DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK

712 N MONROE AVENUE, BOX 49, SEDGWICK, KS 67135 (316) 772-5185
For profit - Limited Liability company 62 Beds DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
3/100
#245 of 295 in KS
Last Inspection: May 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Diversicare of Sedgwick has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the facility's operations and care quality. Ranking #245 out of 295 facilities in Kansas places it in the bottom half of state options, and it is the lowest-ranked facility in Harvey County. While the facility shows improvement, reducing issues from 16 in 2023 to 8 in 2025, it still has a concerning staffing turnover rate of 74%, much higher than the state average of 48%. Additionally, it has incurred $51,670 in fines, which is higher than 84% of Kansas facilities, raising red flags about compliance with care standards. On the positive side, the facility has an average rating for RN coverage, which helps ensure that some medical needs are effectively monitored. However, specific incidents of concern include a critical failure in managing a resident's diabetes, where staff did not respond appropriately to dangerously high blood sugar levels, and a serious issue where a resident did not receive necessary intravenous antibiotics, worsening their condition. These incidents highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the care provided at Diversicare of Sedgwick.

Trust Score
F
3/100
In Kansas
#245/295
Bottom 17%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
16 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
74% turnover. Very high, 26 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$51,670 in fines. Lower than most Kansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 40 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Kansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
32 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 16 issues
2025: 8 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Kansas average (2.9)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 74%

27pts above Kansas avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $51,670

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (74%)

26 points above Kansas average of 48%

The Ugly 32 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Sept 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0627 (Tag F0627)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included six residents with one resident reviewed for involuntary discharg...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 48 residents. The sample included six residents with one resident reviewed for involuntary discharge. Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 1's Electronic Health Record (EHR) contained physician documentation of the rationale for the involuntary immediate discharge. This placed the resident at risk for impaired rights and inappropriate discharge. Findings included: - R1's EHR documented diagnoses that included Huntington's disease (a rare abnormal hereditary condition characterized by progressive mental deterioration, a disabling central nervous system movement disorder), anxiety (a mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear), history of suicidal behavior and major depressive disorder (MDD - a major mood disorder that causes persistent feelings of sadness).R1's Census log documented Discharge Paid dated 06/26/25, and Stop [NAME] dated 06/27/25.R1's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented, per staff interview, R1 had moderately impaired cognition. The assessment documented verbal behaviors towards others and behaviors not towards others occurred one to three days during the look-back period. The assessment documented these behaviors put the resident at risk for physical illness and/or injury and interfered with care. R1 was dependent on staff for personal hygiene, shower/bathing, toileting hygiene, and oral hygiene. R1 required substantial/maximal assistance for application of footwear, and upper and lower body dressing. R1 required supervision/touching assistance for eating. R1 required substantial/maximal assistance for all transfers and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder.R1's Behavioral Symptoms Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 05/29/25, documented R1 had physical harm to himself related to hitting his head against the wall and placing himself on the floor.R1's Discharge - Return Anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented R1 had an unplanned discharge from the facility to an inpatient psychiatric facility. The assessment documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status interview could not be completed, though per staff assessment, R1 had severely impaired cognition. The assessment documented physical, verbal, and other behaviors towards himself and others, with rejection of care, which occurred one to three days during the look-back period.R1's EHR Physician Orders documented an order to transfer/discharge R1 to an Emergency Department (ED) due to acute psychosis (any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality perception) with a suicide attempt, dated 06/26/25, from Physician Extender EE. The order was entered by Administrative Nurse D.R1's EHR Progress Notes documented the following notes:On 06/09/25 at 08:17 AM, staff documented R1 was restless, anxious, and agitated. Non-medicinal interventions were attempted but unsuccessful, and R1 became physically violent with staff. As-needed (PRN) medications were given, and 1:1 observation continued.On 06/14/25 at 02:45 PM, staff documented that at approximately 02:00 PM, R1 was verbally aggressive and threatened physical violence to staff. PRN medications were administered along with non-medicinal interventionsOn 06/21/25 at 10:52 AM, staff documented R1 had increased restlessness, anxiety, and aggression with physical violence and verbal aggression towards staff. PRN medications were administered with non-medicinal interventions in place.On 06/25/25 at 12:15 AM, staff documented R1 suddenly became physically and verbally aggressive towards staff, which included expletives and insults. R1 placed himself on the floor and started banging his head on the floor. Staff unsuccessfully attempted to redirect R1, and PRN medications were administered.On 06/25/25 at 04:18 PM, Physician DD documented an exam of R1, which noted R1 had a sitter for 1:1 observation due to recent behaviors. Physician DD documented staff reported increased behaviors and noted R1 had been seen by a psychiatric provider who was no longer at the facility; a new psychiatric provider had been located, but R1 had not been evaluated by the new psychiatric provider. Physician DD documented R1 was very hard to redirect with his behaviors.On 06/25/25 at 08:40 PM, staff documented a Weekly Nurses Note that documented R1 continued with 1:1 staff supervision related to the history of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations (thoughts or ideas about dying by suicide). R1 continued to have episodes of aggression and anxiety with verbal and physical abuse towards self and others.On 06/26/25 at 04:22 PM, staff documented at approximately 01:50 PM, R1 suddenly got up and forcefully removed the blinds from the window and stated he wanted to kill himself. He then placed himself on the ground and began hitting his head against the floor. Staff attempted redirection and placed cushions around him to prevent injury. R1 refused to surrender the window blinds to staff or allow staff to assist him off the floor. At approximately 02:00 PM, the Licensed Nurse (LN) provided PRN medications to help calm R1, but the medications were ineffective. At approximately 02:05 PM, Administrative Nurse D was notified of the situation. At approximately 02:10 PM, R1 began to wrap the window blinds around his neck and continued to express a desire to kill himself. When staff intervened, R1 became physically aggressive and was violent towards staff. At approximately 02:42 PM, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called. Staff were able to safely place R1 in his bed prior to EMS arrival. When EMS arrived, R1 verbalized he was willing to be transported to a local hospital for evaluation and additional treatment. EMS left with R1 at approximately 03:20 - 03:25 PM. R1's physician was notified at approximately 03:30 PM.On 06/26/25 at 06:16 PM, staff documented R1's representative was notified by telephone at 06:00 PM and left a message when R1's representative did not answer the telephone.On 06/26/25 at 09:15 PM, staff documented R1 had an unplanned transfer to a hospital on [DATE] at 03:25 PM due to behavioral symptoms that included agitation and psychosis.On 06/26/25 at 09:24 PM, staff documented the facility called the hospital to verify R1's status. Hospital staff revealed R1 was admitted to a medical floor.On 06/30/25 at 04:48 PM, staff documented Social Services Designee (SSD) X emailed R1's representative with an emergency notice of transfer/discharge. Staff documented R1's needs could no longer be met by the facility, and R1 presented a safety risk to other residents. Staff documented R1 had chosen to be discharged from the facility. SSD X notified hospital staff and provided information related to alternate locations that might accept R1.On 07/01/25 at 06:27 PM, staff documented SSD X called the significant other of R1's representative since R1's representative had not responded to the facility's message left on 06/30/25. The significant other of R1's representative verbalized understanding that the facility could no longer meet R1's needs.R1's EHR Resident Documents contained a scanned letter, dated 06/26/25, to discharge R1 to a hospital on [DATE]. The letter documented the reasons for the discharge were: the discharge was necessary as the resident's needs could no longer be met by the facility; the discharge was necessary due to a safety risk to other individuals at the facility; the resident had chosen to be discharged from the facility. The letter was signed by Administrative Staff A.R1's EHR, reviewed 04/16/25 to 07/01/25, did not contain physician documentation of specific services the facility was unable to provide to R1 or that R1 posed a risk to the safety of the other residents of the facility.On 09/09/25, Administrative Staff A and Administrative Nurse D were unavailable for interview.During an interview on 09/09/25 at 02:25 PM, Administrative Staff B revealed R1's discharge was not planned. Prior to his discharge, R1 had been sent multiple times to a hospital for his behaviors and attempts at self-harm; however, the hospital would only medicate R1 and discharge him back to the facility when no behaviors or attempts at self-harm were observed. R1 had attempted self-harm with anything he could find, so staff had removed potentially harmful objects from his room and placed padding on the walls and floor to prevent him from banging his head against the walls and/or floor. The facility had even attempted to refer R1 to a facility with a special unit for individuals with Huntington's disease, but the receiving facility declined to take R1 due to his history of attempts at self-harm. On the date R1 was discharged , he had attempted to strangle himself by wrapping the power cord for the television and the cords for the window blinds around his neck; it took three staff members to pry his fingers away and remove the cords from around his neck. Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) and EMS were called, and R1 was transported to a different hospital for psychiatric help.During an interview on 09/09/25 at 03:05 PM, Administrative Staff B stated the facility expected to be cited for the discharge of R1. The facility had exhausted all known resources and understood that R1 could not remain at the facility due to ongoing safety concerns for staff and other residents.The facility's 11/01/16 Transfer & Discharge policy documented the facility would permit each resident to remain and not transfer or discharge the resident except in accordance with Federal and State laws. The facility could transfer a resident if the resident's welfare and needs could not be met by the facility, or the safety of other individuals was endangered due to the resident. If the basis of the transfer or discharge was due to the safety or welfare of others, physician documentation would support the transfer.
May 2025 7 deficiencies 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

The facility reported a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents, which included three residents selected for closed record review. Based on interviews and record review the facility f...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents, which included three residents selected for closed record review. Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary care and service needed to manage symptoms when staff failed to promptly identify and react to a change in condition for Resident (R) 29, who had diabetes mellitus. On 05/04/25 R29 refused all his morning medication including his diabetic medications; R29's blood glucose was 388 milligrams (mg) per deciliter (dL) at 05:45 AM that morning. Staff did not notify R29's physician of the medication refusal or the abnormally high blood glucose level. On the evening of 05/04/25, R29 refused all his medications again and had a blood glucose of 513 mg/dL at 09:00 PM but staff did not notify the provider of the dangerously high blood glucose or the medication refusals. On the morning of 05/05/25, staff entered an order for a one-time dose of Humalog (fast-acting insulin) at 06:13 AM but the insulin was not administered as R29 was unresponsive and sent by ambulance to the hospital at 07:40 AM. The facility's failure to identify and respond to changes in R29's medical condition and immediately involve the physician placed R29 in immediate jeopardy. Findings included: - R29's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of congestive heart failure (CHF-a condition with low heart output and the body becomes congested with fluid), depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), anorexia (lack or loss of appetite), type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy (DM-a long-term complication of type 2 diabetes where nerve damage occurs, primarily due to chronically elevated blood sugar levels), and acute osteomyelitis of left ankle and foot (an infection of the bone that develops fast). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 03/24/25 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated intact cognition. The assessment documented R29 required supervision or touching assistance activities of daily living (ADL) such as oral and personal hygiene, and partial to moderate assistance with bathing. The MDS noted R29 received insulin injections for all seven days in the observation period. R29's Care Plan dated 12/14/23 and revised on 11/18/24 documented R29 had an alteration in blood glucose due to being insulin-dependent with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Interventions included the administration of medications and insulin as ordered. The plan directed staff to observe R29 for high blood sugar symptoms and report to the nursing/physician any changes in vision, decreased mental function, poorly healing wounds, dizziness, dehydration, vomiting, cardiac symptoms, or renal dysfunction. R29's Care Plan dated 08/01/24 documented R29 was at risk for decreased mood related to a history of depression, use of medication for management, and refusal to eat. Interventions included the administration of medications as ordered and informing the physician if symptoms were not improving. R29's Care Plan dated 01/21/25 documented R29 was at risk for impaired cardiovascular status related to congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease (heart disease), and peripheral vascular disease. Interventions included giving medications as ordered by the physician, observing and reporting any signs of chest pain, edema (swelling), shortness of breath, abnormal pedal (foot) pulses, restlessness, and fatigue; staff were to observe for any changes in condition. R29's Care Plan dated 04/07/25 documented R29 had the potential for alteration in hydration related to diabetes mellitus with an active infection. Staff were directed to notify the physician of signs or symptoms of excess fluid. The plan directed staff to observe R29 for mental status changes and changes in mood or behavior. R29's EMR under the Orders tab listed an order for a fasting and evening blood glucose level two times daily for DM, dated 08/26/24. The order lacked instructions regarding notification parameters. R29's May 2025 Medication Administration Record/ Treatment Administration Record (MAR/TAR) revealed on 05/04/25 documented a 2 indicating R29 refused all his morning (AM) scheduled medication including aspirin, liquid protein supplement, metoprolol tartrate ( a medication used to treat high blood pressure and cardiac issues), Reglan (medication used to treat digestive issues), amoxicillin (antibiotic), thiamine HCl (supplement), cholecalciferol (supplement), clopidogrel bisulfate (used to prevent blood clots), ferrous sulfate (iron supplement), folic acid (supplement), Megace (appetite stimulant), mirtazapine (medication used to treat depression), pantoprazole sodium (medication used to treat digestive disorders), rosuvastatin (medication used to lower cholesterol), and Sertraline HCl (medication used to treat depression). The MAR/TAR also listed R29 refused his empagliflozin (medication used to treat diabetes mellitus) and Tradjenta (injectable medication to treat high blood glucose). R29's EMR and MAR/TAR lacked evidence the staff notified R29's physician regarding the medication refusals. R29's May 2025 MAR/TAR recorded the 05:30 AM fasting blood glucose was 388 mg/dL (normal fasting glucose is between 80-120 mg/dL). R29's EMR lacked evidence the staff notified the physician regarding the abnormally high fasting blood glucose level. R29's May 2025 MAR/TAR documented a 2 to indicate the resident refused his evening (HS) medications which included mirtazapine (medication used to treat depression), melatonin (supplement used to promote sleep), tamsulosin HCl (medication used to treat prostate disorders), amoxicillin, liquid protein supplement, metoprolol tartrate, and Reglan (scheduled at 05:00 PM). R29's EMR and MAR/TAR lacked evidence the staff notified R29's physician regarding the evening medication refusals. R29's May 2025 MAR/TAR recorded R29's 08:00 PM blood glucose was 513 mg/dL. R29's EMR lacked evidence the staff notified the physician regarding the abnormally high blood glucose level. R29's May 2025 MAR/TAR recorded no as-needed medication was administered on 05/04/25. R29's May 2025 MAR/TAR recorded an order dated 05/05/25 at 06:13 AM for Humalog, inject 10 units one time only, for elevated blood sugar; recheck blood sugar 30 minutes after administration. The order was documented at 4 indicating the medication was not administered because the resident was hospitalized . R29's EMR lacked any notes under the Notes tab for 05/03/25 and 05/04/25. R29's EMR recorded a Progress Note dated 05/05/25 at 06:18 AM which documented the above Humalog order. R29's EMR recovered a late entry note dated 05/05/25 at 03:17 PM which noted the resident was sent to the hospital at 07:40 AM due to the resident was unresponsive. A review of the facility's TEAM Health Standing Orders or Skilled and Long-Term Care Units dated 08/29/23 directed staff to notify the physician of blood glucose over 350 mg/dL unless otherwise specified. A review of the facility's investigation provided by the facility revealed LN G worked with R29 on 05/03/25 and 05/04/25 revealed the facility verified LN G did not perform her duties on 05/04/25 in regard to medication and charting issues. During an interview on 05/13/25 at 01:30 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) I reported that the facility provider should be notified if a resident's blood glucose is 350 mg/dL or higher or 60 mg/dL and below. During an interview on 05/13/25 at 01:46 PM, Administrative Nurse C verified there were no progress notes in the EMR for R29 on 05/04/25. During an interview on 05/13/25 at 02:55 PM, LN I reported he charted by exception and did not chart anything on 05/04/25 due to R29 being lucid and responding appropriately. LN I reported he had previously contacted the provider and informed her that he believed R29 was giving up and reported the provider agreed. During an interview on 05/13/25 at 03:12 PM, Administrative Nurse C reported the facility charted by exception unless the resident was a new admit or had a change in status. During an interview on 05/14/25 at 08:59 AM, LN F stated the facility had standing orders to notify the provider if a resident had a blood glucose of 350 mg/dL or above or 60 mg/dL and below. LN F also reported that she had been instructed during orientation to notify the provider if a resident had refused medication during a shift. During an interview on 05/14/25 at 09:10 AM, Administrative Nurse C reported that facility protocol was to notify the provider if a resident had refused medications. The Notification of Patient/Resident Change Policy, dated 11/01/16, indicated that the facility would notify the resident's provider and notify the resident's legal representative or interested family member whenever there is an acute illness or a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status or whenever a there was a need to significantly alter treatment. On 05/14/25 at 01:00 PM, Administrative Staff A received a copy of the Immediate Jeopardy [IJ] Template and was informed of the IJ for R29. On 05/14/25 at 05:00 PM, the facility submitted an acceptable removal plan which included the following corrective actions: 1. R29 was assessed on 05/05/25 at 06:45 AM. Staff contacted Emergency Medical Services for assessment and transport to the hospital. 2. Staff notified R29's physician and representative on 05/05/25 at 07:05 AM. 3. The facility initiated an investigation of the event on 05/05/25. LN G was placed on administrative leave pending the results of the investigation; LN G was terminated on 05/08/25. 4. An audit of all residents with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus was completed to evaluate for change of condition and physician notifications were made as appropriate on 05/14/25 5. The Director of Nursing (DON) and Designee provided re-education to all licensed nursing staff on 05/14/25 and/or prior to working on immediate physician notification for blood glucose levels exceeding 350 mg/dL or per resident-ordered parameters and documentation protocols for refusals and physician notifications. 6. A full clinical review of all diabetic residents was conducted by DON on 05/14/25. No other residents were identified to be at immediate risk due to medication refusal or lack of provider notification. 7. The facility conducted a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting addressing the incident on 05/14/25 with the attendance of the Administrator, DNS, and Medical Director by phone. Removal of the immediacy was verified by the onsite survey team on 05/15/25. The deficient practice remained at a scope and severity of G to represent the actual harm to R29.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents with one reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents with one reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 21, a resident in a persistent vegetative state (state of wakefulness accompanied by a complete lack of cognitive function) received adequate restorative care, including the application of splints, to minimize further decline. This deficient practice placed R21 at risk for increased pain and contractures (abnormal fixation of joints or muscles). Findings included: - A review of R21's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state. The 03/07/25 Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented R21 was in a vegetative state; R21 was dependent on staff for her care. The MDS noted R21 received no range of motion (ROM- the full movement potential of a joint, usually its range of flexion and extension) exercise during the assessment period. The 03/07/25 Care Area Assessment (CAA) did not trigger for R21 for ADLs. R21's Care Plan dated 04/10/25 documented that she was dependent on staff for all of her care due to a persistent vegetated status with arm and foot contractures. The plan noted an intervention dated 05/17/21 which directed that heel boots should be worn. R21's Care Plan dated 04/10/25 directed to maintain proper positioning by using stuffed animals to preserve R21's skin integrity related to contractures. The care plan lacked interventions related to wrist braces. During an observation on 05/14/25 at 10:40 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) T transferred R21 with the assistance of another CNA. They positioned R21 in bed. There were two papers on the wall just above the resident's head with a picture of a wrist brace on it labeled left and right. CNA T reported that R21 was supposed to wear the wrist splints, but she did not know where the splints were. CNA T said the facility did not have restorative aides, and the CNAs did not do ROM or any restorative programs. During an observation on 05/15/25 at 08:52 AM, R21 lay in bed with no boots or hand braces. R21's arms were propped on a stuffed animal and her wrist dangled in a flexed position. R21 tightened and flexed further. R21's feet were contracted in a foot drop (inability or difficulty in moving the ankle and toes upward) position. During an interview on 05/14/25 at 12:34 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) KK stated that R21's splints had a broken strap, so staff sent it to therapy. During an interview on 05/15/25 at 08:59 AM, Therapy Staff LL stated he found the splints buried in a drawer in R21's room. Therapy LL said therapy worked with some residents repeatedly because the facility did not have a restorative program. Therapy LL said the facility was aware of the problem and was implementing a plan to start a restorative program. Therapy LL provided a list of residents who would benefit from a restorative program to Administrative Nurse E. During an interview on 05/15/25 at 11:22 AM, Administrative Nurse E stated the facility had not had a restorative program for a long time. Administrative Nurse E stated the facility had taken steps to initiate a restorative program and identified residents who needed restorative services. Administrative Nurse E stated the facility had not completed any restorative assessments or evaluations yet, because they did not have any staff that have had training. Administrative Nurse E said the facility needed to get the CNAs trained before the CNAs could proceed. Administrative Nurse E said the nurse did get an order to get R21 therapy services to evaluate for hand splints and positioning and then took the sign down for the hand splints. During an interview on 05/15/25 at 12:13 PM, Administrative Nurse C stated the facility did not have a restorative program and has not for a long time. She was unsure how long. They have identified it as a concern and they are working on initiating a restorative program. The facility's Restorative Guideline dated 2024, documented each resident will be screened or evaluated for inclusion in the appropriate restorative program when the need is identified.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents with one reviewed for enteral nutrition (provision of nutrients through the gastrointestinal tract when the resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility identified a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents with one reviewed for enteral nutrition (provision of nutrients through the gastrointestinal tract when the resident cannot ingest, chew, or swallow food). Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) 21, a resident fed by enteral means, received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding when staff failed to monitor R21's weight routinely and/or as ordered. This placed the resident at risk for continued weight loss and malnutrition. Findings included: - A review of R21's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state (state of wakefulness accompanied by a complete lack of cognitive function). The 03/07/25 Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented R21 was in a vegetative state; R21 was dependent on staff for her care. The MDS noted R21 weighed 145 pounds and she had no weight loss or gain since the last MDS. The MDS recorded R21 had a feeding tube and received her nutrition from it. R21's 03/07/25 Nutritional Care Area Assessment (CAA) triggered secondary to swallowing issues, enteral diet, and the presence of a Stage 2 (partial-thickness skin loss into but no deeper than the dermis including intact or ruptured blisters) pressure ulcer on her left buttock. The CAA noted R21's risk factors included weight instability and a care plan would be developed to improve and maintain dietary and hydration status and monitor weights. The 03/07/25 Feeding Tube CAA triggered secondary to use of a feeding tube for maintenance of nutritional and hydration status. The CAA noted contributing factors included a vegetative state and a care plan would be developed and maintained to improve and maintain nutritional and hydration status, monitor labs and weights. R21's Care Plan dated 03/20/23 documented R21 had a a potential for alteration in hydration related to enteral feeding and directed staff to monitor R21's weights per physician order. R21's Care Plan dated 02/17/25 documented R21 was at nutritional risk related to a persistent vegetative state; she was dependent on staff for tube feedings to provide all nutritional and fluid needs. The plan directed staff to monitor weights. R21's EMR revealed the following physician's order: Weekly weight on shower day, every Wednesday, ordered on 04/09/24. R21's Registered Dietitian's Progress Note on 05/12/25 at 03:05 PM, documented R21 had no intake by mouth and had weekly weights. R21's EMR documented the following: Staff did not weigh R21 on 02/05/25. On 02/12/25, 02/19/25, and 02/26/25 the nurse documented R21 was weighed, but no documentation was recorded of R21's actual weight. On 03/05/25 and 03/19/25 staff did not weigh R21. On 03/12/25 and 03/25/25 the nurse documented that R21 was weighed, but no documentation was recorded of R21's actual weight. On 04/23/25 the nurse documented that R21 was weighed, but no documentation was recorded of R21's actual weight. On 04/16/25 and 04/30/25 the order was not documented as completed nor was a weight recorded. On 05/07/25 and 05/14/25 the nurse documented that R21 was weighed, but no documentation was recorded of R21's actual weight. R21's EMR, Under the weights section, documented a gradual decrease since 09/05/25. On 09/05/25 R21's weight was 153.3 pounds and on 04/04/25 R21's weight was 144.6 pounds. During an observation on 05/14/25 at 11:04 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) KK wore a gown and gloves and administered medications to R21 via the feeding tube. LN KK flushed the tube before and after administering the medications. During an interview on 05/14/25 at 11:04 AM, LN KK stated that staff weighed R21 every Sunday and on her bath day. LN KK said the nurses would enter the weight in the computer after the staff obtained it. During an interview on 05/15/25 at 12:13 PM, Administrative Nurse C stated that when a resident receives enteral feedings, staff should be obtaining weights at least weekly. The facility's competency for Administering Eternal Feedings documented that staff should weigh the resident daily or three times a week as appropriate.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 42 residents. There were 15 residents in the sample, with one resident reviewed for trauma-inf...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 42 residents. There were 15 residents in the sample, with one resident reviewed for trauma-informed care. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement approaches to care that were both clinically appropriate and person-centered for Resident(R) 12, who had a history of personal trauma and substance abuse. This placed the resident at risk for decreased quality of life and re-traumatization. Findings included: - R12's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed diagnoses that included major depressive disorder (major mood disorder that causes persistent feelings of sadness), anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD- a mental disorder characterized by an acute emotional response to a traumatic event or situation involving severe environmental stress). The Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, and noted R12 refused to answer any questions regarding mood as well. The MDS noted R12 used a manual wheelchair and walker and required supervision/touching assistance for transfers. The MDS recorded R12 had active diagnoses of anxiety, depression, and PTSD. The Delirium Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 03/02/25 indicated R12 had symptoms of delirium (sudden severe confusion, disorientation, and restlessness) due to the presence of an acute mental status change and/or the presence of inattention, disorganized thinking or altered mental status. The End of PPS Part A Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS noted R12 answered yes to having little interest or pleasure in doing things, trouble falling asleep and/or staying asleep or sleeping too much; R12 felt tired or had little energy. The MDS noted R12 required supervision/touching assistance with transfers and walking 10 feet or more. R12's Care Plan interventions, dated 03/19/21 and revised 03/14/25 noted PTSD but did not address any triggers identified and did not address R12's history of illicit drug use. The care plan did not include interventions to address the resident's adjustment difficulties and/or history of trauma. The care plan lacked any description of the resident's indications of distress and/or interventions intended to assist the resident. R12's Progress Notes from 01/01/25 to 05/15/25 lacked any documentation of past trauma. A review of R12's Physician Encounter dated 07/19/22, 10/17/23, 08/26/24, and 05/06/25 listed past marijuana use and PTSD was listed as a diagnosis. The current facility assessment dated [DATE] under the common diagnosis section, special treatments, and conditions, sub-section mental, active, and current substance use disorder listed the current resident number as zero. During an interview on 05/14/25 at 11:44 AM, Social Services Staff FF stated the facility used an evaluation, Social Service admission Evaluation, to identify PTSD. Social Services Staff FF reported that R12 did not have PTSD, she stated that R12 would make up false things to her. Social Services Staff FF further reported that the facility currently did not have any residents with a substance abuse history. During an interview on 05/14/25 at 12:42 PM, Administrative Staff A reported that the provider was who determined the PTSD diagnosis and said there would have been coordination between the provider and the social services designee once that diagnosis had been made. Administrative Staff A said the PTSD would have then been discussed at the Interdisciplinary (IDT) meetings in the morning, and then worked into the care plan to help drive the care for the resident. The current facility assessment dated [DATE] under the common diagnosis section, special treatments, and conditions, sub-section mental, active, and current substance use disorder listed the current resident number as zero. The facility did not provide a policy on trauma-informed care.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility reported a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on interviews, record reviews, and observation, the facility failed to implement professional standards of care ...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on interviews, record reviews, and observation, the facility failed to implement professional standards of care related to infection control practices during direct care and laundry services. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for infections. Findings included: - R21's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state (state of wakefulness accompanied by a complete lack of cognitive function), tracheostomy (opening through the neck into the trachea through which an indwelling tube may be inserted), and Foley catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a collection bag). The 03/07/25 Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented R21 was in a vegetative state. R21 was dependent on staff for her care. The MDS noted R21 required a tracheostomy and supplemental oxygen. The MDS recorded R21 had a feeding tube and received her nutrition from it. It documented R21 had had a Foley catheter. The 03/07/25 Feeding Tube CAA triggered secondary to use of a feeding tube for maintenance of nutritional and hydration status. The CAA noted contributing factors included a vegetative state and a care plan would be developed and maintained to improve and maintain nutritional and hydration status, monitor labs and weights. R21's Care Plan dated 05/27/21 documented R21 was a risk for infection related to a surgical site for a tracheostomy. R21's Care Plan dated 05/19/21 documented R21 had a Foley catheter and directed staff to keep the drainage bag of the catheter below the level of the bladder and off the floor. During an observation on 05/13/25 at 12:30 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) T and Certified Medication Aide (CMA) N entered the room to change R21. They wore a gown and gloves per the policy. CMA N pulled some personal hygiene wipes out and began to wipe R21. CMA N folded the soiled wipe over and wiped again from the front to the back wiping past the catheter. She obtained more wipes out of the package and wiped again several more times. CMA N touched R21's neck pillow with her soiled glove to adjust it and then obtained a clean brief with her soiled gloved hands and placed it under the resident while CNA T rolled R21. CMA N removed her gloves and applied fresh gloves without performing hand hygiene. CNA T opened a bag and CMA N placed the soiled sheets in it. CMA N spread a clean gown over R21, and CNA T rolled her to the side. CNA T then removed the soiled brief and cleaned R21's buttocks. R21's pillow fell to the floor. CNA T picked up the pillow and placed it on the bed over R21's right shoulder and tracheostomy. Then CNA T obtained a pillowcase and changed it. During an observation at 05/14/25 on 10:40 AM CNA U and CNA T transferred R21 from the bathchair to the bed. CNA T attached the catheter bag to the straps of the lift sling at shoulder height. CNA U said they were unaware that the catheter bag had to be below the bladder during transfers. During an interview on 05/13/25 at 12:30 PM, CNA T and CMA N stated they were unaware of the need to get a fresh wipe out once the wipe was soiled. They said they understood that hand hygiene needed to be completed after removing soiled gloves prior to putting on new gloves, and when gloves are soiled, they should not touch anything clean. CNA T and CMA N reported they knew the pillowcase was dirty when it went to the floor and said she should not have put it on the bed when she picked it up. During an interview on 05/14/25 at 11:04 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) KK stated that staff were expected to use good infection control including hand hygiene after removing soiled gloves, keeping the catheter bag below the level of the bladder, not using the same wipe numerous times, and not placing items that touched the floor on the bed or resident. During an interview on 05/15/25 at 05:21 PM, Administrative Nurse C stated she expected the staff to follow infection control practices including hand hygiene after removing soiled gloves, not touching clean items with soiled gloves, and keeping the catheter bag below the level of the bladder. Administrative Nurse C stated staff should avoid using the wipes for several swipes, and should not place items from the floor on the bed or resident. The facility's Infection Control policy dated 11/01/17, documented the facility's infection control policies are intended to maintain a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment. - During an observation on 05/13/25 at 09:40 AM, there was an open grate drain with standing water that the washing machines drained directly into in front of the washing machines. During an observation on 05/13/25 at 10:00 AM, the clean clothes folding room was shared by the dietary manager as an office and housed the time clock. The clean clothes folding table was next to the time clock and had several non-laundry items on it. During an interview on 05/13/25 at 10:00 AM, Maintenance Staff QQ reported that the clean laundry was stored and folded in a room that doubled as the dietary office. The facility's policy titled Policies and Practices - Infection Control, dated 11/01/17, did not address the storage and management of resident linen during the laundry process to prevent contamination or infection.
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 F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Five Ceritifed Nurse Aide (CNA) were reviewed with three reviewed for annual performance evaluations. Based on interview and record review, the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Five Ceritifed Nurse Aide (CNA) were reviewed with three reviewed for annual performance evaluations. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete annual performance reviews for two of the three CNA staff that were employed for a year or more. This placed the residents at risk for inadequate care. Findings included: - Per review of employee records, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) M was hired on 02/12/21. CMA M's annual Performance Evaluation, dated 02/13/25, was not completed with the employee's signature indicating it had been reviewed with the staff member. CMA N's employee records noted she was hired 05/08/20. CMA N's most recent Performance Evaluation, was completed on 02/27/24. On 05/14/25 at 09:21 AM, Administrative Nurse C verified the above findings and confirmed that direct care staff should receive an annual evaluation to include identified weaknesses and actions to address weaknesses to ensure the residents receive adequate care. The facility did not provide a policy related to annual performance evaluation.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility reported a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on interviews, record reviews, and observation, the facility failed to ensure a safe environment in all areas of...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 42 residents. The sample included 15 residents. Based on interviews, record reviews, and observation, the facility failed to ensure a safe environment in all areas of the facility including the laundry area. This deficient practice created the risk for contaminated laundry and fires. Findings included: - During an observation on 05/13/25 at 09:30 AM, the fluorescent light fixtures above the washers and the dryers had no covers over the bulbs. There were several light fixtures that had exposed rust on the metal housings. During an observation on 05/13/25 at 09:35 AM, the ceilings above the washers and dryers had cracked and peeling paint. During an observation on 05/13/25 at 09:40 AM, it was observed that there was an open grate drain with standing water that the washing machines drained into in front of the washing machines. During an observation on 05/13/25 at 09:45 AM, the washing machine detergent hoses were fed through an open hole in the wall with an exposed dry wall just below a vent covered in lint and dust. During an observation on 05/13/25 at 09:50 AM, the wall behind the dryers was covered in dryer lint. There were several electrical boxed on this wall. During an interview on 05/13/25 at 10:05 AM, Maintenance Staff QQ reported that he had recently crawled behind the dryers and re-taped the metal dryer vent lines because they had been blowing lint on the floor and wall. The facility did not have a policy that addressed maintenance requirements related to the laundry service areas.
Jul 2023 16 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents, with 16 sampled for review. Based on observation, interview, and record review t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents, with 16 sampled for review. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to review and revise the plan of care for two sampled residents including Resident (R)13 with psychotrophic medications and )13 for foot pedals on the wheelchair. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)13's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed diagnoses of major depressive disorder (major mood disorder) and anxiety (feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease). The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. She received an antidepressant medication (medication used to treat the symptoms of depression) seven days of the seven day assessment period. The Behavioral Symptoms Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 12/02/22, did not trigger. The Psychosocial Well-Being CAA, dated 12/02/22, did not trigger. The Mood State CAA, dated 12/02/22, did not trigger. The Psychotropic Drug Use CAA, dated 12/02/22, documented the resident took psychotropic medication (medication capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior) to manage her psychiatric illness (mental illness or its treatment). The licensed nurse (LN) was to monitor for side effects of the psychotropic medications every shift and notify the resident's physician of any abnormal findings. The quarterly MDS, dated 06/02/23, documented the resident had a BIMS score of 14, indicating intact cognition. She received an antidepressant medication seven days of the seven day assessment period. The care plan lacked staff instruction for interventions related to the resident's sad, depressed mood. Review of the resident's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), from 07/11/23 through 07/17/23, revealed the resident had sadness/crying documented on six days, the resident was withdrawn for five days and the resident had a flat affect (near or total absence of typical emotional responses). Documentation from 06/01/23 through 07/10/23, had no behavioral symptoms documented. On 07/17/23 at 12:47 PM, the resident stated she felt sad and hopeless. On 07/18/23 at 12:59 PM, the resident's family member stated he had noticed a decrease in the resident's mood over the past two to three weeks. The resident's family member stated his mother was not joking with her family or the staff anymore. On 07/18/23 at 08:57 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) MM stated the resident had been more sad and withdrawn that usual lately. On 07/18/23 at 10:29 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) T stated the resident started acting depressed a couple of weeks ago. CMA T stated she was not sure what to do for the resident when she felt sad. On 07/18/23 at 06:17 PM, CNA Q stated she would tell the resident everything was going to be OK when she acted sad. On 07/19/23 at 06:42 AM, Social Service staff X stated the resident's depressive symptoms had begun in late June or early July. Social Service staff X confirmed the care plan lacked staff instruction for interventions related to the resident's sad, depressed mood, as it should. On 07/19/23 at 10:35 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated the expectation was for the care plans to be reviewed and revised to include staff instruction on how to assist this resident with a sad, depressed mood. The facility policy for Care Plans, revised October 2021, included: Care plans are developed by the interdisciplinary (ID) team and revised as needed according to resident status or change. The facility failed to review and revise this resident's care plan to include staff instruction on interventions to assist the resident when she had a sad and depressed mood. - Review of Resident (R)24's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) and weakness. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of four, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She required extensive assistance of one for locomotion on the unit and had impairment on one side of her lower extremity. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 12/20/22, did not trigger. The Cognitive Loss/Dementia CAA, dated 12/20/22, documented the resident had a diagnosis of dementia. The quarterly MDS, dated 06/02/23, documented the resident had a BIMS score of four, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She required supervision with setup help for locomotion on the unit. The care plan, revised 06/05/23, lacked staff instruction for foot pedals on the wheelchair while staff propelled the resident, to prevent her feet from coming into contact with the floor. Review of the resident's EMR, from 06/19/23 through 07/17/23, documented the resident required total assistance of one staff for locomotion on the unit with her wheelchair. On 07/18/23 at 09:00 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) T propelled the resident from the dining room to her room in her wheelchair. The resident's feet with shoes came into direct contact with the hallway carpet on multiple occasions. The wheelchair lacked foot pedals. On 07/18/23 at 01:19 PM, CMA R propelled the resident from her room to the living room in her wheelchair. The resident's feet with shoes came into direct contact with the hallway carpet on multiple occasions. The wheelchair lacked foot pedals. On 07/18/23 at 11:15 AM, CMA T stated the resident did not use foot pedals on her wheelchair as she will propel herself around in the wheelchair at times. On 07/18/23 at 01:19 PM, CMA R stated the resident did not have foot pedals for her wheelchair. On 07/18/23 at 06:17 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Q stated staff did not use foot pedals for the resident's wheelchair because she would propel herself in the wheelchair at times. On 07/19/23 at 08:43 AM, Consultant staff HH stated there should be foot pedals on wheelchairs when staff propel residents. On 07/19/23 at 10:35 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated the expectation was for the care plans to be reviewed and revised to include staff instruction to use foot pedals while staff propel this dependent resident in her wheelchair. The facility policy for Care Plans, revised October 2021, included: Care plans are developed by the interdisciplinary (ID) team and revised as needed according to resident status or change. The facility failed to review and revise this resident's care plan to include staff instruction for foot pedals on this dependent resident's wheelchair.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including three residents reviewed for bowel and bladd...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including three residents reviewed for bowel and bladder. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to toilet one dependent Resident (R)8 timely and failed to complete a 72-hour voiding diary to assist the staff in the development of an individualized toileting program to assist R 30 improve or maintain his bladder continence. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)30's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He required limited assistance of one staff for toileting and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. The Urinary Incontinence and Indwelling Catheter Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/18/22, documented the resident required assistance with toileting due to actual incontinent episodes. The quarterly MDS, dated 04/24/23, documented the resident had a BIMS score of nine, indicating moderately impaired cognition. He required limited assistance of one staff for toileting and was always incontinent of bladder and occasionally incontinent of bowel. The care plan for bowel and bladder, revised 04/24/23, instructed staff to check and change the resident every two to three hours and as needed (PRN). Staff were to cue the resident to toilet upon awakening, before and after meals, at bedtime and PRN. The resident required limited assistance of one staff for toileting. The resident's EMR lacked a current 72-hour voiding diary to assist the staff in the development of an individualized toileting program for the resident. Review of the resident's EMR revealed from 06/20/23 through 07/18/23, the resident required limited assistance of one staff for toileting and was mostly incontinent of urine. On 07/17/23 at 01:20 PM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) N entered the resident's room to assist the resident to toilet. The resident was incontinent of urine in his brief. CMA assisted the resident with peri-care (cleansing of genitals) and a clean brief was put on the resident. On 07/18/23 at 09:03 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) MM assisted the resident to toilet following breakfast. The resident's brief was saturated with urine. The CNA assisted the resident with peri-care and a clean brief was put on the resident. On 07/17/23 at 02:15 PM, CMA N stated she was unsure of what the resident's toileting program was. CMA N stated she would go and toilet the resident whenever he would use the call light and request assistance with toileting. On 07/18/23 at 09:04 AM, CNA MM stated the resident required assistance with toileting because he could be incontinent of urine. Staff were to offer to toilet the resident every two hours or so, however CNA MM confirmed she failed to toilet the resident before breakfast. The resident was able to be continent of urine if toileted often enough. On 07/18/23 at 10:03 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) J stated she was unsure of when staff were to toilet the resident. On 07/19/23 at 10:35 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated she was unsure if the resident had an individualized toileting program. The staff lacked a policy for bowel and bladder incontinence. The facility failed to complete a 72-hour voiding diary to assist the staff in the development of an individualized toileting program to assist the resident in improving or maintaining bladder continence. - Review of Resident (R)8's Physician Order Sheet, dated 06/29/23, revealed diagnoses included Huntington's disease (rare abnormal hereditary condition characterized by progressive mental deterioration; a disabling central nervous system movement disorder), weakness, and dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with moderately impaired cognitive function. The resident had impairment in functional range of motion in both sides of her upper and lower extremities and was dependent on staff for toileting and personal hygiene. The resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The Urinary Incontinence and Indwelling Catheter Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 04/25/23, assessed the resident was incontinent of bladder and bowel. The resident was dependent on staff for incontinence care and required check and change for incontinent episodes for reduction of pressure ulcer, fall risk and to reduce the risk for urinary tract infections. The Quarterly MDS, dated 05/12/23, assessed the resident with moderate cognitive impairment, dependent on staff for transfers and toileting. The resident had impairment in functional range of motion on both sides of upper and lower extremities. The resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The Care Plan, reviewed 05/23/23, instructed staff to observe for incontinence and provide incontinence care as needed with the use of brief/pads for protection and barrier cream. The resident was at high risk for pressure ulcers related to incontinence and friction form Huntington's movements. Needed padding to siderails or wheelchairs. The resident was a high risk for falls due to diagnosis of Huntington's disease. The resident required assistance of one to two for check and change. The resident used blue disposable briefs to preserve her dignity, and staff instructed to change the resident frequently and as needed. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 10:54 AM, revealed the resident dressed and seated in her wheelchair in the common living area. Observations continued every 15 minutes. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 03:21 PM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair in the common living area. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M and CMA R stated they did not know when the resident had last been checked for incontinence. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 03:21 PM, approximately four and one-half hours after being dressed and transferred into her wheelchair, CNA M and CMA R transferred the resident into her bed and found the resident saturated her brief with urine. The resident's shorts were wet as well as the seat of the wheelchair. The resident urine had a foul odor and peri care revealed redness to the perineal area. CNA M provided peri care and applied barrier cream. Interview, on 07/18/23 at 04:00 PM, with Licensed Nurse G, revealed staff should check and change the resident every two hours. Interview, on 07/19/23, at 11:30 AM, with Administrative Nurse D, revealed she would expect staff to follow the care plan and confirmed the care plan did not indicate an individualized care plan other than check and change. The facility policy Helping a Resident with Toileting Needs, undated, instructed staff to assist residents with toileting needs to maintain a resident's dignity and hygiene. The facility failed to provide timely toileting for this dependent incontinent resident to prevent infection, skin breakdown and maintain a sense of well-being.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including three residents reviewed for respiratory car...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including three residents reviewed for respiratory care. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of the three sampled resident's (R)10 oxygen concentrator had a humidifier bottle. Findings included: - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 06/29/23, for Resident (R)10, documented a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)- progressive and irreversible condition characterized by diminished lung capacity and difficulty or discomfort in breathing). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He used oxygen while a resident. The Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 06/16/23, documented the resident had impaired cognition. The care plan for respiratory status, dated 06/16/23, instructed staff the resident used oxygen at 7 liters (L) per nasal cannula (NC), continuously for a diagnosis of COPD. Review of the resident's EMR, revealed the follow physician's orders: Oxygen 7 L via NC, continuous, to maintain oxygen levels above 90%, ordered 06/17/23. Change humidifier water bottle when empty, 06/17/23. On 07/18/23 at 08:00 AM, the resident sat in the recliner in his room with oxygen on at 7 L via NC. The humidifier bottle on the oxygen concentrator was dry. On 07/18/23 at 11:05 AM, 02:46 PM and 03:21 PM, the resident continued to wear his oxygen at 7 L via NC and the humidifier bottle remained dry. On 07/19/23 at 10:35 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated the humidifier bottle should be replaced when they are low of water. She would expect staff to not allow the humidifier bottles to run completely dry. The facility policy for Oxygen Guideline, effective January 2022, included: Oxygen is a drug and therefore it is provided in accordance with a health care provider's order and in accordance with acceptable standards of practice. The facility failed to ensure the humidifier water bottle on this dependent resident's oxygen concentrator which dispensed at 7 L, did not run dry.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including two residents reviewed for pain. Based on ob...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including two residents reviewed for pain. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate pain relief for one of the two sampled residents, Resident (R)10 in order to remain free from pain as possible. Findings included: - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 06/29/23, for Resident (R)10, revealed a diagnosis of urinary retention (the inability to urinate). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He required limited assistance of one staff for toileting. The Pain Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 06/16/23, documented the resident would be monitored by a licensed nurse (LN) every shift for pain. Staff were to notify the physician immediately if the resident did not receive pain relief from the current pain medication regimen. The pain care plan, dated 06/16/23, instructed staff to reposition the resident for comfort and to administer pain medications, as ordered. Review of the resident's electronic medical record (EMR), included the following physician's order: Tramadol (an opioid pain medication), 50 milligrams (mg), by mouth (po), every (Q) eight hours, as needed (PRN), for pain, ordered on 06/11/23. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record MAR), revealed staff administered the pain medication multiple times for pain rated at 5-8 out of 10, with effective results. On 07/18/23 at 08:10 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) T entered the resident's room to deliver his breakfast tray. The resident informed CMA T he had pain in his penis from his indwelling urinary catheter (catheter drains urine from your bladder into a bag outside your body). CMA T informed the resident she would notify LN J. LN J informed the resident he had a pain pill earlier and was not able to have another pain pill at that time. On 07/18/23 at 08:32 AM, CMA R entered the resident's room to remove his breakfast tray. The resident informed CMA R he had penis pain from his indwelling urinary catheter. CMA R informed the resident he could not have another pain pill at that time. On 07/18/23 at 08:49 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) MM responded to the resident's call light. The resident informed CNA MM he had penis pain from his indwelling urinary catheter. CNA MM informed the resident he could not have another pain pill yet. On 07/18/23 at 11:05 AM, CMA T responded to the resident's call light. The resident asked CMA T about his pain medication as he had penis pain from his indwelling urinary catheter. CMA T informed the resident he could not have another pain pill yet. On 07/18/23 at 12:34 PM, the resident continued to complain of penis pain from his indwelling urinary catheter. LN J informed the resident he could have another pain pill at 03:00 PM. On 07/18/23 at 03:21 PM, Administrative Nurse D entered the resident's room to assess his penis. The resident complained of the tip of his penis being very tender from the indwelling urinary catheter. On 07/18/23 at 03:35 PM, the resident received PRN Tramadol 50 mg, po. On 07/18/23 at 03:01 PM, LN J confirmed the resident complained of pain throughout the day from his indwelling urinary catheter which caused his penis to hurt. LN J stated the PRN Tramadol was only ordered for every eight hours. LN J confirmed she had not assessed the resident's penis or indwelling urinary catheter tubing and had not contacted his hospice or the resident's physician for any other medications which could possibly help the resident with his complaints of pain. LN J stated she would call hospice tomorrow (07/19/23, Wednesday) if the resident continued to complain of pain. On 07/19/23 at 10:35 AM, Administrative Nurse D confirmed the resident complained of his penis being very tender from the indwelling urinary catheter. Administrative Nurse D stated she would expect staff to notify hospice or the resident's physician for additional pain medication when a resident had unresolved pain with ordered pain medication. The facility policy for Pain, dated January 2021, included: The facility will provide consistent evaluation, management, and documentation of pain in order to provide maximum comfort and enhanced quality of life. The facility failed to provide adequate pain relief for this dependent resident who complained of penis pain repeatedly during the day.
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 reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents selected for review, which included five residents reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents selected for review, which included five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow up on pharmacy recommendations for one Resident (R) of the five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)34's Physician Order Sheet, dated 06/29/23, revealed diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke which is the 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), left hemiplegia (paralysis and weakness of one side of the body muscular of one half of the body), hemiparesis (muscular weakness of one side of the body), and major depressive disorder (major mood disorder). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed the resident with normal cognitive function. The resident had a mood score of 17 which indicated moderately severe depression. The resident received 7 days of antipsychotic (class of medications used to treat psychosis and other mental emotional conditions) medications during the seven day look back period. The Quarterly MDS, dated 06/26/23, assessed the resident with normal cognitive function and the resident received six days of antipsychotic medications during the seven day look back period. The Psychotropic Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 02/03/23 assessed the resident used psychotropic medications to manage psychiatric illness and a licensed nurse monitor for side effects on every shift. The Care Plan, reviewed 07/07/23, instructed staff at times the resident may feel sadness, hopeless, lack of energy, feels hopeless, no interest in things, out of control and powerless. Staff instructed to encourage the resident to become involved in activities related to her interests. On 11/11/22, the physician instructed staff to administer quetiapine (an antipsychotic medication) 25 milligrams (mg), one half tablet, at hour of sleep, for major depressive disorder. On 05/16/23, the physician instructed staff to discontinue the quetiapine. On 05/21/23, the physician instructed staff to administer quetiapine, 25 mg, one half tablet, at hour of sleep, for major depressive disorder. A Pharmacy Recommendation, dated 03/14/23, requested the physician consider a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for Seroquel (quetiapine.) The provider responded that they were not currently consulted on the resident but would agree to the recommendations. A Pharmacy Recommendation, dated 05/16/23, requested the physician consider a GDR for quetiapine, and the physician instructed staff to discontinue the quetiapine without a gradual reduction of the dose. Review of the Nurse Notes, dated 05/21/23, revealed the resident verbalized the desire to kill herself and refused transfer to an acute care behavioral health. Observation, on 07/17/23 at 03:11 PM, revealed the resident was in her bed dressed in a hospital gown. The resident stated she would like to get out of bed, but staff did not assist her today. The resident responded appropriately to questions and stated she enjoyed reading. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 11:30 AM, with Administrative Nurse D revealed the provider should respond to the pharmacy recommendations based on urgency, but no later than the planned 30- or 60-day evaluation. Administrative Nurse D confirmed this resident did not receive a gradual dose reduction of the antipsychotic medication in March 2023 and the physician abruptly stopped the medication in May 2023. The facility policy Medication Regimen Review, revised 03/03/20, instructed staff to encourage the physician/prescriber or other responsible parties receiving the pharmacy review to act upon the recommendations contained in the medication review. The facility failed to follow-up on the pharmacist recommendation for consideration for a gradual dose reduction for this resident's antipsychotic medication when recommended in March 2023 and May 2023 to ensure this resident did not receive adverse effects of the antipsychotic.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including five residents reviewed for unnecessary medi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)4 was kept free from unnecessary medications, by failing to notify the physician of blood sugars (BS) outside of ordered parameters, in case of the need for change in the medication. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)4's Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 06/29/23, documented the resident had a diagnosis of type II diabetes mellitus (DM-when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. He received insulin (a hormone that regulates the level of sugar in the blood) seven days of the seven-day assessment period. The Nutritional Status Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/17/22, documented the resident had a therapeutic diet to manage his type II DM. The quarterly MDS, dated 05/10/23, documented the resident had a BIMS score of six, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He received insulin seven days of the seven-day assessment period. The care plan for insulin use, revised 05/08/23, instructed staff to observe the resident for high or low blood sugars (BS). Review of the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the following physician's order: Accuchecks (testing used for monitoring blood glucose), four times per day, before meals and at bedtime, for type II DM, notify the physician if BS is greater than 350, ordered 10/11/22. Review of the resident's EMR, from 06/01/23 through 07/18/23, revealed BSs greater than 350 on the following dates: 06/25/23, 07/03/23, 07/06/23, 07/09/23, 07/14/23 and 07/18/23. The facility failed to notify the physician of any of the BSs being outside of parameters. On 07/19/23 at 10:35 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated it was the expectation for staff to notify resident's physicians when BSs were outside of parameters. The facility's policy for Notification of Change in Resident Health, dated June 2017, included: The facility shall ensure all interested parties are informed of the resident's change in health status so that a treatment plan can be developed which is in the best interest of the resident. The facility failed to notify this resident's physician of BSs being outside of the physician's ordered parameters, in case of the need for change in medication to prevent adverse reactions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents selected for review, which included five residents reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents selected for review, which included five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (R)34 and R36, of the five residents had Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessments for monitoring, when they received antipsychotic medications. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R) 36's Physician Order Sheet, dated 06/29/23, revealed diagnoses included psychosis (any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality testing), delusional disorder (untrue persistent belief or perception held by a person although evidence shows it was untrue) and major depressive disorder. The resident admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with severe cognitive impairment and inattention. This MDS indicated the resident received no antipsychotic medications during the seven day look-back period. The Behavioral Symptoms Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 02/09/23, assessed the resident wandered with contributing factors of cognitive impairment and visual deficit. The Psychotropic Drug Use CAA, dated 02/09/23, assessed the resident used psychotropic medication to manage anxiety related to new placement and family illness. A Licensed Nurse was to monitor for side effects every shift and report abnormal findings to the physician. TheCare Plan, review date of 07/03/23, instructed staff to encourage the resident to get involved in activities related to his interests when he felt sad, out of control and restless. The resident received medications with black box warning (a warning from the Federal Drug Agency regarding serious side effects of medication) that put him at risk for adverse effects and even death. On 02/23/23, the physician instructed staff to administer Risperdal (an antipsychotic) 0.5 milligram (mg), one time for agitation. On 02/23/23 the physician instructed staff to administer Risperdal 0.5 mg, twice a day, for agitation until 03/01/23. On 02/28/23, the physician instructed staff to administer Risperdal, 0.5 mg, every hour of sleep, for agitation for seven days. On 03/02/23, the physician instructed staff to administer Risperdal 1 mg, twice a day, for psychosis. Review of the medical record revealed an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) completed in the Clinical Health Evaluation dated 05/13/23. Staff completed an AIMS on 06/03/23. The facility failed to provide an AIMS completed when the physician ordered the antipsychotic medication (02/23/23) to determine a baseline assessment. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 08:15 AM, revealed the resident feeding himself breakfast in the dining room without signs of involuntary movements. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 06:15 PM, revealed the resident asleep in his bed with supper uneaten on his bedside table. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 11:30 AM, with Consultant Nurse II, revealed upon admission she would expect staff to document in the Clinical Health Status evaluation the use of antipsychotics and this in turn should trigger staff to complete an AIMS. The Point Click Care Evaluations, as of October 1, 2020, instructed staff to schedule AIMS annually, quarterly, and ot her. The facility failed to initiate AIMS evaluations for this resident on antipsychotic medications when ordered by the physician to establish a baseline to determine changes due to adverse effects of the antipsychotic medication. - Review of Resident (R)34's Physician Order Sheet, dated 06/29/23, revealed diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke which is the 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,) left hemiplegia (paralysis and weakness of one side of the body muscular of one half of the body), hemiparesis (muscular weakness of one side of the body,) and major depressive disorder (major mood disorder.) The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed the resident with normal cognitive function. The resident had a mood score of 17 which indicated moderately severe depression. The resident received seven days of antipsychotic (class of medications used to treat psychosis and other mental emotional conditions) medications during the seven days look back period. The Quarterly MDS, dated 06/26/23, assessed the resident with normal cognitive function and received six days of antipsychotic medications during the seven day look back period. The Psychotropic Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 02/03/23 assessed the resident used psychotropic medications to manage psychiatric illness and a licensed nurse should monitor for side effects every shift. The Care Plan, review date of 07/07/23, instructed staff at times the resident may feel sadness, hopeless, lack of energy, feels hopeless, no interest in things, out of control and powerless. Staff instructed to encourage the resident to become involved in activities related to her interests. The Clinical Health Status Evaluation, dated 11/11/22, indicated the resident did not receive antipsychotic medications. On 11/11/22, the physician instructed staff to administer quetiapine (an antipsychotic medication) 25 milligrams (mg,) one half tablet, at hour of sleep, for major depressive disorder. On 05/16/23, the physician instructed staff to discontinue quetiapine. On 05/21/23, the physician instructed staff to administer quetiapine, 25 mg, one half tablet, at hour of sleep, for major depressive disorder. Review of the medial record revealed an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) completed on 02/27/23 and 07/09/23, however the medical record lacked an AIMS assessment on 11/11/22, when the physician ordered the quetiapine. Observation, on 07/17/23 at 03:11 PM, revealed the resident in bed dressed in a hospital gown. The resident stated she would like to get out of bed, but staff did not assist her today. The resident responded appropriately to questions and stated she enjoyed reading. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 11:30 AM, with Consultant Nurse II, revealed upon admission she would expect staff to document in the Clinical Health Status Evaluation the use of antipsychotics and this in turn should trigger staff to complete an AIMS. The Point Click Care Evaluations, as of October 1, 2020, instructed staff to schedule AIMS annually, quarterly, and other. The facility failed to initiate AIMS evaluations for this resident on antipsychotic medications when the physician ordered an antipsychotic medication, to establish a baseline to determine changes due to adverse effects of the antipsychotic medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe, sanitary, and homelike environment for the residents residing i...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe, sanitary, and homelike environment for the residents residing in seven resident rooms of the facility. Findings included: - Observation, on 07/18/23 at 01:40 PM, with Maintenance Staff U revealed the following areas of concern: 1. Two resident rooms had large areas of missing paint. 2. One resident room with five cracked broken floor tiles at the entrance to their room. 3. One resident room contained two completely loose floor tiles beside the resident's bed. 4. One resident room contained a privacy curtain between the two resident's bed with a black substance along approximately one third of the lower edge. 5. One resident room contained a closet with blankets directly on the floor and a box of shredded wheat directly on the floor. 6. One resident room contained a bed frame without a mattress. Interview, on 07/18/23 at 02:30 PM, with Maintenance Staff U, confirmed the above. The facility lacked a policy for maintenance of resident rooms. The facility policy Food Storage: Dry Goods, revised 09/2017, instructed staff to store all items on shelves at least six inches above the floor. The facility policy Use and Storage of Food from Outside Sources, effective November 1,2016, instructed staff to educate the resident of food handling and storage techniques as needed. The facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and homelike environment for the seven residents of the facility in these resident rooms.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including four residents reviewed for Activities of Da...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 residents sampled, including four residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide facial grooming for two Residents (R)10 and R 7, failed to ensure one R 4 changed into clean clothing and failed to get one R 34 out of bed and dressed for the entirety of a day. Findings included: - The Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 06/29/23, for Resident (R)4, documented the resident had a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. He required no setup assistance or staff assistance with dressing. The Cognitive Loss/Dementia Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/17/22, documented the resident had inattention and disorganized thinking. The resident had a diagnosis of dementia and had a self-care deficit. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential CAA, dated 10/17/22, documented the resident required staff assistance with ADLs due to generalized weakness. The quarterly MDS, dated 05/10/23, documented the resident had a BIMS score of six, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He required no setup assistance with dressing. The care plan for physical functioning, updated 05/08/23, instructed staff the resident was independent with dressing. Review of the resident's EMR, from 06/19/23 through 07/17/23, documented the resident was independent with dressing. On 07/17/23 at 09:45 AM, the resident sat in his recliner in his room. The resident wore a blue shirt and black pants which contained dried food debris on the front side. On 07/18/23 at 08:00 AM, the resident sat in his recliner and wore the same clothes with food debris from the day before. On 07/18/23 at 08:23 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R entered the resident's room to remove his breakfast tray. CMA R failed to prompt the resident to change into clean clothing. On 07/18/23 at 08:52 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) J entered the resident's room to administer his morning medications. LN J failed to prompt the resident to change into clean clothing. On 07/18/23 at 10:27 AM, CMA T entered the resident's room to change his bed linens. CMA T failed to prompt the resident to change into clean clothing. On 07/18/23 at 11:00 AM, LN J entered the resident's room to administer his insulin. LN J failed to prompt the resident to change into clean clothing. On 07/19/23 at 08:47 AM, the resident ambulated in the hallway. The resident continued to wear the blue shirt and black pants which contained the same dried food debris. On 07/17/23 at 03:05 PM, the resident's family member stated the staff do not offer to assist the resident with changing his clothing. At times his clothing was dirty, and she would like for him to always have on clean clothing. On 07/18/23 at 08:17 AM, CMA T stated the resident was able to dress himself and did not require assistance with changing clothes. On 07/18/23 at 06:17 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Q stated the resident will refuse cares at times and does not want female staff to assist him with changing clothes. CNA Q stated she had never prompted the resident to change his clothing, even when they were dirty. On 07/18/23 at 06:31 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) K stated the resident did not like female staff to assist him. LN K stated she had never prompted the resident to change his clothing. On 07/18/23 at 06:46 PM, LN L stated the resident will allow him to assist with his cares as he was a male. LN L stated he had not offered to assist the resident to change his clothing. On 07/19/23 at 10:35 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated she would expect staff to ensure all residents be dressed in clean clothing. The facility policy for Resident's Rights and Quality of Life, effective May 2012, included: All residents will have the right to a dignified existence. The facility failed to ensure this resident wore clean clothing. - Review of Resident (R)10's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six, indicating severe cognitive impairment. He required extensive assistance of one staff for personal hygiene. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 06/16/23, documented the resident required staff assistance with ADLs. The care plan for ADLs, dated 06/16/23, instructed staff the resident required extensive assistance of one staff for completion of personal hygiene cares. Review of the resident's EMR, from 06/20/23 through 07/18/23, revealed the resident required limited to total assistance of one staff for personal hygiene, including shaving. On 07/17/23 at 09:52 AM, the resident sat in the recliner with his feet elevated. The resident's face was unshaven, and his hair was uncombed. On 07/18/23 at 08:00 AM, the resident sat in the recliner in his room. The resident remained unshaven and his hair was uncombed. On 07/18/23 at 12:34 PM, the resident sat in the recliner in his room. The resident remained unshaven and his hair was uncombed. On 07/18/23 at 02:46 PM, the resident sat in the recliner in his room. The resident remained unshaven and his hair was uncombed. On 07/17/23 at 09:57 AM, the resident stated he always had a clean-shaven face and kept his hair combed. On 07/18/23 at 08:57 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) MM stated residents were shaven on their shower days and hospice would give the resident his showers. CNA MM stated she had not offered to shave the resident and had not combed his hair. On 07/18/23 at 11:05 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) T stated residents were shaven on their shower days. CMA T stated she had not offered to comb the resident's hair. On 07/18/23 at 02:59 PM, CMA R stated she was unsure of when the resident should be shaven. CMA R stated she had not offered to comb the resident's hair. On 07/18/23 at 03:01 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) J stated she did not know when residents were shaven. On 07/19/23 at 10:00 AM, LN I stated residents were shaven on their shower days. Residents should have their hair combed whenever it became messy. On 07/19/23 at 10:35 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated it was the expectation for resident's hair to be come and for staff to shave facial hair if the resident wanted a clean-shaven face. The facility policy for Resident's Rights and Quality of Life, effective May 2012, included: All residents will have the right to a dignified existence. The facility failed to provide facial grooming and hair care for this dependent resident. - Review of Resident (R)7's Physician Order Sheet, dated 06/29/23, revealed diagnoses included history of malignant neoplasm (cancerous tumor) of the brain, polyneuropathy, schizoaffective disorder (psychotic disorder characterized by gross distortion of reality, disturbances of language and communication and fragmentation of thought), and major depressive disorder (major mood disorder). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with severe cognitive impairment. The resident required extensive assistance for personal hygiene. The Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/07/22, assessed the resident required assistance with ADL due to generalize weakness. The Quarterly MDS, dated 06/28/23, assessed the resident with severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance for ADLs. The Care Plan, reviewed 07/12/23, instructed staff the resident required extensive assistance for personal hygiene and oral care. Observation, on 07/17/23 at 10:30 AM, revealed the resident seated in his wheelchair in his room. The resident's uneven mustache extended over his bottom lip. The resident's beard was of varying lengths and untrimmed. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 08/17 AM, revealed the resident seated in his wheelchair coming from the dining room. The resident's uneven mustache extended over his bottom lip. The resident's beard was untrimmed. Interview on 07/18/23 at 11:46 AM, with Certified Nurse Aide (CAN) M, revealed the resident required staff assistance for personal hygiene and confirmed the resident's mustache extended over his bottom lip and appeared uneven. CAN M proceeded to trim the resident's mustache with scissors. Interview, on 07/18/23 at 12:00 PM, with Licensed Nurse G, revealed the resident required assistance with ADLs and staff should provide shaving and trimming of facial hair as needed. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 11:30 AM, with Administrative Nurse D, revealed she would expect staff to groom residents according to their preferences. The 'Care Combing and Shaving Policy, undated, instructed staff that the resident's appearance and sense of wellbeing are affected by how their hair looks and feels. Dependent resident with beards or mustaches needs help keeping facial hair clean. The facility failed to ensure this dependent resident received assistance to maintain his mustache and facial hair in a groomed manner as a normal person would expect to maintain a sense of wellbeing. Review of Resident (R)34's Physician Order Sheet, dated 06/29/23, revealed diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke which is the 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), left hemiplegia (paralysis and weakness of one side of the body muscular of one half of the body), hemiparesis (muscular weakness of one side of the body), and major depressive disorder (major mood disorder). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed the resident with normal cognitive function. The resident required extensive assistance for transfer and dressing. The resident required supervision with eating. The resident had functional impairment in range of motion on one side of her upper and lower extremity. The (Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 02/03/23, assessed the resident required assistance with ADLs due to functional impairment. The Quarterly MDS, dated 06/26/23, assessed the resident with normal cognitive function and required extensive assistance with dressing. And had impairment in range of motion on one side of her upper and lower extremity. The Care Plan, reviewed 07/07/23, instructed staff the resident required extensive assistance with dressing. Observation, on 07/17/23 at 09:00 AM revealed the resident in bed, dressed in a hospital gown, eating breakfast. Observation, on 07/17/23 at 03:11 PM, revealed the resident remained in bed, dressed in a hospital gown. Interview, at that time, with the resident, revealed the resident preferred to get dressed and out of bed but staff did not always have time to assist her. Interview, on 07/17/23 at 04:00 PM, with Licensed Nurse (LN) G revealed he did not know why staff did not get the resident dressed or out of bed. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 01:23 PM, revealed the resident dressed, and positioned in bed with her overbed table containing her noon meal on a tray. The resident's head of bed was elevated approximately 45 degrees (not in an upright seated position). The resident attempted to see the food on the plate and use her fork to feed herself. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O came into the room and stated she did not know who delivered the resident's tray to her. The resident requested CNA O to raise her head up. Afterward, the resident stated this made eating much easier and more comfortable. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 11:30 AM, with Administrative Nurse D revealed she would expect staff to provide ADLs to residents per their preferences. The facility policy Resident Rights and Quality of Life, effective 05/01/2012, instructed staff the resident has the right to a dignified existence. The facility failed to provide this dependent resident assistance with activities of daily living which included dressing, assistance out of bed, and positioning during a meal to ensure optimal sense of wellbeing.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of Resident (R)24's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder chara...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of Resident (R)24's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) and weakness. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of four, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She required extensive assistance of one for locomotion on the unit and had impairment on one side of her lower extremity. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 12/20/22, did not trigger. The Cognitive Loss/Dementia CAA, dated 12/20/22, documented the resident had a diagnosis of dementia. The quarterly MDS, dated 06/02/23, documented the resident had a BIMS score of four, indicating severe cognitive impairment. She required supervision with setup help for locomotion on the unit. The care plan for physical functioning, revised 06/05/23, instructed staff the resident utilized a front wheeled walker and a wheelchair and required supervision of one for locomotion. Review of the resident's EMR, from 06/19/23 through 07/17/23, documented the resident required total assistance of one staff for locomotion on the unit with her wheelchair. On 07/18/23 at 09:00 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) T propelled the resident from the dining room to her room in her wheelchair. The resident's feet with shoes came into direct contact with the hallway carpet on multiple occasions. The wheelchair lacked foot pedals. On 07/18/23 at 01:19 PM, CMA R propelled the resident from her room to the living room in her wheelchair. The resident's feet with shoes came into direct contact with the hallway carpet on multiple occasions. The wheelchair lacked foot pedals. On 07/18/23 at 11:15 AM, CMA T stated the resident did not use foot pedals on her wheelchair as she will propel herself around in the wheelchair at times. On 07/18/23 at 01:19 PM, CMA R stated the resident did not have foot pedals for her wheelchair. On 07/18/23 at 06:17 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Q stated staff did not use foot pedals for the resident's wheelchair because she would propel herself in the wheelchair at times. On 07/19/23 at 08:43 AM, Consultant staff HH stated there should be foot pedals on wheelchairs when staff propel residents. On 07/18/23 at 03:33 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) J stated she did not know if the resident had foot pedals for her wheelchair or not. On 07/19/23 at 10:00 AM, LN I stated the resident would propel herself in her wheelchair at times, so she did not have foot pedals. On 07/19/23 at 10:35 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated staff should ensure foot pedals are on the wheelchair when they propel residents. The facility policy for Transporting Patients Within the Facility, created May 2020, included: To ensure the safety of residents the staff shall follow the procedure related to safely transporting residents within the facility. Staff shall ensure leg rests are in place to resident's wheelchair when appropriate. The facility failed to safely transport this dependent resident in her wheelchair by failing to have foot pedals to ensure the resident did not receive an injury. The facility reported a census of 40 residents with 16 selected for review which included four residents reviewed for accidents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (R)24 and 7 of the four residents had pedals on their wheelchairs when staff provide propulsion assistance, failed to ensure staff provided one resident R8, of the four residents with upper extremity safety when positioned in her wheelchair and staff provided propulsion, and failed to ensure staff provided safe transfer of one resident R34 of the four residents reviewed for accidents. Findings included: - Review of Resident (R)8's Physician Order Sheet, dated 06/29/23, revealed diagnoses included Huntington's disease (rare abnormal hereditary condition characterized by progressive mental deterioration; a disabling central nervous system movement disorder), weakness, and dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with moderately impaired cognitive function. The resident had impairment in functional range of motion in both sides of her upper and lower extremities and was dependent on staff for locomotion. The ADL (Activity of Daily Living) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 04/25/23, assessed the resident required assistance with ADLS with contributing factors of weakness and Huntington's disease. The Falls CAA, dated 04/25/23, assessed the resident at risk for injury due to falls with contributing factors in strength, endurance, and mobility. The Quarterly MDS, dated 05/12/23, assessed the resident with moderate cognitive impairment, dependent on staff for transfers, and impairment in functional range of motion on both sides of upper and lower extremities. The Care Plan, reviewed 05/23/23, instructed staff to observe for the need of padding to siderails or wheelchairs. The resident was a high risk for falls due to diagnosis of Huntington's disease. Observation, on 07/17/23 at 11:26 AM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair in the common living area leaning to the left with her left arm over the edge of the armrest and resting on the wheel of the wheelchair. The wheelchair contained positioning devices bilaterally and a small pillow under her left axilla (armpit), but her left elbow and upper arm continued to rest directly on the wheel of the wheelchair. Licensed Nurse (LN) G propelled the resident to her room for medication administration and noted her left arm resting on the wheel. The nurse attempted to reposition the resident. LN G stated therapy works with her to place positioning devices in her chair, but she continues to lean. Observation, on 07/17/23 at 01:41 PM, revealed the resident in the common living area, continuing with leaning to the left with left arm axilla positioned on the small pillow but her elbow flexed, and her upper arm rested directly against the wheel of the wheelchair. Interview, on 07/17/23 at 01:41 PM, with a family member, revealed the current positioning devices and wheelchair, were ineffective for posturing and the family worried about nerve entrapment due to leaning over the arm of the wheelchair. The family member obtained a stuffed animal and placed in beneath the resident's left axilla. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 02:09 PM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair with no additional support beneath her left axilla, and the resident leaning to the left with her elbow and upper arm resting directly on the wheel. Observation and interview, on 07/18/23 at 03:21 PM, revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CMA) R and CNA M provided peri care to the resident. Upon return to the wheelchair, the resident continued to lean to the left. CMA R placed a stuffed animal under the resident's left axilla, but the resident became distressed, so CMA R removed the stuffed animal. CNA M stated the resident prefers a pink stuffed animal as a positioning devise, but she did not know where it was. CNA M propelled the resident back out to the common living area, with her arm positioned directly touching on the wheel. 0bservation, on 07/18/23 at 04:30 PM, revealed the resident in the common dining room, leaning to the left. A friend of the resident identified that the resident required repositioning and the friend attempted to do this. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 08:43 AM, with therapy staff HH, revealed therapy staff did work with the resident for positioning, and confirmed the resident continues to lean to the left with her left arm near the wheelchair wheel. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 11:20 AM, with Administrative Nurse D confirmed the resident leaned to the left and the arm did come near the wheelchair wheel. She stated therapy staff should provide devices to prevent potential entrapment or skin issues from the wheel when staff propel her. The facility policy Lift 4 Care-Safe 4 All, dated February 2023, instructed all staff members to train on resident positioning and safety. The facility failed to ensure staff provided safe positioning of this resident's left arm when in her wheelchair and/or propelling the resident to prevent injury. - Review of Resident (R)7's Physician Order Sheet, dated 06/29/23, revealed diagnoses included history of malignant neoplasm (cancerous tumor) of the brain, polyneuropathy, schizoaffective disorder (psychotic disorder characterized by gross distortion of reality, disturbances of language and communication and fragmentation of thought), and major depressive disorder (major mood disorder). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed the resident with severe cognitive impairment. The resident required extensive assistance for locomotion and was dependent on staff for transfers. The resident had no impairment in his upper extremities but had impairment in both lower extremities and use a wheelchair for mobility. The Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/07/22, assessed the resident required assistance with ADL due to generalize weakness. The Quarterly MDS, dated 06/28/23, assessed the resident with severe cognitive impairment, required extensive assistance for locomotion. The Care Plan, reviewed 07/12/23, instructed staff the resident required extensive assistance for ADLs. Staff instructed to encourage the resident to self-propel his wheelchair rather than push him to and from all meals. A Health Narrative Note, dated 07/09/23, assessed the resident required two people transfer with the mechanical lift due to generalized body weakness. The resident self-propelled himself with the help of upper extremity muscles. Observation, on 07/17/23 at 10:30 AM, revealed the resident seated in his wheelchair in his room. The resident's feet were flexed at his ankles and beneath his wheelchair. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 08:17 AM, revealed the resident seated in his wheelchair coming from the dining room. The resident's left foot sat flexed beneath the wheelchair and his right foot was flexed and lay directly on the floor as he attempted to propel himself using his hands on the wheels of the wheelchair. The resident attempted to use his left foot at times but did not extend his leg or place his foot in proper anatomical alignment to assist in propulsion. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 11:55 AM, revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M propelled the resident in his wheelchair to the dining room The resident did not lift his legs and his feet skimmed along on the floor. The resident could not hold his feet off the floor. CNA M stated she thought the resident could stretch his legs out and hold his fee up but chose not to. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 04:23 PM, revealed CNA M propelling the resident in his wheelchair. The resident moved his left foot, but unable to lift his right foot. Both feet were flexed beneath his wheelchair and skimmed along on the floor. Interview, on 07/18/23 at 12:00 PM, with Licensed Nurse G, revealed the resident propelled himself in his wheelchair using his hands on the wheels and thought he could use his feet when he wanted to. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 08:43 AM, with therapy staff HH, revealed staff should apply foot pedals when propelling residents in their wheelchairs to prevent injury. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 11:30 AM, with Administrative Nurse D revealed she would expect staff to use foot pedals for resident safety when propelling residents in their wheelchairs. The facility policy Transporting Patients within the Facility, undated, instructed staff to ensure the leg rests are in place when appropriate. The facility failed to determine this resident's ability to place his feet in proper anatomical position when self-propelling himself and failed to ensure this resident's feet were protected from injury when staff propelled him in his wheelchair without foot rests in place on the wheelchair. - Review of Resident (R)34's Physician Order Sheet, dated 06/29/23, revealed diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke which is the 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), left hemiplegia (paralysis and weakness of one side of the body muscular of one half of the body), hemiparesis (muscular weakness of one side of the body), and major depressive disorder (major mood disorder). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed the resident with normal cognitive function. The resident required extensive assistance for transfer and dressing. The resident required supervision with eating. The resident had functional impairment in range of motion on one side of her upper and lower extremity. The (Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 02/03/23, assessed the resident required assistance with ADLs due to functional impairment. The Quarterly MDS, dated 06/26/23, assessed the resident with normal cognitive function and required extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility and transfer. The resident has impairment in functional range of motion on one side of her upper and lower extremity. The Care Plan, reviewed 07/07/23, instructed staff the resident required extensive assistance of two staff with stand/pivot transfer technique. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 10:14 AM, revealed the resident seated in her wheelchair in her room, with foam heel protective boots on both feet. Licensed Nurse (LN) G requested a gait belt and looked about the room for one. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M instructed the resident to place her arms on her shoulders without placing a gait belt on the resident or removing the foam boots, which did not have antiskid surface on the bottom and then assisted/lifted the resident to stand and then pivoted the resident onto the side of her bed. Interview, on 07/18/23 at 10:30 AM, with LN G, revealed CNA M should use a gait belt and remove the resident's foam boots before transfer to ensure a safe transfer and prevent injury for both resident and herself. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 11:30 AM, with Administrative Nurse D revealed she would expect staff to provide safe transfer techniques with use of a gait belt. The facility policy Lift 4 Care Safe 4 All dated February 2023, instructed staff the transfer belt should be used for residents that can ambulate but require support for maintaining balance are able to bear weight on one or both legs and are able to turn and pivot to transfer. The facility failed to ensure staff provided safe transfers for this resident who required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers and a gait belt to prevent injury.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility reported a census of 40 residents with five residents reviewed for immunizations. Based on interview and record review. The facility failed to offer residents COVID-19 vaccinations per th...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 40 residents with five residents reviewed for immunizations. Based on interview and record review. The facility failed to offer residents COVID-19 vaccinations per the CDC (Center for Disease Control) guidelines. Findings included: - Review of the resident immunizations in the electronic medical record revealed the following: Resident (R)14, admitted to the facility 04/11/19, received three doses of COVID-19 vaccine with the last immunization administered on 01/7/22. R8 admitted to the facility 07/06/15 received three doses of COVID-19 vaccine with the last Immunization administered on 01/17/22. R9 admitted to the facility 01/06/22 and historically received three doses of COVID-19 with last immunization administered on 12/28/21. R 4 admitted to the facility 10/10/22 and historically received three doses of COVID-19 with last dose received 11/10/21. R7 admitted to the facility 02/02/18 and received three doses of COVID-19 with the last dose received 01/17/22. The CDC recommended a fourth COVID-19 booster in May 2022 and approved and recommended the bivalent (a COVID-19 vaccine designed for the most current strains of COVID) booster available 09/02/22. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 10:30 AM, with consulting staff II confirmed the lack of COVID-19 immunizations since 01/17/22 to the residents of the facility. The facility policy COVID-19 Vaccination (COVAX) Policy (Patients/Residents and Team Members,) effective 05/21/21, instructed staff to administers the COVAX in accordance with the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, manufacturer guidelines and Food and Drug Administration recommendations. The facility failed to offer residents the COVID-19 immunizations as required to prevent the spread of infection amongst the compromised residents of the facility.
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 F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient qualified nursing staff available at all times to provide nursing and rel...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient qualified nursing staff available at all times to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs safely and in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: - Review of the Facility Assessment, updated 04/28/23, documented the facility would base the staffing plan on resident population and the needs of residents' care and support. The facility would require three to four licensed nurses (LN) providing direct resident care and seven to 12 Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) and/or Certified Medication Aides (CMA), every day, depending on the census and acuity (the level of care a resident requires) of the residents. Review of the facility's daily staff postings, from 06/01/23 through 07/16/23, revealed the facility staffed the nursing department with one to three LNs and four to seven CNA/CMAs per day. On 07/17/23 at 11:07 AM, R 22 stated the evening and night shift did not have enough staff available. On 07/17/23 at 12:49 PM, R 13's family member stated his mother had told him there was not enough staff during the night and on weekends. On 07/17/23 at 01:29 PM, Resident (R)21 stated there was not enough staff on the night shift. R 21 stated his roommate had to wait a long time for his call light to be answered. On 07/17/23 at 08:05 AM, CNA, P stated the facility will staff the night shift, 06:00 AM through 06:00 PM, with one CNA, one CMA and one nurse. CNA P stated that was not enough staff to get everything done. Several residents require two staff for cares. On 07/18/23 at 06:17 PM, CNA Q stated the facility usually only had one CNA, one CMA and one nurse on the night shift. CNA Q stated there are several residents in the facility who require two staff to complete cares. CNA Q stated staff were not able to get all cares, such as bathing, done. On 07/18/23 at 06:46 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) L stated the night shift had one CNA, one CMA and one LN. LN L stated they were not able to answer call lights quickly. Some of the call lights would remain on for quite a while without being answered. On 07/19/23 at 10:35 AM, Administrator Nurse D stated the facility had always had three staff members on the night shift and Administrator Nurse D felt that was adequate staffing, at this time. The facility lacked a policy for sufficient staffing. The facility failed to ensure there was sufficient qualified nursing staff available at all times to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs safely and in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental and psychosocial well-being.
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 F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to complete annual competency performance reviews at least once every 12 months for five of the...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to complete annual competency performance reviews at least once every 12 months for five of the five Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) and Certified Medication Aides (CMA) reviewed, CNA N, CNA NN, CNA OO and CMA T and CMA S, to ensure adequate appropriate cares and services provided to the residents of the facility. Findings included: - Review of five employee personnel files, revealed employment by the facility for greater than one year, revealed the following areas of concern: 1. Certified Medication Aide (CMA) S, hired 03/14/22, lacked an annual performance review in her personnel file. 2. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N, hired 12/18/14, lacked an annual performance review in her personnel file. 3. CNA NN, hired 05/24/17, lacked an annual performance review in her personnel file. 4. CNA OO, hired 06/27/22, lacked an annual performance review in her personnel file. 5. CMA T, hired 05/17/22, lacked an annual performance review in her personnel file. On 07/19/23 at 02:30 PM, Administrative Staff B stated the annual staff evaluations had not been completed due to the high turnover in the administrative nurse position. The facility policy for Performance Management, dated 2022, included: Performance reviews provide both managers and team members the opportunity to discuss job tasks, identify and correct weaknesses, encourage, and recognize strengths and discuss positive, purposeful approaches for meeting goals. Team members will have their performance appraisal at least one time per year, on or around their anniversary date. The facility failed to complete annual staff competency evaluations for five of the five CNA/CMAs, to ensure adequate appropriate cares and services provided to the residents of the facility.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, serve food to the residents in a sanitary [NAME] to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness, regarding the failure of wearing hairnets, dirty reach-in freezers, and reach-in refrigerators and six plastic drawers which contained cooking utensils. Findings included: - During an initial tour of the kitchen on 07/17/23 at 11:12 AM revealed the following areas of concern: 1. Former dietary staff CC entered the kitchen and stood next to a food preparation table where staff were preparing food, on 07/17/23 at 11:18 AM. Former dietary staff CC did not wear a hairnet while she was in the kitchen where staff were preparing food for the residents. 2. The bottom of two reach-in refrigerators had a heavy build-up of food debris on the bottom shelf as well as a heavy build-up of food debris in the rubber door gasket seal around the reach-in doors. 3. The bottom of two reach-in freezers had a heavy build-up of food debris on the bottom shell as well as a heavy build-up of food debris in the rubber door gasket seal around the reach-in doors. 4. Two three-drawer rolling plastic carts had a sticky build-up on the front and handles of the drawers and a build-up of a sticky substance on the inside of all six drawers which contained cooking utensils used in the preparation of meals. On 07/19/23 at 08:05 AM, Dietary staff BB stated it was the expectation for anyone who entered the kitchen to wear a hairnet at all times, in the kitchen. Dietary staff BB confirmed staff had not cleaned the bottom shelves of the reach-in freezers and reach-in refrigerators, the rubber door gasket seal of the reach-in freezers and reach-in refrigerators and the six plastic drawers which contained kitchen utensils used in the preparation of meals. The facility lacked a policy for kitchen cleanliness. The facility failed to follow proper sanitation to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness for the residents of the facility. - Observation, on 07/18/23 at 02:00 PM, with Maintenance Staff U, revealed a medication room contained a resident snack refrigerator with three jars of an unknown food substance unlabeled and undated. Interview, on 07/18/23 at 02:15 PM, with Licensed Nurse (LN) G, revealed the jars belonged to a resident but he did not know what was in them or when they were brought in. LN G stated the jars should have the resident's name on them and a date of expiration. The facility policy Use and Storage of Food from Outside Sources, effective November 1, 2016, instructed staff to label with the resident's name and dated. All cooked or prepared food brought in for a resident and stored in the unit's pantry refrigerator will be dated when accepted for storage and discarded after 24 hours. The facility failed to store this resident's personal food items in a sanitary manner to prevent food borne 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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program identified resident care issues to enhance the residents' quality of life, failed to implement appropriate and effective action plans for environmental issues and resident care issues. Findings included: - Interview, on 07/19/23 at 2:30 PM, with Administrative Staff A, revealed he was in the administrative position since March 2023. Staff A explained the facility Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) utilized data from the electronic medical record reports and staff input. The Quality Assurance Committee met on 12/21/22, 03/01/23, 05/31/23 and 06/28/23. During the facility survey from 07/17-19/23, the following several concerns were identified and in need of corrective actions by the facility. Refer to F584, the facility failed to ensure a safe, sanitary, and homelike environment for the residents in seven resident rooms of the facility. Refer to F657, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan for one resident (R)10 for urinary catheter and pain management, one resident R13 for behavioral interventions, two residents R24 and R7 for foot pedal use when in wheelchair, one resident R8 for individualized toileting plan and positioning safety, and one resident R34 for suicide ideations. Refer to F 677, the facility failed to provide facial grooming for two Residents (R)10 and R 7, failed to ensure one R 4 changed into clean clothing and failed to get one R 34 out of bed and dressed for the entirety of a day. Refer to F689,the facility failed to ensure two Residents (R)24 and 7 of the four residents had pedals on their wheelchairs when staff provide propulsion assistance, failed to ensure staff provided one resident R8, of the four residents with upper extremity safety when positioned in her wheelchair and staff provided propulsion, and failed to ensure staff provided safe transfer of one resident R34 of the four residents reviewed for accidents. Refer to F690, the facility failed to toilet one dependent Resident (R)8 timely and failed to complete a 72-hour voiding diary to assist the staff in the development of an individualized toileting program to assist R 30 improve or maintain his bladder continence. Refer to F695, the facility failed to ensure the resident's oxygen concentrator had a humidifier bottle. Refer to F697 the facility failed to provide adequate pain relief for this dependent Resident (R)10 to remain free from pain. Refer to F725, the facility failed to always ensure sufficient qualified nursing staff available to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs safely and in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Refer to F730, the facility failed to complete annual competency performance reviews at least once every 12 months for five of the five Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) and Certified Medication Aides (CMA) reviewed, CNA N, CNA NN, CNA OO and CMA T and CMA S, to ensure adequate appropriate cares and services provided to the residents of the facility. Refer to F756 the facility failed to follow up on pharmacy recommendations for two Residents (R) 34 and R 4 of the five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Refer to F757, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)4 was kept free from unnecessary medications, by failing to notify the physician of blood sugars (BS) outside of ordered parameters. Refer to F758, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (R)34 and R36, of the five residents had Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessments and one resident, R4 of the five residents had a gradual dose reduction of antipsychotic (class of medication used to treat psychosis and other mental emotional conditions) medication as recommended from the pharmacy consultant. Refer to F812, the facility failed to store, prepare, serve food to the residents in a sanitary manner to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness, regarding the failure of wearing hairnets, dirty reach-in freezers, and reach-in refrigerators and six plastic drawers which contained cooking utensils. Refer to F887, the facility failed to offer residents COVID-19 vaccinations per the CDC (Center for Disease Control) guidelines. The facility policy Diversicare of [NAME]-QAPI Center Plan, undated, instructed staff the scope of QAPI encompasses all types and segments of care and services that impact clinical care, quality of life and resident choice. The facility QA (Quality Assurance) program failed to develop and implement appropriate and effective action plans to timely identify, correct infractions of the residents' environment, and care issue to ensure optimum well-being for the residents of the facility.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an effective infection control program in the facility with the failure...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an effective infection control program in the facility with the failure to maintain accurate tracking and trending of infections in the facility, failure to store supplies in a sanitary manner, and failure to ensure housekeeping staff were knowledgeable on the effective use of cleaning chemicals. Findings included: - Review of the Infection Prevention and Control Tracking Logs for 2023, revealed the lack of logs for January, February, and March 2023. Interview, on 07/19/23 at 11:30 AM, with Administrative Nurse D confirmed the missing infection control tracking logs. The facility policy Surveillance and Communicable Diseases Reporting Guideline, revised November 1, 2017, instructed staff to collect accurate and relevant surveillance data, evaluate and compare calculate rates of various infections, evaluate compare the data and report the data to team members. The facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program with the failure to complete infection tracking and trending logs to assess the infections amongst the residents to determine the impact of infections on the residents and to ensure appropriate interventions were in place in response to the infections. - Observation, on 07/18/23 at 01:40 PM, with Maintenance Staff U, revealed two clean utility rooms each contained two boxes of personal protective equipment which sat directly on the floor. Interview, on 07/18/23 at 02:00 PM, with maintenance staff U, confirmed staff should store all supplies off the floor. The facility policy Infection Control, dated November 1, 2017, instructed staff to maintain a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to prevent the transmission of diseases and infections. The facility failed to store these boxes of personal protective equipment in a sanitary manner to prevent the spread of infection. - Observation, on 07/18/23 at 09:15 AM, revealed housekeeping staff V cleaning a resident room. Interview at that time revealed housekeeping staff V thought the dwell time (time that the cleaning product must remain on the surface to effectively sanitize) was one minute. The product label instructed staff the dwell time as 10 minutes. Observation, on 07/18/23 at 09:30 AM, revealed housekeeping staff W cleaning a resident room. Interview with housekeeping staff W revealed she thought the cleaning product did not need to sit for any length of time and could be wiped with a cloth. The sprayed cleaning product label instructed staff the dwell time as 10 minutes for effective sanitation. Interview, on 07/18/23 at 03:18 PM, with maintenance staff U, revealed the housekeeping staff was from a contracted agency and he would expect the staff to know the instructions for the cleaning chemicals used to ensure a sanitary environment for the residents' areas. The Healthcare Services Group 5 Step Daily Room Cleaning, undated, instructed staff to refer to the manufacturers recommended dwell time (also referred to as contact time which is how long a chemical needed to be in contact with the surface to effectively sanitize or disinfect) when cleaning a room. The facility failed to ensure staff followed manufacturer's instructions for dwell time of cleaning products to ensure effective sanitation of surfaces to prevent the spread of infection amongst the residents.
Jan 2022 8 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility census totaled 39 residents, with five residents reviewed for skin issues. Based on observation, interview, and rec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility census totaled 39 residents, with five residents reviewed for skin issues. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to order and provide four days (11/01/21-11/04/21) of continued intravenous antibiotic treatment as ordered for Resident (R)7, who was continuing post-surgical recovery for osteomyelitis and gangrene (death of body tissue due to a lack of blood flow or a serious bacterial infection) treatment to his left foot. On 11/01/21 R7's Infectious Disease Provider prescribed Zosyn (antibiotic) intravenously (IV, through the vein) three times a day for an additional two weeks. The interruption in the IV antibiotic treatment for R7 resulted in worsening of wound and the potential for regrowth of the infection, osteomyelitis, and gangrene. Furthermore the facility failed to ensure necessary treatment and care, in accordance with professional standards of practice, for Resident (R) 4, who had multiple wounds. Findings included: - Review of R7's diagnoses from the 10/06/21 Physician's Orders in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed gangrene, osteomyelitis (local or generalized infection of the bone and bone marrow), and absence of toes on the left foot. The 10/13/21 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. R7 had a surgical wound with foot infection and received antibiotics for seven days out of the seven-day observation period. The Pressure Ulcer/Injury Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/13/21, documented R7 was at risk for skin breakdown with a surgical wound to the left foot measuring 19.9 centimeters (cm) by 4.5 cm by 6.2 cm. The 10/20/21 Care Plan directed staff to administer IV medication and antibiotics per the physician order using R7's peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line, complete weekly wound assessments, and observe for any signs and symptoms of infection, which included swelling, redness, warmth, discharge, and odor. The 10/06/21 Physician Orders documented an order for Zosyn (injectable broad-spectrum antibiotic, combination of two antibiotics) 4.5 grams (GM) intravenously every eight hours for gangrene that completed on 11/01/21 at 00:00 AM (midnight). The 10/10/21 Wound Assessment documented Nurse Practitioner (NP) KK ordered the IV antibiotic for R7's osteomyelitis infection. The IV antibiotic was to be given for two weeks and then reevaluated. The 10/17/21 Wound Note lacked documentation of the left foot surgical site measurements. The chart lacked the next scheduled wound care assessment note (per order) on 10/24/21. The 10/2021 through 11/2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) documented staff administered Zosyn to R7 between 10/06/21 and 10/31/21. The 11/01/21 Infectious Disease Consultants IV Order signed by NP KK documented an order for Zosyn 4.5 GM IV every eight hours for one week, with an extension of two weeks to end on 11/15/21. The 11/02/21 Wound Assessment documented completion of the IV antibiotic and noted the resident had a tele-med (virtual appointment using the computer or handheld device) visit with Physician HH on 11/01/21. (The assessment lacked mention of the 11/01/21 re-ordered Zosyn) The Wound Note dated 11/02/21 documented the left foot surgical wound measured 3.9 cm long by 1.7 cm wide by 5.9 cm deep. The 11/02/21 picture of R7's left foot wound revealed the partial amputation with a scabbed area that ran across the end of the residual foot. The skin around the scab looked light pink and non-edematous, the incision scab looked healing as it was intact, dark, and dry. The 11/04/21 Physician Progress Note written by NP GG documented Administrative Nurse D completed a tele-med visit with NP KK on 11/01/21. Administrative Nurse D stated NP KK wanted to continue the IV antibiotic due to the persistence of the wound infection. NP GG documented that no staff placed the IV antibiotic order into R7's chart and Administrative Nurse D was to follow up with the Infectious Disease Team to determine continued antibiotic treatment. The MAR/TAR lacked documentation of the administration of Zosyn from 11/01/21 through 11/04/21 (a total of 4 days). The 11/05/21 Physician Orders documented an order for Zosyn 4.5 GM intravenously every eight hours, to treat osteomyelitis, and to continue until Physician HH gave new orders. The Infectious Disease Consultants IV Order dated 11/08/21 signed by NP KK documented Zosyn 4.5 GM IV every eight hours for one week to end on 11/15/21. The 11/08/21 Physician Orders included an order to administer Zosyn 4.5 GM, intravenously three times a day for osteomyelitis until 11/19/21 at 11:59 PM. The physician discontinued (stopped) the order on 11/16/21. The 11/08/21 Physician Progress Note written by NP GG documented NP KK ordered Zosyn to continue for R7 on 11/01/21 for two weeks, but staff failed to administer it on 11/01/21, 11/02/21, 11/03/21, and 11/04/21. The 11/09/21 wound picture revealed R7's left foot incisional wound revealed the partial amputation with a scabbed area that ran across the end of the residual foot. The skin around the top side of the scabbed incision looked pink and very edematous. The residual foot area looked over twice the size (due to tissue swelling) from the 11/02/21 picture. The bottom side of the foot near the outer areas of the incision was very reddened and the skin was pulling away from the scabbed area. The outer area of the scabbed incisional wound was cracked open across the incision, revealing beefy red tissue underneath. The top area around the incisional wound near the inside top of the foot revealed a round darkened area. The 11/09/21 Wound Assessment documented R7 received IV antibiotics per the physician order and had an [undated] tele-med visit with Physician HH, during which Physician HH noted concerns about the eschar (dead tissue) covering the incision. The Wound Note dated 11/09/21 documented the left foot surgical wound measured 5.4 cm long by 3.0 cm wide by 3.7 cm deep. The Wound Note dated 11/14/21 documented the left foot surgical wound measures 5.6 cm long by 2.7 cm wide by 4.9 cm deep. (During this time, the antibiotic was being given.) Observation on 01/04/22 at 02:00 PM of R7 revealed Licensed Nurse J completed a dressing change of the resident's surgical amputation wound on the midfoot area. The skin was pink and intact with one open area where his toes would have been. Observation on 01/05/22 at 01:36 PM revealed R7 lying in bed, with his left foot wrapped up with a dressing labeled 01/04/22, when the staff last changed the dressing. Observation revealed a small amount of dried blood at the area where R7's big toe would have been. Interview on 01/05/22 at 01:35 PM with R7 revealed he had an amputation of his toes on his left foot and received IV antibiotics for about a month. R7 stated he received the IV antibiotics multiple times a day but could not remember if there were problems with receiving the antibiotic. Interview on 01/05/22 at 06:00 PM with NP GG revealed R7 had a tele-med visit on 11/01/21 with Physician HH. Administrative Nurse D received a verbal order from NP KK during the tele-med visit to extend the Zosyn 4.5 GM IV three times a day and a fax of the order would be sent to the facility. On 11/04/21, NP GG visited R7 and noted R7 had a PICC line, but it was not being used. NP GG called Administrative Nurse D and found the Zosyn order from 11/01/21 was never placed into R7's chart and was not given to R7 for a total of four days. NP GG restarted the Zosyn order for 11/05/21 and notified Administrative Nurse D that Physician HH needed to be notified of the medication error and to have Administrative Nurse D ask for clarification of the Zosyn order continuing. NP GG stated that during her visitations with R7, the appearance of R7's wound from 11/04/21 to 11/08/21 became worse (more gangrenous and needing debridement; medical removal of dead, damaged, or infected tissue to improve the healing potential for the remaining healthy tissue). Interview on 01/06/22 at 02:19 PM with Consultant Pharmacist LL revealed Zosyn must be given for the ordered duration from the Physician. Having an interruption in the medication would not be ideal and could cause the gangrene or other bacteria to come back within the four days the Zosyn was not given to R7. By giving the Zosyn properly the bacteria would be prevented from re-growing and the expected result would be to see the wound decrease and ultimately heal. Interview on 01/10/22 at 02:15 PM with Licensed Nurse (LN) G revealed she completed the weekly assessment of R7's foot and tracked the progress of the wound healing. R7 received IV antibiotics for his gangrenous foot wound, that was ordered by the Infectious Disease Team. LN G stated the ID team had concerns about the way R7's wound looked, and the Infectious Disease Team chose to continue the IV antibiotic using the PICC line. LN G stated the antibiotic order was never placed into R7's chart and was ultimately noted to be missing from the chart by NP GG. From what LN G remembered, Administrative Nurse D should have placed the IV antibiotic order into R7's chart as the tele-med order was given to Administrative Nurse D. Interview on 01/10/22 at 07:00 PM with LN H revealed Administrative Nurse D received a verbal order from the Infectious Disease Team to continue the IV antibiotic. She did not place the order into R7's chart but told LN H to place the order once the faxed orders arrived from the Infectious Disease Team. LN H stated that because Administrative Nurse D received the verbal order, Administrative Nurse D should have placed the order in the resident's chart. LN H did not feel comfortable placing an order for a medication another nurse verbally received from the physician. Interview on 01/10/22 at 08:00 PM with LN I revealed R7 received IV antibiotics for a left foot wound. LN I stated there was a mix up with the IV antibiotic order and staff never placed it in the chart. She stated that R7's foot looked worse during that time and was covered with eschar. Interview on 01/11/22 at 08:43 AM with Administrative Nurse D revealed R7 admitted to the facility receiving IV antibiotics per Physician HH's order. R7 was on Zosyn for about a month after admission and was eventually switched to the PO (by mouth) version. Administrative Nurse D stated the Infectious Disease Team was to fax an order for the Zosyn to the facility on [DATE], but the facility never received the fax. On 11/05/21 Administrative Nurse D stated she discovered the Zosyn order was never placed into R7's chart, so she notified the Infectious Disease Team via telephone of the issue. Administrative Nurse D stated the Infectious Disease Team decided to switch R7 to the PO form of antibiotic at that time. An interview on 01/13/21 at 02:30 PM with NP KK revealed she documented a note stating on 11/01/21 she wanted R7's Zosyn continued for two weeks. NP KK stated the Infectious Disease Team had no documentation of R7 missing doses of the Zosyn until 11/10/21. NP KK stated she gave verbal orders during the tele-med appointment and then faxed all orders to the facility. She stated she expected the nurse would place the order into the resident chart with the verification of the faxed order(s). NP KK did not remember which nurse was present during the 11/01/21 tele-med visit but stated that Administrative Nurse D had taken charge of the tele-med visits. The facility, undated Physician's Telephone Orders policy stated the physician's verbal and telephone orders would be entered into the resident chart by the licensed nurse accepting the order, and would document the date, time, physician name, and order provided. The order would then be validated for accuracy by the licensed nurse and the order would be printed, signed, and placed into the resident's paper chart under the Physician's Order tab. The facility failed to provide the ordered antibiotic treatment to R7 for four days and the resident's surgical wound revealed worsening with decline. - The Physician Orders (PO), dated 01/01/22, for R4, included diagnoses of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes mellitus (a form of diabetes that is characterized by high blood sugar, insulin resistance, and relative lack of insulin), pressure ulcer of back, buttock and hip, stage 4, and chronic ulcer of buttock. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R4 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition and required extensive assistance with bed mobility, limited assistance with transfer, and total dependence on the staff for toileting. The resident had a non-pressure chronic ulcer of buttock with fat layer exposed and received surgical wound care and application of non-surgical dressings. The Pressure Ulcer/Injury Care Area Assessment, (CAA), dated 07/08/21, indicated the resident had stage three or higher pressure ulcers. The Activities of Daily Living Functional/Rehabilitation CAA, dated 07/08/21, indicated the resident had impaired mobility due to a double lower extremity amputation. The Quarterly MDS, dated 10/08/21, documented R4 with a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition and required supervision with bed mobility, limited assistance with transfer, and extensive assistance of two staff members with toileting. The resident had a non-pressure chronic ulcer of the buttock with fat layer exposed and a surgical wound. He received surgical wound care and applications of non-surgical dressings. The Care Plan, revised 12/14/20, documented the resident had altered skin integrity, non-pressure, related to a surgical wound to left ischial tuberosity, left buttock, ulcer superior to former rectum, ulcer to former rectum tunnel, and coccyx. The staff were to provide treatments as ordered and weekly wound assessments. The resident also had actual impairment to skin integrity of the buttocks and required daily dressing changes until healed as ordered. A PO, dated 12/14/21, documented instructions to the staff to cleanse the resident's right upper back with normal saline/wound cleanser, dry, apply alginate to wound bed, cover with ABD, and secure with Tegaderm to keep intact. Change daily and PRN. Hospice will perform wound care during their visits. Every day shift for wound. Review of the December 2021 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed it lacked documentation to identify the staff provided the ordered wound care as above on December 15th, 18th, 19th and 23rd, indicating the nurse did not provide treatment as ordered by the physician. The facility lacked evidence that the hospice nurse provided treatment on those dates. A PO, dated 10/18/21, documented cleanse all open areas to surgical wound (distal) with wound cleanser, dry, apply gauze moistened with petroleum barrier directly to wound bed, Optilock foam, and cover with ABD. Change daily. Hospice performs treatments Monday through Friday. Every day shift for chronic wounds. Review of the December 2021 TAR revealed lack of documentation of wound care for above order on December 7th, 15th, 18th, 19th and 23rd, indicating the nurse did not provide treatment as ordered by the physician. The facility lacked evidence that the hospice nurse provided treatment on those dates. A PO, dated 10/18/21, documented ulcer - fistula right lateral inferior buttock: remove old dressing and cleanse with Pure and Clean. Use hydrofera blue as packing, then cover with an ABD as secondary dressing. Treat daily and as needed every day shift for chronic wound. Review of the December 2021 TAR revealed lack of documentation of wound care for above order on December 7th, 15th, 18th, 19th and 23rd, indicating the nurse did not provide treatment as ordered by the physician. The facility lacked evidence that the hospice nurse provided treatment on those dates. Review of weekly Skin and Wound Evaluations revealed for the months of November and December 2021, the nursing staff did not assess or monitor for the healing of the left buttock from 11/20/21 through 12/06/21 (15 days), the next evaluation was eight days later on 12/14. Nine days later the wound was evaluated on 12/23/21. There were no other wound evaluations available after 12/23/21. Review of weekly Skin and Wound Evaluations revealed for the month of December 2021, the nursing staff did not assess or monitor for the healing of the right illiac crest from 12/06/21 through 12/14/21 (eight days), the next evaluation was nine days later on 12/123. There were no other wound evaluations available after 12/23/21. The facility policy Skin Care Guideline, dated July 2018, documented .Process .DNS or designee will be responsible to implement and monitor the skin integrity program .Key Elements .Weekly skin evaluations are completed and documented . Interview, on 12/29/21 at 08:19 AM, with Administrative Staff A, revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) was responsible for the resident's wound care at that point and time and it hadn't been timely. The facility had a wound care nurse who helped once a week, but she had a falling out with the DON. Daily wound care was the responsibility of all the nurses in the facility and they should be documenting accordingly. The DON should be performing the weekly monitoring when nurses aren't available. Interview, on 01/11/22 at 10:45 AM, with Administrative Nurse D, revealed the wound evaluations were to be performed every week, but they haven't been done consistently. The wound care nurse was no longer with the facility and some of the nurses here have helped out with the weekly wound monitoring. Administrative Nurse D stated she did not assess this resident's wounds or perform any evaluations. The facility put a nurse on administrative leave due to not performing her duties which included dressing changes. Wound care not documented on the treatment administration record (TAR), was not done. The facility failed to provide necessary treatment and care to ensure proper monitoring and promote healing for this resident with multiple wounds.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents, with 21 sampled and five residents for medication review as well as concerns of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents, with 21 sampled and five residents for medication review as well as concerns of abuse, neglect and exploitation (ANE). Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to complete an investigation, for Resident (R) 7, when the facility failed to administer four days of Zosyn (antibiotic) intravenously (IV; through the vein) from 11/01/21 through 11/04/21, resulting in a medication error. The facility also failed to administer ordered STAT (immediately) IV fluids to R10 as ordered by the physician, resulting in the fluids being administered over 24 hours later and creating an error in followoing physician orders. The facility then failed to report these two incidents of neglect, with failure to follow physisican orders, to the State Survey Agency within five working days of the missed doses of IV antibiotics and late administration of the IV fluids. Findings included: - Resident (R) 7's pertinent diagnoses from the 10/06/21 Physician's Orders in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed gangrene (death of tissue), osteomyelitis (local or generalized infection of the bone and bone marrow) and absence of toes on the left foot. The 10/13/21 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. R7 had a surgical wound with foot infection and was receiving antibiotics for seven out of a seven-day observation period. The 10/20/21 Care Plan documented staff was to administer IV medication and antibiotics per the physician order using R7's Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line, complete weekly wound assessments, and observe for any signs and symptoms of infection; swelling, redness, warm, discharge, and odor. The Electronic Health Records (EHR) Physician Orders documented an order on 10/06/21 for Zosyn 4.5grams (GM) IV every eight hours for gangrene that completed on 11/01/21 at 00:00 AM (midnight). A second order for Zosyn 4.5GM IV every eight hours, ordered on 11/05/21 to treat osteomyelitis and was to continue until the Physician HH gave new orders. This order completed on 11/08/21. On 11/08/21, a new order started to administer Zosyn 4.5GM IV three times a day for osteomyelitis until 11/19/21 at 11:59PM but was discontinued (stopped) on 11/16/21. The 10/2021 through 11/2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) documented Zosyn given between 10/06/21 and 10/31/21. Zosyn was not given from 11/01/21 through 11/04/21. Zosyn was given to R7 from 11/05/21 through 11/16/21. The Infectious Disease Consultants IV Order dated 11/01/21 signed by NP KK documented Zosyn 4.5GM IV every eight hours for one week, with an extension of two weeks to be ended on 11/15/21. The 11/04/21 Physician Progress Note written by Nurse Practitioner (NP) GG documented Administrative Nurse D completed a telemed visit with NP KK on 11/01/21. Administrative Nurse D stated that NP KK wanted to continue the IV antibiotic due to the wound. NP GG documented that no staff placed the IV antibiotic into R7's chart and that Administrative Nurse D was to follow up with the ID team to determine continued antibiotic treatment. The 11/08/21 Physician Progress Note written by NP GG documented ID ordered Zosyn to continue for R7 on 11/01/21 for two weeks but staff failed to administer it on 11/01/21, 11/02/21, 11/03/21 and 11/04/21. The facility lacked documentation of any investigation started or completed related to the four days of missing antibiotic and medication error. Observation, on 01/04/22 at 02:00 PM, of R7 revealed Licensed Nurse J completed a dressing change of the resident's surgical amputation wound on the midfoot area. The skin was pink and intact with one open area where his toes would have been. Observation, on 01/05/22 at 01:36 PM, revealed R7 lying in bed, with his left foot wrapped up with a dressing labeled 01/04/22, when the staff last changed the dressing. Observation revealed a small amount of dried blood at the area where R7's big toe would have been. Interview, on 01/05/22 at 01:35 PM, with R7 revealed he had an amputation of his toes on his left foot and was getting IV antibiotics for about a month. R7 stated he received the IV antibiotics multiple times a day but could not remember if there were problems with receiving the antibiotic. Interview, on 01/05/22 at 06:00PM, with (NP) GG revealed R7 had a telemed visit on 11/01/21 with Physician HH. Administrative Nurse D received a verbal order from NP KK during the telemed visit, to extend the Zosyn 4.5G TID IV order for R7 and that a fax of the order would be sent to the facility as well. On 11/04/21, NP GG visited R7 and noted that R7 had a PICC but it was not being used. NP GG called Administrative Nurse D and found that the Zosyn order from 11/01/21 was never placed into R7's chart and was therefore never given to R7 for a total of four days. NP GG restarted the Zosyn order for 11/05/21 and notified Administrative Nurse D that Physician HH needed to be notified of the medication error and to have Administrative Nurse D ask for clarification of the Zosyn order continuing. NP GG stated she told Administrative Staff A about the medication error and that Administrative Nurse JJ was notified of the situation. NP GG then stated that Administrative Nurse JJ claimed the situation did not count as a medication error and would therefore not be reported to the state agency. Interview, on 01/10/22 at 08:00 PM, with LN I revealed R7 was receiving IV antibiotics for a left foot wound. LN I stated that there was a mix up with the IV antibiotic order and staff never placed it in the chart for R7. She stated that R7's foot looked worse during that time and was covered with eschar. Interview, on 01/11/22 at 08:43 AM, with Administrative Nurse D revealed R7 admitted to the facility receiving IV antibiotics per Physician HH's order. R7 was on Zosyn for about a month after admission and was eventually switched to the PO (by mouth) version. Administrative Nurse D stated that the ID team was to fax an order for the Zosyn to the facility on [DATE], but the fax was never received. On 11/05/21, Administrative Nurse D stated she discovered that the Zosyn order was never placed into R7's chart, so she notified the ID team via telephone call of the issue. Administrative Nurse D stated that the ID team decided to switch R7 to the PO form of antibiotic at that time. She also stated that she did not document the notification to the ID team in R7's chart related to the medication not administered as ordered. An interview on 01/13/21 at 02:30 PM with NP KK revealed she documented a note stating that on 11/01/21, she wanted the Zosyn continued for R7 for two weeks. NP KK stated that the ID team had no documentation of missing doses of the Zosyn until 11/10/21. The 01/2019 ANE policy documented the Administrator or designee were to oversee the facility in conducting an investigation against any violation/allegation or ANE and report the results of the investigation to the enforcement agency in accordance with state law, including the State Survey Agency within five working days of the incident. The facility failed to complete an investigation of neglect when facility staff neglected to administer the physician ordered IV Zosyn from 11/01/21 through 11/04/21. The facility also failed to report the incident of neglect to the State Survey Agency within five working days of the incident taking place. - The Physician Orders (PO) for R10, dated 01/01/22, included diagnoses of COVID-19 and chronic kidney disease, stage three. A PO, dated 12/31/21 at 10:19 AM, documented the resident was to receive Sodium Chloride solution 0.45 percent (%) (saline water solution). Use one liter intravenously (through the vein) STAT (urgent or rush) for fluid volume depletion with chronic kidney disease. Run the fluids at 75 cubic centimeters (cc)/hour (hr) until complete. Review of the resident's December 2021 medication administration record (MAR), revealed it lacked staff initials indicating the staff failed to administer the IV fluids as ordered on 12/31/21. Review of a pharmacy shipment summary, dated 01/01/22, revealed the pharmacy delivered the sodium chloride solution to the facility on [DATE] at 08:10 PM, over 24 hours after the provider placed the order to administer it as stat/immediately. Review of R10's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed it lacked indication the staff notified the ordering provider that the facility did not have the sodium chloride solution and the resident did not receive them on 12/31/21 as ordered. Interview, on 01/11/22 at 10:45 AM, with Administrative Nurse D, revealed a STAT order should be fulfilled within 4 hours of the physician's order. The staff should have had the order entered and administered on 12/31/21. Since the medication wasn't available, the staff should have immediately notified the pharmacy and the provider who ordered it for further instructions. There was no documentation that the staff notified the provider and the pharmacy was not contacted until the next day. This was not determined as an error and was not reported to the state agency as neglect. The 01/2019 ANE policy documented the Administrator or designee were to .report the results of the investigation to the enforcement agency in accordance with state law, including the State Survey Agency within five working days of the incident. The facility failed to report this incident of neglect, when staff failed to administer IV (intravenous) fluids for dehydrated R10, as ordered by the physician, to the State Survey Agency within five working days of the incident taking place.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents with 21 selected for review which included four residents reviewed for activities...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents with 21 selected for review which included four residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for one resident, Resident (R)23, related to nail care. Findings included: - The Order Summer Report, dated 01/01/22 for R23 included the diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (a inherited disorder of progressive muscular weakness), hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, and myocardial infarction (heart attack). The annual Minimum Data Set, (MDS), dated [DATE], assessed R23 with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. He required extensive assistance of two persons for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and personal hygiene. R23 does have impairment on one side of upper and lower extremities. The ADL/Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment, (CAA), dated 03/11/21, revealed R23 needs extensive assistance with ADL's related to cerebral vascular accident and right sided hemiparesis. Contributing factors included generalized weakness and decrease in safety awareness. The quarterly MDS, dated [DATE] assessed R23 as rarely or never understood. He required extensive assistance of two persons for dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The care plan, dated 12/08/21, included that R23 required assistance of staff for bathing and personal hygiene. It also instructed staff to check nail length and trim on bath day as necessary. Per record review under the Tasks, tab, R23 received a bed bath on 12/30/21and 01/03/22. Observation on 01/04/22 at 08:23 AM, revealed long fingernails that extended beyond the tips of his fingers. Per interview, on 01/06/22 at 12:07 PM, R23 when asked if he wanted his nails trimmed and he shook his head yes. His fingernails continued to be long. Interview, on 01/04/22 at 02:08PM, with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M revealed fingernails are to be checked and trimmed on bath day and as necessary. She confirmed R23's nails needed trimmed. Per interview, on 01/11/22 at 09:22 AM, with Administrative Nurse D, confirmed she would expect staff to provide nail care per his care plan and he did need them trimmed. The facility lacked a policy on nail care. The facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for R23 related to trimming of nails.
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 reported a census of 39 residents with five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Based on interview and record r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents with five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services to promote healing for two of the five sampled residents, Resident (R) 4 and R17, who had pressure ulcers. Findings included: - The Physician Orders (PO), dated 01/01/22, for R4, included diagnoses of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes mellitus (a form of diabetes that is characterized by high blood sugar, insulin resistance, and relative lack of insulin), pressure ulcer of back, buttock and hip, stage 4, and chronic ulcer of buttock. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R4 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition and required extensive assistance with bed mobility, limited assistance with transfer, and total dependence on the staff for toileting. The resident had one or more unhealed pressure ulcers and the staff provided pressure ulcer care with applications of non-surgical dressings. The Pressure Ulcer/Injury Care Area Assessment, (CAA), dated 07/08/21, indicated the resident had stage three or higher pressure ulcers. The Activities of Daily Living Functional/Rehabilitation CAA, dated 07/08/21, indicated the resident had impaired mobility due to a double lower extremity amputation. The Quarterly MDS, dated 10/08/21, documented R4 with a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition and required supervision with bed mobility, limited assistance with transfer, and extensive assistance of two staff members with toileting. The resident had one or more unhealed pressure ulcers and the staff provided pressure ulcer care with applications of non-surgical dressings. The Care Plan, revised 12/14/20, documented the resident had altered skin integrity, non-pressure, related to a surgical wound to left ischial tuberosity, left buttock, ulcer superior to former rectum, ulcer to former rectum tunnel, and coccyx. The staff were to provide treatments as ordered and complete weekly wound assessments. The resident also had actual impairment to skin integrity of the buttocks and required daily dressing changes until healed as ordered. A PO, dated 10/18/21, documented Coccyx ulcer: Cleanse with wound cleanser, dry, fill undermining areas and wound bed with Calcium Alginate Silver, followed by foam dressing or ABD. Change daily. Hospice nurse performs treatments Monday - Friday every day shift for Stage 4 ulcer. The physician discontinued the order on 12/20/21. A PO, dated 12/20/21, documented Coccyx ulcer: Cleanse with wound cleanser, dry, fill undermining areas and wound bed with Calcium Alginate Silver, followed by foam dressing or ABD. Change daily. Hospice nurse performs treatments Tuesday, Thursday, Friday. Facility nurse is responsible for all of the other days of the week. Review of December 2021, Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed it lacked documentation of wound care provided to the resident for above orders on December 7th, 15th, 18th, 19th and 23rd, indicating the nurse did not provide treatment as ordered by the physician. Furthermore, as of 01/18/22 at 03:00 PM, the facility failed to provide requested evidence that the hospice nurse provided the resident's pressure ulcer treatment on those dates. Review of weekly Skin and Wound Evaluations revealed for the months of November and December 2021, the nursing staff did not assess or monitor for the healing of the coccyx pressure ulcer from 11/20/21 through 12/06/21 (15 days), the next evaluation was eight days later on 12/14/21. Nine days later the wound was evaluated on 12/23/21. There were no other wound evaluations available after 12/23/21. Interview, on 12/29/21 at 08:19 AM, with Administrative Staff A, revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) was responsible for the resident's wound care at that point and time and it hadn't been timely. The facility had a wound care nurse who helped once a week, but she had a falling out with the DON. Daily wound care was the responsibility of all the nurses in the facility and they should be documenting accordingly. The DON should be performing the weekly monitoring when nurses aren't available. Interview, on 01/11/22 at 10:45 AM, with Administrative Nurse D, revealed the wound evaluations were to be performed every week, but they had not been done consistently. The wound care nurse was no longer with the facility and some of the nurses here helped out with the weekly wound monitoring. Administrative Nurse D stated she did not assess this resident's wounds or perform any evaluations. The facility put a nurse on administrative leave due to not performing her duties which included failure to provide resident's dressing changes. Wound care not documented on the treatment administration record (TAR), was not done. The facility policy Skin Care Guideline, dated July 2018, documented .Process .DNS or designee will be responsible to implement and monitor the skin integrity program .Key Elements .Weekly skin evaluations are completed and documented . The facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services to ensure proper monitoring and promote healing of this resident's pressure ulcer of the coccyx. - The PO for R17, dated 12/04/21, included diagnoses of COVID-19 and acute kidney failure. The admission MDS, dated 10/15/21, documented R17 with a BIMS score of 6, indicating severely impaired cognition. The resident required extensive assistance from the staff for toileting and was totally dependent for bed mobility and transfer. The resident had range of motion impairment in his lower extremities on both sides. The resident had a deep tissue injury present on admission and was receiving pressure ulcer care with non-surgical dressings. The Pressure Ulcer/Injury Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/22/21, documented a licensed nurse assessed the resident's skin each week and put proper interventions into place to prevent skin breakdown. The Care Plan, dated 11/10/21, documented the resident with a pressure ulcer/deep tissue injury to bilateral heels related to frailty and immobility. The staff were to float (keep elevated off of the bed/pressure) the resident's heels when in bed and wound care to bilateral heels to be performed twice daily. A PO, dated 11/04/21, documented the staff were to perform a weekly skin review. A PO, dated 11/04/21, documented the eschar (a dry, dark scab or falling away of dead skin) areas to both heels should be painted with Betadine/Iodine (anti-infective medication) twice daily until resolved. Keep the resident's heels off-loaded (no pressure) at all times with offloading boots. Review of the December 2021 Treatment Administration Record (TAR), revealed it lacked documentation of wound care treatments provided to the resident, for the above order on December 14th (dayshift), 20th (evening shift), and 23rd (day shift), indicating the nurse failed to provide treatment as ordered by the physician. Review of weekly Skin and Wound Evaluations revealed for the months of November and December 2021, the nursing staff did not assess or monitor for the healing of the resident's left heel wound from 11/14/21 through 12/07/21 (22 days), the next evaluation was 10 days later on 12/17/21. From 12/23/21 through 01/04/22 (11 days), the facility lacked evaluations showing the staff monitored the resident's wound. The evaluation documentation for 01/04/22 was incomplete and not signed by the nurse who assessed the wound. Interview, on 12/29/21 at 08:19 AM, with Administrative Staff A, revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) was responsible for the resident's wound care at that point and time and it had not been completed timely. Daily wound care was the responsibility of all the nurses in the facility and they should be documenting accordingly. The DON should be performing the weekly monitoring when nurses were not available. Interview, on 01/11/22 at 10:45 AM, with Administrative Nurse D, revealed the wound evaluations were to be performed every week, but they had not been done consistently. The wound care nurse was no longer with the facility and some of the nurses here helped out with the weekly wound monitoring. Administrative Nurse D stated she did not assess this resident's wounds or perform any evaluations. The facility put a nurse on administrative leave due to not performing her duties which included dressing changes. Wound care not documented on the treatment administration record (TAR), was not done. The facility policy Skin Care Guideline, dated July 2018, documented .Process .DNS or designee will be responsible to implement and monitor the skin integrity program .Key Elements .Weekly skin evaluations are completed and documented . The facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services to ensure proper monitoring and promote healing of this resident's pressure ulcer.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents with 21 sampled including two residents reviewed for hydration. Based on intervie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents with 21 sampled including two residents reviewed for hydration. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer IV (intravenous) fluids in accordance with the physician orders for one of the two residents (R)10, when the physician ordered IV fluids given stat (immediately) and the staff failed to implement the IV fluids for over 24 hours for the resident's dehydration. Findings included: - The Physician Orders (PO), dated 01/01/22, included diagnoses of COVID-19 and chronic kidney disease, stage three. A PO, dated 12/31/21 at 10:19 AM, documented the resident was to receive Sodium Chloride solution 0.45 percent (%) (saline water solution). Use one liter intravenously (through the vein) STAT (urgent or rush) for fluid volume depletion with chronic kidney disease. Run the fluids at 75 cubic centimeters (cc)/hour (hr) until complete. Review of the resident's December 2021 medication administration record (MAR), revealed it lacked staff initials indicating failure to administer the IV fluids as ordered on 12/31/21. Review of a pharmacy shipment summary, dated 01/01/22, revealed the pharmacy delivered the sodium chloride solution to the facility on [DATE] at 08:10 PM, over 24 hours after the provider placed the order as stat. Review of R10's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed it lacked indication the staff notified the ordering provider that the facility did not have the sodium chloride solution and the resident did not receive them on 12/31/21 as ordered. Interview, on 01/11/22 at 10:45 AM, with Administrative Nurse D, revealed a STAT order should be fulfilled within 4 hours of the physician's order. The staff should have had the order entered and administered on 12/31/21. Since the medication wasn't available, the staff should have immediately notified the pharmacy and the provider who ordered it for instructions. There was no documentation that the staff notified the provider and the pharmacy wasn't contacted until the next day. The facility policy for Continuous Infusion of Medications and Solutions, revised 06/01/21, documented .Considerations: .1. Infusion therapy must be administered as ordered to maintain a therapeutic response in the patient .Guidance: .1. A prescriber order is required to initiate/change or discontinue a continuous infusion . The facility failed to administer this resident's intravenous fluids as ordered by the physician to prevent further dehydration.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents with 21 selected for review, which included three residents sampled for respirato...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility reported a census of 39 residents with 21 selected for review, which included three residents sampled for respiratory care. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care related to maintaining respiratory equipment to prevent the spread of infection, consistent with standard of practice and person centered care plan for two residents (R)29, and R 11 related to storage of oxygen/nebulizer tubing and cannula when not in use and changing of the oxygen concentrator humidifier bottle and tubing cannula. Findings included: - Review of the resident (R)29's Physician Orders, dated 01/01/22, revealed diagnoses which included shortness of breath, obstructive sleep apnea (intermittent airflow blockage during sleep), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breath. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documentation included the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated cognitively intact. The resident received oxygen. The Quarterly MDS, dated 12/14/21, documented the resident received oxygen. The ADL Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 11/26/21, documentation lacked address of the resident's use of oxygen. The Care Plan, (CP), dated 12/21/21, directed staff the resident had shortness of breath upon exertion and when lying flat but did not currently receive oxygen. On 01/03/22 01:23 PM, the resident's nebulizer tubing and oxygen cannula were lying directly on the floor. There was not a bag for storing the nasal cannula present. The oxygen concentrator's humidifier bottle had the date of 12/26/21. On 01/05/22 at 12:11 PM, the resident was lying in bed with her nasal oxygen cannula lying directly on the bed, and her nebulizer tubing lying directly on the floor. The oxygen concentrator's humidifier bottle continued with the date of 12/26 marked on the bottle. On 01/05/22 at 12:19 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) J reported the nurses were responsible for changing the oxygen equipment tubing weekly. The cannulas, tubing, and humidifier bottles should have the date they were changed marked on the equipment. The night shift nurse was responsible for the weekly change out of tubing and humidifier bottles on Sunday nights. He verified the above findings and stated the oxygen/nebulizer tubing should be stored in a bag and not lay directly on the floor to prevent the spread of infection. Additionally, he stated the oxygen/nebulizer tubing and cannula would need to be replaced due to tubing and humidifier bottle exceeded the weekly change and the tubing in contact with the floor. On 1/5/22 at12:52 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O and M, confirmed the above findings reported oxygen tubing should be stored in a bag when not in use. The tubing and humidifier bottle should be dated when changed. The night shift nurse was responsible for changing and dating the oxygen and nebulizer supplies weekly. They agreed that all nursing staff was responsible for ensuring the cannulas/tubing were stored appropriately when not in use. Staff should notify the nurse if the tubing was noted on the floor or not properly stored to prevent infections. On 01/05/22 at 01:15 PM, Administrative Nurse D, stated oxygen and nebulizer tubing, cannulas and humidifier bottles should be changed by the night nurse weekly on Sundays. The tubing and humidifier bottles should be dated for the date it was changed. The tubing and cannulas should be stored in a bag when not in use. She stated if the staff observed the cannulas or tubing on the floor, she expected the staff to notify the nurse and then to change the oxygen and nebulizer equipment to prevent the spread of infection. The facility policy Guide for Altered Respiratory Status, dated 01/22/2020, documentation lacked address of maintaining oxygen/nebulizer equipment to prevent the spread of infections. The facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care related to maintaining respiratory equipment to prevent the spread of infection, consistent with standard of practice for the resident. - Review of the resident (R)11's Physician Orders, dated 01/01/22, revealed diagnoses which included congestive heart failure (CHF-chronic condition where the heart does not pump blood as well as it should), and anxiety (a feeling of worry and nervousness). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documentation included the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The resident received oxygen. The Quarterly MDS, dated 12/28/21, documented the resident received oxygen. The ADL Functional/Rehabilitation Potential Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 08/06/21, documentation lacked address of the resident's use of oxygen. The Care Plan, (CP), dated 1/12/21, directed staff to monitor for signs and symptoms of respiratory distress and report to physician as needed. Her oxygen settings of 2 liters via nasal prongs, while in bed. The care plan did not address the maintenance and/or care of respiratory equipment. On 01/03/22 at 01:41 PM, the resident's oxygen tubing and cannula was hanging over the oxygen concentrator in direct contact with the floor. The concentrator lacked a bag for storage for the cannula and tubing when not in use. The date on the concentrator's humidifier bottle was 12/19/21. On 01/05/22 at 12:18 PM, the resident was lying in bed with her nasal oxygen cannula lying directly on the floor. The oxygen concentrator's humidifier bottle continued with the date of 12/19/21 marked on the bottle. On 01/05/22 at 12:19 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) J, confirmed the above findings. He reported the nurses were responsible for changing the oxygen equipment tubing weekly. The cannulas, tubing, and humidifier bottles should have the date they were changed marked on the equipment. The night shift nurse was responsible for the weekly change out of tubing and humidifier bottles on Sunday nights. He verified the above findings and stated the oxygen/nebulizer tubing should be stored in a bag and not lay directly on the floor to prevent the spread of infection. Additionally, he stated the oxygen tubing and cannula would need to be replaced due to tubing and humidifier bottle exceeded the weekly change and the tubing in contact with the floor. On 1/5/22 at12:52 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O and M, confirmed the above findings reported oxygen tubing should be stored in a bag when not in use. The tubing and humidifier bottle should be dated when changed. The night shift nurse was responsible for changing and dating the oxygen and nebulizer supplies weekly. They agreed that all nursing staff was responsible for ensuring the cannulas/tubing were stored appropriately when not in use. Staff should notify the nurse if the tubing was noted on the floor or not properly stored to prevent infections. On 01/05/22 at 01:15 PM, Administrative Nurse D, stated oxygen and nebulizer tubing, cannulas and humidifier bottles should be changed by the night nurse weekly on Sundays. The tubing and humidifier bottles should be dated for the date it was changed. The tubing and cannulas should be stored in a bag when not in use. She stated if the staff observed the cannulas or tubing on the floor, she expected the staff to notify the nurse and then to change the oxygen and nebulizer equipment to prevent the spread of infection. The facility policy Guide for Altered Respiratory Status, dated 01/22/2020, documentation lacked address of maintaining oxygen/nebulizer equipment to prevent the spread of infections. The facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care related to maintaining respiratory equipment to prevent the spread of infection, consistent with standard of practice for the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of the resident (R)29's Physician Orders, dated [DATE], revealed diagnoses which included shortness of breath, obstruct...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** - Review of the resident (R)29's Physician Orders, dated [DATE], revealed diagnoses which included shortness of breath, obstructive sleep apnea (intermittent airflow blockage during sleep), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breath, traumatic stress disorder, neoplasm of female breast). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], included the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated cognitively intact. The Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], documentation revealed no changes in cognition. On [DATE] 01:23 PM, the resident was lying on her bed her expression appeared to be puzzled. On inquiry she stated she wanted a mammogram (radiology test for breast cancer) and she could not get anyone to let her know about her appointment. The resident reported she had a tender spot on her right breast. She stated she already had surgery for breast cancer on her left breast. Her grandmothers died of cancer, one with breast cancer and the other with ovarian cancer. She and also had three cousins that died with cancer. She stated she was scared and needed answers. On [DATE] at 12:19 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) J reported he was not aware of the resident's concern regarding a mammogram. He checked the available appointment schedule for the week and the resident's electronic medical record and did not find any documentation related to the resident wanting a mammogram. He stated he was not sure how to address an appointment for a resident but would check with Administrative Nurse D. On [DATE] at 1:06 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated she helped with appointments. Residents often communicated with LN K, or Social Services X. The staff responsible for arranging appointments and transportation was Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R. On inquiry Administrative Nurse D, stated someone told her that the resident wanted a mammogram a couple of weeks ago and she asked the Nurse practitioner about it but had not received any orders. Administrative Nurse D confirmed she did not write a nurse note nor document anything regarding the requested mammogram with the resident's concern in the communication and that was the facility protocol. She reported she did not visit with the resident nor give her any follow-up, as the resident expected. Administrative Nurse D stated she should have visited with the resident about the concern and followed up to ensure she addressed the resident's concern. Additionally, she stated that she wore so many hats, she just did not do it, nor document anything about her conversation with the physician extender to ensure communication of the resident's concern. On [DATE] at 10:12 AM, CMA R, responsible for appointments/transportation, stated she was not aware of the resident's request for a Mammogram. She stated she had not been informed of the need for an appointment. She stated the nurse should make a progress note regarding the request, contact the physician or put the request in the physician communication book. The physician checks the communication book when they make rounds and follows-up with the nurse and resident regarding the entries in the communication book. The nurse should notify her of the need for an appointment. On [DATE] at 10:38AM, LN K stated she had not handled appointments for three months. She stated the responsibilities of making appointments changed to CMA R by instructions of Administrative Nurse D. The system for addressing an appointment included the nurse should generate a S-BAR (form describing the concern) and then put it in the physician's communication book. The physician checks the communication book, the resident, and then wrote an order. The nurse notes the orders in the computer and then send an e-mail either requesting an appointment or notifying CMA R of the appointment made by the nurse. The facility lacked a policy to address documentation of resident's change in condition or requests for diagnostic studies with associated follow-up. The facility failed to maintain medical records on this concerned resident that were complete and accurately documented to address the test for possible further breast cancer. The facility reported a census of 39 residents with 21 sampled. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for two of the 21 sampled residents, including Resident (R) 10, that were complete and accurately documented, when R10 discharged from the facility on [DATE] at approximately 09:40 AM to the hospital and the attending nurse failed to update and complete the resident's medical record with these changes in condition. In addition, the facility failed to document a request in the medical record from R29 related to obtaining a mammogram. Findings included: - Interview, on [DATE] at 12:58 PM, with Certified Medication Aide R, revealed R10 was sent out to the hospital due to a sudden decline by the aide staff and the attending nurse, on [DATE] at approximately 09:40 AM. Review of R10's electronic medical record (EMR) on [DATE] (4 days later), revealed the nurse on duty failed to update and complete the resident's medical record showing the resident was sent to the hospital and the medical decline on [DATE]. The last documentation in this resident's medical record was input by the nursing staff on [DATE]. Interview, on [DATE] at 01:15 PM, with Administrative Staff A, verified the above information. He verified that the nurse did not update to complete the resident's medical record to reflect the resident went to the hospital. The facility lacked an appropriate policy for complete and accurate documentation of resident medical records. The facility failed to maintain an accurate complete medical record for this resident who experienced a sudden change in condition which resulted in hospitalization.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide maintenance services to ensure a safe and sanitary environment for re...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide maintenance services to ensure a safe and sanitary environment for residents and staff in the facility laundry area. Findings included: - On 01/10/22 at 10:48 AM, the tour of the facility laundry areas with Housekeeping staff U revealed the following areas of concern: 1. The soiled linen room's ceiling contained a brown colored stain in an area approximately three by two-foot section with peeling spackling. 2. The cement floor throughout the laundry processing areas had multiple areas of missing paint and with chips in the concrete. 3. The folding table had missing areas of the laminent revealing the raw wood. 01/11/22 11:48 AM, Administrative staff A agreed the laundry should be maintained and repaired to provide a safe and comfortable environment for the staff. He reported the areas noted above should be addressed by the maintenance staff. The facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary environment for the residents and the staff in the facility laundry areas.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $51,670 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 32 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $51,670 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Kansas. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (3/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 3/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Diversicare Of Sedgwick's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Diversicare Of Sedgwick Staffed?

CMS rates DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 74%, which is 27 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 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Diversicare Of Sedgwick?

State health inspectors documented 32 deficiencies at DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK 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, and 30 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Diversicare Of Sedgwick?

DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 62 certified beds and approximately 44 residents (about 71% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SEDGWICK, Kansas.

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

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (74%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Diversicare Of Sedgwick?

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

Is Diversicare Of Sedgwick Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 Diversicare Of Sedgwick Stick Around?

Staff turnover at DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK is high. At 74%, the facility is 27 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 67%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Diversicare Of Sedgwick Ever Fined?

DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK has been fined $51,670 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Kansas average of $33,596. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Diversicare Of Sedgwick on Any Federal Watch List?

DIVERSICARE OF SEDGWICK 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.