SALINA PRESBYTERIAN MANOR

2601 E CRAWFORD STREET, SALINA, KS 67401 (785) 825-1366
Non profit - Corporation 60 Beds PRESBYTERIAN MANORS OF MID-AMERICA Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
11/100
#221 of 295 in KS
Last Inspection: October 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Salina Presbyterian Manor has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the care provided at this facility. It ranks #221 out of 295 nursing homes in Kansas, placing it in the bottom half, and #5 out of 6 in Saline County, suggesting limited options for better care nearby. The facility's trend is stable, with one issue reported in both 2024 and 2025, but there are serious deficiencies, including a critical finding related to abuse, where staff members failed to protect residents from mistreatment. Staffing is a relative strength, rated 4 out of 5, but the turnover rate is average at 58%. However, $22,451 in fines and specific incidents such as residents being burned by hot liquids and improper food handling raise serious concerns about safety and compliance with care standards.

Trust Score
F
11/100
In Kansas
#221/295
Bottom 26%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Holding Steady
1 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$22,451 in fines. Lower than most Kansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 49 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Kansas. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Kansas average (2.9)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 58%

11pts above Kansas avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $22,451

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: PRESBYTERIAN MANORS OF MID-AMERICA

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (58%)

10 points above Kansas average of 48%

The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jan 2025 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

The facility identified a census of 56 residents with three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 1, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility identified a census of 56 residents with three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 1, R2, and R3 remained free from abuse. On 12/17/24 at 05:00 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G and Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N received a report from R1 that CNA M had shoved her hard into the wall when turning to change her and slapped her buttocks. During the night shift, LN G removed CNA M from another hall, due to the mistreatment of R2 and R3. R2 stated CNA M would not listen to her about a transfer and hurt her arm during the transfer, which caused her to have tremors. R3 stated that CNA M came into his room, throwing and slamming things around, and would not provide him assistance to the bathroom. This deficient practice placed R1, R2, and R3 at risk for negative psychosocial impact including fear, anxiety, and neglect. Findings included: - R1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented R1 had diagnoses of anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear) disorder, psychosis (any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality perception), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (anxiety disorder characterized by recurrent and persistent thoughts, ideas and feelings of obsessions severe to cause marked distress, consume considerable time or significantly interfere with the resident's occupational, social or interpersonal functioning). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 11/25/24, documented R1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 12, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented R1 required moderate to substantial staff assistance for all activities of daily living (ADL), was frequently incontinent of urine and occasionally incontinent of bowel, and lacked documentation of behaviors. The Functional Abilities Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 11/25/24 documented R1 required assistance with all ADLs, except eating. The CAA documented R1 could make her needs known. The Urinary Incontinence CAA, dated 11/25/24, documented R1 was frequently incontinent of bladder and required assistance to the toilet, required check and change at night, and needed assistance with peri care and moisture barrier protectant. The Care Plan documented R1 could be interviewed and could respond verbally (08/26/24). The care plan documented R1 required assistance with toileting, bathing, ambulation, transfers, locomotion, and transfers (08/26/24). The care plan included R1 used incontinence products and staff needed to ensure the incontinence products were on appropriately and changed when soiled (08/26/24). R2's EMR documented R2 had diagnoses of chronic pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a progressive and irreversible condition characterized by diminished lung capacity and difficulty or discomfort in breathing), presence of artificial right knee joint, presence of artificial left knee joint, and osteoporosis (abnormal loss of bone density and deterioration of bone tissue with an increased fracture risk). The admission MDS, dated 11/25/24, documented R2 had a BIMS score of 13 which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R2 required moderate to maximum assistance with her ADLs. The MDS lacked any documentation of behaviors. The Functional Abilities CAA, dated 11/25/24, documented R2 had weakness and was unable to care for herself. R2 required assistance with ADLs. The Care Plan documented R2 had depression related to a new move to health care from her independent apartment and directed staff to encourage and provide R2 with opportunities for exercise, and physical activity. R2 preferred to remain in her room with her legs elevated in her recliner and watch TV. (11/25/24) The care plan lacked any documentation or directives regarding R2's ADLs or preferences. R3's EMR documented R3 had diagnoses of acute kidney failure (inability of the kidneys to excrete wastes, concentrate urine, and conserve electrolytes), diabetes mellitus (DM-when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin), and atrial fibrillation (fast, irregular heartbeat). The admission MDS, dated 11/12/24, documented R3 had a BIMS score of 13 which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R3 required substantial staff assistance for his ADLs. The MDS lacked any documentation of behaviors. The Care Plan directed staff R3 required one to two staff assistance for his ADLs. The care plan documented R3 was a short-term placement and planned on returning home after his stay. (11/26/24) The EMR for R1, R2, and R3 lacked any progress notes regarding the incident on 12/17/24. The Facility Incident Report, dated 12/31/24 (14 days after the incident), documented on 12/17/24 at approximately 05:00 AM, R1 reported to LN G that CNA M had hit her bottom while assisting R1 with incontinent care in bed through the night. R1 stated CNA M just pushed me hard against the wall as she swatted me wanting me to turn. Please don't say anything to her. LN G reported she performed an immediate skin examination and did not find any type of redness or bruising. LN G reported the situation to Administrative Nurse D. Administrative Nurse D examined R1 after her shower and revealed no visible signs of being hit or swatted. R1 did have a chem strip completed and was noted to have symptoms of a urinary tract infection. CNA M was immediately removed from the schedule and informed she was suspended. Administrative Nurse D conducted interviews with eight other residents. Six of those residents reported no concerns. Two residents reported concerns. The first reported concern, from R2, stated CNA M had come in to assist her to the toilet. R2 tried to explain to CNA M how she would like to be transferred, and R1 reported CNA M tried to pull her hard from the left side, while stating I am not going to sacrifice my back, during the transfer. R2 reported CNA M pulled from the wrong side and caused her to have knee pain and spasms. R2 reported CNA M was being mean to her and raised her voice. R2 voiced that she did not want CNA M to provide care to her in the future. The second concern was from R3. R3 reported he had the opportunity to be cared for by CNA M on two separate occasions. On one occasion, CNA M came into his room, did not turn the lights on, demonstrated erratic behavior, slammed things around in his room, and did not appear right. R3 reported he asked CNA M if he could help her with anything and CNA M was flippant with him. CNA M then refused to provide R3 assistance to the bathroom because he didn't need to go to the bathroom. R3 tried to explain to CNA M he no longer had a catheter and CNA M again refused and walked out of the room leaving R3 to transfer himself to the bathroom. R3 stated when CNA M came back to his room, R3 told CNA M to get out of his room and not come back. R3 stated he did not want CNA M to provide care to him. CNA M's Witness Statement, dated 12/17/24, documented R1 turned on her call light at about 05:45 AM. CNA M went to R1's room and gathered supplies to change R1's brief. CNA M stated she changed R1's brief and provided peri care. R1 then told CNA M she wanted to get up for the day. CNA M stated she informed R1 that she would need help to transfer R1 and she would need to wait. CNA M stated R1 was upset CNA M could not get her up by herself or get someone right away to help with the transfer. CNA M stated she informed R1 she would get help and walked out the door, partially shutting the door, as R1 wanted to remain uncovered to get up for the day. LN G's Notarized Witness Statement, dated 12/30/24 (13 days after the incident), documented on 12/17/24 LN G had removed CNA M off of the hall CNA M had been assigned, due to R2's complaint regarding CNA M hurting her arm during a transfer. Knowing several residents did not want CNA M in their rooms, LN G stated she decided to move CNA M to another hall. On 12/17/24 at 05:00 AM, LN G entered R1's room to administer her 05:00 AM medication. R1 told LN G That girl hit me. R1 stated the girl [CNA M] was trying to get her up and rolled R1 over, and was pushing on R1's hip quite hard. R1 stated she told CNA M to leave and CNA M said, Fine, and hit R1. LN G asked R1 where CNA M had hit her and R1 stated My butt. LN G reported the incident to Administrative Nurse D. CNA N's Notarized Witness Statement, dated 12/31/24 (14 days after the incident), documented R1 was yelling for help. CNA N went into R1's room and R1 was uncovered with her brief halfway pulled on and her bottom still not cleaned. CNA N asked R1 what she could do to help, and R1 stated, Look how I was left. R1 proceeded to tell CNA N she had not had a good morning so far and the aide that was helping her had been rough and had hit her on the bottom. CNA N stated she helped R1 get dressed and comfortable and then reported the situation to the nurse. During an observation on 01/15/24 at 10:30 AM, R1 sat in her wheelchair in her bathroom. R1 was going to wash her hands after participating in the activity. R1 was dressed and groomed neatly. R2 was unavailable for observation due to hospitalization. During an observation on 01/15/24 at 11:00 AM, R3 walked out of his bathroom with his walker, went to his lift recliner, and sat down. R3 was neatly dressed and groomed. During an interview on 01/15/24 at 10:30 AM, R1 stated she remembered CNA M hitting her bottom very well. R1 became teary-eyed and stated she had feared CNA M when the incident happened. R1 stated she had been told CNA M would never take care of her again. R1 stated she never had anyone treat her so poorly in her life. R1 stated she had not had any other problems with staff. During an interview on 01/15/24 at 10:45 AM, CNA N stated she was the one to initially find R1 the morning of 12/17/24. CNA N stated when she walked into R1's room R1 was completely uncovered with her brief half off and her buttocks covered in BM. CNA N stated R1 was visibly upset and told her CNA M had smacked her butt and just left her like this. CNA N stated R1 did not want to get CNA M in trouble and CNA N assured R1 she should not have been treated that way. CNA N stated she had received re-education regarding abuse and neglect. During an interview on 01/15/24 at 11:00 AM, R3 stated CNA M had really upset him. R3 stated he felt unsafe with CNA M in his room and that is why he asked her to leave and not come back. R3 stated he thought CNA M was on something because her behavior was so erratic. R3 stated people like CNA M should not be in healthcare taking care of people because he was able to stand up for himself, but others might not be able to do the same. On 01/15/24 at 11:30 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated during the investigation, and with three residents revealing CNA M had treated them badly in some way or another, there was no disputing the incidents had occurred. Administrative Nurse D stated she expected all staff working at the facility to understand and follow the ANE [Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation] policy and treat residents with dignity and respect. Administrative Nurse D stated she happened to come in early that morning and LN G informed her of what was reported. Administrative Nurse D stated she went directly to the shower, where R1 was, and examined her skin and did not find any marks or bruises. Administrative Nurse D stated she then went to the service corridor to wait for CNA M to come back in the facility from taking trash out and then Administrative Nurse D accompanied CNA M to her office and had her fill out witness statements, suspended her pending investigation, and after the investigation terminated CNA M. The facility's ANE: Abuse Prevention, Intervention, Reporting, and Investigation - Staff Treatment of Residents Policy, revised 10/11/21, documented that Residents had the right to be free from verbal sexual, and mental abuse, corporal punishment, exploitation, and involuntary seclusion. It is the responsibility of the employees to promptly report to the community management any occurrence or suspected occurrence of neglect or resident abuse from other residents, staff, family, or visitors including injuries of unknown source and theft or misappropriation of resident property. Staff are mandated reporters and must comply with state and federal regulations regarding reporting suspected occurrences of neglect or resident abuse or unauthorized photographs or video recordings. All reports of ANE are promptly and thoroughly investigated by community management. Employees will receive training regarding abuse, neglect, protection of resident privacy, and misappropriation of resident property at initial orientation and at least annually. Prevention measures will be in place which provide residents, families, and staff related to reporting and handling concerns and grievances. Prevention will include identifying, correcting, and/or intervening in situations in which abuse and neglect are likely to occur. The resident will be protected from harm during the investigation. On 01/14/25 at 01:30 PM, Administrative Staff A and Administrative Nurse D were provided a copy of the IJ template and notified of the facility failure to ensure R1, R2, and R3 remained free from abuse from CNA M, which placed the residents in immediate jeopardy. The facility identified and implemented the following corrective measures provided education to all staff regarding Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation on 12/17/24. Head-to-toe assessment completed on R1 without any signs of redness or bruising noted. All three residents were placed on monitoring for signs of psychosocial concerns. Interviews were completed with all other alert and oriented residents regarding any concerns with safety in the facility. The surveyor verified the implemented corrective actions on 01/15/25 at 01:00 PM. Due to the facility's corrective actions completed prior to the surveyor's arrival onsite, the deficient practice was deemed past non-compliance at a J scope and severity following removal of the immediacy.
Dec 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

The facility identified a census of 58 residents with three residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to identify risk for b...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility identified a census of 58 residents with three residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to identify risk for burns and provide adequate supervision to prevent accidental hot liquid burns for Resident (R) 1 and R2. On 10/07/24 at approximately 12:30 PM, R1 ate lunch in the dining room. R1 required staff assistance with eating and drinking. R1 took the plastic wrap off the coffee on his tray, lifted it towards his mouth, and lost control of the coffee cup, spilling hot coffee on his right thigh. R1 sustained a second-degree burn (potentially painful burn that affects the first and second layers of the skin) to his right thigh. On 12/03/24 at approximately 05:30 PM, Student Certified Nurse's Aide (CNA) GG took R2's supper tray to R2's room and placed the tray on the bedside table. Student CNA GG attempted to adjust the height of the bedside table and instead pressed the latch that tilted the bedside table, causing hot tomato soup and hot coffee to land on R2's left thigh causing a burn to R2's left thigh. These deficient practices placed R1 and R2 at risk for injury, pain, and delayed healing. Findings included: - R1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented R1 had diagnoses of hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (muscular weakness of one half of the body) after cerebral infarction (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) affecting his non-dominant left side, calcific tendonitis (a painful condition that occurs when calcium deposits build up in the tendons, usually in the shoulder and causes inflammation, pain and limited range of motion in the joint) of his right shoulder, and rheumatoid arthritis (chronic inflammatory disease that affected joints and other organ systems). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated 10/08/24, documented R1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented R1 required substantial assistance from staff for dressing, toileting, bathing, and bed mobility. R1 was dependent on staff for all transfers. R1 required moderate staff assistance for eating, oral care, and personal hygiene. The MDS incorrectly documented R1 did not have any first or second-degree burns. The Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/06/24, documented R1 had a diagnosis of hemiplegia and calcific tendonitis of his right shoulder. The CAA documented R1 required partial to substantial assistance with his activities of daily living (ADLs). The Nutritional Status CAA, dated 09/06/24, documented R1 was on a mechanical soft, nectar-thickened liquid diet. R1's intakes had decreased. Staff attempted to give R1 thin liquids and R1 coughed and choked. The CAA documented R1 required assistance with eating. R1's Care Plan documented R1 had a self-care deficit and required assistance with ADLs such as repositioning, toileting, bathing, transfer, and locomotion (09/09/24). The care plan documented R1 was on a regular diet with thin liquids and high protein (10/01/24). After the hot liquid spill, R1's Care Plan was updated, and it documented R1 preferred to use a lid on his coffee due to R1's decrease in hand dexterity (10/07/24). The care plan directed staff to ensure a lid was present on R1's hot liquids at all times due to poor hand dexterity (10/07/24). The care plan documented R1 had a blister on his right groin area (10/07/24). The care plan directed staff to cleanse the blister to R1's inner thigh with wound cleanser, apply Aquacel (anti-bacterial dressing) to the wound bed, cover it with a foam dressing, and change the dressing every other day and as needed until healed (10/23/24). The Nursing Note, dated 08/12/24, documented R1 readmitted to the facility after suffering a hemorrhagic stroke. R1 required extensive assistance from two staff with a gait belt for transfers and toileting. R1 was on a regular diet with nectar-thickened liquids. R1 was unable to have conversations but was able to answer yes or no. R1 had generalized weakness, bilaterally. The Nursing Note, dated 08/12/24 documented R1 required a mechanical soft diet with nectar-thickened liquids due to having difficulty taking medication with regular water and pocketing food at dinner. The Social Service Note, dated 08/13/24, documented R1 re-admitted yesterday from the hospital post-hemorrhagic stroke. R1 was unable to converse but could say yes or no. R1 required assistance with meals. Staff had to crush R1's medications due to swallowing issues. The Nursing Note, dated 08/13/24, documented R1 required help in the dining room and needed assistance with meals. R1 was unable to complete full sentences. R1 was able to follow verbal cues. The Nursing Note, dated 08/13/24, documented R1 ate 50% of his meals that shift. The CNA stated R1 was talking gibberish while the CNA assisted him with his meal. R1 was not having difficulty eating a mechanical soft diet with nectar-thickened liquids. The Nursing Note, dated 08/14/24, documented R1 was being monitored post-hemorrhagic stroke. R1 had been up for meals and was fed all meals by staff. R1 refused to help with feeding or drinking. The Nursing Note, dated 08/21/24, documented R1 ate his meal in his room with assistance from staff. R1 appeared to be coughing often while eating. R1 ate 25% of his meal. The Nursing Note, dated 08/24/24, documented R1 came out of his room for meals. R1 needed some assistance with eating. The Health Status Note, dated 10/07/24, documented R1 spilled coffee in his lap at lunch. Staff cleaned R1 and noted there was mild redness on his thighs. R1 had no complaints of pain or discomfort. The Skin Alteration/Injury Report, dated 10/07/24, documented dietary staff in the dining room notified Licensed Nurse (LN) LN G around 12:45 PM, during lunch, R1 spilled coffee in his lap. R1 had finished eating and was taken to his room where his clothes were removed, and he was placed in bed. R1's skin was cleansed, patted dry, barrier cream was applied, and then the area was left open to air. There was mild redness present on R1's right inner thigh before the end of the shift. R1 had no comment on the incident but did deny pain. The Skin/Wound Noted, dated 10/08/24, documented R1 had a blistered area on his right upper thigh close to the groin. Measurements of the blistered area were 11.7 centimeters (cm) by 2.7 cm. Staff applied Skin-Prep (liquid skin protectant) and covered it with a foam dressing. The Health Status Note, dated 10/08/24, documented staff notified R1's primary care physician's nurse of the blister to R1's right inner thigh related to his spilling coffee the previous day at lunch. The current plan was to apply Skin-prep every shift and may apply a foam dressing for protection. The nurse stated she would let R1's primary care physician know and would call if he had any other recommendations. The Health Status Note, dated 10/09/24, documented therapy was contacted and asked if they could work with R1 on dexterity such as holding cups at meals related to his issue of spilling coffee earlier that week. The Skin/Wound Note, dated 10/13/24, documented the blister to R1's right inner thigh was assessed and noted the previous foam dressing was soiled. The previous dressing was removed and a small amount of serous (clear) drainage was noted. No odor or signs or symptoms of infections were noted. The lower part of the blister no longer had skin covering it and was open. The open area measured 4.2 cm by 1.5 cm. There was still a closed area to the upper part of the blister and Skin-prep was applied to the closed area. The open area was cleansed, patted dry, triple antibiotic ointment applied, and covered with a foam dressing. The Health Status Note, dated 10/14/24, documented a fax was sent to R1's primary care physician that the blister on R1's right thigh had opened, and staff were waiting on new orders. The Health Status Note, dated 10/15/24, documented R1 continued to receive outpatient speech therapy. R1 used lids on his cups but did not like the lids. The Health Status Note, dated 10/16/24, documented orders were received to continue the current treatment of applying triple antibiotic ointment to the open area on R1's thigh, Skin-prep the intact area, and cover with a foam dressing. R1's October 2024 Treatment Administration Record (TAR), documented an order for facility staff to apply Skin-prep (liquid skin protectant) to R1's right inner thigh blister every shift. Let dry. May apply foam dressing for protection. Staff were to monitor for signs and symptoms of infection and discontinue the treatments when healed. The start date was 10/08/24. The October 2024 TAR, documented a new order directing facility staff to cleanse R1's right inner thigh wound with wound cleanser, apply Aquacel to small area with drainage, apply a foam dressing, and change the dressing every other day and as needed until healed. The start date was 10/25/24. R1's Hot Liquids Assessment, (not completed until after the event on 10/18/24), documented R1 drank hot liquids, had a burn or a hot liquid spill in the last year, R1 had a neurological disease that affected his functioning, had a loss of hand or arm function, and R1 had weakness in his dominant hand or arm. The Hot Liquid risk score for R1 was sixteen, which indicated R1 was a high risk for hot liquids. The Facility Incident Report, dated 10/30/24, documented on the afternoon of 10/07/24 at approximately 12:45 PM, R1 was seated in his wheelchair at his table when the dietary staff assisted him with a cup of coffee. The cup was a standard cup that had a plastic wrap on top of the cup. R1 removed the plastic wrap and proceeded to take a sip. Dietary staff observed R1 lose his grip on the handle and spill the entire cup of coffee on his lap. Dietary staff immediately assisted R1 by attempting to absorb the liquid and requested a nurse. LN G immediately responded to the situation. LN G requested that R1 remove his clothing, which he declined, and the resident requested to stay in the dining room to finish his noon meal. Upon R1 finishing the meal, LN G assisted him back to his room, removed his pants, and noted a red area on the right inner thigh. R1 denied any pain at that time of the assessment. LN G updated R1's responsible party and R1's primary care physician about the incident. During the early morning hours of 10/08/24, the night shift nurse noted R1 had a fluid-filled blister to his right inner thigh/groin area. The area measured 11.7 cm by 2.7 cm. Staff cleansed the area with normal saline, applied Skin-prep, and covered it with a foam dressing to keep the fluid-filled blister intact. R1 was served coffee as usual from a carafe that had been prepared at least thirty minutes earlier. The coffee was not assessed for temperature at the time of the event because there was none [coffee] available. The coffee machine from the hospitality bar machine was checked later and the temperature was 138.7 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Coffee obtained from the kitchen measured 178.7 degrees F. The staff could not determine where the coffee filling the carafe was obtained. R1 insisted on continuing his meal following the spill which most likely contributed to the severity of the burn. R1 was provided a lidded coffee cup. Dietary staff were to check the temperature of the coffee carafe to ensure the temperature was below 140 degrees F. The staff received instructions and the care plan was updated. The facility incident report lacked witness statements. The November 2024 TAR, documented the continued order directing facility staff to cleanse R1's right inner thigh wound with wound cleanser, apply Aquacel to small area with drainage, apply a foam dressing, and change the dressing every other day and as needed until healed. R1's December 2024 TAR, documented the continued order directing facility staff to cleanse R1's right inner thigh wound with wound cleanser, apply Aquacel to small area with drainage, apply a foam dressing, and change the dressing every other day and as needed until healed. On 12/10/24 at 10:00 AM, observation revealed R1 sat in his wheelchair dressed for the day. R1 had his tray table beside him with a filled water pitcher on it. On 12/11/24 at 11:00 AM, observation revealed R1 lay in bed with his pants off. LN H and Administrative Nurse D performed R1's dressing change to his right inner thigh. The wound to R1's right inner thigh was approximately 3 cm by 0.5 cm and covered with eschar (dead tissue) with redness around the peri-wound (skin around the wound). R1 tolerated the treatment well. On 12/10/24 at 10:00 AM, R1 stated he did not remember spilling his coffee on his lap. R1 stated lids were used on his coffee cups. R1 could not answer when asked if his wound caused him pain he just stared straight ahead. On 12/10/24 at 10:30 AM, LN H stated that R1's burn to his right inner thigh was completely healed and the facility continued to perform the dressing change for prophylaxis. LN H stated she would not perform R1's dressing change until after he returned from his appointment. On 12/10/24 at 11:00 AM, LN H found the surveyor and stated she told the surveyor the wrong information about R1's right inner thigh wound, and the wound was not healed. LN H said she could perform the dressing change at that time before R1 went to his appointment. On 12/10/24 at 11:30 AM, CNA M stated R1 required assistance from staff for eating his meals at all times because of his continued weakness since his stroke. CNA M stated R1 required a lid on his coffee cup at all times. On 12/10/24 at 09:45 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated the coffee temperature that was served to R1 had not been checked before the coffee was served. Administrative Nurse D verified R1 required assistance with meals at times. The facility's Hot Beverage Service in Senior Dining, documented that coffee or hot beverages may be brewed in the dining rooms and offered to each resident with their meals. Licensed areas must serve hot beverages at no greater than 140 degrees F. Record the time that the coffee or hot beverage was brewed using the log provided. The temperature of the coffee or hot beverage should be taken using a clean and sanitized digital instant-read thermometer. Following the reading the thermometer should be wiped using alcohol wipes provided. If the temperature is above the required temperatures, allow it to cool for a while longer and check the temperature again. Record the temperature when the coffee or hot beverage has reached the appropriate temperature using the log provided. Once the temperature is appropriate based on the above guidelines, the coffee or hot beverage can be served. The facility failed to identify risk and implement appropriate interventions and assistance with eating to prevent a hot liquid spill and further failed to assess the temperature of hot liquids prior to serving to ensure safe temperatures which resulted in a second-degree burn for R1. This deficient practice also placed R1 at risk for pain and prolonged healing. - R2's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented R2 had diagnoses of peripheral vascular disease (PVD- slow and progressive circulation disorder causing narrowing, blockage, or spasms in a blood vessel), hypertension (high blood pressure), and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated 09/09/24, documented R2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R2 required moderate staff assistance for bathing, bathing, dressing, and bed mobility. R2 was dependent on staff for all transfers and putting and taking off her footwear. The MDS documented R2 was independent for eating. The MDS documented R2 had no skin impairment. R2's Care Area Assessments (CAA), dated 12/18/23, lacked analysis. R2's Care Plan documented R2 ate in her room for all meals and was able to feed herself once the tray was delivered (08/22/24). R2 required assistance from one staff for bathing dressing and toileting, one to two staff for bed mobility, and assistance from two staff for transfers (08/22/24). The care plan documented R2 enjoyed tomato soup and liked to eat it several times a week (09/06/24). R2's Care Plan was updated after the incident and directed staff R2's primary care physician prescribed Silvadene (a topical antibiotic used in partial thickness and full thickness wounds to prevent infection) to treat the burn injuries to R2's left thigh. The plan directed staff to administer the ointment as prescribed and notify R2's primary care physician of any concerns. The care plan directed staff to monitor R2's burn injury sites to her left thigh every shift until healed (12/04/24). The Skin/Wound Note, dated 12/03/24, documented CNA N called Licensed Nurse (LN) I into R2's room during supper. CNA N stated that Student CNA GG had accidentally knocked over R2's table that had her coffee and tomato soup on it. The coffee and soup spilled on R2's legs, mostly landing on her left thigh. The area appeared red and had no blistering. CNA N, who had witnessed this, stated Student CNA GG took R2's supper into her room and was readjusting the height on her table. Instead of adjusting the height, Student CNA GG accidentally tilted the table, causing the tomato soup and coffee to spill. R2 stated, I have no idea what happened, it all happened so fast. It hurt so bad it brought tears to my eyes. I know it was an accident, so I hope she is not in trouble. Staff removed R2's clothing and cleaned the coffee and soup. LN I applied a cold washcloth and a towel-wrapped ice pack to the site. LN I completed a skin assessment and obtained vital signs. R2's vital signs were within normal limits for her. After the skin assessment was completed, R2 was dressed in clean, dry clothes. LN I notified the on-call nurse of what happened. Approximately an hour later, LN I and CMA R assisted R2 to the bathroom to reassess her left thigh. The area appeared to be less red and still had not blistered. LN I advised R2 to keep her pants off and R2 refused. LN I provided R2 education that the heat from her burn could be trapped by keeping the pants on and the pants rubbing against her skin could cause further irritation. Student CNA HH's Witness Statement, dated 12/03/24, documented Student CNA HH walked by R2's room and saw a cup of soup get spilled on R2's lap as the table tipped over toward her. R2 was in a lot of pain. The CNAs in the room at the time poured water over R2's legs. A family member of R2 asked for help so a charge nurse was called. The nurse went into R2's room and provided care. Student CNA GG's Witness Statement, dated 12/03/24, documented Student CNA GG gave R2 dinner. There were two mugs with liquids in them on the tray. Student CNA GG moved the tray closer to R2. The side lever was pushed to adjust the tray. The tray was stable. A few minutes later the tray tilted, and the mugs spilled off the tray. The mug with soup spilled on R2. R2's responsible party poured cold water on her lap immediately. Staff lifted R2 up and her wet pants were pulled down. The nurse was informed immediately and went into R2's room. The tray table was very unstable and wobbled when maneuvered. CNA N's Witness Statement, dated 12/03/24, documented Student CNA GG brought R2 tomato soup and coffee and went to adjust the height of the table but grabbed the wrong thing and tilted the table towards R2. The tomato soup and coffee spilled on R2's left upper thigh. The skin appeared red with no blisters on it. CNA N stated they removed R2's clothes to get the hot soup and coffee off her, dried her leg, and gave her a cool rag and ice pack. Staff then put dry clothes on R2. The staff took that tray out and brought in another tray that did not tilt. The Progress Note, dated 12/04/24, documented R2's left thigh was checked related to the coffee spill on 12/03/24. The note documented two raised welts and two red areas to R2's inner and top of the thigh. The sites were measured by Administrative Nurse D that morning. The Communication with Physician Note, dated 12/04/24, documented that staff placed a call to R2's primary care physician about getting an appointment for R2 to have her leg looked at related to a soup burn she received on 12/03/24 and asked to have a physician's assistant come in-house to see R2. The Skin Wound Note, dated 12/04/24, documented a skin assessment was completed to R2's left thigh post hot liquid spill. The note documented two reddened areas that were non-blanchable, and non-blistered. Site A measured 4 centimeters (cm) by 1.4 cm and site B measured 3.6 cm by 1.5 cm. There was no depth noted. The peri-wound (skin around the wound) was light pink without warmth. Staff updated R2's primary care physician and responsible party. The Communication with Physician Note, dated 12/04/24, documented R2's primary care physician wanted to see R2 via virtual medical appointment in the afternoon related to the burn site on her left thigh. The Health Status Note, dated 12/04/24, documented R2 had a virtual medical appointment with her primary care physician related to the burn on R2's left thigh. R2 received a new order for Silvadene external cream topically to the left thigh twice a day for ten days. The Administration Note, dated 12/05/24, documented the red area remained. R2 voiced no pain at the site during the assessment. R2 wore pants with no difficulties or irritation voiced. The Skin/Wound Note, dated 12/06/24, documented R2's old bedside table had been removed from R2's room and replaced with one that did not tilt related to the soup spill. R2's responsible party told the nurse she was putting the old bedside table back in R2's room because R2 did not like the new table and preferred her old table. The nurse educated R2's responsible party on the risks of having the old table with the tilt ability. R2's responsible party stated, She has had this one for a long time and it was never an issue. The nurse taped a sign over the tilt mechanism that stated, Do not adjust. The Facility Incident Report, dated 12/10/24, documented on 12/03/24 at 05:30 PM, LN I was called to R2's room by CNA N. CNA N stated Student CNA GG had taken R2's supper to her room and was readjusting the height on her bedside table. Instead of adjusting the height, Student CNA GG adjusted the tilt of the table accidentally causing R2's bedside table to tilt and spilled R2's coffee and tomato soup onto R2's legs; most of the spill landed on R2's left thigh. CNA N and Student CNA GG immediately assisted R2 in removing her pants, cleaned the liquids, and applied cool compresses to the site. The areas appeared red and had no blistering upon initial observation. Cool compresses remained in place through the evening over the next two hours. Assessments remained unchanged. After the skin assessment was completed, R2 was dressed in clean, dry clothes. At 06:19 PM, LN I and Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R assisted R2 to the bathroom and the areas appeared to be less red and had still not blistered. LN I advised R2 to keep her pants off to decrease discomfort and the potential for injury. R2 refused to allow her pants to be off and was redressed in her pants upon her request. On 12/04/24 at 07:30 AM, the exam revealed R2 had two reddened areas on her left thigh that were non-blanchable and non-blistered. The first site measured 4 cm by 1.4 cm. The second site measured 3.6 cm by 1.5 cm. The peri-wound was light pink with no warmth. R2 did not report pain in the areas. R2's primary care provider updated and ordered Silvadene cream twice a day and measured weekly until healed. R2 had no complaints and resumed her usual routine. On 12/10/24 at 10:15 AM, observation revealed R2 sat in her wheelchair, which was pushed up to her tray table and she was reading the paper. R2's tray table had a note over one of the levers that stated, Do Not Adjust. R2 pulled down the left side of her pants to show her burn sites. Observation revealed R2 had two burn sites that were dark pink on her left upper thigh. The first area measured approximately 4 cm by 0.6 cm and the second area measured approximately 4 cm by 0.7 cm. On 12/10/24 at 09:30 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated the facility had CNA students training on the day the accident happened. Administrative Nurse D stated Student CNA GG accidentally engaged the tilt function of R2's tray table and the soup and coffee had spilled on R2. Administrative Nurse D revealed Student CNA GG had warmed up R2's soup and coffee in the microwave in the dining room and had not assessed the temperature of the hot liquids for an appropriate temperature prior to serving. Administrative Nurse D stated all the microwaves in the three dining rooms had been removed and that from now on if any food or drink items needed to be warmed, the items would be taken to the kitchen for kitchen staff to warm the items and check temperature to make sure they were the appropriate temperature. Administrative Nurse D stated nursing staff had been educated regarding the new procedure. On 12/10/24 at 10:15 AM, R2 stated that when the student spilled the coffee and soup on her it hurt so bad. R2 stated she screamed in pain. R2 stated she knew it was an accident and the student did not mean for it to happen. R2 stated her left thigh hurt so bad that she had not been able to get a good night's sleep since the accident happened until last night and she was finally able to sleep. R2 stated they had taken her old tray table out of her room, but she did not like the new tray table, so her daughter went and got the old tray table back. R2 stated this tray table had a ledge around it that prevented her things from falling off her table. On 12/10/24 at 10:40 AM, LN J stated R2's left thigh burn sites were still red and the Silvadene was scheduled to be continued to be applied twice a day until 12/14/24. LN J stated she had not performed R2's treatment with Silvadene yet because she had been at a hair appointment. LN J said R2 had not reported any pain at her burn sites. The facility's Hot Beverage Service in Senior Dining, documented that coffee or hot beverages may be brewed in the dining rooms and offered to each resident with their meals. Licensed areas must serve hot beverages at no greater than 140 degrees F. Record the time that the coffee or hot beverage was brewed using the log provided. The temperature of the coffee or hot beverage should be taken using a clean and sanitized digital instant-read thermometer. Following the reading the thermometer should be wiped using alcohol wipes provided. If the temperature is above the required temperatures, allow it to cool for a while longer and check the temperature again. Record the temperature when the coffee or hot beverage has reached the appropriate temperature using the log provided. Once the temperature is appropriate based on the above guidelines, the coffee or hot beverage can be served. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and failed to assess the temperature of hot liquids prior to serving to ensure safe temperatures to prevent R2 from sustaining a hot liquid burn. This deficient practice resulted in a burn which caused excruciating pain which impacted R2's ability to sleep and placed R2 at risk for ongoing pain and impaired psychosocial wellbeing. The facility completed corrective actions to correct the deficit practice, which were completed by 12/06/24. The actions included assessing R1's safety with hot liquids and updating his care plan accordingly to ensure he always received a lid on hot beverages. Dietary staff would assess the temperature of the coffee carafes to ensure temperatures were in the appropriate range. The microwaves were removed from the dining rooms and staff must take all food and beverages to the dietary staff for reheating so temperatures can be assessed and ensured in the appropriate range. R2's tray table was switched out then later returned at her request and marked for increased staff awareness regarding the tilt function. Staff received education on the new processes and accident prevention. Since all corrective actions were completed before the onsite survey, the deficient practice was deemed past noncompliance and remained at G to represent the actual harm to R1 and the psychosocial harm to R2.
Oct 2023 16 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide Resident (R)31 or his representative with written information regarding the facility bed hold policy when R31 was transferred to the hospital. This placed R31 at risk for not being permitted to return and resume residence in the nursing facility. Findings included: - R31's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented the resident had diagnoses of urinary tract infection (UTI-an infection in any part of the urinary system). R31's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R31 required extensive staff assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing and toilet use. R31 required staff supervision with locomotion on and off unit, personal hygiene, and eating. R31's Care Plan, revised 10/03/23, documented R31 had an indwelling urinary catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) and instructed staff to monitor his fluid intake and urine output per physician orders, provide catheter care every shift and as needed (PRN). The care plan instructed staff to change R31's catheter every 30 days and PRN, empty it every shift and PRN, ensure R31's catheter tubing and bag did not touch the floor or become elevated above his bladder and to ensure R31's catheter was appropriately positioned during transfer to prevent any obstruction. R31's Progress Notes, dated 05/31/23 at 09:34PM, documented R31 was transferred to the hospital. Review of R31's clinical record lacked evidence the resident or representative was provided the facility bed hold policy. On 10/24/23 at 11:44 AM, observation revealed R31 rested in bed on his left side; staff entered the room and repositioned him on his back. On 10/26/23 at 10:50 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) FF verified R31 or his representative was not provided a bed hold policy when he was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and stated the facility did not provide the bed hold policy to residents who received Medicaid when they are transferred to the hospital. On 10/30/23 at 11:51 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated nursing staff were responsible for providing residents the bed hold policy when they were transferred to the hospital. Administrative Nurse D stated R31 should have received the bed hold notice even if he received Medicaid services. The facility's Bed/Unit-Hold Policy, revised 05/28/2019, documented upon admission or transfer, the resident and family member or legal representative or surrogate would review and be informed that the facility would hold a bed/unit for residents on medical or non-medical leave, as requested and agreed upon. Staff should verify Medicaid and private insurer's bed/unit-hold coverage. The facility failed to provide R31 or his representative with the bed hold policy when he was transferred to the hospital. This placed the resident at risk for not being permitted to return and resume residence in the nursing facility.
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 had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observations, record review, and interview...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for Resident (R) 40 which addressed his edema and related needs. This placed the resident at risk for impaired care due to uncommunicated care needs. Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R40 documented diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity and weakness), weakness, edema (swelling resulting from an excessive accumulation of fluid in the body tissues), hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), other symptoms and signs with cognitive functions and awareness. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R40 had intact cognition and required supervision and one staff assistance for transfers, ambulation, dressing, and toileting. The MDS further documented R40 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, and had no skin issues. The Significant MDS, dated 08/08/23, documented R40 had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, extensive assistance of one staff for dressing, ambulation in room, and personal hygiene. The MDS further documented R40 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, and had no skin issues. R40's Care Plan lacked documentation of his diagnosis of edema and interventions to prevent edema. R40's Physician Order, dated 01/06/23, directed staff to administer spironolactone (a diuretic medication), 50 milligrams (mg), by mouth, twice per day, for the diagnosis of edema. R40's Physician Order, dated 04/28/23, directed staff to apply compression stockings (designed to apply pressure to your lower legs, helping to maintain blood flow and reduce discomfort and swelling), for knee-high edema, on in the morning and off in the evening. On 10/24/23 at 01:01 PM, observation revealed R40 sat in a recliner in the living room pod. R40 did not have compression socks on. Further observation revealed nursing students placed a pillow under his legs. On 10/25/23 at 10:00 AM, observation revealed R40 sat in his wheelchair, and did not have his compression socks on. On 10/26/23 at 07:36 AM, observation revealed R40 sat in a recliner in the living room pod with his feet elevated. R40 had no compression socks on, and his ankles appeared edematous. On 10/30/23 at 09:36 AM, observation revealed R40 sat in a recliner in the living room pod with his feet elevated. He had no compression socks on, and his ankles appeared edematous. On 10/26/23 at 12:06 PM, Administrative Nurse E verified that there was not a care plan related to R40's edema and stated it was everyone's responsibility to put interventions on the care plan. Administrative Nurse E further stated she looked through nurse's notes and talked to staff before the care plan meetings to see if there was anything new to put on the care plan. On 10/30/23 at 02:00 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated the care plan should reflect the resident and his edema related cares should be on the care plan. The facility's Care Plan policy, dated 07/28/22, documented a person-centered plan of care as developed for each resident by the interdisciplinary team, through assessments within the established timeframes, according to state and federal regulations. Each discipline would be responsible for identifying problems, management of avoidable declines in functioning, and establishing goals for the person-centered plan of care. Problems & goals would focus on building upon resident strengths, their needs, and personal, as well as cultural preferences identified in the admission assessment. The facility failed to develop a plan of care for R40's edema. This placed the resident at risk for impaired care due to uncommunicated care needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 resident. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 resident. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise Residents (R) 38's care plan to include fluid restriction quantities, which placed R38 at risk of complication related to hydration status, dialysis (procedure where impurities or wastes were removed from the blood) treatment and history of urinary tract infections (UTI-an infection in any part of the urinary system) due to uncommunicated care needs. Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R38 documented diagnosis of acute kidney failure, end stage renal failure (ESRD-a terminal disease of the kidneys), hydronephrosis (excess urine accumulation in the kidney that causes swelling), multiple sclerosis (MS- progressive disease of the nerve fibers of the brain and spinal cord), history of UTI's, bacteremia (presence of bacteria in the blood), acidosis (excess acid in the body fluids), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (dysfunction of the urinary bladder caused by a lesion of the nervous system), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS- abnormally increased motility of the small and large intestines), history of venous thrombosis (clot that developed within a blood vessel) and embolism (an obstruction in a blood vessel due to a blood clot or other foreign matter that gets stuck while traveling through the blood stream), and abdominal pain. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R38 had intact cognition, was independent with eating, required partial/moderate assistance with toileting hygiene, bathing self, upper and lower body dressing, to roll left to right, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to stand, chair/bed transfer, and toilet transfers. The Activity of Daily Living Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/19/23, documented R38 went to dialysis three times a week and family member transported the resident. The Nutritional Status Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/19/23, documented R38 received a therapeutic renal diet with a 1500 milliliter (ml) fluid restriction; R38 received hemodialysis three times a week which would cause weight fluctuation. R38's Care Plan, dated 09/28/23, documented R38 went to dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. The care plan directed staff to monitor shunt thrill (a fine vibration felt which reflects the blood flow by a dialysis resident's shunt) and bruit (blowing or swishing sound heard when blood flows through a shunt)every shift and report concerns to dialysis; educate resident and family to any restrictions related to dialysis such as diet/fluids, and continue a 1500 ml fluid restriction. The care plan lacked direction to staff as to dietary and nursing department specification on interdisciplinary communication of fluid intake. R38's Physician Order dated 09/22/23, directed staff to provide a regular diet and 1500 ml fluid restriction in 24 hours. R38's EMR lacked evidence staff monitored and recorded fluid intake until 10/09/23. R38's EMR further lacked documentation of fluid intake for the day shift two out of 14 opportunities; evening shift lacked documentation for eight of 14 opportunities, and night shift lacked 11 of 14 opportunities. On 10/26/23 at 11:11 AM, observation revealed R38 sat in her recliner with a family member present. R38 was alert, watched TV with her feet elevated and covered with a blanket. R38 reported she took paperwork with her to the dialysis center on treatment days and returned with the paper which she gave to staff. R38 verified the facility had not weighed her consistently before or after dialysis treatment but stated the dialysis center did weight her. R38 reported she had a 1500 ml in 24-hour fluid restriction and had to ask for fluids. R38 stated she expected nursing staff were monitoring the amounts she consumed. On 10/26/23 at 12:52 PM, Consultant GG stated the nursing staff provided the resident fluid and tracked the fluid intake. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O stated she was instructed to provide R38 a medium glass of fluids with meals, which consisted of 360 mls. On 10/30/23 at 09:37 AM CNA P reported R38 was on a fluid restriction but did not know the amount of the restriction. On 10/30/23 at 09:48 AM Licensed Nurse (LN) J reported R38 received dialysis treatments three times a week. LN J verified R38 should have vital signs and weight before and after dialysis treatment and had physician order for a 1500 ml fluid restriction. LN J reported an intake and output record was kept in the resident's room so staff could record the intakes, and it was the nurse's responsibility to keep track of this information. LN J verified the lack of documented fluid intakes, weights, and completion of the Dialysis Communication Form. On 10/30/23 at 12:57 PM Administrative Staff D stated the Dialysis Communication Form should be completed and accessible for staff to review in the EMR or left on the unit for the nursing staff if they should need to review information collected. Administrative Nurse D verified she expected nursing staff to complete the communication form before and after treatment, weight, take vital signs and monitor R38's fluid intake. The facility's Hydration/Fluid Maintenance policy, dated 09/17/21, documented to identify residents admitted to the community with risk factors which can lead to dehydration. Determine through assessment of clinical conditions if sufficient fluid intake is being offered to the resident. Develop an appropriate preventative plan of care. Risk factors for the resident becoming dehydrated are fluid loss and increased fluid needs, fluid restriction secondary to renal dialysis, functional impairments, residents who forgets to drink or forgets how to drink, and refusal of fluids. The general procedure of using daily fluid need guidelines, determine if resident needs input monitoring, perform MDS/CAA process and develop plan of care, incorporate hydration plan based on the needs of the resident. The facility failed to revise R38's care plan to include fluid restriction quantities between nursing and dietary departments, which placed R38 at risk of complications due to uncommunicated care needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a discharge summary for one of the residents reviewed for discharge that included a completed recapitulation (a concise summary of the resident's stay and course of treatment in the facility) of the resident's stay and post discharge plan for Resident (R) 57. This placed the resident at risk for receiving inadequate care and missed care opportunities. Findings included: - R57's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R57's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated 09/12/23, documented R57 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R57 required moderate staff assistance with bed mobility, transfers, putting on and off footwear, supervision with lower body dressing, and was independent with eating, oral hygiene, and toileting. The MDS documented R57 expected to be discharged to the community. R57's Care Plan, revised 09/12/23, documented R57 was in the facility for therapy and planned to discharge back to home. The Nurse's Note, dated 10/13/23 at 12:37 AM, documented R57 would discharge from the facility to home on [DATE]. Review of R57's EMR lacked evidence of a complete discharge summary, which included a recapitulation of his stay. On 10/26/23 at 02:21 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified R57's discharge summary lacked documentation regarding R57's status when he was admitted to the facility and stated the form is what the staff always used for recapitulation of resident's stay. Administrative Nurse D stated the Physical Therapy (PT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) discharge notes would show R57's progression throughout his stay. The facility's Anticipated Discharge Summary - Recapitulation of Stay Policy, revised 09/08/21, documented an interdisciplinary discharge summary should be completed for anticipated discharges. The discharge checklist-recapitulation of stay form would be completed at the time of the resident's discharge to summarize the resident's course of treatment and include all areas of the comprehensive assessment. The facility failed to complete a discharge summary that included a recapitulation of R57's stay and post discharge plan. This placed the resident at risk for receiving inadequate care and missed care opportunities.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents, with four reviewed for non-pressure related skin co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents, with four reviewed for non-pressure related skin conditions. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 40 had his physician-ordered compression socks on to his legs daily due to his edema (swelling resulting from an excessive accumulation of fluid in the body tissues). This placed the resident at risk for complications from edema. Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R40 documented diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity and weakness), weakness, edema (swelling resulting from an excessive accumulation of fluid in the body tissues), hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), other symptoms and signs with cognitive functions and awareness. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R40 had intact cognition and required supervision and one staff assistance for transfers, ambulation, dressing, and toileting. The MDS further documented R40 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, and had no skin issues. The Significant MDS, dated 08/08/23, documented R40 had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, extensive assistance of one staff for dressing, ambulation in room, and personal hygiene. The MDS further documented R40 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, and had no skin issues. R40's Care Plan lacked documentation of his diagnosis of edema and interventions to prevent edema. R40's Physician Order, dated 01/6/23, directed staff to administer spironolactone (a diuretic medication), 50 milligrams (mg), by mouth, twice per day, for the diagnosis of edema. R40's Physician Order, dated 04/28/23, directed staff to apply compression stockings (designed to apply pressure to your lower legs, helping to maintain blood flow and reduce discomfort and swelling), for knee-high edema, on in the morning and off in the evening. On 10/24/23 at 01:01 PM, observation revealed R40 sat in a recliner in the living room pod. R40 did not have compression socks on. Further observation revealed nursing students placed a pillow under his legs. On 10/25/23 at 10:00 AM, observation revealed R40 sat in his wheelchair, and did not have his compression socks on. On 10/26/23 at 07:36 AM, observation revealed R40 sat in a recliner in the living room pod with his feet elevated. R40 had no compression socks on, and his ankles appeared edematous. On 10/30/23 at 09:36 AM, observation revealed R40 sat in a recliner in the living room pod with his feet elevated. He had no compression socks on, and his ankles appeared edematous. On 10/30/23 at 12:15 PM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R stated R40 would take his compression socks off by himself at times. On 10/30/23 at 12:30 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) H stated R40 was supposed to have compression socks on in the morning and taken off at night. LN H stated that the aides should have helped R40 apply the compression stockings. On 10/30/23 at 02:00 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated R40 should have his compression socks on every morning. Upon request a policy for edema/compression socks was not provided. The facility failed to ensure R40 had his physician-ordered compression socks applied to his legs daily to treat his edema. This placed the resident at risk for complications from edema.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement interventions placed to prevent, or promote healing of pressure ulcers (localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or friction) for Resident (R)1 when the facility failed to implement the pressure reducing cushion as directed by R1's plan of care and R1 developed a Stage 2 (partial-thickness skin loss into but no deeper than the dermis including intact or ruptured blisters) pressure injury to the coccyx (area at the base of the spine) area. This also placed the resident at risk for further unhealed pressure injuries, pain and infection. Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented R1 had diagnoses of cerebral infarction (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) with hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) affecting right dominant side, facial weakness, spinal stenosis (degenerative condition of the spine that could cause weakness and loss of use of extremities), urinary tract infection (UTI-an infection in any part of the urinary system), bacteriuria (presence of bacteria in the blood), pyuria (excess of white blood cells or pus in urine), retention of urine, dysfunction of bladder, cystocele (when the bladder bulges into the vagina), rectocele (tissue wall which separates the rectum from the vagina is weakened and leads to the vaginal wall to bulge), major depressive disorder (major mood disorder which causes persistent feelings of sadness), and an unstageable pressure ulcer of right heel. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R1 had severe cognitive impairment, required substantial/maximum assistance with eating, upper and lower body dressing, and rolling left to right. R1 was dependent on toileting hygiene, bathing, , putting on/taking off footwear, personal hygiene, lying to sitting on side of bed, chair/bed to chair transfers, and toilet transfers. The MDS further documented R1 had an indwelling catheter (tube placed in the bladder to drain urine into a collection bag), received pain and antidepressant medications (class of medications used to treat mood disorders). R1 was at risk for developing pressure ulcer injury, had one unstageable deep tissue injury, and a pressure reducing device for bed and chair. The MDS lacked information related to turning schedule, pressure ulcer care, and application of nonsurgical dressings to feet. The Pressure Ulcer Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/24/23, documented R1 was admitted to facility after hospitalization for a stroke, and had hemiparesis of the right dominant side. R1 had an indwelling catheter with a diagnosis of neuromuscular (nerve damage which the brain does not communicate with the bladder) dysfunction of bladder and a history of UTI. R1 required two staff assist with dressing, transfers, toileting, bed mobility, and used a mechanical lift for transfers. R1 had an unstageable deep tissue injury (DTI- purple or maroon localized area of discolored intact skin or blood-filled blister due to damage of underlying soft tissue from pressure and/or shear) to the right heel, had a pressure relieving mattress and a cushion in her wheelchair/recliner. The Braden Scale (standardized tool used for predicting pressure ulcers), dated 09/11/23, 09/18/23, 09/25/23, 10/02/23, and 10/09/23 scored R1 was at severe risk for the development of pressure ulcers. R1's Care Plan, dated 09/11/23, documented R1 was at risk for pressure ulcers and other skin impairment due to stroke and hemiplegia. The care plan documented the use of a low air loss mattress due to recent stroke and limited mobility. The plan directed R1 had changes in activities of daily living (ADL), used a mechanical lift with two staff assist when transferring, and required assistance with repositioning, toileting, and transfers. The plan directed R1 preferred to have a Roho (pressure relief cushion that is made of soft, flexible air cells) cushion in the recliner and wheelchair to assist with off- loading pressure for pressure relief. R1's Care Plan included a revision dated 09/28/23 which directed staff to clean R1's coccyx with normal saline (NS), pat dry, apply Skin-prep (liquid skin protectant) to the area and cover with a foam dressing; change every three to seven days and as needed (prn) as a preventative measure once daily. R1's Care Plan documented a revision dated 10/03/23 which directed R1 preferred to have decubitus (pressure ulcer) boots on at all times except during transfers or working with therapy, to off load pressure to the heels. The care plan revision also directed staff to cleanse the fluid filled blister to the right inner heel with NS, pat dry, apply Skin-prep to the area and cover with a foam dressing. Staff were to change the dressing every day and prn until healed for Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the inner heel. The Interdisciplinary Note (IDT) dated 09/10/23 at 07:07 AM, documented R1 was admitted to the facility related to a recent stroke affecting the right upper and lower extremities. R1 had an indwelling catheter, was incontinent of bowel, and had a few skin concerns to right hand/finger in the form of mild edema and hand or sores/pressure areas at the time. The Physician Order, dated 09/21/23, directed staff to monitor dressing and coccyx every shift for changes as preventative measure. The order further directed staff may cleanse with NS, pat dry, apply Skin-prep to area and cover with a foam dressing every three to seven days and prn. The Physician Order, dated 09/25/23, directed staff to monitor bruises on R1's right heel every shift for spreading and skin breakdown; apply Skin-prep, and float heels when in bed or sitting in chair. The Skin Evaluation Record, dated 09/29/23, documented R1's right heel bruise; staff were to monitor. The Skin Evaluation Record, dated 10/01/23, documented R1 right heel had a fluid filled blister measuring two centimeters (cm) in length and one cm in width, and treatment of Skin-prep and foam dressing. The IDT Note dated 10/02/23 at 02:25 PM, documented R1 had a fluid filled blister to the right inner heel, Skin-prep and foam dressing applied, decubitus boots on, and had redness to both heels. The IDT Note dated 10/04/23 at 05:59 PM, documented R1 had been in bed with every two-hour repositioning due to pain while sitting. The note further documented R1's coccyx area opened, and staff were to ensure a Roho cushion in chair/wheelchair when in use and offloading pressure. The Skin Evaluation Record, dated 10/20/23, documented R1's right heel was a partial thickness pressure injury wound. The blister fluid reabsorbed and had stable eschar (dead tissue) and measured 1.8 cm in length and 0.9 cm in width. The Physician Order, dated 10/20/23, directed staff to discontinue treatment of cleansing coccyx wound. On 10/25/23 at 09:34 AM observation revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) G changing dressing to R1's right heel. LN G cleansed the heel with NS, patted dry, and covered with a foam dressing. The wound base continued with eschar and had no redness or drainage. R1 sat in the wheelchair through breakfast and dressing change. R1's Roho cushion had not been placed in the wheelchair prior to going to breakfast and was not in the chair at the time of the observation. LN G verified the resident should have a Roho cushion in the chair. On 10/26/23 at 08:00 AM observation revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O and Certified Medication Aide (CMA) S assisted R1 to turn to her side for morning hygiene care for the breakfast meal. R1 had soft bowel movement which took a significant amount of cleansing due to the dryness of old fecal material around the edges. Once the area had been cleansed, observation further revealed an open area to R1's coccyx area. Administrative Nurse F verified the area measured 1.8 cm in length and 1 cm width and had granulation tissue. Administrative Nurse F cleansed the area, placed Skin-prep around the area and placed a foam dressing to cover the area. Administrative Nurse F stated the area to R1's coccyx area would be classified as a Stage 2 pressure injury. The Skin Evaluation Record, dated 10/26/23, documented R1 had a coccyx wound which measured 1.8 cm in width and 1.0 cm in length, with wound bed granulation (new tissue formed during wound healing), pressure area, and treated with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply incontinent barrier cream, may cover with foam dressing if needed. On 10/30/23 at 12:57 PM Administrative Nurse D verified R1 had a history of pressure ulcers and was admitted without pressure ulcers. Administrative Nurse D stated she expected staff to ensure R1's Roho cushion placement when R1 was up to the chair. The facility's Pressure Ulcer/Injury Prevention, Nursing Intervention and Wound Treatment policy, dated 08/30/22, documented all residents are considered to have some risk for the development of pressure ulcer/injuries. Nursing staff will evaluate skin integrity and tissue tolerance, implement preventative measures as indicated and treat skin breakdown. The primary care provider (PCP) admission orders authorize approval to begin using established ski and wound treatment guidelines. The facility failed to ensure placement of the Roho cushion for R1 who developed a Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the coccyx. This also placed the resident at risk of or further skin breakdown, delayed healing and other wound complications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents, with nine reviewed for accidents. Based on observat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents, with nine reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and a safe environment, free from preventable accident hazards, for three sampled residents who had falls, Resident (R) 26, R40, and R41. This placed the resident's at risk for further falls and injury. Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R26 documented diagnoses of dementia without behavioral disturbance (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) falls, anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear), hypertension (high blood pressure), hereditary neuropathy (weakness, numbness and pain from nerve damage, usually in the hands and feet), and insomnia (inability to sleep). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R26 had severely impaired cognition, and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility and transfers, and extensive assistance of one staff for toileting, personal hygiene. R26 required limited assistance of one staff for ambulation. The MDS further documented R26 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, and had no falls. R26's Quarterly MDS, dated 09/19/23, documented R26 had long and short-term memory problems and moderately impaired decision-making skills. R26 required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers, extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene; R26 required limited assistance of one staff for toileting and did not ambulate. The MDS further documented R26 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, and had one non-injury fall. The Fall Risk Assessments, dated 05/23/23, 08/23/23, 09/06/23, and 09/21/23, documented R26 was a high risk for falls. R26's Care Plan, dated 10/19/23, initiated on 06/18/23, directed staff to ensure R26 had non-slip footwear on to ensure she had proper traction with feet, and assist her with changing them at least twice throughout the night. The update, dated, 07/20/23, documented R26 preferred to have a mat next to her bed, and directed staff to adjust her bed in the lowest position when occupied; R26 preferred to have a concave mattress on her bed for edge awareness and preferred to lay on her fall mat at times. The plan directed staff if R26 was located on the fall mat, do not complete a fall [assessment] as she was able to lay on the fall mat at times. The update, dated, 09/06/23, directed staff were to offer/assist the resident to a recliner between meals. The update, dated 09/17/23, documented education was provided to staff when inquiring about R26 moving back in her wheelchair, and directed to assist her with moving her hips back to ensure that R26 was able to perform the task due to restlessness while in her wheelchair. The plan further directed R26 to be the last resident to the dining room, and staff were to transfer her to a standard chair to ensure safety. The Fall Investigation, dated 07/19/23 at 04:48AM, documented R26 was on her fall mat, with her legs out straight, and a pillow behind her head. R26 stated she decided to get down there, put a pillow here so I could lay down, it felt better down here. The investigation further documented R26 was assessed without injury, and three staff assisted her up with a gait belt and placed her back into bed. The Nurse's Note, dated 09/16/23 at 06:35 AM, documented R26 was observed lying on her floor mat with her pillow. The Fall Investigation, dated 09/17/23, documented R26 was restless in her wheelchair and staff asked her to move her hips back in the wheelchair due to her being too close to the edge. R26 moved forward which caused her to fall onto the wheelchair foot pedals. The investigation further documented staff lowered R26 the rest of the way down to the floor. The Nurse's Note, dated 09/23/23 at 09:30 PM, documented R26 was found lying on her double mat next to the bed with her eyes closed. R26 was unable to state the reason for getting up. Staff assessed with no injury noted, and R26 was assisted back to bed by two staff members. On 10/24/23 at 01:22 PM, observation revealed R26 sat in her wheelchair in the living room pod. She was restless and tried to stand up out of her wheelchair, staff intervened. On 10/26/23 at 08:12 AM, observation revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N placed a gait belt around R26's waist and with the assistance of CNA O, transferred R26 into a recliner from her wheelchair. On 10/26/23 at 8:18 AM, CNA O stated R26 could get impulsive and try to get up out of her wheelchair, so staff transfer into a recliner in the living room area. CMA R further stated, in bed she had fall mats and her bed was lowered to the floor. On 10/26/23 at 02:00PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated if R26 was found on her fall mat, it was not considered a fall because she would put herself down on the mat. LN G further stated R26 was to be transferred into a recliner in the living room area, so staff could keep an eye on her. On 10/30/23 at 10:00 AM, Administrative Nurse F stated when staff find R26 on her fall mat, it was not considered a fall since R26 would put herself on the mat. Administrative Nurse F stated the facility did not investigate incidents where R26 was found on the mat on the floor. On 10/30/23 at 12:30 PM Administrative Nurse D stated should assist R26 to reposition in her wheelchair. Administrative Nurse D verified the facility staff did not investigate causes or question what might have happened when R26 was found on the floor mat, staff assumed R26 placed herself there. The facility's Falls policy, dated 10/12/22, documented residents would be identified for risk of falls and interventions implemented to reduce the risk. The staff follow the Fall Guidelines for fall occurrences, document assessment of the resident, and investigate, review fall intervention reference sheet, and notify the responsible party, physician, and nurse supervisor. The residents with falls would be discussed weekly in risk management meetings to determine of possible interventions to prevent future falls. The facility failed to provide supervision and a safe environment by investigating causative and contributing factors when R26 was found on the floor. This placed R26, who had falls out of bed and wheelchair, at risk for further falls and injury and potential unidentified abuse and/or neglect. - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R40 documented diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity and weakness), weakness, edema (swelling resulting from an excessive accumulation of fluid in the body tissues), hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), other symptoms and signs with cognitive functions and awareness. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R40 had intact cognition and required supervision and one staff assistance for transfers, ambulation, dressing, and toileting. The MDS further documented R40 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, and had no falls. The Significant Change MDS, dated 08/08/23, documented R40 had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. R40required extensive assistance of one staff for dressing, ambulation in room, and personal hygiene. The MDS further documented R40 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, and had no falls. The Fall Risk Assessments, dated 12/15/22, 01/02/23, 01/15/23, 02/19/23, 03/17/23, 04/16/23, 05/14/23, 06/16/23, 07/21/23, 09/08/23, 10/03/23, and 10/28/23, documented R40 was a high risk for falls. R40's Care Plan, dated 010/09/23, initiated on 01/02/23 directed staff to ensure his recliner remote was within his reach and easy access. The update, dated 01/09/23, directed staff to ensure his bed was in the position that was easiest for him to access. The update, dated 01/15/23, documented R40 preferred staff apply his gait belt prior to standing to assist him with his unsteady gait and ensure proper security. The update, dated 02/06/23, documented to educated R40 to call for assistance when ambulating independently in his room. The update, dated 02/13/23, documented R40 preferred staff increase visual checks on him as he would attempt to ambulate independently and had a decrease in strength. The update dated 02/22/23 documented R40 preferred a touch pad call light, call pendent, and preferred his recliner footrest down so that he may exit his recliner safely. The update, dated 05/03/23, directed staff to ensure that a gait belt was used so that staff can regain resident balance, and open the door to the spa room prior to ambulating R40 to the shower room. The update dated 05/17/23 directed staff to place a touch pad call light in his room to assist with easy activation with needing assistance and educate staff to ensure that his walker and wheelchair are not in front of each other rather side by side to ensure that resident was able to access each of the assistive devices. The update, dated 09/01/23, directed staff to place Dycem (holds objects firmly into place) to the recliner that when R40 was seated and does attempt to get up he is able to maintain his traction to ensure he was able to transfer safely. The update, dated 09/08/23, directed staff to place Dycem in his wheelchair to ensure R40 was able to reposition himself in the wheelchair without sliding out of the wheelchair, and ensure he has a reacher when in the recliner or wheelchair to assist with items on the floor. The update, dated, 10/19/23, documented education with staff to ensure to offer/assist R40 to use the bathroom between 0000 and 0400 daily to prevent independent transfers with toileting and work order placed to check for spiders. The Fall Investigation, dated 01/02/23 at 08:30 AM, documented R40 was in his recliner and the footrest was in the elevated position. The remote to the recliner dropped to R40's right side, on the floor, and he was unable to get it to disengage his footrest. R40 shifted his weight which caused the recliner to tip forward and he slid to the floor. The investigation further documented staff were educated to ensure R40's recliner remote was in reach prior to exiting his room. The Fall Investigation, dated 01/15/23 at 11:45 AM, documented R40 was standing with his walker and requested staff apply his gait belt and while doing so, he lost his balance and staff were unable to regain his balance and lowered him to the floor. Staff were educated to ensure that they apply his gait belt prior to standing and ensure the proper security withstanding and change in gait patterns. The Fall Investigation, dated 02/13/23 at 03:40 AM, documented staff entered R40's room and noted him on the floor. The footrest to the recliner was in the elevated position, and it appeared R40 had exited the recliner to use the bathroom, lost his balance, and fell. The Fall Investigation, dated 04/28/23 at 04:30 AM, documented staff was restocking his room towels and R40 got up unassisted, without his walker, lost his balance, and R40 was assisted to the floor by a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA). The investigation further documented R40 was still in his day clothes and his pendent button was next to his recliner. The investigation documented R40 received a skin tear on his forearm from the CNA's fingernail which measured 2.5 centimeters (cm) x 1.7 cm. The staff were education to ensure R40's needs were met prior to completing any duties in the room and to ensure the resident was made aware of the CNA in the room. The Fall Investigation, dated 05/03/23 at 08:15 PM, documented per video footage that staff assisted R40 to the shower room via his walker when the CNA slipped in front of him to open the shower door when he lost his balance with ambulation, and he fell. Staff were educated to ensure a gait belt was used so that staff are able to regain R40's balance and educated to open the spa room door prior to ambulating with the resident to the shower room. The Fall Investigation, dated 07/21/23 at 05:53 PM, documented R40 returned from a surgical procedure and was positioned in the recliner and failed to have an assistive device within reach. The investigation further documented R40 was trying to get up and sat down on the floor. Staff were educated to have a walker or wheelchair positioned within reach for safety. The resident did not sustain any injury from fall. The Fall Investigation, dated 09/01/23 at 07:00 AM, documented R40 was observed on the floor in front of his recliner with his feet out in front of him. R40 stated he did not fall, he slid out of his recliner. The investigation documented his recliner was tilted up and staff were educated to ensure his wheelchair was always next to him when he was in the recliner and bed to ensure he was able to transfer safely. R40's EMR lacked documentation an assessment to determine if R40 could safely use the lift chair was completed. On 10/25/23 at 10:00 AM, observation revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) H had a gait belt around R40's waist and assisted him to stand up from the toilet, pivot to his left, and he was able to sit down into his wheelchair. Observation revealed there was no Dycem in R40's wheelchair or recliner. LN H stated he had falls and staff try to keep him out in the living room pod in a recliner so that he does not try to get up on his own. On 10/26/23 at 01:57 PM, CNA M stated he falls a lot because he tries to get up and ambulate alone, staff place him in a recliner in the living room pod to watch him better. On 10/30/23 at 02:00 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated he had a lot of falls and staff should make sure that there was a gait belt on him for safety. Administrative Nurse D further stated they are starting to complete lift chair assessments on residents. The facility's Falls policy, dated 10/12/22, documented residents would be identified for risk of falls and interventions implemented to reduce the risk. The staff follow the Fall Guidelines for fall occurrences, document assessment of the resident, and investigate, review fall intervention reference sheet, and notify the responsible party, physician, and nurse supervisor. The residents with falls would be discussed weekly in risk management meetings to determine, if possible, interventions to prevent future falls. The facility failed to ensure R40 remained free from preventable accidents and hazards. This placed R40 at risk for further falls and injury. - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R41 documented diagnoses of dementia without behavioral disturbances (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), chronic pain, and hypertension (high blood pressure). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R41 had moderately impaired cognition and required extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. R41requried limited assistance of one staff for ambulation. The assessment further documented R41 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, had two injury falls and had two non-injury falls. The Quarterly MDS, dated 07/21/23, documented R41 had severely impaired cognition and required limited assistance with bed mobility, transfers, ambulation, toileting, and dressing. The MDS further documented R41 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, and had no falls. The Fall Risk Assessments, dated 04/23/23, 06/08/23, 07/22/23, 08/-5/23, 09/10/23, 10/22/23, and 10/24/23, documented R41 was a high risk for falls. R41's Care Plan, dated 10/09/23, initiated on 08/08/22, directed staff to provide frequent checks on the resident. The update, dated 11/17/22, directed staff to assist R41 to bed between 08:00 PM and 10:30 PM, and assisted her to get ready for bed. The update, dated 12/02/22, directed staff to place her touch pad call light next to her when she was in the recliner to ensure that she was able to activate it easily for assistance. The updated dated 12/05/22, directed staff to offer/assist her to use the bathroom with each shift change. The update, dated 2/14/23, directed staff to ensure my walker was in proper function and assist her back into bed if she did not want in the recliner. The update, dated 04/17, directed staff to resident's preference of height of the recliner remote and place the remote on her bedside to prevent her from accidently activating it, and apply Dycem (holds objects firmly into place) in her recliner cushion to prevent her from sliding out. The update, dated 06/08/23, directed staff to assist resident with using the bathroom prior to last rounds. The update, dated, 08/05/23, documented education was provided to staff of proper transfer techniques. The update, dated 08/11/23, documented education was provided to staff to lock the brakes on the wheelchair then encourage R41 to stand to transfer. The update, dated, 10/22/23, documented education was provided to the staff to not leave her alone in the bathroom as she will try to ambulate independently. The Fall Investigation, dated 11/05/22 at 09:23 PM, documented R41 attempted to use the bathroom and transferred herself after completing her bedtime cares, lost her balance and fell. The staff was educated to assist R41 with her bedtime cares and not leave her alone in the bathroom. The Fall Investigation, dated 12/02/23 at 03:55 PM, documented staff were alerted by another resident that R41 was on the floor and stated she had been in her recliner prior to her fall. The investigation further documented R41's call light was lying on the bed, and she was unable to activate it to notify staff that she was wanting to get up. Education was provided to staff to ensure that R41's touch pad call light was next to her when in the recliner. The Fall Investigation, dated 02/14/23 at 09:31AM, documented staff offered to assist R41 into her recliner from her bed and she declined the assistance. The investigation further documented that R41 attempted to transfer herself with the use of her walker when is malfunctioned due to the leg of the walker bending which caused her to lose her balance and fall. The resident did not sustain any injury and the walker was taken back to therapy for a new walker and correct adjustment. The Fall Investigation, dated 04/17/23 at 11:15 AM, documented R41 had inclined her recliner all the way up to the standing position and started to slip out of her recliner, attempted to reach for her walker, and fell. The staff witnessed the fall but were unable to stop her from falling. The investigation further documented it appeared that R41 had bumped her remote to the recliner which caused her to incline, and staff were educated to ensure that the remote was placed on her bedside table to prevent R41 from accidently activating it and Dycem was applied to the recliner cushion to prevent sliding. The Fall Investigation, dated 08/05/23 at 09:31 PM, documented a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) transferred R41 from her bed to her wheelchair and let go of the gait belt to move the wheelchair to behind R41, which R41 lost her balance and fell. The staff were educated on proper transfer technique. The Fall Investigation, dated 10/22/23 at 04:30 AM, documented R41 fell next to her bed, was incontinent of urine and had attempted to take herself to the bathroom. The investigation further documented staff were educated on the proper placement of the call light so that they know when R41 was attempting to get up out of bed and educated to offer/assist to use the bathroom throughout the night at least three times to ensure they were meeting her needs. R41's EMR lacked evidence staff assessed R41 for the ability to safely use the lift chair. On 10/26/23 at 08:18 AM, observation revealed CNA O and CNA M placed a gait belt around R41's waist, stood her, and transferred her into her wheelchair. On 10/30/23 at 08:35 AM, observation revealed R41 in bed. The bed was lowered to the floor, and there was not Dycem in R41's recliner. On 10/26/23 AT 08:30 AM, CNA M stated R41 was impulsive and tried to get out of bed alone so they must make frequent checks on her and keep her bed low when she was in it. On 10/25/23 at 10:30 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN)LN H stated R41 liked to stay in bed a lot, so staff watch her carefully as she likes to try to get up on her own and then falls. On 10/30/23 at 02:00 PM, Administrative Staff D stated the staff were starting to complete lift chair assessments on residents and that staff should use proper technique to transfer residents. Administrative Staff D further stated if a resident was on therapy, the therapy department oversaw making sure the walkers were in good working order, otherwise maintenance took care of wheelchairs but was unsure about walkers. The facility's Falls policy, dated 10/12/22, documented residents would be identified for risk of falls and interventions implemented to reduce the risk. The staff follow the Fall Guidelines for fall occurrences, document assessment of the resident, and investigate, review fall intervention reference sheet, and notify the responsible party, physician, and nurse supervisor. The residents with falls would be discussed weekly in risk management meetings to determine, if possible, interventions to prevent future falls. The facility failed to ensure a safe environment free from accident hazards for R41. This placed the resident at risk for further falls and injury.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide Resident (R) 1 with sanitary indwelling urinary catheter (tube placed in the bladder to drain urine into a collection bag) care which placed the resident at risk for urinary tract infections (UTI-an infection in any part of the urinary system). Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented R1 had diagnoses of cerebral infarction (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) with hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) affecting right dominant side, facial weakness, spinal stenosis (degenerative condition of the spine that could cause weakness and loss of use of extremities), urinary tract infection (UTI-an infection in any part of the urinary system), bacteriuria (presence of bacteria in the blood), pyuria (excess of white blood cells or pus in urine), retention of urine, dysfunction of bladder, cystocele (when the bladder bulges into the vagina), rectocele (tissue wall which separates the rectum from the vagina is weakened and leads to the vaginal wall to bulge), major depressive disorder (major mood disorder which causes persistent feelings of sadness), and an unstageable pressure ulcer of right heel. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R1 had severe cognitive impairment, required substantial/maximum assistance with eating, upper and lower body dressing, and rolling left to right. R1 was dependent on toileting hygiene, bathing, putting on/taking off footwear, personal hygiene, lying to sitting on side of bed, chair/bed to chair transfers, and toilet transfers. The MDS further documented R1 had an indwelling, received pain and antidepressant medications (class of medications used to treat mood disorders). R1 was at risk for developing pressure ulcer injury, had one unstageable deep tissue injury, and a pressure reducing device for bed and chair. The Activity of Daily Living Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/24/23, documented R1 had been admitted to the facility following a hospitalization for a stroke. R1 admitted with an indwelling catheter to dependent drainage due to diagnosis of neuromuscular dysfunction (dysfunction of the urinary bladder caused by a lesion of the nervous system) of the bladder and had a history of urinary tract infections, started on medicated cream due to hemorrhoids (varicosity in the lower rectum or anus caused by congestion in the veins). R1's Care Plan, dated 09/27/23, documented R1 had a UTI and history of chronic UTI. The care plan directed staff to observe R1 for signs and symptoms of infection and to notify the physician to obtain treatment as needed. The care plan further directed staff to encourage adequate fluids, obtain lab and other diagnostic test per physician order; when R1 took antibiotics, staff would monitor for signs of allergic reaction. The Physician Order dated 09/11/23, directed staff to provide catheter care per facility policy, change the drainage bag every two weeks. The Physician Order dated 09/25/23 directed staff to use U-Pack Thera wipe vaginal wipes, one wipe twice a day. The Interdisciplinary Note (IDT) dated 09/28/23 at 01:46 PM, documented a care conference was held that day with family attendance. The note recorded R1 continued rehabilitation status, worked with therapy, required a mechanical lift for transfers and staff assistance with mobility, was incontinent of bowels and did not let staff know when she needed to go to the bathroom. The IDT note further documented R1 had an indwelling catheter to dependent drainage which staff maintained. The IDT Note dated 10/13/23 at 05:11 PM, documented R1 had to have her catheter changed as it was pulled out. The catheter size was a 16 French (Fr) catheter with a 30 cubic centimeter (cc) bulb, and the family had requested not to have pants put on the resident. The IDT Note dated 10/19/23 at 10:19 AM, documented a call was placed to the physician to report R1 had a urine chemistry strip which was positive for leukocytes (cells that circulate in the body to fight infections)/nitrates (predictor of infection) and trace blood. The IDT Note dated 10/24/23 at 11:01 AM, documented an order was received to collect a urinary analysis. The Physician Order, dated 10/26/23, directed staff to administer amoxicillin (antibiotic) 250 milligrams (mg) three times a day for seven days for UTI. On 10/26/23 at 08:00 AM observation revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O and Certified Medication Aide (CMA) S assisted R1 to turn to her side for morning hygiene care for the breakfast meal. R1 had soft bowel movement which took a significant amount of cleansing due to the dryness of old fecal material around the edges. Once the area had been cleansed, observation further revealed an open area to R1's coccyx area. Ongoing observation revealed CMA S provided medicated cream to the rectal area, then obtained a Thera Wipe and cleanse the catheter insertion site and tubing without changing gloves. Administrative Nurse F verified staff should had changed gloves after the resident had been cleaned from bowel movement, and another glove change before handling the Thera Wipe to cleanse the catheter site. On 10/30/23 at 12:57 PM Administrative Nurse D verified R1 had a history of UTI's and said staff should not use the same pair of gloves to clean the resident, provide treatment, and preform catheter care. The facility's Catheter Care-Urinary Foley policy, dated 10/08/21, documented catheter care is performed appropriately by qualified nursing staff to prevent complications caused by the presence of an indwelling catheter. The facility failed to provide R1 with sanitary indwelling catheter care which placed the resident at risk for ongoing complications of UTIs.
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 had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to monitor Resident (R) 38's physician ordered fluid restriction. This placed R38 at risk of complication related to hydration status due to the need of dialysis (procedure where impurities or wastes were removed from the blood) treatment and history of urinary tract infections (UTI-an infection in any part of the urinary system). Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R38 documented diagnosis of acute kidney failure, end stage renal failure (ESRD-a terminal disease of the kidneys), hydronephrosis (excess urine accumulation in the kidney that causes swelling), multiple sclerosis (MS- progressive disease of the nerve fibers of the brain and spinal cord), history of UTI's, bacteremia (presence of bacteria in the blood), acidosis (excess acid in the body fluids), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (dysfunction of the urinary bladder caused by a lesion of the nervous system), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS- abnormally increased motility of the small and large intestines), history of venous thrombosis (clot that developed within a blood vessel) and embolism (an obstruction in a blood vessel due to a blood clot or other foreign matter that gets stuck while traveling through the blood stream), and abdominal pain. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R38 had intact cognition, was independent with eating, required partial/moderate assistance with toileting hygiene, bathing self, upper and lower body dressing, to roll left to right, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to stand, chair/bed transfer, toilet transfers. The Activity of Daily Living Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/19/23, documented R38 went to dialysis three times a week and family member transported the resident. The Nutritional Status Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/19/23, documented R38 received a therapeutic renal diet with a 1500 milliliter (ml) fluid restriction; R38 received hemodialysis three times a week which would cause weight fluctuation. R38's Care Plan, dated 09/28/23, documented R38 went to dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. The care plan directed staff to monitor shunt thrill (a fine vibration felt which reflects the blood flow by a dialysis resident's shunt) and bruit (blowing or swishing sound heard when blood flows through a shunt) every shift and report concerns to dialysis; educate resident and family to any restrictions related to dialysis such as diet/fluids and continue a 1500 ml fluid restriction. The care plan lacked direction to staff as to dietary and nursing department specification on which department coordination of fluid intake. The Physician Order dated 09/22/23, directed staff to provide a regular diet and 1500 ml fluid restriction for 24 hours. R38's EMR lacked evidence staff monitored and recorded fluid intake until 10/09/23. R38's EMR further lacked documentation of fluid intake for the day shift of two out of 14 opportunities, evening shift lacked documentation of eight of 14 opportunities, and night shift lacked 11 opportunities of 14 opportunities. On 10/26/23 at 11:11 AM, observation revealed R38 sat in her recliner with a family member present. R38 was alert, watched TV with her feet elevated and covered with a blanket. R38 reported she took paperwork with her to the dialysis center on treatment days and returned with the paper which she gave to staff. R38 verified the facility had not weighed her consistently before or after dialysis treatment but stated the dialysis center did weight her. R38 reported she had a 1500 ml in 24-hour fluid restriction and had to ask for fluids. R38 stated she expected nursing staff were monitoring the amounts she consumed. On 10/26/23 at 12:52 PM, Consultant GG stated the nursing staff provided the resident fluid and tracked the fluid intake. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O stated she was instructed to provide R38 a medium glass of fluids with meals, which consisted of 360 ml. On 10/30/23 at 09:37 AM CNA P reported R38 was on a fluid restriction but did not know the amount of the restriction. On 10/30/23 at 09:48 AM LN J reported R38 received dialysis treatments three times a week and verified R38 had a physician order for a 1500 ml fluid restriction. LN J reported an intake and output record was kept in the resident's room so staff could record the intakes, and it was the nurse's responsibility to keep track of this information. LN J verified lack of documented fluid intakes, weights, and completion of the Dialysis Communication Form. On 10/30/23 at 12:57 PM Administrative Staff D stated the Dialysis Communication Form should be completed and accessible for staff to review in the EMR or left on the unit for the nursing staff if they should need to review information collected. Administrative Nurse D verified she expected nursing staff to complete the communication form before and after treatment, weight, take vital signs and monitor R38's fluid intake. The facility's Hydration/Fluid Maintenance policy, dated 09/17/21, documented to identify residents admitted to the community with risk factors which can lead to dehydration. Determine through assessment of clinical conditions if sufficient fluid intake is being offered to the resident. Develop an appropriate preventative plan of care. Risk factures for the resident becoming dehydrated are fluid loss and increased fluid needs, fluid restriction secondary to renal dialysis, functional impairments, residents who forgets to drink or forgets how to drink, and refusal of fluids. The general procedure of using daily fluid need guidelines, determine if resident needs input monitoring, perform MDS/CAA process and develop plan of care, incorporate hydration plan based on the needs of the resident. The facility failed to monitor physician ordered fluid restriction for R38's who received dialysis treatments and had UTI history, which placed the resident at risk for complications related to hydration status.
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 had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 38 received care and services for dialysis (procedure where impurities or wastes were removed from the blood) consistent with professional standards of practice which included ongoing assessments of resident's condition, and ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility. This placed R38 at risk complications and unmet care needs related to dialysis treatments. Findings Included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R38 documented diagnosis of acute kidney failure, end stage renal failure (ESRD-a terminal disease of the kidneys), hydronephrosis (excess urine accumulation in the kidney that causes swelling), multiple sclerosis (MS- progressive disease of the nerve fibers of the brain and spinal cord), history of urinary tract infection (UTI-an infection in any part of the urinary system), bacteremia (presence of bacteria in the blood), acidosis (excess acid in the body fluids), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (dysfunction of the urinary bladder caused by a lesion of the nervous system), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS- abnormally increased motility of the small and large intestines), history of venous thrombosis (clot that developed within a blood vessel) and embolism (an obstruction in a blood vessel due to a blood clot or other foreign matter that gets stuck while traveling through the blood stream), and abdominal pain. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R38 had intact cognition, was independent with eating, required partial/moderate assistance with toileting hygiene, bathing self, upper and lower body dressing, to roll left to right, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to stand, chair/bed transfer, toilet transfers. The Activity of Daily Living Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/19/23, documented R38 went to dialysis three times a week and family member transported the resident. The Nutritional Status Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/19/23, documented R38 received a therapeutic renal diet with a 1500 milliliter (ml) fluid restriction; R38 received hemodialysis three times a week which would cause weight fluctuation. R38's Care Plan, dated 09/28/23, documented R38 went to dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. The care plan directed staff to monitor shunt thrill (a fine vibration felt which reflects the blood flow by a dialysis resident's shunt) and bruit (blowing or swishing sound heard when blood flows through a shunt) every shift and report concerns to dialysis; educate resident and family to any restrictions related to dialysis such as diet/fluids and continue a 1500 ml fluid restriction. The care plan further directed staff to weigh R38 before and after dialysis treatment. The Physician Order dated 09/22/23, directed staff to provide a regular diet and 1500 ml fluid restriction for 24 hours. R38's EMR lacked evidence staff monitored and recorded fluid intake until 10/09/23. R38's EMR further lacked documentation of fluid intake for the day shift for two out of 14 opportunities, evening shift lacked documentation for eight of 14 opportunities, and night shift lacked 11 opportunities of 14 opportunities. R38's EMR revealed the facility failed to weigh R38 before and after dialysis treatment three times out of six times opportunities for the month of September 2023 and five times out of 11 opportunities for the month of October 2023. The facility Hemodialysis Communication Form consisted of report to hemodialysis from skilled nursing facility (SNF), report from hemodialysis to SNF, and post hemodialysis assessment after return to SNF. This communication tool information related to the resident's orientation, vital signs, weight, changes of access site, dressings, medications given before hemodialysis, special needs of the resident, and copies of lab values since last treatment. R38's EMR lacked accessibility of the communication tool between the facility and dialysis provider. On 10/26/23 at 11:11 AM, observation revealed R38 sat in her recliner with a family member present. R38 was alert, watched TV with her feet elevated and covered with a blanket. R38 reported she took paperwork with her to the dialysis center on treatment days and returned with the paper which she gave to staff. R38 verified the facility had not weighed her consistently before or after dialysis treatment but stated the dialysis center did weight her. R38 reported she had a 1500 ml in 24-hour fluid restriction and had to ask for fluids. R38 stated she expected nursing staff were monitoring the amounts she consumed. On 10/26/23 at 12:52 PM, Consultant GG stated the nursing staff provided the resident fluid and tracked the fluid intake. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O stated she was instructed to provide R38 a medium glass of fluids with meals, which consisted of 360 ml. On 10/26/23 at 02:19 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) I reported the Hemodialysis Communication Forms were scanned into the EMR and not kept on the unit, but after checking with medical record staff, LN I noted the communication forms were kept in overflow file for the resident in the medical records office and were not accessible in the resident's record On 10/30/23 at 09:37 AM CNA P reported R38 was on a fluid restriction but did not know the amount of the restriction. On 10/30/23 at 09:48 AM LN J reported R38 received dialysis treatments three times a week and the nursing staff sent a physician visit form and the Dialysis Communication Form with the resident for each visit. LN J verified R38 should have vital signs and weight before and after dialysis treatment and had physician order for a 1500 ml fluid restriction. LN J reported an intake and output record was kept in the resident's room so staff could record the intakes, and it was the nurse's responsibility to keep track of this information. LN J verified the lack of documented fluid intakes, weights, and completion of the Dialysis Communication Form. LN J stated the Dialysis Communication Form was given to medical records to be scanned into the EMR. LN J was unable to find the placement of the scanned forms in the EMR. On 10/30/23 at 09:50 AM, LN K verified the Dialysis Communication Form for R38 was kept in medical record overflow and had not been scanned into the EMR. On 10/30/23 at 12:57 PM Administrative Staff D stated the Dialysis Communication Form should be completed and accessible for staff to review in the EMR or left on the unit for the nursing staff if they should need to review information collected. Administrative Nurse D verified she expected nursing staff to complete the communication form before and after treatment, weight, take vital signs and monitor R38's fluid intake. The facility's Dialysis-Coordination of Care policy dated 11/2025, documented it was the responsibility if the community for delivery of care and services to the resident before transferring o the dialysis cent and after the resident received dialysis and transferred back to the community. Development of a care plan consistent with the resident's specific conditions, risks, needs, behaviors and preferences and current standards of practice, to include measurable objectives and timetables and specific interventions related to the dialysis services and the renal disease. The following need to be considered in development of the care plan: special nutritional and fluid needs, risks for adverse medication effects, care of the access site, infection control measures, skin care measures, monitoring of vital signs, weights and other monitoring requirements such as before and after dialysis treatments, special instructions for administering medications, especially before receiving dialysis treatments, dialysis center instructions, support and assistive devices/equipment , instruction related to potential emergency intervention, alternative if resident should refuse dialysis services. Coordination communication between dialysis center and community by completing Hemodialysis Communication Form for each dialysis visit. The facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards of practice which included on going assessment of condition, communication, and collaboration with the dialysis treatment, which placed R38 at risk for complications and unmet care needs related to dialysis treatment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported the lack of an appropriate indication for Resident (R)26's Zyprexa (antipsychotic-class of medications used to treat mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality testing) placing the resident at risk for unnecessary medications and adverse side effects. Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R26 documented diagnoses of dementia without behavioral disturbance (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) and falls. R26's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R26 had long and short-term memory problems and moderately impaired decision-making skills. R26 required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers, extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene; R26 required limited assistance of one staff for toileting and did not ambulate. The MDS further documented R26 had no behaviors and received antipsychotic, antianxiety (class of medications that calm and relax people), and antidepressant (class of medications used to treat mood disorders) medication on a routine basis. R26's Care Plan, dated 10/19/23, initiated 07/35/34, directed staff to ensure R26 had items that brought her comfort, have family involved in her plan of care, administer medications for her mood and anxiety, and monitor her behaviors. The update, dated 09/07/23, documented R26 took psychotropic medication and to monitor for side effects. The Physician Order, dated 07/27/23, directed staff to administer Zyprexa, 5 milligrams (mg), at bedtime. The order was changed on 08/08/23 to administer the Zyprexa, 5 mg, twice per day for the diagnosis of psychological and behavioral factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere. The Pharmacist Review's, dated 07/26/23, 08/28/23, 09/24/23, documented the pharmacist had no recommendations. The Pharmacist Review, dated 10/26/23 during the onsite survey, documented the diagnosis of psychological and behavioral factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere for the Zyprexa medication and recommended a detailed statement from the physician noting that the benefit outweighed the risk. On 10/25/23 at 08:09 AM, observation revealed Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R administered R26's medications, including the Zyprexa, without concern. CMA R stated R26 did not have any behaviors. On 10/30/23 at 02:00 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated R26 did not have an appropriate indication for the use of Zyprexa and said the CP should notified the facility earlier regarding the inappropriate diagnosis. The facility's Psychoactive Psychopharmacological Medications policy, dated 06/10/19, documented psychoactive medications would not be used for discipline or for convenience and would not be used unless necessary to treat medical symptoms. For any of these types of medications, gradual dose reductions and behavioral interventions will be done per physician orders, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue the medication or to reach the lowest effective does. A drug regimen review was conducted monthly for drug irregularities, discrepancies, or non-compliance with regulatory guidelines are brought to the attention of the director of nursing, medical director, and attending physician. The facility failed to ensure the CP identified and reported the lack of an appropriate diagnosis indication for R26's Zyprexa, placing the resident at risk for unnecessary medications and adverse side effects.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Bas...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure an appropriate indication, or a documented physician rationale which included the multiple unsuccessful attempts for nonpharmacological symptom management and risk versus benefits for the continued use of an antipsychotic (class of medications used to treat mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality testing) for Resident (R)26, who had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). This placed the resident at risk for unnecessary psychotropic (alters perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, or behavior) medications and related complications. Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R26 documented diagnoses of dementia without behavioral disturbance and falls. R26's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R26 had long and short-term memory problems and moderately impaired decision-making skills. R26 required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers, extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene; R26 required limited assistance of one staff for toileting and did not ambulate. The MDS further documented R26 had no behaviors and received antipsychotic, antianxiety (class of medications that calm and relax people), and antidepressant (class of medications used to treat mood disorders) medication on a routine basis. R26's Care Plan, dated 10/19/23, initiated 07/35/34, directed staff to ensure R26 had items that brought her comfort, have family involved in her plan of care, administer medications for her mood and anxiety, and monitor her behaviors. The update, dated 09/07/23, documented R26 took psychotropic medication and to monitor for side effects. The Physician Order, dated 07/27/23, directed staff to administer Zyprexa (an antipsychotic medication), 5 milligrams (mg), at bedtime. The order was changed on 08/08/23 to administer the Zyprexa, 5 mg, twice per day for the diagnosis of psychological and behavioral factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere. R26's EMR lacked evidence of a documented physician rational which included the multiple unsuccessful attempts for nonpharmacological symptom management and risk versus benefits for ongoing Zyprexa use. On 10/25/23 at 08:09 AM, observation revealed Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R administered R26's medications, including the Zyprexa, without concern. CMA R stated R26 did not have any behaviors. On 10/30/23 at 02:00 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated R26 did not have an appropriate indication for the use of Zyprexa. The facility's Psychoactive Psychopharmacological Medications policy, dated 06/10/19, documented psychoactive medications would not be used for discipline or for convenience and would not be used unless necessary to treat medical symptoms. For any of these types of medications, gradual dose reductions and behavioral interventions will be done per physician orders, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue the medication or to reach the lowest effective does. A drug regimen review was conducted monthly for drug irregularities, discrepancies, or non-compliance with regulatory guidelines are brought to the attention of the director of nursing, medical director, and attending physician. The facility failed to ensure an appropriate indication or the required physician documentation for the continued use of R26's Zyprexa, placing the resident at risk for unnecessary adverse side effects.
CONCERN (E) 📢 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 F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 resident. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 resident. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure licensed nursing staff had appropriate competencies and skill set to provide nursing related services to assure resident safety and to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This placed Resident (R) 40 at risk of injury during transfers and ongoing wound assessments and all residents at risk for decreased quality of care. Findings included: - The Facility Assessment dated 08/25/23, documented the Interdisciplinary Team assessment was made considering the team members skill sets in regard to residents' acuity. Equipment along with specific staff education will be provided to meet a resident's need. Involvement of the Medical Director will be in place regarding the admission/continuing care assessment and discussion. On 10/30/23 at 11:05 AM, Administrative Nurse D provided three nursing staff competencies. One of the three did not have the competencies required. Administrative Nurse D reported the facility recognized this issue in 05/2023 and developed a form to complete the required task in 06/2023 but had not yet completed competencies for all the nursing staff. The facility's Staff Competency policy, dated 10/11/21, documented all staff will receive education and training applicable to their position and job description. Check lists, Relias courses and competency testing will be used to ensure staff are appropriately trained for position. The facility failed to ensure licensed staff had appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This placed all residents at risk for decreased quality of care. - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R40 documented diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (slowly progressive neurologic disorder characterized by resting tremor, rolling of the fingers, masklike faces, shuffling gait, muscle rigidity and weakness), weakness, edema (swelling resulting from an excessive accumulation of fluid in the body tissues), hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), other symptoms and signs with cognitive functions and awareness. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R40 had intact cognition and required supervision and one staff assistance for transfers, ambulation, dressing, and toileting. The MDS further documented R40 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, and had no skin issues. The Significant MDS, dated 08/08/23, documented R40 had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, extensive assistance of one staff for dressing, ambulation in room, and personal hygiene. The MDS further documented R40 had unsteady balance, no functional impairment, and had no skin issues. R40's Care Plan dated 10/09/23, initiated on 06/06/23, directed staff to assist R40 with set up assistance with transferring, repositioning, toileting, and ambulation. The Fall Investigation, dated 10/19/23 at 12:25 AM, documented upon entering R40's bathroom, he was observed on the floor with his back towards the toiled seat. R40 stated a spider ran across his foot and he tried to get up and kill it, lost his balance, and fell, The staff assisted R40 off the floor, assessed him for injury, and transferred him into his recliner. The investigation documented staff were educated to offer/assist resident to use the bathroom between 12:00 AM and 4:00 AM, and a work order was placed to have resident's room checked for any spiders. The Skin Evaluation Record, dated 10/19/23 at 12:54 PM, documented a skin tear to R40's mid back which measured six centimeters (cm) x 2.5 cm and noted a treatment to cleanse the skin tear with normal saline or wound cleanser, pat dry, apply triple antibiotic ointment (TAO) if needed, cover with a dressing, and monitor skin every shift for infection until healed. On 10/26/23 at 12:54 PM, observation revealed a large skin tear in the middle of R40's back. The dressing came off and drainage from the wound seeped onto the back of R40's shirt. Further observation revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) G washed her hands, donned clean gloves, took gauze and cleansed the wound with normal saline, changed her gloves and placed a foam dressing on the wound. LN G stated she was the nurse that found the skin tear on the resident's back. LN G stated she thought R40 sustained the skin tear as a result of staff's use of a gait belt when staff transferred R40. LN G stated she planned to contact R40's physician to get the TAO discontinued as it was causing the skin tear to be too moist and delay healing. On 10/26/23 at 01:00 PM, Administrative Nurse F stated the skin tear happened after R40 fell. Three staff members used a gait belt to get R40 off the floor. The nurse on duty at the time did not see the wound as it did not bleed, and she had already completed a skin assessment prior to getting R40 off the floor. Administrative Nurse F further stated education was provided with all three staff on proper gait belt use after the incident, and to make sure the gait belt was secured properly, not too tight but not too lose as where it may move and cause injury. Administrative Nurse F said a heavy-duty gait belt with side handles had been ordered to use for R40's transfers. On 10/30/23 at 02:00 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated she had ordered a different gait belt for R40, and it would be more appropriate to use when he falls. Administrative Nurse D verified she had not visualized the wound to R40's back from the gait belt. The facility's Lifting and transferring resident policy, dated 10/25/23, documented, the facility would provide a safe work environment for resident care areas by providing and requiring the use of safety materials, equipment, and training designated to prevent injury. Nurse's assess and determine lifting and transfer requirements and the procedure used for each resident, all residents must be lifted or transferred according to the determined procedure. The facility failed to ensure staff possessed the required skill and knowledge to safely apply and use a gait belt for an assisted transfer. As a result, R40 sustained a large skin tear on his back. This also placed the resident at risk for further injuries or complications related to improper transfers and/or use of gait belt.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility had a census of 57 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility kitchen staff failed to provide food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavo...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 57 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility kitchen staff failed to provide food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor and appearance, when dietary staff failed to follow a recipe while preparing four residents' pureed diets. This placed the affected residents at risk for impaired nutrition. Findings included: - On 10/25/23 at 10:15 AM, Dietary Staff (DS) BB, with Dietary Manager (DM) DD overlooking, stated the facility had four residents with pureed diets, and one received double portions. DS BB placed five square pieces of lasagna in a blender container, blended to a consistency of pudding, then placed unmeasured portions of lasgna onto four divided plates using a spatula. Observation revealed DS BB took the blender container and lid to the three-sink area, rinsed the blender, and placed the blender and lid through each section of the sink. DS BB returned to the prep table, placed unmeasured cubes of cooked carrots into the blender, blended to consistency of pudding, and placed onto the divided plate in a different section then lasagna. DS BB then used the same procedure to wash the blender and lid. DS BB placed a bread stick into the blender, added unmeasured amount of chicken broth, blended to consistency of pudding, and placed onto one of the divided plates; DS BB continued with the same procedure for the next four bread sticks. On 10/25/23 at 10:45AM, DS BB verified she had not followed a recipe and stated she was taught to go by the food consistency. On 10/25/23 at 11:15 AM, DS DD stated staff should follow a recipe when preparing residents pureed diet. The facility's Dysphagia (swallowing difficulty) and Puree (cooked food that is a smooth, creamy substance or thick liquid suspension) Creations Policy, undated, documented each employee associated with dietary, nursing and auxiliary staff needs to understand methods to improve the quality of life to which each resident was entitled, especially the resident with dysphagia. Producing sensory-appealing entrees can yield positive outcomes, such as improved quality of life, increased meal satisfaction and improved health status, for the resident with dysphagia. The facility kitchen staff failed to follow a recipe when preparing four residents' pureed diet. This placed the affected residents at risk for impaired nutrition.
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 had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to prepare food in accordance with professional stan...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when staff used contaminated gloves to transfer food items from one container to another while preparing the four residents pureed diets, failed to use gloves when cutting and handling food items, and failed to ensure clean and sanitary food prep areas. This placed the residents at risk for foodborne illness. Findings included: - On 10/25/.23 at 10:15 AM, observation revealed, during preparation of the pureed diets, Dietary Staff (DS) BB washed hands, applied gloves, then touched the food prep counter (with food particles and clear liquid on it). DS BB then used her contaminated gloved right hand to transfer cooked, cubed carrots from a container to the blender container. Further observation revealed DS BB, with the same contaminated gloves, retrieved a four ounce scoop from the hanging utensil device, and placed it on the same food prep counter. After pureeing the carrots, DS BB picked up the scoop from the counter and used it to place the carrots onto four divided plates. Further observation revealed DS BB retrieved a spatula from a kitchen drawer, with the same contaminated gloves, placed it on the same contaminated food prep table, and used it to transfer pureed bread sticks, one at a time onto the four divided plates. Further observation revealed DS CC, working at the food prep table across from DS BB, handled and sliced ham with ungloved hands, then touched the counter, retrieved onions and sliced the onions with his contaminated ungloved hands. On 10/25/23 at 10:30 AM, DS BB verified the above observation regarding her actions and stated she should not have used her gloved hand to transfer food items from one container to another and probably should place the spatula and scoop on a plate. On 10/25/23 at 11:15 AM, Dietary Manager (DM) DD stated staff should not transfer food items with their gloved hands, they should use a utensil and should not place utensils on the counter should place them on a plate. DM DD verified DS CC touched the ham and onions with ungloved hands and stated DS CC should have used gloves. The facility's Use of Gloves Policy, revised 09/23, documented gloves must be worn when touching ready-to eat foods that would not be heated or processed further. Gloves should be changed when they become soiled or torn, when changing from one task to another, or after two hours of continuous use. The facility's Food Handling Principles Policy, revised 09/23, documented employees would be trained in safe food service techniques and personal hygiene on an annual basis or more often as needed. The facility kitchen staff failed to prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This placed the 57 residents who received their meals from the facility kitchen at risk for foodborne illness. - On 10/25/23 at 10:30AM observation in the kitchen revealed the following: The wall behind the back of the oven hood had numerous different size streaks of brown substance running below. The oven hood front had brown substance, approximately two feet (ft) by 12 inches (in), located above the deep fat fryer. The seam between the back of the oven hood had approximately six ft with missing caulk. The sugar, flour, breadcrumbs, and oatmeal bins had numerous areas of different size blackish gray substance all around the outside of them. The trash cans had numerous areas of different size blackish gray substance on the outside of them. The two deep fat fryers had numerous different size streaks of blackish brown substance on the sides of them. The black counter toaster had numerous dried food particles on the top of it. On 10/25/23 at 11:00 am, DM DD verified the above findings and stated the dietary department had been short staffed and he had worked four 12- hour days in a row so staff had not cleaned the kitchen. The facility's Cleaning and Sanitizing of Work Surfaces Policy, revised 09/23, documented a cleaning schedule is completed and posted to ensure routine cleaning was completed weekly. Larger pieces of equipment and area are scheduled on a biweekly and monthly basis. The facility kitchen staff failed to prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This placed the 57 residents who received their food from the facility kitchen at risk for foodborne illness.
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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 57 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee that met quarterly and had the required membership in attendance when the Medical Director (or designee) did not attend one quarterly meeting. This placed the residents at risk for decreased quality of care. Findings included: - The facility provided the signed QAA Committee attendance roster for 10/26/22, 01/18/23, 04/19/23, and 07/26/23. Review of the 01/18/23 roster revealed the Medical Director (or designee) did not attend. On 10/30/23 at 03:10 PM, Administrative Nurse F verified the Medical Director had not been present for the QAA meeting. The facility's Quality Assurance Performance Plan policy, dated 09/01/23, documented the Administration of [NAME] Presbyterian Manor develops and leads our program with input from staff at all levels, family members, community members and resident's themselves. It was formed a QAPI Steering Committee that meets quarterly composed of leaders from administration, leaders from the various service areas, Medical Director and Consultants. The facility failed to maintain a QAA Committee that met quarterly and had the required membership in attendance. This placed the residents at risk for decreased quality of care.
Mar 2022 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 58 residents. The sample included 15 residents with four reviewed for pressure ulcers (PU - localiz...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 58 residents. The sample included 15 residents with four reviewed for pressure ulcers (PU - localized injuries to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or frictions). Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide services to prevent the development of a Stage 2 (partial-thickness skin loss into but no deeper than the skin including intact or ruptured blisters) PU on Resident (R) 52's right heel until after a pressure ulcer developed. This placed the resident at risk for further skin breakdown. Findings included: - R52's medical record included diagnoses of PU of left heel, Parkinson's disease (brain disorder that leads to shaking, stiffness, difficulty with walking, balance, and coordination), and hypertension (high blood pressure). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating intact cognition. The MDS documented R52 was independent with eating, required extensive assistance of one to two staff for all other activities of daily living, had one Stage 2 PU present on admission, and one Stage 3 (full-thickness skin loss potentially extending into the subcutaneous (beneath the skin) tissue layer) PU not present on admission. The MDS recorded pressure relief interventions to the chair and bed, repositioning, and PU care. The Pressure Ulcer Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 03/09/22, documented R52 had an unstageable pressure injury to the left heel, a skin assessment completed weekly by a licensed nurse, saw wound care clinic at the hospital for pressure injury to the left heel, and repositioned every two hours and as needed (PRN) at night. R52 preferred to be repositioned at least one time during the night, had been educated on the risk factors of the pressure injury to the heel, and needed to keep pressure off of the area. R52 used pressure relief boots while in bed, had a low air loss mattress, and a cushion in his wheelchair and recliner. R52 preferred lotion to his skin at least twice a day and continued to work with therapies at this time. The Baseline Care Plan, dated 01/27/22, directed staff to provide a soft gluten free diet, low air loss mattress, pressure reducing cushion to chair, and reposition R52 every two hours. The Care Plan lacked direction regarding the left heel PU. The Skin Integrity Care Plan, dated 02/02/22, directed staff to provide a low air loss mattress, reposition R52 every two hours except at night and reposition R52 once during the night. Ensure blue foam boots were applied to R52's feet when in bed, transfer with sit to stand lift and two staff, and educate on the importance of repositioning. The 02/07/22 left heel Care Plan change added a multivitamin (MVI) with minerals daily, and Prostat (high protein supplement), 30 cubic centimeters (cc) twice daily (BID). The Braden Scale for Pressure Ulcer Risk, dated 01/27/22, 02/02/22, and 03/09/22, documented the risk at 16, 17, and 18 (16 or less indicated high risk). The Nutrition Assessment, dated 02/01/22, documented R52 had a PU and received treatment to the left heel. The dietician recommended a multivitamin with minerals daily and Prostat 30 cc BID to promote healing. The Skin Assessment, dated 02/25/22, noted an ulcer to the left heel which measured 2 centimeters (cm) x 3.1 cm x 0.2 cm, and directed staff to continue with the pressure relief boot to the left foot at all times except during transfers. The Skin Assessment, dated 03/09/22 (41 days after admission) documented upon assessment the resident's right heel had a Stage 2 fluid filled blister to the right heel with skin intact, no signs of infection, and measured 2.6 cm x 1.5 cm. Staff to continue to monitor the right heel area daily until healed. Education provided to staff to ensure that resident had pressure relief boots to both the right and left foot to assist with offloading pressure. The facsimile to the physician, dated 03/11/22, documented R52 now had a Stage 2 fluid filled blister to the right heel, measuring 2.6 cm x 1.5 cm, and nursing educated staff to ensure both pressure relief boots to be worn when in bed. The Progress Note, dated 03/23/22 at 12:27 PM, documented R52 returned from the Wound Clinic with the following information: The physician staged the right heel ulcer to a Stage 3, due to removal of tissue, wound bed had 100% of slough (dead tissue) present pre-debridement, and measured 0.7 cm x 1.5 cm x 0.1 cm, post debridement. Staff to change the dressing every Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and as needed until healed, continue with the pressure relief boots at all times except during transfers to off-load pressure to the area, and encourage the resident to elevate his legs as much as possible. On 03/22/22 at 01:35 PM, observation revealed R52 in a recliner in his room with no extra cushion in the recliner seat, air mattress on his bed, and his wheelchair held a three-inch foam cushion over a one-inch gel cushion. R52 had pressure relief boots on both feet. On 03/23/22 at 10:26 AM, observation revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) H changed the wound dressings on R52's feet. She washed her hands, applied clean gloves, removed R52's pressure relief boots and placed them under the resident's heels. LN H then removed the soiled dressing from R52's left heel. With the same gloves, LN H opened a new package of gauze, sprayed wound cleanser on the back of the left heel, then cleansed the wound with the gauze. With the same soiled gloves, LN H started to cut and shape the clean blue wound dressing. When asked if she should change gloves, LN H stated I guess so. She changed gloves without washing her hands or using hand disinfectant gel and continued cutting the dressings to size and applied them to the wound area. LN H then removed the soiled dressing from the right heel, and cleansed the right heel wound wearing the same gloves. She changed her gloves, without washing her hands or using hand disinfectant gel, and applied a foam dressing to R52's right heel. On 03/24/22 at 07:54 AM, observation revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) P assisted R52 to dress and transfer from his bed to the wheelchair. CNA P did not place the pressure relief boots on his feet before assisting him to the dining room. On 03/28/22 at 11:20 AM, observation in the facility shower room revealed LN H placed a towel which had been used to dry R52 on the floor and placed the wound care supplies on it. LN H put on gloves, without washing her hands or using hand disinfectant gel, used wound cleanser and gauze to cleanse the left heel PU. She then changed gloves, without washing her hands or using hand disinfectant gel, cut the dressing to size with scissors, and applied a wound dressing to the left heel. Wearing the same gloves, she then cleansed the right heel PU and set the wound cleanser bottle on the bare, soiled shower room floor. After care to the right heel PU, the wound cleanser spray bottle fell to its side on the bare, soiled floor. After completing the wound care, LN H gathered the wound care supplies and placed them in a locked cabinet in the resident's room. When asked, she verified she should disinfect the wound cleanser spray bottle as it had been on the soiled floor. She did not consider the used towel as soiled. On 03/28/22 at 10:50 AM, CNA N stated when R52 was first admitted in January, he had two blue booties, but wore only the left one when in bed. On 03/28/22 at 12:14 PM, LN J stated the facility implemented the pressure relief boots the day R52 was admitted , but at that point staff applied just the left one, as the resident was not lying in bed a lot so we felt the right one was not needed. LN J stated after the blister developed to his right heel, the facility implemented the right boot at all times. LN J stated wound dressing was not a sterile procedure, but staff do need to place a barrier between supplies and unclean surfaces, and change gloves between PU sites. The facility's Pressure Ulcer Prevention, Intervention and Wound Treatment policy dated 10/12/21, documented all residents are considered to have some risk for the development of pressure ulcers. Staff will evaluate skin integrity and tissue tolerance, implement preventive measures as indicated and treat skin breakdown. Weekly skin assessments will be completed by the licensed nurse and if new skin alterations are noted the licensed nurse will initiate treatment per guidelines and document as indicated. Position to alleviate pressure over bony prominences and shearing forces over the heels, elbows, base of head. Use heel protectors, boots or pillows to support heels and reduce shearing. Consider suspending or floating heels. The facility failed to provide services to prevent the development of a right heel PU for R52, who was admitted with a PU to his left heel, by not ensuring his right foot had pressure relief interventions. This placed the resident at risk for further skin breakdown.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - R23's Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 01/04/22, documented diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), anxiety disorde...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - R23's Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 01/04/22, documented diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities), and diabetes mellitus (impairment in the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating moderately impaired decision-making skills. The MDS documented R23 was independent with eating, required one staff extensive assistance for dressing, locomotion, hygiene, and extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. The MDS documented R23 received insulin injections seven days of the look-back period. The Diabetic Care Plan, dated 02/09/22, included hypo/hyperglycemia (low/high blood sugar) signs and directed staff to notify the physician if R23's blood sugar was less than (<)70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl) or greater than (>)300 mg/dl, also if <80 mg/dl and symptomatic. The Care Plan directed staff to administer insulin per orders, observe injection site for redness, drainage or pain, encourage consistent carbohydrate diet, and provide appropriate foot care. R23's Physician Orders included: Lantus (long acting insulin), 15 units at bedtime, started 08/19/21 Humalog (fast acting insulin), 5 units, three times daily before meals, started 08/04/21 Blood Sugar Check & Record Fasting (without food for a period of time) and before supper, started 07/30/21. Notify the physician if blood sugar <80 mg/dl with symptoms; or <70 mg/dl OR >300 mg/dl. Review of the January, February, and March 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following before supper blood sugars out of physician set parameters: 01/27/22 = 327 mg/dl 01/28/22 = 418 mg/dl 01/31/22 = 331 mg/dl 02/08/22 = 320 mg/dl 02/11/22 = 411 mg/dl 02/16/22 = 337 mg/dl 02/27/22 = 304 mg/dl 02/28/22 while eating 350 mg/dl. Later 134 mg/dl 03/14/22 at supper = 325 mg/dl Review of R23's medical record revealed no assessment of R23 for signs or symptoms related to the higher than normal blood sugars. The 03/22/22 labwork documented an A1C (blood test that measures your average blood sugar levels over the past 3 months) of 7.7 high. (normal range 4.8 to 6.4) The Consultant Pharmacist Reviews, dated 01/27/22 and 02/24/22, did not note the lack of assessment for the out of parameter blood sugars. On 03/23/22 at 07:55 AM, observation revealed R23 in her room with a right foot brace on and her leg on the raised wheelchair footrest. R23 was pleasant and alert and oriented. On 03/28/22 at 08:44 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) H stated the blood sugar parameters were 70-300 mg/dl or <80 mg/dl with symptoms and staff documented those in the MAR. LN H stated if staff called the physician, it was documented in a progress note. On 03/28/22 at 10:41 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the facility consult pharmacist had not noted R23's blood sugars above parameters and lack of staff documentation of assessment of the resident for signs or symptoms with the higher than parameter blood sugars. The facility's Consultant Pharmacist Services Agreement policy, dated 10/15/21, directed the pharmacist to ensure staff adequately assessed residents with abnormal vital signs, monitored medication effectiveness, and reported irregularities to the physician, medical director and DON. The facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist identified and reported the lack of assessment or physician notification of the elevated blood sugars for R23 which were higher than the physician ordered parameters. This deficient practice placed R23 at risk for for continued elevated blood sugars and adverse side effects. The facility had a census of 58 residents. The sample included 15 residents with six reviewed for unnecessary medications Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist identified and reported staff not adequately assessing elevated blood sugars greater than physician ordered parameters for two sampled residents, Resident (R) 4, and R23. This placed the residents at risk for continued elevated blood sugars and adverse side effects. Findings included: - R4's Physician Order Sheet, dated 03/09/22, recorded diagnoses of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion), diabetes mellitus (disease that impairs the body's ability to regulate blood sugar), congestive heart failure (a condition with low heart output and the body becomes congested with fluid), and history of transient ischemic attack (episode of cerebrovascular insufficiency). R4's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated 03/21/22, documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 (cognitively intact). The MDS documented R4 had a diagnosis of diabetes and received insulin (medication used to regulate blood sugar levels) injections seven days a week. The Diabetic Care Plan, dated 03/07/22, directed staff to check R4's blood sugars as ordered by the physician, monitor for signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (more than normal amount of sugar in the blood), notify the physician of abnormal blood sugars and administer insulin as ordered by the physician. The Physician's Order, dated 02/09/22, directed staff to check R4's blood sugar levels before meals and at bedtime (08:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 05:00 PM, 08:00 PM), and notify the physician if the blood sugars were greater than 400 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl). The Physician's Order, dated 02/09/22, directed staff to administer Novolog insulin (fast acting medication to regulate blood sugars) ten units to R4 for blood sugars greater than 350 mg/dl. Review of R4's February 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) recorded the resident had the following blood sugar levels greater than 400 mg/dl, lacked staff assessment for symptoms of hyperglycemia, or reassessment of the resident's blood sugar to monitor the effectiveness of insulin administration: 02/09/22 at 05:00 PM - 419 mg/dl 02/12/22 at 12:00 PM - 407 mg/dl 02/12/22 at 08:00 PM - 432 mg/dl 02/14/22 at 05:00 PM - 484 mg/dl 02/15/22 at 08:00 PM - 496 mg/dl 02/18/22 at 08:00 PM - 472 mg/dl 02/21/22 at 12:00 PM - 419 mg/dl 02/24/22 at 08:00 AM - 553 mg/dl The Monthly Pharmacist Medication Review, dated 02/24/22, did not address the lack of assessment for R4's eight blood sugars greater than the physician ordered parameters. On 03/23/22 at 07:40 AM, observation revealed R4 walked independently with a walker in the hall to the dining room for breakfast. On 03/24/22 at 08:45 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) H stated staff should check R4's blood sugar as ordered by the physician, and if the resident's blood sugar was greater than 400 mg/dl, staff should follow the facility's hyperglycemic protocol to assessed for adverse symptoms and monitor the effectiveness of insulin administration. On 03/28/22 at 10:41 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated staff should check R4's blood sugar as ordered by the physician, assess for symptoms of hyperglycemia when the resident's blood sugar was greater than the physician ordered parameter of 400 mg/dl, and monitor the effectiveness of the insulin administration. Administrative Nurse D stated the consultant pharmacist had not addressed the lack of assessment for R4's elevated blood sugars. The facility's Consultant Pharmacist Services Agreement policy, dated 10/15/21, directed the pharmacist to ensure staff adequately assessed residents with abnormal vital signs, monitored medication effectiveness, and reported irregularities to the physician, medical director and DON. The facility failed to ensure the CP identified and reported staff not adequately assessing R4's elevated blood sugars greater than physician ordered parameters, placing the resident at risk for continued elevated blood sugars and adverse side effects.
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** - R23's Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 01/04/22, documented diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), anxiety disorde...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - R23's Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 01/04/22, documented diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities), and diabetes mellitus (impairment in the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating moderately impaired decision-making skill. The MDS documented R23 was independent for eating, required one staff extensive assistance for dressing, locomotion, hygiene, and extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. The MDS documented R23 received insulin (medication used to regulate blood sugar levels) seven days of the look-back period. The Diabetic Care Plan, dated 02/09/22, included hypo/hyperglycemia (low/high blood sugar) signs and directed staff to notify the physician if R23's blood sugar was less than (<)70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl) or greater than (>)300 mg/dl, also if <80 mg/dl and symptomatic. The Care Plan directed staff to administer insulin per orders, observe injection site for redness, drainage or pain, encourage consistent carbohydrate diet, and provide appropriate foot care. R23's Physician Orders included: Lantus (long acting insulin), 15 units at bedtime, started 08/19/21 Humalog (fast acting insulin), 5 units, three times daily before meals, started 08/04/21 Blood Sugar Check & Record Fasting (without food for a period of time) and before supper, started 07/30/21. Notify the physician if blood sugar <80 mg/dl with symptoms; or <70 mg/dl OR >300 mg/dl. Review of the January, February, and March 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following before supper blood sugars out of physician set parameters: 01/27/22 = 327 mg/dl 01/28/22 = 418 mg/dl 01/31/22 = 331 mg/dl 02/08/22 = 320 mg/dl 02/11/22 = 411 mg/dl 02/16/22 = 337 mg/dl 02/27/22 = 304 mg/dl 02/28/22 while eating 350 mg/dl. Later 134 mg/dl 03/14/22 at supper = 325 mg/dl Review of R23's medical record revealed no assessment of R23 for signs or symptoms related to the higher than normal blood sugars. The 03/22/22 labwork documented an A1C (blood test that measures your average blood sugar levels over the past 3 months) of 7.7 high. (normal range 4.8 to 6.4) The Consultant Pharmacist Reviews, dated 01/27/22 and 02/24/22, did not note the lack of assessment for the out of parameter blood sugars. On 03/23/22 at 07:55 AM, observation revealed R23 in her room with a right foot brace on and her leg on the raised wheelchair footrest. R23 was pleasant and alert and oriented. On 03/24/22 at 02:05 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O stated staff talked to R23 to help calm her when she got anxious over her blood sugars. CNA O stated if R23 seemed off or different CNA O reported that to the nurse. On 03/28/22 at 08:44 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) H stated the blood sugar parameters were 70-300 mg/dl or <80 mg/dl with symptoms and staff documented those in the MAR. LN H stated if staff called the physician, it was documented in a progress note. On 03/28/22 at 08:48 AM, LN I stated staff documented in the progress notes if they called the physician and if R23 had any signs or symptoms. On 03/28/22 at 10:41 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated she was not sure if the computer red flagged/alerted staff on Matrix or eMAR when the resident had critical blood sugars. Administrative Nurse D stated for blood sugars >300 (above physician ordered parameters) staff should assess, treat, call the physician, and reassess or recheck the blood sugars. Administrative Nurse D stated she needed to re-educate staff about facility policy/procedures for blood sugars above/below parameters and verified staff had not documented if they assessed R23 for signs or symptoms with the higher than parameter blood sugars. The facility's Hyperglycemia policy, dated 10/11/21, documented results outside of resident parameters are immediately reported to the physician for further action. Nurses are to document in Matrix care. The facility failed to assess R23 for symptoms of elevated blood sugars higher than physician ordered parameters and document notification to the physician. The facility had a census of 58 residents. The sample included 15 residents with six reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to adequately assess elevated blood sugars above the physician ordered parameters for two sampled residents, Resident (R) 4 and R23. This placed the residents at risk for continued elevated blood sugars and adverse side effects. Findings included: - The Physician Order Sheet, dated 03/09/22, recorded diagnoses of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion), diabetes mellitus (disease that impairs the body's ability to regulate blood sugar), congestive heart failure (a condition with low heart output and the body becomes congested with fluid), and history of transient ischemic attack (episode of cerebrovascular insufficiency). R4's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated 03/21/22, documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 (cognitively intact). The MDS documented R4 had a diagnosis of diabetes and received insulin (medication used to regulate blood sugar levels) injections seven days a week. The Diabetic Care Plan, dated 03/07/22, directed staff to check R4's blood sugars as ordered by the physician, monitor for signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (more than normal amount of sugar in the blood), notify the physician of abnormal blood sugars and administer insulin as ordered by the physician. The Physician's Order, dated 02/09/22, directed staff to check R4's blood sugar levels before meals and at bedtime (08:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 05:00 PM, 08:00 PM), and notify the physician if the blood sugars were greater than 400 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl). The Physician's Order, dated 02/09/22, directed staff to administer Novolog insulin (fast acting medication to regulate blood sugars) ten units to R4 for blood sugars greater than 350 mg/dl. Review of R4's February 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) recorded the resident had the following blood sugar levels greater than 400 mg/dl, lacked staff assessment for symptoms of hyperglycemia, or reassessment of the resident's blood sugar to monitor the effectiveness of insulin administration: 02/09/22 at 05:00 PM - 419 mg/dl 02/12/22 at 12:00 PM - 407 mg/dl 02/12/22 at 08:00 PM - 432 mg/dl 02/14/22 at 05:00 PM - 484 mg/dl 02/15/22 at 08:00 PM - 496 mg/dl 02/18/22 at 08:00 PM - 472 mg/dl 02/21/22 at 12:00 PM - 419 mg/dl 02/24/22 at 08:00 AM - 553 mg/dl 02/25/22 at 12:00 PM - 457 mg/dl 02/27/22 at 12:00 PM - 427 mg/dl 02/28/22 at 12:00 PM - 422 mg/dl Review of R4's March 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) recorded the resident had the following blood sugar levels greater than 400 mg/dl, lacked staff assessment for symptoms of hyperglycemia, or reassessment of the resident's blood sugar to monitor the effectiveness of insulin administration: 03/02/22 at 12:00 PM - 405 mg/dl 03/20/22 at 05:00 PM - 444 mg/dl 03/23/22 at 08:00 PM - 432 mg/dl 03/24/22 at 12:00 PM - 431 mg/dl On 03/23/22 at 07:40 AM, observation revealed R4 walked independently with a walker in the hall to the dining room for breakfast. On 03/24/22 at 08:45 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) H stated staff should check R4's blood sugar as ordered by the physician, and if the resident's blood sugar was greater than 400 mg/dl, staff should follow the facility's hyperglycemic protocol to assess for adverse symptoms and monitor the effectiveness of insulin administration. On 03/28/22 at 10:41 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated staff should check R4's blood sugar as ordered by the physician, assess for symptoms of hyperglycemia when the resident's blood sugar was greater than the physician ordered parameter of 400 mg/dl, and monitor the effectiveness of the insulin administration. The facility's Protocol for Hyperglycemia policy, dated 10/11/21, directed staff to check blood sugar levels as ordered by the physician, assess residents with blood sugars greater than 400 mg/dl for symptoms of hyperglycemia, notify the physician, and monitor the effectiveness of insulin administration. The facility failed to adequately assess R4's elevated blood sugars, placing the resident at risk for continued elevated blood sugars and adverse side effects.
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 had a census of 58 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 58 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to provide proper infection control during wound care for Resident (R) 52. This deficient practice placed R52 at risk for infection. Findings included: - R52's medical record included diagnoses of pressure ulcer (PU-localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or friction) of left heel, Parkinson's disease (brain disorder that leads to shaking, stiffness, and difficulty with walking, balance, and coordination), and hypertension (high blood pressure). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating intact cognition. The MDS documented R52 was independent with eating, required extensive assistance of one to two staff for all other activities of daily living, had one Stage 2 (partial-thickness skin loss into but no deeper than the skin including intact or ruptured blisters) PU present on admission, and one Stage 3 (full-thickness skin loss potentially extending into the subcutaneous (beneath the skin) tissue layer) PU not present on admission. The MDS recorded pressure relief interventions to the chair and bed, repositioning, and PU care. The Skin Integrity Care Plan, dated 02/02/22, directed staff to provide a low air loss mattress, and reposition every two hours except at night and reposition R52 once during the night. Ensure blue foam pressure relief boots were applied to R52's feet when in bed, transfer with sit to stand lift and two staff, and educate on importance of repositioning. On 03/23/22 at 10:26 AM, observation revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) H changed the wound dressings on R52's feet. She washed her hands, applied clean gloves, removed R52's pressure relief boots and placed them under the resident's heels. LN H then removed the soiled dressing from R52's left heel. With the same gloves, LN H opened a new package of gauze, sprayed wound cleanser on the back of the left heel, then cleansed the wound with the gauze. With the same soiled gloves, LN H started to cut and shape the clean blue wound dressing. When asked if she should change gloves, LN H stated, I guess so. She changed gloves without washing her hands or using hand disinfectant gel and continued cutting the dressings to size and applied them to the wound area. LN H then removed the soiled dressing from the right heel and cleansed the right heel wound wearing the same gloves. She changed her gloves without washing her hands or using hand disinfectant gel and applied a foam dressing to R52's right heel. On 03/28/22 at 11:20 AM, observation in the facility shower room revealed LN H placed a towel which had been used to dry the resident on the floor and placed the wound care supplies on it. LN H put on gloves without first washing her hands or using hand disinfectant gel, used wound cleanser and gauze to cleanse the left heel PU. She then changed gloves, without washing her hands or using disinfectant hand gel, cut the dressing to size with scissors, and applied a wound dressing to the left heel. Wearing the same gloves, she then cleansed the right heel PU and set the wound cleanser bottle on the bare, soiled shower room floor. During care to the right heel PU, the wound cleanser spray bottle fell to its side on the bare, soiled floor. After completing the wound care, LN H gathered the wound care supplies and placed them in a locked cabinet in the resident's room. When asked, she verified she should disinfect the wound cleanser spray bottle as it had been on the soiled floor. She did not consider the used towel as soiled. On 03/28/22 at 12:14 PM, LN J stated wound dressing was not a sterile procedure, but staff do need to place a clean barrier between supplies and unclean surfaces, and change gloves between PU sites. The facility's Infection Control policy, dated 1012/21, documented all staff were responsible to comply with the principles of standard infection control precautions. The facility failed to provide proper infection control practices during wound care for R52, placing the resident at risk for infection to the open wounds.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility had a census of 58 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food under sanitary conditions, placin...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 58 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food under sanitary conditions, placing the residents at risk for foodborne illness. Findings included: - On 03/23/22 at 11:47 AM, observation revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M assisted Resident (R) 1 with the midday meal. CNA M, without wearing gloves picked up one half of R1's meat salad sandwich and tore it in half. CNA M then held the sandwich while R1 took bites from it. CNA M then adjusted a chair for another resident and returned to holding R1's sandwich without gloves until R1 indicated she was finished eating by turning her head away from the food. On 03/28/22 at 12:47 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G stated she believed the CNAs could touch the resident's food without wearing gloves as long as the CNA washed their hands or used alcohol gel or foam between residents. The facility's undated Serving Basic policy, documented team members must properly serve food to prevent contamination. Serving staff should avoid bare-hand contact with ready-to-eat food. Wear single-use gloves whenever handling ready-to-eat food. As an alternative, food can be handled with spatulas, tongs, deli sheets or other utensils. The facility failed to serve ready-to eat food for R1 in a sanitary manner, placing the resident at risk for foodborne illness. - On 03/22/22 at 07:55 AM, observation in the facility kitchen revealed a utensil drawer with a one inch round black colored dried food spill in the center of the drawer and a small amount of dried food particles in the back of the drawer. On 03/24/22 at 11:12 AM, observation revealed the same kitchen drawer still had the black colored dried food spill and a few dried food crumbs. On 03/24/22 at 11:28 AM, observation revealed Dietary Staff (DS) CC repositioned the beverage glasses of water which were on the counter of the kitchenette using her fingers to hold the rim of the glasses. On 03/24/22 at 11:12 AM, DS BB verified the observation of the soiled utensil drawer and stated it should have been cleaned. On 03/24/22 at 11:28 AM, DS CC verified she should handle glasses by the lower part of the glasses and not the rim. The facility's undated Program: Cleaning and Sanitizing policy, documented all food service departments must have an effective cleaning program with a cleaning schedule to clean and sanitize as needed, and an appropriate log to track cleaning tasks. The facility's undated Serving: Basic policy, documented staff are to carry glasses on a tray or hold glasses by the middle, bottom, or stem to avoid touching the mouth contact surfaces. The facility failed to serve and store food and beverages in a sanitary manner, placing the 58 residents of the facility at risk for illness.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

The facility had a census of 58 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to display staffing information in a prominent place accessible to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 58 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to display staffing information in a prominent place accessible to residents and visitors. This placed the residents at risk to be uninformed of nursing staff hours. Findings included: -During the survey process on March 22, 23, 24, and 28, 2022 observation revealed no posting of nursing hours in the facility. On 03/28/22 at 09:00 AM, Administrative Staff A reported the nursing hours were usually posted on the wall inside the healthcare entrance/exit. Administrative Staff A stated the posted nursing hours had been removed for wall painting and verified the posting had not been accessible to residents or public. The facility's Daily Nurse Staffing Report policy, dated 10/11/21, documented nursing service is to provide each resident admitted to health care center with the appropriate level of care to attain his/her optimum level of functioning. Nursing service is staffed, organized, and equipped, to provide nursing care on a 24-hour basis. Daily resident census and staffing information is available to the public. Daily, at the beginning of each shift, identify the actual hours expected to be worked for licensed and unlicensed staff directly responsible for resident care. Then completed Daily Nursing Staffing Form in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. The facility failed to display daily staffing information in a readable format visible to staff, residents, and visitors, which placed them at risk for being uninformed of nursing staff hours.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 24 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $22,451 in fines. Higher than 94% of Kansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (11/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Salina Presbyterian Manor's CMS Rating?

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

How is Salina Presbyterian Manor Staffed?

CMS rates SALINA PRESBYTERIAN MANOR's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 11 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Salina Presbyterian Manor?

State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at SALINA PRESBYTERIAN MANOR during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 21 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Salina Presbyterian Manor?

SALINA PRESBYTERIAN MANOR is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by PRESBYTERIAN MANORS OF MID-AMERICA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 60 certified beds and approximately 57 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SALINA, Kansas.

How Does Salina Presbyterian Manor Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, SALINA PRESBYTERIAN MANOR's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Salina Presbyterian Manor?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Salina Presbyterian Manor Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SALINA PRESBYTERIAN MANOR has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Kansas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Salina Presbyterian Manor Stick Around?

Staff turnover at SALINA PRESBYTERIAN MANOR is high. At 58%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 60%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Salina Presbyterian Manor Ever Fined?

SALINA PRESBYTERIAN MANOR has been fined $22,451 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Kansas average of $33,303. 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 Salina Presbyterian Manor on Any Federal Watch List?

SALINA PRESBYTERIAN MANOR 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.