DIVERSICARE OF LARNED

1114 W 11TH STREET, LARNED, KS 67550 (620) 285-6914
For profit - Corporation 80 Beds DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
60/100
#62 of 295 in KS
Last Inspection: January 2024

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

Overview

Diversicare of Larned has a Trust Grade of C+, which means it is slightly above average but not outstanding. It ranks #62 out of 295 nursing homes in Kansas, placing it in the top half of facilities statewide, and is the only option in Pawnee County. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, having increased from 5 issues in 2022 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is rated average with a turnover rate of 58%, which is close to the state average of 48%. Although there have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign, the facility has faced serious concerns, including failing to properly investigate resident falls and issues with food sanitation in the kitchen. Additionally, they did not consistently provide accurate staffing information to Medicare, which raises questions about compliance. While there are strengths, such as good quality measures, families should be aware of these weaknesses when considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
C+
60/100
In Kansas
#62/295
Top 21%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
5 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kansas facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Kansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 5 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 58%

12pts above Kansas avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (58%)

10 points above Kansas average of 48%

The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jan 2024 8 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 46 residents. The sample included 16 residents, which included four residents sampled for acci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 46 residents. The sample included 16 residents, which included four residents sampled for accidents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate to identify causal factors of falls and/or initiate/implement immediate, appropriate interventions to prevent further falls for three sampled dependent residents, including Resident (R)15, related to a lack of wheelchair pedals for support while staff propelled the resident; R27, who experienced a fall with an inappropriate intervention; and for the multiple falls experienced by cognitively impaired R2, with the most recent fall resulting in major injury with two fractured (broken bone) vertebrae (bones of the spine). Findings included: - Review of R2's Physician Orders, dated 12/13/23, included diagnoses of fractured thoracic (middle section of the spine) vertebra, repeated falls, dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), need for assistance with personal care, lack of coordination, cognitive communication deficit, unsteadiness of feet, urinary incontinence, peripheral neuropathy (weakness, numbness and pain from nerve damage, usually in the hands and feet), hypertension (high blood pressure), overactive bladder, and gait (manner or style of walking) and balance abnormalities. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of one, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The resident required substantial/maximal assistance of staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. She had no functional limitations in range of motion of the upper or lower extremities. She was always incontinent of bowel, occasionally incontinent of urine, and did not have a toileting program. She experienced two or more non-injury falls and one fall with major injury. The resident received Occupational Therapy (OT) for four days and Physical Therapy (PT) for four days of the look back period. The Discharge Return Anticipated MDS dated [DATE], documented the resident transferred to an acute care hospital on [DATE]. The Entry MDS dated [DATE], documented the resident returned to the facility on [DATE]. The Cognitive Loss/ Dementia, Communication, and Falls Care Area Assessments (CAA), dated 09/15/23, documented the resident lacked orientation with memory and recall deficits related to dementia, change in mental status, and short term/long term memory loss. She had a history of falls prior to admission, weakness, and physical performance limitations that affected balance, gait, strength, and muscle endurance. The Care Plan dated 12/22/23, included the following interventions: On 05/21/19, staff were to remind the resident to lock the brakes on the wheelchair before transfers. On 08/13/19, R2 experienced episodes of incontinence due to an overactive bladder if not toileted timely . (The care plan lacked any instruction staff on when to toilet the resident.) On 11/07/22, therapy was to screen, and staff would initiate a bladder diary to determine a toileting schedule. On 01/26/23, staff were to know the resident had a diagnosis of dementia and exhibited some restlessness and anxiety prior to a fall. R2 wandered into the wrong room and attempted to transfer to a bed unassisted. Nursing staff were to monitor the resident for behaviors every shift. If R2 was restless or anxious, staff were to report to the nurse to assess and treat. Staff would repeat urinalysis (UA). In addition, staff were to adjust the resident's bed height to a lower position for improved transfers. On 01/28/23, therapy assessed the resident's wheelchair, R2's positioning in the wheelchair, and therapy adjusted the wheelchair. Staff were to remind her to call for assistance for bathroom use. On 08/16/23, the facility asked R2's family to take Crocs (rubberized slip-on shoes) home. Staff were to encourage the resident to wear her tennis shoes. Staff would know the resident liked to wear her Crocs and remind her that they were not the safest footwear. Staff should remind the resident she cannot get up on her own and would know she may forget and may need reminders. On 09/19/23, nursing staff were to encourage the resident to utilize the grab bar in the shower room and ensure the wheelchair brakes locked before transferring the resident to the shower chair. On 09/20/23, R2 moved around the facility by self-propelling her wheelchair and would take assistance from staff if offered. The resident used bed rails to reposition and to get in and out of bed. The resident no longer used her walker for locomotion, but occasionally used the walker for transfers. The resident required two staff for transfers using a transfer belt and/or a mechanical lift as needed. Staff were to know the resident was forgetful and did not remember she needed assistance transferring. Staff were to keep pathways clear and decrease clutter to minimize the risk of falls. Staff were to keep the resident's wheelchair beside the bed. Staff were to ensure the resident wore secure footwear when out of bed. She sometimes lost her gripper socks and/or placed unsafe slippers over the gripper socks. Staff were to assist the resident in putting gripper socks back on. On 10/09/23, staff were to obtain a UA for the resident. On 11/14/23, staff were to lay R2 down after meals to prevent confusion and ensure safety. Review of the Progress Notes and Fall Investigation Reports revealed the following concerns related to falls experienced by R2: On 07/03/23 at 06:45 AM, the resident adjusted herself in the wheelchair and started to fall forward. Staff were able to catch the resident and assist her to the floor on her buttocks. The fall investigation report failed to identify causal factors to determine an immediate and appropriate intervention to prevent further falls. On 08/13/23 at 07:33 AM, two unidentified residents reported R2 got up from her wheelchair and fell. The intervention was to have family take R2's Crocs home and utilize sneakers. On 08/15/23 at 01:30 PM, an unidentified CNA reported R2 had an unwitnessed fall from the toilet, resulting in a goose egg sized, raised area to the back of the resident's head. The documentation noted the casual factor of the fall as the resident was impulsive and sometimes confused and should not be left on the toilet by herself. She had uneven balance and did not have her walker at the time of the fall. The facility educated the unidentified CNA regarding the importance of staying with a dependent, cognitively impaired resident while the resident was on the toilet and to provide supervision, to prevent falls. On 09/16/23 at 08:10 PM, R2 reported she attempted to transfer from the sofa to the wheelchair and fell to the floor. The fall was not witnessed, and the resident was noted to have severe cognitive impairment. The investigation lacked a causal factor and immediate appropriate intervention to prevent further falls. The facility placed an intervention to provide the unidentified CNA education. On 09/19/23 at 09:05 PM, an unidentified CNA reported they found R2 on the floor wearing a gown and socks. The resident reported she started to sit down, missed the chair, and landed on the floor. On 10/08/23 at 11:15 PM, staff found the resident sitting on the floor in front of the bathroom. The investigation report failed to provide an immediate intervention to prevent further falls. On 11/16/23 at 03:00 PM, the resident attempted to toilet herself and fell to the floor landing on her backside. She hit her head, causing a goose egg, which measured approximately two centimeters around, to the back of her head. The facility placed an intervention to prevent further falls, which included instructions to staff to remind the resident to use her call light for assistance for transfers and to ensure the resident used non-slip footwear. Review of the resident's care plan revealed both interventions were already implemented following previous falls. The Investigation Report, lacked a new immediate intervention to prevent further falls. The Progress Note dated 11/27/23 at 01:30 PM, revealed R2 was in her wheelchair when an unidentified Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) served the resident's meal at 01:00 PM and left the room. Approximately five minutes later, an unidentified CNA heard a crash and found the resident on the floor with the bedside table on top of her. The nurse assessed the resident and called 911 for transport to the emergency room (ER). The Progress notes dated 11/27/23 at 05:30 PM, documented the nurse received a call from the ER with a resident status update. She had fractures of thoracic spine. The Hospital Discharge Summary dated 11/30/23, documentation included the resident sustained a fracture of the 10th and 11th vertebra of the thoracic (bones of the spine (mid back) following a fall on 11/27/23 at the nursing facility. Review of the R2's Electronic Medical Record, (EMR) from 07/01/23 through 01/10/24, revealed the resident had a history of falls and experienced eight falls in the five months prior to the fall on 11/27/23 at 01:05 PM, which resulted in two fractured thoracic vertebrae. Observation on 01/10/24 at 11:03 AM, revealed the resident sat in the wheelchair in the commons area. She wore multicolored Crocs, with her feet on the pedals of the wheelchair. A brace was visible beneath her shirt, that covered her chest wall. On 01/11/24 at 09:30 AM, observed Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) P, CNA MM, and CNA NN transferred and provided toileting to R2. The staff transferred the resident to the toilet with a gait belt. R2 wore Crocs on her feet. The staff reported she wore her crocs all the time. On 01/11/24 at 09:30 AM, CNA P reported the resident was at risk for falls and had several falls. The resident used to walk, and the staff could walk her back and forth to the bathroom but stated R2 had not walked in almost a year. CNA P said when a resident fell, the nurse should put an immediate intervention in place to prevent further falls. CNA P said the new interventions should be added to the care plan, and staff have access to the care plan for directions on caring for the resident. On 01/17/24 at 10:13 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) I stated when a resident fell, the charge nurse should do an assessment, which included vital signs, range of motion, and a head-to-toe skin assessment. If the fall was not witnessed or the resident hit their head, staff should complete a neurological assessment. The nurse should notify the physician, the resident representative, and the Director of Nursing. The charge nurse should initiate an investigation at the time of the fall to determine the cause. An immediate new and appropriate intervention should be put in place and communicated to the staff. LN I stated a resident with dementia was not a reliable reporter for the cause of the fall and it would not be appropriate for a resident with dementia to use an intervention to remind the resident to use a call light. A resident that required assistance with transfers to the toilet and was cognitively impaired should not be left unattended in the bathroom. Staff should use the resident's care plan for guidance for fall interventions. New staff were not familiar with long term care and the system to put new appropriate interventions on the resident's care plan immediately to prevent further falls. On 01/17/24 at 01:15 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated on 11/27/23, R2 had an unwitnessed fall. The investigation revealed the probable cause was due to the resident reached for the wheeled end table and she fell. Administrative Nurse D stated the resident had a diagnosis of dementia and a history of multiple falls due to her poor impulse control where she would try to stand, transfer, and toilet herself without staff assistance. Staff had R2 transported to the hospital for an evaluation and R2 was admitted due to fractured vertebras. She was sent back to the facility with a brace to stabilize her fractured vertebrae. Staff removed the wheeled table from the resident's room and replaced it with a stationary table. The charge nurse should initiate a new immediate and appropriate fall intervention to prevent further falls. The resident's BIMS score should be 13 or higher for resident education to be an appropriate intervention. R2's interventions were not appropriate, and no new interventions were put in place to prevent further falls prior to the resident falling on 11/27/23, which resulted in fractures. The 02/2017 facility's policy for Clinical Care Systems Guidelines for Falls did not address initiating a new, immediate, and appropriate intervention based on causal factors of each fall experienced by a resident, in order to prevent further falls. The facility failed to thoroughly investigate to identify causal factors of the fall and/or initiate/implement, new immediate, appropriate interventions to prevent further falls for cognitively impaired R2, who had multiple falls, one of which resulted in two fractured vertebrae. - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 01/02/24, for Resident (R)27, documented a diagnosis of weakness. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of two, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers and extensive assistance of one staff for locomotion on the unit with the use of a wheelchair. He had no limitations in his range of motion (ROM) and no falls since the prior assessment. The Falls Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 08/02/23, documented the resident had a history of falls due to weakness and had impaired gait and mobility which required him to have staff assistance with transfers. The Quarterly MDS, dated 11/01/23, documented the resident had a BIMS score of five, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers and extensive assistance of one staff for locomotion on the unit with the use of a wheelchair and had no limitation in his ROM. He had one fall with injury (except major) since his prior assessment. The falls care plan, revised 01/08/24, instructed staff that the resident would forget he was unable to stand on his own, creating possible safety risks. Staff were to help remind him of safety issues. He had anti-tip brakes applied to his wheelchair to prevent the wheelchair from rolling backwards if he did attempt to stand up on his own. Staff were to keep the resident in the front commons area between meals. The resident received physical therapy (PT) following a prior fall. Review of the resident's EMR revealed Fall Assessments which placed the resident at a high risk for falls, dated: 06/11/23, 09/11/23 and 10/30/23. Review of a Fall Report, dated 12/23/23 and provided by the facility, revealed the resident had a witnessed fall on 12/23/23 in the front commons room when he attempted to stand up from his wheelchair, took a couple of steps and fell to the floor, landing on his right side. The resident had a decrease in his ROM on his right upper extremity and was transported to the ER for evaluation, where it was found he had a re-fracture of his right clavicle (collar bone). Staff were following all fall interventions at the time of the fall. The new intervention for the fall was to obtain a urine sample for a urinalysis (UA-lab analysis of urine) to check for a urinary tract infection (UTI-an infection in any part of the urinary system). Review of the resident's EMR lacked a lab result for the UA which had been ordered on 12/23/23. On 01/17/24 at 01:15 PM, Administrative Nurse E stated the facility had failed to obtain a UA to send to the lab for analysis at the time of the fall. Administrative Nurse E stated that had been an inappropriate fall intervention. The facility policy for Falls, dated February 2017, included: The interdisciplinary team (IDT) will review the post fall investigation and summarizes the team recommendations for interventions. The facility failed to initiate an appropriate fall intervention following an injury fall for this dependent resident to prevent further falls. - Review of Resident (R)15's Physician Order Sheet dated 12/13/23, revealed diagnoses included Alzheimer's (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure) and osteoporosis (abnormal loss of bone density and deterioration of bone tissue with an increased fracture risk). . The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with severely impaired decision making. The resident was rarely/never understood. The resident the resident was able to wheel herself in her wheelchair and was dependent on staff for transfers. The resident had no impairment in the upper or lower extremities. The Cognitive Loss Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/27/23, assessed the resident was unable to always make her needs known. Staff assist the resident with all cares and the resident self-propelled herself to/from the dining room. The Falls CAA, dated 10/27/23, triggered secondary to impaired gait and mobility and level of assistance required with transfers. Contributing factors includes history of falls prior to admission, weakness and physical performance limitations affecting balance, gait, strength, and muscle endurance. The Care Plan reviewed 11/02/23, instructed staff the resident propelled herself in her wheelchair but did need assistance with direction. The resident was at high risk for falls, had weakness and poor understanding of safety issues. Observation, on 01/10/24 at 12:25 PM, revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)Z propelled the resident in her wheelchair which lacked foot pedals, to the dining room. The resident thighs were slouched forward from the seat bottom. her knees were bent under the wheelchair, and her feet skimmed along directly touching on the floor. Observation, on 01/17/24 at 11:25 AM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair with her thighs slouched forward from the seat bottom of the wheelchair and she attempted to propel herself about in the common living area. Administrator A at that time, propelled the resident to the dining room without foot pedals on the chair and her feet skimmed along directly touching on the floor. Administrative Staff A obtained foot pedals for the resident's wheelchair, but the resident was unable to keep her feet on the pedals due to posture. Interview with Administrative Staff A revealed the resident needed a wheelchair seating evaluation as the resident usually propelled herself and took the pedals off the chair stating staff should guide the resident to the dining room while she propelled herself. Administrative Staff A stated when staff propel her, her feet should be on wheelchair pedals. Interview, on 01/17/24 at 11:28 AM, with Consulting Staff GG, confirmed the need for a wheelchair evaluation. Observation, on 01/17/24 at 11:32 AM, revealed CNA Q propelled the resident to the dining room in her wheelchair without foot pedals. The resident could not hold her feet up off the floor consistently and her feet skimmed the floor. Interview at that time with CNA Q revealed the resident slouched in her wheelchair, and thought the resident needed a different wheelchair. CNA Q stated the resident could propel herself, but often became confused and could not follow directions. The facility did not provide a policy for use of wheelchair pedals. The facility failed to ensure proper wheelchair seating seating/positioning/foot pedals to prevent accidents for this resident when staff aided with propelling to avoid injury as the resident's feet skimmed along directly touching on the floor under the wheelchair.
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 reported a census of 46 residents which included 16 residents sampled with one resident reviewed for dignity. Based...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 46 residents which included 16 residents sampled with one resident reviewed for dignity. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dignity/privacy of the one sampled resident (R)9, with a catheter/urine collection bag, with the lack of a cover for the urine collection bag to prevent full visualization of the resident's urine. Findings included: - Review of resident (R)9's Physician Orders, documentation included diagnoses of retention of urine, injury of kidney unspecified, and need for assistance with personal care. The Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documentation included the resident with the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating cognitively intact. Her continence was not rated due to ostomy and indwelling catheter. The Urinary Incontinence/Indwelling Catheter Care Area Assessment (CAA) for urinary incontinence/indwelling catheter, dated 01/03/24, documented the resident used a urinary indwelling catheter. The care plan (CP) for indwelling catheter, dated 12/04/23, directed the staff to provide a privacy bag for the catheter and to position the catheter bag and tubing away from the entrance of the door. On 01/10/24 at 01:12 PM, the resident sat in her recliner. Her trash can, beside her recliner, held her uncovered catheter collection bag which hung on the outside of the trash can with her urine visible in the collection bag from the doorway. The resident stated that was where the staff always placed the urine collection bag. She stated there was a catheter cover on her wheelchair (W/C) which she liked to prevent others from seeing her urine. She did not know why one was not used while in her room. On 01/10/24 at 01:12 PM Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) MM confirmed the above finding and stated the resident's catheter bag should be covered with a bag to ensure the resident's privacy/dignity. On 01/17/24 at 10:13 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) I, stated the resident's catheter bag should be covered to ensure the resident's privacy/dignity. On 01/17/24 at 12:49 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated the staff should cover the resident's catheter bag to prevent the urine from being seen from the doorway of her room and to ensure the resident's privacy and dignity. The facility lacked a policy regarding providing full visual privacy for a resident's urine collection bags. The facility failed to ensure the dignity/privacy of the resident with the lack of a catheter/urine collection bag cover, to prevent full visualization of the resident's urine to anyone passing or entering her room.
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 reported a census of 46 residents with 16 selected for review which included five residents reviewed for unnecessar...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 46 residents with 16 selected for review which included five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (R)15, of the five residents reviewed, received laxatives for lack of bowel movement as ordered by the physician. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)15's Physician Order Sheet dated 12/13/23, revealed diagnoses included Alzheimer's (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure), and osteoporosis (abnormal loss of bone density and deterioration of bone tissue with an increased fracture risk). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with severely impaired decision making. The resident was rarely/never understood. The resident received antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medications. The resident was on antipsychotics on a routine basis. The Psychotropic Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 10/27/23, triggered secondary to use of psychotropic med to manage psychiatric illness/condition. A licensed nurse monitors for side effects every shift, and the physician is to be notified of any abnormal findings. A pharmacist consultant will review medications monthly and the PCP (Primary Care Physician) will review medications with each visit. Contributing factors include current history of depression/psychosis/insomnia. The Cognitive Loss CAA, dated 10/27/23, assessed the resident was unable to always make her needs known. Staff assist the resident with all cares. The Care Plan reviewed 11/02/23, instructed staff to monitor for bowel movement each shift and offer the as needed (PRN) laxative for constipation and monitor for effectiveness when given. On 03/03/22, the physician instructed staff to administer Milk of Magnesia Suspension (a laxative), 30 milliliters, every 24 hours as needed for constipation per standing order. Review of the electronic medical record task for bowel movement documentation, revealed the resident did not have a bowel pattern of lack of bowel movement for four to five days, and the record documented the resident had a lack of bowel movement from 01/10/24 through 01/17/24, for seven days. Observation, on 01/11/24 at 09:35 AM, revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Q and Z transferred the resident from her wheelchair to bed. The resident smiled and laughed but did not answer questions. CNA Q stated the resident did not speak but did laugh to communicate to staff. Interview, on 01/17/24 at 03:00 PM, with Administrative Nurse E, confirmed the lack of bowel movement from 01/10/24 through 01/17/24, but wound question the Certified Staff to confirm this. Interview on 01/17/24 at 3:20 PM, with Administrative Nurse E, revealed she did a bowel assessment on the resident and found active bowel sounds, and would administer the Milk of Magnesia. Administrative Nurse E stated the resident usually had a bowel movement on shower days, but staff could not confirm the resident had a bowel movement for the past nine days. Interview, on 01/17/24 at 03:30 PM, with Consulting Staff GG, stated the facility followed the physician orders and standing orders for administering laxatives. The facility lacked a policy for administering laxatives. The facility failed to monitor this resident's bowel movements for constipation patterns and administer laxatives as ordered by the physician to ensure optimal bowel hygiene.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 46 residents which included 16 residents. The facility failed to maintain an effective infecti...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 46 residents which included 16 residents. The facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program to prevent cross contamination and the prevention infection related to urinary catheter care and services provided to one sampled Resident (R )9 with a urinary catheter/urine collection bag. Findings included: - Review of resident (R)9's undated Physician Orders, documentation included diagnoses of retention of urine, injury of a kidney unspecified, and the need for assistance with personal cares. The Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented the resident with the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating cognitively intact. She used an indwelling urinary catheter. The Urinary Incontinence/Indwelling Catheter Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 01/03/24, included the resident used an indwelling urinary catheter. The care plan for indwelling catheter, dated 12/04/23, directed the staff to position the catheter bag and tubing away from the entrance of the door. On 01/10/24 at 01:12 PM, the resident sat in her recliner. Her trash can, which was beside her recliner, had her urinary catheter bag hanging on the outside of the trash can with the urine collection bag in direct contact with the floor. On 01/10/24 at 01:12 PM Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) MM confirmed the above finding and stated the resident's catheter bags should be positioned off the floor to prevent cross contamination and prevent infection. On 01/17/24 at 10:13 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) I, stated the resident's catheter bags should be positioned off the floor to prevent cross contamination and prevent infection. On 01/17/24 at 12:49 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated the staff should position the resident's urinary catheter collection bag off the floor to prevent cross contamination and prevent infection. The facility lacked a policy regarding positioning a urine collection bags off the floor to prevent cross contamination and prevent infection. The facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program with the failure to ensure the resident's urinary catheter bag remained without direct contact with the floor to prevent cross contamination and infections.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of R2's Physician Orders, dated 12/13/23, included diagnoses of fractured thoracic (middle section of the spine) verteb...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of R2's Physician Orders, dated 12/13/23, included diagnoses of fractured thoracic (middle section of the spine) vertebra, repeated falls, dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), need for assistance with personal care, lack of coordination, cognitive communication deficit, unsteadiness of feet, urinary incontinence, peripheral neuropathy (weakness, numbness and pain from nerve damage, usually in the hands and feet), hypertension (high blood pressure), overactive bladder, and gait (manner or style of walking) and balance abnormalities. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of one, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The resident required substantial/maximal assistance of staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. She had no functional limitations in range of motion of the upper or lower extremities. She was always incontinent of bowel, occasionally incontinent of urine, and did not have a toileting program. She experienced two or more non-injury falls and one fall with major injury. The resident received Occupational Therapy (OT) for four days and Physical Therapy (PT) for four days of the look back period. The Discharge Return Anticipated MDS dated [DATE], documented the resident transferred to an acute care hospital on [DATE]. The Entry MDS dated [DATE], documented the resident returned to the facility on [DATE]. The Cognitive Loss/ Dementia, Communication, and Falls Care Area Assessments (CAA), dated 09/15/23, documented the resident lacked orientation with memory and recall deficits related to dementia, change in mental status, and short term/long term memory loss. She had a history of falls prior to admission, weakness, and physical performance limitations that affected balance, gait, strength, and muscle endurance. The Care Plan dated 12/22/23, included the following interventions: On 05/21/19, staff were to remind the resident to lock the brakes on the wheelchair before transfers. On 08/13/19, R2 experienced episodes of incontinence due to an overactive bladder if not toileted timely . (The care plan lacked any instruction staff on when to toilet the resident.) On 11/07/22, therapy was to screen, and staff would initiate a bladder diary to determine a toileting schedule. On 01/26/23, staff were to know the resident had a diagnosis of dementia and exhibited some restlessness and anxiety prior to a fall. R2 wandered into the wrong room and attempted to transfer to a bed unassisted. Nursing staff were to monitor the resident for behaviors every shift. If R2 was restless or anxious, staff were to report to the nurse to assess and treat. Staff would repeat urinalysis (UA). In addition, staff were to adjust the resident's bed height to a lower position for improved transfers. On 01/28/23, therapy assessed the resident's wheelchair, R2's positioning in the wheelchair, and therapy adjusted the wheelchair. Staff were to remind her to call for assistance for bathroom use. On 08/16/23, the facility asked R2's family to take Crocs (rubberized slip-on shoes) home. Staff were to encourage the resident to wear her tennis shoes. Staff would know the resident liked to wear her Crocs and remind her that they were not the safest footwear. Staff should remind the resident she cannot get up on her own and would know she may forget and may need reminders. On 09/19/23, nursing staff were to encourage the resident to utilize the grab bar in the shower room and ensure the wheelchair brakes locked before transferring the resident to the shower chair. On 09/20/23, R2 moved around the facility by self-propelling her wheelchair and would take assistance from staff if offered. The resident used bed rails to reposition and to get in and out of bed. The resident no longer used her walker for locomotion, but occasionally used the walker for transfers. The resident required two staff for transfers using a transfer belt and/or a mechanical lift as needed. Staff were to know the resident was forgetful and did not remember she needed assistance transferring. Staff were to keep pathways clear and decrease clutter to minimize the risk of falls. Staff were to keep the resident's wheelchair beside the bed. Staff were to ensure the resident wore secure footwear when out of bed. She sometimes lost her gripper socks and/or placed unsafe slippers over the gripper socks. Staff were to assist the resident in putting gripper socks back on. On 10/09/23, staff were to obtain a UA for the resident. On 11/14/23, staff were to lay R2 down after meals to prevent confusion and ensure safety. Review of the Progress Notes and Fall Investigation Reports revealed the following concerns related to falls experienced by R2: On 07/03/23 at 06:45 AM, the resident adjusted herself in the wheelchair and started to fall forward. Staff were able to catch the resident and assist her to the floor on her buttocks. The fall investigation report failed to identify causal factors to determine an immediate and appropriate intervention to prevent further falls. On 08/13/23 at 07:33AM, two unidentified residents reported R2 got up from her wheelchair and fell. The intervention was to have family take R2's Crocs home and utilize sneakers. On 08/15/23 at 01:30 PM, an unidentified CNA reported R2 had an unwitnessed fall from the toilet, resulting in a goose egg sized, raised area to the back of the resident's head. The documentation noted the casual factor of the fall as the resident was impulsive and sometimes confused and should not be left on the toilet by herself. She had uneven balance and did not have her walker at the time of the fall. The facility educated the unidentified CNA regarding the importance of staying with a dependent, cognitively impaired resident while the resident was on the toilet and to provide supervision, to prevent falls. On 09/16/23 at 08:10 PM, R2 reported she attempted to transfer from the sofa to the wheelchair and fell to the floor. The fall was not witnessed, and the resident was noted to have severe cognitive impairment. The investigation lacked a causal factor and immediate appropriate intervention to prevent further falls. The facility placed an intervention to provide the unidentified CNA education. On 09/19/23 at 09:05 PM, a n unidentified CNA reported they found R2 on the floor wearing a gown and socks. The resident reported she started to sit down, missed the chair, and landed on the floor. On 10/08/23 at 11:15 PM, staff found the resident sitting on the floor in front of the bathroom. The investigation report failed to provide an immediate intervention to prevent further falls. On 11/16/23 at 03:00 PM, the resident attempted to toilet herself and fell to the floor landing on her backside. She hit her head, causing a goose egg, which measured approximately two centimeters around, to the back of her head. The facility placed an intervention to prevent further falls, which included instructions to staff to remind the resident to use her call light for assistance for transfers and to ensure the resident used non-slip footwear. Review of the resident's care plan revealed both interventions were already implemented following previous falls. The Investigation Report, lacked a new immediate intervention to prevent further falls. The Progress Note dated 11/27/23 at 01:30 PM, revealed R2 was in her wheelchair when an unidentified C ertified Nursing Assistant (CNA) served the resident's meal at 01:00 PM and left the room. Approximately five minutes later, an unidentified CNA heard a crash and found the resident on the floor with the bedside table on top of her. The nurse assessed the resident and called 911 for transport to the emergency room (ER). The Progress notes dated 11/27/23 at 05:30 PM, documented the nurse received a call from the ER with a resident status update. She had fractures of thoracic spine. The Hospital Discharge Summary dated 11/30/23, documentation included the resident sustained a fracture of the 10th and 11th vertebra of the thoracic (bones of the spine (mid back) following a fall on 11/27/23 at the nursing facility. Review of the R2's Electronic Medical Record, (EMR) from 07/01/23 through 01/10/24, revealed the resident had a history of falls and experienced eight falls in the five months prior to the fall on 11/27/23 at 01:05 PM, which resulted in two fractured thoracic vertebrae. Observation on 01/10/24 at 11:03 AM, revealed the resident sat in the wheelchair in the commons area. She wore multicolored Crocs, with her feet on the pedals of the wheelchair. A brace was visible beneath her shirt, that covered her chest wall. On 01/11/24 at 09:30 AM, observed Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) P, CNA MM, and CNA NN transferred and provided toileting to R2. The staff transferred the resident to the toilet with a gait belt. R2 wore Crocs on her feet. The staff reported she wore her crocs all the time. On 01/11/24 at 09:30 AM, CNA P reported the resident was at risk for falls and had several falls. The resident used to walk, and the staff could walk her back and forth to the bathroom but stated R2 had not walked in almost a year. CNA P said when a resident fell, the nurse should put an immediate intervention in place to prevent further falls. CNA P said tthe new interventions should be added to the care plan, and staff have access to the care plan for directions on caring for the resident. On 01/17/24 at 10:13 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) I stated when a resident fell, the charge nurse should do an assessment, which included vital signs, range of motion, and a head-to-toe skin assessment. If the fall was not witnessed or the resident hit their head, staff should complete a neurological assessment. The nurse should notify the physician, the resident representative, and the Director of Nursing. The charge nurse should initiate an investigation at the time of the fall to determine the cause. An immediate new and appropriate intervention should be put in place and communicated to the staff. LN I stated a resident with dementia was not a reliable reporter for the cause of the fall and it would not be appropriate for a resident with dementia to use an intervention to remind the resident to use a call light. A resident that required assistance with transfers to the toilet and was cognitively impaired should not be left unattended in the bathroom. Staff should use the resident's care plan for guidance for fall interventions. New staff were not familiar with long term care and the system to put new appropriate interventions on the resident's care plan immediately to prevent further falls. On 01/17/24 at 01:15 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated on 11/27/23, R2 had an unwitnessed fall. The investigation revealed the probable cause was due to the resident reached for the wheeled end table and she fell. Administrative Nurse D stated the resident had a diagnosis of dementia and a history of multiple falls due to her poor impulse control where she would try to stand, transfer, and toilet herself without staff assistance. Staff had R2 transported to the hospital for an evaluation and R2 was admitted due to fractured vertebras. She was sent back to the facility with a brace to stabilize her fractured vertebrae. Staff removed the wheeled table from the resident's room and replaced it with a stationary table. The charge nurse should initiate a new immediate and appropriate fall intervention to prevent further falls. The resident's BIMS score should be 13 or higher for resident education to be an appropriate intervention. R2's interventions were not appropriate, and no new interventions were put in place to prevent further falls prior to the resident falling on 11/27/23, which resulted in fractures. The 02/2017 facility's policy for Clinical Care Systems Guidelines for Falls did not address initiating a new, immediate, and appropriate intervention based on causal factors of each fall experienced by a resident, in order to prevent further falls. The facility failed to iniate/implement, new immediate, appropriate interventions on the residents care plan to prevent further falls for cognitively impaired R2, who had multiple falls. The facility reported a census of 46 residents with 16 residents sampled. Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to review and revise the care plan for three sampled Residents (R)27 regarding revising the care plan to include an intervention following one fall, R 33 regarding revising the care plan to include staff instruction for verbalizations of suicidal tendencies, and R 2 regarding revising the care plan to include interventions following multiple falls. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)33 electronic medical record (EMR) included the following diagnoses: insomnia (the inability to sleep) and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, indicating moderately impaired cognition. He had verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others on one to three days of the assessment period with no impact on the resident or others. He received an antidepressant (medication used to treat depression) medication. The Behavioral Symptoms Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/11/23, documented the resident had physical and verbal abusive behaviors towards staff with risk factors which included injuring himself and others. The Quarterly MDS, dated 01/10/24, documented the resident had a BIMS score of 14, indicating intact cognition. Delusions (untrue persistent belief or perception held by a person although evidence shows it was untrue) were present. He had verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others, one to three days of the assessment period, with no impact to the resident or others. He received an antidepressant medication. The care plan, revised 01/02/24, lacked staff instruction for verbalizations of suicidal tendencies, identified on the 10/11/23 behavior CAA. Review of the EMR revealed the following physician's order: Celexa (an antidepressant medication), 10 milligrams (mg), by mouth (po), every day (QD), for depression, ordered 12/27/23. Review of the resident's EMR from 12/18/23 through 01/15/24, revealed the resident had multiple behaviors documented. Review of the resident's EMR on 12/27/23, revealed the resident requested for the staff to bring him a gun so he could shoot himself. Staff notified the resident's physician and an antidepressant medication was ordered on that date. The resident later told staff he had been frustrated and had no tendencies of suicide. On 01/16/24 at 01:52 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N stated the resident would make comments regarding wanting to kill himself. When the resident would say this, CNA N stated she would let the nurse know and she would talk with the resident until he felt better. On 01/17/24 at 09:22 AM, Administrative Nurse E stated the resident would make comments about wanting to kill himself, but he would then say that he was only expression frustration. He was started on an antidepressant medication. Administrative Nurse E confirmed staff instruction for the resident's suicidal tendencies should be care planned. The facility policy for Care Plans, effective October 2023, included: Care plans will be developed for all residents based upon the RAI manual guidelines. Care plans are developed by the interdisciplinary team and revised as needed according to resident status or change. The facility failed to include preventative care plan interventions regarding this dependent resident's suicidal tendencies. - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 01/02/24, for Resident (R)27, documented a diagnosis of weakness. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of two, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers and extensive assistance of one staff for locomotion on the unit with the use of a wheelchair. He had no limitations in his range of motion (ROM) and no falls since the prior assessment. The Falls Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 08/02/23, documented the resident had a history of falls due to weakness and had impaired gait and mobility which required him to have staff assistance with transfers. The Quarterly MDS, dated 11/01/23, documented the resident had a BIMS score of five, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers and extensive assistance of one staff for locomotion on the unit with the use of a wheelchair and had no limitation in his ROM. He had one fall with injury (except major) since his prior assessment. The falls care plan, revised 01/08/24, instructed staff that the resident would forget he was unable to stand on his own, creating possible safety risks. Staff were to help remind him of safety issues. He had anti-tip brakes applied to his wheelchair to prevent the wheelchair from rolling backwards if he did attempt to stand up on his own. Staff were to keep the resident in the front commons area between meals. The resident received physical therapy (PT) following a prior fall. The care plan lacked staff instruction on obtaining a UA for this resident following his fall on 12/23/23. Review of the resident's EMR revealed Fall Assessments which placed the resident at a high risk for falls, dated: 06/11/23, 09/11/23 and 10/30/23. Review of a Fall Report, dated 12/23/23 and provided by the facility, revealed the resident had a witnessed fall on 12/23/23 in the front commons room when he attempted to stand up from his wheelchair, took a couple of steps and fell to the floor, landing on his right side. The resident had a decrease in his ROM on his right upper extremity and was transported to the ER for evaluation, where it was found he had a re-fracture of his right clavicle (collar bone). Staff were following all fall interventions at the time of the fall. The new intervention for the fall was to obtain a urine sample for a urinalysis (UA-lab analysis of urine) to check for a urinary tract infection (UTI-an infection in any part of the urinary system). Review of the resident's EMR lacked a lab result for the UA which had been ordered on 12/23/23. On 01/17/24 at 01:15 PM, Administrative Nurse E stated all new fall interventions are to be added to the care plan at the time they are initiated. The facility policy for Care Plans, effective October 2023, included: Care plans will be developed for all residents based upon the RAI manual guidelines. Care plans are developed by the interdisciplinary team and revised as needed according to resident status or change. The facility failed to review and revise the care plan for this dependent resident who experienced a fall to prevent further falls.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of Resident (R)2's Physician Orders, dated 12/13/23 included diagnoses of fractured vertebrae (Fx-broken bones of the b...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of Resident (R)2's Physician Orders, dated 12/13/23 included diagnoses of fractured vertebrae (Fx-broken bones of the back) repeated falls, dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), iron deficient anemia, congestive heart failure (fluid around the heart which impairs the heart's ability to pump), traumatic subdural hemorrhage (bleeding of the brain) without loss of consciousness, lack of coordination, cognitive communication deficit, unsteadiness of feet, major depression disorder (major mood disorder which causes persistent feelings pf sadness), edema (swelling resulting from an excessive accumulation of fluid in the body tissues , psychotic mood disorder(any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality perception), constipation, pain, peripheral neuropathy (weakness, numbness and pain from nerve damage, usually in the hands and feet), hypertension, hypothyroidism, obstructive apnea, overactive bladder, asthma (disorder of narrowed airways that caused wheezing and shortness of breath), diabetes mellitus (DM-when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin), gait and balance abnormalities, and history of falling. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 01, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident received medications which included insulin injections for six days of the look back period. She had six insulin order changes during the look back period. The staff reported the resident demonstrated indicators of pain on one to two days of the look back period. The Quarterly MDS, dated 12/07/23, documented changes which included the resident received medication antianxiety, antidepressant, anticoagulants and opioid, antiplatelets for seven days of the look back period. She reported frequent pain that did not interfere with her sleep. The resident was not able to rate her level of pain. She received prn (as needed) pain medication. The Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA) and Psychosocial Wellbeing CAA, dated 09/15/23, documented the resident had orientation, memory, and recall deficits. It included factors with dementia, change in mental status, and short term/long term memory loss. The Care Plan dated 12/23/23 directed staff to administer medications as ordered. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. Review of the pharmacist's Monthly Medication Regimen Review, (MMRR) dated 06/17/23 through 12/04/23, revealed the following concerns: 1. (MMRR) dated 07/18/23, for discontinuation of Singular was not followed-up by the physician or the facility until 08/31/23 (31 days) after the recommendation was made. The physician discontinued the medication. 2. (MMRR) dated 08/2023 identified the facility lack of follow-up to the Pharmacy Medication Regimen Review, dated 07/18/23. 3. The resident lacked a (MMRR) for 09/2023. 4. The resident lacked a (MMRR) for 10/2023. On 01/17/24 at 07:57 AM, Administrative Nurse E confirmed the above findings and stated the pharmacist should review the resident's medication regimen monthly and report any irregularities such as side effects medication interactions and gradual dose reductions. The pharmacist's recommendations should be acted upon in a timely manner within 10 days of receiving the recommendations. On 01/17/24 at 02:30 PM, the pharmacist was not available for interview. The facility policy for Medication Regimen Review, effective 11/28/16, included: The facility shall provide the resident's attending physician, Medical Director, and the Director of Nursing Services with copies of the Medication Regimen Review. The facility shall encourage the physician to act upon the recommendations in a timely manner. The facility failed to act upon the identified irregularities by the consulting pharmacist on 07/18/23 in a timely manner. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure the resident received a MMRR by the pharmacist as required to monitor for any medication irregularities. - Review of Resident (R)29's Physician Orders, dated 12/13/23 included diagnoses cirrhosis (chronic degenerative disease of the liver), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD-backflow of stomach contents to the esophagus), urinary tract infection, arthritis (inflammation of a joint characterized by pain, swelling, redness and limitation of movement), cerebrovascular accident (CVA/stroke- sudden death of brain cells due to lack of oxygen caused by impaired blood flow to the brain by blockage or rupture of an artery to the brain), hemiplegia(paralysis of one side of the body)/hemiparesis(muscular weakness of one half of the body), and anxiety disorder (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty and irrational fear). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating cognitive intact. The resident received medications which included prn (as needed) pain medication during the look back period. The Quarterly MDS, dated 11/15/23, documented changes which included the resident received medication of antianxiety, antidepressant, diuretics, and antiplatelets during the look back period. She reported frequent pain that did not interfere with her sleep. The resident was not able to rate her level of pain. She received prn pain medication. She reported occasional pain rated at 02/10. The Care Plan dated 11/15/23, directed staff to administer medications as ordered. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness of the resident's medications. Review of the pharmacist's Monthly Medication Regimen Review, (MMRR) dated 06/17/23 through 12/04/23, revealed the following concerns: 1. The resident lacked a (MMRR) for 09/2023. 2. The resident lacked a (MMRR) for 10/2023. On 01/17/24 at 07:57 AM, Administrative Nurse E confirmed the above findings and stated the pharmacist should review the resident's medication regimen monthly and report any irregularities such as side effects medication interactions and gradual dose reductions. The pharmacist's recommendations should be acted upon in a timely manner within 10 days of receiving the recommendations. On 01/17/24 at 02:30 PM, the pharmacist was not available for interview. The facility policy for Medication Regimen Review, effective 11/28/16, included: The facility shall provide the resident's attending physician, Medical Director, and the Director of Nursing Services with copies of the Medication Regimen Review. The facility shall encourage the physician to act upon the recommendations in a timely manner. The facility failed to ensure the resident received a MMRR by the pharmacist as required to monitor for any medication irregularities. - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 01/02/24, for Resident (R)27, documented the following diagnoses: major depressive disorder (MDD-major mood disorder which causes persistent feelings pf sadness), hypothyroidism (condition characterized by decreased activity of the thyroid gland) and hypertension (HTN-elevated blood pressure). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of two, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident received an antidepressant (medication to treat depression), an anticoagulant (a medication which thins the blood) and an opioid (medications used to treat pain) seven out of seven days of the look back assessment period. The Psychotropic Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 08/02/23, documented the resident received psychotropic medications to manage his psychiatric conditions. A pharmacist consultant would review his medications monthly and make needed recommendations. The Quarterly MDS, dated 11/01/23, documented the resident had a BIMS score of five, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He received antidepressant, anticoagulant and opioid medications during the lookback assessment period. The care plan for medications with Black Box Warnings (BBW- highest safety-related warning that medications can have assigned by the Food and Drug Administration), revised 01/08/24, instructed staff the resident took medications with BBWs and to monitor for side effects of the medications. Review of the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the following physician's orders: Tramadol (an opioid pain medication) 50 milligrams (mg), by mouth (po) every (Q) eight hours, for pain, ordered 03/07/23. Eliquis (an anticoagulant medication) 2.5 mg, po twice daily (BID), for deep vein thrombosis (DVT - potentially life-threatening blood clot, usually in the legs), ordered 02/25/23. Lexapro (an antidepressant medication) 10 mg, po BID, for depression, ordered 02/24/23. Review of the resident's EMR revealed it lacked a pharmacy consultant review for the months of September and October 2023. On 01/17/24 at 12:54 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated she did not know what the prior director of nursings (DON) system was for the pharmacy consultant recommendations so not all the recommendations from June 2023 to present could be found. The facility policy for Medication Regimen Review, effective 11/28/16, included: The facility shall provide the resident's attending physician, Medical Director and the Director of Nursing Services with copies of the Medication Regimen Review. The facility shall encourage the physician to act upon the recommendations in a timely manner. The facility failed to follow up with pharmacy recommendations to ensure this resident did not experience adverse effects of medications. The facility reported a census of 46 residents with 16 selected for review which included five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow up on pharmacy recommendations in a timely manner for two Residents (R)2 and R29, of the five sampled residents, and failed to ensure pharmacy reviews for October 2023 and November 2023 for the five sampled residents R15, R23, R2, R29 and R27 . Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)23's electronic medical record (EMR), revealed diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure), diabetes (when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin), pain hypothyroidism (condition characterized by decreased activity of the thyroid gland), dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The resident received scheduled pain medications. The resident received antipsychotics (class of medications used to treat major mental conditions which cause a break from reality) on a routine basis and received diuretic (medication to promote the formation and excretion of urine), antidepressant (class of medications used to treat mood disorders), and opioid (narcotic) medications. The Psychotropic (a medication used to alter mood or thought) Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 12/08/23, assessed the resident received psychotropic medications. The Care Plan reviewed 11/27/23, instructed staff to monitor, document and report any adverse reactions to psychotropic medications and to consult with the pharmacy and the medical doctor to consider dose reduction. On 10/05/21 the physician instructed staff to administer Milk of Magnesia, 30 milliliters, every 24 hours as needed for constipation (difficulty passing stools) On 08/10/23 the physician instructed staff to administer Abilify (an antipsychotic medication 2 milligrams (mg) daily for dementia with behaviors. On 12/19/23 the physician instructed staff to administer mirtazapine 7.5 milligrams at night for insomnia (inability to sleep). On 01/03/24 the physician instructed staff to administer levothyroxine, 125 micrograms, every morning for hypothyroidism. On 01/09/24, the physician instructed staff to administer Metformin, 500 milligrams twice a day for diabetes. Review of the resident's EMR revealed it lacked a pharmacy consultant review for the months of September and October 2023. Interview, on 01/16/24 at 01:20 PM, with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M, revealed the resident had several falls that caused the bruise on her face. On 01/17/24 at 12:54 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated she did not know what the prior director of nursing (DON) system was for the pharmacy consultant recommendations so not all the recommendations from June 2023 to present could be found. The facility policy for Medication Regimen Review, effective 11/28/16, included: The facility shall provide the resident's attending physician, Medical Director, and the Director of Nursing Services with copies of the Medication Regimen Review. The facility shall encourage the physician to act upon the recommendations in a timely manner. The facility failed to follow-up on pharmacy recommendations to ensure this resident did not experience adverse effects of medications. - Review of Resident (R)15's Physician Order Sheet dated 12/13/23, revealed diagnoses included Alzheimer's (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure) and osteoporosis (abnormal loss of bone density and deterioration of bone tissue with an increased fracture risk). . The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with severely impaired decision making. The resident was rarely/never understood. The resident received antipsychotic (class of medications used to treat major mental conditions which cause a break from reality), antianxiety (a class of medications that calm and relax people), and antidepressant (class of medications used to treat mood disorders) medications. The resident received antipsychotics on a routine basis. The Psychotropic (a medication that alters mood or thought) Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 10/27/23, triggered secondary to use of psychotropic med to manage psychiatric illness/condition. A licensed nurse monitors for side effects every shift, and the physician was to be notified of any abnormal findings. A pharmacist consultant will review medications monthly and the PCP (Primary Care Physician) will review medications with each visit. Contributing factors include current history of depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest)/psychosis (any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment perception)/insomnia (inability to sleep). The Cognitive Loss CAA, dated 10/27/23, assessed the resident was unable to always make her needs known. Staff assist the resident with all cares. The Care Plan reviewed 11/02/23, instructed staff to monitor for bowel movement each shift and offer the as needed (PRN) laxative for constipation and monitor for effectiveness when given. On 11/20/20, the physician instructed staff to administer bupropion hydrochloride, 150 mg, every 12 hours daily for depression. On 03/03/22, the physician instructed staff to administer Milk of Magnesia Suspension (a laxative), 30 milliliters, every 24 hours as needed for constipation per standing order. On 03/24/23 the physician instructed staff to administer ibuprofen, 200 mg, two, tablets, every six hours, for dental pain. On 10/31/23 the physician instructed staff to administer olanzapine 2.5 mg, every other day for dementia with behaviors. On 12/28/23 the physician instructed staff to administer lorazepam 0.5 milligrams (mg) three times a day for anxiety (class of medications that calm and relax people). Review of the resident's EMR lacked a pharmacy consultant review for the months of September and October 2023. On 01/17/24 at 12:54 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated she did not know what the prior director of nursing (DON) system was for the pharmacy consultant recommendations so not all the recommendations from June 2023 to present could be found. The facility policy for Medication Regimen Review, effective 11/28/16, included: The facility shall provide the resident's attending physician, Medical Director, and the Director of Nursing Services with copies of the Medication Regimen Review. The facility shall encourage the physician to act upon the recommendations in a timely manner. The facility failed to follow-up on pharmacy recommendations to ensure this resident did not experience adverse effects of medications.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility reported a census of 46 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to prepare and serve food under sanitary conditions, to the residents of the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 46 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to prepare and serve food under sanitary conditions, to the residents of the facility appropriately to prevent the potential for food borne bacteria. Findings included: - During an initial tour of the kitchen on 01/11/24 at 08:01 AM, the following areas of concern were noted. 1. The stationary can opener had a build-up of dried on food substance on the cutting tip of the opener. 2. Six cutting boards were heavily grooved making the surfaces unsanitizable. 3. The inside of the microwave had dried on food on the top, sides and bottom. 4. A plastic container holding the roll of clear food wrap had a build-up of food substances and dust. 5. The two-door reach-in refrigerator had spilled, dried chocolate milk in several places on the inside. 6. The ice machine vents had a heavy build-up of dust. On 01/16/24 at 03:49 PM, Dietary staff BB confirmed the above areas needed to be cleaned. The facility policy for Kitchen Cleanliness, undated, documented the Certified Dietary Manager would oversee ensuring the kitchen was always kept clean. The facility failed to prepare and serve food to the resident sof the facility under sanitary conditions to the residents of the facility appropriately to prevent the potential for food borne bacteria.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility reported a census of 46 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to electronically submit to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, (CMS) complete and acc...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 46 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to electronically submit to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, (CMS) complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specifications established by CMS {i.e., Payroll Base Journal (PBJ)}, related to licensed nursing staff coverage 24 hours a day. Findings included: - Review of the Payroll Base Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report for the third quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2023, (04/01/23-06/30/23), revealed the lack of a License Nurse (LN) for 24 hours/seven days a week (24/7) on 04/01 Saturday (SA); 04/09 Sunday (SU); 04/15 (SA); 04/29 (SA); 04/30 (SU); 05/13 (SA); 05/14 (SU); 05/20 (SA); 05/27 (SA); 05/28 (SU); 06/04 (SU); 06/18 (SU); 06/24 (SA); and 06/25 (SU). Review of the facility's time sheets for licensed nursing staff on the above dates, revealed the facility had the required licensed nursing staff 24 hours each day, as required. However, the facility reported inaccurate staffing data, as required, on seven days of the above quarter. Review of the Payroll Base Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report for fiscal year (FY) 2023, for the fourth quarter of 2023, (07/01/23-09/30/23), revealed the lack of a License Nurse (LN) for 24 hours/seven days a week 24/7) on 07/02 (SU); 07/08 (SA); 07/15 (SA); 07/29 (SA); 08/12 (SA); 08/19 (SA); 08/27 (SU); 09/02 (SA); and 09/03 (SU). Review of the facility's time sheets for licensed nursing staff on the above dates revealed the facility had the required licensed nursing staff 24 hours each day, as required. However, the facility reported inaccurate staffing data, as required, on these 9 days of the above quarter. On 01/16/24 at 02:58 PM, Administrative Staff A confirmed the facility PBJ reporting to Centers for Medicare Services CMS lacked accurate data to reflect direct care provided by administrative nursing staff (RN) when providing direct care. He stated the facility did have 24-hours of a LN on duty each day. The above dates on the PBJ which did not reflect LN staffing was not accurate. Further explanation revealed the facility corporate pulled data from the time clock and should notify the facility of irregularities such as if the shift is covered by the Director of Nursing Services DNS (census less than 60). The facility lacked a policy to address the submission of accurate PBJ staffing report to CMS. The facility failed to electronically submit to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, (CMS) complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specifications established by CMS {i.e., Payroll Base Journal (PBJ)}, related to licensed nursing staff 24/7.
Mar 2022 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 47 residents with 13 sampled, including two for hospitalization. Based on observation, intervi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 47 residents with 13 sampled, including two for hospitalization. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to send a copy of the facility-initiated hospitalization transfer/discharge notice to the representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for Resident (R) 47. Findings Include: - Review of R47's Minimum Data Set (MDS) tracking form documented the resident discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R47's Medical Record lacked evidence of written notification of the facility-initiated hospitalization transfer/discharge to R47's Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. On 03/07/22 at 04:09 PM R47 sat in his room in his recliner with his legs elevated, his walker next to his chair and all needed items within reach. On 03/08/22 at 11:35 AM Administrative Staff A confirmed the facility must notify the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman at the time of discharge to the hospital. On 03/08/22 at 03:12 PM Administrative Nurse B confirmed that the Ombudsman should be notified, but they missed the notification because she and her Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) were covering for the Social Services Designee (SSD) and Minimal Data Set Coordinator (MDS) positions. On 03/09/22 at 09:30 AM SSD C confirmed she did not send a notice to the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman when a resident discharged to the hospital. The facility failed to send a copy of the notice of facility-initiated hospitalization transfer/discharge to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman when R47 transferred to the hospital.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 47 residents with 13 sampled, which included two for hospitalization. Based on observation, in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 47 residents with 13 sampled, which included two for hospitalization. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a copy of the facility bed hold policy to Residents (R) 47 and R34 or their representative when they transferred out of the facility to the hospital. Findings Included: - Review of R47's Minimum Data Set (MDS) tracking form documented the resident discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R47's Medical Record lacked evidence of written notification of the facility-initiated transfer to the hospital, which included a bed hold given to R47 or his representative. On 03/07/22 at 02:09 PM R47 ambulated with his walker to the bathroom with staff assistance. On 03/08/22 at 03:12 PM Administrative Nurse B stated the facility went over the bed-hold policy on admission, but they would not send a policy with a resident when they went to the hospital. On 03/09/22 at 11:29 AM Licensed Nurse (LN) F stated she did not send a bed-hold policy with the residents when they discharged to the hospital. On 03/09/22 at 12:26 PM Social Service Designee (SSD C stated she had not covered bed hold policy yet and that she was unsure who would do that, or when. The Bed-Hold Policy revised 11/01/16 documented before the center transferred a resident to a hospital the center would provide the resident or his resident representative the bed hold policy. The facility failed to provide a copy of the facility bed hold policy to R47 or his representative, when he transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. - The Nurses Notes for R34 indicated the resident left the faciity on [DATE] at 05:20 AM for a heart catheterization. On 03/02/22 at 09:10 PM the nursing staff were informed the resident would be in the hospital until the weekend due to having stents placed in her heart. R34 did not return to the facility until 03/08/22 at 05:08 PM. The Nurses Notes from 03/01/22-03/08/22 lacked documentation the resident or residents representative received notification of the bed hold policy within 24 hours after R34 admitted to the hospital. Interview with Administrative Staff C on 03/09/22 at 12:26 PM indicated the facility had not completed training involving the bed hold policy and they did know know who would be responsible. The Bed Hold Policy dated 11/01/16 indicated the facility will hold a resident's bed during a temporary hospitalization or therapeutic leave allow the resident to return to the facility subject to the terms of this bed hold policy. The facility failed to provide R34 and or the resident's representative with the facility's bed hold policy within 24 hours after admission to the hospital.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 47 residents, with 13 in the sample, and Resident (R) 18 reviewed for Preadmission Screening a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 47 residents, with 13 in the sample, and Resident (R) 18 reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR). Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to obtain a Care Assessment Screening for R18 upon admission. Findings include: - R18's Physician Order Sheet dated 01/29/21 documented the following diagnoses: dementia with behavioral disturbance (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), major depressive disorder (abnormal emotional state characterized by exaggerated feelings of sadness, worthlessness, emptiness and hopelessness), and post-traumatic stress disorder (psychiatric disorder characterized by an acute emotional response to a traumatic event or situation involving severe environmental stress, such as natural disaster, military combat, serious automobile accident, airplane crash or physical torture). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 which indicated moderately impaired cognition and no behaviors exhibited. The Annual MDS dated 01/06/22 documented R18 could not complete the BIMS assessment, staff assessed cognition and noted to short/long term memory problems. R18 could not recall staff names and faces, current season, or location of his room. R18's cognitive skills for daily decision making were moderately impaired. The Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 01/06/22 documented R18 had a diagnosis of dementia and his cognition fluctuated at times. The Behavioral Symptoms CAA documented due to his dementia the resident resisted care. The Care Plan dated 02/11/21 indicated R18 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to Alzheimer's disease (aggressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) impaired memory, and loss of independence. The staff should monitor/document/report any changes in cognitive function specifically changes in decision making ability, memory recall, and general awareness. The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) lacked documentation of a completed PASARR upon admission for R18. Observation on 03/08/22 at 01:05 PM revealed the resident sat in his wheel chair as an unidentified staff member propelled him to his room. R18 exhibited no negative behaviors. Interview with Administrative Staff A on 03/07/22 at 01:48 PM verified R18's EMR lacked documentation of a completed PASARR and stated it was not done when he admitted . Interview with Administrative Staff C on 03/09/22 at 08:53 AM confirmed the PASARR was not competed on this resident when admitted on [DATE]. The undated PASARR Requirements policy stated the health management coordinator would obtain a complete record, all residents must have the a pre-admission screening prior to or immediately upon admission. The PASARR should be completed to determine provision of appropriate and needed service to individuals who have been diagnosed with mental illness/mental retardation (MI/MR). The facility failed to obtain a Care Assessment assessment screening PASARR for R18 upon admission.
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 reported a census of 47 residents with 13 selected for review, which included one resident reviewed for discharge. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 47 residents with 13 selected for review, which included one resident reviewed for discharge. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to document a recapitulation of the resident's stay upon discharge for Resident (R) 52. Findings included: - Review of the R52's Physicians Order Sheet dated 01/06/22 revealed diagnoses of muscle weakness and post covid condition (persistent symptoms experienced after a covid infection). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 indicating intact cognition. The resident required limited assistance of two staff for activities of daily living (ADL). The Activities of Daily Living Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 01/12/22 indicated the resident required assistance in ADL due to impaired balance and transition during transfers, and functional impairment in activity. The Nurse's Notes dated 01/25/22 documented the resident discharged from the facility at 01:03 PM with a list of medications. No other information provided to R52. The Nurse's Notes from 01/25/22 lacked evidence of a recapitulation of stay or discharge summary given to R52 upon discharge. Interview on 03/09/22 at 01:10 PM with Administrative Nurse B confirmed the staff did not compete a discharge summary. Interview on 03/09/22 at 02:30 PM with Administrative Staff C confirmed all departments have a section to fill out on the discharge summary. The undated facility policy titled Discharge Summary Requirements included staff were to provide a summary of patient service provided during a length of stay, and to include applicable continuum of care instruction to the patient and/or next care provider. The facility failed to document a discharge summary including a recapitulation of this resident's stay at the facility, upon discharge of R52.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility census totaled 47 residents with all residents receiving meals from one main kitchen. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to prepare and serve food in a...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility census totaled 47 residents with all residents receiving meals from one main kitchen. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to prepare and serve food in a sanitary manner by the failure to change gloves when handling ready to eat food items and the failure to maintain clean cooking equipment that worked properly to prepare meals. Findings included: - On 03/09/22 at 11:20 AM observation of the facility kitchen revealed a large pan with sweet potato soufflé and a pan of pumpkin bars baking in the upright oven. Several checks of the food items in the oven by Dietary Staff E revealed the food was not done cooking. At 12:00 PM Dietary Staff E removed the pan of pumpkin bars from the oven though they could not be served due to not setting up or baked fully, and the staff served an alternate of ice cream. At 12:10 PM Dietary Staff E removed the sweet potator souffle from the oven. The middle of the soufflé was not set up. The soufflé had a temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheith (F), but the center was runny. Dietary Staff E just stirred it all together and served it for the lunch meal. On 03/09/22 at 12:10 PM Dietary Staff E reported sometimes the oven worked fine and other times it won't cook the food. She stated she had it turned up to 500 degrees F and still it was not cooking the food. On 03/09/22 at 12:20 PM Dietary Staff D reported maintenance had looked at the oven and the corporation knew of the oven not working properly. Dietary Staff D hoped the oven would be replaced sometime soon. The undated facility policy titled Equipment revealed all food service equipment would be clean, sanitary, and in proper working condition. The facility failed to have cooking equipment in good, working condition when preparing food for the lunch meal. - Observation on 03/09/22 at 12:20 PM revealed Dietary Staff (DS) E made sandwiches. Dietary Staff E put clean gloves on and reached into a bag of bread to make one sandwich. She then used tongs for the meat and cheese. While wearing the same gloves, DS E took the sandwich plate to the serving line, put a food item on the plate, and handed it off to be served. DS E then handled several meal tickets. Aftewards and while wearing the same gloves, DS E reached into the bread bag and retrieved two pieces of bread for the second sandwich, and used tongs for the meat and cheese. Dietary Staff E wore the same pair of gloves throughout the observation of making both sandwiches. On 03/09/22 at 12:35 PM DS E reported she thought she used tongs to make the sandwiches. When reminded she wore gloves to handle the bread, she agreed she wore the same gloves without changing the gloves to handle the bread for making both sandwiches. On 03/09/22 at 12:40 PM CDM D reported she would do an education session with DS E on gloving and food handling. The facility's 11/01/17 policy Dietary Sanitary Practices revealed dietary staff would use utensils or wear disposable gloves to handle food. The facility failed to prepare and serve food in a sanitary manner when dietary staff did not change gloves between the handling of ready to eat food items. - Observation on 03/09/22 at 12:30 PM of the upright oven, being used for the noon meal, had thick burned debris in the oven with burned spilled food in the bottom of the oven. The oven also observed with thick, black, burnt buildup of food on the grates. The Kitchen Cleaning Schedule for January, February, and March of 2022 revealed the place to initial for cleaning of the oven was blank on all three months of the schedule. On 03/09/22 at 12:30 PM Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) D reviewed the cleaning schedules and agreed the oven was dirty and based on the schedules it had not been cleaned in at least three months. The undated facility policy titled Equipment revealed all food service equipment would be clean, sanitary, and in proper working condition. The facility failed to have the kitchen upright over in clean, sanitary condition.
Mar 2020 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 49 residents with 13 sampled including one for PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Rev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 49 residents with 13 sampled including one for PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review). Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow the recommendations of the Level II PASRR for Resident (R) 15 which recommended instruction and education on R15's medication administrations. Findings included: - Review of R15's Physician Order Sheet dated 01/21/20 documented the following diagnoses: major depressive disorder (causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily functioning), major mood disorder, bipolar (major mental illness that caused people to have episodes of severe high and low moods), anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty and irrational fear), persistent mood disorder (lose interest in normal daily activities, feel hopeless, lack productivity, and have low self-esteem and an overall feeling of inadequacy), and nightmare disorder (which often portray the individual in a situation that jeopardizes their life or personal safety). Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented R15 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS noted R15's diagnoses included anxiety, depression, bipolar, and persistent mood disorder. The resident received antianxiety and antidepressant medications daily during the seven day look back period. Review of the Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 12/26/19 documented staff were to monitor, document, and report as needed any changes in cognitive function, specifically changes in: the residents decision making ability, memory, recall and general awareness, difficulty expressing herself, difficulty understanding others, level of consciousness, or mental status. The staff would cue, reorient, and supervise the resident as needed. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) function/Rehabilitation Potential CAA dated 12/26/19 documented the nursing staff were to continue to assist the resident with ADLs and allow the resident to do what she could for herself. Review of the Care Plan dated 02/19/20 documented R15 required extensive assistance of one to two staff with all ADL's. The staff were to administer her medications as ordered. The care plan lacked any mention of training on medication administration or side effects. Review of R15's PASRR determination letter dated 11/15/18 documented the facility were to educate the resident on her medication regimen, the need for each medication, the impact it had on her health and mental health, and the impact that occurred when it was not taken as prescribed. Observation on 03/03/20 at 08:26 AM revealed Certified Medication Aide (CMA) M administered R15's medication with no instruction or education to R15 regarding the administered medications. On 03/03/20 at 08:31 AM CNA N revealed she had no knowledge of any training needed for the resident. On 03/03/20 at 11:02 AM CMA M stated she did not teach the resident about medications and said most of the time R15 just took them without asking any questions. On 03/04/20 at 08:47 AM Licensed Nurse (LN) H stated she did nothing with PASRRs. She stated she saw them in some of the resident's charts but never had anything to do with obtaining them. On 03/04/20 at 08:49 AM Social Services staff X confirmed the facility had not initiated the recommendations from the above mentioned PASRR letter. On 03/04/20 at 08:53 AM Administrative Staff A confirmed the facility missed implementing the recommendations from the above mentioned PASRR letter. Administrative Staff A stated he expected the facility to address the recommendations of each PASRR letter. The facilities undated PASRR requirements policy documented the PASRR was completed to determine provision of appropriate and needed services to individuals who have been diagnosed with MI/MR (Mental Illness, any of various disorders characterized by impairment of an individual's thoughts, emotions, or social functioning, including schizophrenia and mood disorders such as bipolar disorder / Mental Retardation, general learning or developmental disability) .each center should follow the PASRR and Level II state specific requirements. The facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from the PASRR level II determination letter into R15's care plan to include education on medication administration and side effects of those medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 49 residents with 13 sampled including one for PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Rev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 49 residents with 13 sampled including one for PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review). Based on interview and record review the facility failed to renew in a timely manner the PASRR determination letter for Resident (R) 15. Findings included: - Review of R15's Physician Order Sheet dated 01/21/20 documented the following diagnoses: major depressive disorder (causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily functioning), major mood disorder, bipolar (major mental illness that caused people to have episodes of severe high and low moods), anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty and irrational fear), persistent mood disorder (lose interest in normal daily activities, feel hopeless, lack productivity, and have low self-esteem and an overall feeling of inadequacy), and nightmare disorder (which often portray the individual in a situation that jeopardizes their life or personal safety). Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented R15 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS noted R15's diagnoses included anxiety, depression, bipolar, and persistent mood disorder. The resident received antianxiety and antidepressant medications daily during the seven day look back period. Review of R15's PASRR determination letter dated 11/15/18 documented it had been determined that you would benefit from a temporary stay of 12 months in order to better meet your care needs. Should you get to the end of your temporary stay period and it appears you will need more time, another assessment will be needed. Your nursing facility must contact KDADS (Kansas Department for Aging and Disabilities) care manager.The assessment and this letter are valid for 12 months from the date of this letter. On 03/04/20 at 08:48 AM Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated she did nothing with PASRRs. On 03/04/20 at 08:49 AM Social Services staff X confirmed the facility had not renewed the above mentioned PASRR letter. She stated she currently had no way of tracking the renewals but would put one in place. On 03/04/20 at 08:53 AM Administrative Staff A stated he expected the facility to address the recommendations of each PASRR letter. The facilities undated PASRR Requirements policy documented the PASRR was completed to determine provision of appropriate and needed services to individuals who have been diagnosed with MI/MR (Mental Illness, any of various disorders characterized by impairment of an individual's thoughts, emotions, or social functioning, including schizophrenia and mood disorders such as bipolar disorder / Mental Retardation, general learning or developmental disability) .each center should follow PASRR and level II state specific requirements. The facility failed to renew the PASRR level II determination letter for R15 in a timely manner as directed in the letter.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0646 (Tag F0646)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility reported a census of 49 residents with 13 sampled including one for PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review). Based on interview and record review the facility failed to inform...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 49 residents with 13 sampled including one for PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review). Based on interview and record review the facility failed to inform the state mental health authority in a timely manner of Resident (R)15's significant change on 12/26/19. Findings included: - Review of R15's medical record from November 2019 through March 2020 revealed a lack of notification to the state mental health authority regarding R15's significant change of 12/26/19. Review of the PASRR Determination Letter for R15 dated 11/15,2018, indicating the resident had appropriate diagnoses to require level II evaluation. On 03/04/20 at 08:49 AM Social Services staff X stated she did not know of the need to inform anyone of the significant changes in the residents. On 03/04/20 at 08:53 AM Administrative Staff A stated he expected the facility to follow the guidelines regarding notifications and PASRR. The facilities undated PASRR Requirements policy documented the PASRR was completed to determine provision of appropriate and needed services to individuals who have been diagnosed with MI/MR (Mental Illness, any of various disorders characterized by impairment of an individual's thoughts, emotions, or social functioning, including schizophrenia and mood disorders such as bipolar disorder / Mental Retardation, general learning or developmental disability) .each center should follow PASRR and level II state specific requirements. The facility failed to notify the state mental health authority promptly after R15's significant change on 12/26/19.
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 census totaled 49 residents with 13 included in the sample. Based on observation, interview, and record review the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility census totaled 49 residents with 13 included in the sample. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to revise the care plan for Resident (R)29 related to the use of Eliquis (anticoagulant medication) to include monitoring for bruising. Findings included: - Review of the Inpatient Discharge Instructions from the local Medical Center dated 01/22/20 revealed R29 had the following diagnosis: atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heartbeat.) Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. R29 was independent with all activities of daily living and did not receive an anticoagulant. Review of the Medicare five-day MDS dated 01/20/20 revealed a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. R29 was independent with all activities of daily living and received an anticoagulant medication daily during the lookback period. The Care Plan lacked instruction to staff for R29's anticoagulant use and possibility of R29 bruising easily, higher risk of bleeding, and no interventions to prevent bruising were in place. Review of the Eliquis Medication Guide as found on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website (www.fda.gov) revealed, while taking ELIQUIS: 1) you may bruise more easily. 2) it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. Review of the physician orders revealed the following orders: 1) An order dated 01/24/20 to: Monitor for signs and symptoms of bleeding related to anticoagulant use, every evening shift. 2) An order dated 01/22/20 for: Eliquis (anticoagulant medication) 5 milligrams (mg), give one tablet by mouth two times a day for atrial fibrillation. 3) An order dated 01/22/20 for: Weekly skin assessments, every evening shift, every Monday for skin assessment. 4) An order dated 01/23/20 for: Aspirin 81 mg, give one tablet by mouth one time a day for atrial fibrillation. 5) An order dated 01/22/20 for: Weekly skin review. Review of the January 2020 Electronic Treatment Administration Record (ETAR) revealed: 1) Monitoring for signs and symptoms of bleeding related to anticoagulant use every evening shift started on 01/24/20. The staff completed the documentation but did not indicate any new bruising. 2) Weekly skin assessment, every evening shift, every Monday for skin assessment started on 01/27/20. The staff completed the documentation but did not indicate any new bruising. Review of the February 2020 ETAR revealed: 1) Monitoring for signs and symptoms of bleeding related to anticoagulant use every evening shift started on 01/24/20. The staff completed the documentation but did not indicate any new bruising. 2) Weekly skin assessment, every evening shift, every Monday for skin assessment started on 01/27/20. The staff completed the documentation but did not indicate any new bruising. An observation on 03/02/20 at 10:20 AM revealed R29 sat in her recliner crocheting. Her skin on both of her lower arms were exposed and several bruises on both hands and lower arms were visible. Her upper left arm had a blood-soaked gauze bandage in place due to a skin tear. R29 did not have anything in place to help protect her arms from getting bruised. During an interview on 03/04/20 at 09:47 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N stated she didn't know if there was anything in the care plan that said anything about R29 bruising or interventions in place to help prevent bruising. During an interview on 03/04/20 at 10:53 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) H stated R29 received a baby aspirin and Eliquis. LN H stated R29 had a skin tear which bled after bumping her arm. LN H stated R29 did not have any problems with bruising. LN H stated they had educated R29 to use pillows to provide padding to her arm while sitting in her recliner. LN H stated skin checks were performed weekly, and this was where any new bruising was noted. LN H said there was not anything specific in the care plan pertaining to R29 bruising, or the use of an anticoagulant. During an interview on 03/04/20 at 11:15 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated it was her expectation there should be something included on the care plan addressing the use of anticoagulants as well as interventions to help prevent bruising. Administrative Nurse D verified there was nothing included in the care plan for R29 concerning the use of anticoagulant medications or anything about bruises. Administrative Nurse D stated any nurse could update the care plan and the MDS Coordinator reviewed the care plans quarterly. The facility did not provide a policy specific to bruising as requested on 03/04/20. The facility failed to revise the care plan for R29 to include information concerning the use of an anticoagulant medication, monitoring for bleeding and bruising, and interventions to help prevent bruising for R29.
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 census totaled 49 residents with 13 included in the sample. Based on observation, interview, and record review the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility census totaled 49 residents with 13 included in the sample. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 29 received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice by the failure of staff to identify, document, and monitor bruises, and the failure to put into place measures to help prevent R29 from bruising, while on an anticoagulant (chemical substance that prevents or reduces coagulation of blood, prolonging the clotting time) medication. Findings included: - Review of the Inpatient Discharge Instructions from the local Medical Center dated 01/22/20 revealed the following diagnosis: atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heartbeat.) Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. R29 was independent with all activities of daily living (ADL) and did not receive an anticoagulant. Review of the Medicare five-day MDS dated 01/20/20 revealed a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. R29 was independent with all ADL and received an anticoagulant medication daily during the lookback period. The Care Plan lacked instruction to staff for R29's anticoagulant use and possibility of R29 bruising easily, higher risk of bleeding, and no interventions to prevent bruising were in place. Review of the Eliquis Medication Guide as found on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website (www.fda.gov) revealed, while taking ELIQUIS: 1) you may bruise more easily. 2) it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. Review of the physician orders revealed the following orders: 1) An order dated 01/24/20 to: Monitor for signs and symptoms of bleeding related to anticoagulant use, every evening shift. 2) An order dated 01/22/20 for: Eliquis (anticoagulant medication) 5 milligrams (mg), give one tablet by mouth two times a day for atrial fibrillation. 3) An order dated 01/22/20 for: Weekly skin assessments, every evening shift, every Monday for skin assessment. 4) An order dated 01/23/20 for: Aspirin 81 mg, give one tablet by mouth one time a day for atrial fibrillation. 5) An order dated 01/22/20 for: Weekly skin review. Review of the January 2020 Electronic Treatment Administration Record (ETAR) revealed: 1) Monitoring for signs and symptoms of bleeding related to anticoagulant use every evening shift started on 01/24/20. The staff completed the documentation but did not indicate any new bruising. 2) Weekly skin assessment, every evening shift, every Monday for skin assessment started on 01/27/20. The staff completed the documentation but did not indicate any new bruising. Review of the February 2020 ETAR revealed: 1) Monitoring for signs and symptoms of bleeding related to anticoagulant use every evening shift started on 01/24/20. The staff completed the documentation but did not indicate any new bruising. 2) Weekly skin assessment, every evening shift, every Monday for skin assessment started on 01/27/20. The staff completed the documentation but did not indicate any new bruising. An observation on 03/02/20 at 10:20 AM revealed R29 sat in her recliner crocheting. Her skin on both of her lower arms were exposed and several bruises on both hands and lower arms were visible. Her upper left arm had a blood-soaked gauze bandage in place due to a skin tear. R29 did not have anything in place to help protect her arms from getting bruised. During an interview on 03/03/20 at 10:20 AM, R29 stated she never really bruised as much before starting Eliquis. She stated staff monitored her arms regularly but had not provided education concerning bruises and had not provided interventions to help her avoid bruising. R29 stated some of her bruises may have resulted from her recent hospital stay in January 2020 but she did not know how she got all of her bruises. R29 stated she tended to miss the center of doorways and bumped into the doorframes. During an interview on 03/03/20 at 10:31 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) M stated R29 was on an aspirin regimen, and she did not receive any other medications that could cause her to bleed or bruise easily. CMA M stated R29 was independent and went out and about regularly. During an interview on 03/04/20 at 09:47 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N stated they did not know of anything about the medications R29 received. CNA N stated R29 bruised easily, and bumped her arms frequently. CNA N stated R29 did not use arm protectors, or at least she never had seen her wear any. CNA N stated she did not know if there was anything in the care plan about R29's bruising or interventions in place to help prevent bruising. During an interview on 03/04/20 at 10:53 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) H stated R29 received a baby aspirin and Eliquis. LN H stated R29 had a skin tear which bled after bumping her arm. LN H stated R29 did not have any problems with bruising. LN H stated they had educated R29 to use pillows to provide padding to her arm while seated in her recliner. LN H stated skin checks were performed weekly, and this was where staff noted any new bruising to the resident. LN H stated there was not anything specific in the care plan pertaining to R29 bruising, or the use of an anticoagulant medication. During an interview on 03/04/20 at 11:15 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated she expected nursing staff to assess resident R29 daily for any signs of bruising, or bleeding, and to document this in the ETAR. Administrative Nurse D stated the weekly skin assessments should include something about bruising. Administrative Nurse D stated the skin and wound evaluation form allowed staff to document for bruising but the weekly skin assessment did not have a place for documenting bruises unless the staff marked it for a new wound then it would take the nurse to the skin and wound evaluation form. Administrative Nurse D stated if a new bruise were identified, she expected the nurse to be told and assess the bruise and document it. Administrative Nurse D stated for a bruise of unknown origin she expected an incident report to be completed and verified there were none completed for R29. Administrative Nurse D verified there were no interventions in place to help prevent bruising for R29. Administrative Nurse D stated she expected staff to monitor a resident on an anticoagulant daily for signs and symptoms of bleeding which also included bruising. The facility did not provide a policy specific to bruising as requested on 03/04/20. The facility failed to have a system in place to assess, document and follow-up on bruises, and failed to implement interventions to help prevent bruises for R29, who received anticoagulant medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility reported a census of 49 residents with 13 residents in the sample one resident reviewed for dialysis. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 49 residents with 13 residents in the sample one resident reviewed for dialysis. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the staff obtained vital signs before and after Resident (R) 14 received dialysis (procedure where impurities or wastes were removed from the blood). Findings included: - Review of R14's Physician Progress Note dated 11/20/19 revealed the resident's diagnosis included end stage renal disease (a terminal disease because of irreversible damage to vital tissues or organs). The 04/04/18 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. R14 required no assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and received Special Treatments which included dialysis. The 12/24/19 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed a BIMS score of 15 indicating intact cognition. R14 required no assistance with ADLs and received Special Treatments of dialysis. The nursing Care Plan dated 02/27/20 revealed R14 needed dialysis related to renal failure. The care plan noted R14 received dialysis three times a week on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday's. The staff were to assess R14's vital signs (blood pressure, pulse, temperature and respiration) before leaving for dialysis and upon return to the facility. Review of the Vitals in R14's Electronic Medical Record revealed the following dialysis dates lacked documentation of vital signs for R14: 1. October 2019: 10/08, 10/10, 10/15, 10/17, 10/19, 10/22, 10/24, and 10/29 and lacked vital signs upon return from dialysis on 10/12, 10/26, and 10/31. 2. November 2019: 11/02, 11/07, 11/16, 11/21, 11/26, and 11/30 and lacked vital signs upon return from dialysis on 11/05, 11/09, 11/12, 11/14, and 11/19. 3. December 2019: 12/02, 12/05, 12/12, 12/14, 12/17, 12/21, 12/24, 12/28 and lacked vital signs upon return from dialysis on 12/07, 12/10, and 12/26. 4. January 2020: 01/02, 01/04, 01/07, 01/09, 01/14, 01/16, 01/23, 01/28, 01/30 and lacked vital signs upon return from dialysis on 01/11, 01/21, and 01/23. 5. February 2020: 02/04, 02/06, 02/08, 02/13, 02/20, and 02/27. Observation on 03/03/20 at 12:15 PM revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) G obtained a set of vital signs upon R14's return to the facility from dialysis. Interview with LN G on 03/04/20 at 09:43 AM revealed the staff obtained R14's set of vital signs, weight, and blood sugar when R4 returned from dialysis. Interview with Administrative Nurse D on 03/04/20 at 10:57 AM revealed the facility noted a discrepancy regarding vital signs the staff assessed before and after dialysis and a new form was implemented, which included vital signs to be obtained before and after dialysis. Administrative Nurse D said the Electronic Medicare Record updated to trigger the nurse to obtain vital signs. The facility failed to provide a policy regarding protocol on dialysis's vital signs as requested on 03/04/20. The facility failed to ensure the staff obtained vital signs before and after R14 received dialysis.
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

The facility reported a census of 49 residents with 13 residents in the sample and five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 49 residents with 13 residents in the sample and five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the pharmacist identified the lack of parameters and monitoring for blood pressure for Resident (R)38. Findings included: - Review of the R38's signed Physician Orders dated 11/05/19 revealed the diagnosis of essential hypertension (elevated blood pressure). Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set dated 01/20/20 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set dated 10/28/20 revealed a BIMS score of 13 indicating intact cognition. Review of the nurse's Care Plan dated 08/09/19 instructed staff to monitor the residents blood pressure and notify the physician of any abnormal readings. The staff were instructed to monitor for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension (- low blood pressure) and effectiveness. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 05/10/19 to 03/04/20 revealed R38 receive Lisinopril (blood pressure medication) 5 milligrams (mg) daily for hypertension. The MAR lacked documentation of blood pressure or parameters for the medication. Interview with Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R on 03/04/20 at 09:19 AM revealed the MAR did not have blood pressure parameters or blood pressure monitoring before giving medication since R38 lived at the facility. Interview with Licensed Nurse (LN) D on 03/04/20 at 09:30 AM revealed (LN) D would expect parameters the for blood pressure and monitoring of the blood pressure to be on the MAR. Interview with Administrative Nurse D on 03/04/20 at 11:00 AM revealed the plan of care states to monitor blood pressure and notify physician of abnormal findings expect the nurses to follow the plan of care. Interview on 03/04/20 at 11:55 AM with Consultant Pharmacist GG revealed the vitals signs were reviewed in the Electronic Medical Record. Consultant Pharmacist GG said he/she would looked for abnormal level and expected staff to follow the facility policy. The facility failed to provide a policy regarding parameters and monitoring of blood pressures as requested on 03/05/20. The facility failed to ensure the pharmacist identified the lack of parameter for blood pressure and the lack of monitoring blood pressures medications received by R38.
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 census totaled 49, with13 in the sample, and five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility census totaled 49, with13 in the sample, and five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)14 did not receive unnecessary medication due to the failure of staff to notify the physician when R14's blood glucose levels were less than 70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL), and greater than 300 mg/dL as ordered. The facility also failed to obtain blood pressure parameters related to the use of Lisinopril (blood pressure medication) and failed to monitor blood pressures weekly as ordered by the physician for R38. Findings included: - Review of the Physician Orders dated 11/20/19 revealed R14 had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin is made, or the body cannot respond to insulin). Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. R14 received insulin daily during the seven-day observation period. Review of the Quarterly MDS dated 12/24/19 revealed a brief interview for BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. R14 received insulin daily during the seven-day observation period. Review of the Care Plan revised 02/10/20 revealed R14 with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and at risk for hyperglycemia (high blood sugar levels) episodes and the staff were to obtain blood sugar glucometer checks as ordered. Review of the facilities standing orders for blood sugars indicated the staff were to notify the physician for blood sugars below 70 mg/dL or greater than 300 mg/dL. Review of October 2019 Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) revealed the facility staff did not notify the physician on the following dates when the resident's blood sugars were out of parameters (mg/dL): 10/11/19 at 01:56 PM for a blood sugar of 344 10/11/19 at 04:15 PM for a blood sugar of 348 10/11/19 at 10:07 AM for a blood sugar of 392 10/14/19 at 01:30 PM for a blood sugar of 337 10/15/19 at 07:00 PM for a blood sugar of 343 10/18/19 at 01:15 PM for a blood sugar of 369 10/22/19 at 03:14 PM for a blood sugar of 331 10/22/19 at 07:51 PM for a blood sugar of 304 10/23/19 at 09:52 AM for a blood sugar of 399 10/25/19 at 01:37 PM for a blood sugar of 389 10/27/19 at 09:53 AM for a blood sugar of 353 10/28/19 at 10:14 AM for a blood sugar of 334 10/28/19 at 01:28 PM for a blood sugar of 340 10/31/19 at 08:51 PM for a blood sugar of 322 Review of the November 2019 EMAR revealed the facility staff did not notify the physician on the following dates when the resident's blood sugars were out of parameters (mg/dL): 11/01/19 at 10:28 AM for a blood sugar of 311 11/08/19 at 01:32 PM for a blood sugar of 304 110/8/19 at 03:50 PM for a blood sugar of 332 11/09/19 at 03:50 PM for a blood sugar of 332 11/10/19 at 10:09 AM for a blood sugar of 353 11/11/19 at 03:29 PM for a blood sugar of 402 11/12/19 at 03:28 PM for a blood sugar of 322 11/12/19 at 08:55 PM for a blood sugar of 400 11/13/19 at 10:28 AM for a blood sugar of 352 11/13/19 at 01:23 PM for a blood sugar of 385 11/13/19 at 08:13 PM for a blood sugar of 317 Review of the January 2020 EMAR revealed the facility staff did not notify the physician on the following dates when the resident's blood sugars were out of parameters (mg/dL): 01/28/20 at 07:00 PM for a blood sugar of 385 01/29/20 at 10:26 AM for a blood sugar of 305 An observation on 03/03/20 at 12:15 PM revealed Licensed Nursing (LN) G obtained a blood sugar reading for R14. During an interview on 03/04/20 at 08:42 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O stated R14 was a diabetic. During an interview on 03/04/20 at 01:17 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated she expected the nursing staff to notify the physician if blood sugars were out of range. Administrative Nurse D stated the staff follow the standing orders for blood sugar parameters below 70 and over 300 and the computer system prompted staff to document if blood sugars were outside the parameters. Facility did not provide a policy specific to blood sugar parameters as requested on 03/04/20. The facility failed to ensure staff notified the physician as ordered concerning blood sugar levels outside of parameters (less than 70 mg/dL and greater than 300 mg/dL) for R14. - Review of the R38's signed Physician Orders dated 11/05/19 revealed the diagnosis of essential hypertension (elevated blood pressure). Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set dated 01/20/20 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set dated 10/28/20 revealed a BIMS score of 13 indicating intact cognition. Review of the nurse's Care Plan dated 08/09/19 instructed staff to monitor the residents blood pressure and notify the physician of any abnormal readings. The staff were instructed to monitor for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension (- low blood pressure) and effectiveness. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 05/10/19 to 03/04/20 revealed R38 receive Lisinopril (blood pressure medication) 5 milligrams (mg) daily for hypertension. The MAR lacked documentation of blood pressure or parameters for the medication. Interview with Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R on 03/04/20 at 09:19 AM revealed the MAR did not have blood pressure parameters or blood pressure monitoring before giving medication since R38 lived at the facility. Interview with Licensed Nurse (LN) D on 03/04/20 at 09:30 AM revealed (LN) D would expect parameters the for blood pressure and monitoring of the blood pressure to be on the MAR. Interview with Administrative Nurse D on 03/04/20 at 11:00 AM revealed the plan of care states to monitor blood pressure and notify physician of abnormal findings expect the nurses to follow the plan of care. The facility failed to provide a policy regarding parameters and monitoring of blood pressures as requested on 03/05/20. The facility failed to identify the lack of parameter for blood pressure and the lack of monitoring blood pressures for R38.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete the required nurse aide performance reviews (at least once every 12 months) for thr...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete the required nurse aide performance reviews (at least once every 12 months) for three of the five Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) reviewed in order to provide in-service education based on the outcome of the reviews. Findings Include: - Review of five Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) records (with employment for the facility documented as more than one year) revealed lack of documentation of performance reviews for three of the five CNAs reviewed. (CNA P, CNA Q, CNA R) On 03/03/20 at 01:29 PM Administrative Nurse D stated she knew the facility did not have evaluations completed, knew they needed them, and they were working on them. On 03/03/20 at 03:23 PM Administrative Staff A stated he knew that the employee yearly evaluations were behind and stated they were starting with a new form and said they would be all caught up in March. The facility failed to provide a policy for performance reviews as requested on 03/04/20. The facility failed to complete performance reviews on three of the five CNAs reviewed, to ensure adequate cares provided to the residents of the facility.
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

  • "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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kansas facilities.
Concerns
  • • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 60/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Diversicare Of Larned's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns DIVERSICARE OF LARNED 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 Diversicare Of Larned Staffed?

CMS rates DIVERSICARE OF LARNED's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Diversicare Of Larned?

State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at DIVERSICARE OF LARNED during 2020 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 21 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Diversicare Of Larned?

DIVERSICARE OF LARNED is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 80 certified beds and approximately 50 residents (about 62% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LARNED, Kansas.

How Does Diversicare Of Larned Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, DIVERSICARE OF LARNED's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Diversicare Of Larned?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Diversicare Of Larned Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Diversicare Of Larned Stick Around?

Staff turnover at DIVERSICARE OF LARNED is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 57%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Diversicare Of Larned Ever Fined?

DIVERSICARE OF LARNED 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 Diversicare Of Larned on Any Federal Watch List?

DIVERSICARE OF LARNED 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.