STERLING VILLAGE

204 W WASHINGTON AVENUE, STERLING, KS 67579 (620) 278-3651
Non profit - Corporation 45 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
25/100
#285 of 295 in KS
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Sterling Village in Sterling, Kansas, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranked #285 out of 295 facilities in Kansas, it falls in the bottom half, and is #2 out of 2 in Rice County, meaning there is only one local option that performs better. Although the facility is showing an improving trend, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2023 to 7 in 2025, it still faces serious challenges. Staffing is relatively strong with a 4 out of 5 rating, but a high turnover rate of 56% is concerning. The facility has accrued $37,895 in fines, which is higher than 85% of Kansas facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents include a resident suffering a leg fracture due to improper care plan adherence and another resident falling during a lift transfer, resulting in injury. Additionally, the facility lacks a full-time certified dietary manager, raising concerns about the adequacy of nutrition for residents. Overall, while some aspects like staffing are commendable, the facility has notable weaknesses that families should carefully consider.

Trust Score
F
25/100
In Kansas
#285/295
Bottom 4%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
9 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$37,895 in fines. Lower than most Kansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 46 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Kansas. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 9 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Kansas average (2.9)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 56%

Near Kansas avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $37,895

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Staff turnover is elevated (56%)

8 points above Kansas average of 48%

The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Jan 2025 7 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with seven reviewed for falls. Based on observation...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with seven reviewed for falls. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow two residents' care plans: Resident (R) 128, who sustained a tibia (bone of the lower leg) fracture (break) during ambulation, and R4, who slid off the bed while on a bed pan. This placed the residents at risk for further falls and avoidable injury. Findings included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R128 documented diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (a progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure), anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear), diabetes mellitus (DM - when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin is made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin), hypertension (high blood pressure), and pain. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R128 had severely impaired cognition. R128 was dependent upon staff for toileting and lower body dressing. R128 received partial staff assistance for personal hygiene, mobility, transfers, and upper body dressing. R128 refused to ambulate. The MDS documented R128 had upper functional impairment on one side and had no falls. The Fall Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 05/06/24, documented that R128 was on Hospice (specialized care that mainly aims to provide comfort and dignity to the patients by providing physical comfort and emotional, social, and spiritual support for people nearing the end of life), had functional limitations in her upper extremities and no functional limitations in her lower extremities, and used a walker and wheelchair. The Quarterly MDS, dated 07/29/24, documented R128 had long and short-term memory loss with moderately impaired decision-making skills and was dependent upon staff for toileting, and lower body dressing. R128 required substantial staff assistance for transfers and partial assistance for upper body dressing, personal hygiene, and mobility. R128 did not ambulate. The MDS further documented R128 had upper functional impairment on one side and had two or more falls with injury. The Fall Assessments dated 07/23/24 and 09/29/24 documented R128 was at risk for falls. The Care Plan, dated 08/15/24, initiated on 01/04/24, directed staff to encourage R128 to use her call light and wait for staff assistance, place her motion sensor pointed towards the bed, and make sure to change batteries. The update, dated 02/05/24, documented a scooped mattress was placed on R128's bed. The update, dated, 02/09/26, directed staff to ambulate R128 short distance with one to two staff and a walker and please use a gait belt. The update, dated 05/21/24, directed staff to take R128 out to the west dining room when she had increased confusion and hallucinations so staff could keep an eye on her. The update, dated 08/12/24, documented R128 no longer ambulated as she consistently lifted her feet into the air. The Fall Investigation, dated 09/28/24 at 10:35 AM, documented Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N assisted R128 to the bathroom and R128 went down to her knees. CNA N assisted R128 back to a standing position and assisted her to the toilet. R128 was weak and complained of right knee pain. The investigation documented the root cause of the fall was CNA N did not follow R128's care plan to not ambulate the resident and the gait belt was used incorrectly. The Witness Statement, dated 10/02/24, documented CNA N reported she had gone to get R128 up and out of bed so she could eat breakfast. CNA N removed the covers then sat R128 up onto the side of the bed, grabbed her walker, counted to three, and stood R128 up. CNA N stated she stood behind her as R128 ambulated to the bathroom. CNA N stated she hovered her hands around R128's waist as she walked with her. R128's right knee gave out and CNA N quickly put her arms under the resident's armpits, and R128's right knee touched the ground. CNA N further stated she held her body off of the ground except for her right knee. The toilet was close to them, so she rotated her to the toilet, sat her down, and went to get assistance. The Nurse's Note, dated 09/28/24 at 07:02 PM, documented Hospice was notified and stated they would come to the facility to evaluate R128 and would send an email to the family to ask if they wanted an X-ray (a type of electromagnetic radiation that can pass through objects and create images of their internal structures). The note documented R128's family declined an X-ray unless things seemed to get worse. The note documented R128's right knee had swelling, and she complained of right knee pain. The Nurse's Note, dated 09/29/24 at 04:09 PM, documented R128's right knee was swollen, bruised, and tender to the touch. The Nurse's Note, dated 09/29/24 at 06:00 PM, documented R128's grandson was in the facility and felt R128's right knee should be X-rayed. The staff documented the physician would be notified to see if the portable X-ray Service could come to the facility to X-ray her right knee. The X-Ray Report, dated 10/02/24, documented R128 had an acute fracture of the right tibia. The Physician's Order, dated 07/31/24, directed staff to administer Acetaminophen (pain medication), 650 milligrams (mg), by mouth, as needed, every 24 hours for pain. The Physician's Order, directed staff to not allow R128 to bear any weight due to the fracture in the right leg below the knee. The EMR documented R128 passed away on 10/10/24. On 01/23/25 at 10:30 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) T stated R128 was on hospice, cognitively impaired, and non-ambulatory before the fall. CMA T further stated R128 was bedbound after the fall. On 01/22/25 at 04:25 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated she interviewed the CNA and discovered the CNA was not holding on to the gait belt when she ambulated the resident. Administrative Nurse D stated as they were walking, R128's right knee buckled and the CNA tried to keep her from falling by grabbing under her armpits, but her right knee hit the ground. Administrative Nurse D stated the CNA had not followed R128's care plan. The facility's Falls and Fall Risk, Managing policy, dated 2001. documented based on previous evaluations and current data, and staff would identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from failing and to try to minimize complications from falling. If interventions have been successful in preventing falling. Staff would continue the interventions or reconsider whether these measures are still needed if a problem that required the intervention has been resolved. If the resident continued to fall, staff would reevaluate the situation and whether it was appropriate to continue or charge current interventions. As needed, the attending physician would help the staff reconsider possible causes that may not previously have been identified. The staff and/or physician would document the basis for conclusions that specific irreversible risk factors exist that continue to present a risk for falling or injury due to falls. The facility failed to follow R128's care plan which resulted in a tibia fracture This deficient practice placed the resident at risk for further falls and avoidable injury. - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R4 documented diagnoses of diabetes mellitus (DM - when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin is made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin), hypertension (high blood pressure), pain, congestive heart failure (CHF - a condition with low heart output and the boy becomes congested with fluid), edema (swelling resulting from an excessive accumulation of fluid in the body tissues), trochanteric fracture of the right femur (a break in the thigh bone), and atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heart rate). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R4 had intact cognition. R4 was dependent upon staff for toileting, supervision with mobility, transfers, and ambulation. R4 had upper functional impairment on one side, was at risk for falls, and had two falls with injury, and one non-injury fall. The Fall Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/23/24, documented R4 was a high risk for falls, had functional limitations to her left upper extremity, had repeated falls, and muscle weakness. The Fall Risk Assessments, dated 12/24/24, 01/06/25, and 01/13/25 documented R4 was at risk for falls. The Care Plan dated 12/19/24, initiated on 06/07/23, directed staff to use cloth chucks (absorbent pads used to protect surfaces from stains and moisture) on her bed as she may slide off with paper chucks. The update dated 08/08/24, directed staff to encourage R4 to call for assistance to pick up items off the floor. The update dated 08/28/24, directed staff to place a motion detector in her room. The update dated 09/01/14, directed staff to use her wheelchair or long distances instead of using her walker. The update dated 09/05/24, directed staff to encourage R4 to not sit at the edge of her recliner. The update dated 01/14/25, directed staff to not use paper chucks under her as they can be slippery, and she may fall off of her bed. The Fall Investigation, dated 01/14/25, documented R had an unwitnessed fall, and slid off of the bed between her bed and the wall. The investigation documented R4 was placed on the bedpan at 07:15 AM, and at 07:42 AM, staff heard R4 yell for help. R4 was found between the wall and the bed. R4 was leaning on her left hip with her head and left hand on the bed and holding onto the bedrail with her right hand. The investigation documented the root cause of the fall was a paper chuck was placed under the bedpan and when she repositioned, she slid off of the bed. On 01/21/25 at 12:49 PM, observation revealed Consultant HH removed the foot pedals from R4's wheelchair, and Consultant GG placed a gait belt around R4's waist and placed her walker in front of her. Consultant GG and Consultant HH stood beside R4 and had her stand up, pivot, and sit down on her bed. Consultant GG stated therapy staff transferred the resident during the day as part of her therapy which she received five days per week. Consultant GG swung her legs up onto the bed as Consultant HH raised the head of her bed and placed two pillows behind her head. On 01/23/25 at 10:34 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) T stated staff checked on R4 every 15 to 30 minutes, offered activities, and made sure she had anything she needed before staff left her room. R4 liked to get up on her own and not wait for any staff assistance, so a motion detector was placed in her room. CMA T stated her last fall was from sliding off the bed and the intervention was to not use paper on her bed, only cloth. On 01/23/25 at 01:42 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated staff should not leave a resident on the bedpan for longer than 30 minutes and should follow the care plan when assisting her. Administrative Nurse D further stated staff had placed a paper chuck on the bed and a cloth chuck on top of the paper chuck and have continued reeducation on following resident care plans. The facility's Falls and Fall Risk, Managing policy, dated 2001. documented based on previous evaluations and current data, staff would identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. If interventions have been successful in preventing falling. Staff would continue the interventions or reconsider whether these measures are still needed if a problem that required the interventions has resolved. If the resident continued to fall, staff would reevaluate the situation and whether it was appropriate to continue or charge current interventions. As needed, the attending physician would help the staff reconsider possible causes that may not previously have been identified. The staff and/or physician would document the basis for conclusions that specific irreversible risk factors exist that continue to present a risk for falling or injury due to falls. The facility failed to follow R4's care plan of not using paper chucks under the resident, which resulted in R4 sliding off of the bed. This placed the resident at risk for further falls and avoidable injury.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with one reviewed for hydration. Based on observati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with one reviewed for hydration. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to monitor Resident (R) 4's physician-ordered fluid restriction. This placed the resident at risk of complications related to fluid overload. Finding included: - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R4 documented diagnoses of congestive heart failure (CHF - a condition with low heart output and the body becomes congested with fluid), edema (swelling resulting from an excessive accumulation of fluid in the body tissues), diabetes mellitus (DM - when the body cannot use glucose, no enough insulin is made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin), hypertension (high blood pressure), and pain. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R4 had intact cognition. R4 required supervision with mobility, transfers, ambulation, and set-up assistance with eating. R4 had upper functional impairment on one side, was occasionally incontinent of urine, and had pain. R4 received a diuretic (medication to promote the formation and excretion of urine) medication. R4's Care Plan dated 12/19/24, initiated on 06/7/23, documented R4 had the potential for fluid volume deficit related to diuretic therapy. The care plan directed staff to administer medications as ordered, weigh her as ordered, monitor for fluid overload, and ensure R4 was on a 2000 milliliter (ml) per 24-hour fluid restriction. The care plan directed staff to educate R4 on the risks versus benefits as she at times chose to go over the ordered fluids in 24 hours. The Physician's Order, dated 06/22/24, directed a fluid restriction of 2000 ml in 24 hours every shift for fluid monitoring. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for November 2024 lacked documentation staff monitored R4's fluid restriction on the following days: 11/14/24- dayshift 11/22/24-dayshift 11/26/24-dayshift 11/27/24-dayshift The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for December 2024 lacked documentation staff monitored R4's fluid restriction on the following days: 12/06/24-dayshift 12/09/24-dayshift 12/13/24-nightshift 12/14/24-nightshift 12/19/24-nightshift 12/24/24-dayshift 12/25/24-dayshift 12/26/24-dayshift 12/27/24-dayshift 12/29/24-dayshift 12/31/24-dayshift The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for January 2025 lacked documentation staff monitored R4's fluid restriction on the following days: 01/2/25-dayshift 01/05/25-dayshift 01/17/25-dayshift 01/18/25-dayshift 01/20/25-dayshift 01/21/25-dayshift 01/01/25-nightshift 01/04/25-nightshift On 01/22/25 at 08:30 AM, R4 was in bed eating her breakfast and had an empty plastic jug and a small empty juice glass in front of her. R4 asked Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O if she could have more to drink as she had already drank all of her water and juice. CNA O went to the medication cart and asked Certified Medication Aide (CMA) S if she could have more water. CNA O stated she seemed to be more thirsty on her new medication, and she was given 150 ml extra to drink. CMA S stated she would talk with the nurse about R4's fluid restriction. On 01/23/25 at 10:34 AM, CMA S stated nursing staff were responsible for documenting R4's fluid amounts per shift and the charge nurse monitored the total at the end of the day. CMA S further stated R had been hard to keep compliant with the restriction as she would try to get extra fluids herself or other staff. On 01/23/25 at 01:42 PM, Administrative Nurse D stated nursing staff were very good at documenting R4's fluid totals at the end of the shift and the nurse was to look at the amounts and document them in the TAR. Administrative Nurse D verified there were blanks in the documentation and also stated that she had worked over the weekend and probably did not document the totals for the shift she had worked. The facility's Encouraging and Restricting Fluids policy, dated 10/10, documented staff to verify that there was a physician's order for a fluid restriction and review the care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident. Staff were to follow specific instructions concerning fluid intake or restrictions and were to be accurate when recording the fluid intakes. Staff record fluid intake in ml's and encourage the resident's family and visitors to stay within the limit of his or her intake. The facility failed to monitor R4's physician-ordered fluid restriction. This placed R4 at risk of complications related to fluid overload.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility had a census of 26 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure three of five Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) completed their required 12-hour annual in-serv...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 26 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure three of five Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) completed their required 12-hour annual in-service. This placed the residents at risk for receiving unskilled care. Findings included: - On 01/22/23, a review of CNA M, CNA N, and Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R and CMA S's annual in-service hours lacked evidence the staff had the required 12 hours of in-service training. On 01/22/24 at 09:30 AM, Administrative Staff A verified the facility lacked documentation the above staff completed their required 12-hour in-services. The Facility Assessment, revised July 31, 2024, documented the facility would ensure the continuing competence of nurse aides and annual required 12-hour in-services. The facility's Inservice Training, Nurse Aide Policy, revised in August 2022, documented the facility would complete a performance review of nurse aides every 12 months. Annual in-services ensure the continuing competency of nurse aides and are no less than 12 hours per employment year. The facility failed to ensure CNAs received their annual required 12-hour in-services. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for receiving unskilled care.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. The ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) reviewed each resident's drug regimen monthly and reported irregularities to the attending physician, the facility medical director, and the director of nursing monthly for Residents' (R) 4, R8, R9, R11, and R22. Findings included: - R9's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented that R9 had diagnoses of major depressive disorder (major mood disorder that causes persistent feelings of sadness), psychotic disturbance (any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality perception), and mood disturbance (category of mental health problems, feelings of sadness, helplessness, guilt, and wanting to die were more intense and persistent than what may normally be felt from time to time). R9's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated 10/25/24, documented R9 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of four which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented R9 dependent on staff with most activities of daily living (ADL). The MDS documented R9 receive and antiplatelet (medications that prevent platelets from clumping together and forming blood clots), antidepressant (a class of medications used to treat mood disorders), diuretic (a medication to promote the formation and excretion of urine), opioid (a class of controlled drugs used to treat pain), hypoglycemic (medication used to lower blood sugar), and anticonvulsant (medications used to prevent or control seizures (convulsions) medications during the observation period. R9's Psychotropic Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/25/24, documented that R9 had a diagnoses of hypertension (elevated blood pressure), diabetes mellitus (DM - when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin is made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin), and chronic pain. R9's Care Plan, revised 11/04/24, documented all medications and gradual dose reductions (GDRs) would be reviewed monthly and as needed (PRN) by the pharmacist. R9's EMR from 01/01/24 to 01/01/25 lacked monthly CP regimen reviews for the last year. On 01/22/25 at 07:45 AM, observation revealed R9 resting in bed with eyes closed. On 01/23/25 at 08:28 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the lack of monthly CP regimen reviews and stated the medical records personnel usually received e-mails from the CP with the reviews and then would pass the information on to her in the morning meetings. Administrative Nurse D stated it had been a while since she had received any information regarding monthly CP regimen reviews. The facility's Medication Regimen Review Policy, revised May 2019, documented the CP would review the medications of each resident at least monthly. The facility failed to ensure the CP completed monthly medication regimen reviews for R9. This placed him at risk for receiving inappropriate doses of medications. - R11's EMR documented R11 had diagnoses of psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, hypertension (elevated blood pressure), anxiety disorder (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear), and diabetes mellitus (DM - when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin is made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin). R11's Quarterly MDS, dated 12/23/24, documented R11 had a BIMS of three which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented R11 received an antipsychotic (a class of medications used to treat major mental conditions that cause a break from reality), antidepressant (a class of medications used to treat mood disorders), and antiplatelet (medications that prevent platelets from clumping together and forming blood clots) during the observation period. R11's Care Plan, revised 01/05/25, instructed staff to review my medications with the physician and CP and for duplicate medications consult with CP. A review of R11's EMR from 01/01/24 to 01/01/25, revealed a lack of monthly CP medication regimen reviews. 01/22/25 at 08:00 PM, observation revealed R11's room door closed, and staff reported the resident sleeping. On 01/23/25 at 08:28 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the lack of monthly CP regimen reviews and stated the medical records personnel usually received e-mails from the CP with the reviews and then would pass the information on to her in the morning meetings. Administrative Nurse D stated it had been a while since she had received any information regarding monthly CP regimen reviews. The facility's Medication Regimen Review Policy, revised May 2019, documented the CP would review the medications of each resident at least monthly. The facility failed to ensure the CP completed monthly medication regimen reviews for R9. This placed him at risk for receiving inappropriate doses of medications. - R22's EMR documented R22 had diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heartbeat), use of anticoagulants (a class of medications used to prevent the blood from clotting), hypertension (HTN - elevated blood pressure), hyperlipidemia (condition of elevated blood lipid levels), and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). R22's Quarterly MDS, dated 11/05/24, documented R22 had a BIMS of five, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented R22 dependent on staff with putting on and taking off footwear, required substantial, maximal staff assistance with showering, lower body dressing, personal hygiene, sitting to lying, lying to sitting, chair to bed transfers, supervision with upper body dressing, set up with eating, and independent with rolling left to right in bed. The MDS documented R22 received antipsychotic (a class of medications used to treat major mental conditions that cause a break from reality), antidepressant (a class of medications used to treat mood disorders), anticoagulant (a class of medications used to prevent the blood from clotting), diuretic (a medication to promote the formation and excretion of urine), and antiplatelet (a class of medications that prevent blood clots from forming) medications during the observation period. R22's Care Plan, revised 11/10/24, documented the CP would review R22's medications monthly. R22's EMR from 01/01/24 to 01/01/25 lacked documentation the CP conducted a medication regime review monthly On 01/22/25 at 07:25 AM. observation revealed R22 sat quietly in a wheelchair in the living area by the nurse's station with television on. On 01/23/25 at 08:28 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the lack of monthly CP regimen reviews and stated the medical records personnel usually received e-mails from the CP with the reviews and then would pass the information on to her in the morning meetings. Administrative Nurse D stated it had been a while since she had received any information regarding monthly CP regimen reviews. The facility's Medication Regimen Review Policy, revised May 2019, documented the CP would review the medications of each resident at least monthly. The facility failed to ensure the CP completed monthly medication regimen reviews for R9. This placed him at risk for receiving unnecessary medications.- The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R4 documented diagnoses of diabetes mellitus (DM - when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin is made, or the body cannot respond to the insulin), hypertension (high blood pressure), pain, congestive heart failure (CHF - a condition with low heart output and the boy becomes congested with fluid), edema (swelling resulting from an excessive accumulation of fluid in the body tissues), trochanteric fracture of the right femur (a break in the thigh bone), atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular heart rate), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a progressive and irreversible condition characterized by diminished lung capacity and difficulty or discomfort in breathing). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R4 had intact cognition. The MDS documented R4 was dependent on staff for toileting and required supervision with mobility, transfers, and ambulation. The MDS documented R4 received insulin (a hormone that lowers the level of glucose in the blood), antidepressant (a class of medications used to treat mood disorders), anticoagulant (a class of medications used to prevent blood from clotting), diuretic (a medication to promote the formation and secretion of urine), and opioid (a class of controlled drugs used to treat pain) medication during the observation period. The Care Plan dated 12/19/24, initiated on 05/30/23, documented all medications and gradual dose reductions (gdr) would be reviewed monthly, as needed by the pharmacist consultant, and every 60 days or as needed by the physician and they would notify the facility nurse with any recommendations and or new orders. R4's EMR from 01/01/24 to 01/01/25 lacked documentation the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) conducted a medication regimen review monthly except for 02/24 and 09/24. On 01/22/25 at 08:30 AM, observation revealed R4, in bed eating her breakfast. R4 stated she was having a good day and was not in any pain. On 01/23/25 at 01:42 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified the lack of monthly CP regimen reviews and stated the medical records personnel usually received e-mails from the CP with the reviews and then would pass the information on to her in the morning meetings. Administrative Nurse D stated it had been a while since she had received any information regarding the monthly CP regimen reviews. The facility's Medication Regimen Review policy, revised May 2019, documented the CP would review each resident's medications at least monthly. The facility failed to ensure the CP completed monthly regimen reviews for R4. This placed her at risk for receiving unnecessary medications. - The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R8 documented diagnoses of depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), anxiety (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty, and irrational fear), hypertension (high blood pressure), and pain. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R8 had intact cognition. R8 required substantial assistance from staff for showers, transfers, ambulation, and set-up assistance for personal hygiene, and lower body dressing. R8 was independent with toileting and mobility. The MDS further documented R8 received antidepressant (a class of medication used to treat mood disorders), antianxiety (a class of medication that calms and relaxes people), diuretic (a medication to promote the formation and excretion of urine), and opioid (a class of controlled drugs used to treat pain) during the observation period. The Care Plan, dated 12/03/24, initiated on 08/11/22, documented R8's medications would be reviewed by the pharmacist consultant (CP) monthly, by a physician every 60 days, and by both as needed. R8's EMR from 01/01/24 to 01/01/25 lacked documentation the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) conducted a medication regimen review monthly. On 01/22/25 at 08:00 AM, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) U administered R8's medications without issue. On 01/23/25 at 01:42 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified the lack of monthly CP regimen reviews and stated the medical records personnel usually received e-mails from the CP with the reviews and then would pass the information on to her in the morning meetings. Administrative Nurse D stated it had been a while since she had received any information regarding the monthly CP regimen reviews. The facility's Medication Regimen Review policy, revised May 2019, documented the CP would review each residents medications at least monthly. The facility failed to ensure the CP completed monthly regimen reviews for R8. This deficient practice placed him at risk for receiving unnecessary medications.
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 F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to employ a full-time certified dietary manager for...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to employ a full-time certified dietary manager for the 26 residents who resided in the facility and received meals from the facility kitchen. This placed the residents at risk for inadequate nutrition. Findings included: - On 01/22/24, a review of the noon meal consisted of meatloaf, peas, mashed potatoes, and gravy On 01/22/24 at 11:00 AM, observation revealed Dietary Staff BB in the kitchen overseeing the preparation of the noon meal. On 01/21/24 at 08:28 AM, Dietary Staff BB verified he was not a Certified Dietary Manager (CDM). Dietary Staff BB stated he did not want to be a CDM, had 30 years of food service experience, and had agreed to overlook the kitchen until the facility hired one. On 01/22/24 at 01:55 PM, Administrative Staff A verified Dietary Staff BB had no dietary manager certification. The facility's Dietician Policy, revised 11/2022, documented that If a dietician was not employed full-time (35 or more hours per week) a director of food and nutrition services would be designated. This individual would: a. be a certified dietary manager or b. be a certified food service manager or c. be nationally certified in food service management and safety: or d. has an associate (or higher) degree in food service management or hospitality, if the course includes food service or rest management from an accredited institution or e. has worked two or more years of experience in the position of director of food and nutrition services in a nursing facility setting and has completed a course of study in food safety and management, by no later than October 1, 2020, that included topics integral to managing dietary operations including, but not limited to foodborne illness, sanitation procedures, and food purchasing, receiving: and meet state requirements for food service or diet managers and f. receives frequently scheduled consultations from a qualified dietician or qualified nutrition professional The facility failed to employ a full-time certified dietary manager for 35 residents who resided in the facility and received meals from the kitchen. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for not receiving adequate nutrition.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food by pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food by professional standards for food service safety in the facility kitchen. This placed the residents who received their meals from the facility's kitchens at risk for foodborne illness. Findings included: - On 01/21/24 at 09:45 AM, observation in the kitchen revealed a two-door refrigerator had three unlabeled undated orange jello and two cottage cheese Styrofoam cups. On 01/21/24 at 08:50 AM, Dietary Staff (DS) BB verified the above finding and stated staff should label and date food before they place it in the refrigerator. DS BB discarded the items into the trash can. On 01/22/24 at 10:30 AM, observation in the kitchen revealed the following: A white upright freezer located in the hall between the kitchen and dry storage had a five-gallon container, approximately ¼ full of orange sherbert with numerous different areas of dried orange substance on the outside of the container. An area on the ceiling located by the dry storage entrance door had a dried brown stain approximately 14 inches (in) wide by 18 in long. A lower cabinet located below the desert counter had three missing drawers. A white upper cabinet, located above the dishwasher where the clean dishes return, had an area 1 1/2 in by 1 in with peeling paint. The wall above the dirty side of the dishwasher entrance had numerous different size chips in the paint. The white pipes underneath the dishwasher had a grayish-black substance on them. The three-door freezer located in the hall between the kitchen and dry storage had an unsealed package of Polish sausage. On 01/22/25 at 11:00 AM, DS BB verified the above findings, and stated staff should make sure food item packages are sealed before placing them in the freezer. DS BB stated a work order had been put into maintenance regarding the missing cupboard drawers. On 01/22/25 at 02:51 PM, Maintenance Staff (MS) U stated that when staff see something broken, they place a work order request in the maintenance box located inside the service hall. MS U stated he was aware of the missing drawers in the kitchen cabinet, they had broken, and he had baskets to go into the drawer openings but had not installed them yet. The facility's Food Receiving and Storage Policy, undated, documented all foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer would be covered, labeled, and dated with the use by date. The facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food by professional standards for food service safety for the 26 residents who received their meals from the facility's kitchen. This deficient practice placed the 26 residents at risk for foodborne illness.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a water management program for waterborne pathogens ...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 26 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a water management program for waterborne pathogens including Legionella disease (Legionella is a bacterium that can cause pneumonia in vulnerable populations). This placed the residents in the facility at risk for infectious disease. Findings included: - On 01/22/25 at 02:51 PM, Maintenance Staff U stated he did not have any type of diagram of the facility's water system or a water management program in place to prevent the growth of Legionella or any other water-borne pathogen. On 01/23/25 at 03:30 PM, Administrative Staff A stated she was unaware that Maintenance Staff U did not have a water management program in place. The facility's Legionella Water Management Program policy, dated 07/17, documented the facility had a water management program that was overseen by the water management team. The water management program included a Legionella Risk Assessment, a detailed description, and diagram of the water system in the facility. The program also included; identification of areas in the water system that could encourage the growth and spread of Legionella or other waterborne bacteria. The water management program would have specific measures used to control the introduction and/or spread of Legion. The program included a plan for when control limits were not met or effective, and the program would be reviewed at least once a year, or sooner if needed. The facility failed to implement a water management program to test and manage waterborne pathogens. This deficient practice placed the residents who reside in the facility at risk of contracting Legion pneumonia.
Jan 2023 9 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with four reviewed for accidents/falls. Based on ob...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with four reviewed for accidents/falls. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to use an appropriate lift sling during a mechanical lift transfer, which resulted in Resident (R) 6 falling out of a lift sling resulting in a head laceration, hematoma (collection of blood under the skin from an injury), and pain. The facility further failed to implement new interventions to prevent further falls for R14, who had multiple falls. This placed the residents at risk for further falls and fall-related injury. Findings included: - R6's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of Alzheimer's (progressive mental deterioration that can occur in middle or old age, due to generalized degeneration of the brain), osteoporosis (medical condition in which the bones become brittle and fragile from loss of tissue), osteoarthritis (degeneration of joint cartilage and the underlying bone), spinal stenosis (when the spaces in the spine narrow and create pressure on the spinal cord and nerve roots), anxiety disorder (characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities), glaucoma (group of eye conditions that can cause blindness), and major depressive disorder (MDD-mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R6 had long term memory problems with severely impaired decision making, one non-injury fall, one minor injury fall, and weight of 159 pounds. The Fall Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/19/22, documented R6 recently admitted on hospice services. Her balance was unsteady; she was only able to stabilize with staff assistance, and she used a wheelchair for mobility. The CAA documented an 08/29/22 Health Status Note documented staff found the resident on the floor with a large bump to the left side of her forehead. The Quarterly MDS, dated 11/07/22, documented R6 had short- and long-term memory loss, with severely impaired decision making. The MDS documented R6 required limited assistance of one staff for eating, extensive assistance of two staff for toileting, hygiene, dressing, bed mobility, and total assistance of two staff for transfers. The MDS documented R6 had no range of motion impairment, she used a wheelchair, and had one minor injury fall. The MDS lacked a weight, pain assessment, and balance testing. The Fall Care Plan, dated 08/12/22, documented staff moved R6 closer to the nurse's station after the 08/29/22 fall. Other fall interventions included remind her to not pick up her room tray and to ask for assistance with this and placed a motion sensor in the resident's room. Staff would ensure the resident's call light was within reach and staff would encourage her to use it for assistance as needed. Staff would know R6 might need reminders that she had a call light and education on how to use it. Staff would ensure her walker was at bedside when going to bed. The ADL Care Plan, dated 11/11/22, directed staff to provide total assistance of two staff for transfers with the full mechanical lift and large combi sling. The 09/27/22 care plan update directed staff as follows: Do NOT use a hygiene sling (designed specifically for toileting and allows the user to have easy access to the perineal area) for transfers. Fall risk assessments of 2022 were completed for R6 quarterly and after each subsequent fall and documented R6 at high risk for falls. The Fall Note, dated 08/29/22 at 11:31 AM, documented staff notified the nurse the resident was on the floor, and upon assessment the nurse found a large bump to the left side of R6's forehead. The note documented the nurse notified the physician who instructed her to send the resident to the emergency department (ED) due to her condition. The Progress Note, dated 08/29/22 at 07:24 PM, documented R6 sustained an abrasion the length of her nose and bruising above her left eye. A motion detector was set up in the resident's room. The Transfer Data Collection, dated 09/14/22, documented the resident may require a full mechanical lift at times. The care plan lacked an update regarding this information. The Fall Note, dated 09/24/22 at 09:34 AM, documented at 08:35 AM, a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) called the nurse to the resident's room where he found R6 on her back on the floor in front of the mechanical lift. The nurse documented staff stated R6 slipped out the bottom of the lift sling. R6 was bleeding from the back of her head with a 2 centimeter (cm) laceration noted to the lower left side of her head and a hematoma. The nurse assessed R6, applied a pressure dressing to stop the bleeding, and notified an on-call physician. The physician instructed staff to keep a pressure dressing on the resident, monitor for continued head bleeding, monitor for any change in cognition, and to monitor for any signs of further injury. The note documented the resident reported head pain and staff offered an ice pack, which the resident declined. The nurse changed the pressure dressing and noted some blood on the gauze pad. Neurological checks were within normal limits for the resident. The Fall Investigation, dated 10/04/22, documented staff attempted to transfer the resident with the Hoyer (total/mechanical) lift and did not use the correct sling. As a result, the resident fell through the bottom of the sling and hit her head on the lift and her right hip on the floor. The investigation stated all hygiene slings were removed until the facility provided staff education. The facility reported the incident to the state agency. The Staff Education Meeting, dated 10/13/22, covered use of lift and slings. On 12/28/22 at 11:07 AM, observation revealed CNA M and CNA N, with Licensed Nurse (LN) G in the resident's room, providing incontinence care. R6 anxiously stated my baby, where's my baby. When LN G asked R6 if she was in pain, R6 replied she was in pain but did not know where. The staff used the total mechanical lift with a medium sling to transfer R6 from her bed to her wheelchair. On 12/28/22 at 11:08 AM, LN G stated the facility had two full body lifts and 2-3 residents on each side who used them. She stated the facility had two medium slings, two large slings, and three extra slings in the offices. On 12/29/22 at 11:22 AM, CNA M stated on 09/24/22 the resident hollered out and when they wanted to transfer R6 to her wheelchair, they could not find the total lift sling. They found the night shift had put it in the soiled laundry and it needed washed. CNA M stated he looked on the other side of the facility for a total lift sling but could not find a clean one. CNA M stated when they put the hygiene sling under her and lifted her off the bed it was ok, but when they moved R6, she swung a little and dropped through the bottom of the sling onto the floor. He stated R6 used to use a walker before the previous fall, but now used a total lift for transfers. On 01/04/23 at 08:43 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated when a sling became soiled staff were to place it in the laundry and there were spare slings on the units. Administrative Nurse D said in order to use a hygiene sling, the resident should be capable of holding arms down to side and be cognitive. Staff used a large hygiene sling and should not have used the hygiene sling with R6. Administrative Nurse D stated she provided all nursing staff education on lift use. The facility's Using a Mechanical Lift policy, dated July 2017, documented at least two staff are needed to safely move a resident with a mechanical lift. Staff must be trained and demonstrate competency using the specific devices used in the facility. Before using a lift device staff were to assess the resident's physical and cognitive condition, measure the resident for proper sling size and purpose, and select a sling bar appropriate for the resident's size and the task. After placing the sling under the resident, staff were to visually check the size to ensure it was not too large or too small. The policy directed staff to lift the resident two inches from the surface to check the fit of the sling and weight distribution, slowly lift the resident, and gently support the resident as he/she was moved. The policy directed staff to disinfect slings between residents, wash and sanitize according to manufacturer's instructions. The facility failed to use an appropriate transfer lift sling during a full-body mechanical lift transfer. As a result, R6 slipped out of the sling, fell to the floor, and sustained a head laceration, a hematoma, and pain. - R14's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of fracture of neck of left femur (thigh bone), cerebral aneurysm (bulge or ballooning in a blood vessel in the brain), diabetes mellitus (disease in which the body's ability to produce or respond to the hormone insulin is impaired, resulting in abnormal metabolism of carbohydrates and elevated levels of glucose in the blood and urine), Alzheimer's disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), and anxiety. The Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], documented R14 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R14 required supervision for eating and limited staff assistance for transfers, walking, toileting, dressing and hygiene. R14 had unsteady balance, used a walker or wheelchair, and had one minor injury fall since prior the MDS. The Fall Care Plan, dated 11/4/22, directed staff to ensure sure her call light was within reach and encourage her to use it for assistance as needed. The resident needed prompt response to all requests for assistance. Staff would provide a safe environment with even floors free from spills and clutter; adequate, glare-free light; a working and reachable call light, the bed in low position at night; and personal items within reach. The 09/05/22 fall update (initiated 10/07/22) directed staff to provide a call light pendent for R14. The update for the fall 09/19/22, (initiated 9/22/22) directed staff to provide a motion alarm as R14 could not remember to call for assistance. The update after the 10/19/2022 fall (initiated 10/26/22) directed staff to provide a call light pendant (repeated from 10/07/22). The Fall Risk Assessments from 09/01/22 to 10/27/22 all documented R14 at high risk for falls. The Fall Note, dated 09/5/22 at 04:30 PM, documented staff heard the resident yell for help and found her on the floor just outside the bathroom door. R14 stated she was going back to bed. Bruises were noted to bilateral wrists and the back, right side of her head. The nurse notified the physician of the fall and the resident complaints of left leg/hip pain. The resident's head hurt, and she has a bruise to the back of her head. The physician ordered staff to send the resident to the hospital for evaluation. The hospital report, dated 09/05/22, documented diagnoses of contusion (bruise) of head and left hip from fall and the X-ray of R14's left hip documented no fracture. The re-admission from the hospital assessment, dated 09/12/22, documented R14 had a left hip fracture, and a motion alarm was in place related to resident confusion and hallucinations. The Fall Note, dated 09/19/22 at 03:25 PM, documented staff found R14 on the floor, laying on her right side, knees slightly bent. The resident was assessed with no obvious injury noted, but complained her tailbone hurt. The Fall Note, dated 10/19/22 at 10:30 AM, documented a dietary aide was passing menus to residents when she saw R14 attempt to sit down, but sat on the arm of the chair, lost her balance and fell to the floor. A standing floor alarm was in place and active. The resident fell onto right side of her body and hit the right side of her head. The physician ordered staff to send R14 to the emergency room as she was on blood thinners. On 12/29/22 at 07:53 AM, observation revealed R14 in bed and a motion alarm on. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M put her shoes on, used gait belt and walker with contact assistance to assist her to the toilet. R14 took small steady steps. Observation revealed non-skid strips on the floor in front of the toilet, carpet in bedroom, and a toilet riser with hand bars. On 01/04/23 at 08:50 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the lack of new appropriate fall prevention interventions after the 09/05/22 and 10/19/22 falls, placing R14 at risk for further falls. The facility Fall Managing policy, dated March 2018, documented staff would identify fall interventions based on previous evaluations and current data related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent falls. If falls recurs despite initial interventions staff would implement additional or different interventions or indicate why the approach remained relevant. The facility failed to provide relevant fall interventions to prevent further falls for R14, placing the resident at risk for falls with injury.
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 F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two reviewed for hospitalization. Based on obse...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents with two reviewed for hospitalization. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide bed hold notices for two sampled Residents (R) 1 and R30, or their representatives when the resident was sent to the hospital. This deficient practice placed R1 and R30 at risk to not be allowed to return to his/her former room at the facility. Findings included: - R1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), atrial fibrillation (irregular, often rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow), hypertension (high blood pressure), heart attack, and diabetes (disease in which the body's ability to produce or respond to the hormone insulin is impaired, resulting in abnormal metabolism of carbohydrates and elevated levels of glucose in the blood and urine). The 5 Day Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented R1 required supervision for eating and extensive assistance of two staff for transfers, dressing, mobility, toileting, and hygiene. The MDS documented R1 received scheduled pain meds, had almost constant pain, which limited her sleep and activities. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Care Plan, dated 12/09/22, documented R1 may not be as responsive when in pain and she has refused cares. The care plan directed staff to re-approach later. The resident required extensive assitance from one staff with showering, extensive staff assistance to turn and reposition in bed, dress, toileting, and requires a mechanical lift with two staff assistance for transfers. The EMR documented R1 was admitted to the hospital from [DATE] to 10/27/22. The facility did not provide R1 or her representative a Notice of Bed Hold to ensure she would be permitted to return to the facility following hospitalization. The EMR documented R1 was admitted to the hospital from [DATE] to 12/12/22. The facility did not provide R1 or her representative a Notice of Bed Hold to ensure she would be permitted to return to the facility following hospitalization. On 12/29/22 at 08:00 AM, observation revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) G obtained R1's vital signs. R1 appeared drowsy and received oxygen per nasal canula at four liters per minute (L/min). Her oxygen level was below normal at 88% and LN G increased the oxygen flow to five L/min. and the resident's level climbed to 91%. LN G stated the resident had not yet decided to use hospice services and her family was coming later today to talk to her some more about it. On 01/04/23 at 02:35 PM, Administrative Staff A verified the facility had not provided a Bed Hold Notice when the resident was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and on 12/08/22. The facility's Bed Holds and Returns policy, dated October 2022, stated all residents were provided written information regarding the facility and state bed-hold policies which address holding or reserving a resident's bed during periods of absence (hospitalization or therapeutic leave). Residents were to be provided written notice about these policies well in advance of any transfer and at the time of a transfer or within 24 hours. The facility failed to provide bed hold notices for R1, or her representative, when the resident was sent to the hospital two different times, placing R1 at risk to not be allowed to return to her former room at the facility. - R30's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of diabetes (disease in which the body's ability to produce or respond to the hormone insulin is impaired, resulting in abnormal metabolism of carbohydrates and elevated levels of glucose in the blood and urine), peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), heart failure, heart attack, generalized anxiety disorder, atrial fibrillation (irregular, often rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow), respiratory failure, and multiple fractures of the pelvis (large bony structure near the base of the spine to which the hind limbs or legs are attached in humans). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R30 required supervision for eating and extensive assistance of two staff for transfers, mobility, dressing, toileting, and hygiene. The Fall Care Plan, dated 12/08/22, documented R30 had a recent fall resulting in fractures of his pelvis and was currently unable to walk. The care plan directed staff to provide extensive assistance for toileting, transfers, ensure call light within reach and encourage him to use it for assistance. R30's EMR documented the resident admitted to a hospital from [DATE] to 09/23/22 for respiratory failure, and pneumonia (infection of the lungs). The facility did not provide R30 or his representative a Notice of Bed Hold to ensure he would be permitted to return to the facility following hospitalization. R30's EMR documented the resident admitted to a hospital from [DATE] to 12/02/22 after fall. The facility did not provide R30 or his representative a Notice of Bed Hold to ensure he would be permitted to return to the facility following hospitalization. On 12/28/22 at 03:05 PM, observation revealed R30 self-propelled his wheelchair to the dining room and went to a table to visit with another resident and play dominoes. On 01/04/23 at 02:35 PM, Administrative Staff A verified the facility had not provided a Bed Hold Notice when the resident discharged to the hospital 09/12/22 and on 11/29/22. The facility's Bed Holds and Returns policy, dated October 2022, stated all residents were provided written information regarding the facility and state bed-hold policies which address holding or reserving a resident's bed during periods of absence (hospitalization or therapeutic leave). Residents were to be provided written notice about these policies well in advance of any transfer and at the time of a transfer or within 24 hours. The facility failed to provide bed hold notices for R30, or his representative, when the resident was sent to the hospital two different times, placing R30 at risk to not be allowed to return to his former room at the facility.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to review and revise the care plan for Resident (R) 9 after falls and development of a pressure ulcer and R14 after falls. This placed the residents at risk for uncommunicated care needs. Findings included: - R9's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of congestive heart failure (chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should), lymphedema (localized swelling of the body caused by an abnormal accumulation of lymph), Alzheimer's disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), and generalized anxiety disorder (condition of excessive worry about everyday issues and situations). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R9 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented R9 required supervision for eating, extensive assistance of one staff for hygiene, and two staff with transfers, toileting, bed mobility, walking, and dressing. The Fall Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/07/22, documented R9 had functional limited Range of Motion (ROM) to both lower extremities, and limited ROM and hand-eye coordination. R9's balance was not steady, only able to stabilize with staff assistance, and the resident was non-ambulatory with use of a wheelchair and a walker for mobility. The resident had recent falls and was at risk for falls and injuries. The Fall Care Plan, dated 10/07/22, directed staff to ensure R9's call light pendant was within reach and staff would encourage him to use it for assistance as needed, and provide prompt response to all requests for assistance. The care plan directed staff to encourage R9 to wear nonskid socks at night to help keep him from sliding out of bed, and appropriate footwear when ambulating or mobilizing in his wheelchair. Staff would remind him to keep papers off of the floor, so he did not slip on them. Staff would follow facility fall protocol, keep floors free from spills or clutter, provide adequate, glare-free light, provide working and reachable call light, ensure handrails on walls, and keep personal items within reach. The care plan directed staff to keep the resident's chair with arms close to the wall so it did not get in the way when ambulating in the room. Staff would educate the resident to always keep shoes on when ambulating to prevent falls (repeat of earlier intervention). The care plan update on 09/07/2022 directed staff to provide a motion detector to alert staff for his safety. The care plan update on 09/20/22 directed staff to place a transfer poll beside his bed to help keep him steady. The care plan update on 11/04/22 (after the 10/14/22 fall) stated R9 could not be in his room alone while in his wheelchair. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Care Plan, dated 09/27/22, directed staff to provide assistance of one to two staff with transfers. The care plan lacked further instruction such as whether to use a gait belt, walker, wheelchair, etc. The Fall Note, dated 03/16/22 at 02:30 PM, documented R9 stated he took his call light pendant off because he was going to change his shirt. Staff educated the resident to always use his walker in his room and wear shoes to help prevent falls. The writer noted the call light pendant around the resident's neck. The Fall Note, dated 06/03/22 at 10:57 AM, documented staff updated the resident's care plan for orthostatic blood pressure twice a day throughout the weekend and to report to the physician on Monday if significant changes were noted. The Fall Note, dated 09/07/22 at 03:42 AM, documented the care plan was updated to direct staff to provide stand by assistance for transfers and ambulation. It would also be updated for him to have a motion detector as he was later found to be up without calling for assistance. The Fall Note, dated 09/14/22 at 09:50 PM, documented the nurse requested R9 (who had moderately impaired cognition) talk to his physician about what could be causing these falls. The Fall Note, dated 10/14/22 at 0712 AM, documented and intervention to get the resident a pendant so it could always be on him (care planned prior to 03/16/22). On 12/29/22 at 09:13 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) G and Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M used the sit to stand mechanical lift to transfer R9 from his wheelchair to his recliner. The resident's care plan lacked direction regarding the use of the sit to stand mechanical lift for R9. On 01/04/23 at 08:50 AM, Administrative Nurse D stated during a risk meeting they decided to ensure the resident had a new pendant call light as his had been lost. Administrative Nurse D verified the intervention of a pendant call light had already been care planned before and the use of a mechanical lift for transfers had not been care planned yet. The facility Fall Managing policy, dated March 2018, documented staff would identify fall interventions based on previous evaluations and current data related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent falls. If falls recurs despite initial interventions staff would implement additional or different interventions or indicate why the approach remained relevant. The facility failed to revise R9's care plan with relevant fall interventions to prevent further falls for R9, placing the resident at risk for continued falls or injury. - R14's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of fracture of neck of left femur (thigh bone), cerebral aneurysm (bulge or ballooning in a blood vessel in the brain), diabetes mellitus (disease in which the body's ability to produce or respond to the hormone insulin is impaired, resulting in abnormal metabolism of carbohydrates and elevated levels of glucose in the blood and urine), Alzheimer's disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), and anxiety. The Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], documented R14 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R14 required supervision for eating and limited staff assistance for transfers, walking, toileting, dressing and hygiene. R14 had unsteady balance, used a walker or wheelchair, and had one minor injury fall since prior the MDS. The Fall Care Plan, dated 11/4/22, directed staff to ensure sure her call light was within reach and encourage her to use it for assistance as needed. The resident needed prompt response to all requests for assistance. Staff would provide a safe environment with even floors free from spills and clutter; adequate, glare-free light; a working and reachable call light, the bed in low position at night; and personal items within reach. The 09/05/22 fall update (initiated 10/07/22) directed staff to provide a call light pendent for R14. The update for the fall 09/19/22, (initiated 9/22/22) directed staff to provide a motion alarm as R14 could not remember to call for assistance. The update after the 10/19/2022 fall (initiated 10/26/22) directed staff to provide a call light pendant (repeated from 10/07/22). The Fall Risk Assessments from 09/01/22 to 10/27/22 all documented R14 at high risk for falls. The Fall Note, dated 09/5/22 at 04:30 PM, documented staff heard the resident yell for help and found her on the floor just outside the bathroom door. R14 stated she was going back to bed. Bruises were noted to bilateral wrists and the back, right side of her head. The nurse notified the physician of the fall and the resident complaints of left leg/hip pain. The resident's head hurt, and she has a bruise to the back of her head. The physician ordered staff to send the resident to the hospital for evaluation. The hospital report, dated 09/05/22, documented diagnoses of contusion (bruise) of head and left hip from fall and the X-ray of R14's left hip documented no fracture. The re-admission from the hospital assessment, dated 09/12/22, documented R14 had a left hip fracture, and a motion alarm was in place related to resident confusion and hallucinations. The Fall Note, dated 09/19/22 at 03:25 PM, documented staff found R14 on the floor, laying on her right side, knees slightly bent. The resident was assessed with no obvious injury noted, but complained her tailbone hurt. The Fall Note, dated 10/19/22 at 10:30 AM, documented a dietary aide was passing menus to residents when she saw R14 attempt to sit down, but sat on the arm of the chair, lost her balance and fell to the floor. A standing floor alarm was in place and active. The resident fell onto right side of her body and hit the right side of her head. The physician ordered staff to send R14 to the emergency room as she was on blood thinners. On 12/29/22 at 07:53 AM, observation revealed R14 in bed and a motion alarm on. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M put her shoes on, used gait belt and walker with contact assistance to assist her to the toilet. R14 took small steady steps. Observation revealed non-skid strips on the floor in front of the toilet, carpet in bedroom, and a toilet riser with hand bars. On 01/04/23 at 08:50 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the lack of new appropriate fall prevention interventions after the 09/05/22 and 10/19/22 falls, placing R14 at risk for further falls. The facility failed to revise R14's care plan with relevant fall interventions to prevent further falls for R14, placing the resident at risk for further falls and injury.
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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with two reviewed for pressure ulcers (PU -injury t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with two reviewed for pressure ulcers (PU -injury to skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure on the skin). Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide care and services in a timely manner after the development of a pressure ulcer for one of two sampled Residents (R) 9. This placed the resident at risk for delayed healing and further pressure injury. Findings included: - R9's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of congestive heart failure (chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should), lymphedema (localized swelling of the body caused by an abnormal accumulation of lymph), Alzheimer's disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), unstageable pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss in which actual. depth of the ulcer is completely obscured by slough [yellow, tan, gray, green, or brown] and/or eschar [tan, brown, or black] in the wound bed) of right heel. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R9 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented R9 required supervision for eating, extensive assistance of one staff for hygiene, and two staff with transfers, toileting, bed mobility, walking, and dressing. The Fall Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 10/07/22, documented R9 had functional limited range of motion (ROM) to both lower extremities, and limited ROM and hand-eye coordination. R9's balance was not steady, only able to stabilize with staff assistance and non-ambulatory with use of a wheelchair and a walker for mobility. R9 had no recent falls but was at risk for falls and injuries. The Pressure Ulcer Care Area Assessment (CAA) documented R9 received hospice services and required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, dressing and toileting with frequent bladder incontinence. The Pressure Ulcer Care Plan, dated 10/07/22, documented R9 was at risk for pressure ulcers and other skin impairments due to occasional incontinence, and reduced skin integrity. The care plan update on 11/27/22 directed staff to educate the resident/family/caregivers as to causes of skin breakdown, which included: transfers, positioning requirements, importance of taking care during ambulating, mobility, good nutrition and frequent repositioning. Staff would teach resident/family the importance of changing positions for prevention of pressure ulcers and encourage small frequent position changes. The update also directed staff to provide a pressure reduction mattress on the bed, and float R9's heels while lying down. The update on 12/15/22 directed staff to provide weekly treatment documentation to include measurement of each area of skin breakdown's width, length, depth, type of tissue, and exudate (drainage) present. The Wound Assessment, dated 10/27/22, documented a right heel PU wound, which measured 4 centimeters (cm) by 4.5 cm x 0, with 100% necrotic (dead) tissue. The Progress Note, dated 10/29/22, documented staff cleansed R9's right heel PU and applied a new dressing. The note stated the open area on R9's heel was moist with yellow drainage and tenderness noted by the resident during cleaning and dressing. The note stated a boot was used over night to reduce pressure, and no shoe or support hose worn on that foot that day. The Physician Order, dated 11/03/22 (seven days after the PU was discovered), directed staff to ensure R9's heels were up on the blue pillow, while in bed, two times a day. The Physician Order, dated 11/04/22, directed staff to apply Betadine (antiseptic used for skin disinfection) to R9's right heel twice daily (BID), then cover with Opti-foam (foam dressing) during the day for protection; remove the dressing at night and re-apply betadine. The Physician Order, dated 11/16/22 (18 days after the PU discovered), directed staff to provide Vitamin C, 500 milligrams (mg) daily, and Arginaid Extra (ready-to-drink clear liquid supplement) twice daily. The Wound Assessment, dated 11/27/22 recorded the right heel PU wound 5 cm by 6.5 cm x 0.2 cm, with 35% necrotic tissue. The Registered Dietician Note, dated 11/30/22, documented R9 had a pressure ulcer on the right heel and the wound protocol in place was Vitamin C, multivitamin (MVI), and Arginaid. The Wound Assessment, dated 12/14/22 recorded the right heel PU wound 1.4 cm by 2.2 cm by 0.1 cm with surrounding tissue healed, no necrotic tissue, wound edges were dry and appeared intact. The Wound Assessment, dated 01/01/23, stated the right heel PU wound measured 2.3 cm by 1.3 cm by 0 cm. On 12/28/22 at 03:13 PM, observation revealed R9 in the recliner, in his room, feet elevated, and a blue foot protector on his right foot. On 01/03/22 at 04:15 PM observation revealed R9 sat in his recliner with his feet elevated, and the right foot with a blue pressure reduction boot on. Licensed Nurse (LN) G treated R9's right heel PU, which had minimal drainage, no redness, no odor or swelling. On 01/04/23 at 08:50 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified staff should start interventions immediately upon discovery of a pressure area. She verified the lack of documentation staff notified the physician the day the PU was found. Administrative Nurse D stated staff placed the Betadine care order and to float heels on the treatment record 11/04/22, but did not add the heel protectors and mattress to the care plan until 11/10/22. Administrative Nurse D stated hospice staff ordered the Arginaid and Vitamin C. Administrative Nurse D verified the physician did not sign PU care orders until 11/15/22. The facility did not provide a policy for pressure ulcer prevention as requested on 01/04/22. The facility failed to provide care and services in a timely manner after the development of a pressure ulcer for R9 who developed an unstageable pressure ulcer. This placed the resident at risk for delayed healing and further pressure injury.
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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store oxygen cannulas (a lightweight tube with two prongs which are placed in the nostrils from which a mixture of air and oxygen flows) and tubing in sanitary condition for Resident (R) 13 and R11, and [NAME] dto ensure R11 received the correct oxygen flow setting. This placed the residents at risk for respiratory infection and insufficient oxygen level. Findings included: - R11's Physician Order Sheet (POS), documented diagnoses of chronic obstruction pulmonary disease (COPD -progressive and irreversible condition characterized by diminished lung capacity and difficulty or discomfort in breathing), hypoxemia (abnormal deficiency in the concentration of oxygen in arterial blood), dependence on supplemental oxygen, and heart failure. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R11 had intact cognition, required supervision and one staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADL), R11 used a walker and wheelchair for mobility. The ADL Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 05/25/22, documented R11 had COPD, heart failure, and had dependence of oxygen. The 12/02/22 Oxygen Care Plan, dated 12/02/22, documented R11 on oxygen therapy. The care plan directed staff to ensure oxygen tubing, canaster, and other supplies were labeled/bagged/changed to reduce the risk of infections. The Physician Order, dated 11/19/22, directed staff to change oxygen tubing and clean the concentrator every Saturday for maintenance. On 01/03/23 at 11:48 AM, R11 was observed in the exercise activity, independently ambulatory with walker, and groomed appropriately. On 01/04/23 at 09:13 AM, R11 reported being a lazy breather. R11 explained she required oxygen when seated at rest and while she slept and was able to keep her oxygen levels up while walking or in activities. The oxygen machine located behind her recliner had a clear plastic bag, not labeled with a date or resident name, and appeared soiled. R11 reported the staff changed the tubing and bag whenever they got too it, and not on a routine basis. On 01/04/22 at 10:33 AM Administrative Nurse D stated the oxygen tubing and bag should be changed and labeled weekly. The facility's Oxygen Administration-Respiratory Therapy Prevention of Infection policy, dated 10/2010, documented the purpose of the procedure was to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration and prevention of infections associated with respiratory therapy tasks and equipment. The policy documented to change the oxygen cannula and tubing every seven days or as needed and keep the oxygen cannula and tubing in a plastic bag when not in use. The facility failed to properly change and store oxygen equipment in a sanitary manner which placed R11 at risk for infection and respiratory complications. - R13's Physician Order Sheet (POS) documented diagnoses of dependence on supplemental oxygen, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (inadequate supply of oxygen), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD -progressive and irreversible condition characterized by diminished lung capacity and difficulty or discomfort in breathing), and heart failure. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated 12/05/22, documented R13 had moderately impaired cognition, was independent to supervision with activities of daily living (ADL), had chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia as primary medical condition, and used oxygen. The ADL Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 09/26/22, documented R13 required oxygen. The Oxygen Care Plan dated 12/28/22, documented R13 had oxygen therapy related to chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (excessive carbon dioxide in the bloodstream typically caused by inadequate respiration) and hypoxia. The care plan further documented the oxygen setting was ordered at two liters via nasal cannula (a lightweight tube with two prongs which are placed in the nostrils from which a mixture of air and oxygen flows). The Physician Order, dated 03/05/22, documented the resident required an oxygen setting at one or two liters via nasal cannula for oxygen saturations above 88 percent (%). The Physician Order, dated 07/17/21, directed staff to change oxygen tubing and clean filter in the oxygen concentrator every week for maintenance. On 01/04/22 at 09:11 AM, observation revealed R13 seated in his recliner. R13 had oxygen in place via nasal cannula with a setting at four liter. The tubing storage bag was attached to the concentrator with a 07/21/22 date written on it, and a wheelchair with oxygen tubing and an uncovered/unbagged nasal cannula wrapped around a portable oxygen tank. On 01/04/22 at 08:45 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN I) reported it was the staff's responsibility to check the oxygen settings and LN I verified the oxygen level had been set to four liters. R13 responded the setting should be set on two liters. On 01/04/22 at 10:33 AM Administrative Nurse D stated the oxygen tubing and bag should be changed and labeled weekly and oxygen setting should be set at physician orders. The facility's Oxygen Administration-Respiratory Therapy Prevention of Infection policy, dated 10/2010, documented the purpose of the procedure was to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration and prevention of infections associated with respiratory therapy tasks and equipment. The policy documented to change the oxygen cannula and tubing every seven days or as needed and keep the oxygen cannula and tubing [NAME] plastic bag when not in use. The facility failed to properly change and store oxygen in a sanitary manner and failed to ensure the correct flow rate which placed R13 at risk for infection and respiratory complications.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents, of which five were reviewed for unnecessary medicat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents, of which five were reviewed for unnecessary medication. Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported the lack of a stop date for the use of an as needed antianxiety (class of medications that calm and relax people with excessive anxiety, nervousness, or tension) medication and documentation of targeted behaviors for the use of antianxiety and antipsychotic (class of medications used to treat psychosis (any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality testing)) and other mental emotional conditions) medications for Resident (R) 16, and lack of behavior monitoring and weekly vital signs for R10. This deficient practice placed R16 and R10 at risk for inappropriate use of antianxiety, antipsychotic, and blood pressure medication. Findings included: - R16's Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 09/29/22, documented diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure) with early onset, bipolar disorder (major mental illness that caused people to have episodes of severe high and low moods), dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) without behavioral disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety, and psychotic disturbance. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R16 had severe cognitive impairment, had physical and verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others, and wandering during the look back period. The MDS further documented R16 received an antipsychotic, antianxiety, and an antidepressant on a routine basis. The Psychotropic Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 08/15/22, documented R16 had Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion caused by a decreased blood flow to the brain) with behavioral disturbance, insomnia (inability to sleep) and bipolar disorder. R16 took mirtazapine (antidepressant) for insomnia, risperidone (antipsychotic) for neurocognitive (decreased mental function due to a medical disease other than a psychiatric illness) disorder with behavioral disturbance, and Xanax (antianxiety medication) for anxiety. The CAA further documented R16 was at risk for adverse consequences due to medication use. The Medication Care Plan, dated 11/04/22, documented R16 as at risk for medication adverse reactions related to Black Box Warnings for Risperdal, Xanax, and mirtazapine, and to monitor for possible signs and symptoms, which included: falls, weight loss, fatigue agitation, depression, lethargy, unsteadiness, confusion, poor appetite, constipation, diarrhea, bruising, red eyes, and to notify the charge nurse. The care further documented the CP would be review medications monthly. The Physician Order, dated 08/30/22, directed staff to administer risperidone 0.5 milligrams (mg) every morning and at bedtime for neurocognitive disorder with behavioral disturbance. The Physician Order, dated 08/04/22, directed staff to administer Xanax 0.25 mg two times a day for anxiety. The Physician Order, dated 11/18/22, directed staff to administer Xanax 0.25 mg every 24 hours as needed for increased anxiety/behaviors, and may be used to help induce sleep. The order lacked a stop date. The Pharmacy Reviews lacked evidence the CP identified and reported the lack of a stop date for the use of as needed psychotropic medication and the lack of targeted behavior monitoring related with the use of Xanax, as needed Xanax, and risperidone. On 01/03/23 at 09:10 AM observation revealed R16 checked her room with the housekeeping staff cleaning R16's room. R16 was independently mobile. R16 expressed concern over another resident coughing, and the staff reassured R16 the other resident was all right. On 01/04/23 at 10:36 AM, Administrative Nurse D, verified the Xanax order did not have a 14 day stop date. Administrative Nurse D stated targeted behaviors for the use of psychotropic medications should be on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) and verified the facility lacked targeted behavior monitoring on the resident's TAR. The facility's Pharmacy Services-Role of the Consultant Pharmacist policy, dated 04/2019, documented the Consultant Pharmacist would provide specific activities related to medication regimen of each resident at least monthly, or more frequently under certain conditions, based on the applicable federal and state guidelines: Appropriate communication of information to prescribers and facility leadership about potential of actual problems related to any aspect of medications and pharmacy services, including medication irregularities, and pertinent resident-specific documentation in the medical record as indicated. The facility failed to ensure the CP identified and reported to the Director of Nursing, medical director, and the physician, the lack of a stop date for as needed Xanax and the lack of monitoring of target behaviors with the use of routine Xanax and risperidone, which placed R16 at risk for inappropriate use of psychotropic medications. - R10's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), obesity (condition of being overweight), and anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R10 had verbal and other behaviors, was independent with walking, and required supervision for eating, transfers, bed mobility, and limited assistance of one staff for dressing, toileting, and hygiene. The Medication Care Plan, dated 11/26/22, directed staff to observe for medication adverse reactions related to Lisinopril (antihypertensive) and give anti-hypertensive medications as ordered. Staff would monitor for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension and increased heart rate and effectiveness. The Physician Order, dated 11/29/21, directed staff to administer Lisinopril, 40 milligrams (mg) daily. The order included parameters for notification to the physician: If the systolic blood pressure (top number) was less than 90 or greater than 200 and if the diastolic blood pressure (lower number) was less than 50 or greater than 110. R10's EMR showed the last two blood pressures were documented in June 2022 and December 2022. The Pharmacy Reviews lacked evidence the CP identified the lack of blood pressures. On 12/29/22 at 08:24 AM, observation revealed R10 sat calmly waiting until Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R got his medications out. CMA R obtained R10's blood pressure, pulse, and oxygen level before administering his medications. R 10 took the pills whole without problem. On 01/04/23 at 11:45 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) J stated the blood pressure parameters in place for the resident were to notify the physician if the resident's blood pressure was less than 90 or over 200 systolic, and less than 50 or greater than 110 diastolic. LN J verified the lack of documentation of weekly blood pressures. On 01/04/23 at 12:00 PM, CMA R stated staff did not document R10's blood pressures weekly. She stated she obtained his blood pressure when giving medications routinely, just for her own information, but R10 did not like it and told her the other nurses did not check his blood pressure. On 01/04/23 at 12:01 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified staff should have obtained R10's vital signs weekly as ordered. The facility's Pharmacy Services-Role of the Consultant Pharmacist policy, dated 04/2019, documented the Consultant Pharmacist would provide specific activities related to medication regimen of each resident at least monthly, or more frequently under certain conditions, based on the applicable federal and state guidelines: Appropriate communication of information to prescribers and facility leadership about potential of actual problems related to any aspect of medications and pharmacy services, including medication irregularities, and pertinent resident-specific documentation in the medical record as indicated. The facility failed to ensure the CP identified and reported the lack of weekly vital signs as ordered by the physician to monitor the efficacy of R10's blood pressure medication, placing R10 at risk for adverse effects related to the lack of monitoring.
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 F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary drugs. Based on ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary drugs. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to obtain weekly vital signs as ordered by the physician to monitor the efficacy of Resident (R) 10's blood pressure medication. This deficient practice placed R10 at risk for adverse effects of his medication. Findings included: - R10's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), obesity (condition of being overweight), and anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R10 had verbal and other behaviors, was independent with walking, and required supervision for eating, transfers, bed mobility, and limited assistance of one staff for dressing, toileting, and hygiene. The Medication Care Plan, dated 11/26/22, directed staff to observe for medication adverse reactions related to Lisinopril (antihypertensive) and give anti-hypertensive medications as ordered. Staff would monitor for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension and increased heart rate and effectiveness. The Physician Order, dated 11/29/21, directed staff to administer Lisinopril, 40 milligrams (mg) daily. The order included parameters for notification to the physician: If the systolic blood pressure (top number) was less than 90 or greater than 200 and if the diastolic blood pressure (lower number) was less than 50 or greater than 110. R10's EMR showed the last two blood pressures were documented in June 2022 and December 2022. On 12/29/22 at 08:24 AM, observation revealed R10 sat calmly waiting until Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R got his medications out. CMA R obtained R10's blood pressure, pulse, and oxygen level before administering his medications. R 10 took the pills whole without problem. On 01/04/23 at 11:45 AM, Licensed Nurse (LN) J stated the blood pressure parameters in place for the resident were to notify the physician if the resident's blood pressure was less than 90 or over 200 systolic, and less than 50 or greater than 110 diastolic. LN J verified the lack of documentation of weekly blood pressures. On 01/04/23 at 12:00 PM, CMA R stated staff did not document R10's blood pressures weekly. She stated she obtained his blood pressure when giving medications routinely, just for her own information, but R10 did not like it and told her the other nurses did not check his blood pressure. On 01/04/23 at 12:01 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified staff should have obtained R10's vital signs weekly as ordered. The facility Medication and Treatment Orders policy, dated July 2016, documented drug and biological orders would be written, dated, and signed by the person lawfully authorized to give such an order. The facility failed to obtain weekly vital signs as ordered by the physician to monitor the efficacy of R10's blood pressure medication, placing R10 at risk for adverse effects related to the lack of monitoring.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Bas...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents, with five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)16's as needed antianxiety (class of medications that calm and relax people with excessive nervousness, or tension) medication had a stop date as required and further failed to ensure targeted behavior monitoring for the use of antianxiety and antipsychotic (class of medications used to treat psychosis (any major mental disorder characterized by a gross impairment in reality testing and other mental emotional conditions)) medication use. R10 also lacked behavior monitoring for the use of mood altering medication and antipsychotic medication, and lacked a gradual dose reduction for an antidepressant (medication used to treat abnormal emotional state characterized by exaggerated feelings of sadness, worthlessness, emptiness and hopelessness). This deficient practice placed R16 and R10 at risk for adverse side effects related to psychotropic medication use. Finding included: - R16's Physician Order Sheet (POS), dated 09/29/22, documented diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration characterized by confusion and memory failure) with early onset, bipolar disorder (major mental illness that caused people to have episodes of severe high and low moods), dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion) without behavioral disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety, and psychotic disturbance. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented R16 had severe cognitive impairment, had physical and verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others, and wandering during the look back period. The MDS further documented R16 received an antipsychotic, antianxiety, and an antidepressant on a routine basis. The Psychotropic Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 08/15/22, documented R16 had Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia (a progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory and confusion caused by a decreased blood flow to the brain) with behavioral disturbance, insomnia (inability to sleep) and bipolar disorder. R16 took risperidone (antipsychotic) for neurocognitive (decreased mental function due to a medical disease other than a psychiatric illness) disorder with behavioral disturbance and Xanax (antianxiety) for anxiety. The CAA further documented R16 was at risk for adverse consequences due to medication use. The Medication Care Plan, dated 11/04/22, documented R16 at risk for medication adverse reactions related to Black Box Warnings for Risperdal (medication to treat psychosis), Xanax (medication used to treat anxiety), and mirtazapine (medication used to treat depression), and to monitor for possible signs and symptoms, which included: falls, weight loss, fatigue agitation, depression, lethargy, unsteadiness, confusion, poor appetite, constipation, diarrhea, bruising, red eyes, and to notify the charge nurse. The care plan further documented the CP would be review medications monthly. The Physician Order, dated 08/30/22, directed staff to administer risperidone 0.5 milligrams (mg) every morning and at bedtime for neurocognitive (decreased mental function due to a medical disease other than a psychiatric illness) disorder with behavioral disturbance. The Physician Order, dated 08/04/22, directed staff to administer Xanax 0.25 mg two times a day for anxiety. The Physician Order, dated 11/18/22, directed staff to administer Xanax 0.25 mg every 24 hours as needed for increased anxiety/behaviors, and may be used to help induce sleep. The order lacked a stop date. On 01/03/23 at 09:10 AM observation revealed R16 checked her room with the housekeeping staff. R16 was independently mobile and expressed concern over another resident coughing. Staff present offered R16 reassurance about the other resident. On 01/04/23 at 10:36 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified the Xanax order did not have a 14 day stop date. Administrative Nurse D stated target behaviors for the use of psychotropic medications should be on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) and verified the facility lacked targeted behavior monitoring on the TAR for R16. The facility's Psychotropic Medication Use policy, dated 07/2022, documented R16 who have used psychotropic medication to be necessary to treat a specific condition, and as needed orders for psychotropic medication are limited to 14 days or the attending physician would document the rationale for extending the use and include duration for the as needed order. The policy further documented consideration of the use of any psychotropic medication is based on comprehensive review of the resident. This included evaluation of the resident's signs and symptoms in order to identify underlying causes. The facility failed to ensure R16 as needed antianxiety medication had a stop date as required and behavior monitoring for the use of antianxiety ad antipsychotic medications, which placed R16 at risk for adverse side effects related to psychotropic medication use. - R10's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder (condition where symptoms of both psychotic and mood disorders are present together during one episode), borderline personality disorder (characterized by severe mood swings, impulsive behavior, and difficulty forming stable personal relationships) and anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS documented R10 had verbal and other behaviors, was independent with walking, and required supervision for eating, transfers, bed mobility, and limited assistance of one staff for dressing, toileting, and hygiene. The MDS documented R10 received antidepressant and antipsychotic medications seven days of the lookback period. The Psychotropic Drug Use Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 11/22/22, documented R10 received Abilify (antipsychotic) for psychosis (severe mental condition in which thought, and emotions are so affected that contact is lost with external reality), bupropion (antidepressant) and Zoloft (antidepressant) for depression. The Medication Care Plan, dated 11/26/22, directed staff to monitor for medication adverse reactions related to the Black Box Warnings (highest adverse effect warnings) of the following medications: bupropion, Zoloft, Depakote, and Abilify. Black Box Warnings for all listed drugs could be found in the physician orders and the electronic Medication Administration Record (MAR). Obtain and monitor lab work as ordered, report results to the physician and follow up as indicated. Staff would administer antidepressant medications as ordered by physician, monitor/document side effects and effectiveness every shift. Staff would administer psychotropic medications as ordered by physician, monitor for side effects and effectiveness every shift. Consult with pharmacist and physician to consider dosage reduction when clinically appropriate. The Behavior Care Plan directed staff to administer medications as ordered, monitor and document for side effects and effectiveness and monitor, document, and report any changes in cognitive function. The resident's Physician Orders included the following medications: Abilify, 5 milligrams (mg) twice daily. Bupropion ER (extended release) 150 mg, twice daily. Depakote (mood stabilizer), 500 mg, three times daily Zoloft 100 mg daily. The EMR lacked routine behavior monitoring for psychotropic and antidepressant medication ordered for a specific condition. The Pharmacist Reviews documented no recommendations for 02/18/22, 03/17/22, 04/14/22, 05/18/22, 07/19/22, 08/23/22, 09/21/22, 10/14/22, and 12/28/22. The Pharmacist Review, dated 06/21/22, recommended a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) for Abilify, bupropion, and Zoloft. The physician wrote patient stable at this time medication changes will cause more of an issue for him than help. The Pharmacist Review, dated 11/3/22, recommended GDRs for bupropion and Zoloft which the physician declined, but provided no rationale for the continued use of the antidepressants. On 12/29/22 at 08:24 AM, observation revealed R10 sat calmly waiting until Certified Medication Aide (CMA) R got his medications out. CMA R obtained R10's blood pressure, pulse, and oxygen level before administering his medications. R 10 took the pills whole without problem. On 01/04/23 at 12:01 PM, Administrative Nurse D verified a lack of rationale for no GDR of psychotropic drugs and stated the consultant pharmacist had not notified her of the need for a rationale. The facility's Psychotropic Medication Use policy, dated 07/2022, documented R16 who have used psychotropic medication to be necessary to treat a specific condition, and as needed orders for psychotropic medication are limited to 14 days or the attending physician would document the rationale for extending the use and include duration for the as needed order. The policy further documented consideration of the use of any psychotropic medication is based on comprehensive review of the resident. This included evaluation of the resident's signs and symptoms in order to identify underlying causes. The facility failed to routinely monitor R10 for the use of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications, and failed to attempt a GDR or provide a rationale from the physician, which placed R16 at risk for adverse side effects related to psychotropic medication use.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary con...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility had a census of 36 residents. The sample included 12 residents. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary condition for 36 residents who resided in the facility and received meals from the facility kitchen, placing them at risk for food borne illness. Findings included: - On 12/28/22 at 08:10 AM, during initial tour of the kitchen observations revealed the following: In the three-door stainless steel refrigerator in the kitchen had a large container of low-fat cottage cheese with a use by date of 12/15/22 and one and a half large blocks of cream cheese with a use by date of 11/05/22. Dietary Staff (DS) BB removed the items and discarded them. The east nurse's station commons area black residential refrigerator had an uncovered bowl of white gravy and fruit, and a small container of sour cream with a use by date of 12/24/22. Items were discarded by staff. The facility Food Receiving and Storage policy, dated 11/2022, documented all foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer would be covered, labeled, and dated (use by date). Date would be monitored so they were used by their use by date date, frozen, or discarded. Foods and snacks kept on nursing units would be labeled with use by date. All foods belonging to residents are to be labeled with the resident's name, the item, and the use by date. Partially eaten food is not kept in the refrigerator. The facility failed to store, prepare, and serve, food under sanitary conditions for 36 residents who receive meals prepared in the facility's kitchen, placing the residents at risk for food borne illness.
Jun 2021 2 deficiencies
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 census totaled 35 residents with five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on interview and record...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility census totaled 35 residents with five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure two of five resident (R)15 had labs drawn to monitor the Vitamin B-12 level requested per the pharmacy recommendation. R(24) the facility failed to follow the pharmacist recommendation. Findings included: - Review of the Pharmacy Medication Record Review (MRR) dated 12/17/20, 02/27/21 and 04/25/21 documented the Consultant Pharmacist recommended a Vitamin B12 lab be drawn annually. Review of R15's labs revealed the last Vitamin B12 level drawn was on 11/27/19. During an interview on 06/07/21 at 02:40 PM with Administrative Nurse A revealed R15 admitted to the facility with an order for a Vitamin B12 lab and was unsure why the order was not on the current physician's orders. Administrative Nurse A revealed she was unsure why the facility failed to review the order with the pharmacist or physician and was unable to give an explanation as to why the order was missed. Review of the Medication Regimen Reviews policy last revised May 2019 revealed the pharmacist was required to provide at least monthly reviews to the Physician and Director of Nursing. The attending Physician would document in the medical record what (if any) action was taken to address the pharmacy recommendation. Findings included: - Review of R24's Physician's Orders Electronic Medical Record included a diagnosis of Congestive Heart Failure (CHF; a condition with low heart output and the body becomes congested with fluid), Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD; major mood disorder), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD; progressive and irreversible condition characterized by diminished lung capacity and difficulty or discomfort in breathing), Diabetes Mellitus (DM; when the body cannot use glucose, not enough insulin made or the body cannot respond to the insulin) Chronic pain, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD; gradual loss of kidney function), Hypertension (HTN; elevated blood pressure), Mood Disorder, Dementia (progressive mental disorder characterized by failing memory, confusion), Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD; abnormal condition affecting the blood vessel), Emphysema (long-term, progressive disease of the lungs characterized by shortness of breath), Epilepsy (brain disorder characterized by repeated seizures), Hydronephrosis (A condition characterized by excess fluid in a kidney due to a backup of urine) A review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 14, indicating intact cognition. R24 had a total severity score of eight, indicating mild depression. R24 received as needed (PRN) pain medication, as well as six out of the seven day observation period of insulin, antidepressants (class of medications used to treat mood disorders and relieve symptoms of depression), diuretics (medication to promote the formation and excretion of urine and opioids (class of drug used to treat moderate to severe pain). R24 received seven out of the seven-day observation period of antibiotics, but did not receive any antipsychotics (class of medications used to treat psychosis and other mental emotional conditions). A review of the Pain Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 05/14/21, documented R24 was in almost constant pain, which caused limitation in day to day activities. Review of the Psychotropic Drug Use CAA dated 01/27/21 documented R24 received several antidepressants for depression and insomnia with PRN antianxiety medication. Review of the Quarterly MDS dated 04/21/21 documented a BIMS of 14, indicating intact cognition. R24 received insulin, antianxiety, diuretics, and antidepressants seven out of the seven day observation period. R28 also received two of out seven days of antibiotics but did not receive any antipsychotics. The review of the Care Plan, revised on 01/29/21, documented staff was to administer medications as ordered and document any side effects and effectiveness. Staff was to monitor R24 for possible signs and symptoms related to the use of antidepressants and antianxiety medication. All medications were to be reviewed by the pharmacy consultant monthly and a physician every 60 days. Review of the Medication Regimen Review (MRR) and Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) regarding Resident (R) 24 documented the following: On the 11/2020 MRR and GDR, the consultant pharmacist recommended to discontinue the following supplements: Vitamin C, Calcium 600mg, Cranberry 450mg, Lutein 20mg, and Vitamin D 2000IU. The consultant pharmacist also suggested reviewing all non-comfort medications for potential side effects and potential comfort benefits. The consultant pharmacist also recommended that Citalopram be considered for a GDR from 40mg to 20mg daily for depression. Review of the resident's record lacked evidence the facility acted upon this recommendation. On 01/2021, MRR and GDR, the consultant pharmacist recommended that Senna and Colace be discontinued (stopped) and replaced with Senna S 8.6mg-50mg tablet, 2 tablets by mouth each night at bedtime for constipation; hold if loose stools or diarrhea occurs. Review of the resident's record lacked evidence the facility acted upon this recommendation. An interview on 06/08/21 at 01:56 PM with Administrative Nurse A revealed she expected the consultant pharmacist to complete all recommendations and that all recommendations made are acted upon promptly and correctly. Review of the facility's Medication Regimen Review policy revised 05/2019 documented that if the facility did not receive a timely response from the physician, they would contact the Medical Director or the Administrator. The physician would document in the medical record that any irregularities found [by the consultant pharmacist], had been reviewed and what action (if any) was taken to address it. The facility failed to follow up on the consultant pharmacist recommendations for R24 timely.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility census totaled 35 residents with 12 included in the sample. Based on observation and interview the facility failed to remove two vials of Tubersol (Tuberculin purified Protein) one with a...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility census totaled 35 residents with 12 included in the sample. Based on observation and interview the facility failed to remove two vials of Tubersol (Tuberculin purified Protein) one with an expiration date of 02/21/21 and one vial with no open date noted in one of two medications rooms reviewed for outdated medications. Interview with Administrative Nurse A on 06/08/21 at 1:02 PM revealed they expected the nursing staff to place an open date upon the vial (tubersol) and remove medications when expired. The facility policy Storage of Medications revised date April 2007 revealed Medication requiring refrigeration must be stored in a refrigerator located in the drug room at the nurses' station or secured location. Medications must be stored separately from food and must be labeled accordingly. The facility shall not use discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals. The facility failed to remove expired medications vials of (Tubersol) from one of the two medication rooms.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • 18 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $37,895 in fines. Higher than 94% of Kansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (25/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 25/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Sterling Village's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns STERLING VILLAGE 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 Sterling Village Staffed?

CMS rates STERLING VILLAGE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Sterling Village?

State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at STERLING VILLAGE during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 16 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Sterling Village?

STERLING VILLAGE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 45 certified beds and approximately 31 residents (about 69% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in STERLING, Kansas.

How Does Sterling Village Compare to Other Kansas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kansas, STERLING VILLAGE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (56%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Sterling Village?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Sterling Village Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Sterling Village Stick Around?

Staff turnover at STERLING VILLAGE is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the Kansas average of 46%. 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 Sterling Village Ever Fined?

STERLING VILLAGE has been fined $37,895 across 2 penalty actions. The Kansas average is $33,458. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Sterling Village on Any Federal Watch List?

STERLING VILLAGE is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.