Rosedale Green

4250 Glenn Avenue, Covington, KY 41015 (859) 431-2244
Non profit - Corporation 171 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
50/100
#183 of 266 in KY
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Rosedale Green in Covington, Kentucky, has a Trust Grade of C, indicating average performance, which places it in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #183 out of 266 facilities in Kentucky, meaning it is in the bottom half of statewide options, but is #4 out of 8 in Kenton County, so only one local facility is rated higher. The facility is improving, as it reduced its issues from 6 in 2019 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is average, with a rating of 3 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 50%, which is around the state average, but it has concerning RN coverage, with less than 1% of facilities having lower RN support. While there have been no fines recorded, some serious incidents were noted, including a failure to implement a care plan for a resident requiring assistance during transfers, and lapses in infection control practices, such as not cleaning shared equipment between uses. Overall, while Rosedale Green has shown improvement and has no fines, families should be mindful of the staffing levels and specific incidents that could affect resident care.

Trust Score
C
50/100
In Kentucky
#183/266
Bottom 32%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
6 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
50% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kentucky facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 13 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Kentucky. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
10 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2019: 6 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Kentucky average (2.8)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 50%

Near Kentucky avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) memorandum, and facility policy review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) memorandum, and facility policy review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Observations revealed the facility failed to clean the mechanical lift after use for two of three sampled residents, Resident (R) 1 and R117. Also, R117 had a wound requiring dressing changes but was not in Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Control Policies & Procedures, dated 01/08/2025, revealed shared resident equipment should be disinfected between resident use. Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, reviewed/revised 02/05/2025, stated chronic wounds (e.g. wounds that were not following their healing trajectory as determined by the wound care provider), and according to the new regulations effective 04/01/2024, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) were to be implemented for wounds and/or indwelling medical devices even if the resident was not known to be infected or colonized with a multi-drug resistant organism (MDRO). Per the policy, wounds generally included chronic wounds, not shorter-lasting wounds, such as skin breaks or skin tears covered with an adhesive bandage. The policy stated the regulations did not give exceptions for wounds that were following their healing trajectory. Review of the CMS Center for Clinical Standards and Quality/Quality, Safety & Oversight Group Ref: QSO-24-08-NH, dated 03/20/2024 and effective 04/01/2024, Enhanced Barrier Precautions in Nursing Homes, revealed Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) use was recommended for residents with chronic wounds, not shorter-lasting wounds, such as skin breaks or skin tears covered with an adhesive bandage or similar dressing. The memo also stated chronic wound examples included, but were not limited to, pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, unhealed surgical wounds, and venous stasis ulcers. Review of the list provided by the facility Dressing Changes, not dated, revealed R117 required a dressing change. However, review of the list provided by the facility Resident Enhanced Barrier Precautions [EBP], updated 04/16/2025, revealed R117 was not on the list as being on EBP. 1. Review of R1's 'Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/20/2006 with diagnoses of urinary tract infection, anxiety, and dementia. Review of R1's annual Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/07/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of 99, which indicated R1 was unable to complete the interview. Review of R1's Care Plan, dated 03/26/2025, revealed, I am colonized by a Multi-Drug-Resistant Organism (MDRO); therefore, I am on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. The problem start date was 10/14/2024 with an edited date of 04/02/2025 with the intervention listed Utilize ENHANCED BARRIER PRECAUTIONS during high-risk resident care activities. (Dressing, bathing, transfers, toileting, hygiene, changing linen, and during any wound or medical device care). Observation on 04/14/2025 at 2:10 PM revealed State Trained Nursing Assistant (STNA) 1 was observed coming out of R1's room with a mechanical lift who had an Enhanced Barrier Sign posted outside the door. STNA1 placed the mechanical lift into the storage room without disinfection after use. During an interview on 04/14/2025 at 2:10 PM with STNA1, she stated the mechanical lifts got cleaned once a shift, and she was unsure what the policy stated. During an interview on 04/16/2025 at 9:30 AM with STNA6, she stated mechanical lifts should be cleaned before and after each use with purple top Sani-Wipes (a disinfectant wipe) to prevent the spread of infection. During an interview on 04/16/2025 at 9:32 AM with STNA7, she stated mechanical lifts should be cleaned with Sani-Wipes between each resident use for resident safety. 2. Review of R117's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/10/2023 with diagnoses to include cellulitis of left toe, dementia, and bursitis of the left hip. Review of 117's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 03/29/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of 99, which indicated R117 was unable to complete the interview. Review of R117's Progress Note, dated 03/05/2025, revealed, Patient is currently on a course of Keflex for cellulitis of her left great toe. Her Keflex was extended by wound NP [Nurse Practitioner]. This is a chronic vascular wound. Review of R117's Progress Note, dated 04/15/2025, revealed, Open wound of left great toe, Osteomyelitis of great toe. Plan continue Xeroform dressing daily. Observation on 04/15/2025 at 10:22 AM, revealed STNA4 dressed R117 in pants and a blouse wearing only gloves. Further observation of R117 revealed she had a gauze bandage that was taped to her left great toe. The gauze had a brown colored spot at the tip of the toe, approximately a one-half inch oval shape. STNA4 then used the sit-to-stand lift to transfer R117 to the wheelchair, using the lift pad. Continued observation revealed, after she transferred R117, she removed her gloves and sanitized her hands. She then placed the lift pad on the lift and took the lift to the tub room on the 300 Unit. STNA4 did not disinfect the lift pad or the lift. Observation also revealed there was no EBP signage on R117's door. During interview with STNA4 after the observation, she stated she should have cleaned the lift with a Sani-Wipe. She stated she also should have hung the lift pad on a hook in the shower room. During interview with the Infection Preventionist on 04/17/2025 at 8:42 AM, she stated the mechanical lifts were to be cleaned before and after use. She also said she was involved in updating the infection control policies. During interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 04/15/2025 at 2:17 PM, she stated staff wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when residents were on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) only when they were providing care for residents. She stated EBP were for residents who had any portal of entry, chronic wounds, or Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms (MDRO). She further stated residents who had wounds that were following their healing trajectory as determined by the wound care provider, did not need to be in EBP. During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/15/2025 at 2:20 PM, she stated only residents with wounds that were chronic and not healing needed to be in EBP. She stated residents who had wounds that were healing did not need to be in EBP. She stated she thought that was what the policy said. During additional interview with the DON on 04/17/2025 at 8:11 AM, she stated she expected staff to disinfect mechanical lifts after use. She stated she received new information, dated 09/2022, on EBP. She stated EBP were to be in place for certain high contact tasks, as listed on the EBP poster. She stated EBP was in place for those who were colonized with MDROs, any indwelling device, and any chronic wounds that were not following their healing trajectory. During interview with the Administrator on 04/17/2025 at 10:55 AM, she stated it was her expectation that staff followed the facility's policy and procedures for EBP. The Administrator stated she expected staff to clean/disinfect the mechanical lifts after each resident use. She also stated the EBP policy was updated when new guidance came out. She stated she and the Administrator at the sister facility,who was a Registered Nurse (RN), received the updates. She stated the infection control policies were reviewed annually, and if something changed, they were updated.
Oct 2019 6 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's Policy, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's Policy, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, dated October 2016, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement the Comprehensive Care Plan for each resident to meet the resident's medical, and nursing needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #95). Review of Resident #95's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), revised 07/17/19, revealed the resident was to use the walker whenever up and should not try to transfer or walk alone. According to the facility Gait Belt Policy, undated, staff was to use gait belts for residents that did not have a steady gait while ambulating or transferring; however, Resident #95's CCP was not developed with an intervention for use of the gait belt. On 07/23/19, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #2 did not implement Resident #95's CCP related to ensuring the resident utilized the walker, nor did she use the gait belt when she transferred the resident from the bed, then ambulated the resident to the bathroom. Upon entering the bathroom, the resident sustained a fall in front of the toilet. On 07/23/19 at approximately 12:10 PM, LPN #1 obtained a Physician's Order for an X-ray due to the resident continuing to complain of pain after administration of Tylenol (medication for pain relief), and after staff identified the resident was not crossing his/her legs as was the resident's usual routine. On 07/23/19 at approximately 2:15 PM, Resident #95 was transferred to the Hospital and admitted with a diagnosis of Closed Displaced Fracture of the Left Femoral Neck and underwent a Total Left Hip Arthroplasty. (Refer to F-689) The findings include: Review of the facility's Comprehensive Care Plan Policy, dated 01/10/18, revealed it is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. Further review of the Policy, revealed specific resident problems would be addressed in the Care Plan, and information in the Care Plan was derived from resident assessments. Per Policy, all disciplines have access to the Care Plan. Interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse, on 10/11/19 at 11:06 AM, revealed the Resident Assessment Instrument Version 3.0 Manual, was used as a guide for developing and implementing the CCP. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, dated October 2016, revealed the Comprehensive Care Plan is an interdisciplinary communication tool and must include measurable objectives and time frames and must describe the services to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Further review revealed the services provided or arranged must be consistent with each resident's written Plan of Care. Review of Resident #95's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/18/11, with diagnoses including, but not limited to Malaise, Difficulty in Walking, Heart Failure, Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes, and Anxiety. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/23/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three (03) out of fifteen (15), revealing severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring extensive assistance (resident involved in activity and staff providing weight bearing support) of one (1) staff for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use and personal hygiene. Per the MDS Assessment, the resident was continent of bowel and frequently incontinent of bladder. Review of Resident #95's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), initiated 11/21/11 and revised revised 07/17/19, revealed the resident had the potential for falls related to history of falls, forgetfulness, medication use and balance falters without walker. The goal revealed the resident would be free of any fall related injuries. There were several interventions including assist the resident away from the table after meals; redirect if going into another resident's room; call light within reach and encourage use for assistance; remind resident to ask for assistance with transfers when feeling weak or tired or during the night; and remind resident as often as necessary to use the walker whenever up and not to transfer or walk alone. However, the Care Plan was not developed with a specific intervention to use a gait belt for transfers and ambulation. Interview with the Administrator, on 10/10/19, revealed the facility was unable to submit for review Resident #95's Nursing Assistant's [NAME] (Nurses Aide Care Plan) which was in affect on 07/23/19, as it was not a part of the permanent record. Review of Resident #95's Accident/Incident Report, signed on 07/23/19 at 6:01 PM, by LPN #1, revealed Resident #95 sustained a fall with injury on 07/23/19 at 7:30 AM, in the resident's bathroom. According to the Report, the resident was assisted out of bed by SRNA #2, who took the resident to the bathroom. Per the Report, the resident turned to sit on the toilet and sat on the floor in front of the toilet, and there was no equipment used during the event. Further review revealed there was no injury or deformity noted, Range of Motion (ROM) per usual, and positive pulses. The resident complained of leg pain and Tylenol was administered. Additional review of the Report, revealed the Physician and the responsible party was notified on 07/23/19 at 9:15 AM. Further, the resident was transferred to the emergency room (ER) on 07/23/19. Review of Resident #95's Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE], after sustaining a fall in the nursing home resulting in a Fracture of the Left Femoral Neck. Further review revealed the resident underwent a Total Left Hip Arthroplasty. According to the Summary, the resident tolerated the procedure and his/her post op course was without complications. Per the Summary, the resident was discharged to the nursing home and needed to follow up with Orthopedics. Instructions included WBAT (Weight Bearing As Tolerated) with post op hip precautions. Interview on 10/11/19 at 8:52 AM, with SRNA #2, revealed the SRNAs utilized the [NAME] (Nurse Aide Care Plan) as a reference for providing care to residents which included the type of assistance and assistive devices needed to transfer and ambulate a resident. Per interview, this [NAME] was on the I-PAD tablet computer. Per interview, she was assigned to Resident #95 on 07/23/19, and was aware the resident was care planned to require one (1) staff and the walker for transfers, toileting and ambulation. Further, she was aware she needed to use a gait belt to transfer and ambulate the resident as per facility policy. However, she stated on 07/23/19 at approximately 7:30 AM, she transferred the resident from bed and then ambulated the resident without a gait belt or walker to the bathroom, by holding both of the resident's hands while she (SRNA #2) walked backwards facing the resident. Additional interview revealed she did not follow the resident's CCP or [NAME] related to using a walker to transfer and ambulate the resident, even though the walker was in the resident's room. Further, she did not follow facility protocol related to using a gait belt for Resident #95 while transferring and ambulating the resident. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, on 10/11/19 at 9:15 AM, revealed she was assigned to Resident #95 on 07/23/19, and was alerted by SRNA #2 about 7:30 AM, that the resident sustained a fall in the restroom. Per interview, she immediately entered Resident #95's restroom, and observed the resident was on the floor. She stated she assessed the resident to include checking his/her skin for any bruising, or swelling, and also assessed his/her range of motion (ROM). Per interview, she also obtained the resident's vital signs and assessed him/her for pain. She stated she did not identify the resident had sustained any injury and the resident did not complain of pain. Per interview, she assisted SRNA #2 with lifting the resident off the floor and onto the toilet. LPN #1 stated a little while later SRNA #2 alerted her the resident was complaining of left leg pain, and she administered Tylenol which was ordered as needed (PRN). Further, the resident continued to complain of pain and staff identified the resident was not crossing his/her legs as usual. She stated at approximately 12:00 PM, she notified the Physician and obtained an order for a Stat X-ray. Per interview, at approximately 2:00 PM, the Physician called and orders were received to transfer the resident to the hospital emergency room for evaluation. Additional interview with LPN #1, revealed SRNA #2 informed her she did not use the gait belt as per protocol, nor did she ensure the resident used the walker as per the CCP and [NAME], when she transferred the resident from the bed and ambulated the resident to the bathroom. Per interview, if SRNA #2 had implemented Resident #95's CCP related to ensuring the resident used the walker, and if the gait belt had been utilized, this fall with major injury may have been avoided. Interview with the Clinical Care Coordinator Nurse, on 10/11/19 at 12:10 PM revealed the SRNAs utilized the [NAME] (Nurse Aide Care Plans) per the I-Pad tablet computer, as a reference for providing care. Per interview, the [NAME] was created from the CCP and therefore included interventions related to technique and equipment needed for transfers and ambulation. She stated SRNA #2 did not implement the CCP or [NAME] related to ensuring Resident #95 used the walker, nor did she use the gait belt as per protocol, on 07/23/19. Per interview, the resident sustained a fall with major injury as a result. Interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse, on 10/11/19 at 11:06 AM, revealed he followed CMS guidelines and the RAI Manual when developing or revising Care Plans. Per interview, the SRNAs had access to the CCP and specific items rolled over to the [NAME] (Nurse Aide Care Plan) such as transfer technique and any adaptive equipment needed such as walkers. Per interview, the SRNAs used the CCP and the [NAME] as a guide for providing care to residents. He further stated gait belts were not care planned because staff was knowledgeable it was facility policy to use gait belts for any residents who had an unsteady gait. Additionally, he stated all staff should provide care as per the CCP to ensure the residents received necessary care to meet their needs and to ensure the residents' safety. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/11/19 at 1:45 PM, revealed it was her expectation standards of practice, regulations, and the facility's policy be maintained related to development and implementation of the care plan. She acknowledged Resident #95's CCP interventions related to ensuring the resident used a walker for transfer and ambulation should have been implemented on 07/23/19 in an attempt to prevent falls. Further, she acknowledged the CCP should be developed to include any special safety devices or adaptive equipment utilized for transfers and ambulation. Interview with Administrator, on 10/11/19 at 2:15 PM revealed she expected the facility's policies and regulations to be followed related to developing and implementing the CCP. Per interview, it was important to use the gait belt for assistance with transfers and ambulation as per facility protocol; however, she acknowledged Resident #95's CCP was not developed with this intervention. Further interview revealed Resident #95's CCP should have been implemented related to ensuring the resident used the walker on 07/23/19, in an attempt to prevent injury.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility Policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility Policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for one (1) of ten (10) sampled residents reviewed for falls out of a total sample of thirty-three (33) residents (Resident #95). Resident #95 was assessed by the facility to require the extensive assist of one (1) staff for transfers, ambulation, and toileting per the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/23/19. According to the Comprehensive Care Plan, revised 07/17/19, the resident was to use the walker whenever up and should not try to transfer or walk alone. Per the facility Gait Belt Policy, undated, staff was to use gait belts with residents that did not have a steady gait while ambulating or transferring. However, on 07/23/19 at 7:30 AM, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #2 transferred the resident from the bed and ambulated the resident to the bathroom without a gait belt or the use of the walker. Instead, SRNA #2 walked backwards in front of the resident, while facing the resident, and holding both the resident's hands. Upon entry to the bathroom, the resident started to urinate and sustained a fall. After the fall, Resident #95 was assessed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 with no injuries noted, and LPN #1 and SRNA #2 manually transferred the resident from the floor to the toilet. Subsequently, after SRNA #2 provided incontinence care to the resident, she independently transferred the resident from the toilet to the wheelchair, and at that time the resident complained of pain in the left leg. SRNA #2 immediately informed LPN #1, who did not complete another assessment of the resident, but administered Tylenol (medication to relieve mild to moderate pain). At approximately 12:10 PM, LPN #1 obtained a Physician's Order for an X-ray after the resident further complained of pain and staff noticed the resident was not crossing his/her legs as usual. On 07/23/19 at approximately 2:15 PM, Resident #95 was transferred to the Hospital and admitted with a diagnosis of Closed Displaced Fracture of the Left Femoral Neck and underwent a Total Left Hip Arthroplasty. (Refer to F-656) The findings include: Review of the facility's Fall Management Policy, undated, revealed care and assistance will be provided to maintain the resident's highest practicable level of well-being, which includes minimizing the risk for falls. Further review revealed Individual resident needs for staff assistance and equipment during toileting, transfer, ambulation and all activities of daily living will be assessed and addressed as appropriate via the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) process to determine if residents are at risk (for falls) and implement interventions to minimize the risk for falls. Additionally, the Fall Committee will review each resident who had a fall as well as the interventions that are in place to minimize the risk of falls, and shall try to determine the root cause of the fall. Review of the facility's Gait Belt Policy, undated, revealed gait belts are to be used with residents that do not have a steady gait while ambulating or transferring for the purpose of safety. Review of the facility's Accidents/Incidents Policy, undated, revealed the facility would take necessary precautions to minimize the incidence of accidents and incidents involving residents, staff, and visitors. Review of Resident #95's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/18/11, with diagnoses including, but not limited to Malaise, Difficulty in Walking, Heart Failure, Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes, and Anxiety. Review of the Observation Detail List Report, dated 04/02/19, under the section titled, Fall Risk, revealed the resident scored a thirteen (13) indicating the resident was at high risk for falls. The risk factors included: change in gait pattern when going through doorway; ambulatory but incontinent; medications; history of falls; and cognitive issues. Review of Resident #95's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/23/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three (03) out of fifteen (15) revealing severe cognitive impairment. Continued review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring extensive assistance (resident involved in activity and staff providing weight bearing support) of one (1) staff for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use and personal hygiene. The facility further assessed the resident as continent of bowel and frequently incontinent of bladder. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 11/21/11, revised 07/17/19, revealed the resident had the potential for falls related to history of falls, forgetfulness, medication use and balance falters without walker. The goal stated the resident would be free of any fall related injuries. Interventions included assist the resident away from the table after meals; redirect if going into another resident's room; call light within reach and encourage use for assistance; remind resident to ask for assistance with transfers when feeling weak or tired or during the night; and remind resident as often as necessary to use the walker whenever up and not to transfer or walk alone. However, the Care Plan was not developed with a specific intervention to use a gait belt for transfers and ambulation. Interview with the Administrator, on 10/10/19, revealed the facility was unable to review or print Resident #95's Nursing Assistant's [NAME] (Nurse Aide Care Plan) which was in effect on 07/23/19, as it was not a part of the permanent record. Review of Resident #95's Progress Note, dated 07/23/19 at 7:30 AM, completed by LPN #1, revealed Resident #95 was taken to the bathroom by SRNA #2, and when the resident went to sit on the commode, he/she sat in the floor in front of the commode instead. Per the Note, the resident complained of pain in the left leg, and the leg was not bruised, or bleeding and there was no deformity. Further review revealed the resident was given Tylenol for pain, and the nurse would monitor the resident. Review of the subsequent Progress Notes, dated 07/23/19 at 12:10 PM, completed by LPN #1, revealed the resident continued to complain of pain in the left leg. Resident usually crossed his/her legs, but did not today. Per the Note, a message was sent to the on call Physician and an order was received to obtain an X-ray of the resident's left hip and pelvis. Resident's Daughter informed. Call placed to obtain an X-ray. Per the Note, Radiology was at the facility at 1:51 PM and performed an X-ray. Review of the Imaging Result Report, dated 07/23/19, revealed a Sub Capital Fracture of the Femoral Neck with Varus angulation and overriding. Pelvic ring intact. Impression: Sub Capital Fracture of the Left Femoral Neck. Review of the Progress Note, dated 07/23/19 at 2:01 PM, revealed a message was sent out to the Physician. Per the Progress Note, dated 07/23/19 at 2:15 PM, the resident was transferred to the hospital for evaluation and treatment related to the X-ray results. Review of Resident #95's Progress Note, dated 07/23/19 at 5:56 PM, completed by the Clinical Care Coordinator, revealed the fall that occurred on this date at 7:30 AM was reviewed. Staff present with resident were interviewed. Staff entered room to assist resident to bathroom and up for the day. Resident sat on the side of the bed, and staff assisted to ambulate by hand to the bathroom without difficulty. Resident began to turn to sit onto the commode and sat down on the floor in front of the toilet. Staff was unable to determine if the resident's leg gave out when the resident sat on the floor. X-ray obtained and resident sent to emergency room (ER) for evaluation. Spoke with ER at this time, and Orthopedics to evaluate in the AM (morning). Review of Resident #95's Accident/Incident Report, completed on 07/23/19 at 6:01 PM, by LPN #1, revealed Resident #95 sustained a fall with injury on 07/23/19 at 7:30 AM, in the resident's bathroom. Per the Report, the resident was assisted out of bed by SRNA #2, who took the resident to the bathroom. The resident turned to sit on the toilet and sat on the floor in front of the toilet. Further, there was no injury or deformity noted, Range of Motion (ROM) per usual, and positive pulses. Per the Report, the resident complained of leg pain and Tylenol was administered. Additional review of the Report, revealed there was no equipment used during the event. Further review of the Report, revealed the Physician and the responsible party were notified on 07/23/19 at 9:15 AM. Per the Report, the resident was sent to the emergency room (ER) on 07/23/19. This Report was not signed by the Director of Nursing (DON) or Administrator. Per the Accidents/Incident Post Fall Observation/Root Cause Analysis, completed 07/23/19 at 5:59 PM, by LPN #2, revealed the resident's usual ambulatory status was assist times one (1) as the resident displayed poor safety awareness and judgement and had a history of falls. According to the Report, the root cause was the resident turned to sit on the commode and sat on the floor. Further, the Plan of Care to prevent further falls would be re-evaluated when the resident returned from the hospital. This was not signed by the Director of Nursing (DON) or Administrator. Review of the Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #95 was admitted on [DATE], after sustaining a fall in the nursing home resulting in a Fracture of the Left Femoral Neck. Per the Summary, the resident underwent a Total Left Hip Arthroplasty, Further, the resident tolerated the procedure and his/her post op course was without complications. The resident was discharged to the nursing home and needed to follow up with Orthopedics. Continued review of the Summary, revealed instructions for WBAT (Weight Bearing As Tolerated) with post op hip precautions. Interview on 10/10/19 at 11:42 AM, with SRNA #2, revealed she used the [NAME], which was on the I-PAD tablet computer as a reference for providing care to residents which included the type of assistance and assistive devices needed to transfer and ambulate a resident. Per interview, her normal routine prior to Resident #95's fall on 07/23/19, was to assist the resident out of bed, and walk with the resident to the bathroom, and assist him/her with washing up. She stated she was aware the resident was to be transferred and ambulated with a gait belt and walker; however, on the morning of 07/23/19, she assisted the resident out of bed and walked with the resident to the bathroom by holding both the resident's hands while she (SRNA #2) walked backwards facing the resident. Per interview, she did not use the gait belt, nor did she ensure the resident was using the walker. Further, after the resident entered the bathroom, all of a sudden he/she started urinating and started to fall. Per interview, she tried to lower the resident to the floor; however, was unable to do so. Additional interview with SRNA #2, revealed she immediately went to get LPN #1, who took the resident's vital signs and checked his/her range of motion. Per interview, the resident had no complaints at that time. Further, interview revealed after LPN #1 assessed the resident, she and LPN #1 manually lifted the resident up and sat him/her on the toilet. Per interview, after she finished providing incontinence care, she transferred the resident independently from the toilet to the wheelchair and during the transfer, the resident said, Ouch and started complaining of left leg pain. Continued interview revealed she notified LPN #1 of the resident's complaints of pain, and the nurse did not assess the resident again, but did give the resident Tylenol. Per interview, she then pushed the resident in the wheelchair to the dining room for breakfast. Further interview with SRNA #2, revealed after breakfast she pushed the resident in his/her wheelchair into the television room as was the normal routine. She stated she noticed later on that day at approximately 12:00 PM, the resident was not crossing his/her legs as usual, and had further complaints of pain, and she reported this to LPN #1. She further stated LPN #1 called the Physician and received an order to obtain an X-ray. Per interview, after the X-ray was obtained, the resident was transferred to the hospital. SRNA #2 further stated she felt bad about the incident as she had not used the gait belt, nor was the resident using the walker when she was ambulating the resident, and the resident sustained a fall with major injury. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, on 10/10/19 at 11:28 AM, and on 10/11/19 at 9:15 AM, revealed she was assigned to Resident #95 on 07/23/19. Per interview, on that date about 7:30 AM, SRNA #2 alerted her to come quickly to Resident #95's restroom because the resident had sustained a fall. LPN #1 stated she immediately entered the resident's restroom, assessed the resident, and obtained vitals. Per interview, the resident had no outward rotation, no shortening of the lower extremities, no bruising or swelling, and did not complaint of pain with her assessment. Additional interview with LPN #1, revealed a little later on the morning of 07/23/19, she was alerted by SRNA #2, the resident complained of left leg pain and she gave the resident Tylenol, but did not reassess the resident. Further, the resident complained of pain again that morning; however, she was waiting to see if the Tylenol was going to be effective. Per interview, at approximately 12:00 PM, staff noticed the resident was not crossing his/her legs as he/she normally did. She stated she then notified the Physician and obtained an order for a Stat X-ray. Per interview, at approximately 2:00 PM, the Physician called and orders were received to transfer the resident to the hospital for further evaluation. Continued interview with LPN #1, revealed SRNA #2 informed her she did not use the gait belt, nor did she ensure the resident used his/her walker on the morning of 07/23/19, when she assisted the resident to the bathroom. LPN #1 stated SRNA #2 informed her, she had ambulated the resident to the bathroom by holding the resident's hands. Per interview, the resident was care planned to use the walker for transfers and ambulation at the time of the fall. Further, it was facility protocol to ensure the gait belt was used for transfers and when ambulating residents so the resident's weight could be managed and distributed, and to help prevent injury to residents or staff. Additional interview revealed since the resident returned from the hospital, he/she was no longer ambulatory, but was up in the wheelchair a lot and wore Hip abductors twenty- four (24) hours a day. Observation of Resident #95, on 10/08/19 at 11:30 AM and 10/09/19 at 12:20 PM, revealed the resident was in the television room sitting in the wheelchair with Hip Abductors in place to the resident's knees. When the Surveyor attempted to interview the resident, he/she just smiled and looked around. Review of Resident #95's Progress Note, dated 07/26/19 at 2:44 PM, completed by the Clinical Care Coordinator, revealed the resident returned to the facility via wheelchair van, and the resident's Daughter was with the resident. Per the Note, the resident was Assist to transfer to bed Weight Bearing as Tolerated (WBAT). Skin assessment performed, and dry bandage to left lateral hip with twenty (20) staples present and edges well approximated. No discoloration noted with scant amount of red scabbing observed near the staples. Further review of the Note, revealed the Daughter stated the family had discussed the resident's overall condition and cognition decline and were considering changing the resident's code status. Will be in to visit on Monday 07/29/19, to revisit and possibly make changes on that date. Discussed Resident's medications upon return, verbalized understanding. Interview on 10/11/19 at 8:30 AM, with the Clinical Care Coordinator for the House Hold Unit 4, where Resident #95 resided, revealed prior to Resident #95's fall on 07/23/19, the resident could walk with a walker and one (1) staff, and a gait belt was to be used for transfer and ambulation. She further stated SRNA #2 did not use a gait belt, nor did she ensure the resident used the walker when transferring and ambulating the resident on 07/23/19. Per interview, it was facility protocol to use gait belts when transferring or ambulating residents because if a resident's balance was off, it was easier to stabilize the resident who was wearing a gait belt. Per interview, Resident #95 was no longer ambulatory. Review of the Physician Order Report, revealed Physician's Orders dated 07/27/19 for Physical Therapy Evaluation and treatment and continued treatment five (5) times a week for eight (8) weeks for therapeutic activities, gait training, Therapeutic exercises, manual therapy for diagnoses of difficulty walking and weakness status post left hip fracture. The order was discontinued on 08/16/19. Review of the Physician's Progress Note, dated 08/19/19 at 3:28 PM, revealed Resident #95's Daughter was at the resident's bedside. Per the Note, the resident had a progressive downhill course since his/her hospital stay with dementia symptoms, apathy, and reduced intake. Daughter feels resident would not wish to go through further hospitalizations, tests, etc. We agree to treat symptoms aggressively for comfort and dignity, change to comfort and palliative regimen. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/11/19 at 1:45 PM, revealed she did not work at the facility at the time of Resident #95's fall, as she just started at the facility in August 2019. Per interview, she expected the facility's policy and protocols, regulations and standards of practice to be maintained related to accidents/injuries and falls. She stated she also expected staff to provide necessary supervision and a safe environment to all residents. Per interview, it was her expectation for the gait belt to be placed on the residents requiring assistance and ensure necessary assistive devices were used related to transfers and ambulation. Interview with Administrator, on 10/11/19 at 2:15 PM revealed she expected regulations and facility policies to be followed in order to prevent accidents and injuries. Additionally, she expected the staff to use the gait belts on all residents unless contraindicated and to implement the residents' care plans regarding adaptive equipment. Per interview, the gait belt was a tool to assist with safe transfers and ambulation and if not used, a fall could occur. Per interview, all falls were discussed with the clinical team each morning and the clinical team made an attempt to identify the root cause of the falls. Per interview, from there appropriate interventions were discussed to prevent accidents/injuries or falls of the same nature. When questioned if administrative staff had reviewed this fall and had identified the root cause, she stated SRNA #2 should have used a gait belt and the walker when transferring and ambulating the resident, and acknowledged this root cause should have been documented on the Post Fall Observation/Root Cause Analysis form. Additional interview, revealed the interdisciplinary team had identified there was a recent increase in falls and a falls committee was created in August 2019 to meet twice a week. Per interview, the facility had also implemented a manager on duty for each shift to check on residents who were at high risk for falls to try to identify fall hazards and minimize falls.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident receives services with reasonable accommodation of res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident receives services with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #220). Observation of Resident #220, on 10/08/19, revealed the resident's feet and legs hung over the end of the bed approximately twelve (12) inches. The findings include: Review of the facility Policy, titled Accommodation of Needs, implemented on 01/01/18, revealed the facility would treat each resident with respect and dignity and would evaluate and make reasonable accommodations for the individual needs and preferences of a resident. Continued review revealed the facility would make reasonable accommodations to individualize the resident's physical environment including their personal bathroom and bedroom and the common living areas within the facility. Further review revealed based on individual needs and preferences, the facility would assist the resident in maintaining and/or achieving independent functioning, dignity, and well-being to the extent possible. Review of Resident #220's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/24/19 with diagnoses including Rhabdomyolysis (primary), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Anxiety Disorder, Difficulty in Walking Muscle Weakness, Diabetic Foot Ulcer, Non-pressure Chronic Ulcer of Other Part of Right Foot, Pain in Right Leg, Charcot's Joint, Right Ankle and Foot with Neuroarthropathy and Chronic Pain. Review of Resident #220's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 09/30/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fourteen (14) out of fifteen (15), indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Continued review revealed the facility assessed the resident to be seventy-seven (77) inches tall. Further review revealed the resident was receiving scheduled pain medication and reported he/she was in almost constant pain. Per the MDS Assessment, the resident utilized a wheel chair or walker for mobility. Observation of Resident #220, on 10/09/19 at 8:35 AM, revealed he/she was moaning, grimacing, and attempting to reposition himself/ herself in the bed, and the head of the bed was elevated about forty-five (45) degrees. Further observation revealed the resident's head was approximately four (4) inches from the top of the mattress and his/her feet and lower legs hung off the foot of the bed approximately twelve (12) inches. Interview with Resident #220, on 10/09/19 at 8:35 AM, revealed he/she was moaning because he/she could not find a comfortable position. Continued interview revealed he/she did not like his/her feet to hang over the end of the bed, as it caused pain and a lack of sleep and rest. Further interview revealed he/she was unaware he/she could request a longer bed or bed extension. Resident #220 stated he/she had mentioned being uncomfortable in the short bed to a staff member; however, did not recall who he/she spoke to about this. Observation of Resident #220, on 10/10/19 at 8:25 AM, revealed the resident was was moaning and moving around in the bed with his/her legs hanging off the foot of the bed. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, on 10/10/19 at 11:40 AM, revealed she was Resident #220's primary nurse and admitted the resident to the facility. Continued interview revealed the resident was sitting upright in a wheel chair during the assessment. Further interview revealed when the resident was in his/her bed, she realized the resident's feet were hanging off the bed, so she removed the footboard. She stated, even with the footboard removed, the resident's ankles would rest on the metal bracket holding the foot of the mattress on the bed. Per interview, the resident should have been ordered a longer bed when he/she was admitted . Interview with the Unit Manager (UM) for the 700 Unit, on 10/11/19 at 9:30 AM, revealed she was unaware Resident #220 was too tall for the bed and needed a longer bed. Continued interview revealed the resident should have received the longer bed when he/she was admitted due to his/her height. Further interview revealed nursing should have notified maintenance to request a longer bed to accommodate the resident. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/11/19 at 1:45 PM, revealed she had only seen Resident #220 out of his/her bed and did not realize how tall the resident was or that he/she needed a longer bed. Per interview, a resident may experience increased pain if the bed did not accommodate a resident's height. Continued interview revealed the facility's process was for the resident to be assessed at admission to see if the resident needed a larger or longer bed, and then maitenance was to be notified of the need for the specific type bed. The DON further stated an average male was five (5) foot eleven (11) inches tall. Per interview, if a resident's height was in excess of this height, that would indicate the need for a longer bed. She stated the facility had a few longer beds available and also had the ability to rent beds to accommodate a resident's needs. She stated it was very important for the residents to be comfortable in bed in order to provide restful sleep and to prevent contractures. Interview with the Administrator, on 10/11/19 at 3:45 PM, revealed she had not seen Resident #220 in his/her bed and was not aware of the need for a longer bed. Per interview, the facility was responsible for accommodating the resident's physical needs and if a resident required a longer bed, the longer bed should be made available to the resident. Further, she stated it was important residents were comfortable in bed because rest was important to recovery.
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, review of facility Policy, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual Version 1.16, it was determined the f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, review of facility Policy, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual Version 1.16, it was determined the facility failed to submit Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the required timeframe for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #1). Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/31/19, was not submitted to CMS until 10/10/19. The findings include: Review of the facility's Resident Assessment Instrument Policy, undated, revealed the resident assessment will be completed as per regulatory standards. These regulations define and set time frames for resident assessment and the development of plans of care based on identified individual resident needs. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual Version 1.16, dated October 2018, Chapter 5 Submission and Correction of MDS Assessments, revealed comprehensive assessments must be transmitted electronically within fourteen (14) days of the Care Plan Completion Date (V0200C2 + 14 days). All other MDS assessments must be submitted within fourteen (14) days of the MDS Completion Date (Z0500B + 14 days). Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/08/17 with diagnoses to include Parkinson's Disease, Essential Hypertension, Chronic Pain, Epilepsy, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and Dementia. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, revealed an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/31/19. However, further review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the MDS Assessment was not submitted to CMS until 10/10/19. Interview with MDS Coordinator #1, on 10/11/19 at 11:06 AM, revealed he had worked at the facility for fifteen (15) years as MDS Coordinator. He stated after completing Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, he failed to hit the finalization button for transmission. Further interview revealed Resident #1's MDS Assessment had not been transmitted during the fourteen (14) day window after completion of the assessment. He further stated Resident #1's MDS Assessment was a late submission and facility policy was not followed. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/11/19 at 1:45 PM, revealed it was her expectation for MDS Assessments to be submitted on time as per the RAI manual. Interview with the Administrator, on 10/11/19 at 2:15 PM, revealed Resident #1's MDS Assessment should have been transmitted in the allotted fourteen (14) day timeframe. Additional interview revealed it was her expectation for the Assessments to be completed and submitted , as per the RAI Manual.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0813 (Tag F0813)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the safe storage, handling and consumption of foods brought to residents by family...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the safe storage, handling and consumption of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors. This affected Resident #167 and Resident #94. Observation on 10/08/19, revealed Resident #94 and Resident #167's personal sized refrigerators were visibly soiled and contained expired food items. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy, titled Resident Refrigerators, dated 09/26/19, revealed it is the policy of the facility to ensure safe and sanitary use of any resident room refrigerators. Continued review revealed housekeeping staff will clean the refrigerators as needed and discard any food items that were out of compliance. Further review revealed leftover foods are to be dated upon receipt and discarded within three (3) days. Foods with use by dates shall be discarded accordingly. Any food with potential concerns (i.e. smell, packaging, appearance, frozen foods are not solid to touch) shall be discarded. Food shall be in covered containers or securely wrapped. 1. Observation on 10/08/19 at 1:30 PM, of Resident #94's personal in room refrigerator, revealed a facility provided dessert was in a dessert cup unwrapped, unlabeled and undated. Continued observation revealed the dessert had dried out and had surface cracks. 2. Observation on 10/08/19 at 1:38 PM, of Resident #167's personal in room refrigerator, revealed two (2) snack trays with apples, carrots, nuts, and cheese and a package of deli cheese slices. Continued observation revealed the trays were stamped with the date of September 27, 2019 and the deli cheese slices were dated 09/19/19. Further observation revealed the cheese slices had a foul odor. Additional observation revealed a spilled liquid substance in the bottom of the refrigerator under the cheese slices. Interview with State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #7, on 10/09/19 at 5:00 PM, revealed the nursing staff did not monitor the refrigerators. Interview with the Director of Dining Services, on 10/09/19 at 5:14 PM, revealed housekeeping was responsible for monitoring the residents' personal refrigerators. Continued interview revealed monitoring was necessary to prevent foodborne illnesses. Interview with the Director of Housekeeping, on 10/10/19 at 2:30 PM, revealed it was housekeeping's responsibility to check the personal refrigerators three (3) times per week and log the checks. Continued interview revealed housekeeping staff were to clean the refrigerators as needed for spills. Further interview revealed staff were to place a label with the date on any food items brought into the facility. Per interview, any opened food was to be labeled and dated with a use by date and discarded after three (3) days. If a product was marked use by, the facility used this date marked on the item. Per interview, any food item that was marked with a sell by date, was discarded seven (7) days after that date. She stated any food with an odor was thrown out. She further stated the staff were to explain to the residents what was being thrown out and why. If a resident becomes upset, the facility will replace the food item. Per interview, it was important to dispose of food appropriately because a resident could become sick if a spoiled food was consumed. Interview with the Unit Manager for the 500 Household , on 10/11/19 at 9:30 AM, revealed the refrigerators were checked and cleaned by the housekeeping department. Continued interview revealed the refrigerators should be maintained appropriately for the health of the resident. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/11/19 at 1:45 PM, revealed housekeeping monitored the personal refrigerators. Continued interview revealed any food that was opened should be labeled and dated and discarded after seventy-two (72) hours. Interview with the Administrator, on 10/11/19 at 3:45 PM, revealed the housekeeping department was responsible to monitor the food in the resident personal refrigerators to ensure items, which had exceeded a safe date, or food items brought from home were discarded appropriately. Continued interview revealed this was important to ensure appropriate food safety and to ensure residents did not become sick from food borne illnesses.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #108). Observation of Resident #108's wheelchair, on 10/09/19 at 10:54 AM and on 10/10/19 at 11:49 AM, revealed the spokes on both wheels of the wheelchair and the bar across the back of the seat of the wheelchair were soiled and discolored with a dried substance. The Findings Include: Review of the facility Supplies and Equipment Policy, undated, revealed Nursing Service personnel must use assigned equipment and supplies with care to promote safety. Continued review of the Policy, revealed if equipment was reusable it would be cleaned as recommended by the Manufacturer. Standard cleaning/disinfection will be with bleach solution as appropriate after resident use, and prior to next resident, and when visibly soiled. Review of the HH1 (Household One) Wheelchair Cleaning Schedule, dated September, 2019, revealed Resident #108's wheelchair was scheduled to be cleaned on 09/04/19 and 09/20/19. Review of the HH1 (Household One) Wheelchair Cleaning Schedule, dated October, 2019, revealed Resident #108's wheelchair was scheduled to be cleaned on 10/03/19. Review of Resident #108's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/27/18, with diagnoses including Muscle Weakness; and Cognitive Communication Deficit. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 08/14/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #108 as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fourteen (14) out of fifteen (15), indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as utilizing a wheelchair and requiring extensive assistance of one (1) person for transfers and locomotion on and off the unit. Observation of Resident #108, on 10/09/19 10:54 AM, revealed the resident was in the day area in his/her wheelchair. Further observation of the resident's wheelchair revealed the spokes on both wheels of the wheelchair and the bar across the back of the seat of the wheelchair were soiled and discolored with a dried substance. Observation on 10/10/19 at 11:49 AM, of Resident #108's wheelchair, revealed the spokes of both wheels and the bar across the back of the seat continued to be soiled and discolored with a dried substance. Resident #108 was questioned during this observation about the wheelchair and the resident asked if it was lunch time, and did not answer questions related to the wheelchair. Interview with State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #15, on 10/10/19 at 11:55 AM, revealed there was a cleaning schedule and wheelchairs were typically cleaned on third shift. Continued interview revealed Resident #108's wheelchair was dirty. Interview with SRNA #14, on 10/11/19 at 9:45 AM, revealed when staff noticed a resident's wheelchair was dirty, staff should ensure the wheelchair was cleaned. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/11/19 at 9:30 AM, revealed wheelchair cleaning was typically done on third shift, but she was unsure if it was done weekly or how often each resident's wheelchair was cleaned. Further interview revealed wheelchairs should be cleaned more often as needed if spills or if soiling was observed. Per interview, if wheelchairs were not clean, it could be an infection control issue and/or dignity issue. Subsequent interview with the DON, on 10/11/19 at 2:01 PM and 10/11/19 at 3:43 PM, revealed it was her expectation staff follow the wheelchair cleaning schedule. However, she stated the facility did not have documentation for the staff to sign, to indicate residents' wheelchairs had actually been cleaned on the scheduled cleaning days. Interview with the Administrator, on 10/11/19 at 5:05 PM, revealed it was her expectation for staff to clean each resident's wheelchair as per the cleaning schedule. Further interview revealed if a resident's wheelchair was soiled between scheduled cleaning dates, she expected the wheelchair to be cleaned outside the scheduled dates. The Administrator stated staff should have been documenting the wheelchairs were cleaned, and there should have been a Quality Assurance Tool in place to ensure the wheelchairs were being cleaned as scheduled. Further, it was important resident wheelchairs were clean for sanitation and infection control purposed and for resident dignity.
Aug 2018 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the facility's Policy and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, it ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the facility's Policy and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Plan of Care was reviewed and revised for one (1) of thirty-one (31) sampled residents (Resident #18). The facility assessed Resident #18 in a Wound Assessment linked Note dated 06/25/18, as having red blanchable areas to the lateral and inner right foot. Physician's orders were obtained on 06/25/18 to apply skin prep to the resident's medial, lateral and heel skin surfaces every shift; and Heel Lift Boots to be worn on both feet when in bed every shift. However, there was no documented evidence the Comprehensive Care Plan was revised to include treatment/interventions including skin prep and Heel Lift Boots related to the resident's skin impairment. The findings include: Review of the facility's Care Planning-Care Conference Policy, with no revision date, revealed each discipline would assess the resident, noting facts and observations to use for revision of the care plan as necessary. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, dated October 2016, revealed the care plan must be reviewed and revised periodically, and the services provided or arranged should be consistent with each resident's written plan of care. Continued review of the Manual, revealed the care plan was driven not only by identified resident issues and/or conditions, but also by a resident's unique characteristics, strengths, and needs. Furthermore, a care plan based on a thorough assessment and effective clinical decision making, was compatible with current standards of clinical practice that provide a strong basis for optimal approaches to quality of care and quality of life needs of individual residents. A well developed and executed assessment and care plan: re-evaluates the resident's status at prescribed intervals (quarterly, annually, or if a significant change in status occurs) using the RAI and then modifies the individualized care plan as appropriate and necessary. Review of Resident #18's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/26/18, with diagnoses including, but not limited to Unspecified Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Alzheimer's Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, Altered mental status, and Muscle Weakness. Review of Resident #18's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/04/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having severely impaired cognition. Continued review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having no pressure ulcers and as at risk for developing pressure ulcers. Review of Resident #18's Comprehensive Care Plan, revised 05/18/18, revealed the resident was at risk for skin breakdown related to limited mobility, lab values, incontinence, medication use. The goal stated the Resident would not develop any pressure areas by next review. Interventions included, but were not limited to turn and reposition every two (2) hours when in bed, and help avoid friction and shearing. Review of Resident 18's Wound Assessment linked Note, dated 06/25/18 at 10:39 AM, revealed the resident had a reddened, blanchable two (2) centimeter (cm) x one (1) cm, area with no depth to the lateral surface of the right foot near the little toe; and a reddened, blanchable one (1) cm x one (1) cm area with no depth to the right inner foot near the great toe. Review of Resident #18's Physician's Orders, revealed an order dated 06/25/18, to apply skin prep to the medial, lateral and heel skin surfaces every shift; and Heel Lift Boots to be worn on both feet when in bed every shift. Review of Resident #18's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 06/25/18 through 08/15/18, revealed interventions to apply skin prep to the resident's medial, lateral and heel skin surfaces every shift; and Heel Lift Boots on both feet when in bed. However, further review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, revealed there was no documented evidence the Comprehensive Care Plan was revised to include treatment/interventions including skin prep and Heel Lift Boots related to the resident's skin impairment identified on 06/25/18. Observation of Resident #18, on 08/14/18 at 10:27 AM, revealed the resident was lying in bed on his/her right side under the covers with knees bent. Two (2) blue Heel Lift Boots were stacked together on the fall mat on the floor on the right side of the resident's bed. Observation on 08/14/18 at 3:10 PM, revealed staff assisted Resident #18 to bed; however, once the resident was in bed, the Heel Lift Boots were not placed on the resident's feet. Further observation, on 08/14/18 from 3:17 PM until 3:31 PM, revealed the resident was in bed and the resident's blue Heel Lift Boots were noted to be on top of the chest of drawers. Observation of Resident #18, on 08/15/18 at 9:30 AM, revealed the resident was lying in bed on his/her left side, under a sheet and blanket; and the outlined shape of a Heel Lift Boot was noted. Continued observation revealed one (1) blue Heel Lift Boot was on the fall mat on the floor near the foot of the bed. Observation of Resident #18, on 08/15/18 at 10:00 AM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 and State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #1 removed the sheet and blanket from the resident's bilateral lower extremities, revealing the resident was wearing non-skid socks to both feet. There was a pillow under the resident's calves; however, the resident's bilateral heels were touching the mattress and the resident was not wearing the Heel Lift Boots. A Skin Assessment performed by LPN #1, revealed the resident had a reddened circular area, the size of a quarter to the bony prominence of the bunion on the right foot, which was blanchable. Also, the length of the inner right foot had several small circular reddened areas, the size of a pencil eraser, which were also blanchable when staff palpated. The resident's two (2) Heel Lift Boots were in the chair by the chest of drawers. Continued observation revealed after the Skin Assessment, the resident was repositioned, the bed linens were pulled up, the bed was lowered to the lowest position, and the call light was placed in reach. However, staff did not attempt to place the Heel Lift Boots on the resident before exiting the room at 10:10 AM. Interview with SRNA #1, on 08/15/18 at 10:15 AM, revealed she was assigned to Resident #18 and was aware the resident was supposed to wear Heel Lift Boots at all times when in bed. Further interview revealed she should have placed the Heel Lift Boots on Resident #18's feet after the skin assessment. Continued interview revealed the SRNA's used the computerized Care Plan as a reference in providing care. SRNA #1 was unaware if the computerized Care Plan the SRNAs used to provide care for Resident #18 had interventions for Heel Lift Boots, but stated the Comprehensive Care Plan should have reflected the intervention for the resident to wear Heel Lift Boots when in bed. Interview with LPN #1, on 08/15/18 at 10:12 AM, revealed Resident #18 was receiving a skin prep treatment to his/her feet twice daily and Heel Lift Boots were to be worn at all times when the resident was in bed as extra protection per Physician's orders. Per interview, she should have ensured the resident had Heel Lift Boots placed on his/her feet after the Skin Assessment. Further interview revealed Resident #18's Comprehensive Care Plan should have been revised to include treatment and interventions including Heel Lift Boots. Interview with Care Coordinator #1, on 08/16/18 at 2:57 PM, revealed the computerized Comprehensive Care Plan was the reference staff used for providing care. She stated she was responsible for updating Care Plans with new Physician's Orders including any new devices such as Heel Lift Boots or with change in condition including changes in the resident's skin condition requiring treatment orders. She further stated she gained information related to revising the Care Plans from the Morning Meetings where changes in residents' condition and care were discussed and from reviewing new Physician's Orders. Further interview revealed Resident #18's Comprehensive Care Plan should have been revised to include the change in skin condition to his/her feet requiring protective treatment and the intervention for the Heel Lift Boots. Interview on 08/16/18 at 3:55 PM, with the Director of Nursing, revealed it was important to revise the Comprehensive Care Plan in order to provide the most current up to date treatment and care for the residents. She stated the Clinical Coordinator was responsible for revising Care Plans after reviewing new Physician's Orders and collaborating with the interdisciplinary team related to changes in condition during the Morning Meetings. Per interview, the Care Plan was the reference staff used in providing care. Further interview revealed devices and treatments ordered related to a change in skin condition or as a preventative measure should be care planned. Additional interview revealed Resident #18's Comprehensive Care Plan should have been revised with interventions for treatment and Heel Lift Boots due to the change in skin condition. Interview with the Administrator, on 08/16/18 at 4:09 PM, revealed the Comprehensive Care Plan should be evaluated for effectiveness and revised in order for staff to provide appropriate quality of care. Per interview, the Care Coordinators were responsible for revising Care Plans and it should not take more than a few days for the Care Plan to be revised related to new Physician's orders or related to the ongoing needs of the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper storage of drugs. Observation on 08/14/18, of the 700 Unit medication cart ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper storage of drugs. Observation on 08/14/18, of the 700 Unit medication cart , revealed one (1) bottle of Pilocarpine 2% eye drops which was expired by thirteen (13) days. The findings include: Review of the facility Medication Storage in the Facility Policy, undated, revealed outdated medications are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal and reordered from pharmacy, if a current order exists. Review of the pharmaceutical package insert for Pilocarpine 2% eye drops, revised May 2014, revealed the medication was to be disposed of twenty-eight (28) days after opening. Observation on 08/14/18 at 4:00 PM, of the 700 Unit medication cart, revealed one (1) bottle of Pilocarpine 2% eye drops (medication used to treat Glaucoma) which was marked as opened on 07/04/18. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 was observed to remove the medication from the cart. Interview with LPN #3, on 08/14/18 at 4:10 PM, revealed she removed the bottle of Pilocarpine 2% eye drops from the medication cart because the bottle was expired. Per interview, the Pilocarpine 2% eye drops had an opened date of 07/04/18, thus the medication was expired by thirteen (13) days. Continued interview revealed the expired medication should not be used as it could have possible negative effects or could be less effective. Per interview, medication should be disposed of upon expiration which in the case of the eye drops, was twenty-eight (28) days after the medication was opened. Continued interview revealed she would reorder the medication from pharmacy as there was a continued prescription for the medication. Interview with the Clinical Coordinator of the 700 Unit, on 8/15/18 at 3:00 PM, revealed expired medications should be pulled from the medication carts because they could be ineffective or they could have the potential to cause harm. Per interview, if there was a continued prescription for the medication, it should be re-ordered from pharmacy. Continued interview revealed it was her expectation for nursing staff to follow the medication storage policy and procedures and all package inserts/guidelines for the safety of the residents. Interview with the Pharmacist, on 08/15/18 at 16:40 PM, revealed expired medications should not be used and should be pulled from the medication carts and disposed of per facility policy to prevent any negative outcomes such as ineffective medication or possible bacterial infection. Per interview, it was his expectation staff follow facility policy related to storage of medications. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 08/16/18 at 1:30 PM, revealed it was her expectation staff followed policy related to disposing of expired medications. Continued interview revealed this was important for the efficacy of the medication and therefore the safety of the residents. Interview with the Administrator on 08/16/18 at 2:00 PM, revealed it was her expectation nursing staff follow policy related to proper storage of medication. Continued interview revealed she would expect staff to dispose of expired medications as administration of expired medications may cause negative outcomes for the residents. Per interview, administration of expired medication could also result in a medication error.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Observation on th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Observation on the 200, 400, 600 and 700 Units, revealed food products in the kitchenette refrigerators and freezers, were in plastic bags which were not labeled, dated or sealed. In addition, expired bread was found in the bread drawer in the 200 Unit kitchenette. The findings include: Review of the facility Food storage Policy, revised 12/07/17, revealed all food items must be securely closed, labeled and dated. 1. Observation on 08/14/18 10:20 AM of the 200 unit kitchenette, revealed a bag of expired dinner rolls with an expiration date of 8/11/18 in the bread drawer. Further observation revealed the standup freezer contained a gallon zip lock bag of plain and chocolate chip cookie dough with no date or label; a gallon zip lock bag of veggie mix (broccoli and cauliflower) with no date or label; and a gallon zip lock bag of meat balls with no date or label. 2. Observation on 08/14/18 at 11:04 AM, of the 400 unit kitchenette, revealed the standup freezer contained a dozen breadsticks in a bag with a tie, with no label or date. 3. Observation on 08/15/18 8:15 AM, of the 700 Unit Kitchenette refrigerator, revealed it contained Heinz Ketchup, Heinz Mustard, Hersheys Syrup, [NAME] Chocolate Mocha Coffee Creamer in the refrigerator which had been opened and was not marked with the open date. Also, the refrigerator freezer contained Sausage Patties, Hash Browns, Cauliflower, Sausage links, Onion Rings Chicken tenders, Waffles, and Tater tots which were opened and not marked with the open date. Additionally the Hash browns, cauliflower, onion rings and sausage links were in opened bags which were not sealed. Interview with Dietary staff #2, on 8/15/18 at 8:15 AM, revealed it was important to follow facility policy related to food storage for the health and safety of the residents. Continued interview revealed food was to be labeled with the opened date in order for staff to be aware of when the food would expire in order to dispose of foods on their expiration dates. Per interview, if the food products were not disposed of upon expiration, the food could be served to the residents which could cause illness. Additional interview revealed food products should be properly sealed when stored to prevent contamination to the products. 4. Observation on 08/15/18 at 2:05 PM, on Unit 600, Household 8, revealed a freezer in the storage area contained two (2) sealed unopened bags of twelve (12) waffles which were not in the original container and were not labeled or dated. Interview on 08/16/18 at 2:16 PM, with the Dietary Manager, revealed If food items were not in their original container, they were to be labeled with the food name and the use by date. She further stated once food items were opened, they were to be labeled with a use by date. The Dietary Manager stated the use by date was to be marked on the food item package to ensure staff did not use expired items. Further interview revealed all food in the refrigerator and freezer was to be sealed.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kentucky facilities.
Concerns
  • • 10 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade C (50/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 50/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Rosedale Green's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Rosedale Green an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Kentucky, 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 Rosedale Green Staffed?

CMS rates Rosedale Green's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 50%, compared to the Kentucky average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Rosedale Green?

State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at Rosedale Green during 2018 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 8 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Rosedale Green?

Rosedale Green 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 171 certified beds and approximately 162 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Covington, Kentucky.

How Does Rosedale Green Compare to Other Kentucky Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kentucky, Rosedale Green's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (50%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Rosedale Green?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Rosedale Green Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Rosedale Green 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Kentucky. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Rosedale Green Stick Around?

Rosedale Green has a staff turnover rate of 50%, which is about average for Kentucky nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Rosedale Green Ever Fined?

Rosedale Green has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Rosedale Green on Any Federal Watch List?

Rosedale Green 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.