurred always, and she had witnessed this. When queried what she would do if the resident had sexual behaviors towards residents, Staff A responded she tried to shut down the situation, and would take the resident back to their room. Per Staff A, the resident wheeled around and rolled up on others. On 10/27/22 at 1:25 PM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff B, CNA, explained they had seen where the resident would holler a lot and had been grabby towards females in the building. Staff B explained the resident liked to grab for peoples behinds and would grab for their belly. Staff B later clarified the behaviors had been towards staff. Staff B explained the other day Resident #5 and another male had gotten into an argument. Staff B also explained Resident #5 liked to go into other people's rooms, and explained a female resident had not been happy when Resident #5 had gone into her room. When specifically queried more about this, Staff B explained they only had known what the female resident had told her. When queried about Resident #5's behaviors towards residents, Staff B explained not as she had seen. When queried about Resident #5 having said anything to female residents, Staff B explained sometimes Resident #5 would say he wanted to go into the bathroom with them, and Staff B tried to avoid that. When queried what Staff B would do in this situation, Staff B explained she would normally just say we are not doing that and direct the resident back to his room. When queried if Resident #5 would be receptive, Staff B explained the resident did listen every now and then, and would sometimes be frustrated. On 10/27/22 at 2:19 PM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) explained the resident did a lot of repeating very loud and could be disruptive. Staff C explained other residents would egg Resident #5 on as well. Per Staff C, Resident #5 did say inappropriate things sexually to staff and occasionally to the female residents, which had been why the resident sat by themself at the table. Staff C explained she had heard Resident #5 say to other female residents something like, gonna put my [NAME] in it. Staff C explained usually [NAME] was involved, and Resident #5 said they were going to put it somewhere to residents and staff. Per Staff C, she would explain it was not appropriate and to not talk like that. Staff C explained Resident #5 would usually quit. When queried if Resident #5 had touched any residents, Staff C explained Resident #5 would get real close to them, and other residents would egg him on. Per Staff C if redirection didn't stop the behavior she would remove Resident #5 from the situation. Staff C explained usually Resident #5 settled down, and she had not had to remove him. Staff C acknowledged Resident #5 did know better, part of it was his dementia, and the resident knew better. Staff C explained a female resident one time had hollered at her (Staff C) to please get Resident #5 away from her. Staff C acknowledged Resident #5 could move himself in his wheelchair, and would roll up next to other residents until he received redirection. On 10/31/22 at 3:33 PM, Staff G, Registered Nurse (RN) had been queried about Resident #5's behaviors. Staff G explained she had never seen Resident #5 do anything physically. Staff G explained Resident #5 talked constantly and said all kinds of stuff. Per Staff G, Resident #5 had asked staff to lay down with him and give him a kiss, and got kind of inappropriate. Per Resident #5, there had been a couple women that Resident #5 had always wanted to talk to. Staff G explained Resident #5 liked to talk to Resident #12. Per Staff G, Resident #2 had told her Resident #5 had been making her uncomfortable. Staff G explained if memory served right there had been an accusation of Resident #5 touching someone's knee or something on the porch. Staff G questioned if she had been thinking about the right time. When queried whose knee Resident #5 had touched, Staff G responded with Resident #2. When queried about the note she had input about Resident #5 grabbing at residents and staff, Staff G responded one of the CNAs had said the resident had grabbed her arm and pulled in bed. Per Staff G, Resident #5 made inappropriate remarks typically to staff. Staff G further explained Resident #5 had been sent out to geri psych, and had been sent back. Per Staff G, she had not seen Resident #5 touch Resident #2, Resident #2 had told Staff G, and Staff G had heard Resident #2 yell at Resident #5. Staff G explained Resident #5 had been on the porch, and Resident #2 had been on their way out of the porch. When queried who she had told, Staff G responded she had told whoever she had been working with that day. Staff G explained she could not remember if she had told the Director of Nursing (DON), or the other nurse. Staff G explained she had been at the facility one of the times Resident #5 had gone out. Staff G explained the resident had come back after supper. Per Staff G, she explained she seemed to remember Resident #5 saying he got in trouble again but was back. When queried if she would chart if she had told The DON or the Administrator, Staff G explained she should have charted in a note if they had been told. When it had been shared that Staff G had put in the note about Resident #5 having been sent out from the facility in August, Staff G explained she thought it would have been her to do the notification as she had put in the note. On 11/1/22 at 11:31 AM, Staff H, CNA explained she had worked at the facility for a few weeks, and acknowledged she had worked with Resident #5 before. When queried about the resident's behaviors, Staff H explained the resident had been sexual towards her, and she had seen him try to do things to other people and would tell him to quit. Staff H explained the resident had said some things to residents and staff. When queried as to what Resident #5 had said to residents, Staff H explained the resident made indecent proposals and said things. Staff H explained the resident liked to talk about his genitals in the middle of lunch and would say stuff. When queried if this had been when other residents had been around, Staff H responded it had been. When queried about touching, Staff H responded she had not seen Resident #5 try to touch residents, and the resident had tried touching staff. When queried as to why Resident #5 had been eating at a table by themself, Staff H explained she was not sure. Per Staff H, they had started putting a male resident next to him, but the resident had to be moved to another table for other reasons. When queried how other residents reacted, Staff H explained that a lot of them antagonized it so Resident #5 would keep going and thought it was funny. When queried how the resident would be antagonized, Staff H responded they would usually yell at Resident #5 to go back to his room, which got Resident #5 going more. Staff H further explained it would spiral, but it did not usually take long to get both parties to stop. Staff H explained someone would tell both of them to stop saying things and to leave each other alone. On 11/1/22 at 1:23 PM, Staff K, the facility's previous Activities Director, explained the following about Resident #5 's behaviors: Per Staff K Resident #5 was just loud, and she had never seen Resident #5 touch a resident or be inappropriate with a resident. Staff K explained the resident's previous occupation and explained the resident was used to joking. Staff K further explained with anything Resident #5 said to you, you could tell him (Resident #5) don't say that and Resident #5 was apologetic. Staff K explained she felt like the other residents were mean to Resident #5, and being kind to others had been brought up in resident council. Staff K explained with Resident #5 it was like a stream of consciousness ran out of his mouth. On 11/2/22 at 8:18 AM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff L, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), explained Resident #5 was very sexually oriented. Per Staff L, Resident #5 often invited people to be his honey and the resident said that he needed someone to sleep with and to lay down. Per Staff L, this behavior had been mostly towards staff. When queried about behaviors towards residents, Staff L explained they would sometimes catch the resident at night trying to knock on females doors. Staff L explained they would tell Resident #5 he could not do that because they were sleeping. Staff L confirmed the resident used a wheelchair, and explained the resident did not sleep at night, would sleep during the day, and would be up all night. Per continued interview with Staff L on 11/2/22 at approximately 8:20 AM, Staff L stated, Resident #5 used to be boyfriend and girlfriend with Resident #12. When asked about when the residents had been boyfriend and girlfriend, Staff L explained it had been before the first time Resident #12 had left the facility for inappropriate behavior. Staff L explained Resident #5 and Resident #12 used to sit and eat dinner together, and Resident #12 used to let Resident #5 in her room, but Staff L did not see what had gone on. Staff L explained that sometimes at 2:00 AM Resident #5 and Resident #12 would sit and talk together in the dining room, as both residents did not sleep well. When asked if she had been aware of any concerns or complaints which involved Resident #5, Staff L acknowledged this had occurred with Resident #2. Per Staff L, Resident #2 had told Staff L stop him from coming this way, and per Staff L Resident #2 had said didn't you hear he touched me inappropriately? Per Staff L, this occurred in the middle of August or so. When queried as to why the resident ate at a table by himself, Staff L explained this was about the resident's loud booming voice. 2. The MDS for Resident #2 dated 10/19/22 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated intact cognition. 3. The MDS assessment for Resident #7 dated 8/30/22 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated the resident had been cognitively intact. The Progress Note dated 9/2/22 present in Resident #7's clinical record documented, Resident stated that resident Resident #5 grabbed her right breast. Resident also stated that resident Resident #5 tried to rub her leg. Resident Resident #5 immediately removed away from resident. No injuries noted. Administrator and Director of Nursing notified of incident. Mother was called and notified of incident. Education given to staff regarding resident Resident #5. On 11/1/22 at 1:59 PM, Resident #7 had been observed in their room in bed. When asked how other residents treated her, Resident #7 responded good. Resident #7 denied concerns, then explained the guy touched me, and explained it had been taken care of. Resident #7 then identified the guy as Resident #5. Per Resident #7, it had happened about a month ago. When queried where she had been touched, Resident #7 responded the thigh, crotch, and breast. When queried how it had made her feel, Resident #7 responded, creepy. When queried about safety, Resident #7 explained she was safe here at the facility now because he's gone. Resident #7 explained the situation had occurred in the lobby, and other residents had been around. Per Resident #7, she had notified staff and the Director of Nursing (DON). On 11/1/22 at 2:03 PM, Staff I, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) explained the following: Staff I had walked by Resident #7, and Resident #7 told Staff I that Resident #5 had grabbed her right breast and thigh. Per Staff I, she had made sure the resident were separated out in the common area. Staff I acknowledged she had not seen the interaction, and Resident #7 had voiced it. Staff I explained she had told the DON, and had communicated to staff they needed to keep watch on Resident #5. Staff I explained it had been reported, and residents were immediately separated. 4.The Quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #1 dated 7/13/22 revealed the resident scored 10 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS assessment for Resident #1 dated 10/5/22 revealed the resident scored 6 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated severely impaired cognition. On 10/27/22 at 10:28 AM, an interview had been conducted with Resident #1. Resident #1 identified Resident #5 by first name, and explained the first time Resident #5 had met Resident #1, Resident #5 had grabbed her boob. Per Resident #1, this had occurred in the dining room when they had just started to eat supper. Per Resident #1, Resident #5 had been grabbed and ran off. Resident #1 explained the resident had also hit on her twenty-three year old granddaughter, and Resident #1 had threatened to throat punch Resident #5. Resident #1 explained conversation had occurred with her family, and Resident #1 expressed he's (Resident #5) not assaulting me? When queried how the touching had made her feel, Resident #1 responded it had made her feel like she wanted to kill Resident #5. Resident #1 explained Resident #5 said things like, come here honey let's go to my room, and the resident would be brought to his table. Resident #1 explained a couple times the resident had tried to reach out for her breast, and had not made physical contact as she would not let Resident #5 close enough. When queried about feeling safe at the facility, Resident #1 responded, in part, she was safe to stay at the facility as long as Resident #5 left her alone. When queried about who had been present when she had been touched, Resident #1 responded just the nurses. When queried as to how often Resident #5 tried to touch her, Resident #1 responded every chance that Resident #5 got close. Resident #1 explained they did not need to have someone try to hit on them at their current stage in their life. 5.On 10/25/22 during a confidential interview, an anonymous resident explained there had been a man, identified by the resident as Resident #5, who would come knock on their door in the middle of the night. Per the anonymous resident, the response had been Resident #5 had dementia. The anonymous resident explained everyone knew about it. On 10/27/22 at approximately 8:15 AM, the anonymous resident expressed concern with having her door open at night with her rear end exposed, in regard to potential physical contact occurring. Resident explained they would pepperspray them. 6. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #12 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. Resident #12 had been previously identified during an interview with Staff L as Resident #5's girlfriend. 7. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 scored 15 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated intact cognition. During an interview on 10/27/22 at 4:55 PM, Resident #6 explained they would punch Resident #5 if the resident did not shut his mouth. Per Resident #6, Resident #5 had been vulgar, and said things to people that should not be said. Resident #6 explained others live here (at the facility) too. When queried about the type of things that had been said, Resident #6 explained Resident #5 had said things such as, hey baby to residents and staff. Resident #6 explained Resident #5 was mouthy, threatened to punch him (Resident #6) out, and that it happened all the time. Resident #6 explained he felt/responded to bring it on. Resident #6 further explained he did not like the way Resident #5 talked to women and guys. Resident #6 explained one day Resident #5 had gone to a female, had said weird things, and went to her table. Per Resident #6, something had been said like come to my bedroom, and he (Resident #6) had not liked that. Resident #6 further explained Resident #5 had asked him how he (Resident #6) held his penis with one hand. Resident #6 explained this had made him angry. Per Resident #6, others were tired of Resident #5 too, and explained it would come to a head pretty soon. Resident #6 explained Resident #5 did not want to shut their [expletive] mouth. Resident #6 had been queried what they did in this situation, explained they would remove themselves from the situation. When queried if staff spoke with Resident #6 about the situation, Resident #6 responded that staff did not care. 8. The MDS assessment for Resident #8 dated 10/5/22 revealed Resident #8 scored 3 out of 15 on a BIMS assessment, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Per this assessment, Resident #8 had no physical or verbal behavioral symptoms towards others, or other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others. On 10/31/22 at 1:17 PM, Resident #8 had been queried how other residents at the facility treated him, and responded good. When queried about problems, concerns, or statements which made him feel uncomfortable, Resident #8 mentioned Resident #5's name. Resident #8 explained it was not towards him but to other residents. Per Resident #8, Resident #5 would say to the female residents, Hey why don't you go to my room and take off your clothes and stuff like that. When queried about which specific ladies had been told, Resident #8 responded he thought a resident who no longer resided at the facility. When queried how it had made him feel, Resident #8 responded like he wanted to get in a fight with Resident #5, but he had not done so. When queried if there had been a specific resident that Resident #5 had made the comment to, Resident #8 explained he thought a resident who he named, and further explained the resident no longer resided at the facility. Resident #8 had been queried if there had been a situation where any of the following had occurred between Resident #5 and Resident #8: touched, kicked, hit, or punched. Resident #8 responded I hit him (Resident #5) in the arm once. When queried what had brought the situation to that point, Resident #8 explained Resident #5 had said something. When queried about the timeframe the incident had occurred, Resident #8 explained fairly recently. On 11/7/22 at 3:59 PM, the DON explained Resident #5 had been sent out in August to geriaric behavioral health. Per the DON, information had been reported to the previous Administrator and the DON had said the resident needed to be sent out for an evaluation, and had been sent out. Per the DON, the previous Administrator had come to her office and had told her there was a problem with Resident #5. Per the DON, all she could remember was the previous Administrator told her there was a problem with a complaint that the resident had been inappropriate. When queried who the complaint had come from and what had been going on, the DON reported what she knew had been what the previous Administrator told her. The DON reported the previous Administrator communicated that Resident #2 said Resident #5 had cornered her, and had tried to run his finger down her back. Per the DON, when it was asked nobody had seen it happen. The DON explained the resident was loud and verbal, and she thought maybe the resident needed to go to the emergency room and get evaluated for geriatric behavioral health. Per the DON, as far as residents, that had been the only incident told to her. The DON further explained that the situation between Resident #2 and Resident #5 in August had been the only incident she had known of that a resident had complained or she knew Resident #2 touched a resident. Per the DON, she didn't see that, and staff said they didn't see it either, but the resident had said it happened. When queried about the situation with Resident #7, the DON explained that is the one she reported. The DON explained she had not seen it happen, and the Administrator had done all the reporting. On 11/7/22 at 4:05 PM, the DON had been queried if staff had reported behaviors to her about Resident #5 and other residents. The DON explained the resident was loud, repeated himself, and was persistent. When queried if staff had reported the resident asking people to pull his genitals out, the DON explained she had never heard that. When queried if the statement the resident wanted to go to the bathroom with other residents had come up, the DON acknowledged this had not been told to her. When queried about Resident #5 knocking on doors at nighttime, the DON explained for the most part the resident slept all night and she had not heard that the resident had been knocking on people's doors at night. The DON acknowledged Resident #5's behaviors towards residents needed to be reported, if it was actively happening redirection was needed and staff would stay with the resident, it would be reported, then investigated. On 11/8/22 at 12:32 PM, the Administrator explained the only time she had seen Resident #5 touch another resident had been when he had reached out and touched Resident #2's shoulder and said hello. Per the Administrator, otherwise she had not seen Resident #5 wheel his chair up to other people. The facility Administrator acknowledged if staff had charted or seen behaviors, they should have told the Charge Nurse or supervisor what they had seen. The Administrator acknowledged she had not been[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0741 (Tag F0741)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide sufficient staff with skill sets to address a cognitively impaired male resident's (Resident #5's) behaviors towards other residents at the facility, which negatively impacted other residents within the environment (Resident #1, #2, #5, #6, #7, #8). Resident #5 had been involved in a physical altercation and displayed sexual behaviors towards others. Other residents who resided at the facility had voiced aggressive acts they would take towards Resident #5 in response to the resident's behaviors. This resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy when actual psychosocial harm occurred for residents who resided at the facility. The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings Include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #5 dated 6/29/22 revealed the resident rarely to never understood. Per this assessment, Resident #5 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and had verbal behavior symptoms towards others which occurred daily. The Care Plan dated 9/2/22 documented, I display socially inappropriate/disruptive behavior. I sometimes display sexually inappropriate behaviors. Interventions on the Care Plan dated 9/2/22 included the following: a. 9/2/22 I will be placed at a table by myself for meals. b. Activities staff to visit with me and provide diversional activities. c. Administer my behavior medications as ordered by physician. d. Encourage my family/responsible party to visit. e. Monitor and document my behavior. f. Praise me for demonstrating desired behavior. g. Remove me from public areas when behavior is disruptive and unacceptable. h. Talk with me in a calm voice when my behavior is disruptive. Interventions on the Care Plan dated 10/27/22 included the following: a. I am receiving psych services. b. I will be having a medication review with my doctor. The Care Plan dated 9/15/22 documented, I have a behavior problem, I yell and repeat things frequently. Interventions per the Care Plan documented the following: a. Date initiated 8/16/22: Divert my attention. Remove me from situations as needed and take me to an alternate location as needed. b. Date initiated 9/8/22: I may need to be reminded to keep my hands to myself. c. Date initiated 8/16/22: Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others. Progress Notes for Resident #5 documented the following: a. The Orders-Administration Note dated 7/27/22 at 10:04 PM documented, Resident being sexually inappropriate. b. The Orders-Administration Note dated 7/30/22 at 11:44 PM documented, Resident was being sexually inappropriate today. c. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/2/22 at 10:06 PM documented, sexually inappropriate behaviors. d. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/4/22 at 10:07 PM documented, Resident continues to struggle with keeping his hands to himself. Grabbing at both staff and other residents. e. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/8/2022 at 11:17 PM documented, Resident continues to be difficult to keep from touching others. The Care Plan Conference Summary dated 8/9/22 at 3:30 PM documented, reviewed Care Plan for Nursing, Dietary, Social Work and Activities. Resident's son was notified the resident has been having inappropriate behaviors. Resident's son states that he would approve a psych consult and to keep him updated. The Einteract Summary dated 8/10/22 at 12:52 PM documented, in part, documented by Physician Order and family request, the resident transferred to the Emergency Department (ED) for psych/behavioral evaluation. Primary Care Provider Feedback: Primary Care Provider responded with the following feedback: A. Recommendations: Send to ED for psych/behavioral evaluation. B. New Intervention Orders: a. Other. b. Redirection. Review of the Skilled Nursing Facility/Nursing Facility (SNF/NF) to Hospital Transfer Form dated 8/10/22 documented the risk alert for other had been selected, with intrusive and sexual behaviors documented. The behavioral issues and interventions section documented, intrusive behaviors. Resident is grabbing staff inappropriately. Resident is trying to grab other female residents and enter female residents' rooms. Resident is making inappropriate sexual behaviors toward staff and other residents. The Mental Status Evaluation documented the following symptoms or signs: sexual outbursts and inappropriate grabbing. The Behavioral Evaluation section documented the following symptoms or signs: sexual outbursts, grabbing staff and attempting to grab other residents inappropriately. Trying to enter female residents' rooms. Review of Hospital Paperwork for Resident #5, admission and discharge date [DATE], documented, History of Present Illness: Patient is an [age redacted]-year-old man who presents from a Nursing Facility with concern for agitation. Apparently he has recently been sexually inappropriate at his nursing facility, today he cornered another resident and was screaming at her. These behaviors were abnormal for him. Patient denies any wrongdoing. He does not seem to recall yelling at anyone or doing anything wrong. The Nurses Note dated 8/10/22 at 5:37 PM documented, Received call from [Hospital Name] regarding resident status, Resident is being released due to (d/t) not meeting criteria for Geri Psych. Nurse suggested facility seek Outpatient Psychiatric Treatment. The Orders-Administration Noted dated 8/10/2022 at 10:45 PM documented, in part, Resident was sent to [name redacted] for psych evaluation d/t constant inappropriate behavior. Review of Discharge Instructions dated 8/10/22, documented the diagnosis from the resident's hospitalization on 8/10/22 as agitation. The Social Services Behavior History Evaluation-V 3 dated 8/16/22 documented the following question (Q) and answer (A): Q: 1. Making noises, grinding teeth, moaning, crying, strange noises, screaming and/or disruptive sounds? A: a. Yes Q: 1 b. If yes, is there a known trigger for this behavior? A: When he is around other people. Q: Effective Intervention? A: We try to ask him to be nice and respect others. Q: 13. Sexual acting out; explicit talk; physical sexual advances? A: b. No The Incident/Accident/Unusual Occurrence Note dated 9/2/2022 at 11:00 AM documented, this nurse walked up the hallway. This nurse noticed the resident sitting next to Resident #7 in lobby. Resident #7 states that this resident grabbed her right breast and tried to rub her leg. This resident immediately removed from resident [number redacted]. Administrator and Director of Nursing notified of incident. The Nurses Note dated 9/2/22 at 1:27 PM documented, the Resident #5's Power of Attorney (POA) notified for resident to be sent to [Facility Name in City Name Redacted]. Review of Inpatient Discharge Instructions dated 9/2/22 documented the following reason for visit: Inappropriate sexual behavior current nursing home towards another resident. Review of the Social Services Behavior History Evaluation-V 3 assessment dated [DATE] documented the following question (Q) and answer (A): Q: 13. Sexual acting out; explicit talk; physical sexual advances? A: a. Yes. The assessment also documented Resident #5 had displayed sexual acting out behavior. Known triggers for the behavior documented, not sure. The response to the question of effective intervention documented, staff asks him to stop and talks to him about his behavior. The Progress Note by a Nurse Practitioner of the facility, date of service 9/21/22, documented the resident had been seen for follow-up hospital. History of Present Illness (HPI) related to this visit documented, in part, Patient went to emergency room (ER) for a psych evaluation after inappropriate behaviors. Patient reports he believes he got back a week ago. No other content of the note referenced Resident #5's behaviors. The Medication Management Note dated 9/29/22, documented a chief complaint of inappropriate behaviors and agitation. The HPI section documented, in part, 9/29/22 - Resident #5 is a [age redacted] year old (y/o) male with history of inappropriate behaviors, seen today for initial interview per facility request for medication management. Staff report Resident #5 has always made some inappropriate comments and redirected easily. Recently Resident #5 grabbed a female resident's breast and put his hand down the back of her shirt and a complaint was filed with the state. Resident #5 was sent to a Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) and returned on Lexapro (antidepressant) 10 milligrams (mg) daily. Staff report he returned in a better mood and did well for about a week, and now he is back to same behaviors. Resident #5 does yell out and cause disruption in the dining room and gets into arguments with other male residents. Resident #5 does ask the female staff to go to bed with him. The Review of Systems section documented the following per the Psychiatric section: staff report inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors; irritable mood and gets into arguments with other male residents with yelling. The Medication Management Note dated 10/13/22 for Resident #5 documented, in part, the following: HPI - Resident #5 is a [age redacted] y/o male with history of inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors, along with getting into arguments with other male residents. The Psychiatric History section documented, in part, recent admission to BHU for sexually inappropriate behavior towards staff and other female residents. The Review of Systems section documented the following per the Psychiatric section: staff report inappropriate sexual comments and behaviors; irritable mood and gets into arguments with other male residents with yelling. The SPN-Focused Evaluation Note dated 10/26/22 at 11:08 AM documented, No injuries notes to Left arm from being punched in the left arm by another resident. Dr. [Name Redacted] notified. On 10/27/22 at 1:15 PM, Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), had been queried about Resident #5's behaviors. Staff A explained Resident #5 tried to grab her by the gait belt, and would smack her butt with a fly swatter. Staff A explained a lot of other women staff and residents had a problem with Resident #5 grabbing, touching, and saying things. Staff A identified a resident who did not like seeing the behavior, as well as a resident who had been bothered by Resident #5's behavior. Staff A explained Resident #5 would call people honey, and asked residents and staff to pull his [NAME] out. Staff A explained this occurred always, and she had witnessed this. When queried what she would do if the resident had sexual behaviors towards residents, Staff A responded she tried to shut down the situation, and would take the resident back to their room. Per Staff A, the resident wheeled around in a wheelchair and rolled up on others. On 10/27/22 at 1:25 PM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff B, CNA, explained they had seen where the resident would holler a lot and had been grabby towards females in the building. Staff B explained the resident liked to grab for peoples behinds and would grab for their belly. Staff B later clarified the behaviors had been towards staff. Staff B explained the other day Resident #5 and another male had gotten into an argument. Staff B also explained Resident #5 liked to go into other people's rooms, and explained a female resident had not been happy when Resident #5 had gone into her room. When specifically queried more about this, Staff B explained they only had known what the female resident had told her. When queried about Resident #5's behaviors towards residents, Staff B explained none as she had seen. When queried about Resident #5 having said anything to female residents, Staff B explained sometimes Resident #5 would say he wanted to go into the bathroom with them, and Staff B tried to avoid that. When queried what Staff B would do in this situation, Staff B explained she would normally just say to Resident #5 we are not doing that and direct the resident back to his room. When queried if Resident #5 would be receptive, Staff B explained the resident did listen every now and then, and would sometimes be frustrated. On 10/27/22 at 2:19 PM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) explained the resident did a lot of repeating very loud and could be disruptive. Staff C explained other residents would egg Resident #5 on as well. Per Staff C, Resident #5 did say inappropriate things sexually to staff and occasionally to the female residents, which had been why the resident sat by themselves at the table. Staff C explained she had heard Resident #5 say to other female residents something like, gonna put my [NAME] in it. Staff C explained usually [NAME] was involved, and Resident #5 said they were going to put it somewhere to residents and staff. Per Staff C, she would explain it was not appropriate and to not talk like that. Staff C explained Resident #5 would usually quit. When queried if Resident #5 had touched any residents, Staff explained Resident #5 would get real close to them, and other residents would egg him on. Per Staff C if redirection didn't stop the behavior she would remove Resident #5 from the situation. Staff C explained usually Resident #5 settled down, and she had not had to remove him. Staff C acknowledged Resident #5 did know better, part of it was his dementia, and the resident knew better. Staff C explained a female resident one time had hollered at her (Staff C) to please get Resident #5 away from her. Staff C acknowledged Resident #5 could move himself in his wheelchair, and would roll up next to other residents until he received redirection. On 10/27/22 at 3:02 PM, information which included any hospital records for any inpatient behavioral health stays in 2022 for Resident #5 had been requested. On 10/27/22 at 3:34 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) explained they would need to get the Power of Attorney (POA) to sign to release the resident's psychiatric records. On 10/31/22 at 3:33 PM, Staff G, Registered Nurse (RN) had been queried about Resident #5's behaviors. Staff G explained she had never seen Resident #5 do anything physically. Staff G explained Resident #5 talked constantly and said all kinds of stuff. Per Staff G, Resident #5 had asked staff to lay down with him and give him a kiss, and got kind of inappropriate. Per Resident #5, there had been a couple women that Resident #5 had always wanted to talk to. Staff G explained Resident #5 liked to talk to Resident #12. Per Staff G, Resident #2 had told her Resident #5 had been making her uncomfortable. Staff G explained if memory served right there had been an accusation of Resident #5 touching someone's knee or something on the porch. Staff G questioned if she had been thinking about the right time. When queried whose knee Resident #5 had touched, Staff G responded with Resident #2. When queried about the note she had input about Resident #5 grabbing at residents and staff, Staff G responded one of the CNAs had said the resident had grabbed her arm and pulled in bed. Per Staff G, Resident #5 made inappropriate remarks typically to staff. Staff G further explained Resident #5 had been sent out to Geri Psych, and had been sent back. Per Staff G, she had not seen Resident #5 touch Resident #2, Resident #2 had told Staff G, and Staff G had heard Resident #2 yell at Resident #5. Staff G explained Resident #5 had been on the porch, and Resident #2 had been on their way out of the porch. When queried who she had told, Staff G responded she had told whoever she had been working with that day. Staff G explained she could not remember if she had told the Director of Nursing (DON), or the other nurse. Staff G explained she had been at the facility one of the times Resident #5 had gone out. Staff G explained the resident had come back after supper. Per Staff G, she explained she seemed to remember Resident #5 saying he got in trouble again but was back. When queried if she would chart if she had told The DON or the Administrator, Staff G explained she should have charted in a note if they had been told. When it had been shared that Staff G had put in the note about Resident #5 having been sent out from the facility in August, Staff G explained she thought it would have been her to do the notification as she had put in the note. On 11/1/22 at 11:31 AM, Staff H, CNA explained she had worked at the facility for a few weeks, and acknowledged she had worked with Resident #5 before. When queried about the resident's behaviors, Staff H explained the resident had been sexual towards her, and she had seen him try to do things to other people and would tell him to quit. Staff H explained the resident had said some things to residents and staff. When queried as to what Resident #5 had said to residents, Staff H explained the resident made indecent proposals and said things. Staff H explained the resident liked to talk about his genitals in the middle of lunch and would say stuff. When queried if this had been when other residents had been around, Staff H responded it had been. When queried about touching, Staff H responded she had not seen Resident #5 try to touch residents, and the resident had tried touching staff. When queried as to why Resident #5 had been eating at a table by themselves, Staff H explained she was not sure. Per Staff H, they had started putting a male resident next to him, but the resident had to be moved to another table for other reasons. When queried how other residents reacted, Staff H explained that a lot of them antagonized it so Resident #5 would keep going and thought it was funny. When queried how the resident would be antagonized, Staff H responded they would usually yell at Resident #5 to go back to his room, which got Resident #5 going more. Staff H further explained it would spiral, but it did not usually take long to get both parties to stop. Staff H explained someone would tell both of them to stop saying things and to leave each other alone. On 11/1/22 at 12:42 PM, Staff J, previous Social Services staff, had been interviewed about Resident #5. Staff J explained he knew he had had a couple talks with Resident #5 related to the resident at the dining room table voicing different things. Per Staff J, he had had to stop arguments quite a few times between Resident #5 and Resident #6. Staff J explained that recently he had heard staff said the resident had made inappropriate comments. Staff J explained the resident rambled sometimes and let things slip. Staff J explained that he had heard staff say someone (later identified as Resident #2) had complained about Resident #5 and comments towards her. When queried about Resident #5 physically touching other residents, Staff J explained that he had not heard/talked to Resident #5 about that. Staff J explained he had heard in stand up in the past few weeks that Resident #5 had walked by Resident #2 and had touched her elbow. When queried about Geri Psych and hospitalization, Staff J explained the resident had gone to the emergency room (ER) for being aggressive, and Resident #5 had been arguing with Resident #6 quite a bit. Staff J explained the old Administrator had put Resident #5 at a table by himself to decrease tension between Resident #5 and Resident #6. When queried about the situation between Resident #5 and Resident #7, Staff J explained that he knew it had been discussed at stand up, and further explained he had not been at the facility when the resident had been sent out. When asked about a plan to address Resident #5's behaviors, Staff J responded the resident had been watched closer in the dining hall, a one to one (monitoring) had not been done, and the resident would be corrected in the dining hall related to being loud. When queried if Social Services would address Resident #5 grabbing at residents, Staff J responded if it had not already been address then Social Work would address. When queried how it would be known if addressed, Staff J explained if it had been discussed in stand up then they would know it had been addressed. When queried about concerns with Resident #6 and Resident #5, Staff J explained Resident #5 would say he had to eat, and where is the food. Resident #6 would respond back and forth, and Resident #6 would be frustrated to hear the same things over and over again. When queried as to follow up if a resident had been sent to the hospital with behaviors, Staff J responded he would not see it at a sit down evaluation, and he had never written anything down. When queried if there had been behavior monitoring for Resident #5, Staff J responded not that he had known of. On 11/1/22 at 1:23 PM, Staff K, the facility's previous Activities Director, explained the following about Resident #5's behaviors: Per Staff K, Resident #5 was just loud, and she had never seen Resident #5 touch a resident or be inappropriate with a resident. Staff K explained the resident's previous occupation and explained the resident was used to joking. Staff K further explained with anything Resident #5 said to you, you could tell him don't say that and Resident #5 was apologetic. Staff K explained she felt like the other residents were mean to Resident #5, and being kind to others had been brought up in resident council. Staff K explained with Resident #5 it was like a stream of consciousness ran out of his mouth. On 11/2/22 at 8:18 AM, when queried about Resident #5's behaviors, Staff L, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), explained Resident #5 was very sexually oriented. Per Staff L, Resident #5 often invited people to be his honey and the resident said that he needed someone to sleep with and to lay down. Per Staff L, this behavior had been mostly towards staff. When queried about behaviors towards residents, Staff L explained they would sometimes catch the resident at night trying to knock on females doors. Staff L explained they would tell Resident #5 he could not do that because they were sleeping. Staff L confirmed the resident used a wheelchair, and explained the resident did not sleep at night, would sleep during the day, and would be up all night. Per continued interview with Staff L on 11/2/22 at approximately 8:20 AM, Staff L, Resident #5 used to be boyfriend and girlfriend with Resident #12. When asked about when the residents had been boyfriend and girlfriend, Staff L explained it had been before the first time Resident #12 had left the facility for inappropriate behavior. Staff L explained Resident #5 and Resident #12 used to sit and eat dinner together, and Resident #12 used to let Resident #5 in her room, but Staff L did not see what had gone on. Staff L explained that sometimes at 2:00 AM Resident #5 and Resident #12 would sit and talk together in the dining room, as both residents did not sleep well. When asked if she had been aware of any concerns or complaints which involved Resident #5, Staff L acknowledged this had occurred with Resident #2. Per Staff L, Resident #2 had told Staff L stop him from coming this way, and per Staff L Resident #2 had said didn't you hear he touched me inappropriately? Per Staff L, this occurred in the middle of August or so. When queried as to why the resident ate at a table by himself, Staff L explained this was about the resident's loud booming voice. 2. The MDS for Resident #2 dated 10/19/22 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated intact cognition. 3. On 10/27/22 at 3:42 PM, the Administrator explained there were five residents at the facility who were not kind to Resident #5. Per the Administrator, when Resident #1 had been taken back to their room and Resident #5 had been in their doorway, Resident #1 would call Resident #5 a nasty name. Per the Administrator, Resident #2 would do the same. The Administrator explained Resident #1 and Resident #2 would say they had rights, and per the Administrator Resident #5 had rights too to not hear that. When queried if this conflict/concern had been going on since the Administrator had started in their position in August, the Administrator explained if it had occurred at that time she had not noticed then. The Administrator further explained that in the last month or so she had started to notice things that were not nice to him (Resident #5). The Administrator explained an example when Resident #5 had been talking to themselves, and Resident #9 had said, tell that guy to shut up. The Administrator explained there had been a movie on, and per the Administrator the television program could still be heard. The Administrator acknowledged the situation had been getting bad. Per the Administrator, Resident #5 had been sent to psych, had come back better for a week or so, and now had been talking more. On 10/27/22 at approximately 5:18 PM, the following observation occurred in the dining room. Resident #5 had been present in their wheelchair a table by themselves in the dining room. Staff had not been present with Resident #5. At the table next to Resident #5, Resident #1 and Resident #6 had been present. Resident #6 had been in closest proximity to Resident #5. Observation revealed Resident #5 spoke loudly, and said things including, but not limited to, the following: ham and eggs, bacon and toast, get something to eat honey I'm hungry, and Honey come here. Resident #6 replied, Leave her alone. Resident #5 stated, Come on and warm me up honey put some covers on. Resident #6 responded, Shut-up for a while. Observation revealed Resident #6 in his wheelchair facing Resident #5. Resident #6 hit his fist on his leg repeatedly. Resident #1 had been heard to participate in the running conversation. Resident #5 spoke loudly about bacon and eggs, and said keep quiet honey, keep quiet. Resident #6 responded, you gonna make me? On 10/27/22 at 5:22 PM, a staff member brought Resident #5 a paper activity. Resident #5 stated, Honey come here, you gonna be my bunny honey? Resident #5 and Resident #6 made statements back and forth, and Resident #1 had been heard to participate in the conversation as well. Staff helped Resident #5 apply his jacket, and at approximately 5:27 PM staff put a chair by Resident #5 and sat down. 4. The MDS Assessment for Resident #8 dated 10/5/22 revealed Resident #8 scored 3 out of 15 on a BIMS Assessment, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Per this Assessment, Resident #8 had no physical or verbal behavioral symptoms towards others, or other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others. On 10/27/22 at approximately 3:40 PM, the facility's Administrator had been queried who had been involved in the resident to resident incident between Resident #5 and other resident documented on 10/26/22. The Administrator identified the other resident as Resident #8. Per the Administrator, Resident #5 had not been talking at the time. Resident #8 had been escorted in their wheelchair back to the room. Resident #8 had been passing Resident #5, and Resident #8 had hit Resident #5 in the arm. When queried if there had been an interaction occurring between them at the time, the DON explained there had not been an interaction. On 10/31/22 at 1:17 PM, Resident #8 had been queried how other residents at the facility treated him, and responded good. When queried about problems, concerns, or statements which made him feel uncomfortable, Resident #8 mentioned Resident #5's name. Resident #8 explained it was not towards him but to other residents. Per Resident #8, Resident #5 would say to the female residents, hey why don't you go to my room and take off your clothes and stuff like that. When queried about which specific ladies had been told, Resident #8 responded he thought a resident who no longer resided at the facility. When queried how it had made him feel, Resident #8 responded like he wanted to get in a fight with Resident #5, but he had not done so. When queried if there had been a specific resident that Resident #5 had made the comment to, Resident #8 explained he thought a resident who he named, and further explained the resident no longer resided at the facility. Resident #8 had been queried if there had been a situation where any of the following had occurred between Resident #5 and Resident #8: touched, kicked, hit, or punched. Resident #8 responded I hit him (Resident #5) in the arm once. When queried what had brought the situation to that point, Resident #8 explained Resident #5 had said something. When queried about the timeframe the incident had occurred, Resident #8 explained fairly recently. Resident #8 also explained he would be at his table where he ate, and Resident #5 would come up in their wheelchair beside Resident #5 and would get in his space. Per Resident #8, Resident #5 would start mumbling and said hey, did we ever go to the fish fry at the city next to us? Resident #8 responded he would say no, he didn't want to go to it, and would say why don't you go back to your table? Resident 8 explained Resident #5 would go back if Resident #8 said it sternly enough. 5. The MDS Assessment for Resident #7 dated 8/30/22 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated the resident had been cognitively intact. The Progress Note dated 9/2/22 present in Resident #7's clinical record documented, Resident states that Resident #5 grabbed her right breast. Resident also states that Resident #5 tried to rub her leg. Resident #5 immediately removed away from resident. No injuries noted. Administrator and Director of Nursing notified of incident. Mother, [Name Redacted], called and notified of incident. Education given to staff regarding Resident #5. On 11/1/22 at 1:59 PM, Resident #7 had been observed in their room in bed. When asked how other residents treated her, Resident #7 responded good. Resident #7 denied concerns, then explained the guy touched me, and explained it had been taken care of. Resident #7 then identified the guy as Resident #5. Per Resident #7, it had happened about a month ago. When queried where she had been touched, Resident #7 responded the thigh, crotch, and breast. When queried how it had made her feel, Resident #7 responded, creepy. When queried about safety, Resident #7 explained she was safe here (at the facility) now because he's gone. Resident #7 explained the situation had occurred in the lobby, and other residents had been around. Per Resident #7, she had notified staff and the Director of Nursing (DON). On 11/1/22 at 2:03 PM, Staff I, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) explained the following: Staff I had walked by Resident #8 and Resident #8 told Staff I that Resident #5 had grabbed her right breast and thigh. Per Staff I, she had made sure the resident were separated out in the common area. Staff I acknowledged she had not seen the interaction, and Resident #7 had voiced it. Staff I explained she had told the DON, and had communicated to staff they needed to keep watch on Resident #5. Staff I explained it had been reported, and residents were immediately separated. 6. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #1 dated 7/13/22 revealed the resident scored 10 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #1 dated 10/5/22 revealed the resident scored 6 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severely impaired cognition. On 10/27/22 at 10:28 AM, an interview had been conducted with Resident #1. Resident #1 identified Resident #5 by first name, and explained the first time Resident #5 had met Resident #1, Resident #5 had grabbed her boob. Per Resident #1, this had occurred in the dining room when they had just started to eat supper. Per Resident #1, Resident #5 had been grabbed and ran off. Resident #1 explained the resident had also hit on her twenty-[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to consistently notify a resident's Power of Attorney (POA) following a resident fall for one of three residents revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to consistently notify a resident's Power of Attorney (POA) following a resident fall for one of three residents reviewed for notification (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #1 dated 7/13/22 revealed the resident scored 10 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #1 dated 10/5/22 revealed the resident scored 6 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severely impaired cognition. Review of an Incident Report for a fall that had occurred on 8/2/22 did not document notification to the person who had been listed on the resident's POA paperwork. Review of Progress Notes for 8/2/22 did not reveal the resident's POA had been notified. On 11/7/22 at 3:38 PM, the DON explained notification would occur to the family member and physician, and if the resident was alert and oriented and chose to not have their family member contacted it would be up to them. The DON explained most of the time the family member who would be called would be their POA. When queried if it would be charted if a resident had been alert and oriented and did not want their POA contacted, the DON explained it would be great if that occurred. On 11/8/22 at 9:54 AM, the DON explained the following about the resident's fall on 8/2/22: The DON had spoken with the staff member, and the staff member could not recall if they had called the family or had asked the next shift to call. Review of a Facility Policy titled Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, dated 2001, documented, in part, Our facility promptly notifies the resident, his or her attending physician, and the resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status (e.g., changes in level of care, billing/payments, resident rights, etc.).
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 newly hired staff members(Staff O) completed dependent adult abuse (DAA) training. The facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 newly hired staff members(Staff O) completed dependent adult abuse (DAA) training. The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: An untitled, undated facility staff education report listed a hire date of 11/30/21 for Staff O, Certified Nurses Aide (CNA). Staff O's employee file lacked documentation of the completion of DAA training. The facility policy Dependent Adult Abuse in Iowa, revised January 2017, stated mandatory reporters should complete 2 hours of training related to the identification and reporting of dependent adult abuse within six months of employment. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:20 a.m., the Corporate Nurse stated staff should complete DAA training within 6 months of hire. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 1:24 p.m., the Corporate Nurse stated she could not locate DAA training for Staff O.
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

Based on observations, interviews, and clinical record review, the facility failed to thoroughly assess and monitor a new below the knee (BKA) surgical amputation site and a wound to the left foot for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and clinical record review, the facility failed to thoroughly assess and monitor a new below the knee (BKA) surgical amputation site and a wound to the left foot for one of three residents reviewed for assessment and intervention (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #1 dated 5/4/22 revealed the resident scored 15 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated intact cognition. Per this assessment, the resident required the extensive assistance of two plus persons for bed mobility and transfers, and had a foot problem identified of other open lesion(s) on the foot. The MDS documented that the resident had the diagnoses which included diabetes, coronary artery disease, and acquired absence of kidney. On 9/7/22, the diagnosis of complete traumatic amputation at knee level, left lower leg, subsequent encounter had been added to the resident's Med Diagnosis sheet in the electronic health record. Review of the Care Plan dated 9/28/22, noted to be multiple weeks following the addition of the above medical diagnosis, documented, I have an amputation of right lower leg. On 10/26/22, the Care Plan had been revised and documented, I have an amputation of left lower leg. Two interventions per the Care Plan, both dated 9/28/22, documented, a. Check and document on wound daily for signs and symptoms of infection, drainage, bleeding, any breakdown of skin and impaired circulation (edema or pain). b. Monitor my incision for signs of infection. The Care Plan dated 10/26/22 documented, I have a surgical incision/wound to the left leg. Review of the Orthopedic Progress Note dated 9/6/22 present in Hospital Records documented the chief complaint as left below knee amputation (BKA) , and documented the resident was status post left BKA, post op day four. Review of the Admission/readmission Evaluation-V9 dated 9/7/22 and locked 9/9/22 documented the resident had a left knee (front) surgical incision. Review of the Skilled Progess Note (SPN)-Focused Evaluation notes dated 9/9/22 at 11:14 AM and 9/10/22 at 2:49 AM and 10:57 AM documented the dressing to the left stump had been intact. The next note which mentioned the area, dated 9/16/22 at 12:52 PM documented, Nurse removed staples there were 40 total, resident tolerated removable. Nurse removed staples per order, applied betadine and steri strips, covered with gaze <sic>, resident goes outside, to protect from infection. Documentation lacked measurements of the incision. Progress Notes between 9/16/22 at 12:52 PM and 9/25/22 at 1:41 PM lacked documentation of the resident's surgical incision. The Nurses Note dated 9/25/22 at 1:41 PM documented, in part, The CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) came to report to the nurse that the resident stump was bleeding, the stump is split that measured 1cmx0.2cmx0.2cm, nurse applied steri strips and covered with a non stick pad and gauze there was scanty amount of blood, resident voiced pain at a three, nurse called the on call(Name Redacted) to report the injury. The Nurses Note dated 9/26/22 at 11:44 AM documented, Incision on left stump observed. Steri strips intact. No active bleeding. Telfa and tape reapplied. The first SPN-Skin & Wound Note which addressed the resident's surgical site had been dated 9/28/2022 at 7:20 PM. The note documented the resident had a surgical site to the left shin which had been present on admission. It had been documented light serosanguinous blood exudate had been present, and measurements had been documented as 1.8x3.1x0.8. On 10/26/22 at 11:51 AM, all wound assessments for Resident #1's amputation surgical site between the time period of 9/7/22 and 9/28/22 had been requested via email from the facility's Administrator. On 10/26/22 at 2:09 PM, Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN) from Hospice, acknowledged the facility also would be expected to assess the resident who received hospice cares, as they were a resident of the facility. Per Staff F, all recommended assessments should have been done by the facility. On 10/26/22 at 4:29 PM, the facility's Director of Nursing (DON) explained from 9/7 to 9/13 the dressing had been clean, dry, and intact. The DON explained there had been an order related to the amputation to keep the dressing on. Per the DON, on 9/14 when the dressing had been removed and the staples had been taken out, the nurse had not taken a picture to trigger a skin and wound evaluation. The DON explained this had been noticed on 9/28/22. Per the DON, they had spoken with hospice and hospice did not have an evaluation for that period. It was explained the Administrator had assisted on 9/14 when the resident's staples had been removed. Per the DON, weekly skin checks would be done on Wednesdays. On 10/27/22 at 11:18 AM, an observation of wound care to Resident #1's left BKA site had been conducted. Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) provided treatment to Resident #1's left BKA site, and then redressed the area. 2. The Care Plan dated 5/11/22 documented, I have impairment to skin in my left lower leg. Interventions per the plan of care, both dated 5/11/22, included the following: a. Weekly treatment documentation to include, measurement of each area of skin breakdown, type of tissue and exudate, and any other notable changes or observations. b. Monitor for and document location, size, and treatment of skin injury. Report abnormalities, failure to heal, signs and symptoms of infection to physician. The Nurses Note authored by Staff L, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) dated 6/29/22 at 5:11 AM documented, Resident had bleeding a large clot that measured a bit bigger than the average woman's size hand. Upon cleaning the wound and redressing it was noted to have maggots thriving within the wound. The Nurses Note dated 6/29/22 at 5:15 AM documented, Hospice notified by fax and talked with provider on the phone and she wanted to wait and see what hospice <sic> wanted to do. Review of the Interdisciplinary Group Meeting Note from Hospice dated 7/5/22 at 8:00 AM included the following documentation dated 6/29/22 (no time documented): This nurse and [Name Redacted], DON (Director of Nursing) perform dressing change to left lower extremity. Upon removal of old dressing and cleaning of wound it is noted that several small maggots are present in wound. Wound is flushed with water and wound cleanser and wiped out several times with gauze. Maggots appear to be burrowing in small tiny spaces throughout the wound and it is impossible to remove all the maggots. This nurse reached out to patients physician [Name Redacted] with orders received to flush and rinse thoroughly with hydrogen peroxide daily prior to dressing changes until maggots are gone. This will allow hydrogen peroxide to get into small areas of wound and foam causing the maggots to come to the surface. This order was faxed to [Initials Redacted], And order was explained verbally to staff nurse. Left foot wound measures 13.6 cm (centimeter)x8.5cmx0.1cm. The SPN-Skin and Wound Note dated 6/29/22 at 12:42 PM noted the following for a blister to the dorsum of the left foot: The wound measured 13.6 centimeters (cm) by 8.6 cm. The Notes section documented, Maggots are present on wound bed, attempted to flush them out. Maggots burred into the wound. Wound cleaned with wound cleanser. The Communication with Hospice Note dated 7/1/22 at 12:49 PM documented, Nurse received order from hospice nurse for the infestation of maggots, hospice nurse supplied the vashe solution, resident aware of her condition. Nurse faxed order to the RX (pharmacy). The Physician Order dated 7/1/22 at 12:42 PM documented, vashe squirt solution, 5-10 mls (milliliters) applied topically now as needed, apply vashe solution to saturate a 4x4 apply to wound with maggot infestation, may repeat daily if needed or prn if maggots reappear. Review of order summary directions documented the order to be one time a day and every 24 hours as needed. The Nurses Note dated 7/1/22 at 2:05 AM documented, Wound treatment done. Many maggots removed with the peroxide treatment. some dead skin also sloughed off with removal of critters. resident resting quietly through dressing change and treatment. No signs of pain or discomfort at this time. The Nurses Note dated 7/1/22 at 2:47 PM documented, Nurse applied vashe solution to wound on left food <sic>, with 4x4 and had 10 of the maggots, and rewarped <sic> left leg resident voiced no pain. Documentation in Resident #1's clinical record lacked documentation of the presence or absence of maggots between the Nurses Note documented on 7/1/22 at 2:47 PM, and the SPN-Focused Evaluation note dated 7/5/22 at 7:28 PM. The SPN-Focused Evaluation dated 7/5/22 at 7:28 PM documented, in part, Dressing changed to left lower extremity. No maggots seen with this change, no bleeding noted. Review of the July 2022 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) documented Vashe solution had been administered 7/2/22 through 7/6/22. On 11/3/22 at 1:33 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) explained the following about the resident's wound/maggots: Per the DON it had been noted at 5:00 AM, the Doctor had been notified right away, and Hospice had been in and had been aware. Per the DON, that is when the use of peroxide had come up, and it had taken some research to figure out what to do. Per the DON, the facility had gone to treat it and had taken pictures, and orders and treatment had been done. On 11/7/22 at 3:40 PM, the DON had been queried about what would go into place for a resident with a new surgical site. The DON explained if someone had a new surgical site and they could see the surgical site, after that orders would be obtained from the Physician and whatever treatment order from the Physician would be put in place for the facility to do. The DON acknowledged a picture would be taken of the wound measurement and the skin assessment should have been done after the staples had been removed. Per the DON, the Administrator and a nurse had taken out the staples, and the DON had not been present that day. The DON acknowledged the picture had not been taken had measurements had not been done. On 11/7/22 at 3:45 PM, the DON had been queried about what kind of documentation should have been charted if the resident had been treated for maggots. The DON explained when the treatment had been done should be documented. The DON explained the maggots had not been present for a long time once treated. On 8/2/22 at 9:59 AM, the DON further explained the staff member had difficulty removing the resident's staples, and the DON had not been present at the facility. The staff member had gone to the Administrator, and the resident's staples had been removed, and a picture was not taken to start the skin and wound assessment. The DON explained the former skin nurse had said when they went in the next week to do wounds, the area did not flag, and they did not think about it. Per the DON, the former skin nurse had caught it the following week. On 11/8/22 at 1:20 PM, Staff P, Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) had been queried about documentation when a resident had active treatment for maggots. Staff acknowledged she would expect to see what the treatment had been, removal of maggots, and follow up to make sure there were not any more. When queried if it should be documented if they had been seen or not, Staff P acknowledged it should be. The Facility Policy titled Skin Tears-Abrasions and Minor Breaks, Care of dated 2001 revised 2013 had been reviewed and did not address the areas of concern.
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 F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 nurse aides demonstrated competency in skills(Staff N and O). The facility reported a census of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 nurse aides demonstrated competency in skills(Staff N and O). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: 1. The undated, untitled facility staff education report listed a hire date of 12/21/21 for Staff N Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA). Employee Action Form documented that Staff N, CNA had been hired on 12/21/21. Review of Staff N's personnel file revealed a DCW(Direct Care Worker) Certifications and Work History report which listed a Certification Type as Certified Nurse Aide. The status of the certification stated no employment with an expiration date of 5/7/06. Staff N's Temporary Nurse Aide(TNA) 8 Hour Training certificate stated she completed the course on 12/21/21. The Temporary Nurse Aide Skills Competency Checklist listed Staff N's competency dates for such skills as hand washing, grooming, toileting, and positioning as 1/13/22. The facility lacked documentation that Staff N demonstrated proficiency in competencies between her hire date of 12/21/21 and 1/13/22. 2. Staff O Certified Nursing Assistant's(CNA) Employee Action Form revealed a hire date as 11/30/21. Staff O's Temporary Nurse Aide 8 Hour Training certificate stated she completed the course on 12/13/21. The Temporary Nurse Aide Skills Competency Checklist listed Staff O's competency dates for such skills as hand washing, grooming, toileting, and positioning as 12/30/21. The facility lacked documentation that Staff O demonstrated proficiency in competencies between her hire date of 11/30/21 and 12/30/21. The CMS(Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) document QSO-21-17-NH stated CMS provided a blanket waiver for the nurse aide training and certificate requirements and stated the individual could continue to work as long as the nursing home ensured that the nurse aide could demonstrate competency in skills and techniques needed to care for residents. The facility policy Nurse Aide Qualifications and Training Requirements, revised May 2019, stated the facility would not employ any individual as a nurse aide unless the individual: a. was a full time employee and participating in a state-approved training and competency evaluation program b. had demonstrated competence through satisfactory participation in a state-approved nurse aide training and competency evaluation program or c. had been determined competent as provided in 483.150(a) and (b) of the Requirements of Participation. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:20 a.m., The Corporate Nurse stated TNAs should be with a buddy until they completed competency check-offs. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:58 a.m., Staff O stated she trained on the floor from early December with another CNA and after a couple of weeks she was able to help residents on her own.
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 F0836 (Tag F0836)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 newly hired employees(Staff N and G) completed a TST(Tuberculin Skin Te...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 newly hired employees(Staff N and G) completed a TST(Tuberculin Skin Test-a test to screen for tuberculosis[TB]), a contagious, airborne respiratory illness) prior to working with residents. The facility also failec to ensure 2 out of 5 employees had current physical examinations (Staff K and M). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings: 1. The undated, untitled facility staff education report listed the hire date for Staff N Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA) as 12/21/21. The Employee Record of TB File documented Staff N received a TB skin test on 12/22/21 and staff checked the test on 12/24/21 with negative results. A facility Employee Punch report documented Staff N worked on 12/21/21 for 2 hours 10 minutes, 12/22/21 for 5 hours and 13 minutes, and on 12/23/22 for 5 hours and 6 minutes. 2. The undated, untitled facility staff education report listed the hire date for Staff G Registered Nurse(RN) as 7/7/22. The Employee Record of TB File documented Staff G received a TB skin test on 7/7/22 and staff checked the test on 7/9/22 with negative results. A facility Employee Punch report documented Staff G worked on 7/7/22 for 2 hours and 28 minutes. The facility policy Tuberculosis Infection Control Program, revised August 2019, stated tuberculosis transmission was a risk in healthcare settings and stated the facility would screen employees for latent tuberculosis. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:20 a.m., the Nurse Consultant stated staff received their first TB test prior to working on the floor. 3. The Benefit Deduction Form listed a hire date of 6/25/03 for Staff K Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA). Staff K's employee file lacked documentation of a physical examination completed within the last 4 years. 4. The Annual Review, dated 1/8/20, listed a hire date of 1/12/01 for Staff M CNA. Staff M's employee file lacked documentation of a physical examination completed within the last 4 years. The facility 4-Year Physicals for Nursing Home Employees Policy, updated 3/2021, stated all nursing home employees must have a physical examination at least every 4 years. During email correspondence sent on 11/3/22 at 11:44 a.m. , the Nurse Consultant stated the facility required employee physicals every 4 years.
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 F0943 (Tag F0943)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 staff members completed abuse prevention and reporting training (Staff G and O). The facility r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 staff members completed abuse prevention and reporting training (Staff G and O). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: An untitled, undated facility staff education report listed hire dates and training completed during the period of 11/2/21-11/2/22 for Staff G Registered Nurse(RN) and Staff O Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA). The report listed a hire date of 7/7/22 for Staff G and a hire date of 11/30/21 for Staff O. The report lacked documentation the staff completed abuse prevention and reporting training. The facility policy Staff Development Program, revised May 2019, stated all personnel must participate in initial orientation and regularly scheduled in-service training. The policy listed preventing abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property as a required training topic. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 1:25 p.m., the Nurse Consultant stated the facility had no other documentation of staff education. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:20 a.m., The Corporate Nurse stated staff should complete all mandatory training.
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 F0945 (Tag F0945)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 staff members completed infection control training(Staff G and H). The facility reported a cens...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 staff members completed infection control training(Staff G and H). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: An untitled, undated facility staff education report listed hire dates and training completed during the period of 11/2/21-11/2/22 for Staff G Registered Nurse(RN) and Staff H Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA). The report listed a hire date of 7/7/22 for Staff G and a hire date of 1/12/01 for Staff H. The report lacked documentation the above staff completed infection control training. The facility policy Staff Development Program, revised May 2019, stated all personnel must participate in initial orientation and regularly scheduled in-service training. The policy listed infection prevention and control program standards, policies, and procedures as a required training topic. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 1:25 p.m., the Nurse Consultant stated the facility had no other documentation of staff education. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:20 a.m., The Corporate Nurse stated staff should complete all mandatory training.
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 F0946 (Tag F0946)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 staff members completed compliance and ethics training(Staff H and K). The facility reported a cens...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 staff members completed compliance and ethics training(Staff H and K). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: An untitled, undated facility staff education report listed hire dates and training completed during the period of 11/2/21-11/2/22 for Staff H Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA)and K CNA. The report listed a a hire date of 1/12/01 for Staff H, a hire date of 6/25/03 for Staff K. The report lacked documentation the above staff completed compliance and ethics training. The facility policy Staff Development Program, revised May 2019, stated all personnel must participate in initial orientation and regularly scheduled in-service training. The policy listed compliance and ethics as a required training topic. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 1:25 p.m., the Nurse Consultant stated the facility had no other documentation of staff education. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:20 a.m., The Corporate Nurse stated staff should complete all mandatory training.
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 F0949 (Tag F0949)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 5 staff members completed behavioral health training(Staff G, K, and O). The facility reported a cens...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 5 staff members completed behavioral health training(Staff G, K, and O). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: An untitled, undated facility staff education report listed hire dates and training completed during the period of 11/2/21-11/2/22 for Staff G Registered Nurse(RN), K Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA),and O CNA. The report listed a hire date of 7/7/22 for Staff G, a hire date of 6/25/03 for Staff K, and a hire date of 11/30/21 for Staff O. The report lacked documentation the above staff completed behavioral health training. The facility policy Staff Development Program, revised May 2019, stated all personnel must participate in initial orientation and regularly scheduled in-service training. The policy listed dementia management as a required training topic but did not address behavioral health training. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 1:25 p.m., the Nurse Consultant stated the facility had no other documentation of staff education. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:20 a.m., The Corporate Nurse stated staff should complete all mandatory training.
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 F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to implement an effective, comprehensive quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) program to correc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to implement an effective, comprehensive quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) program to correct negative outcomes after staff became aware of inappropriate sexual behavior by Resident #5 directed at other residents. The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: 1. The Orders-Administration Note dated 7/27/22 at 10:04 PM documented, Resident #5 being sexually inappropriate. The Orders-Administration Note dated 7/30/22 at 11:44 PM documented, Resident #5 was being sexually inappropriate today. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/2/22 at 10:06 PM documented, Sexually inappropriate behaviors. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/4/22 at 10:07 PM documented, Resident continues to struggle with keeping his hands to himself. Grabbing at both staff and other residents. The Orders-Administration Note dated 8/8/2022 at 11:17 PM documented, Resident continues to be difficult to keep from touching others. The Care Plan Conference Summary dated 8/9/22 at 3:30 PM documented, Reviewed care plan for nursing, dietary, social work and activities. Resident's son was notified that resident has been having inappropriate behaviors. Resident's son states that he would approve a psych consult and to keep him updated. The Einteract Summary dated 8/10/22 at 12:52PM documented, in part, physician order and family request resident transferred to ED (emergency department) for psych/behavioral evaluation. Primary Care Provider Feedback: Primary Care Provider responded with the following feedback: A. Recommendations: Send to ED for psych/behavioral evaluation .C. New Intervention Orders: a. Other b. redirection Review of the SNF/NF (Skilled Nursing Facility/Nursing Facility) to Hospital Transfer Form dated 8/10/22 documented the risk alert for other had been selected, with intrusive and sexual behaviors documented. The behavioral issues and interventions section documented, intrusive behaviors. Resident is grabbing staff inappropriately. Resident is trying to grab other female residents and enter female residents rooms. Resident is making inappropriate sexual behaviors toward staff and other residents. The Mental Status Evaluation documented the following symptoms or signs: sexual outbursts and inappropriate grabbing. The Behavioral Evaluation section documented the following symptoms or signs: sexual outbursts, grabbing staff and attempting to grab other residents inappropriately. Trying to enter female residents rooms. The Incident,Accident,Unusual Occurrence Note dated 9/2/2022 at 11:00 AM documented, This nurse walked up the hallway. This is nurse noticed this resident sitting next to resident [Resident #7] in lobby. Resident [Resident #7] states that this resident grabbed her right breast and tried to rub her leg. This resident immediately removed from resident [number redacted].Administrator and Director of Nursing notified of incident Review of the facility QAPI program for the period of 8/1/22-11/8/22 revealed a 10/24/22 Quarterly Quality Assurance committee minute report. The report stated under the topic Resident Behavior Concerns: [Resident #5's name], increase depakote(a medication used to treat seizures and bipolar disorder). The minutes lacked documentation of further corrective actions or solutions with regard to Resident #5's behavior. The facility policy Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program, revised March 2020, stated the QAPI committee would identify and help to resolve negative outcomes and implement systems to correct potential issues in quality of care. During an interview on 11/8/22 at 9:15 a.m., the DON(Director of Nursing) stated she had not additional QAPI/QA committee documentation other than what she provided above. During an interview on 11/8/22 at 11:45 a.m., the Administrator stated she was not aware of the concerns staff related regarding Resident #5's behavior. She stated if she had been aware of the concerns, they would have discussed the situation more in QAPI meetings and would have talked about more interventions.
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 F0940 (Tag F0940)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to implement training's for multiple training topics for 5 of 5 staff reviewed(Staff G, H, K, N, and O). The fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to implement training's for multiple training topics for 5 of 5 staff reviewed(Staff G, H, K, N, and O). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings Include: 1. An untitled, undated facility staff education report listed hire dates and training completed during the period of 11/2/21-11/2/22 for Staff G Registered Nurse(RN), Staff H Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA), Staff K CNA, Staff N CNA and Staff O CNA. The report listed a hire date of 7/7/22 for Staff G, a hire date of 1/12/01 for Staff H, a hire date of 6/25/03 for Staff K, a hire date of 12/21/21 for Staff N and a hire date of 11/30/21 for Staff O. The report lacked documentation that Staff G,H,K,N, and O completed resident rights and QAPI(Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) training, lacked documentation Staff G, H, K, and O completed communication training, lacked documentation Staff G, K, and O completed behavioral health training, lacked documentation Staff G and O completed abuse prevention training, lacked documentation Staff G and H completed infection control training, and lacked documentation Staff H and K completed compliance and ethics training. The facility policy Staff Development Program, revised May 2019, stated all personnel must participate in initial orientation and regularly scheduled in-service training. The policy listed effective communication, resident rights, abuse prevention, QAPI, dementia management, infection control, and compliance and ethics as a required training topics. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 1:25 p.m., the Nurse Consultant stated the facility had no other documentation of staff education. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:20 a.m., The Corporate Nurse stated staff should complete all mandatory training.
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 F0941 (Tag F0941)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 5 staff members completed effective communications training(Staff G, H, K, and O). The facility repor...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 5 staff members completed effective communications training(Staff G, H, K, and O). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: An untitled, undated facility staff education report listed hire dates and training completed during the period of 11/2/21-11/2/22 for Staff G Registered Nurse(RN), H Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), K CNA, and O CNA. The report listed a hire date of 7/7/22 for Staff G, a hire date of 1/12/01 for Staff H, a hire date of 6/25/03 for Staff K, and a hire date of 11/30/21 for Staff O. The report lacked documentation the above staff completed communication training. The facility policy Staff Development Program, revised May 2019, stated all personnel must participate in initial orientation and regularly scheduled in-service training. The policy listed effective communication as a required training topic. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 1:25 p.m., the Nurse Consultant stated the facility had no other documentation of staff education. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:20 a.m., The Corporate Nurse stated staff should complete all mandatory training.
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 F0942 (Tag F0942)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 5 of 5 staff members completed resident rights training( Staff G, H, K, N, and O). The facility report...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 5 of 5 staff members completed resident rights training( Staff G, H, K, N, and O). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: An untitled, undated facility staff education report listed hire dates and training completed during the period of 11/2/21-11/2/22 for Staff G Registered Nurse(RN), Staff H Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA), Staff K CNA, Staff N CNA and Staff O CNA. The report listed a hire date of 7/7/22 for Staff G, a hire date of 1/12/01 for Staff H, a hire date of 6/25/03 for Staff K, a hire date of 12/21/21 for Staff N and a hire date of 11/30/21 for Staff O. The report lacked documentation the above staff completed resident rights training. The facility policy Staff Development Program, revised May 2019, stated all personnel must participate in initial orientation and regularly scheduled in-service training. The policy listed resident rights and responsibilities as a required training topic. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 1:25 p.m., the Nurse Consultant stated the facility had no other documentation of staff education. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:20 a.m., The Corporate Nurse stated staff should complete all mandatory training.
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 F0944 (Tag F0944)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 5 of 5 staff members completed QA(Quality Assurance)/QAPI(Quality Assurance and Performance Improvemen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on personnel file review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 5 of 5 staff members completed QA(Quality Assurance)/QAPI(Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) training( Staff G, H, K, N, O). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: An untitled, undated facility staff education report listed hire dates and training completed during the period of 11/2/21-11/2/22 for Staff G Registered Nurse(RN), Staff H Certified Nursing Assistant(CNA), Staff K CNA, Staff N CNA and Staff O CNA. The report listed a hire date of 7/7/22 for Staff G, a hire date of 1/12/01 for Staff H, a hire date of 6/25/03 for Staff K, a hire date of 12/21/21 for Staff N, and a hire date of 11/30/21 for Staff O. The report lacked documentation the above staff completed QA training. The facility policy Staff Development Program, revised May 2019, stated all personnel must participate in initial orientation and regularly scheduled in-service training. The policy listed elements and goals of the facility QAPI program as a required training topic. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 1:25 p.m., the Nurse Consultant stated the facility had no other documentation of staff education. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:20 a.m., The Corporate Nurse stated staff should complete all mandatory training.
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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Iowa facilities.
  • • 43% turnover. Below Iowa's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 23 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 4 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is New London Specialty Care's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns New London Specialty Care an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 New London Specialty Care Staffed?

CMS rates New London Specialty Care's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Iowa average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at New London Specialty Care?

State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at New London Specialty Care during 2022 to 2023. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 19 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates New London Specialty Care?

New London Specialty Care is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by CARE INITIATIVES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 43 certified beds and approximately 40 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in NEW LONDON, Iowa.

How Does New London Specialty Care Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, New London Specialty Care's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting New London Specialty Care?

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 New London Specialty Care Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, New London Specialty Care has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 New London Specialty Care Stick Around?

New London Specialty Care has a staff turnover rate of 43%, 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 New London Specialty Care Ever Fined?

New London Specialty Care has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is New London Specialty Care on Any Federal Watch List?

New London Specialty Care 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.