LOCUST GROVE VILLAGE

701 W 6TH STREET, LA CROSSE, KS 67548 (785) 222-2574
Non profit - Corporation 38 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
33/100
#203 of 295 in KS
Last Inspection: September 2024

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

Overview

Locust Grove Village in La Crosse, Kansas, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality and care. Ranking #203 out of 295 facilities in Kansas places it in the bottom half, and while it is the only option in Rush County, families may want to consider this when making decisions. The facility has shown some improvement over time, with issues decreasing from six in 2024 to just one in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength here, with a 4/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 42%, which is better than the Kansas average, indicating that staff members tend to stay longer and build relationships with residents. However, a serious incident of physical abuse was reported, where a resident was allegedly struck by a staff member, alongside other concerns like inadequate dietary management and expired medications, suggesting that while there are some positive aspects, families should weigh these serious issues carefully.

Trust Score
F
33/100
In Kansas
#203/295
Bottom 32%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
6 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
42% turnover. Near Kansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kansas facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Kansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 6 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (42%)

    6 points below Kansas average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Kansas average (2.9)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 42%

Near Kansas avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Aug 2025 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

The facility identified a census of 34 residents, with three residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to prevent...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility identified a census of 34 residents, with three residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to prevent an episode of staff-to-resident physical abuse. On 06/28/25 at approximately 06:40 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M took cognitively impaired Resident (R)1 to the bathroom. CNA M called for assistance, and CNA N came to R1's room. CNA M told CNA N that R1 bit her, so CNA N took over care. CNA N noticed R1 was dabbing her face with toilet paper, and the toilet paper had blood on it. CNA N asked R1 what happened, and R1 said, Honey, can you believe it? Her fist hit my jaw. CNA N observed a purple bruise on R1's right jaw and blood in the resident's mouth. CNA N informed LN G and CNA M of R1's statement. CNA M denied hitting R1. Following the incident, R1 became scared and paranoid to be in her room, afraid she was there, and did not want anyone to touch her. The facility's failure to prevent the staff-to-resident physical abuse placed R1 in immediate jeopardy.Findings included:- R1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) without behavioral disturbance, anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear), hypertension (high blood pressure), and pain.R1's Annual Minimum Data Set, dated 06/20/25, documented R1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of four, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented R1 required supervision with eating, oral hygiene, toilet transfer, and ambulation. The MDS documented R1 was dependent on staff for bathing and required moderate to extensive assistance with toileting, dressing, personal hygiene, and sitting to lying. The MDS documented R1 had no physical behaviors directed towards others during the lookback period; R1 had verbal behaviors one to three days during the lookback period.The Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 06/20/25, documented R1 had severe cognitive impairment due to dementia with behaviors. R1's behaviors included verbal behavior towards others and wandering. R1's communication ability was impacted by cognitive impairment and hearing problems. R1 required staff assistance with activities of daily living.The Behavioral Symptoms CAA, dated 06/20/25, documented R1 had wandering and verbal behaviors directed towards others one day during the lookback period. R1's behaviors did not interfere with other residents or place R1 at risk. R1's behaviors were easily redirectable by giving foods and fluids.The Psychosocial Well-Being CAA, dated 06/20/25, documented R1 had insomnia, mood swings, restlessness, agitation, and anxiety. R1's anxiety was due to her dementia and limited ability to comprehend and cope. The CAA noted observation of R1's non-verbal communication was important, as R1 conveyed her moods by facial expressions and body language. R1 liked to be around others, talk, and hold hands with staff and other residents.R1's Care Plan directed staff R1 needed guidance, cues, and assistance with activities of daily living, and to allow R1 to do what she could (01/06/25). The care plan directed staff if R1 seemed anxious to help R1 to an area with less noise and activity (03/28/25).R1's Care Plan documented interventions that directed staff R1 had dementia, and to allow her to make choices and decisions as much as R1 was able; R1 liked to spend time in the living areas visiting and talking to other residents and staff (06/20/25). The Care Plan lacked interventions related to behaviors prior to the incident on 06/28/25.The Weekly Skin Assessment on 06/16/25, documented R1's skin was warm and dry, with no skin issues noted.The Progress Note, dated 06/28/25 at 07:30 PM, documented R1 stated she had to go to the bathroom, and staff attempted to take her. R1 became agitated and started swinging and hitting at the staff. After the incident, R1 had a small bruise to her chin and scratches to her cheek. Staff applied an ice pack to the resident's chin. The note recorded staff notified Administrative Nurse D and planned to notify R1's physician.The Progress Note, dated 06/28/25 at 09:13 PM, documented staff notified R1's responsible party of the incident, and LN G explained R1 was combative during toileting and R1 had a bruise on her chin. R1's responsible party was understanding and stated the resident could get that way sometimes.The Progress Note, dated 06/28/25 at 11:36 PM, documented the bruising on R1's chin was purple in color and more prominent. R1 was agitated and wanted out of bed. Staff assisted R1 to the toilet, then to her wheelchair, and gave her fluids. R1 left the ice pack on her chin for about twenty minutes.Licensed Nurse (LN) G's Notarized Witness Statement, dated 06/28/25, documented at approximately 06:45 PM, CNA M approached LN G and reported R1 bit her neck. LN G noted CNA M's neck was red on the left side, but there were no bite marks. LN G documented CNA N said CNA M hit R1. CNA N then showed LN G pictures of R1. CNA M stated her hands were down and she did not hit R1. LN G noted she asked CNA M to leave. After CNA M left, LN G went to R1's room. R1 was in her wheelchair. LN G documented the right side of R1's chin was red with a bruise forming, and R1's right cheek had some scratches. There was also an abrasion on R1's right cheek. LN G noted the left lower side of R1's teeth and gumline had blood visible. LN G applied a cool cloth to R1's chin, then notified Administrative Nurse D of the event. LN G took pictures of R1 and sent them to Administrative Nurse D.CNA N's Notarized Witness Statement, dated 06/28/25, documented CNA N heard on the radio R1 was biting, hitting, and shaking. CNA N went to R1's room and, as she turned into the bathroom, CNA M flung herself against the bathroom wall. CNA N asked what was going on, and CNA M stated she was trying to get R1 into her pajamas when R1 bit her neck. CNA N told CNA M to show her neck to LN G and tell her what happened, so LN G could document the behavior. CNA N knelt in front of R1, who was dabbing her face with toilet paper. CNA N noticed the toilet paper had blood on it and asked R1 what happened. R1 responded, Honey, can you believe it? Her fist hit my jaw. CNA N stated she could see a purple bruise and blood in R1's mouth. CNA N then told CNA O that R1 reported CNA M hit her. CNA N took a picture of R1's face and walked to the nurse's station, where CNA M was talking to LN G. CNA N told CNA M and LN G they needed to talk privately. CNA N showed CNA M and LN G the picture and reported that R1 said CNA M hit her. CNA M stated she did not hit R1; her hands never touched R1. CNA N asked CNA M how R1 got the marks on her face and bleeding. LN G told CNA M she had to go home while this (incident) was investigated. LN G and CNA N went to R1's room. LN G assessed R1's face. R1 reached out and cupped CNA N's face and stated, Honey, I don't know why that kid did that to me. R1 stated, She hit my face and then bit me like this, as R1 leaned forward to demonstrate what happened. CNA N asked R1, So she hit you and bit you? R1 stated, Yes, honey, she did. I told her, no, stop that, and she wouldn't, so I hit her. I didn't want to hit her, but I had to, honey. CNA N then stated later she took R1 to her room, and R1 was scared, looking around the room and asking if CNA M was there. CNA N reassured R1 that CNA M went home. CNA N documented she stayed with R1, as R1 acted paranoid.The Progress Note, dated 06/29/25 at 11:36 PM, documented R1 had a dark purple bruise on her chin and down her neck. R1's lower lip and right lower cheek area were edematous (swollen). R1 did not complain of pain to the area but touched the area to her chin at times.The Weekly Skin Assessment, dated 06/30/25, documented a bruise to R1's right elbow. R1 had bruising and swelling to her lip, chin, right cheek, and upper neck.The Facility Incident Report, dated 06/30/25, documented on 06/28/25 at approximately 06:40 PM R1 approached the nurse workstation and requested to use the bathroom. CNA M wheeled R1 to her room. Once in the bathroom, CNA M reported R1 became combative and bit her on the left neck region. CNA M called for assistance, and CNA N responded and relieved CNA M to report the incident to LN G. R1 dabbed her face with toilet paper, and when it was removed, there was blood on it. R1 reported, Honey, can you believe it? Her fist hit my jaw. Staff observed a purple bruise on R1`s chin, and blood on her mouth. CNA N requested assistance from CNA O and reported R1's claims to LN G. LN G received reports from CNA M and CNA N. CNA M was dismissed from the shift pending further investigation. The staff completed a thorough examination of R1. The right side of R1's chin had a red area, with a bruise forming, and she had blood in her gumline. R1's right cheek had scratches on it and a little abrasion. The staff notified Administrative Staff A, Administrative Nurse D, R1's primary care physician, and R1's responsible party. The facility report documented upon review of all statements and descriptions of the incident, the facility could not conclude without a doubt that abuse, neglect, and exploitation took place.CNA M's Notarized Witness Statement, dated 07/01/25, documented CNA M sat at the nurse's desk when R1 came to the desk in her wheelchair and asked for help to use the bathroom. In the bathroom, R1 took hold of the rails, stood up, and stated, Hurry up and pull my pants down. CNA M stated she asked R1 to turn, and said she would help with that as soon as she got the wheelchair out of the bathroom. CNA M got R1's slacks down, but not her underwear, and R1 sat down. CNA M asked R1 to please stand back up so CNA M could pull her underpants down, and R1 cursed and said she was about to urinate right then. CNA M told R1 she would help her to stand back up so she could pull R1's underwear down. CNA M put her arms underneath R1's arms and lifted R1 with R1's head on her left side. CNA M documented R1 bit her on the neck as CNA M pulled R1's pants down. CNA M called LN G and told LN G that R1 was biting and kicking. As CNA M waited for a response, CNA M told R1 she was going to change her shirt into pajamas and took R1's shirt off. CNA N came to R1's bathroom, and CNA M showed CNA N her neck. CNA N told CNA M to show LN G her neck and tell LN G what happened. A few minutes later, CNA N came to the desk and asked LN G and CNA M to talk in private. CNA N showed them a picture of a bruise on R1's chin area, stated it was unacceptable, and reported R1 said, That girl hit me with her fist. CNA M noted she asked CNA N how she could hit R1 in the face when her hands were busy pulling down R1's slacks and underwear. CNA M noted that LN G told her to go home pending the investigation, so CNA M returned the radio, clocked out, gathered her stuff, and left.CNA P's Notarized Witness Statement, dated 08/14/25, documented CNA P came into work the night shift on 06/28/25. R1 was in the living room. CNA P obtained report about what had happened. CNA P documented R1 was worked up and visibly upset. Later that night, CNA P took R1 to her room to lie her down, and when R1 entered the room, R1 repeatedly said she was scared to be in her room and asked if she was there. CNA P asked R1 who she was talking about, and R1 said she was afraid of the lady who hit her. CNA P documented R1 was really upset and scared about staying in her room, so CNA P brought R1 back to the living room. Later that night, CNA P was eventually able to convince R1 that CNA M was not there, and R1 agreed to lay down for the night. CNA P documented R1's face had a cut that looked like a (finger) nail had dug in, R1's face had started to bruise, and her lip was swollen.LN H's Notarized Witness Statement, dated 08/14/25, documented the day after the incident, R1 did not want anyone to touch her. R1 sat at the nurse's desk and stated she could not believe the woman hit her. LN H documented R1's mouth still had blood in it and her lip was puffy and purple. R1 was guarded about anyone touching her or doing care, which was abnormal behavior.CMA R's Notarized Witness Statement, dated 08/14/25, documented CMA R came into work the day after the incident at 05:40 AM. R1 was already awake and in her wheelchair. CMA R stated she immediately saw a large bruise on the right side of R1's face and a swollen lower lip. CMA R asked LN G what happened to R1, and LN G stated a staff member hit R1 the night before. CMA R started to talk with R1, and R1 stated, I can't believe she did that to me. She hit me, sweetheart. Why would anyone want to hurt me?On 08/14/25 at 10:00 AM, observation revealed R1 sat in her wheelchair in front of the nurse's desk with a lap blanket over her lap. R1's head was forward, and she leaned her chin on her hand. When addressed, R1 looked up, smiled, and said, Boo.On 08/14/25 at 10:15 AM, CMA R stated she came in the morning after the incident, and there was no doubt in her mind R1 had been punched. CMA R stated the whole right side of R1's jaw was black and purple, and she had a fat lip, and there was still blood on her lip. CMA R stated R1 had never had behavioral issues directed towards others and stated if R1 had bitten CNA M, she had to have been provoked. CMA R stated R1 was still talking about the incident the next morning and stated, That girl hit me, and She's not here, is she?On 08/14/25 at 10:30 AM, LN H stated she was the nurse on the next morning after the incident happened, and it appeared R1 had been hit with a fist. R1 had significant black/purple bruises to the right side of her face, and her jaw and lower lip were swollen. LN H stated R1 came up to her in her wheelchair and asked her if she was going to hit R1 too. LN H stated that it broke her heart when R1 asked her that.On 08/14/25 at 12:00 PM, CNA P stated she had come into work on the night shift after the incident, and R1's chin was dark purple, and her lip was swollen. CNA P stated R1 was guarded with anyone touching her, and when staff approached R1, she put up her arm to protect herself, like she was scared she was going to be hit again. CNA P stated she had no doubt R1 had been hit in the face.On 08/14/25 at 01:00 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated the facility could not prove that CNA M hit R1 because there was a handrail on the right side of the toilet, and if R1 had reached up and bit CNA M, then came back down and hit her face on the handrail, which would explain her injuries. Administrative Nurse D stated they did not have to fire CNA M because CNA M already put in her two weeks' notice, and she just did not come back to work. Administrative Nurse D stated she interviewed the staff who worked after the incident, but they had not told her anything about suspecting CNA M hit R1. Administrative Nurse D confirmed R1's Care Plan did not had anything about R1 being physically aggressive towards others until after the incident.The facility's Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy, dated August 2022, documented it is the policy of the facility that each resident will be free from abuse. Our residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of property, and mistreatment by a court of law. Residents have the right to be free from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, and any physical or chemical restraint not required to meet the resident's medical symptoms. The policy included all seven required components.On 08/14/25 at 01:45 PM, Administrative Nurse D received a copy of the Immediate Jeopardy [IJ] Template and was notified that the facility's failure to ensure R1 remained free from abuse placed R1 in immediate jeopardy.The facility submitted an acceptable immediate jeopardy removal plan on 8/14/25 at 04:35 PM which included the following:Social Services would follow up immediately with R1 regarding her psychosocial wellness and continue to offer R1 support regarding the incident.The facility staff would be re-educated on Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, completed on 08/14/25. Administrative Nurse D interviewed all alert and oriented residents to establish residents' safety, and the residents felt free from staff abuse and neglect on 08/14/25.The facility held a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting immediately concerning the incident.The facility notified R1's primary care provider and R1's responsible party on 06/28/25.The facility notified Law Enforcement on 07/09/25 and the medical director on 08/14/25.The corrective actions to remove the immediacy were verified onsite on 08/14/25 at 06:00 PM. The scope and severity remained at a G (isolated, actual harm).
Sept 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with one reviewed for side rails. Based on observat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with one reviewed for side rails. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a bed rail that met safety requirements and addressed risks for entrapment for Resident (R)4. This placed her at risk for accident or injury due to unidentified risks associated with side rail use. Findings included: - R4's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) recorded diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (a slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremors, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity, spinal stenosis (degenerative condition of the spine that could cause weakness and loss of use of extremities), and right knee pain. R4's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], recorded the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 indicating mild cognitive impairment. The MDS documented R4 required the assistance of one staff with bed mobility and transfers. The MDS lacked documentation the resident had side rails. R4's EMR recorded a Side Rail Assessment completed on 07/10/24 upon admission. The assessment documented the resident does not transfer independently and the rails were not a high risk for entrapment. The rails and hoops were considered for safety and security, and the resident would need to use the side rail due to her weakness and balance deficit; the rail would help the resident turn side to side, move up and down in bed, pull herself from a laying to sitting position, supporting herself, transferring more safely, exiting the bed more safely, and improving balance. The assessment documented the rails/hoops were recommended due to a family request. Further evaluation was required by physical therapy or occupational therapy to recommend the type of side rail and usage. The assessment did not document the rail's openings or address the space between the side rail/hoop and the mattress. R4's EMR lacked evidence that therapy evaluated the type of rail and its usage. The Logbook Documentation provided by the facility revealed the facility's maintenance staff checked the bed and rails on 08/07/24 for cleaning and care, sanitizing methods, environmental conditions for storage and transport as well as a Maintenance Check. The document recorded the Maintenance Check which included inspecting connectors on rails and tightening as necessary; removal of burs or rough edges to prevent injury; verification of the function of the spring knob assembly if applicable and ensuring the latch was free of dirt and/or foreign material that could impair function; ensuring the side rails engaged and locked as specified; tightening, adjusting, or replacing any parts such as end caps, knobs, bolts, screws etc. that were loose or showed signs of wear, or were missing. The check did not address the rail opening, or the area between the rail and mattress. On 09/10/24 at 04:00 PM, observation revealed a one-fourth side rail on the left side of R4's bed with an opening approximately 16.5 inches by 32 inches. Continued observation and examination revealed the side rail was able to slip out of the bed and move. The resident had her own personal full-size mattress and used a remote control to elevate the head of the bed and change the bed position at the foot of the mattress. On 09/11/2024 at 10:00 AM, Administrative Nurse E verified the bed rails on R4's bed had too large of an opening, and the rail was not able to be affixed to the bed securely for stability and was able to be moved easily. Administrative Nurse A verified the facility lacked any further assessment for the use of the side rail. The Bed Safety policy, dated 2014, documented the facility strives to provide a safe sleeping environment for the resident. The resident's sleeping environment would be assessed by the interdisciplinary team, to consider the resident's safety, medical conditions, comfort, and freedom of movement, as well as input from the resident and family regarding previous sleeping habits and bed environment. To try to prevent deaths/injuries from the beds and related equipment (including frame, mattress, side rails, headboard, footboard, and bed accessories), the facility shall promote the following approaches: Inspection by the maintenance staff of all beds and related equipment as part of our regular bed safety program to identify risks and problems including potential entrapment risks. Review that gaps within the bed system are within the dimensions established by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) The review shall consider situations that could be caused by the resident's weight, movement, or bed position. Ensure that the bed rails are properly installed using the manufacturer's instructions or other pertinent safety guidance to ensure proper fit. Identify additional safety measures for residents who have been identified as having a higher than usual risk for injury including entrapment such as altered mental status, or restlessness. Maintenance will document this review in the TELS program. The facility's education and training activities would include instruction about risk factors for resident injury due to beds, and strategies for reducing risk factors for injury, including entrapment. If side rails were used, there would be an interdisciplinary assessment of the resident, consultation with the Attending Physician, and input from the resident and/or legal representative. The staff would obtain consent for the use of the side rails from the resident or the resident's legal guardian. Before using the side rails for any reason, the staff shall inform the resident and family about the benefits and potential hazards associated with the side rails. The facility failed to adequately assess R4's actual rail in use to ensure safe openings and failed to assess for safe use of a side rail prior to placing it on R4's bed. This placed her at risk for accident or injury due to unidentified risks associated with side rail use.
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 36 residents. The sample included 13 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 36 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported the lack of a 14-day stop date or specified duration, for Resident (R)10's as needed (PRN) antianxiety (class of medications that calm and relax people) medication. This placed R10 at risk for unintended effects related to psychotropic drug medications. Findings include: - R10's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed diagnoses of dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, and confusion), major depressive disorder (major mood disorder that causes persistent feelings of sadness), and anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear). R10's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], recorded R10 had severely impaired cognition. The MDS recorded he required extensive assistance from two staff with bed mobility and transfers. The MDS lacked documentation R10 received an antianxiety medication during the observation period. R10's Care Plan, dated 07/25/24, recorded R10 required extensive assistance with most activities of daily living (ADL) care. R10's Care Plan documented the resident received lorazepam (antianxiety medication) for anxiety and restlessness. R10's Physician's Order, dated 07/25/24, directed the staff to administer lorazepam 0.5 milligrams (mg) to 3 mg, three times a day (morning, afternoon, and at bedtime) PRN. The order lacked a stop date. R10's EHR lacked evidence of a specified duration which included a physician's rationale for the extended use of the PRN lorazepam. The Consultant Pharmacist's monthly review for R10 completed on 08/19/24 lacked evidence the CP identified the PRN lorazepam with no stop date. On 09/10/24 at 07:45 AM, R10 sat in a wheelchair at the dining room table. Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R administered the resident's medication. On 09/11/24 at 11:00 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the resident received lorazepam PRN, with a physician order date of 07/25/24, and no stop date. Administrative Nurse D verified the Consultant Pharmacist had sent monthly reviews to the facility and lacked a recommendation for the 14-day stop date or rationale for continued use of the medication. The facility's Pharmacy Services- Role of the Consulting Pharmacist policy, dated March 2023 documented the facility would contract the services of the Consulting Pharmacist. The Consulting Pharmacist shall provide consultation on all aspects of pharmacy services in the facility, including identifying pertinent resources and references about medications and their proper use and monitoring in the population. The Consultant Pharmacist would review the medication regimen of each resident at least monthly, or more frequently under certain conditions, based on applicable federal and state guidelines. Appropriate communication of information to prescribers and facility leadership about potential or actual problems related to any aspect of medications and pharmacy services, including medication irregularities, pertinent resident-specific documentation irregularities, and pertinent resident-specific documentation in the medical record, as indicated. The facility failed to ensure the CP identified and reported the lack of a 14-day stop date for the use of PRN lorazepam for R10. This placed the resident at risk for unnecessary psychotropic 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 36 residents. The sample included 13 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 36 residents. The sample included 13 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a 14-day stop date or a specified duration with rationale for Resident (R)10's ongoing as-needed (PRN) antianxiety (class of medications that calm and relax people) medication. This placed R10 at risk for unintended effects related to psychotropic (alters mood or thought) drug medications. Findings include: - R10's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed diagnoses of dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, and confusion), major depressive disorder (major mood disorder that causes persistent feelings of sadness), and anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear). R10's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], recorded R10 had severely impaired cognition. The MDS recorded he required extensive assistance from two staff with bed mobility and transfers. The MDS lacked documentation R10 received an antianxiety medication during the observation period. R10's Care Plan, dated 07/25/24, recorded R10 required extensive assistance with most activities of daily living (ADL) care. R10's Care Plan documented the resident received lorazepam (antianxiety medication) for anxiety and restlessness. R10's Physician's Order, dated 07/25/24, directed the staff to administer lorazepam 0.5 milligrams (mg) to 3 mg, three times a day (morning, afternoon, and at bedtime) PRN. The order lacked a stop date. R10's EMR lacked evidence of a specified duration which included a physician's rationale for the extended use of the PRN lorazepam. On 09/10/24 at 07:45 AM, R10 sat in a wheelchair at the dining room table. Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R administered the resident's medication. On 09/11/24 at 11:00 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified the resident received lorazepam PRN, with a physician order date of 7/25/24. Administrative Nurse D verified the order did not have a 14-day stop date or a reason for the continued use with the appropriate rationale. The facility did not provide a policy related to PRN psychotropic medications. The facility failed to ensure R10 was free of unnecessary psychotropic drugs when they failed to obtain a stop date for the use of PRN lorazepam. This placed R10 at risk for adverse side effects from the continued use of psychotropic medications.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility had a census of 36 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store biologicals as required when staff failed to discard or destroy expired medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 36 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store biologicals as required when staff failed to discard or destroy expired medications and vaccines. This deficient practice placed residents of the facility at risk of receiving ineffective medications. Findings included: - On 09/09/24 at 09:33 AM, observation revealed Certified Medication Aide (CMA) M obtained medication to administer to residents from the Shade medication cart. The cart contained one bottle of multivitamins with minerals which had no expiration date. On 09/09/24 at 09:40 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G opened the medication storage room, and observation in the medication refrigerator revealed three bisacodyl (laxative) suppositories that expired 07/2024; three bisacodyl suppositories that expired 05/2024; three boxes of Fluzone quadrivalent vaccines (flu shot), expired 06/2024 and two boxes of Fluzone high dose vaccines, expired 06/2024. LNG verified the expiration dates. On 09/09/24 at 11:00 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified staff were to remove from stock or dispose of expired medications. The facility's Storage of Medications policy, dated 04/2014, stated drug containers that had missing, incomplete, or incorrect labels should be returned to the pharmacy for proper labeling. The policy stated the facility should not use discontinued or outdated drugs or biologicals and all such drugs would be returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. The facility failed to discard or destroy expired medications and vaccines, placing residents of the facility at risk of receiving ineffective medications.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide food prepared by methods that conserve nu...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance when dietary staff failed to measure and provide the proper amounts of food for the four residents with a pureed diet. This placed the four residents at risk for impaired nutrition. Findings included: - On 09/10/24 at 11:20 AM, observation revealed Dietary Staff (DS) CC prepared the pureed foods for four residents. DS CC placed several ladles of meatloaf into the mixer without measuring the amount. DS CC then added approximately one-half cup of juice from the pan of vegetables before pureeing the mixture. She did not measure the pureed meatloaf when placing it in a cup for each resident. DS CC then pureed two cups of scalloped potatoes with one-half cup of vegetable juice and did not measure the servings when placed in resident cups. DS CC pureed one cup of squash with a fourth cup of vegetable juice and did not measure the serving size for each resident. On 09/10/24 at 11:20 AM, DS CC stated she did not have recipes for the pureed foods and stated she just eyeballed the amounts instead of measuring. On 09/10/24 at 12:45 PM, Dietary Staff (DS) BB stated should follow recipes for pureed foods and measure portions when serving pureed. She stated the Registered Dietician taught them to measure food before the pureed process. The facility's Standardized Recipes policies, dated 11/2023, stated a file of tested, standardized recipes, adjusted to appropriate yield, was used in the preparation of foods. The recipe file was maintained in the kitchen and was available to cooks throughout their tour of duty. Recipes are periodically reviewed for revisions and updating. The facility's Recommendations for Preparing Pureed Foods directed staff to place one serving of food per serving in the food processor and puree the food item until it is as smooth as possible. If it is too thin add food thickener a little at a time until consistency is reached. When serving pureed food, the quantities may be more or less than the original volume you started with so you may not need to give them all of it. The suggested liquids to use when pureeing foods directed staff to use a broth for meats and vegetable juice milk, or a broth for other foods. The facility failed to provide food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance while preparing the pureed diet. This placed the affected residents at risk for impaired nutrition.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to employ a full time Certified Dietary Manager (CDM...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 13 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to employ a full time Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) to supervise the preparation of meals and sanitation in the facility's kitchen. This deficient practice placed the 36 residents of the facility at risk for inadequate nutrition. Findings included: - On 09/10/24 at 12:00 PM, observation revealed Dietary Staff (DS) BB in the facility kitchen assisting with the noon meal service. On 09/10/24 at 12:45 PM, Dietary Staff (DS) BB stated the prior Registered Dietician (RD) had assisted her with training related to the CDM certification. She stated she had completed the courses and was scheduled to take the test in November 2024. The facility's Dietary Manager policy stated the dietary manager was a certified dietary manager licensed by this state in accordance with the American Dietetic Association rules, regulations and guidelines. The policy stated the dietary manager was responsible for the day-to-day functions of the dietary department. The policy stated during the completion of the CDM course, the RD would provide on-site visits weekly. The facility failed to employ a full time CDM to supervise the preparation of meals and sanitation in the facility's kitchen, placing the 36 residents of the facility at risk for inadequate nutrition.
Jan 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for falls. Based on observation, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for falls. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for Resident (R) 29 who fell when she was left unattended in the shower room and R35 who fell while unsupervised in an unlocked treatment room. This deficient practice placed R29 and R35 at risk for injuries from falls. Findings included: - R29's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of dementia (a group of conditions characterized by impairment of at least two brain functions, such as memory loss and judgment), and anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six. The MDS documented R29 required supervision for eating, extensive assistance of two staff for transfers, bed mobility, toileting, dressing, and did not walk. R29 used a wheelchair and balance unsteady and required human assistance to stabilize during transfers. The MDS documented R29 had two or more non-injury falls since the prior MDS, received antianxiety medication seven days, and a bed alarm was used daily. The Fall Care Plan, dated 11/10/22, directed staff to use a silent alarm to monitor attempts to self-transfer from bed to recliner without assistance and not to leave R29 in her wheelchair when alone in her room. The paln directed staff to try to keep R29 in the commons area when she was not sleeping or with someone in her room, place a fall mat beside her bed, gripper socks, and low bed. The plan directed to use a gait belt and walker, assist with walking to or from the bathroom. The 01/15/23 update directed staff to not leave R29 unattended in the shower room. The Fall Risk Assessments, dated 10/24/22, 12/18/22, and 01/16/23 all indicated R29 a high fall risk. The Fall Note, dated 01/15/23 at 10:37 AM, documented staff took R29 to the bathroom in the shower room and then left to get or check something. Staff returned to the shower room and found R29 by the shower room door, where she had slid down to the floor because she needed to get somebody. No injuries were noted. On 01/30/23 at 12:56 PM, observation revealed R29 in a recliner in the living room, feet elevated, glasses on, and looking around. Further observation at 01:30 PM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) S woke R29 and asked if she could take her to her room. CMA S transferred R29 to her wheelchair, asked her if she needed to go to the bathroom, and assisted R29 to toilet. CMA S then assisted R29 to bed, placed the call light in reach, bed low, and a pressure alarm was on. On 01/26/23 at 01:22 PM, CMA S stated when staff see R29 trying to get out of bed, staff toilet her and assist her to her wheelchair and have her sit in the living room. On 01/31/23 at 01:45 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified staff should not have left R29 alone and unsupervised in the shower room. The facility's Fall Prevention policy, dated 05/2015, stated various strategies would be implemented to minimize fall risk. A fall risk assessment would be completed at admission, quarterly, with any significant change and after a fall if the resident not previously identified at risk. Based on the resident assessment and their individual needs, interventions would be implemented to minimize the risk of falls and documented on the care plan. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision when staff left R29 alone in the shower room and she fell. This deficient practice placed R29 at risk for injury from falls. - R35's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease with early onset (a specific brain disease marked by symptoms of dementia that gradually get worse over time), psychosis (severe mental condition in which thought and emotions are so affected that contact is lost with external reality), and anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented short, long term memory problems with severely impaired decision making. The MDS documented R35 had hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that are not here), delusions (belief in something that is clearly not real), and wandered daily. The MDS documented R35 required supervision for walking in the corridor, extensive assistance of one staff for walking in her room, hygiene, and extensive assistance of two staff for transfers, dressing, eating and toileting. R35's balance was unsteady and required assistance to regain balance. R35 had one minor injury fall since the prior MDS and received antipsychotic (medications used to treat major mental disorders) and antianxiety medications seven days of the lookback period. The Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 04/15/22, documented R35 had a history of falls and her balance varied from steady to unsteady. The CAA documented R35's vision was impaired, and her cognition was severely impaired due to Alzheimer's disease. The Fall Care Plan, dated 04/15/22, directed staff to ensure R35 had gripper socks on, gripper strips in front of her bed, a fall mat in place, bed alarm, pressure alarm in the recliner, low bed, and staff were to leave the shower room doors closed when not in use. The care plan did not address the 01/05/22 fall in the treatment room until 01/25/22 with the statement the care plan was reviewed and remained appropriate. The Fall Note, dated 01/05/22 at 06:00 AM, documented at 06:00 AM, R35 went into the treatment room and staff heard help me, help me and found R35 sitting on the floor on her buttocks with her head toward the door, and her feet toward the sink in the treatment room. The nurse noted a bruise on her left side forehead. Staff assisted R35 up and obtained R35's vital signs. The physician and family were notified. The Social Services Note, dated 1/18/22, stated R35 continued to wander the halls. 01/26/23 at 12:00 PM, Social Services X stated R35 had poor cognition, bad eyesight and did not want to wear her glasses. R35 would run into things, walked with head down often, and fell occasionally. Social Services X stated staff could not restrain R35, staff constantly looked for her and watched the cameras for her. R35 was very mobile and quick. On 01/26/23 at 02:03 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated at that time of the fall, 01/05/22, the treatment room was enclosed, and staff had to go through the nutrition room which was left open. Administrative Nurse D stated staff had not closed the treatment room door and R35 went in and she tripped over the weight scale. Administrative Nurse D stated she educated staff and placed signage to ensure the door to the treatment room locked and had maintenance staff change the door lock to a keypad. Administrative Nurse D stated the nurse on duty did not write a witness statement. On 01/31/23 at 08:52 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G verified the treatment room had a key lock at the time of the fall and staff were to close and lock the door. She verified R35 had fiddled with the doorknob of the treatment room at times. On 01/31/23 at 01:45 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified staff should have ensured the treatment room door was closed and locked when leaving the area. The facility's Fall Prevention policy, dated 05/2015, stated various strategies would be implemented to minimize fall risk. A fall risk assessment would be completed at admission, quarterly, with any significant change and after a fall if the resident not previously identified at risk. Based on the resident assessment and their individual needs, interventions would be implemented to minimize the risk of falls and documented on the care plan. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision for R35, who was unsupervised when she entered an unlocked treatment room and fell, placing R35 at risk for injury.
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 31 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 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist identified and reported to the Director of Nursing, facility medical director, and physician, the lack of a 14 day stop date for Resident (R)11 and R13's as needed (PRN) psychotropic (a medication that affects mood and/or thought) or rationale for continued use. This placed the residents at risk for inappropriate use of a psychotropic medication with side effects. Findings included: - R11's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) recorded diagnoses of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), anxiety (mental, uncertainty and irrational fear), and depression (mood disorder characterized by persistent sadness). R11's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating intact cognition. R11 required supervision with transfer, dressing, toilet use, , and required limited assistance of one staff for locomotion on and off the unit and hygiene. The MDS documented R11 received an antidepressant medication for all seven of the look back days. The Psychotic Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 03/18/22, documented R11 received Wellbutrin (antidepressant) daily for major depressive disorder and as needed Ativan (psychotropic antianxiety medication) for anxiety. The Mood Care Plan, dated 12/02/22 recorded the resident displayed signs and symptoms of depression, such as feeling down, depressed and bad about herself, and tired. The resident had chronic pain that affected her mood and at times was verbally aggressive towards staff. Staff administered Ativan as needed for her persistent anxiety after non-pharmacological interventions have been attempted. The Physician's Order, dated 10/24/22, directed the staff to administer Ativan 0.5 milligrams (mg), administer one half tablet or 0.25 mg twice a day as needed for anxiety. The order lacked a stop date. Review of the Medication Administration Record in the EMR revealed the resident last received the Ativan 0.25mg on 01/24/23 for anxiety from a bloody nose, with documented relief from the anxiety. Review of the Medication Regimen Reviews lacked evidence the Consultant Pharmacist identified the need for the as needed Ativan 14 day stop date. On 01/25/23 at 04:20 PM, observation revealed the resident sat in a recliner in her room with a bedside table in front of her and the activity director painting her fingernails. Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R administered the resident's morning medications to her. On 01/31/23 at 09:40 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the resident received Ativan, with a physician order date of 10/14/22. Administrative Nurse D verified the facility failed to obtain the 14 days stop date or reason for continued use with the appropriate rational. Administrative Nurse D verified the Consultant Pharmacist failed to recommend a 14 day stop date for use of the residents as needed Ativan. The Antipsychotic Medication Use policy dated October 2017 recorded antipsychotic medication therapy shall be used as appropriate with the proper assessment, diagnosis and physician or mental health expert oversight. Residents will only receive antipsychotic medications when necessary to treat specific conditions for which they are indicated and effective. The PCP would identify, evaluate and document, with input from other disciplinary and consultants as needed, symptoms that may warrant the use of antipsychotic medications. All residents with an order for antipsychotic medications would be assessed for ongoing use. The assessment would include proper diagnosis, AIMS testing, behavior monitoring, gradual dose reduction and care plan use. A monthly drug regimen review would be completed on all residents by the consulting pharmacist, and appropriate recommendations for dose reduction are made to the physician. The facility's Pharmacy Services- Role of the Consulting Pharmacist policy, dated February 2018 documented the facility would contract the services of the Consulting Pharmacist. The Consulting Pharmacist shall provide consultation on all aspects of pharmacy services in the facility, including identify pertinent resources and references about medications and their proper use and monitoring in the population. Help the facility evaluate and optimize their medication administration and documentation process. Identifying pertinent resources and references about medications and their proper use and monitoring in the population. Regular review of the emergency medication supply and provide facility with written or electronic reports and recommendations related to all aspects of medication and pharmaceutical services review. The facility's Consultant Pharmacist failed to recommend to the facility Director of Nursing (DON), medical director, and physician the need for a 14 day stop date or rationale for continued use of PRN Ativan. This placed the resident at risk for inappropriate use of an as needed psychotropic medication with side effects. - R13's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of dementia (a group of conditions characterized by impairment of at least two brain functions, such as memory loss and judgment), and anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of two, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented R13 demonstrated physical, verbal and other behaviors which placed resident and others at risk physically, interfered with her care, and disrupted the environment. R13 required extensive staff assistance for eating, hygiene, dressing, toilet use, bed mobility, transfers and received antipsychotic (medication used to treat psychosis) and antianxiety medication seven days of the lookback period. The Psychotropic Medication Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 11/25/22, documented R13 had various mental health disorders and received psychotropic medications for these conditions. The assessment stated R13 had behaviors at times, such as crying, throwing food, aggression during cares. The Medication Care Plan, dated 12/01/22, directed staff to talk to R13 when she was sad or anxious. If R13 was wandering and agitated, offer a drink or snack, like Cola and chocolate. The care plan directed staff to apply Ativan (antianxiety drug) cream as needed for anxiety. Utilize PRN Ativan if non-medication approaches are ineffective to relieve anxiety. May use oral or topical. Monitor adverse effects: speech pattern changes, loss of strength, over-sedation, gait changes, irritability, increased sweating, dizziness. The Physician Order, dated 10/02/19, directed staff to administer Ativan 0.5 milligrams (mg), three times daily (TID), as needed (PRN) for anxiety. The order lacked a stop date. The Physician Order, dated 10/13/21, directed staff to administer Ativan cream, 1 mg, topically, PRN every six hours, for anxiety. The order lacked a stop date. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented the PRN Ativan was administered almost daily, sometimes three times daily for behaviors of anxious, crawling on floor, crying, hitting at staff, or combative. The Consultant Pharmacist Review, dated 06/13/2022, documented a risk versus benefit documentation was due for the PRN use of Ativan. The physician response documented her current status warrants need to continue medications and monitoring to continue. The documentation lacked a request for a stop date for the use of the PRN Ativan. The Consultant Pharmacist Reviews, 07/18/22 through 01/24/23 documented no suggestions at this time. On 01/26/23 at 09:01 AM, observation revealed Certified Medication Aide (CMA) T administered medications to R13 in her room. CMA T crushed the pills, including Ativan, and mixed with chocolate pudding. R13 accepted medication easily without problems. On 01/26/23 at 07:56 AM, CMA T stated R13 can become upset with staff or anybody at times, due to multiple personalities and severe dementia. On 01/31/23 at 01:45 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified the lack of a stop date for the PRN Ativan and stated the Consultant Pharmacist had not notified her of the need for one. The Antipsychotic Medication Use policy dated October 2017 recorded antipsychotic medication therapy shall be used as appropriate with the proper assessment, diagnosis and physician or mental health expert oversight. Residents will only receive antipsychotic medications when necessary to treat specific conditions for which they are indicated and effective.The PCP would identify, evaluate and document, with input from other disciplinary and consultants as needed, symptoms that may warrant the use of antipsychotic medications. All residents with an order for antipsychotic medications would be assessed for ongoing use. The assessment would include proper diagnosis, AIMS testing, behavior monitoring, gradual dose reduction and care plan use. A monthly drug regimen review would be completed on all residents by the consulting pharmacist, and appropriate recommendations for dose reduction are made to the physician. The facility's Consultant Pharmacist failed to recommend to the facility Director of Nursing (DON), medical director, and physician the need for a 14 day stop date or rationale for continued use of PRN Ativan. This placed the resident at risk for inappropriate use of an as needed psychotropic medication with side 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 31 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 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a 14- day stop date for Resident (R)11 and R13 who received as needed (PRN) psychotropic (medication that affects mood and/or thoughts) that lacked a 14 day stop date or rationale for continued use. This placed the affected residents at risk for unintended affects related to psychotropic drug medications. Findings included: - R11's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) recorded diagnoses of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), anxiety (mental, uncertainty and irrational fear), and depression (mood disorder characterized by persistent sadness). R11's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fourteen, indicating intact cognition. R11 required supervision with transfer, dressing, toilet use, , and required limited assistance of one staff for locomotion on and off the unit and hygiene. The MDS documented R11 received an antidepressant medication for all seven of the look back days. The Psychotic Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 03/18/22, documented R11 received Wellbutrin (antidepressant) daily for major depressive disorder and as needed Ativan (psychotropic antianxiety medication) for anxiety. The Mood Care Plan, dated 12/02/22 recorded the resident displayed signs and symptoms of depression, such as feeling down, depressed and bad about herself, and tired. The resident had chronic pain that affected her mood and at times was verbally aggressive towards staff. Staff administered Ativan as needed for her persistent anxiety after non-pharmacological interventions have been attempted. The Physician's Order, dated 10/24/22, directed the staff to administer Ativan 0.5 milligrams (mg), administer one half tablet or 0.25 mg twice a day as needed for anxiety. The order lacked a stop date. Review of the Medication Administration Record in the EMR revealed the resident last received the Ativan 0.25mg on 01/24/23 for anxiety from a bloody nose, with documented relief from the anxiety. On 01/25/23 at 04:20 PM, observation revealed the resident in a recliner in her room with a bedside table in front of her and the activity director painting her fingernails and Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R administered the resident's morning medications to her. On 01/31/23 at 09:40 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the resident received Ativan, with a physician order date of 10/14/22. Administrative Nurse D verified the facility failed to obtain the 14 days stop date or reason for continued use with the appropriate rational. The Antipsychotic Medication Use policy dated October 2017 recorded antipsychotic medication therapy shall be used as appropriate with the proper assessment, diagnosis and physician or mental health expert oversight. Residents will only receive antipsychotic medications when necessary to treat specific conditions for which they are indicated and effective.The PCP would identify, evaluate and document, with input from other disciplinary and consultants as needed, symptoms that may warrant the use of antipsychotic medications. All residents with an order for antipsychotic medications would be assessed for ongoing use. The assessment would include proper diagnosis, AIMS testing, behavior monitoring, gradual dose reduction and care plan use. A monthly drug regimen review would be completed on all residents by the consulting pharmacist, and appropriate recommendations for dose reduction are made to the physician. The facility failed to ensure R11 was free of the use of unnecessary psychotropic drugs when they failed to obtain a stop date for the use of PRN Ativan, placing R11 at risk for adverse effects from the continued use of those medications. - R13's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of dementia (a group of conditions characterized by impairment of at least two brain functions, such as memory loss and judgment), and anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of two, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented R13 demonstrated physical, verbal and other behaviors which placed resident and others at risk physically, interfered with her care, and disrupted the environment. R13 required extensive staff assistance for eating, hygiene, dressing, toilet use, bed mobility, transfers and received antipsychotic (medication used to treat major mental disorders), and antianxiety medication seven days of the lookback period. The Psychotropic Medication Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 11/25/22, documented R13 had various mental health disorders and received psychotropic medications for these conditions. The assessment stated R13 had behaviors at times, such as crying, throwing food, aggression during cares. The Medication Care Plan, dated 12/01/22, directed staff to talk to R13 when she was sad or anxious. If R13 was wandering and agitated, offer a drink or snack, like cola and chocolate. The care plan directed staff to apply Ativan (antianxiety drug) cream as needed for anxiety. Utilize PRN Ativan if non-medication approaches were ineffective to relieve anxiety. May use oral or topical. Monitor adverse effects: speech pattern changes, loss of strength, over-sedation, gait changes, irritability, increased sweating, dizziness. The Physician Order, dated 10/02/19, directed staff to administer Ativan 0.5 milligrams (mg), three times daily (TID), as needed (PRN) for anxiety. The order lacked a stop date. The Physician Order, dated 10/13/21, directed staff to administer Ativan cream, 1 mg, topically, PRN every six hours, for anxiety. The order lacked a stop date. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented the PRN Ativan was administered almost daily, sometimes three times daily, for behaviors of anxious, crawling on floor, crying, hitting at staff, or combative. The Consultant Pharmacist Review, dated 06/13/2022, documented a risk versus benefit documentation was due for the PRN use of Ativan. The physician response documented her current status warrants need to continue medications and monitoring to continue. The documentation lacked a request for a stop date for the use of the PRN Ativan. On 01/26/23 at 09:01 AM, observation revealed Certified Medication Aide (CMA) T administered medications to R13 in her room. CMA T crushed the pills, including Ativan, and mixed with chocolate pudding. R13 accepted medication easily without problems. On 01/26/23 at 07:56 AM, CMA T stated R13 can become upset with staff or anybody at times, due to multiple personalities and severe dementia. On 01/31/23 at 01:45 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified the lack of a stop date for the PRN Ativan and stated the Consultant Pharmacist had not notified her of the need for one. The Antipsychotic Medication Use policy dated October 2017 recorded antipsychotic medication therapy shall be used as appropriate with the proper assessment, diagnosis and physician or mental health expert oversight. Residents will only receive antipsychotic medications when necessary to treat specific conditions for which they are indicated and effective. The PCP would identify, evaluate and document, with input from other disciplinary and consultants as needed, symptoms that may warrant the use of antipsychotic medications. All residents with an order for antipsychotic medications would be assessed for ongoing use. The assessment would include proper diagnosis, AIMS testing, behavior monitoring, gradual dose reduction and care plan use. A monthly drug regimen review would be completed on all residents by the consulting pharmacist, and appropriate recommendations for dose reduction are made to the physician. The facility failed to ensure R13's drug regimen was free of unnecessary psychotropic drugs when they failed to obtain a stop date for the use of PRN Ativan beyond the 14-day requirement, placing R13 at risk for unnecessary side effects from the continued use.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to discard expired medications in the emergency drug...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 31 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to discard expired medications in the emergency drug treatment kit/box located in the medication room. This placed residents at risk for ineffective medications. Findings included: - On 01/29/23 at 08:40 AM, observation during the initial tour revealed the emergency medication kit/box, had an expiration date, 12/22 written on the top of the kit/box. On 01/31/23 at 09:50 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the emergency treatment kit had numerous expired medications. Administrative Nurse D verified the pharmacist had not been on site to identify the expired medications, however the nurses should identify the expired kit during use and said she would contact the local pharmacy to get replacement medications. The facility's Emergency Drug Kit policy, dated 4/2021, documented a supply of drugs typically used in emergencies shall be maintained at each nurse's station. An emergency drug kit contains the drugs and biologicals that are essential to providing emergency treatment. A kit is available at the nurse's station and is stored in the medication room. An inventory listing is maintained of the content of the kit. The pharmacist shall inspect the emergency medical kit monthly and record the findings on the record maintained with each kit. Medications and supplies used from the emergency kit must be replaced upon the next routine drug order. Indicated on the drug order form that the supply is needed to replenish the kit. Drugs removed from the emergency kit must be entered on the emergency medication administration log. The lock tag for the kit must be recorded when removed- who opened, and the reason the kit was opened, and date. The facility failed to ensure expired medications were remoevd and replaced, placing the residents at risk for use of an ineffective 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?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kansas facilities.
  • • 42% turnover. Below Kansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 11 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Locust Grove Village's CMS Rating?

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

How is Locust Grove Village Staffed?

CMS rates LOCUST GROVE VILLAGE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the Kansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Locust Grove Village?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at LOCUST GROVE VILLAGE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 10 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 Locust Grove Village?

LOCUST GROVE VILLAGE 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 38 certified beds and approximately 32 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LA CROSSE, Kansas.

How Does Locust Grove Village Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, LOCUST GROVE VILLAGE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Locust Grove Village?

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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record.

Is Locust Grove Village Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LOCUST GROVE VILLAGE has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Locust Grove Village Stick Around?

LOCUST GROVE VILLAGE has a staff turnover rate of 42%, which is about average for Kansas nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Locust Grove Village Ever Fined?

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

Is Locust Grove Village on Any Federal Watch List?

LOCUST GROVE VILLAGE 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.