CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU

1625 S FRANKLIN AVENUE, COLBY, KS 67701 (785) 462-8295
Non profit - Corporation 60 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
51/100
#56 of 295 in KS
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

Citizens Medical Center LTCU has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack among similar facilities. It ranks #56 out of 295 in Kansas, placing it in the top half, and #1 out of 2 in Thomas County, indicating it is the better option available locally. Unfortunately, the facility is trending worse, with issues increasing from 5 in 2022 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is rated at 4 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is concerning at 60%, higher than the state average, suggesting potential instability among caregivers. The facility has received $17,124 in fines, which is average, yet there were critical incidents, including a resident not receiving necessary oxygen during a bath and another resident experiencing significant weight loss without proper dietary intervention. While the center has good RN coverage, it still has notable weaknesses that families should consider.

Trust Score
C
51/100
In Kansas
#56/295
Top 18%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
5 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$17,124 in fines. Higher than 85% of Kansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 68 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Kansas nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 5 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 60%

13pts above Kansas avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $17,124

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Staff turnover is elevated (60%)

12 points above Kansas average of 48%

The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Aug 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility has a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with three reviewed for skin conditions, not pressu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility has a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with three reviewed for skin conditions, not pressure-related. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise the care plan for Resident (R) 3 to include the use of protective sleeves to prevent skin injury. This placed the resident at risk for further skin injury due to uncommunicated care needs. Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R3 documented diagnoses of vascular dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion caused by a decreased blood flow to the brain), hypertensive heart disease (complications of high blood pressure that affect the heart), chronic kidney disease (longstanding disease of the kidneys leading to renal failure), psychotic disorder with hallucinations (a mental health condition that causes people to lose touch with reality), and atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heartbeat). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R3 had long-term and short-term memory problems with severely impaired decision-making skills. R3 was dependent upon staff for personal hygiene, dressing, mobility, and toileting, and did not ambulate. The MDS documented R3 had no skin issues. R3's Care Plan, dated 07/03/24 and initiated on 05/24/17, documented R3 was at risk for skin integrity injuries due to incontinence, low activity level, use of a lift, agitation, behaviors, and dementia. The update. dated 04/05/23, directed staff to inspect her skin daily, observe for redness, open areas, scratches, cuts, and bruises, and report changes to the nurse. The update, dated, 10/13/21, directed staff to keep fingernails smooth and trimmed to prevent jagged edges. The update, dated 11/10/23, documented R3 had sheepskin on her wheelchair arms. The update, dated 07/03/24, directed staff to use a trough pressure relief cushion in R3's wheelchair to help prevent pressure injuries and to ensure R3 did not slide out of the wheelchair. The care plan lacked direction for R3's Dermasaver sleeves. The Physician's Order, dated 03/20/23, directed staff to administer Eliquis (an anticoagulant), 2.5 milligrams (mg), by mouth, for atrial fibrillation. The Physician's Order, dated 06/20/23, directed staff to have the charge nurse to perform a full body skin assessment on the resident weekly, check fingernails, trim or file if broken or jagged, and document skin assessment in the progress notes. The Physician's Order, dated 01/19/24, directed staff to apply derma sleeves and remove them at bedtime. On 08/05/24 at 08:15 AM, observation revealed R3 had Dermasaver sleeves on both forearms. The sleeves were bunched up and were not pulled up to cover her elbows. Further observation revealed that R3's wheelchair arms did not have sheepskin on them. On 08/05/24 at 11:00 AM, observation revealed R3 did not have the Dermasaver sleeves on and the wheelchair arms did not have sheepskin on them. On 08/06/24 at 08:20 AM, observation revealed R3 had the Dermasaver sleeves on, the sleeves were not pulled up over her elbows and the wheelchair arms did not have sheepskin on them. On 08/06/24 at 11:15 AM, observation revealed R3 did not have the Dermasaver sleeves on or sheepskin on the arms of the wheelchair. Further observation revealed R3 continuously rubbed her left arm during the noon meal. On 08/06/24 at 12:11 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O stated R3 had a recent skin tear on her right elbow and was supposed to have her Dermasaver sleeves on for protection and sheepskin on the arms of the wheelchair. CNA O further stated she did not know why R3 did not have them on as she was at risk for bruising and skin tears. On 08/06/24 at 12:12 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated that R3's Dermasaver sleeves were ordered for protection due to her fragile skin. Administrative Nurse D stated the sleeves had been on R3's Care Plan at one time but somehow got deleted. Administrative Nurse D said she expected staff to follow the care plan. The facility's Care Planning policy, dated 6/30/20, documented the plan of care shall be individualized based on the diagnosis, culture, resident assessment, personal goals of the resident, resident interests, preferences, strengths, and trauma-informed care plan. The plan of care shall be reviewed and revised quarterly by the MDS Coordinator and as resident needs change by any qualified individual, with revisions reflecting the reassessment of the needs of the resident. The resident and/or resident representative will review the changes and sign the plan of care. The facility failed to revise the care plan for R3 to include Dermasaver sleeves to prevent skin injury. This placed the resident at risk for further injury due to uncommunicated care needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one resident reviewed for discharge. Based on r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with one resident reviewed for discharge. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete a recapitulation (a concise summary of stay and course of treatment in the facility) of Resident (R) 45's stay in the facility. This placed the resident at risk of unmet care needs. Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR), documented R45 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and documented diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremors, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity and weakness) with dyskinesia (inability to execute voluntary movements), unsteadiness on feet, weakness, urine retention, dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), altered mental status, depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), acute cystitis (type of urinary tract infection that causes inflammation of the bladder), and malignant (the tendency of a medical condition, especially tumors, to become progressively worse, most familiar as a characteristic of cancer) neoplasm (tumor) of the prostate. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R45 had intact cognition. He was dependent on staff assistance with oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, lower body dressing, putting on and taking off footwear, and mobility from lying to sitting and sitting to standing. R45 required substantial assistance with showers, upper body dressing, toilet transfers, rolling left and right in bed, sitting to lying, and chair-to-bed and bed-to-chair transfers. The discharge goal performance had not been completed. The MDS further documented R45 was always continent of urine and occasionally incontinent of bowel. R45 received an antibiotic, and speech, occupational and physical therapies. The Activity of Daily Living Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 04/08/24, documented R45 had been admitted for short-term rehabilitation. The goal was to return home with family. but it depended on how well R45 responded to therapy. The CAA further documented R45 had Parkinson's disease, was admitted to the hospital because of weakness and g urine incontinence, and was found to have COVID-19 ( a highly infectious, potentially fatal respiratory infection)19, urinary tract infection, and acute cystitis. R45's Care Plan dated 04/11/24 documented R45 had a goal of discharging back to an apartment with his spouse. The care plan directed staff to anticipate discharge with home health services and involve R45 and his family in the discharge process. The Physician Order, dated 05/29/24, directed staff to discharge R45 to home with his spouse. The Progress Note, dated 05/29/24 at 12:56 PM, documented R45 assisted by wheelchair to the front entrance and assisted into a vehicle with his spouse. R45's clinical record lacked a recapitulation of the stay. On 08/07/24 at 08:33 AM Administrative Nurse D reported the nurses, social services, and therapy each do their discharge summaries, but the facility had not done a recapitulation of R45's stay. The facility's Discharge policy, dated 12/12/16, documented the policy that the nursing department, social services, physicians, and care team work together towards the organized timely discharge of all residents. It is the purpose of the policy to outline the proper procedure for discharging residents upon the order of a physician and the resident's goals. The policy lacked the need for a recapitulation of the resident's course of stay. The facility failed to complete a recapitulation of R45's stay in the facility. This placed the resident at risk of unmet care needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with three reviewed for skin conditions, not pressu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with three reviewed for skin conditions, not pressure-related. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 3, who received anticoagulant (medication that inhibits the coagulation of blood), received the care as required to prevent skin injuries including Dermasaver sleeves (protects fragile skin prone to skin tears and bruises) and sheepskin surface padding. This placed R3 at risk for further skin injury. Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R3 documented diagnoses of vascular dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion caused by a decreased blood flow to the brain), hypertensive heart disease (complications of high blood pressure that affect the heart), chronic kidney disease (longstanding disease of the kidneys leading to renal failure), psychotic disorder with hallucinations (a mental health condition that causes people to lose touch with reality), and atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heartbeat). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R3 had long-term and short-term memory problems with severely impaired decision-making skills. R3 was dependent upon staff for personal hygiene, dressing, mobility, and toileting, and did not ambulate. The MDS documented R3 had no skin issues. R3's Care Plan, dated 07/03/24 and initiated on 05/24/17, documented R3 was at risk for skin integrity injuries due to incontinence, low activity level, use of a lift, agitation, behaviors, and dementia. The update. dated 04/05/23, directed staff to inspect her skin daily, observe for redness, open areas, scratches, cuts, and bruises, and report changes to the nurse. The update, dated, 10/13/21, directed staff to keep fingernails smooth and trimmed to prevent jagged edges. The update, dated 11/10/23, documented R3 had sheepskin on her wheelchair arms. The update, dated 07/03/24, directed staff to use a trough pressure relief cushion in R3's wheelchair to help prevent pressure injuries and to ensure R3 did not slide out of the wheelchair. The care plan lacked direction for R3's Dermasaver sleeves. The Physician's Order, dated 03/20/23, directed staff to administer Eliquis (an anticoagulant), 2.5 milligrams (mg), by mouth, for atrial fibrillation. The Physician's Order, dated 06/20/23, directed staff to have the charge nurse to perform a full body skin assessment on the resident weekly, check fingernails, trim or file if broken or jagged, and document skin assessment in the progress Note. The Physician's Order, dated 01/19/24, directed staff to apply derma sleeves and remove them at bedtime. On 08/05/24 at 08:15 AM, observation revealed R3 had Dermasaver sleeves on both forearms. The sleeves were bunched up and were not pulled up to cover her elbows. Further observation revealed R3's wheelchair arms did not have sheepskin on them. On 08/05/24 at 11:00 AM, observation revealed R3 did not have the Dermasaver sleeves on and the wheelchair arms did not have sheepskin on them. On 08/06/24 at 08:20 AM, observation revealed R3 had the Dermasaver sleeves on, the sleeves were not pulled up over her elbows and the wheelchair arms did not have sheepskin on them. On 08/06/24 at 11:15 AM, observation revealed R3 did not have the Dermasaver sleeves on or sheepskin on the arms of the wheelchair. Further observation revealed R3 continuously rubbed her left arm during the noon meal. On 08/06/24 at 12:11 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O stated R3 had a recent skin tear on her right elbow and was supposed to have her Dermasaver sleeves on for protection and sheepskin on the arms of the wheelchair. CNA O further stated she did not know why R3 did not have them on as she was at risk for bruising and skin tears. On 08/06/24 at 12:12 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated R3's Dermasaver sleeves were ordered for protection due to her fragile skin and stated the sleeves had been on her care plan at one time but somehow got deleted. On 08/07/24 at -9:40 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) I stated R3 had a risk of bruising her arms because she had hit her arms on things so the Dermasaver sleeves were put on her arms for protection. The facility's Skin Integrity Management policy, dated 02/20/18, documented it was the responsibility of all nursing, activity, dietary, and social service staff to report any abnormal skin conditions to the resident's charge nurse. Preventative methods, interventions, and treatment options for residents who are at risk for or who have abnormal skin conditions/breakdown, including application of derma arm and/or derma leg protectors. The facility failed to ensure R3 received the necessary interventions including Dermasaver sleeves and sheepskin surface padding to prevent skin injuries This placed the resident at risk for further skin injury.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two residents sampled for pressure ulcers (loca...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two residents sampled for pressure ulcers (localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or friction). Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility staff failed to implement interventions to prevent development and promote healing of pressure ulcers for Resident (R)26, who had a Stage 4 pressure ulcer (a deep pressure wound that reaches the muscles, ligaments, or even bone) when staff did not reposition R26 per the plan of care. This placed R26 at risk for the development of new pressure injuries or delayed healing of the existing pressure ulcer. Findings included: - R26's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented R26 had a diagnosis of Stage 4 pressure ulcer of the sacral (large triangular bone/area between the two hip bones) region. R26's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R26 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented R26 was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS documented R26 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer. R26's Care Plan, revised 05/08/24 documented R26 had a stage four pressure ulcer and instructed staff to turn and reposition R26 every hour while sitting up in a chair. The plan directed staff that if R25 was in a recliner or wheelchair, staff were to stand R26 and encourage her to take a walk or lay down for 15 minutes, every hour, 12 times a day, starting at 08:00 AM and ending at 07:00 PM. On 08/05/24 at 01:30 PM, observation revealed R26 sat in a wheelchair in the activity room. Continued observation revealed R26 remained in the same position in the same place, without staff assisting the resident to stand or encourage her to lie down in bed. Continued observation revealed from 01:30 PM to 03:35 PM ( two hours and five minutes) R26 remained in the same position in her chair without staff assisting her to stand, reposition, or encourage her to lie down in bed. On 08/06/24 at 07:33 AM, observation revealed R26 sat in a wheelchair, leaning forward. R26 looked in a mirror and independently applied her makeup. Continued observation revealed at 07:49 AM Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) P entered R26's room and asked R26 if she was done putting on her makeup, and R26 replied Yes. CNA P told the resident he would take out the trash and come back and get her but did not offer to assist her to stand or encourage her to lie down in bed. At 07:58 AM CNA P came back to the room, placed the foot pedals on the resident's wheelchair, placed her feet up on the foot pedals and, without assisting R26 to stand or reposition, propelled R26 from her room to hallway. CNA Q then propelled R26 to the dining room table. Continued observation revealed from 08:13 AM to 08:55 AM R26 remained in the same position at the dining room table, without staff repositioning, standing her, or encouraging her to lie down. At 08:55 AM, observation revealed CNA R propelled R26 away from the table to the activity room and placed her facing the television. Staff did not attempt or offer to assist R26 to stand, reposition, or encourage her to lie down in bed. At 09:09 AM R26 remained in the wheelchair in the activity room; staff removed her foot pedals and R26 exercised by minimally lifting her legs one at a time up from the wheelchair. Continuous observation for one hour 39 minutes during which no staff assisted R26 with standing, repositioning, or encouraging her to lie down in bed. On 08/05/24 at 03:56 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M stated staff were to assist R26 with changing position, every hour, while she was in her chair. CNA M stated she did not know how long R26 had been in her wheelchair due to the activity staff placed her in it. On 08/07/24 at 11:08 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) J, the facility's wound care nurse, said she was uncertain if the lack of repositioning could delay the healing of R26's pressure ulcer since it was not expected to heal. LN J said the plan was just to maintain it. On 08/07/24 at 10:32 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified R26's Care Plan and instructed staff to reposition R26 every hour when in her chair. Admin Nurse D stated the CNA's ADL plan did not include those instructions. The facility's Care Planning Policy, revised 06/30/20, documented all associates were responsible for following the care plan. The facility's Skin Integrity Policy, revised 08/20/18, documented that staff would identify residents at risk for skin breakdown, reduce or relieve pressure, maintain skin integrity, and provide appropriate interventions to manage pressure injuries. The facility failed to implement interventions to prevent the development and promote the healing of pressure ulcers for R26, who had a Stage 4 pressure ulcer when staff did not reposition R26 per the plan of care. This placed R26 at risk for the development of new pressure injuries or delayed healing of the existing pressure ulcer.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary drugs. Based on o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary drugs. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist identified and reported to facility administration the lack of a documented physician rationale which included the multiple unsuccessful attempts for nonpharmacological symptom management and risk versus benefits for the continued use of an antipsychotic (class of medications used to treat mental disorder characterized by gross impairment in reality testing) and/or for not attempting a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for psychotropic (alters mood or thought) medications and that staff had not administered the physician ordered as needed (PRN) blood pressure medication when the blood pressure was out of parameters, placing R7 at risk for further issues related to uncontrolled blood pressures and for receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications. Findings included: - R7's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of orthostatic hypotension (blood pressure dropping with change of position) and hypertension (high blood pressure). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented R7 was independent with eating and required supervision for upper body dressing, moderate staff assistance for transfers, walking, and donning footwear. R7 required maximum staff assistance for lower body dressing, toileting, and sitting to standing. The MDS documented R7 had one non-injury fall since the prior MDS. R7's Care Plan, dated 07/24/24, directed staff to give medications as ordered, monitor, document, and report any signs or symptoms of medication side effects. Encourage R7 to assume a standing position slowly, and avoid standing or transferring without assistance. The plan directed staff that when R7 reported feeling dizzy or was having symptoms of hypotension, assist her to sit down or sit with her head lowered between her legs. The Physician Order, dated 12/12/23 directed staff to administer an as-needed (PRN) dose of metoprolol (a drug to reduce blood pressure) 12.5 milligrams (mg) for systolic blood pressure (SBP- top number, the force your heart exerts on the walls of your arteries each time it beats) greater than (>) 160 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg). The Physician Order, dated 04/05/23 directed staff to perform blood pressure checks three times per day (TID) and administer Midodrine (a drug to increase blood pressure) 2.5 mg PRN for SBP less than (<) 90 mm/Hg, three times daily. The Physician Order, dated 04/23/2023, directed staff to report blood pressures greater than 200/110 mm/Hg or less than 80/30 mm/Hg or if the resident was symptomatic. R7's May Medication Administration Record lacked documentation that staff administered Midodrine 2.5 mg for SBP <90 mm/HG six times. R7's June Medication Administration Record lacked documentation staff administered PRN metoprolol 12.5 mg for SBP >160 mm/HG 42 times and lacked documentation that staff administered Midodrine 2.5 mg PRN for SBP <90 mm/HG two times. R7's July Medication Administration Record lacked documentation staff administered PRN metoprolol 12.5 mg for SBP >160 mm/HG 21 times the SBP exceeded the parameter and lacked documentation that the staff administered Midodrine 2.5 mg PRN for SBP <90 mmHG seven times. R7's August Medication Administration Record lacked documentation staff administered PRN Metoprolol 12.5 mg for SBP >160 mm/HG four times the SBP exceeded the parameter. The Consultant Pharmacist Monthly Medication Reviews, dated 06/18/24 and 07/16/24, documented there were no irregularities in the medication record. The Physician Order, dated 01/16/23, directed staff to administer Trazodone 100 milligrams (mg) at bedtime, for insomnia. The Physician Order, dated 05/19/23, directed staff to administer clonazepam 0.5 mg every day upon rising, and at 02:30 PM, for anxiety disorder. The Physician Order, dated 10/17/23, directed staff to administer clonazepam 0.5 mg (3 tabs) at bedtime for anxiety disorder. The Physician Order, dated 10/18/23, directed staff to administer risperidone 0.25 mg twice daily (BID) for psychotic disorder with delusions. The Physician Order, dated 10/18/23, directed staff to administer Zoloft 150 mg upon rising, for recurrent depression. The Consultant Pharmacist Monthly Medication Review dated 03/19/24, recommended a GDR of risperidone. The physician wrote dose adjustment not advised without documenting an explanation of why the benefits of continuing the drug outweighed the risks. The Consultant Pharmacist Monthly Medication Review dated 04/23/24, recommended a GDR of Trazodone. The physician wrote, See if the family wants to decrease the dose. The physician did not provide an explanation of why the benefits of continuing the drug outweighed the risks. The Consultant Pharmacist Monthly Medication Review dated 05/22/24, recommended a GDR of clonazepam. The physician wrote no changes without documenting an explanation of why the benefits of continuing the drug outweighed the risks. The Consultant Pharmacist Monthly Medication Reviews dated 06/18/24, and 07/16/24, documented no irregularities. On 08/06/24 at 08:04 AM, observation revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) H administered medications to R7 after obtaining a blood pressure of 185/112 mm/Hg. The medications included metoprolol 12.5 mg, and PRN metoprolol 12.5 mg. R7 took the pills whole with much encouragement. On 08/07/24 at 903 AM, Administrative Nurse E verified the lack of risk versus benefit rationales for the continued use of clonazepam, risperidone, Trazodone, and Zoloft. and confirmed the pharmacist had not reported this to the facility. On 08/07/24 at 09:40 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the facility's consultant pharmacist had failed to notify her of the lack of administration of the PRN metoprolol and the PRN Midodrine as the physician ordered numerous times in May, June, and July 2024. The facility's Pharmacy Review policy, dated 03/19/18, stated the pharmacist consultant would review the resident's Electronic Health Records (EHR) and Electronic Medical Record (EMR) of all residents on a monthly basis to ensure the residents were receiving appropriate medication therapy that was safe and efficacious. The pharmacist would review medication administration for timely administration and reasons for non-administration. The pharmacist would review for possible unnecessary medications where the resident might benefit from a gradual dose reduction to the lowest effective dose. The pharmacist would review for appropriate orders, diagnosis, and response to medications. The pharmacist would document a review of irregularities and what if any action was taken to address it. If no action was taken the physician must then document a rationale on the report. The Medical Director would review the pharmacy irregularities and omissions reviews monthly. The facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist identified and reported to facility administration the lack of a documented physician rationale which included the multiple unsuccessful attempts for nonpharmacological symptom management and risk versus benefits for the continued use of an antipsychotic and/or for not attempting a GDR for psychotropic medications and that staff had not administered the physician ordered PRN blood pressure medication when the blood pressure was out of parameters, placing R7 at risk for further issues related to uncontrolled blood pressures and for receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary drugs. Based on o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary drugs. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to administer two blood pressure medications based on the blood pressure monitoring per the physician's orders for Resident (R) 7. This placed the resident at risk for unnecessary medication resulting from abnormal blood pressure. Findings included: - R7's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of orthostatic hypotension (blood pressure dropping with change of position) and hypertension (high blood pressure). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented R7 was independent with eating and required supervision for upper body dressing, moderate staff assistance for transfers, walking, and donning footwear. R7 required maximum staff assistance for lower body dressing, toileting, and sitting to standing. The MDS documented R7 had one non-injury fall since the prior MDS. R7's Care Plan, dated 07/24/24, directed staff to give medications as ordered, monitor, document, and report any signs or symptoms of medication side effects. Encourage R7 to assume a standing position slowly, and avoid standing or transferring without assistance. The plan directed staff that when R7 reported feeling dizzy or was having symptoms of hypotension, assist her to sit down or sit with her head lowered between her legs. The Physician Order, dated 12/12/23 directed staff to administer an as-needed (PRN) dose of metoprolol (a drug to reduce blood pressure) 12.5 milligrams (mg) for systolic blood pressure (SBP- top number, the force your heart exerts on the walls of your arteries each time it beats) greater than (>) 160 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg). The Physician Order, dated 04/05/23 directed staff to perform blood pressure checks three times per day (TID) and administer Midodrine (a drug to increase blood pressure) 2.5 mg PRN for SBP less than (<) 90 mm/Hg, three times daily. The Physician Order, dated 04/23/2023, directed staff to report blood pressures greater than 200/110 mm/Hg or less than 80/30 mm/Hg or if the resident was symptomatic. R7's May Medication Administration Record lacked documentation staff administered Midodrine 2.5 mg for SBP <90 mm/HG six times. R7's June Medication Administration Record lacked documentation staff administered PRN metoprolol 12.5 mg for SBP >160 mm/HG 42 times and lacked documentation that staff administered Midodrine 2.5 mg PRN for SBP <90 mm/HG two times. R7's July Medication Administration Record lacked documentation staff administered PRN metoprolol 12.5 mg for SBP >160 mm/HG 21 times the SBP exceeded the parameter and lacked documentation that the staff administered Midodrine 2.5 mg PRN for SBP <90 mmHG seven times. R7's August Medication Administration Record lacked documentation staff administered PRN Metoprolol 12.5 mg for SBP >160 mm/HG four times the SBP exceeded the parameter. On 08/06/24 at 08:04 AM, observation revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) H administered medications to R7 after obtaining a blood pressure of 185/112 mm/Hg. The medications included metoprolol 12.5 mg, and PRN metoprolol 12.5 mg. R7 took the pills whole with much encouragement. On 08/07/24 at 09:40 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified staff failed to administer the PRN metoprolol and the PRN Midodrine as the physician ordered numerous times in May, June, and July 2024. She stated some of the high blood pressure readings were obtained just prior to the resident receiving the scheduled dose of metoprolol. The facility's Medication Administration policy, dated 02/13/2017, stated staff would administer all medications to each resident as ordered by a physician or provider, and the drug regimen would be free from unnecessary drugs. The facility failed to administer blood pressure medications as the physician ordered, placing R7 at risk for high or low blood pressure effects.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary drugs. Based on o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 43 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary drugs. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to obtain a written risk versus benefit rationale from the physician for the continued use of four psychotropic (alters mood or thought) drugs for Resident (R) 7. This placed R7 at risk for unnecessary psychotropic medications and related side effects. Findings included: - R7's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (a slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity, and weakness), anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities), recurrent major depressive disorder (mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life), delusional (untrue persistent belief or perception held by a person although evidence shows it was untrue) disorders, psychotic (any major mental disorder characterized by gross impairment in reality perception) disorder, and insomnia (inability to sleep). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented R7 was independent with eating, required supervision for upper body dressing, moderate staff assistance for transfers, walking, donning footwear, and maximum staff assistance for lower body dressing, toileting, and sitting to standing. The MDS documented R7 had no behaviors and received antipsychotic (class of medications used to treat major mental conditions that cause a break from reality), antianxiety (class of medications that calm and relax people), and antidepressant (class of medications used to treat mood disorders) medications. R7's Care Plan, dated 07/24/24, directed staff to give medications as ordered, monitor, document, and report any signs or symptoms of medication side effects. The care plan for psychotropic drugs stated a gradual dose reduction (GDR) was to be attempted when clinically appropriate, within the first year of medication start, and two GDR attempts were to be trialed within two different quarters unless documentation for clinical contraindication was present. The care plan included the target behaviors for the use of risperidone (antipsychotic), clonazepam (antianxiety), Trazodone (antidepressant), and Zoloft (antidepressant). The Physician Order, dated 01/16/23, directed staff to administer Trazodone 100 milligrams (mg) at bedtime, for insomnia. The Physician Order, dated 05/19/23, directed staff to administer clonazepam 0.5 mg every day upon rising, and at 02:30 PM, for anxiety disorder. The Physician Order, dated 10/17/23, directed staff to administer clonazepam 0.5 mg (3 tabs) at bedtime for anxiety disorder. The Physician Order, dated 10/18/23, directed staff to administer risperidone 0.25 mg twice daily (BID) for psychotic disorder with delusions. The Physician Order, dated 10/18/23, directed staff to administer Zoloft 150 mg upon rising, for recurrent depression. The Consultant Pharmacist Monthly Medication Review dated 03/19/24, recommended a GDR of risperidone. The physician wrote dose adjustment not advised without documenting an explanation of why the benefits of continuing the drug outweighed the risks. The Consultant Pharmacist Monthly Medication Review dated 04/23/24, recommended a GDR of Trazodone. The physician wrote, See if family wants to decrease dose. The physician did not provide an explanation of why the benefits of continuing the drug outweighed the risks. The Consultant Pharmacist Monthly Medication Review dated 05/22/24, recommended a GDR of clonazepam. The physician wrote no changes without documenting an explanation of why the benefits of continuing the drug outweighed the risks. The Consultant Pharmacist Monthly Medication Reviews dated 06/18/24, and 07/16/24, documented no irregularities. On 08/06/24 at 08:04 AM, observation revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) H administered medications including Zoloft, clonazepam, and risperidone to R7 who took the pills whole with much encouragement. On 08/07/24 at 903 AM, Administrative Nurse E verified the lack of risk versus benefit rationales for the continued use of clonazepam, risperidone, Trazodone, and Zoloft. The facility's Psychotropic Drug Use policy, dated 02/24/2021, stated residents who use psychotropic drugs would receive periodical gradual dose reductions and behavioral interventions unless clinically contraindicated. The MDS coordinator would review psychotropic medications with each MDS assessment and request the physician review the usage of psychotropic medications. The facility failed to obtain a written risk versus benefit rationale from the physician for the continued use of four psychotropic drugs for R7, placing R7 at risk for unnecessary psychotropic medications and related side effects.
Jun 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

The facility identified a census of 44 residents with three residents reviewed for neglect. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 1 who had a h...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility identified a census of 44 residents with three residents reviewed for neglect. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 1 who had a history of respiratory failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a progressive and irreversible condition characterized by diminished lung capacity and difficulty or discomfort in breathing) received the required respiratory services. On 05/21/24 at 09:58 AM Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M failed to provide R1's continuous oxygen at 4 Liters (L) per minute for forty-five minutes, while staff provided R1 a bath. At 10:45 AM CNA M assisted R1 back to his wheelchair after bathing and dressing him; when R1 sat down he became unresponsive. Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R entered the bathhouse and noted R1 had no color and was struggling to breathe. Licensed Nurse (LN) G then entered the bathhouse and noted R1 with his head back and was extremely pale. LN H entered the bathhouse and saw R1's eyes rolled into the back of his head, greyish skin color, and no respirations. The staff obtained R1's vital signs and noted zero respirations and an oxygen saturation of 76 percent (%). LN H noticed R1 did not have his oxygen on and requested an oxygen cylinder be brought to the room. Staff administered R1 oxygen at 4L per minute by nasal cannula per R1's orders. R1 became responsive for a moment and verbalized he could hear staff and then lost consciousness again. R1's breathing was irregular and labored and R1 was transferred to a higher level of care. R1 returned to the facility with orders for continuous oxygen even during baths. The facility failed to ensure R1 received his physician-ordered oxygen as required resulting in respiratory distress and arrest. This failure placed R1 in immediate jeopardy. Findings included: - R1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (inadequate supply of oxygen), COPD, congestive heart failure (CHF-a condition with low heart output and the body becomes congested with fluid), and hypertension (high blood pressure). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated 05/04/24, documented R1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R1 was dependent on staff for toileting, hygiene, and donning footwear. R1 required maximum assistance from staff for bathing, lower body dressing, transferring to the bath, and ambulating ten feet. The MDS documented R1 required moderate staff assistance for upper body dressing, lying to sitting, sit to stand, chair to bed transfers, and toilet transfers. The MDS documented R1 required continuous oxygen and a non-invasive mechanical ventilator (Bi-Pap - a type of positive pressure ventilator to assist with breathing). The Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 05/12/24, documented R1 used oxygen continuously and used a Bi-pap. R1 received breathing treatments to help manage his respiratory status. R1 would become short of air with activities, at rest, and when lying flat. R1 slept in his recliner. The CAA documented R1 had multiple diagnoses that could cause alterations in his cognition. The Activities of Daily Living/Functional Rehabilitation Potential CAA, dated 05/12/24, documented R1 had required increased staff assistance since his readmission with supervision to dependent staff assistance with most care. R1's Care Plan documented R1 had COPD with shortness of breath and a history of hypoxic and hypercapnic (a condition where the blood has abnormally high levels of carbon dioxide) respiratory failure. The care plan directed staff to ensure R1 had oxygen on at 4L via nasal cannula while awake/during the day, continuously. The care plan directed staff to change R1's oxygen to a Bi-pap with oxygen at 4L during the night. Staff were to notify the nurse if R1 was complaining of shortness of breath or having signs and symptoms of difficulty breathing. The care plan directed staff to elevate R1's head of bed to semi-Fowlers (semi-upright) to fowlers (upright) or out of bed upright in a chair during episodes of difficulty breathing. The Physician's Order, dated 02/06/24, documented R1 was to have oxygen administered at 4L continuously. The Progress Note, dated 05/21/24 at 11:03 AM, documented LN H was called to the whirlpool room by LN G and CNA M at approximately 10:45 AM. LN G entered the room and saw R1's eyes rolled into the back of his head; R1 had a grey skin color and no respirations. R1 had no response to verbal or painful stimulation. LN H asked for assistance from Administrative Nurse D and Administrative Nurse E. LN H noted R1 did not have any supplemental oxygen on. CNA N retrieved the vital signs cart. R1's vital signs were assessed and R1 had a pulse of 66 beats per minute, a blood pressure of 154/71 millimeters per mercury (mmHg), zero respirations, and oxygen saturation of 76% (normal range between 95% to 100%). R1 did respond briefly and stated, I hear you, before going unresponsive again. Once supplemental oxygen was placed on R1 via nasal cannula, LN H instructed staff to set up R1's CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] ventilation device that blows a gentle stream of air into the nose to keep the airway open during sleep) and R1 was taken immediately back to his room and the CPAP was applied with 4L of oxygen bled through. R1 became more responsive but continued to have irregular respirations. Staff transferred R1 to his bed with the full body lift. R1's oxygen saturation continued to be in the mid-80th percentile. After R1 was transferred to bed, the head of the bed was elevated, the CPAP mask was adjusted to reduce leaking, R1's oxygen saturation rose to the low 90s but his skin had a grey pallor (pale skin color). LN H remained with R1 until Emergency Medical Service (EMS) arrived to transfer R1 to the hospital. The Emergency Department Discharge Instructions, dated 05/21/24 at 01:55 PM, directed R1 to wear oxygen at all times as ordered even in the shower. The undated Facility Incident Report documented on 05/21/24 at 09:58 AM CNA N assisted CNA M in transferring R1 from his recliner to the wheelchair so CNA M could take him for his bath. CNA M assisted R1 to the bath without any incident and notified LN G she completed R1's bath. LN G performed a skin assessment and performed skin treatments at approximately 10:30 AM to 10:35 AM and left the bathhouse to allow CNA M to finish getting R1 dressed. After getting R1 dressed, CNA M transferred R1 to his wheelchair. As soon as R1 sat in his wheelchair, R1 lost consciousness. CMA R entered the whirlpool room at the same time and saw R1 had lost his color and struggled to breathe. LN G was alerted and went to the whirlpool room. When LN G entered the whirlpool room, she saw R1's head laid back and R1 was extremely pale. LN G then requested help from LN H and sent CNA N for the vital signs cart. LN H entered the whirlpool room and saw R1 leaning back in his wheelchair, eyes rolled into the back of his head, skin pale and grey, and without visible spontaneous respirations. LN G requested assistance from Administrative Nurse D and Administrative Nurse E. R1's vital signs were assessed and R1 had no respirations and an oxygen saturation of 76%. LN G noted R1 did not have oxygen on and obtained and administered oxygen at 4L per minute per nasal cannula per orders. R1 became responsive for a moment and verbalized he could hear staff and again lost consciousness. R1's respirations remained irregular and labored. R1 was assisted back to his room where his Bi-Pap was administered. Staff notified R1's primary care provider who ordered to send R1 to the emergency room if R1's responsible party was okay with it. Staff contacted R1's responsible party who requested R1 be sent to the emergency room. Staff assisted R1 to bed via the full body lift and R1 gradually returned to normal alertness. EMS arrived at 10:58 AM. R1 continued to be pale with labored respirations but was alert and oxygen saturations were back in the low 90th percentile. Staff assisted EMS in transferring R1 to a stretcher and turned over care. EMS exited the facility at 11:10 AM. R1 was seen at the local hospital, and they reported no respiratory distress upon R1's arrival. CNA M's undated Witness Statement documented that while CNA M bathed R1, CNA M forgot to put R1's oxygen on. CNA M stated R1 was doing okay when she asked him. CNA M stated R1 talked to her while she gave him a bath. CNA M stated after she got R1 dressed and back into his wheelchair, R1 lost consciousness. CNA M stated she got the charge nurse right away. CNA M stated R1 got his CPAP on and transferred to his bed and then was transferred to the emergency room by EMS. CMA R's undated Witness Statement documented R1 was in the bathhouse with CNA M. CMA R walked into the bathhouse to see how far along the bath was. CMA R stated when she opened the door, she saw R1 in his wheelchair and he had started to turn pale, almost white, and struggled to breathe. CMA R stated she called LN G and LN H over and then stepped out of the way while another aide obtained R1's vital signs. LN G's undated Witness Statement documented LN G was at the nurse's station when CMA R hollered and waved to LN G to come to the bathhouse. LN G stated when she got to the door, she saw R1 laid back in his wheelchair and was pale in color. LN G stated she hollered at LN H and ran to get the vitals sign cart and a stethoscope. LN G stated at that point LN H took over and LN G assisted with getting oxygen applied and getting R1 ready for transfer to the emergency room. LN H's undated Witness Statement documented LN H was called to the 300-hall whirlpool room at approximately 10:45 AM by LN G and CNA M. When LN H arrived at the whirlpool room, she saw R1 leaning back in his wheelchair; he had no signs of spontaneous respirations. LN H stated R1's eyes were rolled back, his skin was grey/pale in pallor, and he was unresponsive to verbal or painful stimuli. LN G stated she called for assistance from the administrative nurses. CNA M retrieved the vital signs cart and began to obtain vital signs. LN G stated she observed R1 did not have any supplemental oxygen, nor was there any oxygen in the whirlpool room. R1's oxygen saturation was 76%. CNA N arrived with an oxygen cylinder and supplemental oxygen was placed on R1 at 4L via nasal cannula. R1 briefly responded and stated, I hear you, before he became unresponsive again. LN G stated once oxygen was on R1, she took R1 to his room and immediately placed his CPAP on with supplemental oxygen bled in at 4L. R1 was then transferred to his bed utilizing the full body lift. R1 began to become more responsive though his oxygen saturation continued to read in the mid 80th percentile. R1 was placed in bed with the head of the bed elevated and the CPAP adjusted to reduce leaking air. R1's oxygen saturation began to rise to the low 90s. R1's skin continued to be pale and grey. LN H stated she stayed with R1 until EMS arrived and assisted in transferring the resident to the stretcher. Administrative Nurse E's undated Witness Statement documented she was in her office when a CNA knocked on her door and stated LN H needed help in the whirlpool room. Administrative Nurse E stated she saw R1 in his wheelchair with his head tilted back and flaccid (hanging loosely or limply) upper extremities. Administrative Nurse E stated LN H was already with R1 along with a couple of CNAs. R1 had agonal (intermittent gasps triggered as a brain stem reflex to lack of oxygen-rich blood, and a sign of impending death) breathing; a CNA brought in oxygen to place on R1. Since LN H was with R1, Administrative Nurse E went to get paperwork printed for transfer and then returned to the whirlpool room. LN H instructed staff to take R1 to his room to get his CPAP on and in bed to prepare for EMS transport. Once R1 was in his room, he knew where he was and was speaking. LN H applied R1's CPAP. CNA O's undated Witness Statement documented she witnessed CNA M holler for LN G. LN G went to the bathhouse and then got LN H. CNA O documented the nurses asked the CNAs to get R1's oxygen. CNA O stated she went to R1's room to look for the oxygen. CNA N came into the room and grabbed the tank and took it to the bathhouse. They wheeled R1 to his room and CNA O stated she assisted in getting R1 to bed and put his CPAP on R1. On 06/05/24 at 10:15 AM, observation revealed the whirlpool room/shower room was free of clutter and contained no supplemental oxygen in the room. During an interview on 06/05/24 at 10:20 AM, CNA N stated he helped CNA M get R1 up for the bath and into his wheelchair. CNA N stated R1 did not have any oxygen on when he left the room for the bath a little before 10:00 AM. CNA N stated CNA M asked him if R1 required oxygen and he told her that he did not know. CNA N went to R1's room to get R1's oxygen cylinder and saw the oxygen cylinder on the bed and not in R1's wheelchair holder. During an interview on 06/05/24 at 10:30 AM, LN G stated she went into the bathroom and saw R1 laid back in his wheelchair and his color was pale. LN G said she got another nurse to come help and LN H took over the situation. LN G stated R1 did not have oxygen on. During an interview on 06/05/24 at 10:35 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated she expected all of her CNAs to know the residents who required continuous oxygen and ensure that the oxygen was administered per the care plan. Administrative Nurse D stated CNA M said she simply forgot the oxygen and R1 was doing okay at first in the bath and then, after she got him out and dressed, he went unresponsive. During an interview on 06/05/24 at 01:10 PM Administrative Staff A stated the situation should not reflect badly on the facility. Administrative Staff A stated the situation was human error and the facility had done everything right: reported the incident, provided education, and had the appropriate protocols in place. Administrative Staff A stated the situation was not a sentinel event and should be scoped as such. The facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation Policy, revised 10/01/22, documented neglect is the failure of the facility, its employees, or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. The facility's Oxygen Therapy Policy, revised 08/20/18, documented it is the facility's policy that oxygen will be administered as ordered by the physician or in emergent situations until an order for flow rate can be obtained. On 06/05/24 at 01:15 PM Administrative Staff A was provided the Immediate Jeopardy [IJ] Template and notified the facility failure to provide R1 with continuous supplemental oxygen as ordered by the physician placed the resident in immediate jeopardy. The facility identified and implemented corrective actions, which were completed on 05/31/24, and included reeducation for all nursing staff on the importance of providing the necessary care including administering oxygen appropriately per orders. Appropriate staff completed an oxygen competency check-off completed. The incident was reviewed by the Quality Assurance Committee. Due to the corrective action completed before the onsite survey, the citation was deemed past noncompliance.
Oct 2022 5 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with three reviewed for nutrition. Based on observa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with three reviewed for nutrition. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to identify weight loss and involve the Registered Dietician (RD) for weight loss interventions to address the significant unplanned weight loss for one sampled resident, Residents (R) 20. The facility further failed to monitor nutritional supplement intake for R20 after the significant loss to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. R20 had a significant unplanned weight loss of 14.06 percent (%) in three months and remained at risk for further loss and impaired nutrition. Findings included: - The Physician Order Sheet, dated 10/03/22, recorded R20 had diagnoses of dementia (persistent mental disorder marked by memory loss and impaired reasoning), Parkinson's disease (a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremors, muscular rigidity, and involuntary movements), macular degeneration (eye disease that cause vision loss in the center field of vision), and anxiety (mental health disorder characterized by worry and fear that interferes with daily life). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], recorded R20 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 10 (moderately impaired cognition) with disorganized thinking, delusions (untrue persistent belief or perception held by a person although evidence shows it was untrue), physical and verbal behaviors that disrupted other residents, and rejection of cares. The MDS recorded R20 required limited staff assistance with eating, weighed 159 pounds (lbs.) and had no recent weight loss. The MDS reflected R20 did not receive hospice services. The Nutrition Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 07/23/22, recorded R20 was at risk for nutritional deficits and significant weight loss due to Parkinson's disease, increased behaviors, decreased mobility, and vision problems. R20 did not report any recent weight loss and felt she was eating well. R20 received multiple medications that could affect her nutritional status or ability to eat. R20 fed herself with meal set-up due to visual loss. The CAA further recorded weight loss and nutritional deficits, which placed R20 at risk for falls, infections, dignity issues, social isolation, cognitive loss, depression, and impaired skin integrity. The Nutrition Care Plan, dated 08/29/22, recorded R20 had a risk for nutritional problems and weight loss due to her Parkinson's disease, anxiety, vision problems, and increased behaviors. The care plan directed staff to monitor R20's weight weekly and report nutrition problems and significant weight loss to the physician and RD. The care plan directed R20 required a plate guard, regular diet with bite sized food, and snack three times daily. The RD admission Nutritional Assessment, dated 03/16/22, recorded R20 weighed 153.3 lbs., received a regular diet with bite size pieces on a plate with a guard, and ate independently. The RD admission Nutritional Assessment, directed staff to monitor R20's weight weekly and notify the RD if the resident had nutritional problems and/or weight loss. The facility Weight Report, dated 07/17/22, recorded R20 weighed 163.6 lbs. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) Nutrition Assessment, dated 07/21/22, recorded R20 weighed 163.6 lbs., and continued to receive a regular diet with bite size pieces and snacks of choice. The facility Weight Report, dated 08/14/22, recorded R20 weighed 150.2 lbs. which reflected a loss of 6.48 % in 28 days. The facility Weight Report, dated 09/11/22/22, recorded R20 weighed 151 lbs. and on 09/18/22 weighed 144.6 lbs. Review of R20's medical record lacked documentation the RD or CDM completed a nutritional assessment to address the resident's significant weight loss. The Progress Note, dated 09/25/22, recorded the nursing staff contacted the R20's provider to report R20 had a poor appetite, and an average meal intake less than 25% this month, and a weight loss in the last week. The Physician Order, dated 09/26/22, directed staff to administer four ounces of Med Pass (nutritional supplement) or six ounces of Ensure (nutritional supplement) two times a day. The facility Weight Report, dated 10/09/22, recorded R20 weighed 140.6 lbs. which reflected a 14.06% weight loss in 3 months. Review of R20's medical record lacked documentation staff notified the RD of the resident's significant weight loss. Review of R20's September and October 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR)/Treatment Administration Record (TAR) lacked evidence staff monitored the resident's nutritional supplement intake. On 10/12/22 at 08:22 AM, observation revealed R2 sat in a wheelchair at the dining table and ate breakfast independently with staff supervision. Continued observation revealed R2 ate less than 25% of the meal and only took a few sips of the supplement. On 10/12/22 at 08:26 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated R2 had a poor appetite, recent weight loss, and received a supplement at breakfast and supper. LN G stated staff did not monitor R2's supplement intake. On 10/12/22 at 12:43 PM, Dietary Staff BB stated R2 had a significant weight loss and staff had not notified the RD for a nutritional assessment and weight loss interventions. On 10/13/22 at 08:05 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated the facility should have accurately monitored R2's significant weight loss and notified the physician and RD for nutritional interventions. On 10/13/22 at 09:14 AM, Dietary Consultant GG stated the facility had not reported R2's significant weight loss for a nutritional assessment and weight loss interventions. Consultant GG said typically the CDM contacted him if weight loss was identified. If immediate interventions were recommended, the RD would contact the CDM and nursing staff. Consultant GG stated if weight loss was reported, he would review the resident's medical record, review current weight loss interventions, and implement additional interventions as needed. The facility's Weight Monitoring Policy, dated 12/17/20, directed staff to monitor resident's weights as directed and inform the physician and RD of changes in nutritional status. The facility failed to identify weight loss and involve the RD for weight loss interventions to address the significant weight loss for R20. The facility further failed to monitor nutritional supplement intake for R20 after the significant loss to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. As a result, R20 had a significant unplanned weight loss of 14.06 % in three months and remained at risk for further loss and impaired nutrition.
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** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with two reviewed for urinary catheters (tube inser...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with two reviewed for urinary catheters (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a collection bag). Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to cover the urinary catheter bag for one sampled resident, Resident (R) 45. This placed the resident at risk for impaired dignity and respect. Findings included: - The Physician Order Sheet, dated 10/02/22, recorded R45 had diagnoses of diabetes mellitus (the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin produced, or the body does not respond to the insulin), neurogenic bladder (dysfunction of the urinary bladder caused by a lesion of the nervous system), and a history Urinary Tract Infections (UTI). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], recorded R45 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 (cognitively intact) with no behaviors. The MDS recorded R45 required extensive staff assistance with transfers, had a urinary catheter, and used a wheelchair for mobility. The Urinary Catheter Care Plan, dated 09/22/22, recorded R45 had a urinary catheter for the diagnosis of neurogenic bladder, and a history of recurrent UTIs. The Urinary Catheter Care Plan directed staff to monitor R45 for signs and symptoms of a UTI, and provide sanitary catheter cares every shift to prevent infection. On 10/12/22 at 07:37 AM, observation revealed R45 sat in his wheelchair, and staff propelled the resident to the dining room. Continued observation revealed R45's urinary catheter bag suspended from the bottom of the wheelchair and exposed due to the torn bottom of the privacy bag. Continued observation revealed R45's urinary catheter bag remained exposed throughout the meal, and staff did not attempt to reposition or cover the urinary catheter bag. On 10/12/22 at 11:22 AM, observation revealed R45 sat in his wheelchair, and staff propelled the resident to the dining room. Continued observation revealed R45's urinary catheter bag suspended from the bottom of the wheelchair and exposed due to the torn bottom of the privacy bag. Continued observation revealed R45's urinary catheter bag remained exposed throughout the meal, and staff did not attempt to reposition or cover the urinary catheter bag. On 10/12/22 at 01:41 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O stated he was not aware of a torn privacy bag for R45's catheter bag, and verified staff took the resident to the dining room with an uncovered catheter bag. On 10/13/22 at 08:05 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated staff should cover R45's catheter bag to maintain the resident's dignity. The facility Catheter Care Policy, dated 09/08/14 directed staff to place the resident's urinary catheter bag in a privacy bag to maintain the resident's dignity. The facility failed to cover R45's urinary catheter bag placing the resident at risk for impaired dignity and respect.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to report Resident (R) 35 and R32's allegations of abuse to facility administration as required. This deficient practice placed R35, and R32 at risk of ongoing abuse. Findings included: -The Medical Diagnosis section of R35's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) included diagnoses of compression fracture of second lumbar vertebra (broken bone in the middle of the back), dementia with behavioral disturbance (group of thinking and social symptoms which interferes with daily functioning), anxiety disorder (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty and irrational fear),and hypertension (the force of the blood flow against the artery walls is too high). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R35 had severely impaired cognition. Required extensive assistance from staff for bed mobility, transfers and used a walker or wheelchair for mobility. The Activities of Daily Living, (ADL),Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 05/29/22, documented the resident required extensive staff assistance with all ADL's. The Psychotropic Drug Use CAA , dated 05/29/22, documented R35 received antianxiety medications routinely. The Care Plan, dated 09/01/22, documented R35 had behavioral symptoms related to diagnoses of anxiety and dementia. The care plan instructed staff to use two staff members for all transfers and mobility when she ambulated with her walker. The Nurses Note on 08/29/22 at 06:11PM, documented a dietary aide reported to the charge nurse R35 stated, the chocolate guy hit me, and told me that I had to go down there. The Nurses Note further documented R35 was upset and stated, He had no right to tell me to go down there. On 10/10/22 at 02:45PM, observation revealed R35 lying in her bed on her back, covered with a blanket, eyes closed. On 10/11/22 at 09:30AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N stated if a resident reported abuse to them, they would report it to the charge nurse. On 10/11/22 at 11:00AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) I stated if a resident or a staff member report any kind of abuse, verbal or physical, LN I would immediately report it to the administrator or director of nursing. On 10/12/22 at 09:10AM, Administrative Nurse D stated she was not aware of the Nurses Note which was documented on 08/29/22 at 06:11PM. Administrative Nurse D stated she expected the charge nurse to have reported the incident to her and the administrator. On 10/12/22 at 09:30AM, Administrative Staff A verified the Nurses Note documented on 08/29/22 at 06:11PM, and stated this incident was not reported to her or the director of nursing. Administrative Staff A also stated she would start an investigation of this incident. The facility's Reporting Alleged Violations of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Mistreatment policy, dated 12/12/16, stated patients/residents are free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of patient/resident property, exploitation, corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion. Any known abuse, neglect or exploitation must be immediately reported to the Administrator or his/her designee. An associate/agent can be disciplined for not reporting abuse. The Administrator or his/her designee will investigate the report and notify the appropriate state agency. The facility will thoroughly investigate any and all forms of abuse and will prevent further potential abuse while the investigation is in progress. All alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source are reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. The facility staff failed to report R35's allegation of verbal and physical abuse to the facility administrator and/or abuse coordinator. This failure placed the resident at risk of further abuse. - R32's Medical Diagnosis section of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) included diagnoses of heart failure (chronic condition of the heart cannot pump or fill with blood), osteoarthritis of the left shoulder(flexible tissue at the end of bones wears down), gastro-esophageal reflux disease (digestive disease in which stomach acid or bile irritates). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R32 had intact cognition. R32 required moderate assistance from staff for bed mobility, transfers and used a walker or wheelchair for mobility. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL),Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 08/22/22, documented the resident required staff assistance with transfers and toileting. The ADL Care Plan, dated 08/22/22, instructed the staff to assist R32 to and from the bathroom, due to her shoulder pain; R32 was able to use the call light for assistance. The Nurses Note on 10/10/22 at 04:29AM, documented R32 was upset because she rang her call light for assistance to the bathroom and a nurses aid came into her room and stuck three fingers in her face and rudely told her that three other people had their call lights on and the nurse aid needed to go and assist those residents first. On 10/11/22 at 09:45AM, observation of R32 revealed the resident sat in her recliner chair. R32 stated the other night I put on my call light and a nurse aid came into my room and he stuck three fingers in my face and said, I have three other people who need help. R32 verbalized she felt the nurse aid was rude, and she felt threatened by him. On 10/11/22 at 09:30AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N stated if a resident reported abuse to them, they would report it to the charge nurse. On 10/11/22 at 11:00AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) I stated if a resident or a staff member report any kind of abuse, verbal or physical, LN I would immediately report it to the administrator or director of nursing. On 10/12/22 at 09:10AM, Administrative Nurse D stated she was not aware of the Nurses Note which was documented on 10/10/22 at 04:29AM. Administrative Nurse D stated she expected the charge nurse to have reported this incident to her and the administrator. On 10/12/22 at 09:30AM, Administrative Staff A verified the Nurses Note documented on 10/10/22 at 04:29AM, and stated this incident was not reported to her or the director of nursing. Administrative Staff A also stated she would start and investigation of this incident and call to the state agency. The facility's Reporting Alleged Violations of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Mistreatment policy, dated 12/12/16, stated patients/residents are free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of patient/resident property, exploitation, corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion. Any known abuse, neglect or exploitation must be immediately reported to the Administrator or his/her designee. An associate/agent can be disciplined for not reporting abuse. The Administrator or his/her designee will investigate the report and notify the appropriate state agency. The facility will thoroughly investigate any and all forms of abuse, and will prevent further potential abuse while the investigation is in progress. All alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source are reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. The facility staff failed to report R32's allegation of verbal abuse to the facility administrator and/or abuse coordinator. This failure placed the resident at risk of further abuse.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide the necessary cares and services to ensure appropriate wheelchair posture and positioning for one sampled resident, Resident (R) 34. This placed the resident at risk for pain and skin breakdown. Findings included: - The Physician Order Sheet, dated 10/03/22, recorded R34 had diagnoses of advanced dementia (persistent mental disorder marked by memory loss and impaired reasoning), Alzheimer's disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), and severe muscle weakness. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], recorded R34 had a severe cognitive impairment with short- and long-term memory problems. The MDS recorded R34 required extensive staff assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs), had impaired balance, limited range of motion in all extremities and used a wheelchair for mobility. The ADL Care Plan, dated 09/12/22, recorded R34 had advanced dementia, was non-verbal, and required extensive staff assistance with bed mobility and transfers. The ADL Care Plan recorded R34 had impaired balance, was a high fall risk and used a wheelchair for mobility. The Physical Therapy Evaluation, dated 09/02/22, recorded R34 (new admission evaluated for wheelchair safety) was not able to maintain sitting balance, and the resident required extensive staff assistance to reposition. On 10/10/22 at 11:34 AM, observation revealed R34, sat in her wheelchair at the dining table, leaned to the right with her right arm pressed against the inside of the wheelchair arm and the resident's head tilted forward. Continued observation revealed staff provided total assistance for R34 to eat and drink and repositioned the resident four times to maintain appropriate posture for dining. On 10/11/22 at 11:36 AM, observation revealed R34, sat in her wheelchair at the dining table, leaned forward with her face/chin nearly touching the tabletop. Continued observation revealed two staff provided total assistance to reposition the resident three times during the meal. On 10/12/22 at 09:50 AM, observation revealed R34 leaned to the left in the wheelchair with her left arm dangling over the left side of wheelchair. Continued observation revealed staff had wedged a bed pillow into the right side of the resident's wheelchair in an attempt to maintain R34's posture. On 10/12/22 at 07:39 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M stated R34 was not able to maintain wheelchair posture and staff provided total assistance to reposition the resident multiple times each day. On 10/12/22 at 08:00 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated R34, admitted approximately one month ago, was not able to maintain wheelchair posture and required total staff assistance to reposition. On 10/13/22 at 08:05 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated R34 frequently leaned in her wheelchair, was not able to reposition herself, and the facility had not obtained a therapy evaluation to address the resident's wheelchair posture' The facility's Positioning Policy, dated 08/20/18, directed staff ensure the residents maintained proper body alignment for comfort and function. The facility failed to provide the necessary cares and services to ensure appropriate wheelchair posture and positioning for R34, placing the resident at risk for pain and skin breakdown.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with two reviewed for urinary catheters (tube inser...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with two reviewed for urinary catheters (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a collection bag). Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain catheter tubing in a sanitary manner when the catheter tubing touched the floor for one sample resident, Resident (R) 45. This placed the resident at risk for urinary tract infections (UTIs). Findings included: - The Physician Order Sheet, dated 10/02/22, recorded R45 had diagnoses of diabetes mellitus (the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin produced, or the body does not respond to the insulin), neurogenic bladder (dysfunction of the urinary bladder caused by a lesion of the nervous system), and a history UTIs The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], recorded R45 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 (cognitively intact) with no behaviors. The MDS recorded R45 required extensive staff assistance with transfers, had a urinary catheter, and used a wheelchair for mobility. The Urinary Catheter Care Plan, dated 09/22/22, recorded R45 had a urinary catheter for the diagnosis of neurogenic bladder, and a history of recurrent UTIs. The Urinary Catheter Care Plan directed staff to monitor R45 for signs and symptoms of a UTI, and provide sanitary catheter cares every shift to prevent infection. On 10/10/22 at 02:00 PM, observation revealed R45 sat in his wheelchair, and staff propelled the resident to the dining room. Continued observation revealed R45's urinary catheter tubing sticking out of the bottom of the resident's pants, and the catheter tubing contacted the floor. Continued observation revealed R45's catheter tubing remained touching the concrete throughout an outdoor activity, and staff did not attempt to reposition the catheter tubing. On 10/12/22 at 07:37 AM, observation revealed R45 sat in her wheelchair, and staff propelled the resident to the dining room. Continued observation revealed R45's urinary catheter tubing sticking out of the bottom of the resident's pants, and the catheter tubing bag contacted the floor. Continued observation revealed R45's catheter tubing remained touching the floor throughout the meal, and staff did not attempt to reposition the catheter tubing. On 10/12/22 at 01:41 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O stated staff should ensure R45's catheter tubing was positioned to not contact the floor, while the resident sat in his wheelchair. On 10/13/22 at 08:05 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated staff should ensure R45's catheter tubing does not contact the floor due to infection risks. The Urinary Catheter Cares, policy, dated 09/08/14, directed staff to ensure the resident's urinary catheter tubing did not contact the floor to minimize infection risks, and to clean urinary catheter tubing with disinfecting wipes if it did contact the floor. The facility failed to ensure R45's urinary catheter tubing did not contact the floor, placing the resident at risk for urinary tract infections (UTIs).
Aug 2021 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with three reviewed for Beneficiary Notices. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide two of th...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with three reviewed for Beneficiary Notices. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide two of three sampled residents, Resident (R) 20 and R26 (or their representative) the completed Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage Form (NOMNC) 10123 Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS), and one of the sampled residents, R27 (or their representative) the completed Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non Coverage Form (SNF ABN) 10055 form. Findings included: - Medicare Form 10123 informed the beneficiary that Medicare may not pay for future skilled therapy. The form included options for the beneficiary to receive specific services listed, and bill Medicare for a decision on payment. Medicare Form 10055 informed the beneficiary that Medicare may not pay for skilled therapy services and provided a cost estimate for continued services. It explained: (1) if Medicare does not pay, the resident would be responsible for payment, but can make an appeal to Medicare, (2) receive therapy listed, but do not bill Medicare, would be responsible for payment for services, or (3) does not want the listed services. A provider must issue advance written notice to enrollees before termination of services in a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF), Home Health Agency (HHA), or Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility (CORF). If an enrollee files an appeal, then the plan must deliver a detailed explanation of why services should end. The facility lacked documentation staff provided R20, or her representative, form 10123 which included options for the beneficiary to receive specific services listed, and bill Medicare for a decision on payment. The resident's skilled nursing services ended on 04/14/21. The facility lacked documentation staff provided R26, or her representative, form 10123 which included options for the beneficiary to receive specific services listed, and bill Medicare for a decision on payment. The resident's skilled services ended on 05/19/21. The facility lacked documentation staff provided R27, or her representative, form 10055 which included the estimated cost documentation for the services to be able to make an informed choice whether the resident wanted to receive the items or services, knowing she may have to pay out of pocket. The resident's skilled services ended on 08/11/21. On 08/18/2021 at 01:30 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified the facility had not provided the residents and/or DPOAs form CMS 10123 and form 10055. Upon request, the facility failed to provide a policy for Beneficiary notices. The facility failed to provide R20 and R26, or their representatives, CMS form 10123 and failed to provide R27, or their representatives, CMS form 10055, when discharged from skilled care, placing the residents, or their representatives, at risk to make uninformed decisions about continuation of their skilled care
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to update, and revise the care plan for one of six residents reviewed for behavioral emotional status, Resident (R) 39. Findings included: - The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented the resident with a mood score of 17, indicating moderately severe depression and wandering behaviors. The Mood Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 07/11/21, documented the resident had a diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbances (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion, with increased agitation). The Psychotropic Drug Use CAA, dated 07/11/21, documented the resident received antipsychotic medications (class of medications used to treat any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality testing and other mental emotional conditions) routinely. The Behavioral Care Plan, dated 07/11/21, documented the resident received the following antipsychotic medications; Klonopin, Seroquel, and Haldol, but lacked non-pharmacological interventions for staff to follow to decrease the resident's behaviors. The Physician's Order, dated, 07/19/21, directed staff to administer Haldol (antipsychotic medication) 0.5 milligrams (mg) PO (by mouth) TID (three times a day) for dementia with behavioral disturbance. The Black Box Warning, (BBW-warning to alert consumers about serious or life-threatening medication side effects) documented this medication should not be used to treat behavioral problems in the elderly who have a diagnosis of dementia. Elderly residents with dementia have an increased risk for death with the use of Haldol. The medication is to be used for Schizophrenia (serious mental condition that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves) and Tourette's (nervous system disorder involving repetitive movements or unwanted sounds). The Nurse's Note, dated 07/18/21 at 05:30 PM, documented the resident cried and wandered the halls into other resident rooms. The Nurse's Note, dated 07/24/21 at 05:00 AM, documented the physician order directed facility staff to administer the resident Haldol 1 milliliter (ml) IM (intramuscular) one dose, for dementia with behavioral disturbance. The medical record lacked resident behaviors or a nurses reason for the medication. The Nurse's Note, dated 07/24/21 at 10:08 AM, documented the resident kicked and scratched staff when the staff provided the resident personal care. On 08/17/21 at 09:20 AM, observation revealed the resident sat on a chair in the hallway with her eyes closed. On 08/19/21 at 8:10 AM, observation revealed the resident sat on a chair in the dining room. Further observation revealed the resident pushed the plate of food across the table then stood up and carried two drinking glasses out to the hallway. Resident stood in the hallway with eyes closed with the two drinking glasses in her hand. On 08/18/21 at 10:10 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the resident received Haldol routinely and received a one-time IM injection of Haldol on 07/24/21. Administrative Nurse D also verified the resident's diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbance for the use of the Haldol. Administrative Nurse D verified the resident's behavior care plan did not have individualized interventions for the resident's behaviors or use of the Haldol. On 08/18/21 at 10:20 AM, Administrative Nurse E verified she was the on-call nurse for the morning of 07/24/21 when the facility received the physician order for the IM Haldol. Administrative Nurse E also verified there was no documentation of behaviors leading up to the use of the IM Haldol and the behavior care plan lacked individualized interventions for behaviors. The facility's Care Plan Update policy, dated 06/30/20, documented the care plan is to be individualized based on the resident care. The plan of care should be reviewed and revised and changed reflecting needs of the resident. The facility failed to update R39's care plan after a change in behavior and medication use, placing the resident at risk for increased behaviors.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Bas...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility's Consultant Pharmacist failed to identify and report to the Director of Nursing, facility medical director, and physician, an inappropriate diagnosis for the use of an antipsychotic medication (class of medications used to treat any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality testing and other mental emotional conditions) for one of five sampled residents, Resident (R) 39. Findings included: - The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented the resident with a mood score of 17, indicating moderately severe depression, and wandering behaviors. The Mood Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 07/11/21, documented the resident had a diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbances (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion, with increased agitation). The Psychotropic Drug Use CAA, dated 07/11/21, documented the resident received antipsychotic medications routinely. The Behavioral Care Plan, dated 07/11/21, documented the resident received the following antipsychotic medications; Seroquel, Klonopin, and Haldol, but lacked non-pharmacological interventions for staff to follow to decrease the resident's behaviors. The Physician's Order, dated 07/19/21, directed staff to administer Haldol (antipsychotic medication) 0.5 milligrams (mg) PO (by mouth) TID (three times a day) for dementia with behavioral disturbance. The Consultant Pharmacist Review, dated 07/22/21, documented no irregularities and no recommendation for an appropriate diagnosis for the use of the routine Haldol. The Black Box Warning (BBW-warning to alert consumers about serious or life-threatening medication side effects) documented this medication should not be used to treat behavioral problems in the elderly who have a diagnosis of dementia. Elderly residents with dementia have an increased risk for death with the use of Haldol. The medication is to be used for Schizophrenia (a serious mental condition that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves) and Tourette's (a nervous system disorder involving repetitive movements or unwanted sounds). The Nurse's Note, dated 07/18/21 at 05:30 PM, documented the resident cried and wandered the halls into other resident rooms. The Nurse's Note, dated 07/24/21 at 05:00 AM, documented the physician order directed facility staff to administer the resident Haldol 1 milliliter (ml) IM (intramuscular) one dose, for dementia with behavioral disturbance. The medical record lacked resident behaviors or a reason for the medication order. The Nurse's Note, dated 07/24/21 at 10:08 AM, documented the resident kicked and scratched staff when the staff provided the resident personal care. On 08/17/21 at 09:20 AM, observation revealed the resident sat on a chair in the hallway with her eyes closed. On 08/19/21 at 08:10 AM, observation revealed the resident sat on a chair in the dining room. Further observation revealed the resident pushed the plate of food across the table then stood up and carried two drinking glasses out to the hallway. Resident stood in the hallway with eyes closed and the two drinking glasses in her hand. On 08/18/21 at 10:10 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the resident received Haldol routinely and the diagnosis for the use of the medication was dementia with behavioral disturbance. The facility's Pharmacy Review (Monthly) policy, dated 03/19/18, documented the pharmacist consultant would review resident charts for appropriate orders, diagnosis, and response to medications such as fall risks and for appropriate response to medications. The facility's Consultant Pharmacist failed to identify and report to the Director of Nursing, facility medical director, and physician, an inappropriate diagnosis for the use of Haldol, placing the resident at risk for inappropriate use of an antipsychotic medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Bas...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 45 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to identify an inappropriate diagnosis for the use of an antipsychotic medication (class of medications used to treat any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality testing and other mental emotional conditions) for one of five sampled residents, Resident (R) 39. Findings included: - The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented the resident with a mood score of 17, indicating moderately severe depression, and wandering behaviors. The Mood Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 07/11/21, documented the resident had a diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbances (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion, with increased agitation). The Psychotropic Drug Use CAA, dated 07/11/21, documented the resident received antipsychotic medications routinely. The Behavioral Care Plan, dated 07/11/21, documented the resident received the following antipsychotic medications; Seroquel, Klonopin, and Haldol, but lacked non-pharmacological interventions for staff to follow to decrease the resident's behaviors. The Physician's Order, dated 07/19/21, directed staff to administer Haldol 0.5 milligrams (mg) PO (by mouth) TID (three times a day) for dementia with behavioral disturbance. The Consultant Pharmacist Review, dated 07/22/21, documented no irregularities and no recommendation for an appropriate diagnosis for the use of the routine Haldol. The Black Box Warning (BBW-warning to alert consumers about serious or life-threatening medication side effects) documented this medication should not be used to treat behavioral problems in the elderly who have a diagnosis of dementia. Elderly residents with dementia have an increased risk for death with the use of Haldol. The medication is to be used for Schizophrenia (a serious mental condition that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves) and Tourette's (a nervous system disorder involving repetitive movements or unwanted sounds). The Nurse's Note, dated 07/18/21 at 05:30 PM, documented the resident cried and wandered the halls into other resident rooms. The Nurse's Note, dated 07/24/21 at 05:00 AM, documented the physician order directed facility staff to administer the resident Haldol 1 milliliter (ml) IM (intramuscular) one dose, for dementia with behavioral disturbance. The medical record lacked resident behaviors or a reason for the medication order. The Nurse's Note, dated 07/24/21 at 10:08 AM, documented the resident kicked and scratched staff when the staff provided the resident personal care. On 08/17/21 at 09:20 AM, observation revealed the resident sat on a chair in the hallway with her eyes closed. On 08/19/21 at 08:10 AM, observation revealed the resident sat on a chair in the dining room. Further observation revealed the resident pushed the plate of food across the table then stood up and carried two drinking glasses out to the hallway. Resident stood in the hallway with eyes closed and the two drinking glasses in her hand. On 08/18/21 at 10:10 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the resident received Haldol routinely and the diagnosis for the use of the medication was dementia with behavioral disturbance. The facility's Antipsychotic Drug Use policy, dated 12/12/2016 stated residents who use antipsychotic medications must have appropriate diagnosis for the use of the medication. The facility failed to identify an appropriate diagnosis for the use of Haldol, placing the resident at risk for inappropriate use of an antipsychotic medication.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 17 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $17,124 in fines. Above average for Kansas. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade C (51/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 51/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Citizens Medical Center Ltcu's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Kansas, 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 Citizens Medical Center Ltcu Staffed?

CMS rates CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 13 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Citizens Medical Center Ltcu?

State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 15 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Citizens Medical Center Ltcu?

CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 60 certified beds and approximately 43 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in COLBY, Kansas.

How Does Citizens Medical Center Ltcu Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Citizens Medical Center Ltcu?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Citizens Medical Center Ltcu Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Kansas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Citizens Medical Center Ltcu Stick Around?

Staff turnover at CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU is high. At 60%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Citizens Medical Center Ltcu Ever Fined?

CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU has been fined $17,124 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Kansas average of $33,250. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Citizens Medical Center Ltcu on Any Federal Watch List?

CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER LTCU 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.