VIA CHRISTI VILLAGE PITTSBURG INC

1502 E CENTENNIAL, PITTSBURG, KS 66762 (620) 235-0020
Non profit - Corporation 96 Beds ASCENSION LIVING Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
41/100
#167 of 295 in KS
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

VIA CHRISTI VILLAGE PITTSBURG INC has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some concerns regarding resident care. They rank #167 out of 295 nursing homes in Kansas, placing them in the bottom half, but #2 out of 5 in Crawford County means they are among the better local options. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, increasing from 12 issues in 2022 to 14 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 48%, which aligns with the state average. However, there have been serious incidents, including a resident being neglected and left on the floor for hours without assistance and issues with food safety in the kitchen, which raise concerns about overall care quality and safety practices.

Trust Score
D
41/100
In Kansas
#167/295
Bottom 44%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
12 → 14 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$13,397 in fines. Higher than 64% of Kansas facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Kansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
30 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 12 issues
2024: 14 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Kansas average (2.9)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 48%

Near Kansas avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $13,397

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: ASCENSION LIVING

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 30 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Oct 2024 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents sampled. Based on observation, interview, and record review, th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents sampled. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive care plan for one Resident's (R)27's, regarding the care and maintenance of her personal humidifier. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)27's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The Annual 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 Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 01/18/24, documented the resident had a diagnosis of dementia with confusion and forgetfulness. The Quarterly MDS, dated 09/26/24, documented the resident had a BIMS score of one, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The care plan, revised 10/14/24, lacked staff instruction regarding the care and maintenance of the resident's personal humidifier. On 10/15/24 at 08:00 AM, the resident had a humidifier in her room in the on position with mist coming from the spout of the machine. The spout and nebulizer chamber (a round disc or white circle in the base of the unit that vibrates to create a mist) of the machine had a heavy build-up of a hardened, white substance. On 10/16/24 at 08:00 AM, the resident's humidifier remained in her room with mist coming out of the spout of the machine. The heavy build-up of the hardened, white substance remained in the spout and nebulizer chamber. On 10/16/24 at 09:41 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R stated she believed the night shift staff was responsible for the care of the resident's humidifier. On 10/16/24 at 09:54 AM, CMA S stated she was unsure of who was responsible for the care of the resident's humidifier. On 10/21/24 at 09:15 AM, Administrative Nurse E stated the care plan should include staff instruction on the care and maintenance of resident's personal humidifiers. The facility policy for Care Plans, revised 10/2021, included: Comprehensive care plans shall be completed for each resident with measurable goals and outcomes. The care plan shall include resident specific care needs. The facility failed to complete a comprehensive care plan to include staff instruction for the care and maintenance for this dependent resident with a personal humidifier.
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 reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents sampled. Based on observation, interview, and record review, th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents sampled. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to review and revise the care plans for two Residents (R)59 and R 70, regarding footrests for their wheelchairs. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)59's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She utilized a wheelchair for mobility and was able to mobilize 150 feet with two turns with set-up assistance only. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/26/24, documented the resident required extensive assistance of one staff for mobility with the wheelchair. The Quarterly MDS, dated 07/04/24, documented the resident had a BIMS score of seven, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She utilized a wheelchair for mobility and required partial to moderate staff assistance with wheeling 150 feet with two turns. The care plan for ADLs, revised 04/22/24, lacked staff instruction regarding the use of footrests for her wheelchair while being propelled by staff. Review of the resident's EMR from 10/01/24 through 10/15/24, revealed the resident required limited to total staff assistance with locomotion on the unit with her wheelchair. On 10/14/24 at 09:40 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M propelled the resident in her wheelchair from the commons area to the shower room to toilet. The resident's shoed feet skimmed the floor during the transport. The wheelchair lacked footrests. On 10/15/24 at 12:12 PM, CNA N propelled the resident in her wheelchair from the dining room table to the shower room to toilet. The resident's shoed feet skimmed the floor during the transport. The wheelchair lacked footrests. On 10/16/24 at 09:54 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) S propelled the resident in her wheelchair in the commons area. The resident's shoed feet were tucked underneath the seat of the wheelchair and the toes of her shoes skimmed the floor. The wheelchair lacked footrests. On 10/14/24 at 09:40 AM, CNA M stated the resident's wheelchair did not have footrests because the resident would propel herself in the wheelchair at times. On 10/15/24 at 12:12 PM, CNA N stated the resident's wheelchair did not have footrests because the resident would propel herself in the wheelchair at times. On 10/16/24 at 09:54 AM, CMA S stated the resident would self-propel in her wheelchair at times so staff did not use footrests on her wheelchair. On 10/15/24 at 09:39 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated the staff should ensure resident's had footrests on their wheelchairs when they were being propelled by staff. On 10/21/24 at 08:57 AM, Administrative Nurse E stated all nurses were able to review and revise resident care plans. It was the expectation for the use of footrests to be included on the resident's care plan. The facility policy for Care Plans, revised 10/2021, included: Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change. The facility failed to review and revise this dependent resident's care plan to include staff instruction regarding the use of footrests while being propelled by staff. - Review of Resident (R)70's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She utilized a wheelchair for mobility with substantial to maximal assistance of staff. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/18/24, did not trigger. The care plan for ADLs, dated 09/11/24, lacked staff instruction regarding the use of appropriate footrests for her wheelchair while being propelled by staff. Review of the resident's EMR, from 10/01/24 through 10/15/24, revealed the resident required limited to extensive assistance with locomotion on the unit with her wheelchair. On 10/14/24 at 09:24 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M propelled the resident in her wheelchair from the dining room to the shower room to toilet. The resident's right foot lacked support and dangled between the footrests of the wheelchair. On 10/14/24 at 12:07 PM, the resident sat in her wheelchair at the dining room table. The resident's feet dangled between the footrests of the wheelchair, several inches above the floor. On 10/16/24 at 07:30 AM, the resident sat in her wheelchair at the dining room table. The resident's right ankle rested on the outer edge of the footrest. On 10/16/24 at 09:17 AM, the resident sat in her wheelchair at the dining room table. The resident's feet were between the footrests of the wheelchair and only the toes of her feet reached the floor. On 10/14/24 at 09:24 AM, CNA M stated she had not noticed the resident's feet not resting properly on the footrests of the wheelchair. On 10/15/24 at 09:39 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated the staff should ensure resident's had appropriate footrests on their wheelchairs when they were being propelled by staff. LN G confirmed the resident's feet did not rest appropriately on the footrests of the wheelchair and one or both feet tended to fall in between the two footrests of the wheelchair. On 10/21/24 at 08:57 AM, Administrative Nurse E stated all nurses were able to review and revise resident care plans. It was the expectation for the use of footrests to be included on the resident's care plan. The facility policy for Care Plans, revised 10/2021, included: Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change. The facility failed to review and revise this dependent resident's care plan to include staff instruction regarding the use of footrests while being propelled by staff.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents included for review, which included two residents reviewed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents included for review, which included two residents reviewed for activities of daily living. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two Resident (R)13 and R37 received grooming assistance. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)13's medical record revealed diagnoses that included hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) after cerebral infarction (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). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated normal cognitive function. R13 had functional limitation in range of motion impairment on one side of the upper and lower extremities. The Communication Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 12/15/23, assessed the resident with left sided hemiplegia and required extensive assistance with most activities of daily living. The Quarterly MDS dated 08/22/24, assessed the resident with a BIMS score of nine, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident had functional limitation in range of motion impairment on one side of the upper and lower extremities. The resident was dependent on staff for personal hygiene. The Care Plan, reviewed 08/14/24, instructed staff the resident required extensive assistance with bathing/showering on Monday and Thursday mornings. Observation, on 10/15/24 at 08:25 AM, revealed the resident positioned in his wheelchair, eating breakfast in the common dining room. The resident's left arm was in a sling. The resident had several days' worth of facial hair. Observation, on 10/16/24 at 08:08 AM, revealed the resident seated in his wheelchair in the dining room. The resident continued with several days' worth of facial hair and stated his face felt itchy. Interview, on 10/16/24 at 08:08 AM, with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O, revealed the resident was cooperative with bathing, and did not know why he was not shaved on his bath day. Interview, on 10/16/24 at 10:01 AM, with Licensed Nurse (LN) H, revealed the resident occasionally yelled out at staff, and wanted to go home. LN H stated the resident was independent prior to the CVA and had an adjustment period. LN H stated the resident was generally cooperative with cares and could make his needs known. Interview on 10/21/22 at 10:30 AM, with Administrative Nurse D, revealed she would expect staff to provide personal hygiene. The facility policy Quality of Life-Dignity date 01/2024, instructed staff to provide care to the residents that promotes and enhances the quality of life, dignity and individuality. The facility failed to ensure this dependent resident received grooming to maintain personal comfort and appearance to enhance dignity. - Review of Resident (R) 37's medical record revealed diagnoses that included hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) after cerebral infarction (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) and dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated normal cognitive function. The resident had no impairment in functional range of motion in extremities. The resident required set up assistance for eating and was dependent on staff for personal hygiene. The ADL (Activity of Daily Living) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 05/02/24, assessed the resident required extensive assistance for most ADLs due to a decline with a recent diagnosis of Parkinson's disease ( slowly progressive neurological disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity and weakness). Increased staff support was required to meet ADL's and most care area to maintain a neat, odor free appearance. The Cognitive Loss CAA dated 05/02/24, assessed the resident was able to feed herself. The Quarterly MDS dated 07/25/24, assessed the resident with a BIMS score of 12, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident required set up assistance for eating and was dependent on staff for personal hygiene. The Care Plan reviewed 08/01/24, instructed staff the resident preferred to feed herself and required staff assistance for supervision and set up for meals and hygiene. Observation, on 10/14/24 at 09:27 AM, revealed the resident seated in the dining room, finished with breakfast. The resident had a brown substance running down from the left lower lip to bottom of her chin. A laboratory personnel questioned Certified Medication Aide (CMA) T, to identify the resident and then propelled the resident to her room, to obtain a blood sample, then returned the resident to the dining room. CMA T did not wipe the brown substance from the resident's face. Observation, on 10/16/24 at 11:03 AM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair in her room. A red substance was noted from her left lower lip down to the bottom of her chin. Observation, on 10/16/24 at 11:51 AM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair at the dining room table with the red substance still on her face. Licensed Nurse (LN) I, obtained a blood sugar and then administered insulin to the resident and did not wipe the red substance from her face until requested. LN I stated the resident preferred to feed herself, and staff should provide personal hygiene afterward. Interview on 10/21/22 at 10:30 AM, with Administrative Nurse D, revealed she would expect staff to provide personal hygiene. The facility policy Quality of Life-Dignity date 01/2024, instructed staff to provide care to the residents that promotes and enhances the quality of life, dignity and individuality. The facility failed to provide personal hygiene related to facial hygiene to this resident that required staff assistance.
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 74 residents with 20 residents sampled, including two residents reviewed for positioning. Base...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents sampled, including two residents reviewed for positioning. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly position two Residents (R)59 and R 70, regarding footrests for their wheelchairs. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)59's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She utilized a wheelchair for mobility and was able to mobilize 150 feet with two turns with set-up assistance only. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/26/24, documented the resident required extensive assistance of one staff for mobility with the wheelchair. The Quarterly MDS, dated 07/04/24, documented the resident had a BIMS score of seven, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She utilized a wheelchair for mobility and required partial to moderate staff assistance with wheeling 150 feet with two turns. The care plan for ADLs, revised 04/22/24, instructed staff the resident was independent with her wheelchair. Review of the resident's EMR from 10/01/24 through 10/15/24, revealed the resident required limited to total staff assistance with locomotion on the unit with her wheelchair. On 10/14/24 at 09:40 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M propelled the resident in her wheelchair from the commons area to the shower room to toilet. The resident's shoed feet skimmed the floor during the transport. The wheelchair lacked footrests. On 10/15/24 at 12:12 PM, CNA N propelled the resident in her wheelchair from the dining room table to the shower room to toilet. The resident's shoed feet skimmed the floor during the transport. The wheelchair lacked footrests. On 10/16/24 at 09:54 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) S propelled the resident in her wheelchair in the commons area. The resident's shoed feet were tucked underneath the seat of the wheelchair and the toes of her shoes skimmed the floor. The wheelchair lacked footrests. On 10/14/24 at 09:40 AM, CNA M stated the resident's wheelchair did not have footrests because the resident would propel herself in the wheelchair at times. On 10/15/24 at 12:12 PM, CNA N stated the resident's wheelchair did not have footrests because the resident would propel herself in the wheelchair at times. On 10/16/24 at 09:54 AM, CMA S stated the resident would self-propel in her wheelchair at times so staff did not use footrests on her wheelchair. On 10/15/24 at 09:39 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated the staff should ensure resident's had footrests on their wheelchairs when they were being propelled by staff. On 10/21/24 at 08:57 AM, Administrative Nurse E stated it was the expectation for staff to use footrests while propelling residents in their wheelchairs. The facility policy for Safe Patient Transport in Wheelchair, approved 01/2024, included: Staff shall use a safe technique when transporting residents in their wheelchairs, including ensuring the resident's feet rest comfortably on the footrests. The facility failed to properly position this dependent resident in her wheelchair while propelling her by not having footrests for the resident's feet. - Review of Resident (R)70's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She utilized a wheelchair for mobility with substantial to maximal assistance of staff. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/18/24, did not trigger. The care plan for ADLs, dated 09/11/24, instructed staff the resident could utilize a wheelchair, as needed (PRN), depending on her steadiness. Review of the resident's EMR, from 10/01/24 through 10/15/24, revealed the resident required limited to extensive assistance with locomotion on the unit with her wheelchair. On 10/14/24 at 09:24 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M propelled the resident in her wheelchair from the dining room to the shower room to toilet. The resident's right foot lacked support and dangled between the footrests of the wheelchair. On 10/14/24 at 12:07 PM, the resident sat in her wheelchair at the dining room table. The resident's feet dangled between the footrests of the wheelchair, several inches above the floor. On 10/16/24 at 07:30 AM, the resident sat in her wheelchair at the dining room table. The resident's right ankle rested on the outer edge of the footrest. On 10/16/24 at 09:17 AM, the resident sat in her wheelchair at the dining room table. The resident's feet were between the footrests of the wheelchair and only the toes of her feet reached the floor. On 10/14/24 at 09:24 AM, CNA M stated she had not noticed the resident's feet not resting properly on the footrests of the wheelchair. On 10/15/24 at 09:39 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated the staff should ensure resident's feet rested appropriately on the footrest of the wheelchair while being propelled by staff. On 10/21/24 at 08:57 AM, Administrative Nurse E stated it was the expectation for staff to ensure resident's feet reached the footrest of their wheelchairs appropriately. The facility policy for Safe Patient Transport in Wheelchair, approved 01/2024, included: Staff shall use a safe technique when transporting residents in their wheelchairs, including ensuring the resident's feet rest comfortably on the footrests. The facility failed to properly position this dependent resident in her wheelchair while propelling her.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents sampled, including one resident reviewed for respiratory servic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents sampled, including one resident reviewed for respiratory services. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly clean and maintain a humidifier (a device for keeping the atmosphere moist in a room) in one Resident's (R)27's room. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)27's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The Annual 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 Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 01/18/24, documented the resident had a diagnosis of dementia with confusion and forgetfulness. The Quarterly MDS, dated 09/26/24, documented the resident had a BIMS score of one, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The care plan, revised 10/14/24, lacked staff instruction regarding the humidifier. On 10/15/24 at 08:00 AM, the resident had a humidifier in her room in the on position with mist coming from the spout of the machine. The spout and nebulizer chamber (a round disc or white circle in the base of the unit that vibrates to create a mist) of the machine had a heavy build-up of a hardened, white substance. On 10/16/24 at 08:00 AM, the resident's humidifier remained in her room with mist coming out of the spout of the machine. The heavy build-up of the hardened, white substance remained in the spout and nebulizer chamber. On 10/16/24 at 09:41 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R stated she believed the night shift staff was responsible for the care of the resident's humidifier. On 10/16/24 at 09:54 AM, CMA S stated she was unsure of who was responsible for the care of the resident's humidifier. On 10/21/24 at 09:15 AM, Administrative Nurse E stated she was unsure of how often humidifiers should be cleaned and stated the nurses would be responsible for the care and cleaning of the humidifiers. The facility policy for Water Management Program to Reduce Legionella Exposure, revised 0/2018, included: A water management program shall assist in reducing the risk for Legionella from growing and spreading due to residents' usage of devices, such as humidifiers. The facility failed to properly clean and maintain this dependent resident's personal humidifier.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents selected for review, which included one resident reviewed for d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents selected for review, which included one resident reviewed for dialysis (a procedure to remove excess toxins and waste products from the blood when the kidneys fail). Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided assessment and monitoring for one Resident (R)2 who received dialysis three times a week. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)2's medical record revealed diagnoses that included end stage renal (kidney) disease. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident received dialysis services (a procedure to remove excess toxins and waste products from the blood when the kidneys fail). The Quarterly MDS dated 08/15/24, indicated a BIMS score of 12, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident received dialysis services. The Cognitive Loss Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 02/29/24, assessed the resident received dialysis treatments and was at risk for nutritional and fluid volume imbalance. The Care Plan date 08/20/24, instructed staff the resident received dialysis treatments and staff were to assess the access site for bleeding and to make sure the blood pressure was stable before the resident resumed activity. Review of the Dialysis Communication form revealed staff to assess the resident's pulse, respirations, blood pressure, temperature, pain level. Staff were to access site evaluation and indication of changes in his condition prior to dialysis, and after the resident returned to the facility from the dialysis treatment. Review of the Dialysis Communication form from 09/23/24 through 10/16/24 revealed the following areas of concern: The form dated 09/30/24, 10/14/24 and 10/16/24 lacked a pre- dialysis and post- dialysis assessment. The forms dated 09/23/24, 09/25/24, 09/27/24, 10/02/24, 10/07/24, 10/09/24 and 10/11/24 lacked post dialysis evaluations. Review of the Nurse's Progress Notes from 09/23/24 through 10/16/24 lacked documentation of pre and or post evaluations of the resident. Interview, on 10/15/24 at 08:58 AM, with the resident, revealed he received dialysis on Monday, Wednesdays, and Fridays. The resident stated he had a fistula (a surgical joining of an artery and vein to use as an access device for the treatment) in his left arm. Interview, on 10/21/24 at 11:57 AM, with Licensed Nurse (LN) I, revealed licensed staff should assess the resident prior to going to dialysis and upon return and document the assessments on the Dialysis Communication form, located in a binder that the resident would take to dialysis with him. Interview, on 10/21/24 at 12:15 PM, with Administrative Nurse D, revealed she would expect staff to assess the resident pre and post dialysis and document on the Dialysis Communication form or in a progress note. The facility policy Dialyses reviewed 01/2024, instructed staff to assess the access site for dialysis, and document on the treatment administration record. The policy instructed staff to utilize the communication tool to receive a report on the resident to the community after each session, or if the dialysis center provided a verbal report, staff instructed to document the report in the resident's medical record. The facility failed to evaluate this resident's status pre dialysis three out of 10 dialysis treatments from 09/30/24 through 10/16/24 and failed to evaluate this resident's status post dialysis treatment 10 out of 10 times from 09/30/24 through 10/16/24 to ensure the resident had no adverse effects of the treatment. .
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 reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents selected for review, that included six residents reviewed for u...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents selected for review, that included six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (R)2, received medications within the physician ordered parameters. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)2's medical record revealed diagnoses that included end stage renal (kidney) disease. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident received dialysis services (a procedure to remove excess toxins and waste products from the blood when the kidneys fail). The Quarterly MDS dated 08/15/24, indicated a BIMS score of 12, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident received dialysis services. The Cognitive Loss Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 02/29/24, assessed the resident received dialysis treatments and was at risk for nutritional and fluid volume imbalance. The Care Plan dated 08/20/24, instructed staff the resident received dialysis treatments and staff were to assess the access site for bleeding and to make sure the blood pressure was stable before the resident resumed activity. A Physician's Order dated 10/10/24, instructed staff to administer Midodrine, (a medication used to increase blood pressure) 10 milligrams, three times a day for low blood pressure and hold if the systolic blood pressure (SBP the first number of the blood pressure which indicates the pressure in the heart when it pumps out blood) is greater than 140 millimeters of mercury (mmHg). Review of the October 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following areas of concern: On 10/11/24 at 02:00 PM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 142/87. On 10/12/24 at 02:00 PM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 161/90. On 10/13/24 at 10:00 PM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 152/87. On 10/14/24 at 06:00 AM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 152/76. On 10/15/24 at 06:00 AM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 174/74. On 10/16/24 at 02:00 PM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 143/82. On 10/17/24 at 06:00 AM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 175/98. On 10/17/24 at 02:00 PM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 144/81. On 10/18/24 at 06:00 AM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 152/81. On 10/18/24 at 02:00 PM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 153/84. On 10/20/24 at 02:00 PM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 168/100. On 10/21/24 at 06:00 AM, staff administered Midodrine to the resident with a blood pressure of 145/86. Interview, on 10/21/24 at 10:30 AM, with Administrative Nurse E and Administrative Nurse E, confirmed the above and stated they would expect staff to following the parameters as ordered by the physician. The facility policy Health Care Provider Orders reviewed 01/2024, instructed staff to record the medication and any specified parameters with medication orders. The facility failed to ensure staff administered this resident's Midodrine, used to increase blood pressure was administered following the physician's ordered parameters to prevent adverse reactions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents sampled, that included six residents reviewed for unnecessary m...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents sampled, that included six residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess one Resident (R)44, for adverse effects of an antipsychotic (a class of medications used to treat psychosis and other mental emotional conditions). Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)44's medical record revealed diagnoses that included dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) with behavior disturbance, anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear),and pseudobulbar affect (a neurological disorder that causes uncontrollable and inappropriate episodes of laughing or crying). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of one, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The resident received antipsychotic medication (class of medications used to treat psychosis and other mental emotional conditions). The Delirium Care Area Assessment (CAA) assessed the resident received antipsychotic medication daily for violent behaviors and was stable. The Quarterly MDS dated 09/12/24, assessed the resident with a BIMS score of one, and the resident received antipsychotic medications. The Care Plan reviewed 09/12/24, instructed staff the resident received antipsychotic medications with Black Box (a safety warning the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] issued for serious side effects of medication) and staff were to monitor for adverse effects due to medications. A Physician's order dated 03/12/24, instructed staff to continue Olanzapine (an antipsychotic) 5 milligrams, daily, for violent behaviors. Observation, on 10/14/24 at 08:57 AM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair in the common living area. The resident was tearful, and unable to respond verbally. Observation, on 10/15/24 at 08:10 AM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair, feeding herself breakfast. The resident had a flat affect and responded with mumbling nonsensically. Interview, on 10/17/24 at 12:30 PM, with Administrative Nurse E, revealed she would expect staff to assess the resident for antipsychotic side effects using the AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) tool to determine if the resident was experiencing side effects of Olanzapine which included extra pyramidal (a group of side effects that include involuntary movements, tremors, involuntary movements of the tongue) adverse effects. Administrative Nurse E confirmed staff completed the last AIMS on 03/25/24 and staff should assess the resident with the AIMS every three months. The facility policy Behavioral Assessments, Intervention and Monitoring revise 10/2024, instructed staff to ensure he resident has minimal complications associated with the management of altered or impaired behaviors through nonpharmacological or pharmacological interventions. The Interdisciplinary Team will review and discuss interventions and AIMS or other findings. The facility failed to ensure this resident who received antipsychotic medication did not display adverse effects of the medication through assessment of extra pyramidal movements.
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 74 residents, with 20 sampled. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents, with 20 sampled. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to use proper hand hygiene while completing wound care for one Resident (R)27. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)27's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of two, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She was at risk for the development of pressure ulcers (PU) and had no unhealed PU at the time of the assessment. The Pressure Ulcer/Injury Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 01/18/24, documented the resident spent most of her time in her recliner and required assistance with positioning. The Quarterly MDS, dated 09/26/24, documented the resident had a BIMS score of one, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She was at risk for the development of PUs with no unhealed PU at the time of the assessment. The PU care plan, revised 10/14/24, instructed staff the resident utilized pressure reducing devices for her chair and bed. Review of the resident's EMR revealed a Braden assessment (used to determine the risk of a resident developing a PU), dated 09/24/24, which placed the resident at a high risk for the development of PUs. Review of the resident's skin assessments, included the following: On 10/04/24, the resident developed a stage II PU (partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed), that measured 1.2 centimeters (cm) in length (L) by 0.5 cm width (W) by 0.1 cm depth (D), to her coccyx (area at the base of the spine). On 10/09/24, the stage II PU measured 0.8 L by 0.5 cm W by 0.1 cm D. Review of the resident's EMR revealed the following physician's order: Cleanse the wound with wound cleanser, pat dry and cover with a bordered foam dressing, ordered 10/06/24. On 10/16/24 at 09:33 AM, Administrative Nurse F entered the resident's room to change the dressing to her wound. Administrative Nurse F cleansed the wound with wound cleanser and patted the area dry. Administrative Nurse F then measured the wound without changing her gloves or performing hand hygiene. On 10/16/24 at 09:35 AM, Administrative Nurse F stated she had not changed her gloves after cleansing the resident's wound and before measuring the wound. She stated she should have changed gloves and performed hand hygiene but did not. On 10/21/24 at 09:15 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated it was the expectation for staff to change gloves and perform hand hygiene after cleansing a wound and before measuring the wound. The facility policy for Wound Care/Dressing Change, revised 05/2023, included: When changing the dressing to a resident's wound staff shall don gloves and cleanse the wound per orders. Staff shall then remove their gloves, perform hand hygiene, and don clean gloves. The facility failed to perform proper hand hygiene while completing this resident's wound care.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of Resident (R)57's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of colon cancer (a disease that occurs when ce...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of Resident (R)57's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of colon cancer (a disease that occurs when cells in the colon grow out of control). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident re-admitted to the facility from an acute hospital. The resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15, indicating intact cognition. It was somewhat important to the resident to have a family, or a close friend involved in discussions about his care. The Return to Community Referral Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 06/06/24, did not trigger. The Quarterly MDS, dated 08/29/24, documented the resident had a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Review of the resident's care plan, revised 09/04/04, instructed staff the resident did not plan to remain in the facility long-term, but planned to discharge to an assisted living facility when room was available. Review of the resident's EMR, from 01/01/24 through 10/16/24, revealed the resident had not had a care plan meeting since 01/09/24. On 10/14/24 at 08:58 AM, the resident stated he had not had a care plan meeting. On 10/16/24 at 08:21 AM, Social Service Staff X stated the resident had not had a care plan meeting since 01/09/24. He missed care plan meetings in March and July due to the facility not having a social worker for the residents of that neighborhood. Care plan meetings were to be held every three months. On 10/16/24 at 07:39 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated residents should have care plan meetings every three months. The resident had not had a care plan meeting since 01/09/24. The facility policy for Care Plans, revised 10/2021, included: The resident's representative will be encouraged to participate in the resident's care planning conference with the resident's permission, at least quarterly and with a significant change. Every effort will be made to schedule care plan meetings at the best time of the day for the resident and family. The facility failed to have care plan meetings every three months for this resident. The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 20 residents selected for review. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care plan meetings for four Residents (R) 13, R2, R7 and R57, as required. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)2's medical record revealed diagnosis that included end stage renal (kidney) disease. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident received dialysis services (a procedure to remove excess toxins and waste products from the blood when the kidneys fail). The Quarterly MDS dated 08/15/24, indicated a BIMS score of 12, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident received dialysis services. The Cognitive Loss Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 02/29/24, assessed the resident received dialysis treatments and was at risk for nutritional and fluid volume imbalance. The Care Plan dated 08/20/24, instructed staff the resident received dialysis treatments and staff were to assess the access site for bleeding and to make sure the blood pressure was stable before the resident resumed activity. Interview, on 10/16/24 at 10:07 AM, with Social Service Staff X, revealed several care plan meetings with the resident/responsible party were not completed and confirmed the care plan updated on 08/20/24 did not include the resident/responsible party. The facility policy Care Plans-Comprehensive Person-Centered revised 09/2023, instructed staff the resident/resident representative will be encouraged to anticipate in the resident assessment and care planning conference wit the residents' permission. The facility failed to provide a care plan meeting for this resident/resident representative as required. - Review of Resident (R)13's medical record revealed diagnoses that included hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) after cerebral infarction (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). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated normal cognitive function. R13 had functional limitation in range of motion impairment on one side of the upper and lower extremities. The Communication Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 12/15/23, assessed the resident with left sided hemiplegia and required extensive assistance with most activities of daily living. The Quarterly MDS dated 08/22/24, assessed the resident with a BIMS score of nine, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident had functional limitation in range of motion impairment on one side of the upper and lower extremities. The resident was dependent on staff for personal hygiene. The Care Plan, reviewed 08/14/24, instructed staff the resident required extensive assistance with bathing/showering on Monday and Thursday mornings. Interview, on 10/16/24 at 10:07 AM, with Social Service Staff X, revealed several care plan meetings with the resident/responsible party were not completed and confirmed the care plan updated on 08/14/24 did not include the resident/responsible party. The facility policy Care Plans-Comprehensive Person-Centered revised 09/2023, instructed staff the resident/resident representative will be encouraged to anticipate in the resident assessment and care planning conference with the residents' permission. The facility failed to provide a care plan meeting for this resident/resident representative as required. - Review of Resident (R)7's medical record revealed diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure) dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) and diabetes (when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The Cognitive Loss Care Area Assessment (CAA) assessed the resident had continued decline in cognition with severely impaired memory. The resident had difficulty responding with garbled speech. The Care Plan reviewed 09/24/24, instructed staff the resident was dependent on staff for activities of daily living, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, had alteration in mood, at risk for pressure ulcers and included other interventions for medical conditions. Interview, on 10/16/24 at 10:07 AM, with Social Service Staff X, revealed several care plan meetings with the resident/responsible party were not completed and confirmed the care plan updated on 09/24/24 did not include the resident/responsible party. The facility policy Care Plans-Comprehensive Person-Centered revised 09/2023, instructed staff the resident/resident representative will be encouraged to anticipate in the resident assessment and care planning conference with the residents' permission. The facility failed to provide a care plan meeting for this resident/resident representative as required.
CONCERN (E)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility reported a census of 74 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all resident equipment in one of the four neighborhoods were in clean,...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 74 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all resident equipment in one of the four neighborhoods were in clean, safe condition, regarding one toilet seat riser with legs and handles. Findings included: - During a brief environmental tour of C Court, on 10/14/24 at 09:25 AM, the following areas of concern were noted: A toilet seat riser had multiple rusty areas over all four legs. The plastic toilet seat had a crack where it met residents' buttocks area. On 10/21/24 at 09:49 AM, Housekeeping/Maintenance Staff U stated the toilet seat riser needed to be thrown away.Housekeeping/Maintenance Staff U stated the facility had extra toilet seat risers available for when one needed replaced. The facility lacked a policy for the maintenance and upkeep of resident equipment. The facility failed to ensure all resident equipment in the C Court neighborhood was clean and in safe condition.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility reported a census of 74 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a clean environment in one of the four neighborhoods regarding soiled,...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 74 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a clean environment in one of the four neighborhoods regarding soiled, stained privacy curtains in a shower room in one of the four neighborhoods. Findings included: - During a brief environmental tour of C Court, on 10/14/24 at 09:25 AM, the following areas of concern noted: Two privacy curtains contained multiple areas which were dirty and stained. On 10/21/24 at 09:49 AM, Housekeeping/Maintenance Staff U stated housekeeping was responsible for ensuring the privacy curtains in the shower rooms were clean. The privacy curtains needed to be washed or replaced. The facility lacked a policy regarding the maintenance/cleaning of the shower curtains. The facility failed to ensure a clean environment in one of the four neighborhoods regarding soiled, stained privacy curtains in a shower room in one of the four neighborhoods.
May 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 81 residents. The sample included three residents reviewed for neglect. Based on observations,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 81 residents. The sample included three residents reviewed for neglect. Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent the staff neglect of Resident (R) 1. On 11/27/23 at 08:45 AM Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R entered cognitively impaired R1's room and observed R1 on the floor with her legs extended in the doorway of the closet. CMA R administered medications to R1 while she remained on the floor, and then left the resident's room. CMA R failed to report to any staff member that R1 was on the floor. At 12:45 PM, four hours later, CNA M heard noises coming from R1's room and when she entered the residents' room, she observed R1 sitting on the floor next to her bed. CNA M asked Housekeeping Staff U, who was also in the room, to immediately get Licensed Nurse (LN) G. The nurse assessed R1 and noted the resident had pain in her left hip, her left leg was rotated outward and appeared to be shorter than her right leg. R1 was transported to the Emergency Department (ED) by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and was diagnosed with a left hip fracture which required surgical repair. This deficient practice placed R1 in immediate jeopardy. Findings included: - Resident (R)1's ''Physician Order Sheet'' (POS) dated 04/23/24, documented diagnoses which included: vascular dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion caused by a decreased blood flow to the brain), diabetes mellitus (when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin), hypertension (elevated blood pressure), seizure (violent involuntary series of contractions of a group of muscles), anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty and irrational fear), depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), narcolepsy (excessive sleepiness in the daytime and may also suddenly fall asleep during any activity), bilateral (both) hearing loss (keeps sound from passing through your ear canal and/or middle of ear), and mixed receptive-expressive language disorder (a condition that affects how people express themselves and understand what others say). R1's 03/02/23 ''Significant Change of Condition Minimum Data Set'' (MDS), documented the resident was admitted from acute care on 06/15/21. She had a ''Brief Interview of Mental Status'' (BIMS) score of three, which indicated severely impaired cognition. She had inattention, disorganized thinking, and she was vigilant (startled easily to any sound or touch). The resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and limited assistance with ambulating. She was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. The ''Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment'' (CAA), dated 03/08/23, documented the resident had confusion and forgetfulness. The resident's BIMS interview documented the resident had long and short-term memory deficits. The ''Falls Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 12/08/23, documented the resident was at risk for falls due to an unsteady gait and poor safety awareness. The resident ambulated independently with verbal cues and redirection for safety. R1's 11/02/23 ''Quarterly MDS'', documented the resident had a BIMS score of three, which indicated severely impaired cognition. She had inattention, disorganized thinking, and she was vigilant (startled easily to any sound or touch.) The resident required extensive assist with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and limited assist ambulating. She was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. R1's 10/30/23 ''Fall Risk'', evaluation documented a score of three. The score of zero to 15 indicated minimal risk for falls. The Altered level of cognitive function related to vascular dementia Care Plan'', dated 11/03/23, instructed staff to call the resident by her name, and to keep routine consistent to decrease confusion. R1's Fall Care Plan, dated 11/03/23, instructed staff to keep pathways clear and provide adequate lighting, keep the resident's bed at the appropriate height, encourage the resident to wear non-slip socks, assist the resident with using her wheelchair for mobility when the resident was unsteady, and offer to assist her to a couch or easy chair after meals. R1's ADL Care Plan dated 11/03/23, instructed staff the resident required extensive assist with one staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Review of a Nurses Note on 11/27/23 at 05:17 PM, revealed Housekeeping Staff U notified Licensed Nurse (LN) G that the resident was on the floor in her room. CNA M also notified LN G. N G entered the resident's room and observed the resident sitting on her bedroom floor beside her bed. The resident was non-verbal and unable to answer staff questions. Upon further assessment, the resident guarded her left leg and hip during a range of motion (ROM) assessment. The resident's left leg was rotated outward with some length difference from her right leg. LN G contacted Administrative Nurse D and Administrative Staff A of the incident. LN G called the resident healthcare provider for an order to transfer the resident to the Emergency Department (ED) by Emergency Medical Service (EMS). Review of the facility's investigation revealed CMA R observed the resident on the floor on 11/27/23 at 08:45 AM with her legs extended in the doorway to the closet. CMA R waved and said Hi, [R1]. CMA R reported that the resident smiled and laughed after being greeted. CMA R then administered medications while the resident remained on the floor and CMA R left the resident's room. CMA R did not advise anyone that the resident was on the floor. Review of the hospital records revealed R1's diagnostic images of her pelvis and two views of the left hip, dated 11/27/23, demonstrated a displaced (bones moved enough to create a gap) comminuted (broken in at least two places) intertrochanteric (top part of the thigh bone) femur (thigh bone) fracture. R1's hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], documented the resident resided in a long-term facility and sustained a left intertrochanteric fracture (hip fracture). Review of a Nurses Note dated 12/01/23 at 01:00 PM documented the resident readmitted to the facility from acute care hospital. R1 sustained a left intertrochanteric fracture (hip fracture). Observation on 05/06/24 at 06:00 AM, revealed the resident was in bed resting with her eyes closed. Observation on 05/06/24 at 08:45 AM, revealed the resident ambulated with her walker to the dining room table with staff providing stand-by assistance. Review of CMA R's witness statement dated 11/27/23 at 08:45 AM, revealed CMA R entered the resident's room to administer her medications. She observed the resident sitting on the floor near the closet. CMA R said, Hi [R1] and waved at the resident. The closet door was opened, and it seemed as if she was messing around in her closet. CMA R administered the resident her medications and left the resident sitting on the floor and left the room. CMA R reported in her statement I didn't think anything of it because I have known the resident to do her own thing while still needing help. Review of Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M's witness statement revealed on 11/27/23 at 12:45 PM, CNA M was assisting another resident when she heard R1's squealing. She entered R1's room to discover R1 was on the floor next to her bed. LN G was immediately notified. On 05/06/24 at 10:00 AM, Housekeeping U reported she was at the door of the resident's room and CNA M asked her to notify LN G that the resident was on the floor. On 05/07/24 at 12:23 PM, LN G reported that on 11/27/23 at approximately 12:45 PM, CNA M notified her that she found R1 sitting in her room on the floor next to her bed. LN G reported the resident required assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and ambulating. The resident was non-verbal and unable to verbalize her needs and would not be able to tell staff how she fell. LN G notified Administrative Nurse D of the fall. The resident guarded her left hip and left leg. Her left leg appeared to be shorter than her right leg. Staff had R1 transferred to the ED by EMS. LN G reported that she asked CMA R to assist her with R1. While CMA R was assisting LN G with R1, CMA R notified LN G that she observed R1 on the floor in her room with her legs extended in the doorway of her closet and administered R1 her medications and left R1 on the floor without alerting any other staff. The facility's Abuse Prevention Policy, dated 06/2022, documented the residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect and to be protected from abuse and neglect from community associates. On 05/06/24 at 03:38 PM, Administrative Staff A was provided the Immediate Jeopardy template and notified the facility failed to protect R1 from neglect on 11/27/23, when CMA R found cognitively impaired R1 on the floor in her room, with her legs extended in the doorway of her closet and CMA R administered R1 her medications and left R1 on the floor without alerting any other staff. R1 remained on the floor for four hours, until another CNA (CNA M) heard R1 squealing from R1's room and alerted the LN. R1 had pain in her left hip, leg length difference and rotation and required emergent transport to the hospital and for surgical repair of a left hip fracture. This failure placed R1 in immediate jeopardy. The immediate jeopardy was determined to first exist on 11/27/23 at 12:45 PM. The facility identified and implemented corrective actions on 11/27/23 to include the following: 1. The facility educated all staff on the topics of Falls, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, and Timely Reporting. 2. R1 was assessed by Administrative Nurse D on 11/27/23 and no adverse effects noted. 3. R1's care plan related for falls reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Team and fall interventions were appropriate. 4. Staff education provided for all clinical staff on 11/27/23 at 02:00 PM and completed prior to the onsite survey. Due to the corrective actions completed prior to the onsite survey the deficient practice was deemed past non-compliance and existed at a J scope and severity.
Mar 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 83 residents. The sample included three residents reviewed for pain-controlled substance medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 83 residents. The sample included three residents reviewed for pain-controlled substance medication. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent a medication error when Licensed Nurse (LN) I failed to document in Resident (R)1's Electronic Health Records (EHR). On 02/28/24 at 06:00 AM, LN I administered oxycodone (opioids [narcotic analgesics]), five milligram (MG) tablet, as an as needed (PRN) pain medication. On 02/28/24 at 08:00 AM, two hours later, LN H administered R1's scheduled oxycodone, which was to be administered one hour prior to leaving for dialysis (a blood purifying treatment given when kidney function in not optimum), for pain. The facility failed to ensure no use of as needed (PRN) administered within a six-hour time frame of the scheduled doses, as ordered by the physician. This failure caused R1 to receive two doses of oxycodone, five mg, two hours apart. Findings Included: - The signed Physician Order Sheet (POS) for R1, dated 02/28/24, documented R1 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the following diagnoses that included pneumonia (inflammation of the lungs) and pain. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated 02/22/24, documented the resident had a Brief Interview of Mental Status of eight, that indicated moderately impaired cognition. The residents Pain Care Plan dated 02/22/24, guided staff that resident rated his pain on a scale of four out of 10. The Physician's Orders included Oxycodone, five milligrams (mg), one tablet, by mouth, every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, one hour prior to leaving for dialysis and as needed (PRN) every six hours as needed for pain. Ensure no use of as needed script within six-hour time frame of the scheduled doses, dated 02/23/24. Review of the Controlled Drug Receipt/Record/ Disposition Form, revealed on 02/28/24 at 06:00 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) I signed out for R1's Oxycodone, five milligrams. At 08:00 AM, LN H signed out for R1's Oxycodone. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) on 02/28/24, revealed the MAR lacked documentation of the Oxycodone at 06:00 AM medication. On 02/28/24, at 05:56 AM, the progress notes revealed R1 refused cares but allowed the nurse to administer his medications. On 3/07/24 at 11:41 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) I reported R1 requested to take his pain medication early. LN I reported that she administered his as needed oxycodone and verified she did not document the administration in the MAR. She reported that she did log it on the controlled substance control log. On 03/07/24 at 03:13 PM, Administrative Nurse D reported staff should document the date, time, and staff initials on the bubble pack of medication, check the control substance log and EHR. Administrative Nurse D stated staff should not have a medication error if nursing staff were following the correct way to administer medications. The facility's Medication Administration Policy, revised 12/2021, documented that the individual administering must verify three times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time, and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication. The individual administering the medication is to document on the Medication Administration Record after giving each medication and before administering the next one. The facility failed to prevent a medication error when Licensed Nurse (LN) I failed to document in Resident (R)1's Electronic Health Records (EHR). On 02/28/24 at 06:00 AM, LN I administered oxycodone (opioids [narcotic analgesics]), five milligram (MG) tablet, as an as needed (PRN) pain medication. On 02/28/24 at 08:00 AM, two hours later, LN H administered R1's scheduled oxycodone, which was to be administered one hour prior to leaving for dialysis (a blood purifying treatment given when kidney function in not optimum), for pain. The facility failed to ensure no use of as needed (PRN) administered within a six-hour time frame of the scheduled doses, as ordered by the physician. This failure caused R1 to receive two doses of oxycodone, five mg, two hours apart.
Dec 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 76 residents, with two residents sampled for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR-an emergency m...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 76 residents, with two residents sampled for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR-an emergency medical procedure for restoring normal heartbeat and breathing to victims of heart failure, drowning, etc.). Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (R)1 received the care he chose in regards to CPR. Findings included: - Resident (R)1 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included complex tachyarrthymias (abnormal heart rhythms with a rate of 100 or more beats per minute), pacemaker placement, and coronary artery disease ([CAD] abnormal condition that may affect the flow of oxygen to the heart). The admission Minimum Data Set(MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of seven, indicating he had severely impaired cognition. The resident was not on hospice services. The MDS tracking assessment, dated [DATE], revealed the resident discharged to an acute hospital. The MDS Entry Tracking record, dated [DATE], revealed the resident readmitted to the facility from an acute hospital. Review of the facility's electronic health records revealed a Do not resuscitate (DNR or no code is a written legal order to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], in respect of the wishes of a person in case their heart stopped or they stopped breathing) order, signed by the physician on [DATE]. Review of the clinical records revealed the following: On [DATE] at 12:35 PM, the resident's durable power of attorney (DPOA) for healthcare and DNR signed by the resident and faxed to the resident's physician. On [DATE] at 05:10 AM, staff entered the resident's room to administer his morning medication and assist the certified nurse's aide (CNA) with moving the resident up in the bed. Upon moving the resident, the resident jerked very quickly and began to have Choppy breathing. The resident became unresponsive, and the nurse initiated CPR due to code status believed to be a full code. The CNA called Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and another nurse came down (from another unit) to assist with the code (CPR). When EMS arrived, they took over CPR. The nurse went to print off paperwork and saw the resident was DNR status. The nurse informed EMS. EMS wanted to see the copy, however, staff was unaware in the electronic charts the DNR form located, so she called the director of nursing (DON). The DON called the social worker, and the social worker called the nurse to find the DNR orders under the advanced directives tab. While on the phone, EMS stopped CPR. The physician notified by EMS and the time of death was at 05:45 AM. On [DATE] at 09:45 AM, Administrative staff A reported the nurse went in to help with resident cares. During the time she was in the resident's room, the resident's heart stopped, and she immediately began CPR. The resident declined within the past few weeks, and the nurse was unaware that the resident's code status changed from CPR to DNR, so the nurse imitated CPR. The resident's door name plates on the door indicate a quick reference for code status. The white background on the resident's name should indicate if the resident was a DNR. The green background should reference if a resident was a Full code (to initiate CPR). On [DATE] at 11:52 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G reported, while doing routine cares, she assisted the CNA to reposition the resident in the bed. When staff repositioned him, the resident jerked, and within a few seconds, the resident was unresponsive. LN G grabbed the crash cart and her and another nurse from another unit, continued CPR until EMS started. She reported she performed CPR on the resident for approximately 10 to 15 minutes before EMS arrived and took over CPR. Once EMS responded, LN G left the room to print off the resident's records for transport to the hospital, however, once she looked at the electronic records, she knew at that time, the resident was a DNR. She then informed EMS of the DNR status. EMS continued CPR until they could review the signed DNR form, and LN G was unaware where the signed form was in the electronic records. She reported I knew he was a full code, but it must have changed. She did not think to look at the door) for a quick reference, but reported the background was white (to reference a DNR status). The facility's policy for Procedure: Advance Directive and Code status, dated 01/2022, revealed advance directives will be respected in accordance with state law and community policy. The facility failed to honor this resident's wish,when the resident lacked the presence of vital signs (pulse and respiration), as the resident chose in regards to CPR, when staff initiated CPR on a resident that did not want cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and had a current DNR in his medical record.
Dec 2022 11 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with one resident reviewed for dignity. Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with one resident reviewed for dignity. Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide Resident (R)5 with dignity during basic cares. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for decreased psychosocial well-being. Findings Included: - The Medical Diagnosis section within R5's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) included diagnoses of cerebral palsy (progressive disorder of movement, muscle tone or posture caused by injury or abnormal development in the immature brain, most often before birth), epilepsy (brain disorder characterized by repeated seizures), intellectual disabilities, muscle weakness, Lennox-Gastuat syndrome (severe condition with recurrent epileptic seizures starting from early childhood), and dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). R5's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 09/15/22 noted a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) could not be completed due to severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated that she was totally dependent on two staff for transfers, locomotion (on and off unit), toileting, and bathing. A review of R5's Cognitive Loss Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 04/07/22 recorded the resident had aphasia (loss of ability to understand or express speech) and cannot make needs known to staff. The CAA instructed staff should anticipate her needs. R5's Care Plan for cognitive loss dated 07/23/22 indicated that staff were to speak to R5 before providing cares. The care plan noted that she was, on occasion, able to let staff know what she liked through non-verbal communication. The care plan indicated that she was oriented to person and played an active role in decision making with her resident representative. On 12/14/22 at 07:25AM R5 was transferred from her bed to her high-back wheelchair by Certified Nurses Aid (CNA) M and CNA N. Both staff completed hand hygiene upon entering the room and wiped down the Hoyer (full body) lift, and moved the sling into position. CNA M positioned the lift while CNA N connected the sling to the lift. R5 was raised off the bed and slowly moved towards the lift. CNA M lowered R5 into the wheelchair while CNA N guided her into position. Once seated, CNA N buckled R5's seatbelt. After completing the transfer CNA M took off R5's shirt without announcing her intent to do so or offering R5 privacy. R5's shirt was changed, and staff moved R5 to the dining room for breakfast. On 12/19/22 at 10:22AM CNA N stated that residents should be provided care in a private environment where they felt comfortable. She stated that staff should always close the door while providing care and utilize the curtain in the room if other people are in the room. On 12/19/22 at 02:15PM Administrative Nurse D stated that staff were expected to ensure the residents have privacy during cares. He stated that staff should always ask permission to perform a task and move a resident to their room. A review of the facility's Quality of Life policy 12/2021 noted that all resident will be treated with dignity and respect. The policy noted that staff will promote, maintain, and protect the resident's privacy. The facility failed to provide R5 with dignity when removing R5's clothing. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for decreased psychosocial well-being.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Based on observation, record review, and int...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure foot pedals were provided for Resident (R) 30's wheelchair to prevent his feet from dragging on the floor. This deficient practice placed R30 at risk for accidents and injuries. Findings included: - R30's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) from the Diagnoses tab documented diagnoses of muscle weakness, dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of three which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented that R30 required extensive assistance of two staff members for activities of daily living (ADLs). The Quarterly MDS dated 11/10/22 documented R30 had severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented that R30 required extensive assistance of two staff members for ADLs. R30's Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 02/16/22 documented R30 required extensive assistance of two staff members for most ADLs and transfers. R30's Care Plan dated 05/09/22 documented R30 required limited assistance of one staff member with wheelchair mobility. On 12/13/22 at 09:34 AM Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) O pushed R30 from his room into the dining room area as his bilateral feet slid along the floor with no foot pedals on the wheelchair. On 12/14/22 at 12:15 PM CNA O pushed R30 from his room into the dining room area as his bilateral feet slid along the floor with no foot pedals on the wheelchair. On 12/15/22 at 12:51 PM an unidentified female nursing staff member started to push R30's wheelchair with no foot pedals from the dining room. R30 asked the staff not to push the wheelchair too fast On 12/19/22 at 11:22 AM Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) P stated R30 propelled himself in the wheelchair at times. CNA P stated resident should have foot pedals on their wheelchair to prevent injuries from falls. CNA P stated R30 was able to hold his feet up when staff pushed him in the wheelchair. On 12/19/22 at 11:44 AM Licensed Nurse (LN) J stated every resident should have foot pedals on their wheelchair when the staff propel the wheelchair to prevent injuries or falls. LN J stated R30 could propel himself in the wheelchair occasional, but staff did push R30's wheelchair frequently. LN J stated R30 was usually able to pick up his feet when staff pushed him the wheelchair but not always. On 12/19/22 at 01:53 PM Administrative Nurse D stated for safety every resident should have foot pedals on their wheelchair if staff would be pushing them in the wheelchair, unless it was care planned otherwise. The facility's Quality of Life- Accommodation of Needs policy last reviewed December 2021 documented the facility's environment and staff behaviors would be directed toward assisting the resident in maintaining and/or achieving independent function, dignity and well-being. The resident's individual needs and preferences, including the need for adaptive devices and modification to the physical environment, would be evaluated upon admission and reviewed on an ongoing basis. The facility failed to ensure foot pedals were provided for R30's wheelchair to preventhis feet from dragging on the floor. This deficient practice placed R30 vulnerable for possible injuries.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with 18 residents reviewed for care plan revisions. Base on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with 18 residents reviewed for care plan revisions. Base on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to revise care plan interventions related to Resident (R)26's ongoing exit seeking behaviors and need for a Wanderguard bracelet (bracelet that sets off an alarm when residents wearing one attempt to exit the building without an escort). This deficient practice placed R26 at risk for wandering related accidents and unmet care needs. Findings Included: - The Medical Diagnosis section within R26's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) included diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure), insomnia (inability to sleep), benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH- non-cancerous enlargement of the prostate which can lead to interference with urine flow, urinary frequency and urinary tract infections), and anxiety disorder (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty and irrational fear). R26's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 06/08/22 noted a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS noted that he wandered daily and his wandering placed at him at significant risk of getting to a potentially dangerous place. The MDS noted that R26 could walk under supervision of staff. A review of R26's Behaviors Care Area Assessment (CAA) indicated that R26 had wandering behaviors. The CAA noted that he has tried to exit different doors but stopped when the alarms sounded. The CAA noted that his main issue was him leaving the unit. The CAA noted that he was a high elopement (when a resident leaves the facility or safe area without staff knowledge and supervision) risk and care plan interventions would be implemented. A review of R26's Care Plan created 05/31/22 noted under Safety recorded that R26 would have a community elopement evaluation and monitoring process (05/31/22), orientation to the community (05/31/22), and monitor behavior changes (05/31/22). The plan noted under Behaviors that staff were to divert his attention (06/09/22), intervene as necessary to ensure safety (06/09/22), talk to him in a calm voice (06/09/22), and encourage him to participate in activities (06/14/22). The care plan noted that R26 would remove his clothing and walk around the court and encouraged staff to intervene (06/15/22). The care plan did not include information related to his WanderGuard device. R26's Elopement Risk Screening completed 11/19/22 indicated that he was independently mobile and cognitively impaired. The screening noted that he wandered aimlessly and voiced a desire to leave the facility. The screening revealed he was at risk for elopement. A review of R26's EMR revealed a Nursing admission Note dated 06/01/22 indicating R26 had wandering behaviors with attempts to leave the unit. A Nursing Note dated 06/25/22 indicated R26 walked off the unit out into the indoor atrium unit. The note indicated that staff found him standing next to the balcony looking down at the first floor. The note indicated that he became agitated after staff instructed him that he could not leave. A Social Service dated 11/21/22 indicated that R26 continued to wander on and off the unit at times. A Nursing Note dated 12/04/22 noted that R26 had cut his WanderGuard off of his wrist. A Nursing Note dated 12/08/22 noted that R26 was placed on one to one supervision due to his exit seeking behaviors. A Nursing Note dated 12/10/22 indicated that staff could not find R26 in his room or on the unit. The note indicated that staff found him in another resident's room using the toilet. A Nursing Note dated 12/15/22 noted that R26 continued to have exit seeking behaviors and was fixated on going outside. On 12/13/22 at 07:30AM R26 wandering around F Court unit. He was clean and well-groomed. R26 then sat down at the dining hall tables and ate his breakfast. On 12/19/22 at 01:20PM R26 left the F Court unit and was standing in the atrium looking down at the lower court. R26 stated that he was looking for a way down but was unaware how to get down. R26 sat in a rocking chair outside the activity's office. On 12/19/22 at 10:22AM CNA N stated that she was not sure where the WanderGuard devices were tracked or if staff check placement of them daily. She stated that if a resident does get too close to the exit doors the alarm will go off and staff will respond. On 12/19/22 at 10:45AM Licensed Nurse (LN) I stated that she was not sure how tracking of the WanderGuards were being completed. She was not aware of staff checking of the bracelets positioning, testing, and replacing the WanderGuard after expiration . On 12/19/22 at 02:00PM Administrative Nurse D stated that direct care staff should be reviewing the resident's care plan for updates as much as they can. He stated that the MDS Coordinator starts the plan and nurses can add intervention as needed. A review of the facility's Elopement Prevention policy 05/2021 noted that care plan interventions will be implemented for residents of higher risk. The facility did not provide a Care Plan policy as requested on 12/19/22. The facility failed to revise the care plan with interventions related to R26's ongoing exit seeking behaviors and need for a Wanderguard. This deficient practice placed R26 at risk for wandering related accidents and unmet care needs.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with one reviewed for activities. Based on ob...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with one reviewed for activities. Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 30 was provided with a meaningful activity program to address his assessed needs. This placed him at risk for impaired psychosocial wellbeing including boredom, agitation and restlessness. Findings Included: - R30's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) from the Diagnoses tab documented diagnoses of muscle weakness, dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of three which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented that R30 required extensive assistance of two staff members for activities of daily living (ADLs). The Quarterly MDS dated 11/10/22 documented R30 had severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented that R30 required extensive assistance of two staff members for ADLs. R30's Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 02/16/22 documented R30 required extensive assistance of two staff members for most ADL's and transfers. R30's Care Plan recorded R30 had a diagnosis of depression (persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), agitation and restlessness. An intervention dated 05/09/22 directed staff to assist the resident to make new friends in the facility and participate in scheduled activities; provide R30 with a calendar of events. The care plan, dated 05/09/22, further directed staff to offer and assist R30 to activities of his choice. R30 enjoyed watching the news, history programs, sports western movies. He enjoyed gardening, being outdoors walking and Bible study. The care plan further directed R30 preferred activities in the morning, afternoon and evening in his own room and on the court. Review of R30's daily activity charting for October 2022 revealed R30 went to Noodling on Friday 10/07/22, and manicures on 10/09/22. ON Monday 10/10/22 R30 had cards and visiting with a volunteer and then on Wednesday, 10/19/22, he attended Sit and Fit exercise group as well as celebration for his court mates' birthdays. Review of the October 2022 activity calendar revealed Sit and Fit exercise group was offered every Wednesday. R30's court (C Court) had manicures scheduled one day, (Sunday 10/09/22). The calendar revealed there were no scheduled activities for C Court every other Saturday (10/08/22 and 10/22/22) and other than the one day for manicures, the only activity on Sundays was Sunday Morning Mass. Review of R30's daily activity charting for November 2022 revealed R30 had one-to-one activities visit on 11/04/22 which was a scheduled podiatrist (foot doctor) visit. ON Sunday 11/06/22 there was a one-to-one activity visit for nail care. O Monday 11/07/22 R30 participated in Big Nickel and on Friday 11/11/22 he attended the Veterans' Day celebration. On Wednesday 11/16/22 R30 participated in the Sit and Fit exercise group and again on Wednesday 11/30/22. Review of the November 2022 activity calendar revealed Sit and Fit exercise group was scheduled every Wednesday. There were two Saturdays (11/5/22 and 11/19/22) with no scheduled activities and other than manicures on 11/06/22, the only activity for Sunday on R30's court was Sunday Morning Mass. Review of the available documentation for December 2022 revealed R30 had one-to-one activities of nail care on Sunday 12/04/22. On Tuesday 12/06/22 R30 attended the Christmas Caroling with kids. A one-to-one activity event was recorded for 12/07/22 (Wednesday) for activities with R30 at R30s' doctor appointment and on Tuesday 12/13/22 R30 looked at the newspaper with staff. Review of the December 2022 Activity Calendar revealed three Saturdays on C Court with no scheduled activities (12/03/22, 12/17/22 an d12/24/22) and other than 12/04/22 there were no activities on C court on Sundays except Sunday Morning Mass. On 12/14/22 at 07:56 AM R30 laid on the bed in the lowest position with floor mat next to the bed. On 2/14/22 from 08:00 AM to 12: 15 PM the TV was on the news channel then changed to a Christmas movie and then changed to a modern music station during lunch. Three residents sat in the recliners and wheelchairs asleep. On 12/15/22 from 12:15 PM to 02:55 PM TV was on in the common area on modern music station. On 12/19/22 11:55 AM R30 sat in the wheelchair propelled self on the unit. TV was on in the common area. Two residents sat in recliners asleep. On 12/19/22 at 11:22 AM Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) P stated the activities on the units were watching movies, coloring sheets sometimes and some of the residents have word search or fill in books in their rooms. CNA P stated there are some group activities during the week, but not all the residents participate. On 12/19/22 at 11:44 AM Licensed Nurse (LN) J stated there was no group activities on the units on a regular basis, but there were group activities off the unit a couple times a week. LN J stated they watched TV on the units and family visited at times. LN J stated R30's son visited often. On 12/19/22 at 11:52 AM Activity Director Z stated there was no daily activities scheduled for each unit, but a couple of group activities provided during the week. Activity Director Z stated there was weekend activities, an activity staff member came in on the weekend and painted nails on one unit every weekend. Activity Director Z stated there were activity baskets on the units for the nursing staff to do activities with the residents. Activity Director Z stated she would educate the staff about the activity baskets and the I-pads that were kept in the activity office. On 12/19/22 at 01:53 PM Administrative Nurse D stated there was group activities during the week. Administrative Nurse D stated the residents watched movies on the units. The facility's Activities policy dated 01/2022 recorded the community provided for an ongoing program of activities to support residents in their choices of activities, both facility- sponsored group and individual activities and independent activities. It further recorded residents were encouraged to choose the types of recreation, cultural and religious activities and social events they preferred to participate in. The policy further directed staff would record the activity attendance and participation of the resident in both group and individual activities. The facility failed to ensure a meaningful resident centered activity program including weekend activities for R30 which placed him at risk for impaired psychosocial wellbeing including boredom, agitation and restlessness.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with two residents reviewed for limited range...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with two residents reviewed for limited range of motion (ROM- the full movement potential of a joint, usually its range of flexion and extension). Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary services for Resident (R) 6's multiple contractures (abnormal fixation of a joint) to prevent further loss of ROM and mobility, which placed R6 at risk of a possible decline in independence, skin breakdown and impaired psychosocial wellbeing. Findings included: - R6's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) from the Diagnoses tab documented diagnoses of 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), contracture of left hand, right knee, left knee, left wrist, left elbow and left shoulder. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented that R6 was dependent on two staff members assistance for activities of daily living (ADLs). The Quarterly MDS dated 11/24/22 documented a BIMS score of 11 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented that R6 was dependent on two staff members assistance of for ADLs. R6's Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 06/21/22 documented R6 required extensive assistance with most ADLs related to the CVA that affected R6's left side. R6 used a left side arm table strap when in the wheelchair. R6's Care Plan lacked any direction of the treatment and prevention of R6's multiple contractures. Review of R6's clinical record and EMR lacked any documentation of ROM or any indication of services provided to address her multiple contractures. On 12/14/22 at 10:55 AM R6 sat asleep in a wheelchair in the common area, left arm laid across R6's chest and her hand rested on her lap. On 12/14/22 at 04:01 PM R6 sat in a wheelchair pushed up to the dining room table, left arm laid across her chest and left hand laid on the wheelchair cushion between her legs. On 12/14/22 at 03:23 PM Administrative Nurse D stated the facility at this time did not have a restorative program. Administrative Nurse D stated the facility had started a process to restart a restorative program. On 12/19/22 at 10:40 AM Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) R stated R6 was almost totally dependent on staff for assistance for ADLs. CNA R stated there were some residents that the staff provided ROM and charted in the daily tasks. CNA R stated she was not sure if R6 recieved ROM exercises or treatment from staff. On 12/19/22 at 11:44 AM Licensed Nurse (LN) J stated the CNAs provided ROM during ADLs for all residents that required assistance. LN J stated she was not sure if that was documented anywhere. LN J stated R6 should have some type of program to prevent a decline in independence. On12/19/22 at 01:53 PM Administrative Nurse D stated the staff provided ROM to all the residents when ADL was provided. Administrative Nurse D stated he was not sure R6 was on any type of restorative program, related to her multiple contractures. Administrative Nurse D stated if a resident was discharged from therapy with a restorative program it would be provided. The facility's Resident Nursing-Range of Motion Program policy last reviewed December2021 documented residents who have or at risk of having difficulty with ROM would be assessed by a nurse and/or therapy for a restorative nursing ROM program to promote independence and quality pf life by improving or maintaining functional ROM. The facility failed to ensure necessary services were provided for R6's multiple contractures to promote independence and prevent a further decline, which placed R6 at risk of skin breakdown and impaired psychosocial wellbeing. .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with four residents reviewed for accidents. B...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with four residents reviewed for accidents. Base on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed utilize Resident (R)5's wheelchair seatbelt resulting in a minor-injury fall. The facility additionally failed to monitor, check placement, or function of R26's WanderGuard bracelet (bracelet that sets off an alarm when residents wearing one attempt to exit the building without an escort). This deficient practice placed both residents at risk for preventable accidents and related injuries. Findings Included: - The Medical Diagnosis section within R5's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) included diagnoses of cerebral palsy (progressive disorder of movement, muscle tone or posture caused by injury or abnormal development in the immature brain, most often before birth), epilepsy (brain disorder characterized by repeated seizures), intellectual disabilities, muscle weakness, Lennox-Gastuat syndrome (severe condition with recurrent epileptic seizures starting from early childhood), and dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). R5's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 09/15/22 noted a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) could not be completed due to severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated that she required totally dependent on two staff for transfers, locomotion (on and off unit), toileting, and bathing. The MDS indicated that she had no falls. A review of R5's Fall Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 04/07/22 indicated that she was a high fall risk related to her medical diagnosis and not being able to make her needs known. The CAA noted that she utilized a high back wheelchair that was propelled by staff. The CAA noted that she required a full body lift and two staff for all transfers. R5's Care Plan for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) created 07/23/21 indicated that she needed assistance with ADL care and utilized a wheelchair seat belt for positioning (07/23/21), and required total assistance for personal hygiene, bathing, toileting, transfer, and mobility (07/23/21). The plan noted that she required the use of a high-back wheelchair and a Hoyer (full body) lift with two staff for transfers (07/23/21). The plan noted that R5 remained a high fall risk related to her medical diagnoses. On 09/15/22 an intervention of please ensure my seatbelt is on at all times while in wheelchair was added to her care plan after a fall occurred. A review of R5's EMR revealed that she had a Device Evaluation completed 04/07/22. The evaluation included her wheelchair's seat belt. The evaluation noted that she had alterations in safety awareness due to her cognitive impairment, difficulty with balance and truncal control, and noted that she kept sliding down in her wheelchair. The evaluation indicated that her seatbelt increased her safety. R5's EMR revealed a Nursing Note dated 09/15/22 at 05:30PM indicated R5 had a fall. The note indicated that the staff failed to buckle her into wheelchair. The reporting nurse noted that R5 had fallen face first out of her wheelchair to the floor and suffered a laceration under her right eye with blood loss. The note indicated that she was sent to an acute care facility for treatment and evaluation at 05:00PM. R5's EMR revealed another note that she returned to the facility on [DATE] at 07:30PM. The note indicated that her right eye laceration was treated with glue and covered with a bandage for protection. On 12/14/22 at 07:25AM R5 was being transferred from her bed to her high-back wheel by Certified Nurses Aid (CNA) M and CNA N. Both staff completed hand hygiene upon entering the room and wiped down the Hoyer lift, and moved the sling into position. CNA M positioned the lift while CNA N connected the sling to the lift. R5 was raised off the bed and slowly moved towards the lift. CNA M lower R5 into the wheelchair while CNA N guided her into position. Once seated, CNA N buckled R5's seatbelt. On 12/19/22 at 10:22AM CNA N reported that she worked with R5 when the fall occurred on 09/15/22. She stated that she was transferring R5 from her bed to her chair with Certified Medication Aid (CMA) S. She stated that she had only been working on the unit for two days before the accident and did not remember to buckle R5's seat belt after the transfer had occurred. She stated that when she went to reposition the wheelchair R5 fell forward landing on the floor. CNA N stated that she immediately notified the nurse of the incident. She assisted the other staff with transferring R5 back up to her wheelchair after the nurse assessed R5. On 12/19/22 at 10:45AM Licensed Nurse (LN) G reported that she responded to the fall the occurred on 09/15/22. She stated that CNA N reported she had forgotten to buckle R5's seatbelt and the fall occurred. She stated that R5 was lying face down on the floor when she entered the room in a pool of blood. She stated that R5 had a laceration under her right eye. She reported that she took R5's vitals and contacted the medical provider and the resident's representative. She stated that the medical provider approved for R5 to been sent out to an acute care facility for further evaluation. On 12/19/22 at 02:15PM Administrative Nurse D stated that when a fall occurs staff are expected to first ensure the safety and wellbeing of the resident, reported the occurrence to the medical provider and resident representative, and then an investigation would be completed to identify why the fall occurred. He stated that interventions would be reviewed and added to the resident's care plan and the results of the fall would be reviewed by the interdisciplinary team and the QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) team. A review of the facility's Safe Lifting and Moving of Patients policy dated 01/2022 stated that residents will be transferred in a manner that promotes quality care, safety, and dignity. The facility failed to utilize R5's wheelchair seatbelt resulting in a fall with an injury. This deficient practice placed R5 at risk for preventable falls and injuries. - The Medical Diagnosis section within R26's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) included diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure), insomnia (inability to sleep), benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH- non-cancerous enlargement of the prostate which can lead to interference with urine flow, urinary frequency and urinary tract infections), and anxiety disorder (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty and irrational fear). R26's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 06/08/22 noted a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS noted that he wandered daily and his wandering placed at him at significant risk of getting to a potentially dangerous place. The MDS noted that R26 could walk under supervision of staff. A review of R26's Behaviors Care Area Assessment (CAA) indicated that R26 had wandering behaviors. The CAA noted that he has tried to exit different doors but stopped when the alarms sounded. The CAA noted that his main issue was him leaving the unit. The CAA noted that he was a high elopement risk and care plan interventions would be implemented. A review of R26's Care Plan created 05/31/22 noted under Safety that R26 would have a community elopement evaluation and monitoring process (05/31/22), orientation to the community (05/31/22), and monitor behavior changes (05/31/22). The plan noted under Behaviors that staff were to divert his attention (06/09/22), intervene as necessary to ensure safety (06/09/22), talk to him in a calm voice (06/09/22), and encourage him to participate in activities (06/14/22). The care plan noted that R26 would remove his clothing and walk around the court and encouraged staff to intervene (06/15/22). The care plan did not include information related to his WanderGuard device (bracelet that sets off an alarm when residents wearing one attempt to exit the building without an escort). R26's Elopement Risk Screening completed 11/19/22 indicated that he was independently mobile and cognitively impaired. The screening noted that he wandered aimlessly and voiced a desire to leave the facility. The screening revealed he was at risk for elopement. A review of R26's EMR revealed no orders related to the placement, monitoring, or changing of R26's WanderGaurd. A review of R26's EMR revealed a Nursing admission Note dated 06/01/22 indicating R26 had wandering behaviors with attempts to leave the unit. A Nursing Note dated 06/02/22 noted that R26 walked around the unit and attempted to go out the patio door until the alarm sounded and walked away from the door. A Nursing Note dated 06/05/22 indicated that R26 continued to exhibit exit seeking behaviors. The note indicated that R26 attempted to open the unit fire exit and the balcony doors but was redirected by staff. A Nursing Note dated 06/14/22 indicated that R26 was exhibiting increased exit seeking behaviors. The note indicated that he set off the patio and fire exit door alarms, followed staff into other peer's rooms, and showed signs of increased agitation upon redirection. A Nursing Note dated 06/25/22 indicated R26 walked off the unit out into the indoor atrium unit. The note indicated that staff found him standing next to the balcony looking down at the first floor. The note indicated that he became agitated after staff instructed him that he could not leave. A Social Service dated 11/21/22 indicated that R26 continued to wander on and off the unit at times. A Nursing Note dated 12/04/22 noted that R26 had cut his WanderGuard off of his wrist. A Nursing Note dated 12/08/22 noted that R26 was placed on one to one supervision due to his exit seeking behaviors. A Nursing Note dated 12/10/22 indicated that staff could not find R26 in his room or on the unit. The note indicated that staff found him in another resident's room using the toilet. A Nursing Note dated 12/15/22 noted that R26 continued to have exit seeking behaviors and was fixated on going outside. On 12/13/22 at 07:30AM R26 wandering around F Court unit. He was clean and well-groomed. R26 then sat down at the dining hall tables and ate his breakfast. On 12/19/22 at 01:20PM R26 left the F Court unit and was standing in the atrium looking down at the lower court. R26 stated that he was looking for a way down but was unaware how to get down. R26 sat in a rocking chair outside the activity's office. On 12/19/22 at 10:22AM CNA N stated that she was not sure where the WanderGuard devices were tracked or if staff check placement of them daily. She stated that if a resident does get too close to the exit doors the alarm will go off and staff will respond. On 12/19/22 at 10:45AM Licensed Nurse (LN) I stated that she was not sure how tracking of the WanderGuards were being completed. She was not aware of staff checking of the bracelets positioning, testing, and replacing the WanderGuard after expiration . On 12/19/22 at 02:00PM Administrative Nurse D stated that maintenance was responsible for checking the WanderGuard systems functioning but was not sure if daily checks on the WanderGuard bracelets were being documented by staff. A review of the facility's Elopement Prevention policy 05/2021 noted that individuals at risk for elopement will be evaluated upon admission, quarterly, and after an elopement occurrence or significant change in the resident. The policy noted that a interventions will be implements for residents at higher risk. The policy indicated that the physical environment would also be assessed for hazards and the facility would complete routine door alarm for functioning. The facility failed to monitor and check placement, or function for R26's WanderGuard bracelet. This deficient practice placed R26 at risk for preventable accidents and injuries.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0744 (Tag F0744)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with one resident reviewed for dementia care services. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with one resident reviewed for dementia care services. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) care and treatment for Resident (R)76, a cognitively impaired resident displaying dementia related symptoms. This deficient practice placed R76 at risk for impaired ability to achieve and/or maintain her highest practicable level of physical and emotional wellbeing. Finding Included: - The Medical Diagnosis section within R76's Electronic Medical Records (EMR) included diagnoses of dysphagia (swallowing difficulty), difficulty walking, hearing loss, atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heartbeat), cognitive communication deficit, and a history of malignant neoplasm (cancer). R76's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 11/24/22 noted a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated that R76 exhibited verbal aggression, rejection of cares, and wandering. The MDS indicated that she required limited assistance from one staff to walk (on and out of room). The MDS noted the R76 used a walker to ambulate. A review of R76's Cognitive Loss Care Area Assessment dated 09/16/22 indicated that she recently had a decline in cognition and was found unresponsive in her apartment before her admission to the facility. The CAA noted that she was living by herself, was hard of hearing, and had visual impairments. R76's Care Plan created 09/07/22 noted that R76 had memory problems , impaired decision-making skills and comprehension related to moderate cognitive loss (09/16/22). It directed staff to anticipate R76's needs and observe for non-verbal cues. It further directed staff to use environmental cues to stimulate R76's memory and promote appropriate behavior. The plan instructed staff to support and allow resident to express feelings, fears , and concerns (09/07/22). The plan noted potential for decreased safety awareness and was a risk for falls. The care plan lacked goals and interventions related to wandering, sun downing (condition where a person tends to become confused or disoriented toward the end of the day), and aggressive behaviors. A review of R76's EMR revealed she had an Elopement Risk Screening completed on 109/26/22. The screening noted that she was independently mobile, cognitively impaired, and wandered aimlessly. The screening asked if R76 had dementia, delirium (sudden severe confusion, disorientation and restlessness), Alzheimer's (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure), hallucination (sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but the mind created), schizophrenia (psychotic disorder characterized by gross distortion of reality, disturbances of language and communication and fragmentation of thought), auditory disorder, or depression(abnormal emotional state characterized by exaggerated feelings of sadness, worthlessness and emptiness). The screener identified that R76 had two or more of the diseases listed. The screen identified that R76 was at risk for elopement. A review of R76's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed an order for 250 milligrams (mg) of Depakote delayed (medication used as a mood stabilizer) released tablets to be given twice a day for Sundown syndrome. R76's MAR also indicated that she was taking 10mg of Prevagen (supplement that may to improve memory) daily for memory care. A Nursing Note dated 10/26/22 noted the R76 wandered of her unit twice during the shift claiming the facility was holding her hostage. The note indicated she made several unsuccessful attempts to exit the unit. A Nursing Note dated 11/05/22 noted that R76 wandered into another resident's room. The note indicated that when staff attempted to intervene R76 became agitated and began cursing at staff. A Nursing Note dated 11/09/22 noted that R76 sat in a recliner in the living area without her shirt. The note indicated that when staff attempted to assist her, R76 became agitated. The note indicated that she was cursing out staff. A Nursing Note dated 11/10/22 noted the at 03:00AM R76 left her unit (E Court) and wandered to F Court looking for her recliner. On 12/13/22 at 11:55AM R76 sat at the table waiting for lunch. At 12:05PM R76 asked to leave the table to go to her room. R76 was told by staff to wait for her lunch to be prepared. R76 again asked to go to her room to lay down. R76 moved her chair backwards and told staff she was going to her room. R76 was told again to wait to eat her lunch. R76 continued to stand up and go to her room. R76 and her chair were pushed back towards the table. R76's walker was then placed directly behind her chair to block her chair from going backwards. R76 was served lunch at 12:10PM. On 12/19/22 at 10:22AM CNA N stated that R76 often was easy to redirect when becoming agitated or upset. She stated that staff should offer activities or games to keep residents engaged on the unit. She stated that staff should never put R76's walker directly behind her chair because it would cause her to fall. She stated that resident should be able to choose when they want to eat, or sleep and staff should never force them to do something. She stated that the resident should never leave the unit unless supervised by staff. She stated that all staff have access to view the care plans. On 12/19/ On 12/19/22 at 02:00PM Administrative Nurse D stated staff should not bee placing the walkers behind the residents and should be allowing the residents to choose what they want to do as long as it complies with the resident's care plan. He stated that all staff have access to view the care plans and nurses can add interventions to assist with behaviors or other areas if needed. A review of the facility's Memory Support policy 05/2021 noted that residents will be evaluated for the presence of behavioral expressions such as wandering, repetitive vocalizations, and aggressive actions. The plan noted that the facility would promote a provide supportive care, evaluate and intervene, and therapeutically communicate with the resident. The policy noted a supportive care plan will be provided with interventions reflecting a safe environment and resident centered choices. The facility failed to identify and implement interventions for R76, who displayed wandering, agitation, confusion, and Sundowning behaviors. This deficient practice placed R76 at risk for impaired ability to achieve her highest practicable level of wellbeing.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with five residents reviewed for unnecessary ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified an inappropriate indication for use an antipsychotic (medication used to treat severe mental conditions) medication for Resident (R) 30 who had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). This deficient practice had the potential of unnecessary psychotropic medication administration, thus leading to possible harmful potential side effects. Findings included: - R30's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) from the Diagnoses tab documented diagnoses of muscle weakness, dementia, and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of three which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented that R30 required extensive assistance of two staff members for activities of daily living (ADLs). The Quarterly MDS dated 11/10/22 documented R30 had severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented that R30 required extensive assistance of two staff members for ADLs. R30's Psychotropic Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 02/16/22 documented R30 received antidepressant, antianxiety and antipsychotic medications for the diagnosis of depression, anxiety, and dementia without behaviors with no adverse effects noted. R30's Care Plan dated -5/09/22 documented CP would review R30's drug regimen. The Care Plan documented staff would monitor R30 and document and report to the physician as needed any signs or symptoms of any drug related complications. Review of the EMR under Orders tab revealed physician orders: Risperidone (antipsychotic medication) 0.25 milligrams (mg) tablet, one tablet by mouth daily for unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance and major depressive disorder recurrent (mild) dated 05/09/22. Review of the Monthly Medication Review (MMR), performed by the CP, reviewed November 2021 through November 2022 failed to address the inappropriate indication for use of an antipsychotic medication for R30 who had a diagnosis of dementia. On 12/14/22 at 10:56 AM R30 laid on the bed in the lowest position asleep, no behaviors or distress noted. On 12/19/22 at 11:44 PM Licensed Nurse (LN) J stated the pharmacy sent the MMR out to the physician to be reviewed and then were faxed back to the facility. LN J stated the nurse would review the MMR and note any new orders. LN J stated dementia was not good indication for antipsychotic medication use for a resident with a diagnosis of dementia. On 12/19/22 at 01:53 PM Administrative Nurse D stated the MMR were emailed to him, he forwarded the email to medical records who sent them the physician to be reviewed signed and returned. Administrative Nurse D stated the charge nurse would review the signed MMR for any new ordered and the returned to medical records to be scanned into the resident's clinical record. Administrative Nurse D stated he would count on the CP to review the clinical record monthly and report and irregularities such as an appropriate indication for use an antipsychotic and antidepressant medication use for residents with dementia. On 12/20/22 at 01:49 PM CP was unavailable for an interview. The facility policy Pharmacy Services-Role of the Consultant Pharmacist revised July 2020 documented the community obtained the services of a licensed pharmacist who determined that drug records were in order. If any irregularity was noted during the Medication Regimen Review (MRR), the pharmacist was required to notify the attending physician, Director of Nursing (DON) and medical director. The MRR would be conducted monthly. The facility failed to ensure the CP identified and reported the inappropriate indication use for R30's antipsychotic medications. This deficient practice placed R30 at risk for unnecessary medications leading to adverse side effects.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with five residents reviewed for unnecessary ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility identified a census of 79 residents. The sample included 18 residents with five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure AN appropriate indication for use of an antipsychotic (medication used to treat severe mental conditions) medication for Resident (R) 30 who had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). This deficient practice had the potential of unnecessary psychotropic medication administration, thus leading to possible harmful potential side effects. Findings included: - R30's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) from the Diagnoses tab documented diagnoses of muscle weakness, dementia, and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of three which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented that R30 required extensive assistance of two staff members for activities of daily living (ADLs). The Quarterly MDS dated 11/10/22 documented R30 had severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented that R30 required extensive assistance of two staff members for ADLs. R30's Psychotropic Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 02/16/22 documented R30 received antidepressant, antianxiety and antipsychotic medications for the diagnosis of depression, anxiety, and dementia without behaviors with no adverse effects noted. R30's Care Plan dated -5/09/22 documented CP would review R30's drug regimen. The Care Plan documented staff would monitor R30 and document and report to the physician as needed any signs or symptoms of any drug related complications. Review of the EMR under Orders tab revealed physician orders: Risperidone (antipsychotic medication) 0.25 milligrams (mg) tablet, one tablet by mouth daily for unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance and major depressive disorder recurrent (mild) dated 05/09/22. On 12/14/22 at 10:56 AM R30 laid on the bed in the lowest position asleep, no behaviors or distress noted. On 12/19/22 at 11:44 PM Licensed Nurse (LN) J stated dementia was not good indication for antipsychotic medication use for a resident with a diagnosis of dementia. On 12/19/22 at 01:53 PM Administrative Nurse D stated he would count on the pharmacist to review the clinical record monthly and report and irregularities such as an appropriate indication for use an antipsychotic medication use for residents with dementia. The facility policy Pharmacy Services-Role of the Consultant Pharmacist revised July 2020 documented the community obtained the services of a licensed pharmacist who determined that drug records were in order. If any irregularity was noted during the Medication Regimen Review (MRR), the pharmacist was required to notify the attending physician, Director of Nursing (DON) and medical director. The MRR would be conducted monthly. The facility failed to ensure an appropriate indication use for R30's antipsychotic medications. This deficient practice placed R30 at risk for unnecessary medications leading to adverse side effects.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility identified a census of 79 residents and 10 medication carts. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to discard an outdated individual insulin (a hormone w...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility identified a census of 79 residents and 10 medication carts. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to discard an outdated individual insulin (a hormone which regulates blood sugar) pen in one of the medication carts. This deficient practice left the affected resident at risk for adverse consequences or less effective medication treatment. Findings included: - On 12/14/22 at 10:58 AM Licensed Nurse (LN) I unlocked the nurse's medication cart for E Court. Upon observation of the top-drawer contents it was noted that one Novolog aspart insulin pen (a short-acting insulin that lasted four to six hours) was opened and dated 10/29/22. According to the Health Direct Pharmacy Services Novolog aspart insulin expired 28 days after opening. On 12/14/22 at 10:58 AM LN I stated that the nurse should check medications in the medication cart daily for expired medications including insulin. LN I stated she had noted that the Novolog apart insulin pen was outdated and had called the pharmacy to send more. LN I discarded the outdated insulin pen. On 12/19/22 at 01:53 PM Administrative Nurse D stated the nurse and medication aide on each court was responsible for checking the medication carts daily for any expired/outdated medications. Any outdated/expired medication including insulin should be discarded appropriately and replaced with new. Administrative Nurse D stated he had ordered cards that had medication expiration guidelines on them. Administrative Nurse D stated the insulin should have been discarded after being open for 28 days. The facility policy Storage of Medications last revised December 2017 documented the community shall not use discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals. The facility failed to ensure that nursing staff disposed of an outdated/expired insulin pen for one resident's insulin pens after it was opened, which had the potential for adverse consequences or ineffective treatment to the resident.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility identified a census of 79 residents and one kitchen. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain sanitary dietary standards related to food storag...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility identified a census of 79 residents and one kitchen. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain sanitary dietary standards related to food storage. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk related to food borne illnesses and food safety concerns. Findings Included: - On 12/13/22 at 07:06AM an initial walkthrough of the facility's kitchen was completed. An inspection of the kitchen's walk-in refrigerator revealed that the air-conditioning unit was leaking clear liquid. The fluid was dripping down onto several shelves stored below the unit. An inspection of the shelves revealed two bags of collard greens, one box of cut okra, and one box of hot dogs were covered in ice. On 12/19/22 at 01:20PM Dietary Staff BB stated that staff should be going in an inspecting the storage areas daily for cleanliness and equipment function. He was not aware of the leak in the freezer unit but would report it to the director. A review of the facility's Food Storage policy dated 01/2019 indicated that all foods stored in the walk-in refrigerator units will be stored above the floor on racks, shelves dollies, or other surfaces that facilitate cleaning. The policy noted that food storage areas shall be clean and dry at all times. The facility failed to maintain sanitary dietary standards related to food storage. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk related for food borne illnesses and food safety concerns.
May 2021 4 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 Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 04/06/21, documented Resident (R)2 had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental diso...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 04/06/21, documented Resident (R)2 had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers and toilet use. His balance was not steady, and he was only able to stabilize with staff assistance. He used a walker and a wheelchair for mobility and had two non-injury falls since the prior assessment. The Falls Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 03/11/21, documented the resident had decreased safety awareness related to impaired cognition and used a wheelchair for most mobility needs. The quarterly MDS, dated 12/17/20, documented the resident had a BIMS score of three, indicating severely impaired cognition. He required limited assistance of one staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. He had two non-injury falls since the prior assessment. The falls care plan, updated 04/16/21, instructed staff to keep the resident's pathways clear and to provide adequate lighting due to the resident's decreased safety awareness. Staff were to ensure the resident had on appropriate foot wear at all times, to put him on the couch or the recliner following meals, and to initiate a toileting diary to determine appropriate toileting times for the resident. Review of the resident's electronic medical record (EMR), revealed a fall assessment, dated 04/16/21, which placed the resident at a high risk for falls. Review of the facility's fall report, documented 04/16/21, included: Staff discovered the resident on the floor in the commons room lying on his right side, propped up on his right elbow. His range of motion (ROM) was intact and he had no injuries. Staff assisted him up to his wheelchair with extensive assistance of two and taken to the bathroom. The resident had been incontinent of bowel. The fall report lacked analysis for the fall. The staff did not initiate an immediate intervention following this non-injury fall. Review of the facility's fall report, documented 02/18/21, included: The staff discovered the resident lying on the floor of his room. Resident complained of right hip pain. The resident's ROM was intact and his neuro signs were within normal limits (WNL). The fall report lacked an analysis for the fall. The staff did not initiate an immediate intervention following this non-injury fall. On 05/11/21 at 12:20 PM, the resident sat in his wheelchair in the dining room eating lunch. The resident wore appropriate footwear and an anti-rollback break was in place to the back of his wheelchair. On 05/11/21 at 01:10 PM, the resident rested in bed. The fall floor mat was in place on the floor next to his bed. The bed was in the lowest position. On 05/12/21 at 01:33 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated, when a resident falls the nurse will complete an assessment. The nurse was to initiate a fall intervention immediately to prevent further falls. On 05/13/21 at 09:40 AM, Administrative Nurse D, stated it was his expectation that the nurse immediately initiate a fall intervention following each fall. The facility failed to initiate interventions following this dependent resident's two falls. The facility policy for Falls, last approved 12/2019, included: The documentation of the identified interventions should be maintained in the resident's clinical record. The facility failed to timely implement adequate interventions to prevent further falls for this dependent resident. - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 04/07/21, documented Resident (R) 33 had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicating severely impaired cognition. He required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers and toilet use. He had no falls since admission to the facility. The Falls Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 03/22/21, documented the resident had not had any falls since admission to the facility and was at risk for falls due to an unsteady gait. Staff were to assist the resident with transfers and mobility. The Falls Care Plan, dated 03/15/21, instructed staff the resident was at risk for falls due to him being a recent admission to the facility. Staff were to keep his pathway clear, provide adequate lighting, and keep his bed at an appropriate height. Review of the resident's electronic medical record, revealed a fall assessment, dated 03/30/21, which placed the resident at a high risk for falls. Review of the facility's fall report, documented 03/23/21, included: The resident attempted to get up from his bed without assistance and was found on his back on the floor of his room. He had no injuries from the fall. The fall report lacked an analysis for the fall. The staff did not initiate an immediate intervention following this non-injury fall tp prevent further falls. Review of the facility's fall report, documented 03/30/21, included: Staff discovered the resident on the floor of the hallway. He had stood up from his wheelchair, lost his balance and fell to the floor. Staff were unable to reach him before he landed on the floor. He received no injuries from the fall. The fall report lacked an analysis for the fall. The staff did not initiate an immediate intervention following this non-injury fall to prevent further falls. On 05/11/21 at 11:49 AM, the resident sat in his wheelchair in the dining area. He wore appropriate shoes. On 05/12/21 at 09:39 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) PP, checked on the resident who was sleeping in his bed. The resident had a fall floor mat next to his bed and worse non-slip socks. On 05/12/21 at 01:33 PM, Licensed Nurse G stated, when a resident fell, the nurse will complete an assessment. The nurse was to initiate a fall intervention immediately to prevent further falls. On 05/13/21 at 09:40 AM, Administrative Nurse D, stated it was his expectation that the nurse immediately initiated a fall intervention following each fall. The facility failed to initiate interventions following this dependent resident's falls. The facility policy for Falls, last approved 12/2019, included: The documentation of the identified interventions should be maintained in the resident's clinical record. The facility failed to timely implement adequate interventions to prevent further falls for this dependent resident. The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 22 selected for review, which included eight residents reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure appropriate fall interventions were in place by determining the causal factors of the fall for four of the eight sampled residents. Of these Resident (R) 47 fell and sustained a nasal fracture and forehead laceration which required 11 sutures, with R2 and R33 experiencing repeated falls. The facility further failed to investigate and develop interventions for one of the eight residents, R51 who sustained repeated skin tears to the arms on three occasions. Findings included: - Review of R 47's Physician Order Sheet, dated 04/07/21, revealed diagnoses that included repeated falls, diabetes (when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin) with polyneuropathy (nerve damage in multiple nerves), hypertension (elevated blood pressure) and dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, and confusion). The Annual Minimum Data Set, dated 04/01/21, assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score (BIMS) of 14, which indicated normal cognitive status. The resident required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and locomotion on the unit. The resident required staff assistance to maintain balance and had no impairments in range of motion in her upper or lower extremities. The Falls Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 04/01/21, assessed the resident as having a high risk for falls. The facility determined the falls were a result of the resident transferring herself without asking for assistance of staff or using her call light. The resident required frequent reminders to ask for assistance but continued to attempt self-transfers. The resident was able to propel herself when in a wheelchair. The resident received therapy services for training and safety training. The Care Plan, dated 02/15/21 and revised 05/05/21 instructed staff to know the resident had a memory problem with impaired decision-making skills and an impaired ability to comprehend due to dementia. The resident was blind in her right eye. The resident could propel herself when in the wheelchair for short distances. The resident was continent of bladder with occasional incontinent episodes. Staff were advised the resident chose to not request help with transfers at times, due to impulsiveness. The resident had a fall mat beside the low bed and a transfer bar. The resident should wear nonskid socks, had a soft touch call light, and nonskid strips on the fall mat. The care plan instructed staff to perform frequent visual checks of the resident. The resident required therapy for safety awareness and transfer techniques. Staff should encourage the resident to call for assistance as she had poor safety awareness. The Safety Event Entry-Working Copy dated 03/03/21 revealed dietary staff found the resident on the floor in her room on 03/01/21 at 02:15 PM. The resident stated she tried to find her remote. Measures in place included a low bed, assist rail, and nonskid socks. The facility failed to identify the casual factors of the resident's fall. The resident said she fell trying to reach for the remote. The new intervention for this fall indicated to obtain general lab per physician order. The facility obtained a urinalysis (UA) on 03/01/21 which was negative for urinary tract infection (UTI). The Safety Event Entry-Working Copy dated 03/16/21 at 09:15 AM, revealed the resident was found on the floor with her head near the dresser and her legs on the bedside table, with the wheelchair next to the foot of the bed. The resident reported she was reaching forward to secure her cell phone charger on the bedside table and she slid off the edge of her wheelchair. The resident finished eating breakfast 15 minutes prior to the fall and propelled herself back to the room. The resident fell asleep during breakfast. The facility failed to identify the casual factors of the resident's fall. The resident said she was reaching for her cell phone charger on the table. The intervention for this fall was to complete a medication review and lab work. The facility obtained a UA on 03/19/21 (3 days after the fall), which revealed a UTI, then on 03/22/21, (3 days later and 6 days after the fall), the physician started the resident on antibiotics for the UTI. The Safety Event Entry-Working Copy dated 03/17/21 reported the resident was found on 03/17/21 at 01:00 PM, sitting in her room on the fall mat, the resident attempted to transfer herself from her wheelchair to bed. No immediate intervention was put in place. An intervention, dated 03/19/21 (2 days later), instructed staff to encourage the resident to wait for staff and use a mechanical lift if needed. The Safety Event Entry-Working Copy dated 04/24/21, documented on 04/24/21 at 09:20 AM, staff found the resident in her room on the floor. The resident reported she attempted to transfer herself from her wheelchair to her bed and fell, striking her head on the floor. The intervention for this fall was to encourage the resident to propel her wheelchair close enough to the bed for safe transfers. The Safety Event Entry-Working Copy dated 05/04/21, revealed staff found the resident in her room, on the floor on 05/04/21 at 12:40 PM. The resident sustained a puncture wound to her middle forehead, had blood coming from both nostrils, and had a large skin tear with fat exposure to her right forearm. The facility failed to identify the casual factor of the resident's fall in her room. Review of the Emergency Department Provider Report, dated 05/04/21, revealed the resident required 11 sutures to the laceration on her forehead, sustained a laceration to her right forearms, and had a closed nasal bone fracture. Observation, on 05/10/21 at 08:45 AM, revealed the resident propelled herself in her wheelchair towards her room. The resident had sutures in a cross formation on her forehead, and the top of her right hand had extensive bruising, with the right forearm wrapped with a dressing. The resident used the ball of her foot to propel herself, leaning forward in the chair. The resident's bed was in a low position and a fall mat was beside the bed. The resident's wheelchair had a self-locking device in place. The resident attempted to move in her wheelchair onto the fall mat beside her bed and reached forward with her outstretched arm towards her bed. Interview, at the same time with Certified Medication Aide (CMA) S, revealed staff needed to transfer the resident either to the toilet or bed after meals, but often the resident finished her breakfast and attempted to transfer herself to her bed before staff were done assisting other residents with eating their breakfast. CMA S stated they were in a dilemma when they left the residents still eating breakfast to transfer the resident, because she took a lot of time. Observation, on 05/12/21 at 09:45 AM, revealed Licensed Nurse I and Administrative Nurse E, removed the resident's dressing from her right forearm. The resident had an extensive skin tear with an area not approximated deep layered skin, exposing subcutaneous fat, measuring two by four centimeters. Administrative Nurse E cleansed the area and redressed it with Vaseline gauze, and wrapped it with elastic gauze wrap. Interview, with LN I at that time, revealed the resident was alert at times and cooperated with staff, but staff needed to keep her within their line of sight as she would try to transfer herself and did not use her call light. Interview on 05/11/21 at 09:26 AM with CNA Q revealed the resident required two staff for transfers. Staff transferred the resident to bed or toilet as she preferred, after meals. CNA Q stated the resident tried to transfer herself from her wheelchair to her bed, but had an anti-slide device in the chair, anti-tip bars on the wheelchair, and a low bed. Interview on 05/11/21 at 02:01 PM with Therapy Consultant Staff (TCS) II revealed the resident was not safe to transfer herself from the wheelchair to the bed and required much cueing. The resident attempted to follow TCS II with the process of transferring but could not remember the steps. The resident was somewhat drowsy during the exchange. TCS II stated the resident had poor safety awareness. Interview on 05/11/21 at 03:15 PM with CNA MM revealed the resident required two staff to transfer, staff kept the resident's bed in a low position, and kept her door open to keep an eye on her. Interview on 05/12/21 at 02:44 PM, with CNA P revealed the resident had variable levels of alertness. CNA P stated the resident did not like to wait for staff assistance, did not use her call light, and tried to transfer herself. CNA P stated he was working when the resident last fell. CNA P stated the resident finished meals sooner that other residents and staff were often assisting residents that needed staff assistance with eating. CNA P stated staff tried to get her up last for meals, but the resident still finished her meals sooner than others and took herself to her room, did not use a call light, and attempted to transfer herself Interview on 05/13/21 at 10:45 AM with Administrative Nurse F, revealed staff provided multiple interventions for fall prevention. Interview on 05/13/21 at 11:00 AM with Administrative Nurse D, revealed the resident had a normal BIMS score, but did require staff assistance for transfers. Administrative Nurse D stated multiple interventions were developed for the resident and the resident had multiple falls. Administrative Nurse D explained she thought staff had interventions in place for the resident's falls and that the Quality Assurance (QA) nurse reviewed the falls. On 05/13/21 at 11:20 AM, Administrative Nurse F reported being responsible for QA and that she reviewed the interventions put in place and then determined if they were appropriate. Nurse F explained she did the cause analysis on the falls but those were in the facility QA program so were unavailable for review. The facility policy Accidents and Incidents-Investigating and Reporting revised 01/2020, instructed staff accidents shall be investigated and reported and interventions initiated. The facility failed to determine the root cause for the resident's multiple falls and failed to develop appropriate interventions for these repeated falls, with the most recent fall resulting in nasal fracture, a laceration to her forehead which required 11 sutures and a laceration (skin tear) to her right arm exposing subcutaneous tissue - Review of resident (R)51's Physician Order Sheet, dated 05/04/21, revealed diagnoses included Parkinson's (slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity and weakness) with visual hallucinations, dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) and diabetes (when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin). The Annual Minimum Data Set, dated 07/23/20, assessed the resident with severe cognitive deficits, required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers and locomotion on the unit. The resident had no functional impairment of her upper or lower extremities. The Falls Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 07/23/21, assessed the resident required staff assistance with ambulation and could propel herself in her wheelchair. The resident had decreased safety awareness and was at increased risk for falls/injury. A Nurses' Note, dated 05/01/21, documented the resident sustained two skin tears on her left elbow when Certified Nurse Aide staff assisted the resident to the bathroom and the resident stuck her arm out, which caused two skin tears on her upper left forearm, one measured 6 by 0.1 centimeters (cm) and another 3.5 by 0.1 cm. The Skin Evaluation Record, dated 05/10/21, documented a four cm C shaped left elbow skin tear. The resident had fragile aging skin and bumped the elbow. Staff to try Geri sleeves again. The Skin Evaluation Record, dated 05/13/21, documented a right calf skin tear which measured 4 by 1.5 cm. Observation, on 05/10/21 at 04:10 PM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair. Her left elbow contained a crescent shaped skin tear approximately 3.5 cm and within this another skin tear approximately 2 cm. The resident did not have protective sleeves on. Interview, on 05/11/21 at 03:15 PM, with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) MM, revealed the resident propels herself backwards and backs into things and may have gotten the skin tears from running into things. Observation, on 05/13/21 at 08:00 AM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair with CNA Q propelling her. The resident had a skin tear on her left elbow area in a crescent shape, approximately 2 cm. The resident positioned her unprotected left arm above the wheel on the wheelchair (no positioned on her lab) nearly touching the wheel as CNA Q propelled the resident. Interview, on 05/23/21 at 10:30AM with Administrative Nurse E, confirmed the lack of interventions and investigations for the skin tears. Administrative Nurse E stated she thought at one point in time the resident wore protective sleeves but could not find that intervention on the resident's care plan to instruct the staff. The facility policy Skin Tears - Abrasions and Minor Breaks, dated 12/2016, instructed staff the to complete the investigation of causation and implement interventions to prevent additional abrasions. The facility policy Accidents and Incidents-Investigating and Reporting, dated 01/2020, instructed staff to investigate and initiate interventions. The facility failed to investigate and initiate interventions to prevent skin tears in this dependent resident with repeated multiple skin tears.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 22 residents sampled, including six residents reviewed for nutrition. Based ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 22 residents sampled, including six residents reviewed for nutrition. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify, plan, and implement timely interventions to maintain nutritional status for one of the six residents reviewed, Resident (R) 172. Findings included: - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 05/13/21, documented Resident (R)172 had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS- abnormally increased motility of the small and large intestines), anxiety, fractures and other multiple trauma. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. She was independent with eating and only required setup help. She had no swallowing or dental issues, and no weight loss or gain. She was 60 inches tall and her weight was 114 pounds (lbs). The Nutritional Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 05/03/21, did not trigger for further review. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL)/Functional Status CAA, dated 05/03/21, documented the resident received a regular diet and consumed 51-75% of most meals with no nutritional concerns at that time. The ADL Care Plan, updated 05/10/21, instructed staff the resident was at risk for weight loss due to low intake at some meals. Snacks and beverages of choice were to be offered. Staff were to consider adding calorie and protein supplements and vitamins, as recommended, (done 05/11/21). Staff were to consult the dietician, as needed (PRN). Staff were to assess the resident's likes, dislikes and preferences (done 05/13/21), to obtain weights per the facility policy, and to notify the physician with any significant changes. The resident received a regular diet with thin liquids. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) in the facility's documentation system, revealed the resident's weight upon admission to the facility on [DATE] was 113.8 lbs. On 05/01/21, the resident's weight was 108 lbs. The resident's weight on 05/12/21, was 102.8 lbs. Further review of the resident's EMR, revealed a Nutritional Risk Assessment, completed on 05/10/21, which revealed the resident's meal intakes ranged from 51-75%. The resident's estimated nutritional needs were estimated to be 1127 calories, 39-49 grams (gr) protein, and 1475 milliliters (ml) of fluids. The only intervention to prevent weight loss was for the staff to obtain weekly weights. A Progress Note in the resident's EMR, dated 05/10/21, contained Consultant staff GG's recommendations. The facility staff sent it to the physician on 05/10/21, 18 days after the resident admitted , and 2 days after the facility staff weighed the resident and documented a six pound weight loss. On 05/11/21, the physician returned it with a new order, which included Vitamin C 500 milligrams (mg), twice daily (BID) for supplement, and Ensure Enlive (A nutritional supplement) 90 ml, four times a day, for supplement. Staff were to continue monitoring the resident's weights and follow up with the physician after two weeks. A Progress Note in the resident's EMR, dated 05/13/21, documented a request for an order for super cereal (a high calorie hot cereal), due to the resident's declining weight. Review of the resident's EMR, from 05/01/21 through 05/12/21, revealed the resident consumed 50-100% of her breakfast and 26-100% of lunch and dinner. Intake of snacks, or if a snack was given, were not documented. On 05/12/21 at 09:00 AM, the resident sat in the recliner in her room with the breakfast tray in front of her. The resident consumed 50% of her breakfast which consisted of biscuits, gravy, and bacon. On 05/12/21 at 12:03 PM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R, served the resident lunch which consisted of cheese ravioli, steamed zucchini and garlic toast. The staff assisted the resident with setting up the meal and then left the room. The resident fed herself approximately 50% of the meal. On 05/13/21 at 09:32 AM, the resident consumed only a few bites of her pancake. Staff failed to offer anything else to eat to the resident. On 05/13/21 at 11:51 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) OO, weighed the resident on the wheelchair scale in the shower room. After subtracting the weight of the wheelchair, foot pedals and blanket, CNA OO reported the resident's weight was 104 lbs. On 05/11/21 at 08:41 AM, the resident stated she has no discomfort with chewing or swallowing. The resident stated she was not currently eating well due to not always liking what staff served her. The staff did not check in with her to offer something else to eat. On 05/12/21 at 10:43 AM, CMA R, stated the staff would take the resident her meals and help her set it up and then go in and take the meal trays out of the room after the meals. The resident was able to tell staff what she wanted to eat, so they did not offer her anything else when she did not eat well. Staff R stated he did not know if the resident had a weight loss or know what she preferred to eat. He would need to look at the care plan for more information as he did not know much about her. On 05/13/21 at 11:49 AM, Dietary staff BB stated, the nurses would tell her when a resident had weight loss. This resident had not had a weight loss. The CNAs would follow up with residents to ensure they were eating okay or if they wanted something else to eat for their meal. On 05/13/21 at 11:51 AM, CNA OO stated, staff were to weigh the resident weekly. Staff OO was unsure if the resident had weight loss. The resident did not require assistance with eating. Staff will take her meal tray and then pick it up when she was done eating. On 05/12/21 at 01:33 PM, Licensed Nurse G stated, staff weighed the resident weekly as the resident was newly admitted to the facility. When a resident had a weight loss, the weight team would send a fax to the doctor to have supplements added. The weight team or the dietician tracked the weights and informed the nurses of which residents had a weight loss. The weight team met weekly. On 05/13/21 at 09:56 AM, consultant staff GG stated, the staff would notify the physician and the RD of a significant weight loss as soon as the facility identified the weight loss. The weight team met weekly to discuss resident weights and notify the physician of any resident who may need supplements due to weight loss. Staff should have notified the physician of the resident's significant weight loss on 05/01/21 but did not notify the physician until 05/10/21 when new orders were received for the supplements. On 05/12/21 at 10:12 AM, Dietary staff CC stated, the weight team reviewed weights every week and consultant staff GG made recommendations. Staff CC stated she was not aware of the resident's weight loss. On 05/12/21 at 01:30 PM, Consultant staff HH stated, he would expect staff to notify him immediately of a resident with a significant weight loss. The facility policy for Significant Weight Loss/Gain, last approved 01/2019 included: . a nursing or nutrition associate should notify the health care provider of any significant weight change that is unexplainable or in which the RD requested a nutritional intervention. The facility failed to timely identify, plan, and implement interventions to prevent continued weight loss for this resident who recently returned from the hospital.
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** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 22 residents included in the sample. Based on observation, record review and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 74 residents with 22 residents included in the sample. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to review and revise the care plans for four of the residents sampled, including Resident (R) 2, R33, and R47 regarding timely interventions after falls to prevent further falls, and timely interventions to prevent further skin tears on the arms of one sampled resident R51. Findings included: - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 04/06/21, documented Resident (R)2 had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers and toilet use. His balance was not steady, and he was only able to stabilize with staff assistance. He used a walker and a wheelchair for mobility and had two non-injury falls since the prior assessment. The Falls Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 03/11/21, documented the resident had decreased safety awareness related to impaired cognition and used a wheelchair for most mobility needs. The falls care plan, updated 04/16/21, instructed staff to keep the resident's pathways clear and to provide adequate lighting due to the resident's decreased safety awareness. Staff were to ensure the resident had on appropriate foot wear at all times, to put him on the couch or the recliner following meals, and to initiate a toileting diary to determine appropriate toileting times for the resident. Review of the resident's electronic medical record (EMR), revealed a fall assessment, dated 04/16/21, which placed the resident at a high risk for falls. Review of the facility's fall report, documented 02/18/21, included: The staff discovered the resident lying on the floor of his room. The resident complained of right hip pain. The resident's ROM was intact and his neuro signs were within normal limits (WNL). The fall report lacked an analysis for the fall. The staff did not initiate an immediate intervention following this non-injury fall to prevent further falls. Review of the facility's fall report, documented 04/16/21, included: Staff discovered the resident on the floor in the commons room lying on his right side, propped up on his right elbow. His range of motion (ROM) was intact and he had no injuries. Staff assisted him up to his wheelchair with extensive assistance of two and taken to the bathroom. The resident had been incontinent of bowel. The fall report lacked analysis for the fall. The staff did not initiate an immediate intervention following this non-injury fall to prevent further falls. On 05/11/21 at 12:20 PM, the resident sat in his wheelchair in the dining room eating lunch. The resident wore appropriate footwear and an anti-rollback break was in place to the back of his wheelchair. On 05/11/21 at 01:10 PM, the resident rested in bed. The fall floor mat was in place on the floor next to his bed. The bed was in the lowest position. On 05/12/21 at 01:33 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated, when a resident fell, the nurse will initiate a new intervention and add it to the care plan. On 05/13/21 at 09:40 AM, Administrative Nurse D, stated it was his expectation that the nurse immediately initiate a fall intervention following each fall and add it to the care plan. The facility failed to review and revise the care plan following this dependent resident's falls to prevent further falls. The facility policy for Falls, last approved 12/2019, included: The facility will update the care plan with new interventions. The facility failed to review and revise the care plan for this dependent resident following falls to prevent further falls. - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 04/07/21, documented Resident (R) 33 had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicating severely impaired cognition. He required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers and toilet use. He had no falls since admission to the facility. The Falls Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 03/22/21, documented the resident had not had any falls since admission to the facility and was at risk for falls due to an unsteady gait. Staff were to assist the resident with transfers and mobility. The Falls Care Plan, dated 03/15/21, instructed staff the resident was at risk for falls due to him being a recent admission to the facility. Staff were to keep his pathway clear, provide adequate lighting, and keep his bed at an appropriate height. Review of the resident's electronic medical record, revealed a fall assessment, dated 03/30/21, which placed the resident at a high risk for falls. Review of the facility's fall report, documented 03/23/21, included: The resident attempted to get up from his bed without assistance and was found on his back on the floor of his room. He had no injuries from the fall. The fall report lacked an analysis for the fall. The staff did not initiate an immediate intervention following this non-injury fall to prevent further falls. Review of the facility's fall report, documented 03/30/21, included: Staff discovered the resident on the floor of the hallway. He had stood up from his wheelchair, lost his balance and fell to the floor. Staff were unable to reach him before he landed on the floor. He received no injuries from the fall. The fall report lacked an analysis for the fall. The staff did not initiate an immediate intervention following this non-injury fall to prevent further falls. On 05/11/21 at 11:49 AM, the resident sat in his wheelchair in the dining area. He wore appropriate shoes. On 05/12/21 at 01:33 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated, when a resident fell, the nurse will initiate a new intervention and add it to the care plan. On 05/13/21 at 09:40 AM, Administrative Nurse D, stated it was his expectation that the nurse immediately initiate a fall intervention following each fall and add it to the care plan. The facility failed to review and revise the care plan following this dependent resident's falls. - Review of R 47's Physician Order Sheet, dated 04/07/21, revealed diagnoses that included repeated falls, diabetes (when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin) with polyneuropathy (nerve damage in multiple nerves), hypertension (elevated blood pressure) and dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, and confusion). The Annual Minimum Data Set, dated 04/01/21, assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score (BIMS) of 14, which indicated normal cognitive status. The resident required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and locomotion on the unit. The resident required staff assistance to maintain balance and had no impairments in range of motion in her upper or lower extremities. The Falls Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 04/01/21, assessed the resident as having a high risk for falls. The facility determined the falls were a result of the resident transferring herself without asking for assistance of staff or using her call light. The resident required frequent reminders to ask for assistance but continued to attempt self-transfers. The resident was able to propel herself when in a wheelchair. The resident received therapy services for training and safety training. The Care Plan, dated 02/15/21 and revised 05/05/21, instructed staff to know the resident had a memory problem with impaired decision-making skills and an impaired ability to comprehend due to dementia. The resident was blind in her right eye. The resident could propel herself when in the wheelchair for short distances. The resident was continent of bladder with occasional incontinent episodes. Staff were advised the resident chose to not request help with transfers at times, due to impulsiveness. The resident had a fall mat beside the low bed and a transfer bar. The resident should wear nonskid socks, had a soft touch call light, and nonskid strips on the fall mat. The care plan instructed staff to perform frequent visual checks of the resident. The resident required therapy for safety awareness and transfer techniques. Staff should encourage the resident to call for assistance as she had poor safety awareness. The Safety Event Entry-Working Copy dated 03/03/21, revealed dietary staff found the resident on the floor in her room on 03/01/21 at 02:15 PM. The resident stated she tried to find her remote. Measures in place included a low bed, assist rail, and nonskid socks. The facility failed to identify the casual factors of the resident's fall. The resident said she fell trying to reach for the remote. The new intervention for this fall indicated to obtain general lab per physician order. The facility obtained a urinalysis (UA) on 03/01/21 which was negative for urinary tract infection (UTI). No intervention was planned or implemented on the resident's care plan to prevent further falls. The Safety Event Entry-Working Copy dated 03/16/21 at 09:15 AM, revealed the resident was found on the floor with her head near the dresser and her legs on the bedside table, with the wheelchair next to the foot of the bed. The resident reported she was reaching forward to secure her cell phone charger on the bedside table and she slid off the edge of her wheelchair. The resident finished eating breakfast 15 minutes prior to the fall and propelled herself back to the room. The resident fell asleep during breakfast. The facility failed to identify the casual factors of the resident's fall. The resident said she was reaching for her cell phone charger on the table. The intervention for this fall was to complete a medication review and lab work. The facility obtained a UA on 03/19/21 (3 days after the fall), which revealed a UTI, then on 03/22/21, (3 days later and 6 days after the fall), the physician started the resident on antibiotics for the UTI. The Safety Event Entry-Working Copy dated 03/17/21 reported the resident was found on 03/17/21 at 01:00 PM, sitting in her room on the fall mat, the resident attempted to transfer herself from her wheelchair to bed. No immediate intervention was put in place. An intervention, dated 03/19/21 (2 days later), instructed staff to encourage the resident to wait for staff and use a mechanical lift if needed. The Safety Event Entry-Working Copy dated 04/24/21, documented on 04/24/21 at 09:20 AM, staff found the resident in her room on the floor. The resident reported she attempted to transfer herself from her wheelchair to her bed and fell, striking her head on the floor. The care plan intervention for this fall was to encourage the resident to propel her wheelchair close enough to the bed for safe transfers. The Safety Event Entry-Working Copy dated 05/04/21, revealed staff found the resident in her room, on the floor on 05/04/21 at 12:40 PM. The resident sustained a puncture wound to her middle forehead, had blood coming from both nostrils, and had a large skin tear with fat exposure to her right forearm. The facility failed to identify the casual factor of the resident's fall in her room, so they failed to plan and implement any new interventions to prevent further falls. Review of the Emergency Department Provider Report, dated 05/04/21, revealed the resident required 11 sutures to the laceration on her forehead, sustained a laceration to her right forearms, and had a closed nasal bone fracture. Observation, on 05/10/21 at 08:45 AM, revealed the resident propelled herself in her wheelchair towards her room. The resident had sutures in a cross formation on her forehead, and the top of her right hand had extensive bruising, with the right forearm wrapped with a dressing. The resident used the ball of her foot to propel herself, leaning forward in the chair. The resident's bed was in a low position and a fall mat was beside the bed. The resident's wheelchair had a self-locking device in place. The resident attempted to move in her wheelchair onto the fall mat beside her bed and reached forward with her outstretched arm towards her bed. Interview, at the same time with Certified Medication Aide (CMA) S, revealed staff needed to transfer the resident either to the toilet or bed after meals, but often the resident finished her breakfast and attempted to transfer herself to her bed before staff were done assisting other residents with eating their breakfast. CMA S stated they were in a dilemma when they left the residents still eating breakfast to transfer the resident, because she took a lot of time. Observation, on 05/12/21 at 09:45 AM, revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) I reported the resident was alert at times and cooperated with staff, but staff needed to keep her within their line of sight as she would try to transfer herself and did not use her call light. Interview on 05/11/21 at 09:26 AM, with CNA Q revealed the resident required two staff for transfers. Staff transferred the resident to bed or toilet as she preferred, after meals. CNA Q stated the resident tried to transfer herself from her wheelchair to her bed, but had an anti-slide device in the chair, anti-tip bars on the wheelchair, and a low bed. Interview on 05/11/21 at 02:01 PM with Therapy Consultant Staff (TCS) II revealed the resident was not safe to transfer herself from the wheelchair to the bed and required much cueing. The resident attempted to follow TCS II with the process of transferring but could not remember the steps. The resident was somewhat drowsy during the exchange. TCS II stated the resident had poor safety awareness. Interview on 05/11/21 at 03:15 PM with CNA MM revealed the resident required two staff to transfer, staff kept the resident's bed in a low position, and kept her door open to keep an eye on her. Interview on 05/12/21 at 02:44 PM, with CNA P revealed the resident had variable levels of alertness. CNA P stated the resident did not like to wait for staff assistance, did not use her call light, and tried to transfer herself. CNA P stated he was working when the resident last fell. CNA P stated the resident finished meals sooner that other residents and staff were often assisting residents that needed staff assistance with eating. CNA P stated staff tried to get her up last for meals, but the resident still finished her meals sooner than others and took herself to her room, did not use a call light, and attempted to transfer herself. Interview on 05/13/21 at 11:00 AM with Administrative Nurse D, revealed the resident had a normal BIMS score, but did require staff assistance for transfers. Administrative Nurse D stated multiple interventions were developed for the resident and the resident had multiple falls. Administrative Nurse D explained she thought staff had interventions in place for the resident's falls and that the Quality Assurance (QA) nurse reviewed the falls. On 05/13/21 at 11:20 AM, Administrative Nurse F reported being responsible for QA and that she reviewed the interventions put in place and then determined if they were appropriate. Nurse F explained she did the cause analysis on the falls but those were in the facility QA program so were unavailable for review. The facility policy Accidents and Incidents-Investigating and Reporting revised 01/2020, instructed staff accidents shall be investigated and reported and interventions initiated. The facility failed to determine the root cause for the resident's multiple falls and then failed to develop appropriate timely interventions to prevent further falls. - Review of resident (R)51's Physician Order Sheet, dated 05/04/21, revealed diagnoses included Parkinson's (slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity and weakness) with visual hallucinations, dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) and diabetes (when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin). The Annual Minimum Data Set, dated 07/23/20, assessed the resident with severe cognitive deficits, required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers and locomotion on the unit. The resident had no functional impairment of her upper or lower extremities. The Falls Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 07/23/21, assessed the resident required staff assistance with ambulation and could propel herself in her wheelchair. The resident had decreased safety awareness and was at increased risk for falls/injury. The Care Plan, reviewed 04/01/21, instructed staff the resident needed extensive assistance with bed mobility and preferred to have a side rail on the right side for positioning. A Nurses' Note, dated 05/01/21, documented the resident sustained two skin tears on her left elbow when Certified Nurse Aide staff assisted the resident to the bathroom and the resident stuck her arm out, which caused two skin tears on her upper left forearm, one measured 6 by 0.1 centimeters (cm) and another 3.5 by 0.1 cm. The Skin Evaluation Record, dated 05/10/21, documented a four cm C shaped left elbow skin tear. The Skin Evaluation Record, dated 05/13/21, documented a right calf skin tear which measured 4 by 1.5 cm. Observation, on 05/10/21 at 04:10 PM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair. Her left elbow contained a crescent shaped skin tear approximately 3.5 cm and within this another skin tear approximately 2 cm. The resident did not have protective sleeves on. Interview, on 05/11/21 at 03:15 PM, with CNA MM, revealed the resident propels herself backwards and backs into things and may have gotten the skin tears from running into things. Observation, on 05/13/21 at 08:00 AM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair with CNA Q propelling her. The resident had a skin tear on her left elbow area in a crescent shape, approximately 2 cm. The resident positioned her unprotected left arm above the wheel on the wheelchair (no positioned on her lab) nearly touching the wheel as CNA Q propelled the resident. Interview, on 05/23/21 at 10:30AM with Administrative Nurse E, confirmed the lack of interventions and investigations for the skin tears. Administrative Nurse E stated she thought at one point in time the resident wore protective sleeves but could not find that intervention on the resident's care plan to instruct the staff. The facility policy Skin Tears - Abrasions and Minor Breaks, dated 12/2016, instructed staff the to complete the investigation of causation and implement interventions to prevent additional abrasions. The facility policy Accidents and Incidents-Investigating and Reporting, dated 01/2020, instructed staff to investigate and initiate interventions. The facility failed to review and revise the care plan with interventions to prevent skin tears in this dependent resident with repeated multiple skin tears.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility reported a census of 74 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure sanitary laundering of linen soiled with blood to prevent cross contami...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 74 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure sanitary laundering of linen soiled with blood to prevent cross contamination with blood borne pathogens. Findings included: - Observation, on /05/12/21 at 08:59 AM, revealed Laundry staff U, processing laundry. Laundry Staff U stated the current load in the washer, contained yellow bag (contaminated) personal clothing and linens. Laundry staff U stated she chose the personal cycle to wash this load. Staff U stated the linen contained soiling with blood and thought the personal cycle dispensed enough bleach to remove the blood stains but preserved the colors of the personal laundry. Laundry staff U stated she did not have a manufacturers formula chart to determine which setting for soiled laundry, colors, delicate etc., but there were several cycles to choose from when she set the load function on the machine. Observation revealed, after the cycle completed, Laundry Staff U, removed the clothing and linen (towels, sheets, and blankets) and proceeded to process them in the dryer. Laundry Staff U stated the laundry then would be distributed to the residents of the facility. (This laundry was not dedicated to the resident with the yellow bag). Interview, on 05/12/21 at 09:30 AM, with Maintenance staff V, revealed the washer used low temperature water and chemicals for processing the laundry. Maintenance Staff V stated the chemical manufacturer did not supply a formula chart for the various cycles in the washing machine and did not know if the amount of bleach dispensed in the Personal cycle was enough to eliminate blood borne pathogens. The facility did not monitor or test the amount of chemical needed to eliminate the blood borne pathogens. Interview, on 05/17/21 at 11:30 AM, with the chemical supplier staff JJ, revealed the Personal cycle dispenses less bleach to preserve the colors of personal laundry. Staff JJ stated to kill most of the blood borne pathogens, he would recommend using the Heavy Load setting. The facility provided an undated policy for, Laundry and Infection Control which instructed staff a wash option under the heading C-Diff (a spore producing pathogen)/Isolation on the laundry controller which is designed to treat any contaminated/red bag clothing with a 125 parts per million chlorine rinse that will produce hygienically clean laundry. The facility failed to monitor or test to ensure the personal setting on the washing machine, dispensed enough chemical (chlorine bleach) to remove blood borne pathogens for laundry that was used by residents throughout the facility to prevent the spread of infection.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 30 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $13,397 in fines. Above average for Kansas. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade D (41/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 41/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Via Christi Village Pittsburg Inc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns VIA CHRISTI VILLAGE PITTSBURG INC an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Kansas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Via Christi Village Pittsburg Inc Staffed?

CMS rates VIA CHRISTI VILLAGE PITTSBURG INC's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Kansas average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Via Christi Village Pittsburg Inc?

State health inspectors documented 30 deficiencies at VIA CHRISTI VILLAGE PITTSBURG INC during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 28 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Via Christi Village Pittsburg Inc?

VIA CHRISTI VILLAGE PITTSBURG INC is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by ASCENSION LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 96 certified beds and approximately 69 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PITTSBURG, Kansas.

How Does Via Christi Village Pittsburg Inc Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, VIA CHRISTI VILLAGE PITTSBURG INC's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Via Christi Village Pittsburg Inc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Via Christi Village Pittsburg Inc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, VIA CHRISTI VILLAGE PITTSBURG INC has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Kansas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Via Christi Village Pittsburg Inc Stick Around?

VIA CHRISTI VILLAGE PITTSBURG INC has a staff turnover rate of 48%, which is about average for Kansas nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Via Christi Village Pittsburg Inc Ever Fined?

VIA CHRISTI VILLAGE PITTSBURG INC has been fined $13,397 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Kansas average of $33,213. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Via Christi Village Pittsburg Inc on Any Federal Watch List?

VIA CHRISTI VILLAGE PITTSBURG INC 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.