United Presbyterian Home

1203 E Washington Street, Washington, IA 52353 (319) 653-5473
Non profit - Corporation 59 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
65/100
#158 of 392 in IA
Last Inspection: July 2025

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

Overview

United Presbyterian Home has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not outstanding. It ranks #158 out of 392 nursing homes in Iowa, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 5 in Washington County, meaning there are only two other options in the area that are better. The facility is on an improving trend, having reduced its issues from three in 2023 to two in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a turnover rate of 0%, which is well below the state average, suggesting that staff are stable and familiar with residents. However, there have been serious concerns, such as a failure to protect residents from altercations and issues with food temperature and sanitary practices, highlighting some areas that need improvement.

Trust Score
C+
65/100
In Iowa
#158/392
Top 40%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
3 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Iowa facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Iowa. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 3 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

No Significant Concerns Identified

This facility shows no red flags. Among Iowa's 100 nursing homes, only 0% achieve this.

The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jul 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the provider when a resident with a pressure ulcer did not wear his ordered orthotic (referring to externally applied devices, primarily custom-made shoe inserts, designed to support the feet and correct structural and functional issues) shoes for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #10) and failed to notify the provider in a timely manner of a significant weight loss for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident #33). The facility reported a census of 49.Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 3/24/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #10 which included cellulitis (inflammation of the tissues) of the right lower limb, pain in the right foot, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The MDS stated the resident had an infection of the foot and one unhealed pressure ulcer. The MDS did not state the stage of the ulcer. The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 8 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of the a 4/6/25 Care Plan entry revealed the resident had a Stage 3 pressure ulcer (characterized by full-thickness tissue loss, where the damage extended through the dermis (second layer of skin) into the fat layer on the right foot due to a foot deformity and directed staff to administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness. An Order Note, dated 5/6/25 entered by Staff K, Wound Doctor of Nursing Practice(DNP) directed staff to consult with occupational therapy (OT) for off-loading footwear recommendations to promote wound healing. Review of Wound Treatment Plans, written by Staff K revealed the following: a. A 5/27/25 note stated therapy worked on getting a custom shoe. b. A 6/10/25 note stated therapy worked on getting a custom shoe and it had not yet arrived. c. A 6/24/25 note stated the shoes had not arrived and the date of arrival was unknown. d. A 7/1/25 note stated the resident had custom boots. e. A 7/8/25 note stated the resident had custom boots. f. A 7/15/25 note stated the resident had custom boots. During an observation on 7/14/25 at 12:47 p.m., Resident #10 was in his room and wore black slip on shoes. Next to the resident's bed, there was a pair of brown work boots. The boots did not contain any special inserts. No other boots were present in the resident's room During an observation on 7/17/25 at 10:22 a.m., Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) measured a wound on Resident #10's right inner ankle, with the following results: 1.6 centimeters (cm) x 1.3 cm x 0.2 cm (length x width x depth). The wound appeared to have a light yellow wound base and white edges. The work boots sat next to the bed. No other boots were present in the resident's room. Review of the facility policy titled Managing Condition Changes/Physician Notification, reviewed 5/2025, directed staff to report changes to the resident's physician. Review of the facility document titled Pressure Ulcers/Skin Breakdown-Clinical Protocol revealed the physician would order pertinent wound treatments including pressure reduction surfaces. During an interview on 7/17/25 at 11:37 AM, Staff L, Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) stated the facility received an order for a custom shoe but the resident and his friend decided they would go to a shoe store themselves and figure out what the resident wanted. Staff L stated they went to a shoe store and purchased a regular work boot. Staff L stated he thought Staff K was aware of this as it was communicated through nursing. During an interview on 7/17/25 at 11:48 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she would want orthotic orders carried out. She stated she would want Staff K to know if the resident did not wear the boots. During a phone interview on 7/17/25 at 2:01 PM, Staff K, Wound DNP stated the resident wore orthotic shoes. She stated she conducted her visits virtually but Staff B, LPN stated the work boots were actually the orthotics. She stated there were orthotic inserts in his boots. During an interview on 7/17/25 at 2:09 PM, Staff B LPN confirmed the boots in the resident's room were just regular boots off the shelf. He stated Staff K interpreted the boots as orthotics but they were not and did not have inserts. Staff B stated he would relate to Staff K that they were not custom shoes. The facility lacked documentation as of 7/17/25 that they notified Staff K the resident did not wear custom boots. 2. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #33 scored a 6 out of 15 on the BIMS, which indicated cognition severely impaired. The MDS indicated the resident required setup or clean-up assistance with eating. The MDS revealed no known weight loss of 5% or more in the last month or a loss of 10% or more in the last 6 months. The MDS indicated medical diagnoses for non-Alzheimer's dementia and Parkinson's disease. The MDS indicated the resident prescribed an diuretic. Review of the Care Plan revealed a Focus area dated 2/26/25 for altered nutritional status related to pneumonia, cardiovascular accident (CVA), Parkinson disease, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and congestive heart failure (CHF). The interventions dated 2/26/25 directed daily weights unless otherwise noted by physician or dietician and resident's physician would be notified of significant weight changes. Review of the Weight Summary, dated 7/17/25 revealed: a. On 02/21/2025, the resident weighed 175 Lbs. (pounds). On 03/23/2025, the resident weighed 165.5 Lbs. -5.0% change [Comparison Weight 2/21/25 175.0 Lbs, -5.1% (loss), -9.0 Lbs.] b. On 03/09/2025, the resident weighed 173 Lbs. On 04/12/2025, the resident weighed 163.5 Lbs. -5.0% change [Comparison Weight 3/9/25 173.0 Lbs, -5.5% (loss), -9.5 Lbs.]. c. On 02/21/2025, the resident weighed 175 lbs. On 04/28/2025, the resident weighed 158.5 Lbs. -5.0% change [Comparison Weight 3/29/25, 167.0, -5.1%, -8.5LBS]; -7.5% change [Comparison Weight 2/21/25, 175 Lbs, -9.4% (loss), -16.5 Lbs] Review of the electronic health record (EHR) revealed a lack of documentation of provider notified of the significant weight losses. Review of Provider notes dated 3/24/25 and 4/21/25 revealed a lack of documentation of the weight loss reviewed. During an observation on 7/15/25 at 11:50 AM, Resident #33 sat in the dining room and ate his lunch independently. During an interview on 7/16/25 at 3:07 PM, Staff A, LPN queried on who monitored significant weight losses and Staff A stated the Dietician did. Staff A queried if she knew anything about Resident #33 weight loss and Staff A stated no. Staff A explained she had notified the doctor for another resident who had a significant weight loss. During an interview on 7/17/25 at 10:22 AM, Staff B, LPN queried on who monitored weights and Staff B stated the nurses documented in the chart. Staff B stated he was not sure who reviewed the weights for significant weight losses, and confirmed the floor nurses did not review the resident's chart for significant weight losses. Staff B asked if he knew of Resident #33 weight loss and he stated no. Staff B reviewed the computer, and explained he noticed a steady decline in weights. Staff B queried if the provider needed notified with a weight loss of 5% in 30 days and Staff B stated he would notify. During an interview on 7/17/25 at 12:24 PM, the Dietician stated she reviewed Resident #33 notes and the Dietician didn't note a significant weight loss until May. The Dietician stated she didn't look in the EHR at the weights, and stated she went from exactly 30 days and seen if the residents showed a weight loss. The Dietician stated the provider needed to be notified of significant weight changes and in May the provider was notified. During an interview on 7/17/25 at 1:03 PM, the DON queried on Resident #33 weight loss and the DON stated she didn't know of any with him recently. The DON stated the Dietician reviewed the weights weekly and made notes in a binder. The DON reviewed the binder and stated she didn't see any notes concerning Resident #33 in April or May. The DON queried if the provider needed notified for significant weight losses and the DON stated yes, but she wanted to speak to the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) to see if the provider expected weight loss. During an interview on 7/17/25 at 2:02 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) queried on Resident #33 weight loss and the ADON stated the Dietician alerted them of weight losses. The ADON reviewed Resident #33 weights and then asked if the provider should be notified of weight loss and the ADON stated yes, but the provider might of wanted the weight loss and would look through the provider notes. During an interview on 7/17/25 at 3:09 PM, the Advanced Registered Nurse (ARNP) queried on who reviewed the significant weight changes and the ARNP stated usually the Dietician worked with the facility and when the ARNP came in, the facility gave her a stack of papers for resident's weights to review. The ARNP stated she signed a paper when notified of weight losses. The ARNP stated when she reviewed the resident's weights she looked at the previous note and compared to the current weight. The ARNP stated if she received a paper with weights for a resident, she reviewed the weights further. The ARNP reviewed Resident #33 weights and confirmed she would of expected notification of a 5% weight loss in 30 days.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of unwitnessed fall reports, facility policy review, family and staff interviews, the fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of unwitnessed fall reports, facility policy review, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of a cushioned bolster used for fall prevention for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #31) using bolsters. The facility reported a census of 49 residents.Findings include: Review of the the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #31, dated 4/18/25, revealed the list of diagnoses included Parkinson's disease and end stage renal disease. The Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15, which indicated a severe cognitive impairment. The MDS assessed Resident #31 dependent on staff for activities of daily living which included personal hygiene, mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and rolling in bed from side to side.A review of the Care Plan, revised on 6/25/25 revealed a Focus area to address I am at risk for falls per Fall Risk Assessment. Fall on 01/29/25; no injury. Fall on 5/22/25; No injury. Fall on 05/30/25; No injury. Fall on 06/03/25; No injury. Fall on 06/23/25; Forehead Abrasion. Interventions included, in part: a. Anticipate and meet my needs. Date initiated: 3/2/23.b. Educate me/my family/caregivers about safety reminders and what to do if a fall occurs. Date initiated: 3/2/23.c. Encourage my participation in activities that promote exercise, physical activity for strengthening and improved mobility such as Restorative Program and/or group exercises. Date initiate: 3/2/23. d. Fall intervention for fall on 05/22/25; Offer resident to use the toilet after each meal. Date initiated: 5/23/25.b. Fall Intervention for fall on 05/30/25; Fall mat provided to be placed on the floor when lying down. Date initiated: 5/30/25.c. Fall Intervention for fall on 06/03/25; Bilateral bolsters placed on the bed. Date initiated: 6/3/25.d. Fall Intervention for fall on 06/23/25; Staff to ensure bolsters are tightly secured as they become loose over time. Date initiated: 6/23/25e. Please make sure my bed bolster is tight after laying me down. Date initiated: 6/23/25Review of documents titled, Unwitnessed Fall, revealed, in part: a. On 5/22/25 at 2:10 PM: Nursing Description: resident was found sitting position resting against the side of the bed as if the resident had slipped out of the bed upon inspection it seemed as though the resident was trying to go to the restroom. Resident is uninjured and acting her normal baseline.Resident Description: Resident unable to give description. Immediate Action Taken: resident assessed for injury, vitals taken all stable, neuro-check completed no deficit from baseline, resident assisted to restroom with 2 assist and hoyer lift. Offer the resident the toilet after each meal. Entered by Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). b. On 5/30/25 at 2:37 PM: Nursing Description: Called to resident room by therapy to observe resident lying on the floor next to her bed on her right side. Resident Description: noneImmediate Action Taken: Resident assessed for injury Resident was noted to be incontinent of urine, changed and assisted off the floor with hoyer and 4 staff.fall mat placed beside bed. Entered by Staff D, Registered Nurse (RN)c. On 6/3/25 at 3:50 AM: Nurse Description: CNA (Certified Nursing Aide) heard res calling out went into room, found res sitting on fall mat legs under bed, near foot of bed. CNA came to this nurse in charting room, reported fall to nurse. When this nurse arrived in res room res lying on R side parallel to bed, head at the HOB (head of bed) on fall mat. Denies pain, stated I slid down. [NAME] (move all extremities) per usual, oriented to self and cite.Hoyer used w/3 staff to get res back in bed, inc (incontinent) of small hard BM (Bowel movement) .Resident Description: see above [referred to Nursing Description]Immediate Action Taken: Place bilat (bilateral) to bedEntered by Staff E, RNd. On 6/23/25 at 1:40 PM: Nursing Description: Nurse was alerted by activities staff that resident was found on the floor. upon entering resident's room nurse found resident lying on her right side directly next to fall mat, upon assessment abrasion found on residents left forehead and Right side of the nasal bridge. resident reported that her face was a little sore. Bed bolster had slid down to the side of the bed. Resident Description: When asked resident reported she was trying to get up to void, and brief was wet. resident stated that her face was a little sore.Immediate Action Taken: residents VS (vital signs) taken, resident assessed for injury and pain, resident assisted back into bed with the CNA staff members.Bed bolster adjusted and tightened.Make sure Bed Bolster is tight after laying resident down. Entered by Staff C, LPNDuring an observation on 7/14/2025 at 1:00 PM, Resident #31 in bed, eyes closed, lying on her back. A Hoyer mechanical lift and reclining, high-backed wheelchair were located in the bathroom. The resident positioned with a large wedge-shaped bolster placed on the left and right side of the bed. The bolsters held in place by a strap fastened to the bed. On the left side, a body pillow positioned between the resident and the bolster. The body pillow went from the residents shoulder to knee in length. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 8:30 AM, Resident #31 in bed, lying on her back with the bolster placed on the left and right side of the bed. The bolsters fastened to the bed. A mat observed on the floor. A body pillow positioned between the resident and the left bolster, with a sheet tucked in over the resident and the left bolster. During an interview on 7/15/25 at 8:30 AM, Staff A, LPN, reported the staff kept the resident's bed low and put the bolsters in place to prevent the resident from rolling out of bed. Staff A explained they used the bolsters since they couldn't use side rails. Staff A reported that the resident was not capable of getting over the top of the bolsters. Staff A explained the resident was dependent on staff for repositioning and the resident was not able to ambulate.During an interview on 7/15/2025 at 12:02 PM, with Staff F, CNA, and Staff G, CNA, Staff F reported the bolsters for Resident #31 were in place for fall prevention. Staff F reported she had seen the resident kick her leg over the bolster. Staff F reported the resident did get over the bolster a week ago while Staff H, CNA, was working with the resident. Staff F reported the resident did have the ability to lift her leg if she wanted. Staff F reported the bolsters prevented the resident from getting out of bed. Staff F explained that most days the resident was calm, but sometimes the resident would be in a mood. The resident would yell and kick their feet over the bolster. Staff F reported the resident was able to help with repositing, but most days the resident would not help. Staff G confirmed the resident was able to reposition herself if she wanted to. Staff F stated she had seen the resident try to climb over the bolsters, and prior to the placement of the bolsters, the resident would put her legs over the edge of the bed.During an interview on 7/15/25 at 3:31 PM, Resident #31's family member/Power of Attorney (POA) explained the resident's bed was in a low position and there was a fall mat on the floor. The POA reported the bolsters were in place to try to keep the resident from falling out of bed. The POA reported that even with the bolsters on the bed, the resident managed to slide out of the bed and get on the floor. During an observation on 7/16/2025 at 11:15 AM, Staff F, CNA, and Staff G, CNA, transferred Resident #31 from her bed to a wheelchair. Staff F removed the body pillow from the left side of the resident, raised the bed from low to high position, removed the floor mat, and loosened the strap that ran across the top of the bed that was holding the bolsters in place. The staff proceeded to provide personal cares and used a mechanical lift to transfer the resident to her wheelchair. Resident #31 dependent on staff throughout the process.During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 2:42 PM, the MDS Coordinator reported she was responsible for the revisions to the residents' care plans. The MDS Coordinator explained the purpose of the addition of the bolsters for Resident #31 was to help to give the resident a feeling of the edge of the bed. The resident had several falls where she rolled out of bed and needed a boundary. The MDS Coordinator explained the bolsters did not prevent the resident from getting out of bed, because the resident could still put her legs over the bolsters. The MDS Coordinator reported that the resident still had good and bad days, and sometimes the resident could sit herself up and drink by herself. The MDS Coordinator stated that, care wise, she is dependent. The MDS Coordinator reported the fall on 6/23/25 resulted from the bolsters not being appropriately secured to the bed. The MDS Coordinator denied an assessment had been completed to determine if the bolsters were appropriate and safe. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 8: 43 AM Staff C, LPN, explained Resident #31 had made attempts to get out of bed, and every once in a while the resident forgot that she could not walk. Staff C stated the resident slid out of bed on 5/22/25 while attempting to go to the bathroom. The resident did not have an injury from the fall. Staff C reported that for the fall on 6/23/25, Staff J, Activities Aide, found the resident and notified Staff C. Staff C explained the bed bolster had slid down to the side of the bed. Staff C reported the resident told him she was trying to get up to go to the bathroom. Staff C reported that normally the bolster was on top of the bed, but it looked like the bolster had been pushed to the side. Staff C explained that he did not feel the resident is capable of pushing the bolster out of the way when it is tightened. He stated the bolster was loose at the time of the fall. He explained they added an intervention to tighten the bolster strap after laying the resident down. Staff C explained the bolster deterred a good amount of the resident's attempts to get out of bed. Staff C stated, with the bolsters in general, if you put enough pressure on them, they can be moved. On 7/17/2025 at 9:17AM, Staff J, Activities Aide, reported she was the first person to find the resident after her unwitnessed fall on 6/23/25. Staff J explained the bolster was on the bed, but it looked like the resident had rolled over it since the bolster was off to the side of the bed. Staff J reported that she had observed other times when the resident would put her leg out over the bolster, but she had not seen the resident climbing over the bolster. Staff J explained this usually happened in the afternoon after 2:00 or 2:30 PM when the resident wanted to get up. During an interview on 7/17/25 at 9:37 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reported bolters were put in place for Resident #31 as a fall prevention intervention in order for the resident to know her boundaries. The DON explained the resident was able to swing her legs over the bed and did this all of time on second shift. The DON explained the resident did get over the bolster when the resident had her last fall. She explained the bolsters loosen over time from under the mattress, so staff needed to make sure the strap was tight. The DON reported Staff I, CNA, had seen the resident kick her legs over the bolsters, push the bolsters out of the way and loosen the bolsters. The DON reported no assessment completed related to the use of the bolsters. The DON did not think the bolsters were an accident hazard. The DON reported she felt like the resident would be getting out of bed more and hurting herself even worse. On 7/17/2025 at 10:04 AM, Staff H, CNA, reported that sometimes the resident pushed the bolsters out of the way. Staff H explained the staff put the body pillow behind the resident to try to limit her ability to push the bolsters out of the way. Staff H reported being present for the resident's fall on 6/23/25. She explained that on 6/23/25, the bolsters were tight. Staff H reported she was across the hall, and ran to the resident's room, because she heard the resident yelling. Staff H reported the resident had rolled over the bolster and was found on the floor. Staff H reported the bolsters were still in place and the strap tight to the bed. On 7/17/2025 at 1:33 PM, Staff I, CNA reported that yesterday, 7/16/25, at 2:30 PM, the resident had two legs over the left bolster and the body pillow was located at the bottom of the bed. Staff I reported the body pillow frequently ended up on the floor. Staff I reported the resident was able to climb out of the end of the bed and get around the bolsters. Staff I reported 7/16/25 was not the first time she had seen the resident get over or around the bolsters. Review of the facility policy, titled Accidents and Hazards Policy, dated 9/2024, revealed facility staff were responsible for identification of hazards and individual resident risk of an avoidable accident including the need for supervision to reduce individual risk hazards in the environment.
Nov 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent hazards when a safety intervention was disarmed by staff. A confused, independently mobile resident came near an elevator, the wanderguard signaled the Elpas screen and a staff member disarmed the screen when the resident was not visualized. The resident then entered the elevator, exited into the basement and approximately 15 minutes later was inadvertently discovered by a staff member. The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #27 revealed a diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbance and daily, displayed continuous inattentive and had disorganized thinking, pacing and rummaging behavior. The MDS did not identify wandering behavior. Resident #27 was identified as needing supervision but was independent with transfers and ambulation, utilizing a walker for a mobility device. Resident #27 Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was a 3, which indicated a severely impaired cognitive status. The Care Plan dated 8/16/23 revealed that Resident #27 was an elopement risk and directed staff to distract the resident by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities and Resident #27 had an Elpas wanderguard watch that will lock doors and sound when attempting to leave the health center. Physician order dated 10/30/23 Wanderguard, Elpas wrist bracelet to alert staff when attempting to leave the facility unsupervised. Wanderguard Watch Check one time a day By signing off watch is functioning properly and was on resident. AND every evening shift By signing off, watch was correctly placed on resident. AND every night shift By signing off, watch was correctly placed on resident. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated August 2023 revealed documentation every shift by nursing staff for the Elpas Wanderguard wrist bracelet to alert staff when attempting to leave the facility unsupervised was on and functioning. Progress notes dated 8/16/23, at 1042 am Resident #27 exited the elevator accompanied by staff. Nurse immediately assessed resident with no apparent injuries, denied discomfort at time of assessment. Vitals taken Blood Pressure (BP) 117/53 Pulse (P) 58 Respires (R)18 T 97.6 SPO2 95%. Verified wanderguard working and in place. Facility provided an investigation of the elopement on 8/16/23 which revealed Resident #27 was alerted as missing to nursing staff at 10:30 AM and staff initiated a search. A timeline revealed: a. Resident #27 last seen at 10:20 AM ambulating in the south hallway. b. The Elpas system notified staff that Resident #27 was near the elevator. c. Staff cleared the Elpas screen as Resident #27 was not visualized near elevator. View of Video with Staff H, Maintenance Director, revealed on 8/16/23: a. Lower Level (LL) camera pointed toward Wellness/Therapy area b. 10:27 AM Independent facility residents leave the wellness room and pushed the elevator button. c. 10:28 AM Elevator opens and Resident #27 exits and the 3 Independent Residents enter the elevator. d. Resident #27 ambulates with walker toward child care area then returns to enter bathroom across from the elevator. e. Multiple wellness staff visualized in video, assisting residents into the wellness area, all unaware of Resident #27 in bathroom. f. Staff I, Wellness Staff, received call from wellness center about Resident #27, hung up, got in elevator and looked around, called health center back, all clear. g. 10:31 AM Staff H arrived, had received a call of stuck elevator, pushed elevator button and cleared elevator. h. 10:33 AM Staff J. Independent Center Maintenance walks up to bathroom as Resident #27 exits bathroom. i. 10:33 AM Resident #27 ambulates off camera toward the daycare. j. 10:33 AM Staff I checked in an Independent center Resident to Wellness Center and unaware of Resident #27. k. 10:34 AM Staff J leaves bathroom and walked across the hall to exit stairs. l. 10:39 AM Staff K, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) exited elevator looked toward daycare then went to Wellness Center desk, then walked toward Day Care. m. 10:41 AM Staff K returned to elevator, pushed the button. n. 10:42 AM Resident #27 and Staff L, CNA, walked up to elevator and entered Elpas readout revealed: a. the system sounded identifying Resident #27 near the elevator at 10:16 AM, system cleared at 10:17 AM. b. the system sounded at 10:44 AM identifying Resident #27 near elevator and at 10:44 AM cleared. The tour of Elevator and Lower Level revealed: a. Elevator had 1st floor, health center, Ground floor open to an atrium and unalarmed ext door and lower level. a. Lower level view across from elevator was the bathroom, to the left is the Wellness/Therapy area and to the right is a short hall to a ramp. b. Ramp lead to left, switch back to right ramp to an unalarmed exit door. c. To the left was the Day Care area with 4 doors to child care areas. d. The last door at the end of hall to the left has a window to see inside to an area set up with 3 cribs. During an interview on 11/15/23 at 10:46 AM, Staff M, CNA, stated worked the day shift on 8/16/23, the Wanderguard alarm alerted for Resident #27 and assumed she was sitting around the corner from the elevator. Staff M stated she was in the front of the building between east and west hall and did not visualize Resident #27 when she cleared the Elpas alert then went about my duties. Staff M stated about 10:30 AM, a radio message stated, Has anyone seen (Resident #27)? Staff M stated during the search, Staff L radio message was that she found Resident #27. Staff M stated there was a meeting two days later that requested better communication to account for residents before clearing the elevator to be sure they were safe. During an interview on 11/15/23 at 11:10 AM Staff L, CNA stated she went to the daycare center in the basement of the facility to check on her baby approximately 10:30 a.m. on 8/16/23. While in the day care, Resident #27 peered into the daycare window. Staff L stated Resident #27 was unattended and had utilized the radio to notify the health center. Staff L stated there was an immediate meeting that included staff must be with a resident before clearing the wanderguard and the elopement policy. During an interview on 11/15/23 at 1:30 PM, Staff K, Certified Medication Aide (CMA), stated in the morning of 8/16/23, he attempted to locate Resident #27 for a bath and was informed the Elpas system alarmed, new building elevator, but it was cleared. Staff K stated the search included the elevator and the lower level wellness area where Resident #27 was located. Staff K stated the administration conducted a huddle with staff and a formal training two days later. The facility provided an undated document titled Residents with Wanderguards, listed 10 residents to include Resident #27, and identified the listed residents as a high risk for elopement. The Elopement policy dated 6/2023 revealed: a. The nurse should be notified immediately if a resident cannot be found. b. If the resident not found, the nurse will initiate a search and utilize the Elpas system to locate the last location of a resident. c. The charge nurse will notify the Administrator and Director. d. Contact law enforcement if unable to locate. During an interview on 11/15/23 at 10:00 AM, The Director of Healthcare stated they have a video of the incident and the Lower Level does not have Elpas Wanderguard alarmed doors and are unalarmed. The Director stated that all of the aides have tablets which have an alert screen that identifies the resident and the exit door they have alarmed/locked out or elevator door locked out. The Director stated the staff have a purple clicker that will be brought to the resident's wanderguard to deactivate it and the alarm can also be deactivate or cleared by the nurse computers or the main computer in the front office.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, clinical record review, policy review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide foods at an appetizing temperature for 1 of 1 meals observed. The f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, clinical record review, policy review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide foods at an appetizing temperature for 1 of 1 meals observed. The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings Include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 8/23/23, listed Resident #8's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 13 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. On 11/13/23 at 12:27 p.m., Resident #8 stated that in the evenings the soup was not hot. 2. The Quarterly MDS assessment tool, dated 8/30/23, listed Resident #33's BIMS score as 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. On 11/13/23 at 1:13 p.m., Resident #33 stated lunch was cold half the time. 3. The Quarterly MDS assessment tool, dated 8/23/23, listed Resident #19's BIMS score as 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. On 11/13/23 at 12:55 p.m., Resident #19 stated the soup was not hot enough in the evenings. 4. The Quarterly MDS assessment tool, dated 8/23/23, listed Resident #12's BIMS score as 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. On 11/13/23 at approximately 2:00 p.m., the resident stated the food in the evenings was cold. On 11/14/23 at 11:31 a.m. Staff A [NAME] placed food in a Styrofoam container for Resident #44 and placed it on the kitchenette counter. A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated that the staff member who was going to feed Resident #44 was on her way. The container sat there until 11:42 a.m. when Staff B [NAME] walked over to the container, placed both hands on the container, and started to pick it up. The surveyor requested that she obtain temperatures on the food prior to taking it and Staff B obtained the following temperatures: Ground meat 117.4 degrees Fahrenheit Mashed potatoes 130.5 degrees Fahrenheit Squash 130.8 degrees Fahrenheit. After the surveyor requested the temperatures, Staff A told Staff B to inform her of the temperatures and if it was cold they would replace the meal. After Staff B informed Staff A of the temperatures, she prepared a new plate of food for the resident. The facility policy Acceptable Hold Temperatures for Foods, reviewed 9/23, listed hot holding temperatures for the following foods as 140 degrees Fahrenheit or higher: eggs, hot cereal, entrees, potatoes, vegetables, soup. On 11/15/23 at 1:31 p.m., Staff C Registered Nurse(RN) stated residents complained about cold food and the evening meal was the struggle. When there was no cook, the food trays arrived already prepared and come from the front so they are colder. On 11/15/23 at 1:44 p.m., Staff E CNA stated residents complained a few months ago about cold food and there was one resident who stated that it was cold every day. On 11/15/23 at 1:47 a.m., Staff D CNA stated a resident complained to her a couple weeks ago that the food was cold and they did not want to eat it. On 11/16/23 at 9:22 a.m., the Certified Dietary Manager(CDM) stated he received complaints of cold food. He stated this occurred mostly when they did not have a cook in the back unit of the facility due to staffing issues. He stated this occurred when they plated the food in advance. He stated in the last month, he would guess there were around 5 times when there was no cook on this unit. He stated he expected hot holding temperatures to be a minimum of 160 degree Fahrenheit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview and facility policy the facility failed to maintain sanitary surfaces on the counter used for cutting meat to prevent possible cross-contamination of food for 14 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and facility policy the facility failed to maintain sanitary surfaces on the counter used for cutting meat to prevent possible cross-contamination of food for 14 of 36 residents served the meat option. The facility reported a census of 51. Findings include: On 11/14/23 at 11:45 AM start of lunch service observation, Cook, Staff F, placed individual resident paper menus on the counter in front of the steam table for review of resident individual choices circled on their menu's. Staff F moved the paper menus and proceeded to retrieve and cut the eight-ounce meat patty option in half on the same counter location the paper menus were placed. Staff repeated this process, looked at the menus and then cut the meat patty for those choosing the meat option. On 11/15/23 at 01:38 PM interview with the Dietary Manager Staff G, relayed had witnessed the cook, Staff F during the meal service on 11/14/23 who used the same counter space for viewing menus and was also used for cutting meat. Staff G relayed had spoke to the cook for an improved sanitary process. Policy titled Sanitary Conditions/Food Handling revised 9/2023 documented purpose to prevent the spread of food borne illness and reduce practices resulting in food contamination. Guidelines included sanitary conditions, included serving food properly to prevent food borne illness.
Jul 2022 17 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, resident interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to protect residents from resident to resident altercations which included sexual gestures, physical touching, grabbing, and attempted hitting by Resident #51 for four of five residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1, Resident #4, Resident #17, Resident #37), and also unidentified residents. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #51 dated 11/12/21 revealed the resident scored 3 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated the resident had severely impaired cognition. Per this assessment, Resident #51 displayed delusions, other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others, and wandered which significantly intruded on the privacy or activities of others. The MDS for Resident #51 dated 5/4/22 documented the resident again scored 3 out of 15 on a BIMS exam. Per this assessment, the resident required limited assistance of one person to walk in their room and in the corridor, and had fluctuating behaviors of inattention and disorganized thinking. It had also been documented per the assessment that Resident #51 had delusions, displayed physical behaviors directed towards others, verbal behaviors directed towards others, and other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others. Diagnoses for Resident #51 included dementia with behavioral disturbance and hypertension. The Care Plan dated 5/17/22 documented, I have a behavior problem wandering, refusal of cares, physically aggressive, verbally aggressive, and inappropriate advances r/t (related to) Dementia with Behavioral disturbances. Interventions, all dated 5/17/22, included the following: a. Administer medications as ordered. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. b. Anticipate and meet my needs. c. Assist in developing more appropriate methods of coping and interacting. Encourage me to express my feelings appropriately. d. Caregivers to provided opportunity for positive interaction/attention. Speak/stop/talk with me as passing by. e. If reasonable, discuss The resident's behavior. Explain/reinforce why behavior is inappropriate and/or unacceptable to the resident. f. Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others. Approach/Speak in a calm manner. Divert attention. Remove from situation and take to alternate location as needed. g. Praise any indication of The resident's progress/improvement in behavior. The Wandering Risk assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #51 at moderate risk for wandering. The Incident Note dated 11/7/2021 at 11:30 PM documented, Resident had wandered into [Resident #1's] room and had been told to leave room by her. He would not until two staff members redirected him back to his room. He had only a brief and gripper socks on. The CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) Note dated 11/8/2021 at 3:43 AM authored by Staff P, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) documented, Resident had wondered <sic> into female residents room. When found was sitting on bed with female resident in only a brief and was trying to touch female resident. Female resident had asked multiple times for him to leave her room and he didn't comply. (The resident mentioned in this note had been later identified by Staff P as Resident #1. The Nurses Note for Resident #1, dated 11/10/21 at 6:43 AM, stated the resident called staff to her room and asked if that man next door was in the dining area. The staff member informed her he was and the resident stated she was frightened of him and hardly slept the previous night because she worried he would come back into her room. The Nurses Note for Resident #2 dated 11/16/2021 at 7:49 PM documented, Resident complains that male resident across the hall continues to enter her room and not leave. Resident expresses concern that fellow resident has entered into the hall in his shorts and is afraid that he will enter her room dressed in only shorts. Resident states can you not just make him stay out of our rooms? He frightens us and we are not able to sleep from worrying about him coming in our rooms while we are sleeping. The CNA Note dated 11/17/2021 at 3:47 AM (in Resident #51's record) documented, Resident up wondering <sic> in room and outside room since 0200 (2:00 AM). Going in room [Room Number where Resident #2 resided] and resident scared of him going in in the middle of the night. Reported to nurse. Review of a Psychosocial Note for Resident #2 dated 11/24/2021 at 11:28 AM documented, in part, Nursing reviewed recent medication changes. Mild improvement with the increase in her Buspar; however, [Resident #2] voiced anxiety secondary to new male resident coming into her room and the room next to her. She denies being scared but states she does not like that he awakens her at night generally from the noise he is causing and she feels bad for the staff. She voiced that she plans to go visit family for Thanksgiving but is concerned what I will come back to. The [Hospital Name] note for Telemedicine, encounter date 12/7/21, revealed, in part, the following: a. He [Resident #51] was found wandering naked in the hallway the first night at the facility. He was awake most of the night .He slept after wandering into a female peers room just wearing underwear and gripper socks. He was told to leave the room by the peer, but would not leave until 2 staff members redirected him back to his room. He again wandered into a female residents room the next night and was found sitting on her bed in his brief, and was trying to touch her and would not leave despite her asking him to do so. b. The next day and the next night [Resident #51] again entered the room of a female peer. He was not easily redirected on one of these occasions. c. [Resident #51] went into female peers room during the night 11/17/21 who was afraid of him. He wandered all second shift that day, looking for a phone and a way out. d. [Resident #51] needed to be redirected from the rooms of 2 female residents 3 different times on 11/19/21 day shift. e. On 11/20, he was in another resident's room who is a fall risk trying to assist the resident and then he was trying to get in the med room and told a female resident they were getting married and she was terrified. On 11/22 night he was wandering the halls in his underwear trying to enter other rooms. f. On 11/30 pm he was wandering in other rooms in his underwear. g. On 12/4, he was again going in other rooms and putting himself on the floor .He was later on the floor naked with his hands on his penis in front of 2 female resident's rooms. The CNA Note dated 12/5/2021 at 3:01 PM documented, aide ask me to help her get him dress an off the floor. he was lying on floor naked and had his hands on his penis. in front of 2 female resident rooms. their doors was open. assist him in dressing assist to bed. The Behavior Note dated 12/14/2021 at 8:38 AM documented, This staff member was on my way to the [section of facility] charting room to file papers. At this time I witnessed [Resident Initials] standing in the hall between his room and 2 other female resident rooms with his pants and brief pulled down. Facility nurse was with him trying to help pull up his brief and take him to his room. The CNA note dated 12/14/21 at 8:12 PM documented, Resident would not stop trying to get into other residents rooms. Resident kept saying open the son of a [expletive] resident was hitting staff, punching, kicking, and biting. The Behavior Note dated 12/21/2021 at 9:00 AM documented, While making rounds Nurse noticed that resident was walking in another female's resident room without any clothing on. Female resident was upset stating, I'm sick and tired of this. This has been an ongoing situation, and something needs to be done about it! Nurse grabbed a blanket to wrap around the naked resident and redirected him back to his room. The Behavior Note authored by the Activities Director dated 12/28/21 at 3:05 PM documented, This staff was in the [NAME] Center to put a move on for resident's there. This staff observed resident [Resident #51] lifting up [Resident #4's] Leg. Referring to her as [Name Redacted]. Staff did move [Resident #4] to the counter area to have a snack. Staff just reminded resident [Resident #51] not to touch other's. [Resident #4] was moved several times so that they were not in the same area. This resident also put his hands on [Resident #37's].) wheelchair handles. He then took his right hand just inside her top. (Resident #37) grabbed his hand and shoved it away and stated he is evil. This staff removed [Resident #37] from that area. (Identities of residents involved had later been confirmed during interview with the Activities Director). The Nurses Note dated 12/28/2021 at 3:36 PM documented, Return call rec'd from ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) office et spoke with [Name Redacted] who states message from [NP] states that she would need to see the frequency of behaviors before a PRN (as needed) would be given et suggested calling daughter [Name Redacted] to sit with resident. This RN (Registered Nurse) reiterated that resident had placed hand down a female resident's blouse et that had been grabbing another female resident's leg et (and) that this would be considered inappropriate sexual contact. [Name Redacted] states she will message ARNP back et that ARNP would likely phone facility. This RN passed information onto floor nurse, [Initials]. The CNA Note dated 12/28/2021 at 9:08 PM documented, Resident has been touching female residents inappropriately <sic>, they touched a female residents breast area, put his hand in their bra, female resident yanked his hand out of their. Resident has also been rubbing the legs near the crotch area and arms of a different female resident. Staff moved the female resident many times, he just followed. Resident has been trying to get into other residents rooms in his depend, resident grabbed a female residents hand and tried to hit them. Resident was kicking, biting, hitting staff. Review of documentation for a Facility Reported Incident for Resident #51 dated 12/28/21, not signed, documented, This nurse received a report the evening of 12/28/2021 that the resident had had an increase in behaviors and staff was finding it difficult to redirect him. Staff reported that resident was propelling himself in his walker and was looking for his wife. Resident was calling out, [Name Redacted] his wife's name. This resident then approached a female resident and put his hand down her shirt. Resident was approached by staff told that the behavior was inappropriate yet he continued to seek out his wife. He then approached another female resident who was in a wheelchair and began rubbing her leg. Resident was again asked to stop and told that behavior was inappropriate. Resident continued to seek out female residents but did not touch any other residents. This nurse was at the building from approximately 1700-1745 (5:00 PM-5:45 PM) and at that time the resident was sitting on his walker seat in the dining area away from other residents and was being monitored closely by staff. While this nurse was present this resident attempted to go into another resident room and was easily redirected back to his room. At the time this nurse left the facility resident was in his room. This nurse received a call later that evening from facility staff stating that resident had grabbed the wrist of a female resident and swung at her. Staff intervened and the female resident was not injured. The Behavior Note dated 12/29/2021 at 6:30 AM documented, This nurse received report from nursing staff that resident was being combative and had blocked himself in another resident's room and he was naked. Prior to blocking himself in a room he was combative with staff, striking them and scratching them. At this time staff has been unable to redirect resident. The Behavior Note for Resident #51 dated 12/29/2021 at 7:25 AM documented, This RN (Registered Nurse) went down to [Specific Part of facility) after being told resident was naked in a female resident's room et she was reporting being scared. This RN approached resident who was naked in female resident's bathroom. This RN attempted to redirect resident et discuss his need to exit her room et go into his room to use bathroom as well as the need to get dressed et not walk around facility naked. Resident was raising voice at this RN, stating that he would not leave the room like this. The [Hospital Name] note for Telemedicine, encounter date 1/4/22, revealed, He [Resident #51] has been taking his medications. His aggressive behaviors continued and escalated 12/29/21 with some new behaviors of trying to touch staff and female residents inappropriately. He was taken to the local ER (Emergency Room) on 12/29 with hopes of transfer to [Hospital], nut there were no beds available. Behaviors continued 12/30. He sleeps in the nude and always has, He was naked in a female resident's room [ROOM NUMBER]/30 night, and could not be redirected. He would not let go of the walker and it hit him in the face and he struck a staff member in the face. The Nurses Note dated 5/29/22 at 7:47 PM documented the Nurse heard female resident confined to bed yelling and entered room to find this resident in female residents room, and [staff] convinced resident to sit on seat of walker and rolled resident out of female resident's room. The Nurses Note dated 5/30/22 at 9:23 PM documented, Resident was found coming out of female resident [Initials Redacted] room and going into her neighbors [Initials Redacted] room. Resident was redirected to his room and nurse assisted resident with taking his shoes off and laying in his bed. Resident asked nurse to turn out the light so he could rest. The Nurses Note dated 5/31/22 at 8:56 PM documented, Resident opened door and entered female residents, [Initials Redacted], room. Resident [Initials Redacted] was very upset and stated that she is scared of him and that this is not fair. She should be able to lay down and sleep at night without being frightened that a man will enter her room. Resident was redirected and allowed nurse to escort him to his room and get him ready for bed. Once in bed resident told the nurse goodnight and asked that his light be turned off. The Nurses Note dated 5/31/2022 at 9:05 for Resident #25, who's initials matched those of the resident in the note dated 5/31/22 at 8:56 PM, documented, Male resident, [Initials matching Resident #51] entered resident's room while she was in bed. Resident was very upset and stated that she is scared of him and that this is not fair. She should be able to lay down and sleep at night without being frightened that a man will enter her room. Male resident was redirected and removed from resident's room. Resident calmed down some when nurse assured her that he would not be back in her room tonight and that nurse would watch over him for the remainder of this shift and make certain that he does not leave his room again. The Incident Report authored by Staff H, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) dated 6/16/22 at 7:28PM documented per the Incident Description, This nurse heard female resident yelling and went to see what was happening. Resident had female residents [later identified as Resident #17's] walker and when she tried to get her walker back he grabbed her by the front of her shirt and twisted pulling her to him. This nurse was able to get resident to let go of female resident and release her walker. Resident became very angry with nurse and started trying to bite and hit nurse. Review of the Witness Statement portion of the form documented Resident #19 had witnessed the incident, and the statement documented, He just come in and snatched her walker from her, and then he grabbed her by the shirt and I started yelling. Resident asked what they, all of us ladies, are supposed to do if he tries to hurt us. We are all really scared of him. He beats on you girls all the time. The Nurses Note for Resident #17 dated 6/16/2022 at 6:28 PM documented, This nurse heard female resident yelling and went to see what was happening. Male resident had female residents walker and when she tried to get her walker back he grabbed her by the front of her shirt and twisted pulling her to him. This nurse was able to get male resident to let go of female resident and release her walker. Resident was very angry with male resident and stated what would happen if I rared back and punched him as hard as I could? We should not have to put up with him behaving that way. On 7/7/22 at 3:22 PM, when queried if Resident #51 had been physically aggressive to staff and residents,Staff H, LPN, explained Resident #51 had been physically aggressive with one the week before he had been transferred. Per Staff H, he had taken [Resident #17's] walker, grabbed her by the shirt, and had yanked her up to him. Staff H reported there was no doubt if they had not gotten there faster he would have hit her. Staff H acknowledged there had been need to get the resident out of many female resident rooms at night. When queried if the resident walked, Staff H responded sort of, yeah, and said the resident could move quickly. When she [Resident #17] had tried to take her walker back, Resident #51 had grabbed her by the shirt, twisted her shirt pulling her to him, and the other resident [Resident #19] had been screaming. Per Staff H, that night the resident had been looking for his keys, had wanted his wife to bring his keys, and wanted to get out of the facility. Per Staff H, it was something different each time, and they knew that certain things triggered the resident. Staff H explained she knew residents were scared of Resident #51 because they would see him beat on the staff. On 7/12/22 at 12:21 PM, when queried about Resident #51's behaviors, the Social Worker explained mostly recently the resident's behaviors had been discussed because the resident had gone into a female resident room across the hall, both female residents had been spoken with and one had said they were afraid of Resident #51 because he kept coming in, and the other said they were ready to bop him. Per the Social Worker, the resident had been going in other people's rooms and did grab [Resident #17] by the collar and didn't hurt her. The Social Worker further explained Resident #51 had gone across the hall, and it sounded like he had been looking for a walker. Resident #17 had been outside of Resident #19's room, and from what Resident #17 told the Social Worker, Resident #51 continued to approach her, she said don't come in this room, and Resident #51 had kept coming towards her. Resident #19 had yelled for help and someone came down, and by that time Resident #51 had Resident #17's collar. The Social Worker explained she had spoken with Resident #17 the next day, and Resident #17 had been mad. Resident #19, who was in her chair, asked what would have happened if I would have kicked him? Per the Social Worker, Resident #19 could not get out of her chair, and it was scary for her. The Social Worker explained when Resident #51 had first come, he had been going into rooms around his room and had wandering behaviors, described by the Social Worker as kind of off and on. At times, the resident would get medication and be better and sleep a lot .When the resident's Seroquel (antipsychotic) medication had been adjusted the resident had experienced more and more behaviors. Per the Social Worker, discussion had occurred with the resident's family, staff, and departments head and it had been determined another placement was needed. When queried if the resident had displayed sexual behaviors, the Social Worker explained the only thing they had been aware of had been what was charted, described by the Social Worker as trying to put his hands down someone's shirt or grab. When queried about non-medical interventions that had been implemented for Resident #51, the Social Worker explained that when the resident had been in a specific part of the facility, stop signs had been put on doors or something outside the resident's room so he know where his room was located. The Social Worker also explained that the resident's family member frequently visited, and per the Social Worker it seemed like later in the day when those things had been happening. The Social Worker explained the resident liked ice cream and that was something that had been tried, the resident had been taken in to the bathroom, and Resident #51 liked to tinker with things, however the resident's attention span had been short and it was difficult to find things to engage the resident for longer periods of time. When queried about increased monitoring, the Social Worker explained she did not remember anything that was care planned, and the other thing done most recently was an alarm to the resident's door so if he went out it would ring like a doorbell. The Social Worker explained they believed when the resident had been in a different part of the facility this had been tried also, and when the resident opened their door a tab would be set off so they would go check on him. The Social Worker did not recall careplanning anything about increased checks for the resident, however stated this could have occurred and they did not recall. Per the Social Worker, the resident generally understood what had been said, had been somewhat hard of hearing, always did things his way, had moderate cognitive deficit, and could not follow cues really easily. On 7/12/22 at 12:42 PM, when queried about Resident #51's behaviors, Staff I, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) explained the resident hit, pinched, and cussed at staff. When queried about behaviors towards residents, Staff I explained she had never seen this but had heard. Staff I acknowledged the resident wandered, went into resident rooms, and was not always able to be redirected. When queried where they would look to know how to address behaviors, Staff I responded as a CMA the only thing she could see was in the nurses notes section in the POS, then she could read the notes other people had put in. When queried if CNAs could access the Care Plan, Staff I responded they could see it on their tablets. When queried if Resident #51 had been ambulatory, Staff I explained the resident did walk, and also acknowledged the resident had been cognitively impaired. On 7/12/22 at 3:07 PM, Staff J,CMA, had been queried about Resident #51, and explained he would do sexual things to some of the residents. Per Staff J, she thought it had been [Name Redacted], and the resident had his hands in her shirt. Staff J explained the resident had been in one part of the facility then moved to South Hall. Staff J explained the resident had been ambulatory and the ladies back (in the back part of the facility) in the corner had been afraid of him. Per Staff J, Resident #51 had been back in that corner and would go in and out of their rooms and they were scared. Staff J explained Resident #19 had been scared of him. When queried if Resident #51 had been able to be redirected, Staff J explained sometimes. Staff J acknowledged the resident wandered, and acknowledged the resident wandered around without clothing. Per Staff J, alarms had been put on his door so they knew when he came out. When queried if there had been enough staff to respond to it, Staff J explained not always and they would find the resident in others rooms, or they would turn their lights on, or would just holler out to get help. On 7/12/22 at 3:18 PM, Staff N, CNA, explained about two weeks before the resident left the facility she had been down the East Hall, had come out of the room to get supplies, and had heard someone screaming. Per Staff N, this had been Resident #19. Resident #51 had been sitting on her (Resident #19's) toilet and had bowel movement all over the floor, Staff N explained the resident had been crying and screaming. Per Staff N, other residents had been scared of Resident #51. Staff N further explained Resident #51 had been sexually inappropriate with other residents, so he was moved up front, and that may have helped for a little bit. Per Staff N, the resident should not have been at the facility as the facility was not the place for him, and per Staff N the facility could not handle him. On 7/12/22 at 3:44 PM, when queried about Resident #51, Staff O, CNA explained when the resident was first back (towards back of the facility) they had dealt with the resident. Staff O explained he had grabbed a resident's (later identified as Resident #37's) breast and had gone into the bra. Staff O explained she had reported it. Per Staff O, [Resident #51] would always go into Resident #1 and Resident #2's rooms. Per Staff O, Resident #51 had gone into Resident #31's room naked, and would also be very combative with staff. Staff O explained she did not think the facility was the place for him, and also explained the resident had been terrified of him. Per Staff O, the resident had wandered, and would wander into everybody's room. Per Staff O, she had witnessed the incident with Resident #37, and also with Resident #17. Staff O reported Resident #17 had wanted to hit the resident because she had been scared. Staff O further explained some kind of tape barrier had been put on Resident #1's and Resident #2's doors, but that did not help as Resident #51 had gotten under it. When queried about increased supervision for the resident, Staff O explained the resident got a fall mat once and a bed alarm, may have had checks, and did not have one to one supervision. On 7/13/22 at 8:00 AM, when queried if residents had come into her room, Resident #19 explained Resident #51 lived across the hall and down one. Per Resident #19, Resident #51 would come in and she would yell at him that this was not his room and he needed to leave. Per Resident #19, he did not, said he needed to pee, and went into the bathroom. Resident #19 further explained they had started yelling for nurses and had pushed the button too and it had been the middle of the night. When queried how this had made the resident feel, Resident #19 explained it had made them feel kind of frightened, and they didn't know what to expect. Per Resident #19, the were frightened and angry at the same time, and explained the question of what was he [Resident #51] going to do and why's he coming in here. Per Resident #19, Resident #51 used to try to go into another resident's room across the hall and whenever she would see the resident doing that, she would call a nurse aide as he had no business being in there. Per Resident #19, she felt Resident #19 didn't know where he was or what he was doing. When queried if she had ever seen Resident #51 push, pull, or grab others, Resident #19 acknowledged a nurse had been trying to keep the resident out of another resident's room and Resident #51 had kept hitting at their arm. Resident #19 denied the resident acting in that manner towards other residents, and stated she felt the resident should be in a place other than the facility because they could not watch [Resident #51] all the time. Per Resident #19, she had spoken with facility staff about how she felt, and further explained we spend big bucks to stay here and would like to feel safe. On 7/13/22 at 4:00 PM, when queried about Resident #51's behaviors, Staff P, CNA, explained the resident could be combative and sometimes really sweet. Per Staff P, the resident would wander the halls, would go in other resident rooms, and use other resident's bathroom. When queried about documentation she had written that Resident #51 had touched another resident, Staff P identified the resident as Resident #1. When queried where Resident #51 had been trying to touch the resident [Resident #1], Staff P explained Resident #1 had reported Resident #51 had been trying to touch her, and she had just saw him on the bed. When queried if the resident had been accepting of redirection, Staff P reported sometimes the resident would accept redirection, and that day he did. On 7/14/22 at 8:45 AM, the Activities Director explained Resident #51 would roam around on his wheeled walker. When queried about the events she had documented in the progress note on 12/28/21 at 3:05 PM, the Activities Director explained she thought they were either getting people or bringing people back from the activity, Resident #4 had been sitting, and Resident #51 had the resident's leg up. Per the Activities Director, you could just tell on Resident #4's face that the resident did not like that. The Activities Director explained Resident #51 had been moved, she had gone to get Resident #4 some pop, and when she went back Resident #51 had been over with Resident #37 and had his hand really close to the resident's breast. The Activities Director explained Resident #37 had told the resident to get out, and the resident's hand had been over the Resident #37's shirt really close to the resident's breast. Per the Activities Director, Resident #37 had told him to stop and the resident had been removed. On 7/14/22 at 1:36 PM, the Infection Preventionist explained they had been the facility's Director of Nursing (DON) until January or February of 2022. When queried if the resident had displayed any physical behaviors towards residents, the Infection Preventionist explained Resident #51 had touched or put his hand down the shirt of one of the female residents, identified as Resident #37. Per the Infection Preventionist, Resident #51 had been rubbing the leg of Resident #4, and most recently she had been made aware of an issue with Resident #17 when she had been in Resident #19's room. When queried about the documentation of resident to resident touching in November, the Infection Preventionist explained she had known the resident had gone into a few female resident rooms in a brief, and had not been aware that he had been trying to touch her. When queried as to what actions staff were to have taken if this type of incident occurred, the Infection Preventionist explained if it had been a CNA they were to tell the charge nurse, and the information next would be reported to the DON to see how they needed to proceed. The Infection Preventionist explained they could not remember if they had been notified about the touching, and she did not recall that Resident #51 had tried to touch another resident. Per the Infection Preventionist, Resident #51 had walked, had wandered, and explained the following interventions had been attempted: one to one with staff, activities offered, changed medications, and eventually the resident's room had been moved to another hallway. Per the Infection Preventionist, stop signs had been placed in front of doors to keep the resident from going into the two closest rooms to where the resident had been located. The Infection Preventionist acknowledged most of the interventions had been unsuccessful, explained the one to one had not been a formal arrangement, and people would just spend a lot of time sitting with the resident in his room, talked to him, and made sure they had their eyes on him. The Infection Preventionist explained the following about the Facility Reported Incident: The Infection Preventionist remembered it had been reported Resident #51 had put his hand down Resident #37's shirt and had groped/touched her breast, and had gone up to Resident #4 when she had been at the table and had been rubbing her leg. The Infection Preventionist further reported that the resident often time would come out without clothes, slept without clothes, and a couple of times did lay on the floor or stand and touched himself inappropriately. When asked if this behavior had ever taken place within view of other residents, the Infection Preventionist responded she believed it had, by Residents #1 and Resident #2. Per the Infection Preventionist, a lot of nights on second shift the resident had an informal one to one because the resident's behaviors escalated in the evening, and the more you approached the resident, he became aggre[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to treat the resident with dignity and respect by not keeping his urinary catheter bag covered for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #16). The facility reported a census of 49. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #16 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, or moderately impaired cognition. The MDS revealed the resident needed extensive assistance of 2 staff members for toilet use and 1 staff member for personal hygiene. He required an indwelling urinary catheter. The MDS revealed Resident #16 had diagnoses of stroke, high blood pressure and benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate) with lower urinary tract symptoms. The care plan, revised on 7/13/22, for Resident #15 identified the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter. The care plan did not contain direction to use a cover bag/dignity bag. In an observation on 07/06/22 at 2:30 PM Resident #16 had a urinary catheter bag hanging on his walker, off to the side of the recliner. The catheter bag and urine within could be seen from the doorway. The resident had a cloth cover bag/dignity bag attached to his walker but it was not in use. In an observation on 07/07/22 at 2:00 PM Resident #16 had an urinary catheter bag without a cover bag/dignity bag. The bag with urine could be seen from the door. During observation on 07/12/22 at 09:11 AM Resident #16 had a urinary catheter bag not covered with a cover bag/dignity bag hanging on the walker next to his recliner. The bag and urine could be seen from the door. An observation on 07/12/22 at 2:11 PM revealed Resident #16 had an uncovered urinary catheter bag hanging from his walker and urine in the bag could be seen from the door. In an interview on 07/12/22 at 03:08 Staff J CMA (Certified Medication Aide) stated the staff had been informed they will not use leg bags any more due to infection issues. They now put cover bags/dignity bags over a resident's urine bag. In an interview on 7/13/22 at 8:20 AM the DON (Director of Nursing) stated she doesn't know any residents that would like a leg bag. She expected that staff place a catheter urine bag in a dignity bag. The facility's undated Catheter Care policy recorded the procedure for perineal cleansing of a resident with a urinary catheter. The policy contained no information on using a cover bag/dignity bag over a catheter drainage bag.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the physician in a timely manner following a resident who experienced a seizure and after a resident fell and sustained a hematoma to the forehead and multiple skin tears for two of four residents reviewed for notification of changes (Residents #3 and #11). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #3 recorded the resident scored three out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Diagnoses for Resident #3 included other generalized epilepsy and epileptic syndromes, not intractable, without status epilepticus and adult failure to thrive. The Care Plan dated 10/5/2020 documented, she had a seizure disorder. The Nurses Note, authored by Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN), dated 6/25/22 at 5:53 PM documented the resident starting seizing while CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants) were taking her to the bathroom. Resident #3 was sitting on the toilet when she suddenly slumped over to the right side, he arms and head were shaky and she went unresponsive for about 5 minutes. The resident's blood pressure and pulse measured within normal limits and her O2 (oxygen) saturation measured 85%. Resident #3 opened her eyes when spoken to after about 2 minutes from the time Staff F entered the room. After seizure was finished, staff transferred the resident back to bed and applied oxygen. Resident #3 currently rested in bed still but said she felt good and was alert and orientated. On 7/11/22 at 11:04 AM, when asked if she had worked with Resident #3 when the resident had experienced a seizure, Staff F acknowledged this had occurred once. When asked who she would notify of a seizure, Staff F responded with names of specific staff, and also mentioned the family. When queried where notifications would be documented, Staff F acknowledged this information would be in the note. The Nurses Note above lacked documentation of completion of notifications. On 7/13/22 at 11:08 AM, when asked about notification to the doctor about seizures, the facility's Director of Nursing (DON) stated staff should call the doctor if a resident had a seizure, with how long it lasted, symptoms of their seizure, and acknowledged notification should be in the progress note. Per the DON, at that time of day the Nurse Practitioner (NP) would not have been present at the facility, and the facility did not have a seizure log book. The DON stated she had never received notification of a seizure, and acknowledged staff also did not call her about resident falls and should be doing so. 2. The quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #11 dated 6/22/22 revealed the resident scored 5 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated the resident had severely impaired cognition. The assessment documented Resident #11 fell once with an injury (except major) since admission or the prior assessment. The resident's Care Plan dated 12/8/14, last revised 7/5/22, documented a moderate risk for falls per the Fall Assessment Fall 5/29. An intervention dated 12/8/14 instructed staff to follow facility fall protocol. Review of an Incident Report authored by Staff G, RN for Resident #11 one 5/29/22 at 12:50 AM for an unwitnessed event documented the following Incident Description: The nurse heard the resident talking louder, went to check, and found the resident on the floor between her bed and her roommates' bed with her head at the foot of bed, lying on R (right) side. Resident #11 could not state what happened. VSS (vital signs stable), BP (blood pressure) low, talking, inc (incontinent) of urine per usual, with no rotation or size differences to legs. Neurological (neuro) checks were WNL (within normal limits) for the resident. The bed bolster had been knocked over, previously in upright in proper position, the bed in low position, she had no slipper socks on. Earlier tonight Resident #11 talked while sleeping in bed. Staff G noted several skin tears, and cleansed and dressed them. The resident had a hematoma to her R forehead and Staff G applied ice. Two staff assisted the resident to stand with a gait belt, then pivot to bed. The resident moved all her extremities per her usual. The Injuries Observed at Time of Incident section of the form documented a hematoma to the resident's face, and skin tears to the back of the right hand, right wrist, right elbow, and front of the left lower leg. The Agencies/People Notified section of the report was not completed. Review of the Fall/Injury Monitor-Suspected Head Injury form dated 5/29/22 at 12:50 AM revealed the resident was found the floor, received anticoagulant medication, and had an injury, had slight bruising, and had a soft tissue injury. The Comments section of the form documented: physician and family to be notified in the am since no serious injury or change in LOC (level of consciousness). The Incident Note dated 5/29/2022 at 10:29 AM documented staff notified on-call, doctor of the resident's fall, who directed to observe her for changes in behavior and to do neuro checks 2 times daily for 7 days. The LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) also notified the resident's son/POA (Power of Attorney) and daughter. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #11 dated May 2022 revealed the resident had received two doses of Pradaxa 75 MG (milligrams), an anticoagulant medication, on 5/28/22. On 7/07/22 at 8:22 AM, observation revealed Resident #11 present in the dining room in their wheelchair and eating breakfast. On 7/11/22 at 11:05 AM, when asked about physician notification following a fall, Staff F stated if they had an injury the physician would be notified, and if not injured then she would continue doing neuros, assessments, follow the protocol, and notify family members. On 7/11/22 at 3:48 PM, when queried about notification to the doctor pertaining to falls, Staff G indicated the policy was if the fall was at night and the resident had their completely normal level of consciousness and the resident acted just like always, then the doctor would not be called unless the resident needed to be seen imminently. Per Staff G, what she did was write in the communication book that the resident fell, and that family and the physician needed to be notified the next day. Staff G explained the Nurse Practitioner would come in on Monday, and stated the person who worked day shift would make the notification. On 7/13/22 at 11:04 AM, when asked about notification for the doctor regarding falls, the DON stated in the facility if they felt the resident needed to be sent out they would call the on-call provider. If there was nothing of concern where the resident needed to be sent out or seen immediately, the the fall report would be printed out and put in the Nurse Practitioner's folder to see it the next time reviewed. Per the DON, the Nurse Practitioner came on Mondays and Thursdays, and would sign them. When asked if the resident had a hematoma to the head and received an anticoagulant, the DON acknowledged staff needed to call. The DON spoke of Resident #11, and explained she felt like the resident should have been sent out, especially when she saw the size of the hematoma. The nurse didn't feel that way. The DON further explained the resident's neuro check would be hard because the resident did not cooperate with that, and she should have at least been evaluated. The facility's policy on Falls, dated 3/21, documented, 6. Notify the physician and family promptly. The facility's policy on Managing Condition Changes/Physician Notification, reviewed 6/22, documented the following: Condition change is defined as a not usual/alteration from normal status. A significant change in resident status refers to observed changes in the resident's condition which warrant immediate Licensed Nurse assessment, intervention and appropriate follow-up. Clinical record documentation, assessment and follow-up is necessary. The policy also documented: 2. Reporting: A. The Licensed Nurse will notify: a. The attending physician. b. The hospital/x-ray/lab (if ordered by the physician). c. The family (or responsible party). d. The DON, if not in the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice at the time of transfer for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice at the time of transfer for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalizations (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 9/8/21, listed diagnoses for Resident #4 which included non-Alzheimer's dementia, Parkinson's disease, and restless leg syndrome. An 11/5/21 Nurses Note recorded the resident transferred to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. An 11/7/21 Nurses Note documented the resident returned from the hospital Saturday (11/6/21). The facility lacked documentation they notified the Ombudsman of the resident's transfer. The facility policy on Transfer Notice, dated September 2019, instructed the facility would notify the Long Term Care Ombudsman of all discharges on a monthly basis. During a phone interview on 7/11/22 at 2:21 p.m., the Social Worker stated residents who went to the hospital for observation did not show up on the list of resident discharges the facility faxed to the Ombudsman. She stated she would find a way to fix this.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice at the time of transfer for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice at the time of transfer for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalizations(Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 9/8/21, listed diagnoses for Resident #4 which included Non-Alzheimer's dementia, Parkinson's disease, and restless leg syndrome. An 11/5/21 Nurses Note documented Resident #4 transferred to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. An 11/7/21 Nurses Note recorded the resident returned from the hospital Saturday (11/6/21). The facility lacked documentation of a bed hold notice provided to the resident or resident's representative at the time of transfer. In an email sent by the DON (Director of Nursing) on 7/13/22 at 12:54 p.m., she stated the facility did not have a bed hold notice for the resident. The facility's policy for Bed-Hold Notice, dated September 2019, instructed the facility would hold the resident's bed upon hospitalization for a maximum of 10 calendar days. During an interview on 7/14/22 at 2:32 p.m., the Administrator stated nurses should ask resident representatives about bed hold upon transfer and document this.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from a PASRR determination into the resident's plan of care for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for PASRR(Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment tool, dated [DATE], listed diagnoses for Resident #2 which included anxiety disorder, depression, and PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). The MDS listed the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score as 9 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired memory and cognition. The PASRR Short-Term Nursing Facility Approval, dated [DATE], recorded the approval expired [DATE] and the resident required specialized services including psychiatric services, individual therapy, and a Crisis Intervention/Safety Plan. The approval stated as a result of the resident's recent self-directed violent thoughts, she would benefit from the creation of a Crisis Intervention Plan with the medical staff in the event she had a self-directed violent thought. The approval stated the plan should include her triggers for self-directed violent thoughts as well as ways to de-escalate her behavior. The Notice of PASRR Level 1 Screen Outcome, dated [DATE], documented a PASRR Level 2 evaluation was not required and stated the services identified in the previous PASRR remained appropriate and the facility should continue to deliver them. The resident's Care Plan did not included a Crisis Intervention Plan specifically related to self-directed violent thoughts, their triggers, and ways to de-escalate the resident's behavior. A [DATE] ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) note stated the resident had a great deal of difficulty meeting new people and had a history of psychological trauma. The facility's policy for Preadmission Screening for MI/MR (Mental Illness/Mental Retardation), reviewed 2/20, instructed the screening process must be accurate and correspond to the resident's functional level including the presence of diagnoses. The purpose of screening was to determine if those with mental illness required specialized services. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:32 p.m., the Administrator stated the resident and the resident's medical provider developed a Crisis Safety Plan in their sessions and they could retrieve this from the provider if needed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received medications per physician order following two episodes of seizures for one of 17 residents reviewed for professional standards of practice (Resident #3). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #3 documented the resident scored three out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The resident's diagnoses included other generalized epilepsy and epileptic syndromes, not intractable, without status epilepticus and adult failure to thrive. The resident's Care Plan dated 10/5/20 documented she had a seizure disorder. The intervention dated 10/5/20 documented to give medications as ordered and monitor/document for effectiveness and side effects. The Physician Order dated 12/20/21 instructed staff to administer a Lorazepam (or Ativan, an antianxiety medication) tablet 1 mg (milligram) one tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for seizures for 365 days. Give after seizure activity. The Nurses Note, authored by Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN), dated 6/25/22 at 5:53 PM documented the resident starting seizing while CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants) were taking her to the bathroom. Resident #3 was sitting on the toilet when she suddenly slumped over to the right side, he arms and head were shaky and she went unresponsive for about 5 minutes. The resident's blood pressure and pulse measured within normal limits and her O2 (oxygen) saturation measured 85%. Resident #3 opened her eyes when spoken to after about 2 minutes from the time Staff F entered the room. After seizure was finished, staff transferred the resident back to bed and applied oxygen. Resident #3 currently rested in bed still but said she felt good and was alert and orientated. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated June 2022 lacked documentation that Ativan had been administered to Resident #3 following the resident's seizure on 6/25/22. The Nurses Note dated 7/8/22 at 10:01 AM documented Resident #3 began seizing at breakfast beginning at 7:13 AM. The episode lasted for 7 minutes, the resident drooled and was unresponsive throughout. Staff took the resident back to her room, laid her down, and applied O2 (oxygen). The resident's SpO2 (oxygen saturation) measured 92% at 2.5 L (Liters) and her heart rate and blood pressure measured within normal limits. Staff called the Nurse Practitioner following the incident and received a nursing order for a zonisamide (an antiseizure medication) lab draw for the resident. Review of the MAR for July 2022 lacked documentation that staff administered Ativan to Resident #3 following the resident's seizure on 7/8/22. On 7/11/22 at 11:04 AM, when asked if they had worked with Resident #3 when the resident had experienced a seizure, Staff F acknowledged this had happened once. When asked if she knew if the resident had a medication to give following seizure, Staff F responded no. On 7/13/22 at 11:12 AM, when asked about administration of medication following a seizure for Resident #3, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged she thought the resident had an Ativan order until 12/22. The lack of documentation of administration of the medication for 6/25/22 and 7/18/22 was communicated to the DON at this time, and a copy of the proof of use/narcotic record for the medication requested. Email correspondence from the DON dated 7/13/22 at 12:54 PM revealed the facility did not have a proof of record for Ativan, the order had been written, but a script never got sent to the pharmacy resulting in no card getting delivered. The RN Staff Nurse Job Description, undated, documented, in part: The staff nurse is a professional RN responsible for the implementation of the nursing process for the total nursing care of all residents in Health Center and for the supervision if all nursing personnel assigned to assist them in providing nursing care. The RN is responsible for assessing, planning, implementing and evaluating the care of all residents. The Charge Nurse/LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) Job Description last revised 6/19 documented, in part: The charge nurse will perform direct nursing services to residents, as identified in the individual plans of care and physician orders.
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

Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to assess and intervene after a change of condition for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for a hospital stay ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to assess and intervene after a change of condition for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for a hospital stay (Resident #45). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment tool, dated 11/3/21, listed diagnoses for Resident #45 which included cancer, Non-Alzheimer's dementia, and muscle weakness. The MDS listed the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score as 14 out of 15, indicating intact cognition and documented the resident did not report pain in the last 5 days. A 1/16/22 5:53 p.m. Progress Note recorded Resident #45 received acetaminophen (a non-narcotic pain medication) 325 mg(milligrams) 2 tablets every 6 hours as needed and the resident started rubbing the right side of his stomach after staff asked him if he was in pain. A 1/18/21 11:30 a.m. Progress Note documented the resident's daughter texted the Social Worker and stated that nursing reported to her the resident vomited and had abdominal pain on 1/16/22. When the resident's daughter spoke with him on the phone on 1/17/22, he stated his stomach still hurt. A 1/18/22 5:32 p.m. Progress Note recorded Resident #45 complained of abdominal pain and the facility obtained an order to send the resident to the hospital. The resident's Progress Notes lacked documentation of any further follow-up assessments regarding the resident's abdominal pain and vomiting completed between 1/16/22 and the 1/18/22 5:32 p.m. note and lacked documentation staff completed an assessment after the 1/18/22 call from the resident's daughter. A 1/18/22 Hospital Report documented Resident #45 presented to the ED (Emergency Department) with persistent and worsening abdominal pain associated with nausea and episodic vomiting. The report stated the resident's daughter stated the facility staff reported decreased intake for the last 2 days and for a few days prior to the transfer to the hospital. A CT(Computerized Tomography, a diagnostic scan) revealed diverticulitis (inflammation of the digestive tract, a right renal(kidney) mass, and fluid collection in the right upper abdomen. A 1/19/22 Hospital Report documented Resident #45 had a large sigmoid colon (a part of the digestive tract) diverticulum(an abnormal sac in the digestive tract) which was the source of perforation. The resident did not wish to transfer to an outlying facility for treatment. The report stated the resident would continue with antibiotics and conservative management. A 1/31/22 ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) note documented Resident #45 admitted to the hospital due to abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting and had a perforated gallbladder. The resident received antibiotics and returned to the facility on 1/24/22. The facility policy on Managing Condition Changes/Physician Notification, reviewed 6/22, identified a condition change as an alteration from normal status including a physical decline in the resident's condition. The policy directed staff to document the resident's signs and symptoms and notify the physician. During an interview on 7/12/22 at 12:03 p.m., Staff M LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated prior to the resident going to the hospital he was throwing up and did not eat very well. This occurred for a few days. Staff M stated the CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants) informed her this was not normal for him. During an interview on 7/12/22 at 3:36 p.m., Staff O CNA stated prior to the resident going to the hospital, he was in a lot of pain with his stomach. Staff O stated this occurred for a while before they sent him out, maybe 2 or 3 weeks. She stated several times, he would hold his abdomen and say it hurt. Staff O said he could barely get up and that was not normal for him; she reported this to the nurses. During an interview on 7/13/22 at 8:16 a.m., the Infection Preventionist and former DON (Director of Nursing) stated before the resident went to the hospital he had some abdominal pain for at least 24-48 hours. She stated if a resident was in pain or had vomiting, nurses should chart this and reach out to the provider.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, facility staff failed to lock an unattended medication cart when not in use for one of three medication carts observed. The facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, facility staff failed to lock an unattended medication cart when not in use for one of three medication carts observed. The facility identified 14 residents as cognitively impaired and ambulatory and/or able to self propel. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: On 7/7/22 at 4:25 PM, observation in the South hallway of the facility revealed a medication cart present which had not been secured. A drawer of the cart could be opened and no facility staff were present at the cart; medications were observed inside. Upon notice of the unlocked medication cart, the Director of Nursing (DON) then went and stood at the cart. On 7/13/22 at 11:04 AM, when asked as to when medication carts should have been locked, the DON responded that medication carts should be locked all the time when staff are not using them. The facility's policy titled Medication Labeling and Storage, reviewed 3/21, documented: 1. Residents' medications are properly labeled and stored in a locked cart or cabinet. The medication keys will be in the possession of the person directly responsible for issuing medications. Carts in use shall have a double lock system for controlled substances.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the provision of routine medications for 1 of 6 resident observed during medica...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the provision of routine medications for 1 of 6 resident observed during medication passes(Resident #11). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment tool, dated 3/30/22 listed diagnoses for Resident #11 which included hypertension (high blood pressure), Non-Alzheimer's dementia, and atrial fibrillation (a heart rhythm abnormality). During an observation on 7/6/22 at 8:22 a.m., Staff I CMA (Certified Medication Aide) administered Resident #11's morning medications. Staff I stated she did not have the resident's amlodipine (used to treat high blood pressure) to administer so she would leave it for later. The resident's July 2022 MAR (Medication Administration Record) listed a 6/29/22 order for amlodipine 5 mg(milligrams) daily. The MAR lacked a checkmark on the following days to indicate staff administered the medication and instead had a '9' documented to refer to the Nurses Notes on 7/1/22, 7/3/22, 7/4/22, 7/5/22, 7/6/22. Nurses Note entries on 7/1/22, 7/2/22, 7/3/22, 7/4/22, 7/5/22, 7/6/22 recorded that Resident #11's amlodipine was not available. The facility policy on Provider Pharmacy Requirements, dated 2006, recorded the provider pharmacy agreed to provide routine and timely pharmacy services seven days per week and the facility would receive new medication orders on the day of the order or before the time of the administration of the first dose. During an interview on 7/12/22 at 12:46 p.m., Staff I stated sometimes the facility ran out of medications to administer. She stated if staff did not order it soon enough, they could run out. During in interview on 7/13/22 at 8:16 a.m., the Infection Preventionist and former DON (Director of Nursing) stated the availability of medication went really well until 2 - 3 weeks ago. The Infection Preventionist stated they had some issues when they sent in orders and medications did not arrive in a timely manner. She stated if a resident went multiple days without a blood pressure medication, staff should call and inquire and staff should do this after the first day.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a residents did not ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a residents did not receive a significant medication error for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for a significant medication error (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 9/8/21, listed diagnoses for Resident #4 which included Non-Alzheimer's dementia, Parkinson's disease, and restless leg syndrome. The MDS listed the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score as 6 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. A 11/5/21 9:04 a.m. Nurses Note recorded that staff trained a new nurse when the nurse in training gave medication to the wrong resident. The resident became diaphoretic (she had extreme perspiration) and had a blood pressure of 90/47. The nurse notified the provider of the incident and Resident #4 transferred to the Emergency Room. The resident's Medication Incident Report of 11/5/21 documented a nurse inadvertently gave the wrong medications to Resident #4 and the facility transferred her to the Emergency Room. Additional information documented that Staff H LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) pulled the resident's medication out of the cart for the resident's neighbor (Resident #25) and instructed Staff Q RN (Registered Nurse) to administer the medications. Staff pointed Staff Q in the direction of Resident #4's room. Another staff member then asked Staff H a question and Staff H turned away from Staff Q. Staff Q then left with the medications. Staff H determined Staff Q administered the medications to Resident #4. Staff H noted the resident's blood pressure was low, notified the provider, and transferred the resident to the hospital. Resident #4's 11/5/21 Hospital Clinical Report documented the resident received another resident's medications which included isosorbide mononitrate (to treat heart-related conditions such as chest pain) extended release 60 mg (milligrams), Miralax (a laxative) 37.5 mg, Vitamin D, calcium vitamin D tablet, docusate (a stood softener), omeprazole (for heartburn) 40 mg, and acetaminophen 1000 mg. The nursing home staff got some pills out of the resident's mouth but she did swallow some. The resident was appropriate for hospital observation. The resident received IV (intravenous) fluids and discharged back to the nursing home on [DATE]. Resident #25's November MAR (Medication Administration Record) listed the following medications scheduled for 8:00 a.m.: a. Flintstones Gummies multivitamin 2 gummies; b. Isosorbide mononitrate tablet extended release 60 mg; c. Spironolactone(used to treat high blood pressure) tablet 25 mg 1.5 tablets; d. Vitamin D tablet 50 mcg (micrograms); e. Calcium/vitamin D tablet 600-400 mg; f. Docusate sodium capsule 100 mg; g. Pantoprazole(used to treat acid reflux) sodium tablet delayed release 40 mg; h. Acetaminophen tablet 1000 mg. An 11/11/21 ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) note documented Resident #4 received incorrect medication including isosorbide and spironolatone and transferred to the hospital for 24 hours. The facility policy for Administration of Oral Medications, dated 1/21, instructed the facility would provide medications safely and effectively. The policy directed staff to set up the ordered medications and ensure residents swallowed the medications. During an phone interview on 7/11/22 at 3:15 p.m., Staff H LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated the incident (with the mediation error) occurred when she trained a new nurse (Staff Q). Staff H stated she (Staff H) set up the medications for Resident #25 and turned her head to answer a question and told Staff Q to wait before administering the medications Staff H stated she then saw Staff Q exiting Resident #4's room and said to her 'tell me you didn't give those to (Resident #4)'. Staff H then ran into the room and stated the resident was in bed and she (Staff H) attempted to swab her mouth; she then notified the physician. Staff H stated at the time of the incident she (Staff H) set up Resident #25's medications and Staff Q was going to administer them while she accompanied her. During in interview on 7/13/22 at 8:16 a.m., the Infection Preventionist and former DON (Director of Nursing) stated nurses were not supposed to set up medications for another staff member. She stated she heard this happened with the medication error with Resident #4. The Infection Preventionist stated Staff H set up the medications for another resident and instructed Staff Q to wait to give the medications but Staff Q administered the mediation to Resident #4. She stated the facility transferred the resident to the hospital.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0885 (Tag F0885)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to notify residents and/or resident representatives of new positive cases of COVID-19 amongst staff an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to notify residents and/or resident representatives of new positive cases of COVID-19 amongst staff and residents for 2 of 4 residents/resident representatives reviewed for COVID-19 notifications (Residents #12 and #45). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. During an interview on 7/5/22 at 10:28 a.m., Resident #12 stated the facility did not notify her when there was a COVID positive case in the building. The undated facility document 'Positive Resident and Staff January to Current 2022' recorded a staff member tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/3/22. Review of Resident #12's Nurse Notes revealed the facility notified the resident's family of a positive case on 1/7/22. The notes lacked documentation the facility notified the family prior to 1/7/22 and lacked documentation they notified the resident of the positive case. The undated facility document 'Positive Resident and Staff January to Current 2022' documented a staff member tested positive on 6/28/22. Review of Resident #12's Nurse Notes lacked documentation the facility informed the family or resident of the 6/28/22 positive case. 2. The undated facility document 'Positive Resident and Staff January to Current 2022' documented a staff member tested positive on 1/3/22. Review of Resident #45's Nurse Notes revealed the facility notified the resident's family of a positive COVID-19 case on 1/7/22. The notes lacked documentation the facility notified the family prior to 1/7/22 and lacked documentation they notified the resident of the positive case. The undated facility document 'Positive Resident and Staff January to Current 2022' documented a staff member was positive on 6/28/22. Review of Resident #45's Nurse Notes lacked documentation the facility informed the family or resident of the 6/28/22 positive case. The undated document titled 'Facilities Mechanism(s) to Inform about COVID-19' instructed the Administrator and DON (Director of Nursing) would call families in the health center and informed them of positive cases. They also utilized the resident newsletter, Facebook, COVID-19 hotline, and email. During in interview on 7/13/22 at 8:16 a.m., the Infection Preventionist and former DON stated when the facility had a positive case of COVID-19, they split up the resident list to call families and inform them. She stated with regard to informing residents, they informed them when tested but there was no documentation of this. The former DON stated they should probably chart this and notifications should occur within 4-5 hours of the positive case.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0886 (Tag F0886)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, COVID-19 testing information, QSO 20-38-NH review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, COVID-19 testing information, QSO 20-38-NH review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff members who were not up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccinations were tested per community transmission level of COVID-19 for two of two staff reviewed for testing (Staff E and Staff I). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. When asked about COVID-19 vaccinations, on 7/5/22 at 1:40 PM, Staff E, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) contracted by the facility stated she had received the first and second vaccinations but not the booster. When asked about COVID-19 testing, Staff E stated that she did not test. Employees were tested, and she since she started two weeks ago she had not been tested. Review of the vaccination card for Staff E revealed she received their first COVID-19 vaccination on 11/30/21, and the second dose of COVID-19 vaccination on 1/18/22. On 7/11/22 at 9:17 AM, the team requested COVID-19 testing via email from the facility for Staff E for 5/22, 6/22 and 7/22. Review of a forwarded email from the facility Administrator, dated 7/11/22 at 1:41 PM, documented, in part, that Staff E had been tested twice by the facility on 7/1/22 and 6/23/22. Staff E did not work for the facility in 5/22, but worked 6 days in June and on 7/1. Review of time punches for Staff E revealed she had worked at the facility on 6/17/22, 6/20/22, 6/21/22, 6/23/22, 6/24/22, 6/27,22. 6/29/22, 6/30/22, 7/5/22, and 7/7/22. Levels of community transmission documentation for 5/22, 6/22 and 7/22 (up to current) were also requested from the facility via email on 7/11/22 at 9:17 AM. Review of documentation provided by the facility revealed the following: a. The level of community transmission map (dates 6/15/22 to 6/21/22 for case rate) revealed the county had been color coded red, which indicated a high level of transmission. b. The level of community transmission map (dates 6/22/22 to 6/28/22 for case rate) revealed the county had been color coded orange, which indicated a substantial level of transmission. c. The level of community transmission map (dates 6/29/22 to 7/5/22 for case rate) revealed the county had been color coded red. d. The level of community transmission map (dates 7/5/22 to 7/11/22 for case rate) revealed the county had been color coded orange. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) QSO-20-38-NH memo revised 3/10/22 revealed, in part, the following: a. 'Up-to-Date' means a person had received all recommended COVID-19 vaccines, including any booster dose(s) when eligible b. The Routine Testing of Staff section documented that routine testing of staff who are not up-to-date, should be based on the extent of the virus in the community. c. Per Table 2: Routine Testing Intervals by County COVID-19 Level of Community Transmission documented a minimum testing frequency of staff who were not up to date as follows: low (blue) - not recommended, moderate (yellow)-once a week, substantial (orange)-twice a week, and high (red)-twice a week. On 7/13/22 at 11:23 AM, the Infection Preventionist stated they and the Administrator coordinated testing for employees, and depending on what color the facility was would determine how often they needed to test. Per the Infection Preventionist, now all staff were tested twice a week (color red as of last week). When asked when twice a week testing of all began, the Infection Preventionist stated the facility had been doing that since May or the end of April, 2022. On 7/14/22 at 1:55 PM, the Infection Preventionist acknowledged they had not been able to find other tests for Staff E. The facility's policy on 'Pandemic COVID-19-Testing', updated 3/22, directed the following frequency of testing for staff who were not up-to-date on COVID vaccines based on level of community transmission: low (blue)-not recommended, moderate (yellow)-once a week, and substantial (orange) or red (high) - twice a week. 2. During an interview on 7/6/22 at 8:45 a.m., Staff I CMA(Certified Medication Aide) stated she had the first 2 COVID vaccinations but not the booster. She stated she received the second shot over a year ago. She stated she tested twice currently because the facility was in outbreak status but did not test otherwise. Staff I's COVID-19 Vaccination Record Card documented she received COVID vaccinations on 1/5/21 and 1/26/21. The card lacked documentation Staff I received the booster. Facility testing logs revealed Staff I tested on [DATE] and 3/11/22. Staff I was not tested again during the month of March. The level of the county Transmission Rate for the dates of 3/13/22-3/19/22 revealed the county coded as yellow(moderate level). The level of the county Transmission Rate for the dates of 3/16/22-3/22/22 revealed the county coded as yellow(moderate level). During an interview on 7/14/22 at 2:32 p.m., the Administrator stated when they were not in outbreak status, they tested those with vaccine exceptions. If staff had the vaccinations and were not boosted they did not test them.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Review of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes for May 2022 and June 2022 documented, in part, the following: a. 5/26/22: When a resident used their call light it seems like it takes a while for them...

Read full inspector narrative →
Review of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes for May 2022 and June 2022 documented, in part, the following: a. 5/26/22: When a resident used their call light it seems like it takes a while for them to answer the light. Staff will check with administration. b. 6/27/22: When a resident used their call light, it took a while for them to answer the light. Staff did check with administration it looks like there was some wait but not long wait times. Staff told residents that if this happens or if they feel like it takes a while just let staff know. Review of the Facility Assessment Tool, last updated 5/16/22, for its general staffing plan for direct care staff documented: Direct Care RNs (Registered Nurses)/LPNs: Day shift range 1 - 3, Afternoon shift range 1 - 2, and Night shift range 1 - 2. CNAs were documented: Day shift range 5 - 6, Evening shift range 5 - 6, and Night shift range 2 - 3. On 7/7/22 at 3:29 PM, when asked about staffing at the facility, Staff H, LPN stated the CNAs were overworked, and understaffed all the time. Staff H stated there had been complaints from resident and families about staffing. Staff H acknowledged there was not enough time to do all the cares, feed residents, make sure they don't choke, and residents could get a shower later. Per Staff H, there had been many days lately that they had to make that a priority, and if there were only 2 or 3 people they asked if some of the showers could be done tomorrow. A list would be given of who did not get done to know where to start in the morning, and normally people pitched in and helped. On 7/11/22 at 11:08 AM, asked about staffing on the weekends, Staff F, RN stated it depended on the weekend, and it was usually low with not much CNA help. Per Staff F, a lot of the time there were 2 nurses. Staff F also acknowledged that sometimes the CNAs did not do showers and stuff, depending on how much staffing they had and if they had the time. Based on review of clinical record, the facility assessment, call light logs, resident council meeting minutes and facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to assure sufficient staff available at all times to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs for 2 of 24 residents reviewed (Residents #38 and #45). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings. 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment tool, dated 5/11/22 listed diagnoses for Resident #38 which included high blood pressure, Non-Alzheimer's dementia, and urinary incontinence. The MDS documented the resident required limited assistance of 1 staff for personal hygiene, and extensive assistance of 1 staff for bathing. The MDS listed the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score as 2 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. The untitled call light log for Resident #38 for the period of 7/4/22-7/11/22, revealed a call light response time on 7/4/22 at 3:29 p.m. of 27 minutes. A Care Plan entry, revised 3/26/21, stated the resident had a bath on Wednesdays and Saturdays. The June 2022 Documentation Survey Report V2 lacked documentation Resident #38 received assistance with a bath during the period of 6/15/22-6/19/22. 2. The MDS assessment tool, dated 6/1/22, listed diagnoses for Resident #45 which included dementia, high blood pressure, and depression. The MDS recorded the resident required extensive assistance of 1 staff for dressing and personal hygiene and extensive assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use and bathing. The MDS listed the resident's BIMS score as 11 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The untitled call light logs for Resident #45 for the period of 7/4/22-7/11/22, revealed the following call light response times which exceeded 15 minutes: a. 7/4/22 27 minutes at 3:29 p.m. b. 7/5/22 21 minutes at 9:22 a.m., 18 minutes at 10:41 a.m., 24 minutes at 11:57 a.m., 20 minutes at 7:54 a.m. c. 7/6/22 19 minutes at 6:32 p.m. d. 7/9/22 24 minutes at 10:40 a.m. An untitled document provided to the survey team which listed staffing for 7/4/22 listed for the day shift worked with 4 CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants), 2 RAs (Resident Assistants), and 2 Nurses. The facility schedule for 7/5/22 listed for the day shift of 7/5/22 4 CNAs and 2 nurses. The undated facility policy on Tub Baths recorded a bath's purpose was to cleanse, refresh and comfort the resident, to stimulate circulation a, and to observe the condition of the skin. The facility policy on Call Lights, updated 10/21 directed CNAs to monitor call lights and answer the light promptly. The policy stated the DON (Director of Nursing) would receive notification of call lights exceeding 15 minutes. During an interview on 7/12/22 at 12:46 p.m., Staff I CMA (Certified Medication Aide) stated the facility did not have enough staffing and there were times due to this that staff did not complete baths. She stated there were times when they could not answer call lights within 15 minutes and it could exceed 20 minutes. Staff I stated recently residents complained to her about this. During an interview on 7/12/22 at 2:47 p.m., Staff L LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated she worked at the facility off and on for a year and CNA staffing had been an issue since she started, but the last couple of months it was evident. Staff L stated there were days when there were not enough staff to give baths. During an interview on 7/12/22 at 2:54 p.m., Staff J CMA stated it was tough to answer call lights within 15 minutes and she saw the call light response time exceed 20-25 minutes. During an interview on 7/12/22 at 3:12 p.m., Staff N CNA stated facility staffing was not good. She stated call light response times definitely exceeded 15 minutes and had extended at least 40 minutes. Staff N stated residents complained about it. Staff N stated that due to staffing, there were times when residents were wet and staff could not assist them with changing. During an interview on 7/12/22 at 3:36 p.m., Staff O CNA stated staffing on the first shift was horrible. She stated there were times when they could not get to baths and saw call lights exceed 25 minutes. During an interview on 7/13/22 at 11:04 a.m., the DON stated she felt like call light response time was a common complaint. She stated there was no sound to alert staff of call lights and they had to look at their tablets to see if a call light alerted. The DON offered that staff should answer call lights within 15 minutes.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0809 (Tag F0809)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure no more than 14 hours elapsed between a substantial evening meal and breakfast ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure no more than 14 hours elapsed between a substantial evening meal and breakfast the next morning. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: During an observation on 7/6/22, staff served Resident #37 her evening meal at 4:23 p.m. and served Resident #45 his evening meal at 4:26 p.m. During an observation on 7/7/22 at 8:04 a.m., staff served Resident #37 her breakfast. As of 8:04 a.m., Resident #45 did not have his breakfast. At 8:25 a.m. observation revealed Resident #45 eating his breakfast. Upon request, the facility lacked documentation staff offered residents a substantial evening snack. The undated facility document for Dining Services listed the following meal times: a. Breakfast 7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. b. Lunch 11:00 a.m. Monday-Saturday and 11:30 a.m. Sunday. c. Supper 4:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m. The facility's undated Snack Cart Policy directed that Resident Assistants would distribute snacks between 5:30 p.m.-6:45 p.m. and the facility did not require documentation of selections or intake. During an interview on 7/12/22 at 2:54 p.m., Staff J CMA (Certified Medication Assistant) stated the facility did not have bedtime snacks like they used to. Staff J stated staff just passed ice at bedtime. During in interview on 7/13/22 at 8:16 a.m., the Infection Preventionist and former DON (Director of Nursing) stated the evening meal started at 4:30 p.m. so there was not an extended time between meals. She stated staff should pass an evening snack but they did not have any documentation of evening snacks. During an interview on 7/13/22 at 9:10 a.m., the Dietary Manager (DM) stated the CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants) were in charge of the snacks. The DM stated they had items like chips, cookies, and donuts. Staff also had access to the refrigerator if residents wanted something additional. The DM stated 14 hours was the maximum amount of time which should elapse between the evening meal and breakfast. The DM stated she informed staff residents should not eat prior to 4:30 p.m. and breakfast was at 7:00 a.m.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility record review, facility staff failed to handle food and beverages in a sanitary manner showing an extended use of gloves in two of three dining roo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility record review, facility staff failed to handle food and beverages in a sanitary manner showing an extended use of gloves in two of three dining rooms at the facility. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. Observation on 7/06/22 at 4:05 PM revealed Staff B, Resident Assistant, assisted with preparation of drinks in the front dining room. Staff B touched touched her hair and mask with her blue gloves, then touched her glasses. Staff B adjusted the glasses and then touched a large silver drink dispenser. Staff B then adjusted her clothing and hair while wearing the same gloves, touched a cart, her safety glasses, and a mug. Staff B then prepared drinks with the same gloves applied, then touched her hair again. Staff B then prepared drinks without hand hygiene or a change of gloves. During interview on 7/13/22 at 11:15 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged with each person staff were supposed to be changing gloves, and perform hand washing or sanitizer. The DON acknowledged staff were supposed to be changing gloves if they touched equipment or their person. 2. Observation of the noon meal service in the back dining room on 7/5/22 at 11:45 a.m. revealed Staff A, [NAME] wore gloves and with her right gloved hand touched items such as a spoon handle and with her left gloved hand she touched the outside of small bowls. With the same gloves, she touched a grilled cheese sandwich while cutting it. She then served the sandwich to a resident. Staff A [NAME] wore new gloves and with her left gloved hand she touched the refrigerator handle and with her right hand touched utensils in a drawer. Without changing gloves, Staff A then plated a pink frosted dessert and touched several of the desserts while placing them from the dessert pan onto the plate. Frosting was visible on the Staff C's gloves. She then served the dessert to residents. Staff A donned new gloves and with her right gloved hand touched small bowls, tong handles, and a knife and with her left gloved hand, she touched a plastic lid. She then used both her right and left gloved hands to move meat onto a plate. Staff A then served the food to residents. 3. Observation of the noon meal service in the back dining room on 07/06/22 at 11:26 a.m. revealed Staff A wore gloves and with her right gloved hand she touched a ladle, a plate, and hot dog tongs and with her left hand she touched a plate and tongs. With the same gloves, Staff A touched meat with both hands. She then placed the meat on a resident's plate. Staff A donned new gloves and with her right gloved hand, she touched a piece of paper on the counter and with the left gloved hand she touched small bowls. Staff A then touched a bun with her right and left gloved hands which she then served to a resident. The facility's undated policy on Sanitary Conditions stated the facility would prevent the spread of food borne illness and reduce practices which contaminated and compromised food safety. The policy directed staff to complete hand hygiene prior to preparing, serving, and distributing food. The policy did not address glove use. During an interview on 7/13/22 at 9:10 a.m., the Dietary Manager stated staff used gloves for ready-to-eat food. She stated between tasks, staff should reglove and also used tongs and forks. The Dietary Manager stated she would conduct an in-service regarding glove use.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene and glove use when st...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene and glove use when staff moved between resident rooms, collected trays, passed water, and during an observation of a catheter dressing change for one of one resident observed for a dressing change (Resident #34).The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. On 7/07/22 at 8:27 AM, observation revealed Staff C, Housekeeper, while wearing blue gloves, moved down the hallway. At 8:28 AM, Staff C moved the housekeeping cart down the hallway with their gloves applied. At 8:29 AM, Staff C entered a resident room, exited the resident's room with blue gloves applied, and put the tray on a rack in the hallway. At 8:29 AM, the staff member opened a door in the hallway, and at 8:31 AM Staff C closed the housekeeping door in the hallway while they wore the same blue gloves, then she entered a resident room, and went back down the hallway with gloves applied. Next Staff C entered another resident room, exited the room with a tray, and put it on a rack in the hallway with blue gloves applied. On 7/13/22 at 11:17 AM, when asked if staff went into a room with gloves on if they should have been doffed when they came out, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged this should occur. The facility policy for Hand Washing, last reviewed 2/22, directed the following in the Times Hand Washing Is Important section: 1. Before feeding residents-during feeding if soiled or contamination occurs 3. Before and after caring for a resident .5. After handling resident articles, dressings, or equipment that may be soiled.2. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #34 recorded a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 or severe cognitive impairment. The MDS showed Resident #34 required extensive assistance from 2 staff members for bed mobility, transfers, ambulation and most activities of daily living. The resident had an indwelling catheter. The resident's diagnoses included stroke and benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate). The resident's care plan reviewed on 6/2/22 identified that Resident #34 had a suprapubic catheter (urinary catheter that drains from the abdomen). An intervention directed to clean around the suprapubic site daily and apply a 4 x 4 (dressing) to the stoma. An order dated 6/25/22 at 6:00 AM instructed to clean around the suprapubic catheter stoma site daily and apply a 4 x 4 daily to stoma, assess for any changes, signs/symptoms of infection/urine leakage every day shift. An order dated 6/23/22 at 2:00 PM directed to apply Triad Hydrophilic Wound Dressing Paste to an open area topically every day and evening shift. During observation 7/11/22 at 1:15 PM Staff K, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse), did a suprapubic catheter dressing change for Resident #34. The nurse gathered and placed the equipment on the bedside tray. Staff K did not place a barrier down or clean the tray first. She washed her hands and applied gloves, positioned the resident and removed the old dressing and put it in the trash. Staff K did not remove her soiled gloves, but then picked up a gauze pad and applied normal saline to it. Staff K cleansed the catheter insertion site, then cleansed the area again and along with 2-3 inches down the tubing with a second gauze pad. Staff K picked up a pair of scissors, made a split in a gauze pad and placed it on the site. She dated the dressing and taped it in place and then removed her gloves. As she cleaned up the equipment, Staff K placed the scissors and tape in her pocket. She washed her hands, lowered the resident's bed, covered him and left the room. During observation on 7/12/22 at 10:00 AM Staff L, LPN, did wound care for Resident # 34. The nurse placed the tube of Triad Cream on the bedside tray without a barrier on it or cleaning the tray. Staff L washed her hands and applied gloves. She helped the resident reposition and removed part of his brief to give her access to his coccyx area. Staff L used soap and water to clean the site with a towel. Staff L then changed her gloves but did not wash her hands. Staff L applied Triad Cream to the wound site. Staff L removed her gloves and washed her hands, put the resident's back in a low position and returned supplies to the cart. In an interview on 7/13/22 at 8:20 AM, the DON stated she expects that staff will place a barrier on the tray before placing equipment on it. The DON also expected staff to remove dirty gloves and wash their hands after touching or removing a dirty dressing. The facility's procedure on Dressings Dry Sterile, reviewed 2/22, instructed to place the soiled dressings in a waterproof bag. Remove disposable gloves and discard these in the waterproof bag also. The policy lacked direction to wash hands or put a barrier down to place equipment on. The facility's Handwashing policy, reviewed 2/22, did not instruct that staffs' hands need to be washed after removing gloves. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website titled Hand Hygiene in Health Care Settings reviewed on 1/8/21 contained the recommendations that hand hygiene should be performed immediately after removing gloves. That gloves need changed when moving from work at a soiled body site to a clean body site on the same patient. 3. During an observation on 7/7/22 at 10:29 a.m., Staff D, Resident Assistant, wore blue gloves and entered room [ROOM NUMBER] and then exited into the hall. Staff D then picked up a water pitcher from a cart in the hall and entered room [ROOM NUMBER]. She exited room [ROOM NUMBER] with a dirty water pitcher and placed it on the bottom shelf of the cart. Staff D then entered room [ROOM NUMBER] with a clean water pitcher and exited the room with a dirty water pitcher. She then brought a new water pitcher into room [ROOM NUMBER] and exited the room with the old water pitcher. Staff D wore the same pair of gloves when entering and exiting the rooms. The facility's policy on Use of Ice Scoop(s), reviewed 3/20, directed staff to utilize proper hand washing before using a scoop to distribute ice to glasses and to wear gloves when passing ice water. During in interview on 7/13/22 at 8:16 a.m., the Infection Preventionist and former DON stated when staff distributed ice water, they would wash their hands and change gloves in between rooms.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Iowa facilities.
Concerns
  • • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 65/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is United Presbyterian Home's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns United Presbyterian Home an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Iowa, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is United Presbyterian Home Staffed?

CMS rates United Presbyterian Home's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at United Presbyterian Home?

State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at United Presbyterian Home during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 21 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates United Presbyterian Home?

United Presbyterian Home is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 59 certified beds and approximately 48 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Washington, Iowa.

How Does United Presbyterian Home Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, United Presbyterian Home's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1 and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting United Presbyterian Home?

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

Is United Presbyterian Home Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, United Presbyterian Home has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Iowa. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at United Presbyterian Home Stick Around?

United Presbyterian Home has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was United Presbyterian Home Ever Fined?

United Presbyterian Home 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 United Presbyterian Home on Any Federal Watch List?

United Presbyterian Home is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.