Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation

250 McDavid Blvd, Grayson, KY 41143 (606) 474-7835
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds DAVID MARX Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#213 of 266 in KY
Last Inspection: July 2023

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

Overview

Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and poor performance. It ranks #213 of 266 facilities in Kentucky, placing it in the bottom half, and is the only option in Carter County. Although the facility's issues have decreased from 12 in 2023 to 3 in 2025, staffing remains a weakness with a low RN coverage rating, meaning there are fewer registered nurses available compared to most facilities in the state. Additionally, the facility has incurred $87,165 in fines, which is higher than 92% of Kentucky facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents include critical failures in maintaining safe room temperatures for residents and a serious case of neglect and verbal abuse towards a resident, highlighting both serious operational weaknesses and the need for improved care standards.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Kentucky
#213/266
Bottom 20%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
12 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$87,165 in fines. Lower than most Kentucky facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 20 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Kentucky. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 12 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Kentucky average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 48%

Near Kentucky avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $87,165

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: DAVID MARX

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 4 actual harm
Aug 2025 3 deficiencies 2 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse and neglect which resulted in actual harm for 1 out of 10 sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse and neglect which resulted in actual harm for 1 out of 10 sampled residents, Resident (R) 29. On 08/24/2025, Resident 29 had an incontinent episode and required the assistance of staff to help change her. However, instead of changing the resident, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) 1 became verbally abusive to the resident and both, SRNA1 and SRNA11, neglected to provide the resident hygiene care to remove the feces from the resident. Instead, SRNA 1 and SRNA 11 covered the resident with a feces-covered blanket for a period of over three hours. The resident reported she was scared of SRNA1, and SRNA10 stated this upset the resident, which caused the resident psychosocial harm. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation and Exploitation Policy, dated 07/01/2025, revealed abuse was the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Per the policy, abuse also included the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of goods or services that were necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. It included verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse. The policy further revealed the facility would train care team members upon hire and annually on how to identify what constituted abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of resident property; how to recognize signs of abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of resident property; how Care Team Members should report their knowledge related to allegations without fear of reprisal; and how to recognize signs of burnout, frustration and stress, understanding behavioral symptoms of residents that could increase the risk of abuse and neglect, and how to respond. The policy stated if a Care Team Member was accused or suspected, the facility should immediately remove the Care Team Member from the facility and the schedule pending the outcome of the investigation. 1.Review of R29's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/29/2025 with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic respiratory failure, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), muscle weakness, palliative care, and anxiety. Review of R29's admission Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/24/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of 15 out of 15. That score indicated intact cognition. The MDS further revealed R29 was always incontinent of bowel and dependent on staff for toileting hygiene.2. Review of R130's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/21/2025 with displaced comminuted fracture of right patella, Smith's fracture of left radius, and fracture of left ulna.Review of R130's BIMS revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a score of 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. Since R130 was a new admission, the facility had not completed her admission MDS yet. During an interview on 08/26/2025 at 9:40 AM, R29 stated she had fallen on 08/24/2025 after attempting to self-transfer from bed to wheelchair to allow State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) 1 to remove soiled bed linen from her bed after R29 had a bowel movement in her bed. R29 stated after she fell to the floor, SRNA1 made inappropriate comments such as, I knew you would do that, and, I should have called in today. R29 stated SRNA1 also told her, You do this for attention. R29 further stated that SRNA1 and SRNA11 assisted her back to bed but did not provide hygiene care to remove the feces. She stated SRNA1 and SRNA11 failed to dress her and then covered her with a feces-covered blanket. R29 stated the SRNAs stated they would return with supplies to clean her. However, she stated, after three hours, they had not returned. R29 stated she pressed her call light for assistance and was cleaned up by SRNA10. Resident 29 stated she feared SRNA1 due to being handled roughly during care. She also stated SRNA1 routinely told her she deserved to have HIV. Resident 29 stated SRNA1 and SRNA11 treated her with no respect and had mentally, verbally, and physically abused her. R29 stated she did not tell other staff, including SRNA10 about SRNA1's inappropriate remarks, because she was scared SRNA 1 would lash out at her. During an interview on 08/26/2025 at 10:00 AM, with R29's roommate R130, she stated SRNA1 and SRNA11 treated R29 awful after she fell, explaining the staff accused R29 of falling for attention, and left R29 in feces for an extended period. R130 further stated the pungent odor of bowel movement made her sick to her stomach, and her family had to leave the facility to purchase a room spray. During an interview on 08/28/2025 at 9:17 PM with R130's Family Member (FM) 6, she stated after R29 fell, SRNA1 stated, I knew this would happen. I knew I should have called off today, and You should have had a depend on. FM6 further stated she did not believe SRNA1 or SRNA11 cleaned the feces from R29 after assisting her back to bed, as the strong and prolonged smell of bowel movement remained in the room. She stated the odor made her mother sick, and she had to leave the facility to buy a room deodorizer. FM6 stated R29 remained in the uncleaned condition for approximately three to four hours before another staff member cleaned R29. FM6 further stated when SRNA10 later cleaned R29, she overheard SRNA10 repeatedly apologizing for the condition she had been left in by SRNA1 and SRNA11. During an interview on 08/28/2025 at 11:29 PM with SRNA10, she stated R29 was upset because she had been left in feces and not been cleaned. She stated R29 explained that SRNA1 and SRNA11 told R29 they would get supplies to clean her but never returned. SRNA10 further stated the feces appeared to have been on R29 for a while before she provided cleaning. SRNA10 stated it was inappropriate for SRNA1 and SRNA11 to leave the resident in that condition.During an interview on 08/28/2025 at 9:17 PM with SRNA1, she stated she did not make inappropriate remarks to R29. She also stated she did not leave R29 soiled for three hours.The State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor attempted to reach SRNA11 per telephone on 08/26/2025, 08/27/2025, and 08/28/2025. However, she did not answer the telephone.During an interview on 08/28/2025 at 9:54 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 stated R29 appeared angry while she conducted a skin assessment following the fall. LPN1 further stated she believed the resident was having an anxiety attack and repeatedly told her, I'm sorry I messed on myself.During an interview on 08/28/2025 at 5:04 PM with the Administrator, she stated Resident 29 had not reported anything to her, and she had been unaware of the incident until the State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor brought it to her attention on 08/26/2025. She stated she was going to immediately talk with Resident 29 and left the room.During additional interview with the Administrator on 08/28/2025 at 5:24 PM, she stated she suspended SRNA1 and SRNA11, reported the incident to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the local police, and began the investigation on 08/26/2025. She stated R29 told her about the poor care and neglect by SRNA1 and SRNA11 but did not tell her about SRNA1's abusive remarks to her. She stated R29 requested that neither staff member provide her care in the future.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) 10 failed to immediat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) 10 failed to immediately report an allegation of staff abuse/neglect for 1 of 10 sampled residents, Resident (R) 29.SRNA10 did not notify the Administrator when R29 reported to her that SRNA1 and SRNA11 failed to provide timely hygiene care and left R29 soiled for hours after an episode of fecal incontinence on 08/24/2025. Resident 29 stated the SRNAs actions were neglectful of her care which made her scared of SRNA1, and SRNA10 reported the resident was visibly upset, causing the resident psychosocial harm.Refer to F600The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation and Exploitation Policy, dated 07/01/2025, revealed abuse was the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. The policy also stated abuse included the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of goods or services necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. It included verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse. It further revealed the facility would train Care Team Members, upon hire and annually, on how to identify what constituted abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of resident property; how to recognize signs of abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of resident property; and how Care Team Members should report their knowledge related to allegations without fear of reprisal. Per the policy, all allegations of abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of resident property must be reported immediately to the Administrator and to the Department of Health, but in no event later than 24 hours from the time of the incident/allegation was made known to the Care Team Member. The policy stated if a Care Team Member was accused or suspected, the facility should immediately remove the Care Team Member from the facility and the schedule pending the outcome of the investigation. Review of R29's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/29/2025 with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic respiratory failure, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), muscle weakness, palliative care, and anxiety. Review of R29's admission Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/24/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of 15 out of 15. That score indicated intact cognition. The MDS further revealed R29 was always incontinent of bowel and dependent on staff for toileting hygiene.During an interview on 08/26/2025 at 9:40 AM, R29 stated she fell on [DATE] after attempting to self-transfer from her bed to her wheelchair to allow SRNA1 to remove soiled bed linen from her bed after she had a bowel movement. R29 stated, after she fell to the floor and while she was still on the floor, SRNA1 made inappropriate comments such as, I knew you would do that, and, I should have called in today. R29 stated SRNA1 also told her, You do this for attention. R29 further stated SRNA1 and SRNA11 assisted her back to bed but did not provide hygiene care to remove the feces. She stated SRNA1 and SRNA11 failed to dress her and then covered her with a feces-covered blanket and told her they would return with supplies to clean her. However, she stated, after three hours, they had not returned. R29 stated she pressed her call light for assistance and was cleaned up by SRNA10. R29 stated SRNA10 repeatedly apologized for the condition R29 was left in and excused herself to get a special spray to help remove the dried feces. R29 stated she did not tell other staff, including SRNA10 about the inappropriate comments, because she was scared SRNA 1 would lash out at her. During an interview on 08/28/2025 at 9:17 PM with Family Member (FM) 6, relative of R29's roommate, she stated she was in the room when the incident happened. FM6 stated, after R29 fell, SRNA1 stated, I knew this would happen. I knew I should have called off today, and, You should have had a depend on. FM6 further reported she did not believe SRNA1 or SRNA11 cleaned the feces from R29 after assisting her back to bed, as the strong and prolonged smell of bowel movement remained in the room. She stated the odor made R29's roommate sick, and she had to leave the facility to buy a spray deodorizer. FM6 stated R29 remained in this soiled condition for approximately three to four hours before another staff member cleaned her. FM6 further stated when SRNA10 cleaned R29, she overheard SRNA10 repeatedly apologizing to R29 for the condition she had been left in by SRNA1 and SRNA11. During an interview on 08/28/2025 at 11:29 PM with SRNA10, she reported R29 was upset SRNA1 and SRNA11 had left her lying in feces for hours after they told her they would return after gathering supplies to clean her. SRNA10 stated the feces appeared to have been on R29 for a while, and it was inappropriate for SRNA1 and SRNA11 to leave R29 in that condition. SRNA10 further stated she did not report the incident because R29 frequently complained, and she did not want to say anything that might get SRNA1 and SRNA11 in trouble.During an interview on 08/28/2025 at 5:04 PM with the Administrator, she stated Resident 29 had not reported anything to her, and she had been unaware of the incident until the State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor brought it to her attention on 08/26/2025. She stated she was going to immediately talk with Resident 29 and left the room.During additional interview with the Administrator on 08/28/2025 at 5:24 PM, she stated she suspended SRNA1 and SRNA11, reported the incident to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the local police, and began the investigation on 08/26/2025. She stated R29 told her about the poor care and neglect by SRNA1 and SRNA11, and the resident requested that neither staff member provide her care in the future. She stated R29 did not tell her about SRNA1's abusive remarks to her. She also stated the facility had not yet completed an investigation of the incident.During an interview on 08/26/2025 at 6:00 PM, the Administrator stated she expected staff to always report inappropriate comments or behaviors to her.
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 F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to assure that all services, as outlined by the comprehensive care plan being provided, met professional...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to assure that all services, as outlined by the comprehensive care plan being provided, met professional standards of quality for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for medication administration, Resident (R) 42.Review of R42's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and interviews from staff revealed the resident was administered a Zofran tablet (used to treat nausea) on 08/29/2025 at 3:54 PM by Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) 14 without a standing order or provider's order for Zofran. The findings include:Review of the facility policy's titled, Medication Administration, dated 12/12/2023, revealed medications were administered, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice.Review of R42's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/31/2018 with diagnoses of dementia, diabetes, and congestive heart failure (CHF). Review of R42's quarterly Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date of 06/19/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview Mental Status [BIMS] score of three out of 15, indicating R42 was severely cognitively impaired.Review of R42's Care Plan, dated 01/18/2022, revealed an intervention to administer /medications as ordered.Observation on 08/29/2025 at 3:31 PM, while the State Survey Agency (SSA) Survey was in the South Hall medication room, a staff member came to the medication room and made Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 11 and KMA14 aware that R42 wanted something for nausea. KMA14 checked Point Click Care (PCC, a software program) and did not see an order. KMA14 made LPN11 aware there was no order. LPN11 then stated Zofran was a standing order (written protocols that authorize designated members of the health care team to complete certain clinical tasks without having to first obtain a physician order) and exited the medication room. Review of the facility's Standing Orders revealed Zofran was not listed as a standing order.Review of R42's Physician's Orders revealed an order for Zofran 4 milligams (mg) tablet by mouth every six hours as needed for nausea was entered on 08/29/2025 at 3:52 PM by LPN11 and under the Medical Director's name as the ordering provider. Review of R42's MAR revealed a Zofran 4 mg tablet was administered at 3:54 PM by KMA14.During an interview on 08/29/2025 at 4:22 PM with the Medical Director, she stated she thought standing orders might have been recently updated. She stated she would like to be notified if any resident was ordered and given a new medication, so she knew what the residents were receiving. She stated she did not recall Zofran being a standard order. She stated no one called her regarding Zofran for R42. She stated she would have questions about Zofran and would need to be familiar with the resident before Zofran was ordered and given.During an interview on 08/29/2025 at 5:22 PM with LPN11, she stated she was mistaken and thought Zofran was a standing order. She stated she should have obtained an order before the medication was administered. She stated she did get an order from the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 08/29/2025 at approximately 4:50 PM and was going to correct the order that was entered to reflect the correct ordering provider. During an interview on 08/29/2025 at 5:24 PM with KMA14, she stated LPN2 pulled the Zofran from the Pyxis (an automated dispensing medication system) for her to administer to R42.However, review of a Pyxis report could not be done because the facility was unable to generate one.During an interview on 08/29/2025 at 5:27 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated it was her expectation for staff to know what was on the standing order list and an order be received before administering any medication not on that list. She stated that was important for safety reasons. During an interview on 08/29/2025 at 7:13 PM with the Administrator, she stated it was her expectation for staff to obtain a physician's order for all medications. She stated standing orders were updated annually, and staff was educated about the updates. She also stated copies of standing orders were provided to both nursing stations. She stated that was important for safety precautions for residents and was a requirement for staff to stay within their scope of practice.
Jul 2023 12 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the website accuweather.com, and review of the facility's policies, it...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the website accuweather.com, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective system to address an ongoing problem with its cooling system by ensuring the room temperatures were safely maintained between seventy-one (71) degrees Fahrenheit (F) and eighty-one (81) degrees F. The facility also failed to ensure a safe, comfortable and homelike environment was provided to residents for ten (10) of fifty (50) sampled residents (residents that had room temperatures taken), Resident #23, #34, #47, #77, #81, #86, #94, #101, #108, and #118. Interviews with staff from two (2) Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) companies revealed they had been involved with repairing the air conditioning (a/c) system numerous times. Review of estimates from the two (2) HVAC companies revealed on 04/17/2023, an estimate for the replacement of two (2) a/c units was given; on 04/19/2023, an estimate of compressor replacement was given; and on 04/26/2023, another estimate of compressor replacement was given. Review of the invoices from the two (2) HVAC companies revealed on 05/26/2023, the North Unit a/c had a new leak repaired, and it took five (5) days for repair; and on 06/24/2023, the a/c unit on the South Unit was not working, and it took three (3) days for repair. Resident #101, with a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (COPD), was observed on 07/05/2023 sitting in bed with a reddened face and beads of sweat on his/her upper lip. Resident #101 stated he/she was having difficulty breathing. Resident #101's room, room [ROOM NUMBER], on 07/05/2023 at approximately 4:48 PM had a temperature of 85.4 degrees F; on 07/05/2023 at 6:16 PM, the room had a temperature near the hallway of 88.7 degrees F, and by the window the temperature was 91.3 degrees F. This was also Resident #81's room. Resident #23, with diagnoses of Multiple Sclerosis and Diabetes, was observed on 07/05/2023 sitting in a motorized wheelchair on the South Unit. The resident was slumped over, and his/her face was red. The resident stated his/her room, room [ROOM NUMBER], was on the North Unit, but it was too hot to be in the room. Resident #23's room, on 07/05/2023 at approximately 4:50 PM, had a temperature 82.7 degrees F. This was also Resident #34's room. Resident #94, with diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease and Stroke, resided in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The resident's daughter stated, in an interview on 07/05/2023, she had recently bought a portable cooling unit for the resident's room because it was so hot. She stated she reported her concern with the hot temperatures to the Executive Director on 04/08/2023. Resident #77 and #108 both resided in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The residents' room, on 07/05/2023 at approximately 4:49 PM, had a temperature of 83.3 degrees F. Resident #86 and #47 both resided in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The residents' room, on 07/05/2023 at approximately 4:44 PM, had a temperature of 83.3 degrees F. Resident #118 resided in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The resident's room, on 07/05/2023 at approximately 4:40 PM, had a temperature of 81.3 degrees F. The facility's failure to have an effective system to ensure a safe, comfortable homelike environment for the residents, and the facility's failure to ensure room temperatures were safely maintained between seventy-one (71) degrees F and (81) degrees F, is likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death to residents. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) was identified on 07/05/2023 and was determined to exist on 04/17/2023 in the area of 42 CFR 483.10 Resident Rights F584 at a Scope and Severity (S/S) of a K. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 07/06/2023. The facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan on 07/14/2023 alleging removal of the IJ on 07/08/2023. The State Survey Agency (SSA) validated removal of the IJ as alleged on 07/17/2023, prior to exit which lowered the scope and severity (S/S) to an E at 42 CFR 483.10 Resident Rights F584, while the facility develops and implements a Plan of Correction (PoC) and the facility's Quality Assurance (QA) monitors to ensure compliance with systemic changes. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Safe and Homelike Environment, dated 2023, revealed the facility would maintain comfortable and safe temperature levels. Per the policy, the facility should strive to keep the temperature in common resident areas between seventy-one (71) and eighty-one (81) degrees Fahrenheit (F). Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights Policy, revised 12/2016, revealed residents had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of property, and exploitation. Review of the facility's policy, Resident Abuse Prevention, dated 2019, revealed neglect was the failure to care for a person in a manner which would avoid harm and pain or failure to react to a situation which might be harmful. Per the policy, neglect meant failure to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish, or mental illness. Review of an HVAC company estimate, dated 04/17/2023, revealed an estimate was given for Squirrel Cage replacement of (two) 2 units. Review of an HVAC company estimate, dated 04/19/2023, revealed an estimate for a compressor replacement. Review of the website, accuweather.com, revealed the highest outside temperature on 07/05/2023 was ninety-two (92) degrees F for the facility's location. The temperatures were taken by one (1) State Survey Agency surveyor using a digital infrared thermometer provided by the Office of Inspector General. 1. Review of Resident #101's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 04/23/2023, with diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (COPD) and History of Tracheostomy. Review of Resident #101's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 03/22/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Observation of Resident #101 on 07/05/2023 at 5:16 PM, revealed the resident was in his/her room (room [ROOM NUMBER]A)sitting in the bed. The resident's face was red, and he/she had beads of sweat on his/her upper lip. During interview with Resident #101 on 07/05/2023 at 5:16 PM, the resident reported he/she was having difficulty breathing due to the heat. 2. Review of Resident #81's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 11/10/2019, with diagnoses to include Dementia, Depression and Muscle Weakness. Review of Resident #81's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 05/08/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of eight (8) of fifteen (15), indicating the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Observation of Resident #81 on 07/05/2023 at 5:18 PM, revealed the resident was lying in bed, clean and groomed. The resident was wearing a short sleeved gown and had a sheet over the lower extremities. Interview with Resident #81 on 07/05/2023 at 5:18 PM was attempted, but was not successful. The resident was asleep and did not wake when his/her name was called twice. The temperature of room [ROOM NUMBER], where Resident #101 and #81 resided, 07/05/2023 at 4:48 PM was 85.4 degrees F near the hallway and Resident #101's bed. However, the temperature of Resident #81's room area, whose bed was next to the window, on 07/05/2023 at 4:48 PM was 91.0 degrees F. The temperature of room [ROOM NUMBER], where Resident #101 and #81 resided, on 07/05/2023 at 6:16 PM, was 88.7 degrees F near the hallway, and by the window, the temperature was 91.3 degrees F. 3. Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 12/13/2022, with diagnoses of Multiple Sclerosis and Diabetes. Review of Resident #23's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 06/07/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Observation of Resident #23 on 07/05/2023 at 5:07 PM, revealed the resident was sitting in a motorized wheelchair on the South Unit. The resident was slumped over, and his/her face was red. During interview with Resident #23 on 07/05/2023 at 5:07 PM, the resident stated he/she had an autoimmune disease, and the heat made it terrible. The resident stated his/her room was on the North Unit, but it was too hot to be in his/her room. Further, the resident stated the staff had been putting ice in a double garbage bag, then in a pillowcase, and placing it around his/her neck. Resident #23 stated the excessive heat had been going on for a couple of months. 4. Review of Resident #34's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 07/29/2016, with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's Disease and Depression. Review of Resident #34's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 05/25/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of 6 (six) of fifteen (15), indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The temperature of room [ROOM NUMBER], where Resident #23 and #34 resided, on 07/05/2023 at 4:55 PM, was 82.7 degrees F. 5. Review of Resident #94's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 07/13/2021, with diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease, Renal Failure, and Stroke. Review of Resident #94's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 05/24/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of three (3) of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. During interview with Resident #94's (resided in room [ROOM NUMBER]) daughter on 07/05/2023 at 5:30 PM, she stated she recently bought a portable cooling unit for his/her room because it was so hot, and they tried to keep the door closed to keep the room cool. She stated she reported her concern with the hot temperatures to the Executive Director on 04/08/2023. 6. Review of Resident #77's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 06/13/2022, with diagnoses to include Right Hip Joint Replacement, Polymyalgia Rheumatica, and Kidney Failure. Review of Resident #77's admission MDS Assessment, dated 06/11/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of twelve (12) of fifteen (15), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. 7. Review of Resident #108's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 01/27/2023, with diagnoses to include Dementia and Heart Failure. Review of Resident #108's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 04/17/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of six (6) of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. The temperature of room [ROOM NUMBER] where Resident #77 and #108 resided, on 07/05/2023 at 4:50 PM, was 83.3 degrees F. 8. Review of Resident #86's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 03/10/2022, with diagnoses to include Heart Failure and Arthritis. Review of Resident #86's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 04/28/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognition. 9. Review of Resident #47's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 04/13/2022, with diagnoses to include Schizophrenia, Age Related Physical Debility, and Polyneuropathy. Review of Resident #47's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 05/22/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognition. The temperature of room [ROOM NUMBER], where Resident #86 and #47 resided, on 07/05/2023 at 4:46 PM, was 83.3 degrees F. 10. Review of Resident #118's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 06/28/2023, with diagnoses to include Stroke and Diabetes. Review of Resident #118's Five (5) Day MDS Assessment, dated 07/05/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognition. The temperature of room [ROOM NUMBER], where Resident #118 resided, on 07/05/2023 at approximately 4:40 PM, was 81.3 degrees F. Observations on 07/05/2023 at approximately 5:00 PM revealed facility staff to be sweating with sweat beads to their foreheads During interview with State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #13 on 07/13/2023 at 3:08 PM, she stated it had been hotter in the facility lately. She reported the facility would fix the air, and it would get better and then get worse again. She stated there were days when Resident #101 was sweating, and his/her face was red. She also stated Resident #64 told her he/she was hot and did not want the sheet to cover him/her. During interview with the North Unit Manager on 07/06/2023 at 2:38 PM, she stated she had been at the facility since 2009. She reported the air conditioner had gone out and would not work on both the North Unit and the South Unit at least once this year. She stated, to assist the residents when the air conditioner was not working, she had offered to move the residents, and she made sure the residents had plenty of water and ice. She stated she checked on the residents herself to make sure they had drinks and were not having any issues. During interview with the HVAC Account Manager on 07/07/2023 at 10:55 AM, he reported he had done maintenance on approximately ten (10) of the facility's a/c units in the past. During interview with the owner of another HVAC company on 07/07/2023 at 11:40 AM, he reported he had been contracted with the facility for about a month and a half. He stated the facility called him on 05/20/2023 due to an a/c problem. He stated he came to the facility on [DATE] and repaired the ten (10) ton unit that serviced Rooms 1 through 14 on the North Unit. He stated the a/c unit was not working from about 05/20/2023 to 05/26/2023. During further interview, he stated the a/c unit on the South Unit went out on 06/24/2023, and he finished the job on 06/27/2023. He stated an a/c unit usually lasted about twenty (20) years. During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/06/2023 at 2:14 PM, she reported when the air conditioner was not working on the North Unit, on 07/04/2023, she offered to move the residents, but they declined. She stated a while back the air conditioner went out on the North Unit and was repaired the following day. The DON stated she did not do any training with the staff on how to assist the residents when the air conditioner was not working. She stated the air conditioner had gone out in the past few years. She stated the Executive Director (ED) talked with the Corporate Office about getting air conditioner units for the rooms without air conditioning, if the air conditioner did not get repaired. During interview with the ED, on 07/06/2023 at 3:00 PM, he stated he had been at the facility for ten (10) years. He stated the facility had experienced issues with air conditioning units every year since he had been at the facility. He stated he dreaded every year because there could be a problem with the air conditioner. He stated this year one (1) air conditioning unit was known to need replacement. He stated there were twelve (12) to fourteen (14) different air conditioner units. He stated some of the residents' rooms had air conditioner units in the wall. Further, he reported the temperatures increased in the facility as the day progressed. He stated he sent an email to the Regional Maintenance Directors, on 07/04/2023, when the air conditioner went out and stopped working. Further, he reported there were currently two (2) air conditioners not working, one (1) for the front lobby and one (1) for Rooms 14-28 on the North Unit. He stated maintenance personnel came on 07/05/2023, and it was expected the repairs would be completed by 07/05/2023. He stated additional fans were utilized on the morning of 07/05/2023. After he put the fans out, he stated, he and the DON checked on the residents. The ED stated he did not have a plan if the contracted company could not complete the repair other than to provide fans for the residents and hydration. Further, he reported he did not educate staff on hyperthermia. The facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan on 07/14/2023 alleging removal of the IJ on 07/08/2023 as follows: 1. a) Resident #101, #23, and #94 were assessed for signs and symptoms of distress and heat exhaustion on 07/04/2023 by the Director of Nursing (DON) with documentation to include temperature, oxygen saturation, lung sounds, and current respiratory status. Assessment findings were negative for these residents. Respiratory assessments were completed for Resident #101, #23, and #94 twice by a Licensed Nurse on 07/05/2023, three (3) times by a Licensed Nurse on 07/06/2023, and once on 07/07/2023. All assessment findings were within normal limits (WNL) for these residents. The respiratory assessments consisted of body temperature, oxygen saturation, lung sounds, labored breathing, cough, respiratory symptoms, and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. All assessments from 07/04/2023 to 07/07/2023 were documented in the residents' Electronic Medical Record (EMR). Respiratory assessments were completed for the other residents that resided on the North 2 Unit, Rooms 14 to 28 by a Licensed Nurse on 07/04/2023 through 07/06/2023. No issues or concerns were noted for any resident residing on the North 2 Unit. Respiratory assessments were documented in each resident's electronic medical record. The respiratory therapist assessed each resident receiving oxygen or nebulizer treatments on the North 2 Unit on 07/05/2023. The respiratory therapist's observations revealed no residents with any noted distress, no residents with any increased need for oxygen supplementation or nebulizer treatments, and no noted changes in the residents' overall health status. b) Resident #101 and #23 were offered a room change by the DON on 07/04/2023 and 07/05/2023, and the residents declined. Resident #94 was not offered a room change by the DON because the resident's room already had a portable a/c unit in place. On 07/04/2023 and 07/05/2023, the DON offered temporary room changes to the all residents on the North 2 Unit, Rooms 14 to 28. Only one (1) resident accepted the room change. c) Review of Resident #101's, #23's, and #94's voiding patterns was completed on 07/04/2023 to 07/06/2023 by the Executive Director (ED). The review revealed the residents voided each shift on 07/04/2023, 07/05/2023, and 07/06/2023. These findings were similar to the residents' baseline voiding patterns. Resident #101, #23, and #94 had no signs or symptoms of dehydration. The ED the DON reviewed all other residents residing on the North 2 Unit, on 07/04/2023 to 07/06/2023, for their voiding patterns. No concerns were noted, and the voiding patterns were noted to be similar to the residents' baseline voiding patterns. d) Resident #101, #23, and #94 verbalized no complaints or concerns to the ED or DON, who followed up with these residents on 07/04/2023, 07/05/2023, 07/06/2023, and 07/07/2023. e) The Executive Director and Director of Nursing reviewed the residents' activities participation record for 07/04/2023, 07/05/2023, and 07/06/2023 revealing a normal activities pattern for residents. f) The ED, DON, Licensed Nurses, and State Registered Nurse Aides (SRNA), for residents on the North 2 Unit, from 07/04/2023 to 07/06/2023, encouraged fluids, offered to close blinds in rooms, dressed residents in light clothing, and checked residents for appropriate/light bed linen. g) The plan of care was reviewed and revised for each resident that resided in Resident Rooms 14 to 28 for 07/04/2023 through 07/06/2023. 2. a) Each resident in Rooms 14 to 28 were provided with a fan on the afternoon of 07/04/2023. On the morning of 07/05/2023 at approximately 11:30 AM, the ED purchased additional fans to ensure that each resident had a fan. b) On 07/04/2023 at approximately 6:40 PM, the DON made rounds and assessed residents in Rooms 14 to 28 on the North 2 Unit, where the a/c unit required repairs and was not working. No residents were noted with any distress. All resident rooms had fans in place. In addition, the DON completed a temperature check of the hallway and resident room temperatures, with all being noted in the 75 to 76 degree F range. c) Temperature checks were obtained from 07/04/2023 through 07/06/2023 of the North 2 Hall and Resident Rooms 14 to 28 beginning at 6:40 PM on 07/04/2023, and again at 10:00 PM on 07/04/2023. Temperature checks were obtained on 07/05/2023 at 7:40 AM, 8:56 AM, 9:42 AM, 10:36 AM, 11:50 AM, 1:10 PM, 2:40 PM, 3:50 PM, 4:25 PM, 6:10 PM, 8:30 PM, and 10:15 PM. On 07/06/2023 were done at 12:30 AM, 7:20 AM, 12:05 PM, 4:00 PM, and 10:05 PM. d) On 07/04/2023 at approximately 9:40 PM, the Maintenance Supervisor contacted a contractor specializing in heating and cooling (HVAC) related to family concerns about a resident's room temperature. The ED emailed the Regional Maintenance Supervisors, on 07/04/2023 at approximately 11:29 PM, informing them of the current a/c issues and inquiring about obtaining mobile cooling units in the event repairs could not be made timely. On 07/04/2023, the HVAC contractor recommended to turn off the heating/air unit as he thought it might be freezing. This action was completed by the DON, at approximately 10:00 PM. The contractor stated to turn the unit on again at 3:00 AM, after a few hours being off. This was done by the Charge Nurse on duty. e) On the morning of 07/05/2023 at approximately 7:40 AM, the North 2 Hallway and random room temperatures were obtained by the ED, which ranged from 74 to 77 degrees F. The ED determined that the a/c was still functioning below capacity, notified the HVAC representative, and was informed the company would be onsite on 07/05/2023 to diagnose and make repairs. f) On 07/05/2023 at approximately 11:00 AM, HVAC technicians arrived at the facility and began repairs. On 07/05/2023 at approximately 6:45 PM, the ED was notified by the HVAC company that the a/c repair would not be able to be finished today as previously stated and that the repairs would be finished on 07/06/2023. The delay was because the company could not obtain the amount of refrigerant needed for the repair. The facility's plan to purchase air conditioner (a/c) units for each room was then activated. The DON purchased twelve (12) window a/c units at approximately 8:00 PM, and each resident on the North 2-Unit was offered a window a/c unit. The residents in room [ROOM NUMBER] declined the a/c unit. g) The affected a/c unit was repaired (affecting Rooms 14 to 28) on 07/06/2023 at approximately 4:00 PM. All a/c units in the facility were inspected by the HVAC contractor on 07/05/2023 and 07/06/2023 with no other affected units identified. 3. A Resident Council meeting was held on 07/05/2023 with no concerns/issues noted related to the a/c unit requiring repair or facility temperatures (Resident Rooms 14 to 28). 4. a) All care team members including nursing, contracted therapy, housekeeping/laundry, and dietary were educated on 07/07/2023 on the Emergency Operations plans, with loss of cooling, residents rights, signs and symptoms of hyperthermia, dehydration, heat exhaustion, safe/homelike environment, acceptable temperatures (temperatures between 71-81 degrees F) for the facility, and grievances. The education was given by the ED, DON, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), or the Infection Preventionist. No care team member would be permitted to work until education was completed. Staff members on vacation could receive the education over the phone, and department managers were notified on 07/06/2023 to review work schedules and schedule education for those staff members not currently working on 07/06/2023 or 07/07/2023. All new hire care team members would receive the education described above in orientation. The Maintenance Director was educated by the ED on 07/07/2023 to complete temperature checks on all areas of the facility including hallways and resident rooms daily for two (2) weeks. The ED and/or DON could assist with temperature monitoring. b) Routine HVAC service checks would be completed monthly on all units by an HVAC company beginning August 2023. c) Resident room temperatures would be emphasized/discussed in the daily (Monday-Friday) Magic Moment program (facility internal program utilization for quality improvement purposes by the Interdisciplinary Team, consisting of the ED, DON, ADON, Infection Preventionist/Staff Development Coordinator (IPSD), Dietary Manager, Social Services Director, MDS Coordinator, Maintenance Supervisor, Medical Records Coordinator, and Registered Nurse (RN) Unit Managers. d) Post tests would be conducted for care team members on Emergency Operations plans with loss of cooling, resident rights, signs and symptoms of hyperthermia, dehydration, heat exhaustion, safe/homelike environment, and grievances. The IPSD would conduct the post tests weekly for one (1) month and then monthly for three (3) months to ensure retention of the education. The IPSD/ADON would forward the post tests the Quality Assurance Committee for review by Executive Director or Director of Nursing. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee consisted of the ED, DON, ADON, IPSD, Social Services, Dietary Manager, RN Unit Managers, MDS Coordinators, Maintenance Supervisor, Medical Records Coordinator, and the Medical Director. 5. a) An ad hoc QAPI Committee meeting was held on 07/07/2023 with the ED, DON, Medical Director, Regional [NAME] President, Director of Social Services, ADON, IPSD, and MDS Coordinator present. The meeting reviewed a plan of action, education, audit tools being performed by the facility regard the alleged deficiencies. An ad hoc QAPI meeting would be held weekly for four (4) weeks by the ED and the DON. b) After the initial daily air temperature monitoring for two (2) weeks, air temperatures of random resident rooms, hallways, and other areas of the facility would be conducted weekly for one (1) month and then monthly for three (3) months by the ED, the DON, or the Maintenance Supervisor. Emergency Preparedness drills, specifically loss of cooling, would be completed weekly for one (1) month and then monthly for three (3) months. The results would be forwarded to the QAPI committee by the Maintenance Director or the ED. The State Survey Agency (SSA) validated removal of the IJ on 07/08/2023, as alleged by the facility, as follows: 1. a) Review of respiratory assessment forms for Resident #101, #23, and #94 revealed there was documentation that indicated assessments were completed for 07/04/2023, 07/05/2023, 07/06/2023, and 07/07/2023 regarding signs and symptoms of distress and heat exhaustion. The assessments included temperature values, oxygen saturation, lung sounds, and current respiratory status. No abnormal assessment values were noted. Review of respiratory assessment forms for the residents that resided in Rooms 14 to 28 revealed lungs clear, no shortness of breath, and oxygen levels WNL, except for residents residing in room [ROOM NUMBER]B, room [ROOM NUMBER]A, and room [ROOM NUMBER]B, who refused an assessment but had no signs/symptoms of distress. Observations on 07/06/2023 initiated at 10:10 AM of Residents #46, #38, #101, and #23, all residents of North 2 Unit, Rooms 14 to 28, revealed no respiratory distress. Review of resident assessment forms done on 07/05/2023 and 07/06/2023, revealed there were no concerns noted per documentation for residents residing in Rooms 14A, 14B, 15A, 15B, 16A, 16B-EMPTY, 17A, 17B, 18A, 18B EMPTY, 19A, 19B, 20A, 20B, 21A, 21B, 22A, 22B, 23A, 23B, 24A, 24B, 25A, 25B, 26A, 26B, 27A, 27B, 28A EMPTY, and 28B. Review of an attestation letter, undated and signed by the ED and the DON with no signature date, revealed no resident declines were reported on 07/04/2023, 07/05/2023, and 07/06/2023. Review of a signed statement from the Respiratory Therapist, dated 07/06/2023, attested no residents were in any distress or had an increased need for oxygen, and there were no changes in their health status. Observations on 7/05/2023 initiated at approximately 9:00 AM, revealed residents in Rooms 9, 19, 23, and 27 had oxygen therapy and appeared in no distress. b) Review of an attestation letter dated 7/04/2023 at 5:10 PM, confirmed the DON offered residents room changes on 07/04/2023, including Resident #101, #23, and #94. Further review revealed Resident #101, #23, and #94 declined the offer. In an interview with the DON on 07/06/2023 at 2:14 PM, she verified room changes were offered. In an interview with the ED on 07/06/2023 at 3:00 PM, he stated room changes were offered to residents but they had declined. In an interview with Resident #101 on 07/05/2023 at 4:48 PM, the resident stated he/she was offered a room change on 07/04/2023 and 07/05/2023 and declined offer the offer. Resident #46 stated in an interview on 07/07/2023 at 10:37 AM, that a room change was offered, but he/she declined. c) Review of resident output records revealed Resident #101's, #23's, and #94's assessment by the ED of their voiding patterns was completed on 07/04/2023, 07/05/2023, 07/06/2023, with no signs or symptoms of dehydration noted. Review of resident output records revealed voiding pattern assessments for the other residents on the North 2 Unit, on 07/04/2023, 07/05/2023, and 07/06/2023 and done by the ED and DON, showed no concerns for dehydration. d) In an interview with Resident #101 on 07/06/2023 at 9:45 AM, the stated an a/c unit had been placed last night and the temperature was better now. Observation during the interview revealed the resident had drinks at the bedside on the overbed table, and an a/c unit was in the window. Review of a written statement/follow-up on Resident #23 on 07/04/2023, 07/05/2023 and 07/06/2023 revealed the follow-up was performed by the ED and the DON. The statement revealed Resident #23 had no complaints or concerns for air temperatures. In an interview with Resident #23 on 07/06/2023 at 10:00 AM, he/she stated the room temperature was adequate. The resident also stated he/she had experienced no declines and did not report the room temperature being hot. Observation, during the interview, revealed Resident #23 was covered in a blanket. In an interview with Resident #94's daughter, on 07/05/2023 at 5:50 PM, she stated the family had purchased an a/c unit about three (3) weeks ago. She also stated the resident had not experienced any decline in health. Observation of Resident #94's room temperature on 07/05/2023 at 5:40 PM, revealed it was within the acceptable temperature range of 71 degrees F and 81 degrees F. and the daughter reported no health declines of her mother. e) Review of Resident #101's Activity Participation Record for 07/04/2023, 07/05/2023, and 07/06/2023 revealed Resident #101 attended activities on both 07/05/2023 and 07/06/2023. On 07/05/2023, the resident attended Current Events and Tablet, Laptop Technology at 11:01 AM. On 07/06/2023, the resident attended the Social at 12:25 PM and Family/Friends Visit at 5:39 PM. Review of activities records for Resident #23 per a notation on the Legend Report, revealed Resident #23 had refused, or was out of the facility, for activities from 07/04/2023 through 07/06/2023. Review of Resident #94's Activity Participation Record for 07/04/2023, 07/05/2023, and 07/06/2023 revealed Resident #94 attended activities on both 07/05/2023 and 07/06/2023. On 07/05/2023, the resident attended Music/Singing/Dance/Memory and Social at 11:00 AM, Reminiscing/Life Reflection at 3:51 PM, and Family/Friends Visit at 7:47 PM. On 07/06/2023, Resident #94 attended the Social at 10:48 AM, Religious Bible Study at 3:45 PM, and Exercise/Walking/Senior Fitness at 3:54 PM. Re[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor, on 07/15/2023, requested the facility's policies on safety and supervision of residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor, on 07/15/2023, requested the facility's policies on safety and supervision of residents, as well as a policy on the use of mechanical lifts. However, the facility did not provide those policies. Review of the facility's maintenance logs revealed the Maintenance Director inspected the EZ Way Sit-to-Stand lift (brand of lift that assist residents to stand) on 05/18/2023 and 06/21/2023, but marked the section, Check foot platform assembly pins on sit to stand to assure they have to pushed in and still engage into base, as NA, or not applicable. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 11/01/2012, with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetes with Diabetic Neuropathy, and Anxiety Disorder. Review of Resident #1's Annual Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 05/12/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring extensive assistance of a two (2) person physical assistance for transferring from wheelchair to bed. Review of Resident #1's care plan, revised 07/07/2023, revealed the facility assessed Resident #1 to require a sit-to-stand lift with at least one (1) staff assist to transfer. Observation on 07/10/2023 at 4:15 PM, revealed State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #4 and SRNA #8 using a sit-to-stand lift to transfer Resident #1 from his/her wheelchair to his/her bed. Further observation revealed the footplate of the lift was crooked, with the right side of the footplate lower than the left side. In an interview on 07/10/2023 at 4:25 PM, SRNA #4 stated she had not noticed that the footpad of the lift was crooked. She stated she would place an out of order sign on the lift so it would not be used with another resident because it might be unsafe. SRNA #4 stated inspection of the lifts was performed by the Maintenance Director. However, she did not know how often the inspections were performed. The SSA was unable to interview the Maintenance Director, as the facility had terminated his employment during the survey. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 10:21 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated she expected staff not to use a lift that appeared to be in disrepair and to notify management immediately. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 3:15 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she expected staff to inspect mechanical lifts before use with a resident to ensure the lift was in good working order and place an out of order sign on the lift if it was not. She stated staff should put the lift out of order on the lift. The DON stated it was important because if there was a problem residents could be hurt if parts of the lift were loose or not in the correct placement. The DON stated she had personally inspected the sit-to-stand lift that SRNA #4 had shown her with the crooked footplate. She explained that the footplate was designed to come off the lift for cleaning and had pins that held it in place. Per interview, the DON stated she inserted the pins in the correct slots and ensured all pieces were in working order before returning the lift to service. The DON stated the Maintenance Director inspected mechanical lifts once per month. She stated she could not explain why the Maintenance Director had marked NA for inspecting the pins of the footplate in the inspections completed on 05/18/2023 and 06/21/2023. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 5:06 PM, the Executive Director (ED) stated it was his expectation that staff would place a mechanical lift with a loose piece, out of order, because using equipment in poor condition could hurt a resident. The facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan on 07/14/2023 alleging removal of the IJ on 07/13/2023 as follows: 1. a) A new thermostat was placed on the affected hot water heater on 07/11/2023 at approximately 9:40 PM by the Maintenance Director. Water temperatures were checked and documented in every resident room, sink, and shower room in the facility on the evening of 07/11/2023 at approximately 10:00 PM by the Maintenance Director and ED. b) A body audit was completed on every resident by the DON, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), or Infection Preventionist/Staff Development Coordinator (IPSD) on 07/11/2023 with no skin issues related to water temperatures. Resident interviews were also conducted for each resident able to communicate, and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status of eight (8) and higher regarding water temperatures. No resident reported any uncomfortable water temperatures. 2. a) All staff including nursing, contracted therapy, housekeeping/laundry, and dietary would be educated by the DON, ADON, or IPSD regarding the facility's policy on Safe Water Temperatures, with acceptable water temperature ranges (not to exceed 110 degrees F). The education would also include actions to complete if the water felt hot to the touch, such as using the facility provided digital thermometer available at each nurses' station to immediately take the water temperature. Education began on 07/11/2023 with no care team member being permitted to begin working prior to completing education. All new hire staff would receive the education described above in orientation prior to working. b) The Maintenance Director received individual one-to-one (1:1) education on 07/11/2023 by the ED regarding the facility's policy on Safe Water Temperatures, with acceptable water temperature ranges (not to exceed 110 degrees F). He was also educated on immediate actions to complete if any water temperature was found out of range or any equipment needed repair, as well as immediately communicating this to the ED. c) Water temperatures for the last thirty (30) days in four (4) resident rooms on each of the two hallways in the facility was completed by the ED on 07/11/2023. No water temperatures exceeding 110 degrees F or out of range temperatures were found. d) An Ad Hoc QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) meeting was held on 07/11/2023 with the ED, DON, MDS Coordinator, Central Supply/Scheduler, Maintenance Director, Director of Medical Records, and Director of Social Services. The meeting reviewed actions, education, and audit tools being used by the facility regarding the alleged deficiency. e) A contracted plumbing service inspected all water heaters/thermostats to ensure they were in good working order and provided any additional repairs as needed on 07/12/2023. f) A follow-up Resident Council meeting would be held on 07/12/2023 where participants would discuss the Safe Water Temperatures policy. The meeting would update the participants on the recent repairs to the hot water management system. 3. a) Water temperatures would be checked daily in four (4) resident rooms on each of the two hallways in the facility for one (1) week beginning on 07/11/2023, then moved to three (3) times per week for one (1) month, if no out of range temperatures reported. b) Post test questionnaires would be completed to ensure that the education provided was effective. Five (5) questionnaires/interviews would be completed daily (Monday-Friday) for one (1) month; then two (2) times a week for two (2) weeks; and then monthly for two (2) months. The post test questionnaire would be given by the Assistant Director of Nursing, Infection Preventionist/Staff Development, Director of Social Services or Director of Nursing who would forward results to the Quality Assurance Committee for review. This would begin on 07/11/2023. c) Water temperatures would be discussed at the monthly Resident Council meeting beginning August 2023. d) An ad hoc QAPI meeting would be held weekly for four (4) weeks, starting 07/07/2023. The State Survey Agency validated the IJ Removal Plan. The validation verified that the immediacy was removed on 07/14/2023, instead of 07/13/2023 as alleged. The water temperatures on 07/13/2023 remained elevated above acceptable levels. 1. a) Review of a signed statement, undated, from the ED revealed a new hot water heater thermostat was placed on the North Unit water heater, on 07/11/2023 at approximately 9:40 PM, by the Maintenance Director. Observation of the North Unit water heater's new thermostat was made on 07/17/2023 at 5:47 PM. Review of the water temperature log dated 07/11/2023 at 9:55 PM, revealed the facility had the water temperatures recorded for all residents' room's sinks and showers. The log revealed the water temperatures ranged from 103 degrees F to 110 degrees F, in the acceptable range. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 2:11 PM with the ED, he confirmed he was with the Maintenance Director on 07/11/2023 and checked water temperatures in all residents' rooms and shower rooms. b) Review of the body audit skin assessments conducted by the DON and the ADON on all residents in the facility, dated 07/11/2023, revealed there were no skin issues related to water temperatures. Review of the Resident Roster list, dated 07/11/2023, revealed Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) scores of all residents. All residents with a BIMS' score of eight (8) to fifteen (15) and were interviewable were interviewed on 07/11/2023 with their statements recorded. The statements revealed no reports of uncomfortable water temperatures mentioned by the residents. Review of a signed statement from the ED, undated, revealed residents with a BIMS' score of eight (8) to fifteen (15) were interviewed by him on 07/11/2023 regarding water temperature. No resident had reported any uncomfortable water temperatures. During an interview on 07/17/2023 at 2:11 PM, the ED stated he interviewed all residents with a BIMS' score of eight (8) to fifteen (15), and there were no reports of uncomfortable water temperatures. 2. a) Review of a staff roster sheet titled,Water Temperature Education, dated 07/10/2023, revealed all staff were listed and checked as receiving education on 07/10/2023 and 07/11/2023. Any new staff will be educated before starting work. A document titled, Education was attached to the staff roster with the education topics listed, including acceptable water temperatures of 110 Fahrenheit or below; and actions to complete if the water felt hot to the touch, such as keeping residents safe by removing them from the area if applicable; testing the water temperature with a facility provided thermometer; turning off the water under the sink if the temperature exceeded 110 degrees Fahrenheit, and notifying the supervisor on duty immediately so maintenance staff and the ED could be notified. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 8:39 AM with the DON, she confirmed she assisted the ADON and the IPSD with providing water temperature education to all staff before they began their shifts. All staff members, including agency staff, were provided education before their shifts began. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 10:06 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #11 stated the DON provided her education regarding water temperatures, water thermometers, and to whom to report abnormal water temperatures. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 1:19 PM, Housekeeper #1 stated last week, before she started work, she had training on water temperatures, what to do if they were too hot, and to whom to report too hot water temperatures. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 1:32 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 stated she had a training on water temperatures last week before she could begin work. She stated the training included the safe water temperature range, and the thermometer at the nurses' station would be used to check water temperatures. RN #1 stated she was educated, if the water was too hot, to turn off the water. She stated she also learned to whom she was to notify about the water being too hot. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 10:00 AM, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #28 stated she was provided safe water temperature education from the ADON last week before she could begin her shift at work. She stated she learned if the water temperature felt too hot in the resident's room, she would turn it off and report it immediately to the supervisor. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 2:11 PM, the ED stated all new staff members would receive training and education regarding safe water temperatures in orientation before the start of their shift. b) Review of a statement, dated 07/11/2023 and signed by the Executive Director, revealed the statement documented the Maintenance Director received one-to-one (1:1) education regarding the facility's policy on safe water temperatures. The ED stated the educational content was acceptable water temperatures were not to exceed 110 degrees F. The educational content also included immediate actions to complete if any temperatures were found out of range or any equipment needed repair, as well as communicating this to the ED. c) Review of the Logbook Documentation Water Temps, dated 06/07/2023, revealed water temperatures on the North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 110 degrees F; North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 110 degrees F; North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F; and North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F. Further review revealed South Hall water temperatures for room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F; South Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F; South Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F; and South Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F. Review of the Logbook Documentation Water Temps, dated 06/15/2023, revealed water temperatures on North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 110 degrees F; North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 110 degrees F; North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 108 degrees F; and North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F. Further review revealed the South Hall water temperatures for room [ROOM NUMBER] at 110 degrees F; South Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 110 degrees F; South Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F; and South Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F. Review of the Logbook Documentation Water Temps, dated 06/22/2023, revealed water temperatures on the North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F; North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 110 degrees F; North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 108 degrees F; and North Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 108 degrees F. Further review revealed the South Hall water temperatures for room [ROOM NUMBER] at 108 degrees F; South Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F; South Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 108 degrees F; and South Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] at 109 degrees F. Review of the Logbook Documentation Water Temps, dated 06/29/2023, revealed water temperatures on the North Hall Rooms #1, #10, #19, #28 were all within the normal temperature range. Further review revealed the South Hall water temperatures for Rooms #29 at 110 degrees F; South Hall room [ROOM NUMBER], #47 and #56 were all within the normal range. Review of the Logbook Documentation Water Temps, dated 07/04/2023, revealed water temperatures on the North Hall Rooms #1, #10, #19, #28 were within normal range. Further review revealed the South Hall water temperatures for Rooms #29, #38, #47 at 110, #56 were within the normal range. d) Review of the Ad hoc QAPI Meeting Attendance Form, Discussed IJ Removal Plan for F689 Quality of Care, dated 07/11/2023, revealed the ED, DON, Minimum Data Set Coordinator, Central Supply/Scheduler, Maintenance Director, Director of Medical Records, and the Director of Social Services, attended the meeting. Further review revealed an education sheet regarding safe water temperatures, actions to take for unsafe water temperatures, and audit tools used to include temperature logs and performed by the facility regarding the alleged deficiency. e) Review of a receipt from a plumbing company, dated 07/12/2023, revealed the job detail of hot water was too hot, and the facility wanted water heaters inspected and to also check the mixing valves. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 2:11 PM with the ED, he confirmed the contracted plumbing company did inspect all water heaters and thermostats on 07/12/2023. He stated the contracted plumbing company ensured the thermostats were in good working order and provided any repairs that were needed. f) Review of the Resident Council meeting minutes, dated 07/12/2023, revealed Residents #41, #1, #4, #29, #18, #59, #42, #15, #49, #91, and #31 attended. Further review revealed the residents that attended were updated on the current hot water situation, safe water temperatures, and recent repairs to the hot water management system. 3. a) Review of Water Temperature Observations, dated 07/12/2023, revealed all resident room water temperatures were recorded at 9:40 AM. The temperatures ranged from 96 degrees F to 110 degrees F. Review of the Water Temperature Observations, dated 07/13/2023, revealed all residents' room water temperatures were recorded at 7:30 AM. The temperatures ranged from 100 degrees F to 109 degrees F. Review of theWater Temperature Observations, dated 07/14/2023, revealed all resident room water temperatures were recorded at 7:20 AM. The temperatures ranged from 102 degrees F to 109 degrees F. Review of the Logbook Documentation Water Temps, dated 07/15/2023, 07/16/2023 and 07/17/2023 revealed water temperatures for taken for the North Hall and South Hall rooms were within normal range. Observation on 07/17/2023 at 4:28 PM of the ED, revealed he was checking water temperatures in resident rooms. Review of a binder containing post tests, revealed post tests regarding safe water temperature were given to five (5) different staff members on 07/11/2023, 07/12/2023, 07/13/2023, 07/14/2023, and 07/17/2023. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 8:39 AM, the DON stated that she administered the post test questionnaire to staff and forwarded the results to the QAPI Committee for review. She stated she reviewed them immediately with staff to address any questions or concerns. Based on observation, record review, review of the facility's documents, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained free of accident hazards related to water temperatures outside the acceptable range for thirty-two (32) of one hundred ten (110) residents (Resident #94, #64, #98, #25, #16, #46, #90, #69, #108, #77, #60, #107, #95, #85, #414, #53, #99, #68, #34, #36, #54, #15, #73, #71, #100, #26, #21, #70, #31, #91, #9, and #164). Observation of water temperature checks on 07/10/2023 beginning at 4:43 PM, revealed water temperatures in Rooms 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 29, 48, 49, and 50 were not within the acceptable parameters for ensuring resident safety. The water temperatures ranged between one hundred twelve (112) degrees Fahrenheit (F) and one hundred twenty (120) degrees F. The water temperatures were taken utilizing a metal Bi-Therm hand held thermometer with a dial gauge. In an interview with the Maintenance Director (MD) on 07/10/2023 at 6:10 PM, he stated water temperatures were checked weekly in showers and random rooms; the thermostat was broken; and he was going to replace it with a dial type thermostat. However, during an interview with the Maintenance Director on 07/11/2023 at 6:12 PM, he stated the thermostat had not been replaced. In an interview with the Executive Director (ED) on 07/11/2023 at 7:25 PM, he stated he was made aware of problems with water temperatures on the evening of 07/10/2023. He stated a resident could be burned if the water temperature was too hot. The facility's failure to ensure water temperatures remained at safe levels is likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death to residents. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) was identified on 07/11/2023 and was determined to exist on 07/10/2023 in the area of 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care F689 at a Scope and Severity (S/S) of a K. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 07/11/2023. The facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan on 07/14/2023 alleging removal of the IJ on 07/13/2023. However, on 07/13/2023 some water temperature readings were above the acceptable level. The SSA validated removal of the IJ on 07/14/2023, prior to exit on 07/17/2023, which lowered the scope and severity (S/S) to an E at 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care F689, while the facility develops and implements a Plan of Correction (PoC) and the facility's Quality Assurance (QA) monitors to ensure compliance with systemic changes. In addition, observation of staff using a sit-to-stand lift for one (1) of forty-four (44) sampled residents, Resident #1, on 07/10/2023, revealed the facility failed to provide a safe environment by staff using one (1) of the four (4) lifts that had an improperly maintained and crooked footplate. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Safe Water Temperatures, dated February 2023, revealed the facility was to maintain appropriate water temperatures in resident care areas. The policy stated direct care staff would monitor residents' prolonged exposure to warm or hot water for any signs or symptoms of burns and respond appropriately. It stated staff members were to be educated on safe water temperatures, and thermometers would be available as needed by staff. Continued review revealed staff would report any abnormal findings such as complaints of water being too cold or too hot, burns, or redness. Per the policy, additional problems for staff to report were reddened areas to the residents' skin that were painful to the touch. The policy stated these abnormal findings were to be reported to the supervisor or maintenance supervisor. Continued review revealed water temperatures were to be no more than one hundred ten (110) degrees F or the state's allowable maximum water temperature. Per the policy, maintenance staff would check water temperature controls and the temperatures of tap water in all hot water circuits weekly and as needed. Additional review revealed documentation of testing would be kept for three (3) years and kept in the maintenance office. Observation on 07/10/2023 at 4:36 PM, revealed the hot water in Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] felt painfully hot to the touch. Observation on 07/10/2023 at 4:43 PM, revealed the hot water temperature in Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] measured 118 degrees F. Continued observations on 07/10/2023 for water temperature checks initiated at 6:07 PM, revealed water temperatures were between 112 degrees F to 120 degrees F for Resident Rooms 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 29, 47, 48, and 50. Additional observations for water temperatures on 07/12/2023 with checks initiated at 9:05 AM, revealed water temperatures were between 98 degrees F to 116 degrees F for Resident Rooms 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 29, 47, 48, and 50. Continued observations on 07/13/2023 for water temperature checks initiated at 2:36 PM, revealed water temperatures were between 112 degrees F and 120 degrees F for Resident Rooms 29, 47, 48, 50. There was no hot water for Resident Rooms 14, 15, 16, 20, and 23. Observations initiated at 2:20 PM on 07/14/2023 revealed water temperatures were between 92 degrees F and 98 degrees F for Resident rooms [ROOM NUMBER]. There was no hot water for Resident Rooms 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 29. Observations initiated at 4:00 PM on 07/15/2023 for Resident Rooms 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 29, 47, 48, and 50 revealed water temperature ranges between 94 degrees F and 110 degrees F. Continued observations for water temperatures on 07/16/2023 initiated at 9:12 AM, revealed water temperatures between 96 degrees F and 106 degrees F for Resident Rooms 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 29, 47, 48, and 50. In an interview on 07/10/2023 at 4:36 PM, Resident #26 (lived in room [ROOM NUMBER]) stated he/she knew to turn some cold water on with the hot water when he/she washed hands to prevent getting burned. In an interview with the Maintenance Director on 07/05/2023 at 6:10 PM, he stated he had been the director for about (two) 2 years, and he was responsible for six (6) other buildings. He stated there were no other maintenance personnel for this facility. In another interview with the Maintenance Director on 07/10/2023 at 6:10 PM, he stated water temperatures were checked weekly in the showers and random rooms. He stated his expectation was for water temperatures to be maintained at 110 degrees F per State regulations. In a continued interview with the Maintenance Director on 07/10/2023 at 6:25 PM, he stated water temperatures were checked weekly and when complaints were reported to him. However, no complaints had been reported. He stated the process he followed was when complaints occurred, he adjusted the water temperature for the hot water tanks located in the mechanical room; waited about ten (10) minutes; and, rechecked the water temperatures again. In an additional interview with the Maintenance Director on 07/11/2023 at 6:12 PM, he stated the thermostat that controlled the hot water tanks for the North Hall, located in the mechanical room, was in disrepair. He stated the plan was to replace the thermostat with equipment already purchased. However, he stated, as of yet, he had not had time to install a new thermostat because he was the only maintenance staff at the facility. Observation of the North Hall hot water tank thermostat in the mechanical room on 07/11/2023 at 6:12 PM, revealed the thermostat was lying horizontally with what appeared to be a mercury looking substance split in half which placed the substance at each end of the thermostat and not in center. Because of this, reading a temperature could not be done with the broken thermostat. In an interview with the Maintenance Director at the time of the observation on 07/11/2023 at 6:12 PM, he stated the North Hall thermostat should not be like that, it should be vertical. He stated he thought the hot temperature in the mechanical room had caused the breakage of the mercury appearing substance. When asked how long the thermostat had been like that, he stated for a while now, but he was unable to give the exact date or timeline. He stated he would replace it with a dial like thermostat, and it should be done as soon as possible. The Maintenance Director stated the thermostats were checked two (2) times weekly for accuracy, but he did not state what method was used for the checks. He stated the maintenance guidance he received from the Corporate Office was for the hot water tanks to be drained monthly. He stated this task was performed last month, June 2023, and he thought the hot water system was about two (2) to three (3) years old. In an interview with the Executive Director (ED) on 07/11/2023 at 7:25 PM, he stated he was not aware of any problems with water temperatures. He stated he was first made aware last night, on 07/10/2023, and had not received any reports from residents or staff of water temperatures being too hot. He stated he was not aware of any residents getting burned, but a resident could be burned if the water temperatures were too hot. The ED stated to prevent elevated water temperatures, he reviewed the maintenance records two (2) to three (3) times a week, in addition a report was e-mailed to him each Sunday. He stated if there was an issue, he would report it to the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee. He added he relied upon the maintenance staff to report any elevated water temperatures. In another interview with the ED on 07/17/2023 at 11:22 AM, he stated his job was to provide oversight on a day-to-day basis for the facility and ensure regulations were followed.
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 F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation report, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to keep the resident free from misappropr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation report, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to keep the resident free from misappropriation of resident property, for one (1) of fifty (50) sampled residents (Resident #415). On 12/04/2020, Resident #415 reported to the Infection Preventionist/ Staff Development Coordinator (IPSD) that a female (later identified as State Registered Nurse Assistant (SRNA) #31) removed a diamond ring from his/her finger and replaced it with a cheap ring on 12/03/2020. Additionally, review of the facility's investigation report, dated 12/04/2020, revealed SRNA #31 later came to the facility and returned the ring to the Executive Director (ED). The facility terminated SRNA #31 immediately. Further review of the facility investigation revealed that Law Enforcement had been notified after Resident #415 reported his/her ring missing. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, revised date December 2016, revealed the residents had a right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of property, and exploitation. Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Abuse Prevention Protection of Residents, dated 2019, revealed the facility defined abuse as causing intentional pain or harm. The policy further defined misappropriation of property/funds as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful temporary or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. Review of Resident #415's admission record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 07/29/2020, with diagnoses of Cardiomyopathy, Vascular Dementia, and Cognitive Communication Deficit. Review of Resident #415's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 12/11/2020, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fourteen (14) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 12/04/2020, revealed Resident #415 reported his/her ring was missing to the IPSD. Per the report, the resident told the IPSD that on 12/03/2020 a female came into the resident's room and removed his/her ring from his/her finger. Per the report, the female stated she was going to give the resident a manicure in the morning. Resident #415 provided the IPSD a description of the female that had came into her/his room. Continued review revealed the IPSD stated in an interview with the Executive Director (ED) that on 12/03/2020, SRNA #31 had not clocked out at the end of her shift and was in Resident #415's room. Continued review revealed on 12/04/2020 SRNA #31 was interviewed by the ED and denied being in Resident #415's room. Further review revealed SRNA #31 requested a meeting with the ED and returned a ring that was later identified by Resident #415 as belonging to him/her. Per the report, SRNA #31 was immediately terminated. During an interview on 07/15/2023 at 3:07 PM, the IPSD stated SRNA #31 was in Resident #415's room on 12/03/2020, after she was supposed to clock out. The IPSD stated that Resident #415 later told her that an SRNA came into his/her room, removed his/her ring from his/her finger, and replaced it with a cheap ring. During an interview on 07/15/2023 at 3:28 PM, the ED stated the IPSD had reported to him, on 12/04/2020, that Resident #415 reported his/her ring was missing. The ED stated, on 12/04/2020, he interviewed Resident #415, and the resident stated that an SRNA took his/her ring off his/her finger. The ED stated Resident #415 informed him the SRNA told him/her that she was going to give him/her a manicure. The ED stated Resident #415 provided a description of the SRNA during the interview. Furthermore, the ED stated that the first time he spoke with SRNA #31 she denied being in Resident #415's room. However, he stated SRNA #31 later came to his office and returned Resident #415's ring. The ED stated that all staff members were given abuse trainings, and all staff members were expected to follow the facility's policy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Employment Screening (Tag F0606)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of 906 [NAME] (Kentucky Administrative Regulations) 1:190, Section 1(4), a disqualifyi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of 906 [NAME] (Kentucky Administrative Regulations) 1:190, Section 1(4), a disqualifying offense, and review of 21 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 1308.11, it was determined the facility failed to screen a new employee for disqualifying offenses in the background check for (1) of eleven (11) personnel files reviewed (the Maintenance Director). The findings include: Review of the Kentucky National Background Check Disqualifying Offenses List revealed, Pursuant to 906 [NAME] 1:190, Section 1(4), a disqualifying offense included, a conviction of, or plea of guilty to a misdemeanor offense of unlawfully possessing or trafficking in a legend drug or controlled substance occurring less than seven (7) years from the date of the criminal background check. Review of 21 CFR 1308.11 (d)(23) revealed it listed marihuana as a controlled substance with a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Controlled Substances Code Number of 7360. Review of the Maintenance Director's employee file revealed he began employment on 02/20/2022. Continued review revealed his background check, dated 02/19/2022 and completed by the facility's contract company. The review revealed the Maintenance Director's background check noted a conviction of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol on 10/20/2014 and a second conviction on 06/08/2015. Further review revealed a conviction of possession of marijuana (marihuana) on 06/08/2015. During interview with the Human Resource Specialist on 07/14/2023 at 2:01 PM, she stated she started working at the facility on 01/03/2021. She stated the facility used a contracted service, to perform the background checks for new employees. The Human Resource Specialist stated if there was any criminal charge, the background check was sent to the regional office. She stated when a background check came to her the employee did not have any disqualifying convictions. During telephone interview with the previous Human Resource Specialist on 07/14/2023 at 3:15 PM, she stated if there were no disqualifying convictions the background checks came to her at the facility. She stated she would then continue with the employment process. The previous Human Resource Specialist stated if there was a disqualifying conviction the regional office would not approve employment at the facility, and the application would not have come to her. During telephone interview with the [NAME] President of Human Resources (VPHR), on 07/15/2023 at 10:05 AM, she stated she had been in the position for about four (4) years. She stated the facility used a contract service for the background checks prior to hiring any employee. The VPHR stated the employee listed the states where he/she had previously resided, and those were the states the facility requested background checks. She stated when the background check did not have any disqualifying convictions, she continued with the application for the employee. When interviewed why the facility hired an employee that had a previous conviction for marihuana possession, she stated marihuana was not a controlled substance. During telephone interview with the Senior [NAME] President of Operations on 07/15/2023 at 4:25 PM, he stated he did not have a role in the hiring process at the facility. He stated he relied on the Human Resources Department to assure all background checks were done. The Senior [NAME] President of Operations stated he had been in the position for about ten (10) weeks. He stated he was not told of any problems with employees' background checks. During interview with the Executive Director on 07/16/2023 at 9:55 AM, he stated he got an e-mail when an application came in for a new employee. He stated the corporation did not do the background check until after the employee interviewed. He stated he got a notification if there were any flags on the background check. The Executive Director stated the corporation gave a list of the disqualifying events for employment. He stated he did not think marihuana was a disqualifying conviction.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigative reports, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, it was determined the facility failed to develop and i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigative reports, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement effective care plan interventions for four (4) of fifty (50) sampled residents (Residents #364, #264, #89, and #99). Residents #364, #264, #89, and #99 were involved in resident-to-resident altercations and did not have their care plans fully developed or implemented to prevent abuse. The findings include: In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/11/2023 at 9:32 AM, she stated the facility did not have a specific care plan policy; however, utilized the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual. Review of the RAI manual, section 4.7 titled, The RAI and Care Planning, dated 10/2019, revealed the care plan described the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the residents' highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. 1. Review of the facility's investigative reports revealed Resident #364 was involved in the following resident-to-resident altercations: on 10/07/2021, he/she entered Resident #38's room and struck the resident; on 11/07/2021, he/she entered Resident #40's room and struck the resident; on 02/07/2022, he/she entered Resident #367's room and struck the resident; and on 02/24/2022, he/she struck Resident #365 in the face while in the hallway. Review of Resident #364's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 09/14/2021, with diagnoses of Encephalopathy and Sequelae of Infectious Diseases. Further review revealed the facility added Psychotic Disorder with Delusions to Resident #364's diagnoses on 09/27/2021. Review of Resident #364's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 09/21/2021, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of zero (0) of fifteen (15), which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring supervision when walking in the corridor, on the unit, and/or off the unit. Continued review revealed the facility identified Resident #364 as having behaviors of wandering one (1) to three (3) days during the lookback period. Review of Resident #364's Care Plan, dated 09/26/2021, revealed the facility identified the resident as exhibiting signs of cognitive impairment and dementia and included interventions to be alert to nonverbal cues of unmet needs and intervene as indicated. Further review revealed, on 10/07/2021, the facility added providing redirection if the resident was noted wandering into other residents' rooms and placing large print signage on Resident #364's door to assist the resident in finding his/her room. Continued review revealed, on 02/07/2022, the facility added the intervention, Provide snack, assist to bed and observe whereabouts closely to ensure the safety of all residents for the remainder of night shift. The facility; however, failed to implement the resident's care plan related to observing for the whereabouts of the resident and failed to develop the resident's care plan to include interventions of adding an activity board, to engage the resident. In an interview on 07/14/2023 at 2:05 PM, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #18 stated care plans were important because that was the tool to communicate to staff what each resident needed and what interventions were effective with each resident. SRNA #18 further stated she took care of Resident #364 when he/she was in the facility and knew to redirect him/her if he/she went into another resident's room. Per the interview, at the time of Resident #364's admission, SRNA #18 stated if she was in another resident's room providing care and heard a call bell or an alarm indicating a stop sign banner had been disconnected, she would make sure the resident she was caring for was safe, and respond to the call light because she knew that could be a resident calling for help in getting Resident #364 out of their room. SRNA #18 stated staff did their best to monitor Resident #364 from entering other resident's rooms, but it was not always possible while caring for other residents. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 1:32 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #10 stated care plans were important because that was the tool used to ensure residents received the care they needed. LPN #10 further stated she knew to keep an eye on Resident #364 because he/she would wander and had a history of hitting other residents and staff. Per the interview, Resident #364 was not receiving one-to-one (1:1) supervision or monitoring at specific intervals, such as every fifteen (15) or thirty (30) minute checks, unless it was in the immediate follow-up to a resident-to-resident altercation. Further, LPN #10 stated the care plan interventions she would try with Resident #364 were to put on a television show or offer an activity board, but nothing would hold his/her attention for very long. In an interview on 07/14/2023 at 3:29 PM, the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) stated she recalled discussing Resident #364's wandering into other residents' rooms at the morning Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meetings. She further stated she remembered the team added different interventions to Resident #364's care plan, including providing increased supervision if the resident displayed physical aggression, redirection away from other residents' rooms, offering snacks, and offering activity boards to engage the resident. In an interview on 07/14/2023 at 10:41 AM, the North Unit Manager stated Resident #364 frequently wandered into other residents' rooms, but she did not recall specifics of any of the resident-to-resident altercations the facility reported. Per the interview, Resident #364 was redirectable at first, but as his/her dementia progressed, he/she began lashing out physically and was much more difficult to redirect. Therefore, she stated the facility sent Resident #364 to a secured unit, where he/she would be safer. The North Unit Manager stated residents that wander required increased supervision. However, she stated the facility did not provide sustained one-to-one (1:1) supervision because a resident who required that belonged in a secured memory care unit. The North Unit Manager stated she expected staff to be aware of where residents that wandered were on the unit and redirect them if they wandered into other residents' rooms. She stated she expected staff to assess the resident for unmet needs such as hunger or the need for toileting. The North Unit Manager stated she expected staff to follow care plans to help residents have the best outcomes possible in all areas of care. 2. Review of the facility's incident self-report form, dated 09/01/2022, revealed on 08/27/2022, Resident #70 had thrown coffee on Resident #264, as he/she was sitting in the doorway of Resident #70's room. Review of Resident #264's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 06/22/2022, and re-admitted the resident on 11/28/2022, with diagnoses that included Altered Mental Status and Alzheimer's Disease. Review of the Annual MDS Assessment, dated 06/29/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of zero (0) of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #264's Care Plan, dated 06/29/2022, revealed the resident exhibited behaviors that included wandering. Further review revealed interventions were placed on 07/14/2022 which included provide redirection and remove from situation. However, the care plan was not developed further to prevent wandering after the 08/27/2022 incident to include watching the resident for entering other residents' rooms, since the resident would at times wheel himself/herself around, or increased supervision. In an interview with the DON on 07/16/2023 at 10:40 AM, she stated she was made aware of Resident #70 throwing coffee on Resident #264. She stated she knew Resident #264 had been removed from Resident #70's doorway and taken to his/her room immediately. The DON stated staff was to watch Resident #264 for entering other residents' rooms since he/she at times would wheel himself/herself around. She added she felt there were no other interventions to be placed since staff had been trained and retrained on resident altercations. 3. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 11/23/2022, revealed Resident #1 reported Resident #89 hit his/her left arm on 11/17/2022. Further review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident Form Final Report, no date given, revealed Resident #1 reported to the Assistant DON (ADON) that Resident # 89 hit him/her on the left mid-forearm and left upper arm while the resident attempted to open the window blinds. Review of Resident #89's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 09/01/2021, with diagnoses that included Vascular Dementia and Psychotic Disorder. Review of Resident #89's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 11/28/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of zero (0) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #89's Care Plan, dated 11/02/2022, revealed behavior symptoms of yelling, cursing, refusing care, smacking/hitting staff; and during care, refusing to answer assessment questions and telling staff to leave me alone, don't touch me, I'm not talking to you. Further review revealed interventions placed on 11/02/2022 included to provide re-direction and remove the resident from the situation. However, no further development of interventions to protect residents was noted after the 11/17/2022 incident. 4. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 12/27/2022, revealed Resident #99 hit Resident #416 on the top of the head with his/her reacher. Further review of the facility's investigation revealed Resident #416 was sitting on the side of the bed with his/her head covered while praying when he/she was hit. Review of Resident #99's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 04/14/2022, with diagnoses of Dementia, Bipolar Disorder, and Acute Kidney Failure. Review of Resident #99's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 12/28/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of twelve (12) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #99's Care Plan, dated 05/18/2022, with a revision on 12/27/2022, revealed the resident had verbal behaviors with paranoid beliefs and had voiced seeing things that were not there. The care plan; however, had no interventions to include increased supervision, only to redirect the resident as needed. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 10:21 AM, the ADON stated her expectations were for everyone to implement care plans because the purpose of the care plan was to ensure residents achieved their optimal outcomes. She further stated it was her expectation that all staff monitored wandering residents to ensure their safety. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 5:06 PM, the Executive Director (ED) stated his expectations for care plans were for the facility to develop an interdisciplinary care plan that described the care the resident required and to further develop the care plan when the resident had changes in their care needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, it was determined the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, it was determined the facility failed to update the care plan for one (1) of fifty (50) sampled residents (Resident #5). The facility failed to update Resident #5's care plan following the resident's readmission, with an ostomy on 06/01/2022. The facility did not update the care plan to include interventions to care for the ostomy until 05/12/2023. The findings include: In an interview with the Director of Nursing on 07/11/2023 at 9:32 AM, she stated the facility did not have a specific care planning policy; they followed the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual guidance. Review of the RAI Manual, Section 4.7 The RAI and Care Planning, dated 10/2019, revealed the care plan was revised on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in the resident and the care that the resident required. Review of Resident #5's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 05/17/2022, with diagnoses which included Hemiparesis (paralysis of one side of the body) following Cerebrovascular Disease (stroke) Affecting Left Non-Dominant Side, [NAME] Syndrome (unexplained obstruction of the intestines), and Constipation. Review of Resident #5's Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/25/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident as not having an ostomy prior to discharge to the hospital with return anticipated. Review of Resident #5's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/29/2022, revealed the facility readmitted the resident on 06/01/2022. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having an ostomy following his/her readmission. Review of Resident #5's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 05/04/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #5's Care Plan, dated 05/12/2023, revealed the facility failed to include interventions for ostomy care prior to 05/12/2023. In an interview on 07/14/2023 at 3:16 PM, the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) stated her process for developing and updating care plans was to review the care plan during care plan meetings following any MDS assessment. The MDSC stated everything on the care plan was expected to reflect the resident's diagnoses, medications, and other care needs. In further interview, the MDSC stated the facility did not have their own care planning policy, but followed the RAI manual guidance on developing and updating care plans. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 10:21 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated her expectations for care plans were for them to be updated following a resident's readmission from the hospital. Per the interview, the ADON stated the facility had failed to update Resident #5's care plan timely. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 5:06 PM, the Executive Director (ED) stated it was his expectation that the facility updated a resident's care plan whenever the resident came back to the facility following a hospitalization or any time the resident had a change in his/her care needs.
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 observations, interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective system to ensure the proper temperature ranges for one...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective system to ensure the proper temperature ranges for one (1) of two (2) medication refrigerators. The facility failed to store medications in the North Hall medication refrigerator at a proper temperature. Observation of the refrigerator thermometer on 07/14/2023, revealed a temperature of fifty (50) degrees Fahrenheit (F). Also, review of the temperature logs revealed no temperatures were recorded for 07/03/2023, 07/10/2023, and 07/11/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medication Requiring Refrigeration, dated 2023, revealed it was the policy of the facility to assure proper and safe storage of medication requiring refrigeration and to prevent the potential alteration of medication by exposure to improper temperature control. Further review of the policy revealed the facility would ensure that all medications and biologicals would be stored at proper temperatures and other appropriate environment controls according to the manufacturer's recommendations to preserve their integrity. The policy also stated refrigerated referred to the temperature being maintained between thirty-six (36) to forty-six (46) degrees Fahrenheit (F). Observation of the North Hall medication refrigerator, on 07/14/2023 at approximately 10:00 AM, revealed the temperature was observed to be fifty (50) degrees Fahrenheit. Furthermore, medications for twelve (12) Residents, which included insulins Novolog, Levemir, Lantus, and Basaglar, all in unopened packages were observed in the refrigerator. Package inserts for all insulins stated to store unused medications at thirty-six (36) to forty-six (46) degrees Fahrenheit in the refrigerator. Additional medications included Embrel, Acidophilus, and Acetaminophen suppositories were also observed in the refrigerator. The facility had been instructed by the pharmacy to date unopened insulin and put on the medication cart and to dispose of any other medication that had been in the refrigerator. Review of the facility's medication refrigerator logs for the month of July 2023, revealed the medication refrigerator for the North Hall did not temperatures documented on 07/03/2023, 07/10/2023, 07/11/2023 or 07/14/2023 (when it was observed to be fifty (50) degrees Fahrenheit). Review of the facility's binder located at the North Hall nurses' station, revealed a document titled, Midnight Supervisors Duties. Further review revealed the duties included to record the refrigerator and medication room temperatures. During an interview on 07/15/2023 at 10:44 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #14 stated that he had worked the midnight shift twice and had never been told about a binder at the nurses' station with duties outlined. LPN #14 stated he was never told in shift report about the midnight duties which included checking the medication refrigerator temperature. During an interview on 07/14/2023 at 5:11 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that the medication refrigerator temperatures were to be checked daily and documented by the midnight nurse on duty. The DON stated the Pharmacy had been contacted regarding the medication in the refrigerator and was told to destroy all the medication except the insulin. The DON stated pharmacy informed the facility that the insulin could be dated and put on the medication cart. In interview the DON stated that all the medications that were destroyed would be delivered/replaced that night, and all the medications that had been in the refrigerator were overstock. During an interview on 07/15/2023 at 3:28 PM, the Executive Director (ED) stated he expected the nurses to check the refrigerator temperatures and the unit managers were to check the temperatures periodically. The ED stated that the temperature ranges were posted on the documentation log on the medication refrigerators. He stated if the temperatures were out of range, he expected staff to notify the pharmacy for guidance. The ED further stated he expected all staff to follow the facility's policies.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to accommodate a r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to accommodate a resident's food allergy for one (1) of fifty (50) sampled residents (Resident #65). Resident #65, whose Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented the resident was allergic to chocolate, received a chocolate fudge cookie with crushed medications during medication administration on 05/12/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, copyright date 2023, revealed medications were administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who were legally authorized to do so in the state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice. There were no references to allergies in the policy. Review of Resident #65's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 11/06/2017, with diagnoses of Cerebral Palsy, Expressive Language Disorder, and Anxiety. Review of Resident #65's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/09/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident, under Section C 1000 for Cognitive Skills, as severely impaired for daily decision making. Review of Resident #65's Order Summary Report, revealed an admission date of 11/06/2017 and listed allergies as chocolate. Review of Resident #65's [NAME] (aide care plan), dated 07/14/2023, listed chocolate under allergies. Review of Resident #65's MAR for May 2023 revealed under allergies chocolate was listed. Review of Resident #65's Health Status Note, dated 05/12/2023 at 9:30 PM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 notified the Nurse Practitioner that Resident #65 received his/her medications on a chocolate fudge cookie and had an allergy to chocolate. The Note stated the resident tolerated it well and had no reaction to the chocolate. Per the note, the night nurse was notified as well. In an interview on 07/14/2023 at 10:30 AM, with Agency LPN #6, she stated she crushed Resident #65's medications and gave them in a chocolate fudge cookie. She stated Resident #65 liked to take medication in a cookie. LPN #6 stated she did not review the allergy on the MAR, which listed chocolate as an allergy. She stated she was told by State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #20 that Resident #65 had chocolate crumbs in his/her bed. The LPN stated she called the Nurse Practitioner and monitored the resident for signs or symptoms of an allergic reaction throughout the night. She stated there was no allergic reaction to the chocolate cookie. LPN #6 stated she missed that chocolate was listed as an allergy. In an interview on 07/14/2023 at 2:21 PM with SRNA #20, she stated Resident #65 had a chocolate allergy, and was not to consume dark or milk chocolate. She stated she had observed chocolate cookie crumbs in the resident's bed and alerted LPN #6. The SNRA stated Resident #65's Mother brought all the resident's snacks including white chocolate and chips. She stated the resident kept the snacks in his/her drawer. SRNA #20 stated the resident told her if he/she ate too much chocolate, he/she would have a reaction of bad diarrhea with seizure activity. She stated the information concerning allergies was located on the residents' face sheets and [NAME]. In an interview on 07/13/2023 at 9:38 AM, with Unit Manager South Registered Nurse (RN) #1, she stated when at home, Resident #65 would experience an upset stomach and diarrhea after eating chocolate. In an interview on 07/13/2023 at 10:30 AM, with the Registered Dietitian (RD), she stated the resident did not have a true allergy to chocolate. She stated, when at home, the resident ate chocolate and had diarrhea. The RD stated Resident #65's Mother requested not to give the resident chocolate while at the facility. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 5:10 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated Resident #65 had an allergy to chocolate listed because of his/her Mother's request not to give milk chocolate to the resident. She stated Resident #65 ate a lot of milk chocolate at home which caused diarrhea. The DON stated the resident's allergy information was listed on the face sheet, [NAME] and the MAR. She stated LPN #20 should have reviewed the allergies listed on the MAR before medication administration. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 5:23 PM with the Executive Director (ED), he stated he expected the nurses to follow the MAR, with the allergies listed, and not provide chocolate to Resident #65.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention program. Observation on 07/13/2023 and 07/15/2023 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention program. Observation on 07/13/2023 and 07/15/2023 revealed State Registered Nurse Aides (SRNA) #11, #25, and #26 failed to wear all the required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in a room with a posted Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) sign. The SRNAs were providing ostomy care and changing soiled linens for one (1) of nineteen (19) residents who was on EBP (Resident #5). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated January 2023, revealed enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were used to prevent the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). Further review revealed the definition of EBP referred to the use of gown and gloves during high contact resident care activities for residents with known MDROs or at an increased risk of being infected with MDROs. Continued review of the policy revealed explanation and compliance guidelines which stated staff members were expected to comply with all designated precautions, required personal protective equipment (PPE), and high contact resident care activities that required the use of gown and gloves. Additional review revealed high contact resident care activities included bathing, changing briefs, device care, or wound care, which was defined as any skin opening requiring a dressing. Observation on 07/13/2023 at 11:11 AM revealed a sign on Resident #5's room door. The sign stated Enhanced Barrier Precautions in large print. Further observation revealed the sign described Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), specifically gowns and gloves, that staff should wear when providing high-contact care, such as changing linens, for the resident in that room. Observation on 07/13/2023 at 11:46 AM revealed SRNA #11 changed soiled linens for Resident #5, whose door had the sign indicating the resident required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). Further observation revealed SRNA was wearing gloves, but not a gown. Observation on 07/15/2023 at 11:05 AM revealed SRNA #25 and SRNA #26 changed soiled linens for Resident #5, with the EBP sign still on the door. Further observation revealed neither SRNA #25 nor SRNA #26 wore a gown. In interview on 07/15/2023 at 11:28 AM, Resident #5 stated staff did not typically wear gowns when providing care, such as changing linens. Resident #5 further stated he/she did not know why some staff wore gowns, while most did not. In interview on 07/13/2023 at 11:58 AM, SRNA #11 stated she should have worn a gown when changing Resident #5's linens, due to the Enhanced Barrier Precautions in place for Resident #5's ostomy. SRNA #11 stated she forgot to don (put on) a gown. In an interview on 07/15/2023 at 11:12 AM, SRNAs #25 and #26 stated they did not believe they had to wear gowns when changing Resident #5's linens. They stated they believed the sign on the door was old and no longer applied because Resident #5 was not infected or colonized with drug-resistant bacteria. In further interview, SRNA #25 stated if it was important for them to wear the gowns, the facility would have placed a container for gowns on or outside Resident #5's door. In interview on 07/12/2023 at 4:15 PM, Infection Preventionist (IP) #1 stated any resident with a wound, catheter, or colostomy required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). She further stated she expected staff to follow the signage posted on the residents' doors and wear PPE as they were trained to do. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 10:21 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated she expected staff to wear gowns and gloves when providing high contact care to residents on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). She stated residents with catheters, intravenous lines, wounds, or ostomies would all require EBP. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 3:15 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated her expectations were for staff to wear gowns and gloves when providing high-contact care, such as changing linens or ostomy care, for residents on EBP. She further stated residents with feeding tubes, catheters, ostomies, and wounds all required EBP. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 5:06 PM, the Executive Director (ED) stated his expectations for staff providing high-contact care for a resident on EBP were for them to wear a gown and gloves. He further stated wearing appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was important to protect the residents from the spread of infection.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

4. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 12/27/2022, revealed Resident #99 hit Resident #416 on the top of the head with his/her reacher. Further review of the facility's investigation reveale...

Read full inspector narrative →
4. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 12/27/2022, revealed Resident #99 hit Resident #416 on the top of the head with his/her reacher. Further review of the facility's investigation revealed Resident #416 was sitting on the side of the bed with his/her head covered while praying when he/she was hit. Review of Resident #416's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 12/06/2022, with diagnoses of Muscle weakness, COPD, and Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia. Review of Resident #416 admission MDS Assessment, dated 12/13/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of eleven (11) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #99's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 04/14/2022, with diagnoses of Dementia, Bipolar Disorder, and Acute Kidney Failure. Review of Resident #99's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 12/28/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of twelve (12) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #99's care plan, dated 05/18/2022 with a revision on 12/27/2022, revealed the resident had verbal behaviors with paranoid beliefs and had voiced seeing things that were not there. The care plan had no interventions for supervision, only to redirect the resident as needed. Review of a Nursing Progress Note, dated 12/27/2022 at 8:58 PM and entered by LPN #5, revealed Resident #99 went into Resident #416's room and hit him/her over the head with a grabber/reacher. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 9:10 AM with LPN #5, she stated Resident #416 told her that Resident #99 came into his/her room and hit him/her on the head with a reacher while he/she was praying. Furthermore, LPN #5 stated that Resident #99 had told her that he/she did hit Resident #416. In an interview on 07/15/2023 at 3:07 PM with the Executive Director (ED), he stated he expected all staff to follow all the facility's policies. In another interview with the ED on 07/18/2023 at 11:22 AM, he stated a task of his job was to provide oversight of the operations of the facility, which included investigations of abuse. He stated staff members were educated to provide protection of residents and notify the nurse and himself immediately when there was an allegation of abuse. 3. Review of Resident #364's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 09/14/2021, with diagnoses of Encephalopathy and Sequelae of Infectious Diseases. Further review revealed the facility added Psychotic Disorder with Delusions to Resident #364's diagnoses on 09/27/2021. Review of Resident #364's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 09/21/2021, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of zero (0) of fifteen (15), which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring supervision when walking in the corridor, and on or off the unit. Continued review revealed the facility identified Resident #364 as having behaviors of wandering one (1) to three (3) days during the look back period. Review of Resident #364's care plan, dated 09/26/2021, revealed the facility identified the resident as exhibiting signs of cognitive impairment and dementia and included interventions such as, being alert to nonverbal cues of unmet needs and intervening as indicated. Further review revealed, on 10/07/2021, the facility added providing redirection if the resident was noted wandering into other residents' rooms and placing large print signage on Resident #364's door to assist the resident in finding his/her room. a) Review of the facility's investigation revealed, on 10/07/2021, Resident #364 entered Resident #38's room and struck him/her with a plastic coffee cup. Further review revealed State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #24 wrote a statement that she heard Resident #38 yelling and went to his/her room. Per review, Resident #368 stated he/she witnessed Resident #364 strike Resident #38. Review of Resident #38's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 08/14/2020, with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Anxiety. Review of Resident #38's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 04/17/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. In an interview on 07/11/2023 at 11:10 AM, Resident #38 stated Resident #364 came into his/her room and hit him/her with a plastic coffee cup. Resident #38 stated he/she yelled for help to get Resident #364 out of his/her room. Resident #38 further stated a staff member came and redirected Resident #364 back to his/her room after the incident. Per the interview, Resident #38 stated he/she felt angry that the facility failed to keep Resident #364 out of his/her room and subsequently striking him/her. In an interview on 07/15/2023 at 1:51 PM, SRNA #24 stated she recalled Resident #364 going into Resident #38's room, but did not recall the altercation between the residents. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 8:16 AM, SRNA #13 stated she was working on 10/07/2021 and Resident #38 told her that Resident #364 hit him/her with a plastic coffee cup. SRNA #13 stated she saw a small amount of spilled coffee, but she did not see any sign of injury on Resident #38. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 5:34 PM, the current Infection Preventionist and Staff Development (IPSD) Coordinator, who was the Charge Nurse on 10/07/2021, stated she came to Resident #38's room right after the altercation with Resident #364. She stated Resident #38 told her Resident #364 had been in his/her room and hit him/her with a plastic coffee cup. The IPSD stated she believed Resident #364 was confused and startled when Resident #38 yelled at him/her to get out of his/her room, Resident #364 struck Resident #38 as a result. In further interview, she stated it was her expectation that staff members remained aware residents that wandered and kept them out of other residents' rooms. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 3:15 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she and the Executive Director (ED) investigated the altercation between Resident #364 and Resident #38. Per the interview, she stated the facility determined the cause of the altercation was that Resident #364 wandered into Resident #38's room. The DON stated their investigation revealed Resident #364 struck Resident #38 with a plastic coffee cup when Resident #38 yelled at Resident #364 to get out of his/her room. The DON also stated Resident #364 was not receiving constant one-to-one (1:1) supervision but stated staff, including management, knew to keep an eye on him/her and keep him/her occupied because Resident #364 wandered into other residents' rooms. In further interview, the DON stated her expectations were for staff to redirect residents that wandered out of other residents' rooms and ensure the safety of all residents. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 5:06 PM, the Executive Director (ED) stated Resident #38 reported to him on 10/07/2021 that Resident #364 hit him/her with a coffee cup. Per the interview, the ED stated he initiated an investigation, interviewed witnesses, and determined the incident had occurred. The ED also stated he sat with Resident #364 on 10/07/2021 for a while after the altercation to ensure the safety of the residents. In further interview, the ED stated it was his expectation that staff kept residents that wandered occupied as much as possible to decrease wandering and monitored them to keep all residents safe. b) Review of the facility's investigation revealed, on 11/07/2021, Resident #364 wandered into Resident #40's room, sat on his/her bed, and struck him/her in the face when Resident #40 yelled at Resident #364 to get out of his/her room. Further review revealed SRNA #23 heard Resident #40 yelling and came to the room to redirect Resident #364 back to his/her room. Further review revealed staff found a red mark on the bridge of Resident #40's nose. Review of Resident #40's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 03/28/2017, with diagnoses that included Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and Unspecified Intellectual Disabilities. Review of Resident #40's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/10/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of twelve (12) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. In an interview on 07/13/2023 at 4:02 PM, Resident #40 stated a long time ago a resident came into his/her room, sat on his/her bed, and hit him/her in the head. Resident #40 further stated he/she yelled for help, and an SRNA came and took the person out of his/her room. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 9:02 AM, Resident #2, Resident #40's roommate, stated a long time ago a resident came into his/her room, sat on his/her roommate's bed, and hit the roommate. In further interview, Resident #2 stated there had not been a further incident since the facility placed a mesh stop sign across the door to his/her room. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 6:17 PM, SRNA #23 stated he came to Resident #40's room when he heard yelling on 11/07/2021 and saw Resident #364 strike Resident #40 in the face. SRNA #23 stated he immediately separated the residents, redirected Resident #364 back to his/her room, provided him/her with a snack, and reported the incident to the nurse. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 5:34 PM, the current IPSD, who was the Charge Nurse on 11/07/2021, stated SRNA #23 and Resident #40 told her Resident #364 struck Resident #40 in the face. The IPSD further stated she assessed Resident #40 and noted a small red mark on the bridge of Resident #40's nose. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 3:15 PM, the DON stated she was in the facility at the time of the altercation between Resident #364 and Resident #40 and began investigating it immediately. She stated her investigation revealed SRNA #23 was in the room next door to Resident #40's room, heard Resident #40 call out, and responded immediately to remove Resident #364 from the situation. Per the interview, no staff witnessed Resident #364 enter Resident #40's room. In further interview, the DON stated the facility placed Resident #364 on fifteen (15) minute checks for a few days following this altercation for his/her safety, as well as the safety of other residents. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 5:06 PM, the ED stated his recollection of the altercation between Resident #364 and Resident #40 was that Resident #364 wandered, unwitnessed, into Resident #40's room, sat on his/her bed, and struck Resident #40 in the face when he/she waved his/her arms to try to shoo Resident #364 out of the room. Per the interview, the ED stated Resident #40 had a small red mark on his/her nose, but no further injuries. The ED stated it was his expectation that residents with a history of physical violence resulting in harm to themselves or others would be monitored closely with one-to-one (1:1) supervision or fifteen (15) minute checks. The ED stated the facility placed Resident #364 on one-to-one (1:1) supervision while the investigation was ongoing. However, he stated it was not the facility's practice to sustain one-to-one (1:1) supervision because a resident had the right to move about the facility freely. c) Review of the facility's investigation revealed, on 02/07/2022, Resident #367 reported Resident #364 entered Resident #367's room and struck him/her on the head. Further review revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #10 heard Resident #367 state, Get out of here!, and saw Resident #364 walk out of Resident #367's room. Continued review revealed Resident #364 entered the room behind LPN #10 when she brought medicine to Resident #367. Per the investigation, when LPN #10 left, she failed to redirect Resident #364 back out of Resident #367's room. Review of the facility's document ,Incident Note, dated 02/07/2022, revealed LPN #10 wrote she heard Resident #367 say Get out of here! and went to check on the resident. Further review revealed Resident #367 told LPN #10 another resident hit him/her in the head. Continued review revealed LPN #10 assessed Resident #367 for injuries or skin discoloration and found none. Review of Resident #367's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 01/13/2022, with diagnoses including Malignant Neoplasm of the Right Lung (lung cancer), Parkinson's Disease, and Depression. Review of Resident #367's admission MDS Assessment, dated 01/20/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of eleven (11) of fifteen (15), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #367 as requiring one (1) person physical assist for bed mobility, as well as for walking in his/her room and/or the corridor. Interview not conducted with Resident #367 due to the resident's discharge from the facility. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 1:32 PM, LPN #10 stated she recalled hearing Resident #367 call out, and she went to the resident's room to check on him/her. LPN #10 further stated she saw Resident #364 leave the room. Per the interview, Resident #367 told LPN #10 that Resident #364 had hit him/her on the head. LPN #10 stated she did not see any injuries on Resident #367. LPN #10 stated she did not recall leaving Resident #364 in Resident #367's room unsupervised and did not believe she would have done so because she knew Resident #364 had a history of striking other residents. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 3:15 PM, the DON stated her investigation into the altercation between Resident #364 and Resident #367 revealed LPN #10 left Resident #364 in Resident #367's room unsupervised, which was not acceptable practice, due to Resident #364's known history of resident-to-resident abuse. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 5:06 PM, the ED stated the facility's investigation revealed Resident #367 stated Resident #364 entered his/her room with LPN #10, but LPN #10 failed to redirect Resident #364 out of the room when she left. The ED stated Resident #364 struck Resident #367 on the head after LPN #10 left the room. d) Review of the facility's investigation revealed, on 02/24/2022, Resident #364 was going through binders at the nurses' station, and Resident #365 told him/her to stay out of the binders. The investigation stated both residents wandered away from the nurses' station, and LPN #10 witnessed Resident #364 strike Resident #365 in the face with an open hand. Review of Resident #365's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 10/12/2021, with diagnoses including Congestive Heart Failure, Chronic Respiratory Failure, and Alzheimer's Disease. Review of Resident #365's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 06/20/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of six (6) of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring supervision with a one (1) person physical assist while walking in the corridor. Continued review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having behaviors of wandering one (1) to three (3) days during the look-back period. Review of Resident #365's care plan, dated 10/25/2021, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having wandering behaviors and included interventions such as redirecting the resident when wandering and observing the resident for unmet needs as indicated. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 1:32 PM, LPN #10 stated Resident #364 was at the nurses' station on 02/24/2022, looking at binders, when Resident #365 walked by and told him/her that he/she should stay out of them. LPN #10 stated neither resident appeared agitated, and each resident wandered toward their respective rooms. LPN #10 stated she started to follow the residents, when she observed Resident #364 slap Resident #365. LPN #10 further stated she had been too far away from the residents to stop the altercation, but separated them immediately afterwards. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 10:21 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated she did not recall the specifics of the altercation between Resident #364 and Resident #38; Resident #364 and Resident #40; and Resident #364 and Resident #365. She stated she remembered Resident #364 going into Resident #367's room, but did not recall specific circumstances that led to the incident. The ADON stated her expectations for supervision of residents were that all staff members were aware of wandering residents and ensured their safety. In further interview, she stated the facility was attempting to find a bed in a facility with a secured memory care unit for Resident #364 during February 2022 because they could no longer provide the level of care he/she required. She stated there was a potential for harm to other residents. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 3:15 PM, the DON stated Resident #364 slapped Resident #365 in the face while both residents were walking down the hall on 02/24/2022. She further stated LPN #10 witnessed the incident, but was not physically close enough to the residents to prevent the slap. The DON stated the facility found a bed for Resident #364 in a secured unit in another facility because that level of care would keep Resident #364 and other residents in the facility safer. In an interview on 07/17/2023 at 5:06 PM, the ED stated Resident #364 slapped Resident #365 in the face while walking down the hall, after Resident #365 told Resident #364 not to bother things at the nurses' station. The ED stated he believed the facility had done everything they could to prevent Resident #364 from striking other residents because residents had a right to move freely around the facility, as the facility did not have a secured unit. Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation reports, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to protect residents from resident-to-resident abuse which affected eleven (11) of fifty (50) sampled residents (Residents #1, #38, #40, #70, #89, #99, #264, #364, #365, #367, and #416). Resident #70, on 08/27/2022, threw coffee on Resident #264's chest area while the resident was sitting in his/her doorway, leaving a reddened area on Resident #264's chest. Resident #89, on 11/17/2022, hit Resident #1's arm which caused a bruise because Resident #1 closed the window blinds. Resident #364 was involved in the following: on 10/07/2021, he/she entered Resident #38's room and struck the resident; on 11/07/2021, he/she entered Resident #40's room and struck the resident; on 02/07/2022, he/she entered Resident #367's room and struck the resident leaving a red mark on the bridge of the nose; and on 02/24/2022, he/she struck Resident #365 in the face while in the hallway. Resident #99, on 12/27/2022, entered Resident #416's room and hit the resident on the head with a reacher (an assistive device for grabbing objects). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, dated 04/2023, revealed the policy prohibited abuse of residents. Per the policy, abuse meant the willful infliction of injury, including physical abuse with examples to include hitting, slapping, pinching, and kicking. Continued review of the policy revealed prevention measures included that knowing every resident might be at risk for abuse, and wandering behaviors increased the risk of abuse. It stated those identified at risk would have care planned interventions designed to reduce the threat of abuse or neglect. Further review revealed Care Team members would have ongoing training to include how to report abuse to the Executive Director (ED). 1. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 09/01/2022, revealed, on 08/27/2022, Resident #70 had thrown coffee on Resident #264. Further review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident Form Final Report, no date given, revealed SRNA (State Registered Nurse Aide) #29 was assisting a resident with lunch when she heard Resident #264 yell. The report revealed SRNA #29 checked on Resident #264, and he/she was sitting in the doorway of Resident #70's room with the front of his/her shirt wet with what appeared to be coffee. The report stated SRNA #29 asked Resident #70 if he/she had thrown coffee on Resident #264, and Resident #70 replied, I sure did. Per the report, SRNA #29 immediately reported the incident to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5. Review of Resident #70's admission Record revealed the facility initially admitted the resident on 10/01/2021 and re-admitted the resident on 10/13/2021, with diagnoses that included Alcohol Abuse, Anxiety Disorder, and Depressive Disorder. Review of Resident #70's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 10/31/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fourteen (14) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #70's care plan, dated and revised on 10/12/2021, revealed a focus that the resident exhibited signs of cognitive impairment related to confusion and memory deficit. Interventions placed on 10/12/2021 included to encourage Resident #70 to use the call light to alert staff for assistance if other residents entered his/her room. Also, an intervention placed on 08/27/2022 was to place a stop sign across the resident's doorway to discourage/prevent other residents from entering the room. No additional revisions or updates were noted. Review of Resident #264's admission Record revealed the facility initially admitted the resident on 06/22/2022 and re-admitted him/her on 11/28/2022, with diagnoses that included Altered Mental Status, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and Alzheimer's Disease. Review of Resident #264's admission MDS Assessment, dated 06/29/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of zero (0) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #264's care plan, dated 06/29/2022, revealed a focus that the resident exhibited behaviors that included wandering with interventions placed on 07/14/2022. The interventions included to provide the resident with redirection and remove him/her from the situation. No other revisions were noted after the 08/27/2022 incident. Review of Resident #264's wandering assessment tool, dated 12/05/2022, revealed a score of twelve (12), which indicated the resident was a high risk for wandering. Review of the facility's Progress Notes, dated 08/27/2022 at 1:12 PM by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5, revealed she had been notified by SRNA #29 that Resident #70 threw hot coffee on Resident #264. Per the note, LPN #5 had instructed Resident #70, after the incident, to use his/her call light, and Resident #70 stated, I will do what I want. Further review of the Progress Notes revealed Resident #264 was removed from Resident #70's room, assessed, and a cold compress was placed on his/her chest, with Silvadene ointment (a topical antimicrobial drug used to treat burns) applied. Review of Resident #264's skin assessment, dated 08/27/2022 and performed by the DON, revealed no apparent injury and no signs or symptoms of a burn. The assessment stated the nurse applied Silvadene, and the chest area was circled on the skin assessment body audit. In an interview with Resident #70 on 07/13/2023 at 4:15 PM, the resident stated he/she felt safe at the facility and had not had any trouble with any staff or residents. The resident added no one had mistreated him/her in any way and did not recall any incident with another resident. Resident #70 stated there were times when other residents would wander in his/her room but not many since the stop sign had been put on the door. In an interview with SRNA #29 on 07/15/2023 at 8:11 PM, she stated she was assisting another resident at mealtime in a nearby room and heard someone holler. She stated she immediately went to that area and found Resident #264 sitting in the doorway of Resident #70's room, and Resident #70 had a coffee cup in his/her hand. She added Resident #264's shirt was wet with coffee. The SRNA stated she asked Resident #70 what had happened, and the resident told her he/she had thrown coffee on Resident #264. SRNA #29 stated she immediately got the nurse and took Resident #264 to his/her room. She added Resident #264's shirt was removed, and she observed his/her chest area and upper belly was reddened. However, she stated there were no blisters, and Resident#264 voiced no complaints of pain. She stated she could not recall Resident #70 having any physical aggression toward others, but the resident was verbally abusive to other residents and staff at times. She stated the verbal abuse would come on very quickly like flipping a light switch on and off. In an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 on 07/14/2023 at 1:55 PM, she stated, to the best of her memory, Resident #70 had always had verbal behaviors since being a resident at the facility. She stated some of the behaviors noted were screaming at his/her son and other residents and calling one resident a midget. In an interview with the DON on 07/16/2023 at 10:40 AM, she stated she was made aware of Resident #70 throwing coffee on Resident #264's chest area, and a skin assessment was performed and Silvadene ointment was applied to the area. However, she stated there were no indications of a burn only, some redness. She stated she knew Resident #264 had been removed from Resident #70's doorway and taken to his/her room immediately. She stated staff knew to watch Resident #264 to prevent him/her from entering other residents' rooms since he/she at times would wheel himself/herself around. The DON stated she felt there were no other interventions to be developed since staff had been trained and retrained on resident altercations. In an interview with the Executive Director (ED) on 07/18/2023 at 11:22 AM, he stated he was made aware that Resident #70 threw coffee on Resident #264 by the nurse. He stated to the best of his memory it happened on a weekend. The ED stated he had not been made aware of any behaviors of Resident #70, but he knew Resident #264 had a history of wandering. 2. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 11/23/2022, revealed Resident #1 reported Resident #89 hit his/her left arm on 11/17/2022. Further review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident Form Final Report, no date given, revealed Resident #1 reported to the ADON that Resident #89 hit him/her on the left mid-forearm and left upper arm while the resident attempted to open the window blinds. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 11/01/2012, with diagnoses that included Diabetes, Anxiety, and Morbid Obesity. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 12/16/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of twelve (12) of fifteen (15), indicating the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #1's care plan, dated 08/15/2022, revealed a focus that the resident exhibited behavior symptoms of combativeness, such as slapping and hitting, with interventions placed to re-direct as needed and remove the resident from the situation. Review of Resident #89's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 09/01/2021, with diagnoses to include Vascular Dementia and Psychotic Disorder. Review of Resident #89's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 11/28/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of zero (0) of fifteen (15), indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident # 89's care plan, dated 11/02/2022, revealed behavior symptoms of yelling, cursing, refusing care, smacking/ hitting staff, and during care, refusing to answer assessment questions and telling staff to leave me alone, don't touch me, I'm not talking to you. Further review revealed interventions placed on 11/02/2022 included to provide re-direction and remove the resident from the situation. No revisions were noted after the 11/17/2022 incident. Review of Resident #1's skin assessment, dated 11/17/2022, revealed a bruise to the left forearm measuring two (2) inches by one (1) inch and circled on the facility's body audit tool. Review of Resident #89's skin assessment, dated 11/17/2022, revealed no apparent injuries. In an interview with Resident #1 on 07/14/2023 at 4:45 PM, he/she stated he/she felt safe at the facility, and no one had hurt him/her including another resident. Interview with Resident #89 was attempted on 07/14/2023 at 5:00 PM, but could not be done due to the resident's low BIMS score. Also, when spoken to, the resident yelled get out. In an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 on 07/14/2023 at 1:55 PM, she stated to the best of her memory she had heard Resident #1 scream, and upon entering the room of Resident #1 and Resident #89, who were roommates, she found Resident #89 hitting the window shades. She stated she thought she remembered a bruise to Resident #1 arm. She stated Resident #89 had been at the facility for awhile, and he/she exhibited paranoid behavior at times. However, she did not give an example. She stated Resident #89 was moved to another room but was unsure of the date. In an interview with the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) on 07/14/2023 at 2:45 PM, she stated Resident #1 had come to the front desk and reported the incident of Resident #89 hitting his/her arm, but there had been no witnesses. She stated she did a skin assessment on Resident #1, and she found a reddened area to the left arm which did look fresh. The ADON stated she had no reports of behavior like that from Resident #89. She stated the only report she had received was Resident #89's refusal of care, and the resident had never been violent to her knowledge. In an interview with the DON (Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/15/2023 at 10:40 AM, she stated she received a report that Resident #1 and Resident #89 had gotten into an argument over the window blinds, and Resident #1 held onto Resident #89's wheelchair to prevent the window blinds from being opened. The DON stated there were no witnesses, but Resident #1 did have a bruise on his/her arm. In an interview with the ED on 07/17/2023 at 11:22 AM, he stated Resident #1 had reported the incident to the ADON, but he had not witnessed the incident and had not seen Resident #1's arm. The ED stated there had been no reports of any altercations between the residents before.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' medications were administered at an error rate below five percent...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' medications were administered at an error rate below five percent (5%). Observation of the medication administration revealed a medication error rate of eleven percent (11%). Medications were not available for four (4) of thirty-six (36) opportunities for two (2) of ten (10) residents sampled for medication administration (Residents #69 and #94). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, dated 2023, revealed medications were administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who were legally authorized to do so in this state; as ordered by the Physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice; and in a manner to prevent infection from contamination. Further review revealed to keep the medication cart clean, organized, and stocked with adequate supplies. 1. Observation of the medication administration on 07/14/2023 at 8:11 AM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #12 revealed Resident #69 had a medication order on his/her Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Ocuvite Adult 50+ (eye vitamins) to be administered three (3) times a day. However, the medication was not available for administration. Observation on 07/13/2023 at 2:59 PM, revealed State Registered Nurse Aide/Certified Medication Technician (SRNA/CMT) #21 failed to administer Resident #65's five (5) milligram (mg) tablet of Buspirone (used to treat anxiety) as ordered. This medication was missing from the medication cart. Further observation revealed CMT #21 went to the facility's Pyxis system (automated medication dispensing system) and searched for the Buspirone. However, the medication was not available. 2. Observation on 07/14/2023 at 9:00 AM, of the medication administration with LPN #12, revealed Resident #94 had Calcium Carbonate 1000 milligrams (mg) chewable medication everyday at 8:00 AM and Miramax 17 grams (gms) in 8 ounces (oz) of water every day. Further observation revealed neither of the medications were available for administration. In an interview on 07/13/2023 at 3:03 PM, CMT #21 stated her process when she encountered an ordered medication that was not available in the medication cart she checked the Pyxis system and emergency box to see if the medication(s) were located there. CMT #21 stated the 5 mg tablet of Buspirone was on order from the pharmacy and would be delivered that evening, at which time the next dose of the medication would be administered. During an interview on 07/14/2023 at 8:32 AM, LPN #12 stated that if a medication was not available on the medication cart the nurse looked in the emergency box for a refill or overstock. LPN #12 stated the nurse administering the medication was responsible for ordering the medications from the pharmacy. The LPN stated the medication should be ordered when the stock was getting low. During an interview on 07/16/2023 at 4:48 PM, the Director on Nursing (DON) stated that it was the charge nurses', who were working on the floors, responsibility to reorder the residents' medications. The DON stated overstock should be checked when the medication on the cart got down to a few doses. She stated if a medication was not in overstock, it should be ordered at that time. The DON further stated that best practice was to order medication before it was out, and she expected staff to order medication when it was low in stock. During an interview on 07/15/2023 at 3:28 PM, the Executive Director (ED) stated that he expected all staff including agency staff to follow the facility's policies.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's refrigerator temperature logs, review of the manufacturer's instructio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's refrigerator temperature logs, review of the manufacturer's instructions for [NAME] Ready Care Nutrition, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to store food safely for two (2) of two (2) nourishment refrigerators. Observations, on 07/11/2023, of the South Unit nourishment refrigerator revealed residents' food products with no name and no room number. The 06/2023 and 07/2023 temperature logs had elevated temperatures recorded. The temperature logs for 03/2023, 04/2023, and 05/2023 were incomplete. Observation of the North Unit nourishment refrigerator revealed the documentation of the 07/2023 temperature log had a range of recorded temperatures of forty-six (46) to fifty-three (53) degrees Fahrenheit (F). This was higher than the acceptable range of thirty-six (36) to forty-one (41) degrees Fahrenheit on the Refrigerator Temperature Log. Also, the facility's policy temperature range was for the residents' food to store under refrigeration at a maximum temperature of forty-one (41) degrees Fahrenheit. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Personal Food Policy, dated 06/2018, revealed all residents' foods would be stored in a secured container labeled with the resident's name, date purchased or prepared, and product name. Perishable foods would be stored under refrigeration at a temperature of forty-one (41) degrees Fahrenheit or less. Per the policy, frozen foods would be stored at a temperature of zero (0) degrees Fahrenheit or less. The policy stated perishable food stored under refrigeration would be discarded after three (3) days, and frozen items would be discarded sixty (60) days from the date of storage or per package expiration. Review of the facility's form Refrigerator Temperatures revealed a log with instructions for the temperature to be checked and recorded daily, with an acceptable temperature range of thirty-six (36) to forty-four (44) degrees Fahrenheit; and to notify the supervisor of temperatures out of range. 1. Observation on 07/11/2023 at 11:00 AM of the South Unit nourishment refrigerator revealed a package of Snap Dilly Bites, dated 10/01/2023, with no resident identification; one (1) Pepsi Zero bottle and one (1) regular Pepsi bottle, sixteen (16) ounces, with no date or resident identification. The small freezer section in the refrigerator had two (2) boxes of Klondike Bars with two (2) ice cream bars left in each. The Klondike Bar package, dated 09/09/2023, contained melting soft ice cream that had leaked out of the silver foil wrapper into the box. The other Klondike Bar package, dated 09/11/2023, contained bars which were soft to the touch in a silver foil wrapper. Review of the March 2023 Refrigerator Temperature log on the South Unit revealed no temperatures were recorded for nineteen (19) of thirty-one (31) days, from 03/01/2023 through 03/19/2023. Review of the April 2023 Refrigerator Temperature log on the South Unit revealed no temperatures were recorded for twenty-five (25) of thirty (30) days. Temperatures were not recorded from 04/01/2023 through 04/15/2023; 04/17/2023 through 04/23/2023; 04/27/2023; 04/29/2023; and 04/30/2023. Review of the May 2023 Refrigerator Temperature log on the South Unit revealed no temperatures were recorded for twenty-six (26) of thirty-one (31) days. Temperatures were not recorded from 05/01/2023 through 05/07/2023; 05/09/2023 through 05/15/2023; 05/17/2023; 05/19/2023 through 05/22/2023; 05/24/2023; and 05/26/2023 through 05/31/2023. Review of the July 2023 Refrigerator Temperatures log on the South Unit revealed documented food temperatures of thirty-seven (37) to forty (40) degrees Fahrenheit, with no indication of the freezer temperature. Continued review of the nourishment refrigerator temperature for 07/09/2023 revealed the temperature was recorded as seventy-five (75) degrees Fahrenheit. In an interview on 07/14/2023 at 8:58 AM and 11:31 AM with the Registered Nurse (RN) South Unit Manager (RN/Unit Manager), she stated dietary staff brought food for the nourishment refrigerator and nursing staff restocked the refrigerator. She stated residents' food items needed to be labeled with the resident's name and room number. The RN/Unit Manager stated this was important so the residents had access to their food, and other residents did not receive food that was not on their diet which could be harmful to the resident. She stated staff often should check the refrigerator temperatures and document them on the temperature log. The RN/Unit Manager stated she monitored the food temperature logs because staff forgot to fill out the temperature log. She stated if the food temperature log was not completed, she tried to get staff to fill in the temperatures. The RN/Unit/Manager stated food could spoil if not kept at the appropriate temperature. 2. Observation on 07/11/2023 at 11:10 AM of the North Unit nourishment refrigerator revealed no food products were stored in the freezer. However, the refrigerator had an unopened Ensure (nutritional supplement) container dated 05/14/2023 and a one-quarter (¼) full opened [NAME] Ready Care Nutrition container with a manufacturer's date of 11/13/2023 and no opened date. Review of the manufacturer's instructions for the [NAME] Ready Care Nutrition, used for medication administration, recommended to use within nine (9) months from production date, to keep at room temperature, and do not freeze. The instructions also stated to refrigerate the product prior to serving, and once opened, recap, refrigerate, and use within seventy-two (72) hours. Review of the Refrigerator Temperatures log on the North Unit, for the nourishment refrigerator revealed on 07/01/2023, a temperature of fifty-three (53) degrees Fahrenheit, and on 07/03/2023, no temperature was recorded. Further review revealed on 07/04/2023, a temperature of fifty (50) degrees Fahrenheit; on 07/05/2023, a temperature of forty-nine (49) degrees Fahrenheit; on 07/06/2023, a temperature of forty-eight (48) degrees Fahrenheit; on 07/07/2023, a temperature of forty-eight (48) degrees Fahrenheit; on 07/08/2023, a temperature of fifty (50) degrees Fahrenheit; and on 07/09/2023, a temperature of forty-six (46) degrees Fahrenheit. In an interview on 07/14/2023 at 11:15 AM with RN #2/North Unit Manager, she stated the staff should have told her the temperature of the nourishment refrigerator was not within the acceptable range, even if the thermometer was broken. She stated if the refrigerator temperature was not within the acceptable range, the residents' food would not be kept at a safe temperature. She further stated the difference in the acceptable temperature ranges between the facility's policy of food being stored at a temperature of forty-one (41) degrees Fahrenheit maximum and the Refrigerator Temperatures log of forty-four (44) degrees Fahrenheit maximum was because the medication, nourishment, and lab refrigerators all used the one (1) monthly form. In an interview, on 07/16/2023 at 5:10 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated her expectation was for staff to record the nourishment refrigerator temperatures daily and report to the supervisor or DON if the temperatures were out of range. She stated staff should throw out the food if the temperatures were out of range. She also stated food from the resident's family needed to be labeled with the resident's name and dated. In an interview on 07/16/2023 at 5:23 PM with the Executive Director (ED), he stated his expectation for staff was to record daily food nourishment refrigerator temperatures. He stated staff should notify the supervisor if the nourishment refrigerator temperatures were out of range.
Nov 2019 1 deficiency
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 and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only auth...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys, for one (1) of twenty-four (24) sampled residents, Resident #70. Observation of Resident #70's room on 11/04/19, revealed a cup of medications prescribed for Resident #70, sitting on the bedside table. In addition, there was no documented evidence the resident was assessed as able to self-administer medications. The findings include: Review of the facility Policy titled Storage of Medications, undated, revealed medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. Per Policy, the medication supply is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications. Continued review of the Policy, revealed only licensed nurses, pharmacy personnel, and those lawfully authorized to administer medications are permitted to access medications. Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked when not attended by persons with authorized access. Review of a document provided by the facility at the time of the survey titled List of Residents that Wander, revealed there were eight (8) residents who wander in the facility. 1. Review of Resident #70's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 02/10/17 and readmitted the resident on 06/17/19 with diagnoses including Iron Deficiency, Muscle Weakness, Hypertension, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Rheumatoid Arthritis, HTN, Thrombocytopenia, Panic Disorder, Anemia, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD), and Diverticulitis. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 11/04/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #70 as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15), indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #70's current Monthly Physician's Orders for November 2019, revealed orders for Amlodipine 10 milligrams, take one (1) by mouth daily (calcium channel blocker that dilates blood vessels used for hypertension and chest pain); Folic Acid 1 mg daily (form of folate); Magnesium Oxide 400 MG once a day (mineral supplement to treat low levels of magnesium); Pantoprazole 40 MG once a day (decreases amount of acid in the stomach); Paroxetine 40 MG once a day (antidepressant) ; Prednisone 5 mg once a day (glucocorticoid); Vitamin B12 once a day(vitamin supplement); Vitamin D3 once a day(vitamin supplement); Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg twice a day (Iron supplement); Hydralazine 50 mg twice a day (used to treat hypertension); and ICAPS, two (2) tablets once a day (multivitamin). Observation during the initial tour, which began on 11/05/19 at 11:30 AM, revealed twelve (12) pills in a cup on the resident's bedside table in front of the resident's bed. Interview with Resident #70 during this observation, revealed staff left the medication in his/her room and he/she was waiting to take the medication with food. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, on 11/05/19 at 11:40 AM, revealed the medications should not be in Resident #70's room, as there were wandering residents on the unit which could consume the medications. LPN #1 removed the cup of medications from the resident's room. Subsequent interview with Resident #70, on 11/05/19 at 2:05 PM, revealed Nurses normally watched him/her take the medications; however, on this day the Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) #1 had left the medications for the resident to take at a later time. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated November 2019, revealed medications scheduled to be administered at 9:00 AM included Amlodipine 10 milligrams, take one (1) by mouth; Folic Acid, take one (1) by mouth; Magnesium Oxide 400 MG, take one (1) by mouth; Pantoprazole 40 MG, take one (1) by mouth; Paroxetine 40 MG, take one (1) by mouth; Prednisone 5 mg, take one (1) by mouth; Vitamin B12, take one (1) by mouth; Vitamin D3, take one (1) by mouth; Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg, take one (1) by mouth; Hydralazine 50 mg, take one (1) by mouth; and ICAPS multivitamin, two (2) tablets by mouth. Further review of Resident #70's medical record revealed no documented evidence the resident had been assessed to self-administer medications. In addition, review of the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan, revealed no documented evidence of a Plan of Care related to self-administration of medications. Interview with KMA #1, on 11/07/19 at 9:51 AM, revealed residents were not allowed to have medications or prescriptions in their rooms unless the resident had been assessed to administer his or her own medications. Continued interview revealed the facility did not currently have any residents who had been assessed as able to self-administer medications. She further stated she left Resident #70's medications at the bedside on 11/05/19, because he/she was being contrary about taking the medications and she meant to check back with him/her later. However, she stated she got busy with another resident and forgot to go back and ensure Resident #70 took the medications. She further stated it was a mistake, and she normally did not leave medications for residents to take at a later time. Per interview, the medications were destroyed by LPN #1 after the State Agency Representative found the medications and the Physician was notified. Interview with the Unit Manager Registered Nurse (RN) #1, on 11/07/19 at 9:45 AM, revealed she had worked at the facility for ten (10) years. She stated it was her expectation for staff to administer medications as prescribed. She further stated it was not okay for staff to leave mediations in the resident's room unattended. Per interview, residents were not allowed to have any forms of medications in their rooms and the facility did not have any residents who self-administered medications. Further, there were confused residents in the facility that could consume the medications if accessible. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 11/07/19 at 10:00 AM, revealed medications should not be left in residents rooms where a wandering or confused resident could consume the medication. Continued interview revealed if a confused resident had access to another resident's medication, this could cause the confused resident to have an allergic reaction or to take a double dosage. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 11/07/19 at 11:10 AM, revealed medications should be locked up in the Medication/Treatment Cart, as per facility policy, and not be left out on the bedside table accessible to wandering confused residents. The DON stated if a confused resident had access to prescription medications which were left unsupervised they could consume the medication which could possibly cause adverse consequences. Further interview with the DON, revealed when medications were refused, she expected the nurse to remove the medication, destroy the medications, and notify the physician. She further stated there were no residents in the facility that could self-administer their own medications. Interview with the Administrator, on 11/07/19 at 11:00 AM, revealed there were no residents at the facility who self-administered medications. He further stated all medications were to be stored under lock and key as per the facility policy. Further interview revealed if medications were refused, staff should not leave the medications at the bedside. Continued interview with the Administrator, revealed it was his expectation staff keep facility residents safe.
Oct 2018 4 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

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 policies, 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 policies, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Care Plan was reviewed and revised after each assessment for one (1) of thirty-five (35) sampled residents (Resident #6). Resident #6's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/16/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring the assistance of two (2) persons for transfers and was only able to stabilize with staff assistance when moving from seated to standing position and surface-to-surface transfers. Also, the Lift Transfer Evaluation, revised 07/16/18, revealed the resident could not safely transfer independently or with oversight, bear weight on at least one (1) leg, or turn and pivot while maintaining balance, requiring a Sit to Stand (STS) lift as needed. However, the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated 11/12/12, revealed an intervention to assist with transfers as needed. The CCP was not revised to specify the transfer technique required, or how many staff were required to assist the resident with transfers. In addition, the Care Giver Information Sheet (CGIS), dated 08/31/18, which was a source used by the State Registered Nursing Assistants (SRNAs) in providing care and was to reflect interventions from the CCP, revealed Resident #6 required a Stand to Sit (STS) mechanical lift with a large sling PRN (as needed) for transfers. Neither the CCP or the CGIS were revised to address the specific transfer technique and the number of staff required for transfers to ensure this resident's safety. On 09/20/18, Resident #6 attempted to transfer independently with only supervision by one (1) SRNA and the resident fell sustaining a Closed Fracture of the Distal End of the Right Fibula. Actual Harm was determined to exist on 09/20/18. (Refer to F-689) The findings include: Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/03/18 at 3:00 PM, revealed the facility did not have a policy related to revising the Care Plan; however, used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0 as a guide. 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 results of the assessments must be used to develop, review, and revise the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan. Review of Resident #6's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/01/12, with diagnoses which included Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Low back pain, Muscle Weakness, Abnormal posture, Abnormalities of gait and Mobility, and Lack of coordination. Review of Resident #6's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), initiated 11/12/12, revealed the resident was at risk for injury due to history of fall with injury related to: impaired mobility; medical diagnosis of MS; use of Psychotropic medications; difficulty hearing and vision; and refusals to wear non-skid socks or shoes. The goal revealed the resident would have no unidentified complications related to being at risk for falls. There were several interventions including: assist with transfer as needed, with no initiation date; refer for Physical Therapy evaluation as needed; and observe for changes in condition that may warrant increased assistance and notify the physician. However, the CCP was not revised to include the resident's required transfer technique, assistive device required for transfers, or the number of staff required for transfers. Review of the Lift Transfer Evaluation, revised 07/16/18, revealed Resident #6 could not safely transfer independently or with oversight, bear weight on at least one (1) leg, or turn and pivot while maintaining balance and required a STS lift (mechanical assistive device used to transfer a person between surfaces by the use of electrical or hydraulic power) with a large sling. Further review of the Evaluation revealed the resident required STS lift PRN due to muscle weakness. Review of the Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/16/18, revealed the facility assessed Resident #6 as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIM) score of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15), indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Additional review revealed the facility assessed the resident as only able to stabilize with staff assistance when moving from seated to standing position and surface-to-surface transfers. Further review of the MDS Assessment revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring extensive assistance of two (2) staff for transfers. Review of the Care Giver Information Sheet (CGIS) dated 08/31/18, revealed Resident #6 was a Fall Risk, requiring a STS lift with a large sling PRN for transfers. However, the CGIS did not include the resident's self-performance level, type of transfer if the STS lift was not used, or the number of staff required for transfers with or without the STS lift. Review of the Incident Report, dated 09/20/18 at 7:35 PM, completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4, revealed Resident #6 had an assisted fall in the bedroom, from the bed with assistance from SRNA #2. According to the Report, Resident #6 was being assisted to the wheelchair from bed when his/her knee gave out. SRNA #2 assisted the resident to the floor, but in doing so trapped and twisted the resident's right ankle under the wheelchair. Per the Report, the resident was assisted back to bed and then complained of ten (10) out of ten (10) pain to the right ankle, which had swelling, bruising, and a hard bony protrusion noted. The Report further revealed LPN #4 assessed the resident, applied ice to the swelling right ankle, notified the Physician at 7:55 PM, and sent the Resident to the emergency room at 8:15 PM. This Report was signed by LPN #4, Director of Nursing (DON), Administrator, and Medical Director. Review of Resident #6's Nurse's Note, dated 09/20/18 at 9:32 PM, completed by LPN #4, revealed the resident was being assisted to the wheelchair from bed when his/her knee gave out. SRNA aided the resident to the floor, but in doing so trapped and twisted the right ankle under the wheelchair. The resident at that time did not have complaints of pain. Further review of the Note, revealed the resident was assisted back to bed and then complained of ten (10) out of ten (10) pain to the right ankle, which upon assessment was noted to have swelling, bruising, and a hard bony protrusion noted. Continued review of the Note, revealed LPN #4 applied ice to swelling on the right ankle, notified the physician at 7:55 PM, and sent the resident to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. Review of the Hospital Emergency Department Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #6 was diagnosed with a Closed Fracture of the Distal End of the Right Fibula. Further review revealed a follow up with an orthopedic surgeon was necessary in one (1) week. Interview with Resident #6, on 10/02/18 at 10:26 AM, revealed he/she fell which resulted in a fracture approximately two (2) weeks ago. Per interview when SRNA #2 answered the call bell, on the evening of the fall, both Resident #6 and SRNA #2 decided together not to use the STS lift because the resident was not feeling weak. Resident #6 revealed he/she took a few steps from the bed towards the electric wheelchair, while SRNA #2 was with him/her and was supervising with no hands on assistance, and just stand by assistance for the transfer. Resident #6 further stated during the transfer he/she became weak and fell on to both knees. Additional interview revealed SRNA #2 assisted him/her to a lying position and alerted LPN #4, who came to his/her room and assessed him/her. Per interview, LPN #4 and SRNA #2 then used the full mechanical lift (Hoyer lift) to assist him/her from the floor to the bed, and then used the STS lift to transfer him/her back to the electric wheelchair for dinner. Per interview, the STS lift was used again after dinner to transfer him/her back to bed. Further interview revealed he/she noted discomfort and swelling to his/her right ankle when being transferred per the STS lift from the wheelchair to the bed after dinner, and he/she was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department for further evaluation. Interview with SRNA #2, on 10/03/18 at 5:00 PM, revealed on the evening of 09/20/18, he answered Resident #6's call bell before dinner and the resident stated he/she was ready to get out of bed. SRNA #2 stated he asked Resident #6 how he/she felt that day and the resident verbalized he/she was ok to stand and pivot, and did not need to use the STS lift. SRNA #2 revealed he assisted the resident to sit up on the side of the bed, and unhooked the resident's indwelling catheter urinary drainage bag so the resident could stand and pivot. SRNA verified he did not assist hands on with the transfer, and he was the only staff in the resident's room during the transfer. SRNA #2 stated when the resident stood to pivot, his/her right foot got caught on the small wheel on the electric wheelchair, and the resident started yelling oh God I'm falling. Continued interview with SRNA #2, revealed he then tried to stabilize the resident; however, the resident slowly fell down. Per interview, he assisted the resident to a sitting position on the floor and then laid him/her back. SRNA #2 revealed the resident's right foot was behind him/her, and his/her right leg was bent at the knee. Per interview, he straightened out the resident's leg and went to alert LPN #4. SRNA #2 stated LPN #4 came to Resident #6's room and assessed the resident, and then helped use the total mechanical lift (Hoyer lift) to assist the resident back into bed. Further interview revealed the resident did not complain of pain after the fall. He stated he then used the STS lift to transfer Resident #6 from the bed to the wheelchair for dinner and later transferred the resident back to bed after dinner. However, SRNA #2 revealed when he removed Resident #6's TED hose after dinner he noticed swelling and bruising to the resident's right ankle and the resident verbalized pain. Per interview, LPN #4 assessed the resident and had the resident transferred to the hospital. Additional interview with SRNA #2, revealed prior to Resident #6's transfer on 09/20/18, he reviewed the CGIS to check the level of assistance and care the resident required. Per interview, according to the CGIA at that time the resident was to be transferred with a STS lift PRN. He further stated prior to the resident's fall, he also relied on shift report from the SRNA on the previous shift and the resident's decision when determining if the STS lift should be used for Resident #6's transfers during his shift. Continued interview revealed prior to the resident's fall, Resident #6's transfer status varied related to his/her diagnosis of MS, and the resident was weak on most days. However, he revealed in order to ensure safety during transfer on 09/20/18, Resident #6's transfer technique should have been consistent and specific i.e. extensive assist of two (2) staff with STS lift for all transfers to avoid any question on the correct transfer status and to decrease the risk of injury for the resident and staff. Phone interview on 10/04/18 at 1:00 PM, with LPN #4, revealed he was assigned to Resident #6 at the time of the fall on 09/20/18. Per interview, direct care staff used the CGIS as a guide for providing the required assistance needed for each resident. He stated the CGIS was to indicate how many staff were required for transfers and if a mechanical lift was required. However, he revealed prior to Resident #6's fall on 09/20/18, the resident was weaker on some days and would verbalize to staff if he/she was able to stand and pivot for transfer or needed to use the STS lift for transfer. Further interview revealed with either transfer technique two (2) staff were required to transfer Resident #6, but it was up to the SRNAs to determine if the resident was strong enough before each transfer to stand and pivot or needed to use the STS lift. Additional interview revealed on 09/20/18 around 7:30 PM, he was alerted by SRNA #2 that Resident #6 was on the floor. He stated SRNA #2 told him Resident #6 was transferring independently from bed to the wheelchair when his/her knee gave out, and SRNA #2 had to ease the resident to the floor. Continued interview with LPN #4, revealed upon entering the resident's room, the resident was lying on the floor, on his/her back by the bed. LPN #4 stated he assessed Resident #6's ankles after the resident complained he/she twisted his/her ankle. LPN #4 stated he removed the TED hose, and there was no swelling, bruising or complaints of pain from the resident at the initial assessment. LPN #4 further stated the resident was assisted off the floor to bed with the total mechanical lift (Hoyer lift) and he assessed the resident again for injuries once he/she was in the bed. Additional interview, revealed thirty (30) minutes later, Resident #6 complained of pain and swelling to the right ankle, the Physician was notified, and the resident was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department for further evaluation. Additional interview, revealed the CCP and the CGIS should specify how many staff are required for each resident's transfer and the specific transfer technique to be used to ensure residents were provided consistent and safe care. Interview with the MDS Coordinator, on 10/03/18 at 4:01 PM, revealed prior to Resident #6's fall on 09/20/18, the resident had fluctuating functional status and lower extremity weakness and therefore the resident's transfer status regarding assistance needed varied on a day-to-day, hour-to-hour basis. She stated there was a Lift Binder on each hallway with Lift Transfer Evaluations for each resident's mechanical lift requirements. She further stated the SRNAs were to use these Evaluations along with the CGIS to check for transfer technique when transferring residents. Additional interview revealed the SRNA who transferred Resident #6 on 09/20/18, had to determine at time of transfer if the resident was able to stand and transfer, or was too weak requiring the Lift. Further interview with the MDS Coordinator, revealed the MDS Assessments, the CCP and the CGIS should have consistent information related to assistance needed for transfers. However, she revealed at the time Resident #6 sustained the fall on 09/20/18, the resident's CCP did not include the requirement for two (2) staff for transfers as per the MDS Assessment, and the CCP was not specific related to transfer technique. Further interview revealed it was important to revise the falls CCP to include specific transfer interventions in an attempt to reduce the residents' risk for falls and injury, and this information was to be carried over to the CGIS used by the SRNAs to provide care. The MDS Coordinator stated there should be no confusion as to transfer technique on the CCP or the CGIS. Interview with the DON, on 10/04/18 at 2:54 PM, revealed there were safety risks involved for residents and staff when placing the SRNAs in a situation where they had to determine the transfer status of residents before each transfer. She stated Resident #6 sustained a fall during transfer as the resident was not transferred per his/her most dependent transfer technique. Continued interview revealed the MDS Nurse was responsible for Care Planning each resident's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) function including transfers as per the Resident Assessment Instrument. The DON stated Resident #6's CCP for transfer status should have been revised to include the resident's self-performance level, the level of staff support required for transfers and a STS lift, prior to the resident sustaining the fall on 09/20/18. Per interview, the CGIS used by the SRNAs were to match the CCP interventions related to transfers. Interview with the Administrator, on 10/04/18 at 3:08 PM, revealed there was the risk of resident and staff safety involved when SRNAs had to determine the transfer status of residents. Further interview revealed Resident #6's CCP and CGIS should have been revised to specify the resident's self-performance level, the level of staff support required for transfers, and the STS lift for transfers prior to the resident being transferred on 09/20/18 and sustaining the fall. Additional interview revealed the MDS Coordinator was to follow the RAI guidelines related to revising the CCP, and the CCP should be specific to the MDS coding. Per interview, the MDS process drives the CCP based on assessment and dictates the resident's care needs. Interview with Medical Director on 10/04/18 at 3:50 PM, revealed a resident's CCP should address the type of transfer and how many staff were required to assist with transfers. Per interview, it was important for the CCP to be specific to each resident's needs to ensure staff provided the resident with safe, consistent care.
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 interview, record review, review of the facility Guidelines, and review of the Incident Report, dated 09/20/18, it was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of the facility Guidelines, and review of the Incident Report, dated 09/20/18, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents reviewed for falls out of a total sample of thirty-five (35) residents (Resident #6). Resident #6 was assessed by the facility to require assistance of two (2) persons for transfers per the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/16/18. According to the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated 11/12/12, staff was to assist with transfers as needed. Further, Resident #6's Care Giver Information Sheet (CGIS), which was used by the State Registered Nursing Assistants (SRNA) as a reference for providing care, dated 08/31/18, revealed the Resident was a Fall Risk and required a Stand to Sit (STS) mechanical lift with a large sling as needed for transfers. Neither the CCP or the CGIS addressed the specific transfer technique and the number of staff required for transfers to ensure the resident's safety. These inconsistencies in transfer technique left the resident's transfer status to be determined by the SRNA's assessment of the resident's functional ability at the time of each transfer. On 09/20/18, Resident #6 attempted to transfer independently with only supervision by one (1) SRNA and the resident fell to the floor sustaining a Closed Fracture of the Distal End of the Right Fibula. Actual Harm was determined to exist on 09/20/18. (Refer to F-657) The findings include: Review of the facility's Fall Clinical Care Guidelines, dated April 2017, revealed the purpose of the guidelines was to identify risk and establish interventions to mitigate the occurrence of falls. Additional review revealed fall risk would be assessed on admission and re-admission and identified risk factors and corresponding interventions would be documented on the CCP and CGIS. Further review revealed a post fall evaluation would be completed to assist with developing and implementing interventions to prevent future falls. Review of Resident #6's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/01/12, with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Low Back Pain, Muscle Weakness, Abnormal Posture, Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, and Lack of Coordination. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), initiated 11/12/12, revealed Resident #6 was at risk for injury due to history of fall with injury related to: impaired mobility; medical diagnosis of MS; use of Psychotropic medications; difficulty hearing and vision; and refusals to wear non-skid socks or shoes. The goal stated the resident would have no unidentified complications related to being at risk for falls. Interventions included, but were not limited to: assist with transfer as needed, with no initiation date; refer for Physical Therapy evaluation as needed; and observe for changes in condition that may warrant increased assistance and notify the physician. However, the CCP did not specify the resident's required transfer technique, assistive device required for transfers, or the number of staff required for transfers. Review of Resident #6's Lift Transfer Evaluation, revised 07/16/18, revealed the resident could not safely transfer independently or with oversight, bear weight on at least one (1) leg, or turn and pivot while maintaining balance and required a STS lift (mechanical assistive device used to transfer a person between surfaces by the use of electrical or hydraulic power) with a large sling. Additional review of the Evaluation revealed the resident required STS lift PRN (as needed) due to muscle weakness. Review of Resident #6's Clinical Health Status Quarterly Assessment, dated 07/16/18, revealed the resident required assistance of two (2) staff for transfers and toileting. Additional review revealed the resident used side rails, a walker, and a wheelchair. However, STS lift was not documented under other assistive devices. Further review of the Assessment, revealed the resident's Fall Risk Factors included impaired gait or balance, impairment in lower extremity strength, and medications, indicating Resident #6 was a Fall Risk. Review of Resident #6's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 08/23/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIM) score of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15), indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Continued review of the MDS Assessment revealed the facility assessed the resident as only able to stabilize with staff assistance when moving from seated to standing position and surface-to-surface transfers, and as requiring extensive assistance of two (2) staff for transfers. Review of the Care Giver Information Sheet (CGIS) dated 08/31/18, revealed Resident #6 was a Fall Risk and required a STS lift with a large sling PRN for transfers. However, the CGIS did not specify the resident's self-performance level, type of transfer if the STS lift was not used, or the number of staff required for transfers with or without the STS lift. Review of the Incident Report, dated 09/20/18 at 7:35 PM, completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4, revealed Resident #6 had an assisted fall in the bedroom, from the bed. Per the Report, Resident #6 was being assisted to the wheelchair from bed when his/her knee gave out. State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #2 assisted the resident to the floor, but in doing so trapped and twisted the resident's right ankle under the wheelchair. The resident was assisted back to bed and then complained of ten (10) out of ten (10) pain to the right ankle, which had swelling, bruising, and a hard bony protrusion noted. Further review of the Report, revealed LPN #4 notified the Physician at 7:55 PM, and sent the Resident to the emergency room at 8:15 PM. Further review revealed medical risk factors possibly related to the incident included sensory limitations, fall history, and incontinence. The Report was signed by LPN #4, Director of Nursing (DON), Administrator, and Medical Director. Review of the Fall investigation Form, dated 09/20/18, completed by LPN #4, revealed Resident #6 was engaged in transferring from bed to wheelchair, did not call for help, and the fall event was witnessed by SRNA #2. Continued review revealed the resident was incontinent of stool at the time of the fall event. Further review revealed the resident's fall occurred during a transfer while not using a gait belt or mechanical lift. This Form was not signed by the DON, Administrator, or Medical Director Review of Resident #6's Fall Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Worksheet, undated, and not signed, revealed Resident #6 stated he/she was trying to move to the wheelchair when his/her knee gave out. Further review revealed the resident fell inches away from the bed, and was lying on his/her back with arms at side. Continued review revealed the surrounding area was not busy, noisy or cluttered; the lights were on; the bed was at the correct height; the resident was wearing non-skid socks; and SRNA #2 was in the area when the Resident fell. Interview with LPN #4 on 10/04/18 at 1:00 PM, revealed he completed the Worksheet; however, there was no designated line on the worksheet for a signature. Review of the Nurse's Note, dated 09/20/18 at 9:32 PM, completed by LPN #4, revealed Resident #6 was being assisted to the wheelchair from bed when his/her knee gave out. Per the Note, SRNA aided the resident to the floor, but in doing so trapped and twisted the right ankle under the wheelchair. The resident at that time did not have complaints of pain. Continued review of the Note, revealed the resident was assisted back to bed and then complained of ten (10) out of ten (10) pain to the right ankle, which upon assessment had swelling, bruising, and a hard bony protrusion noted. Further review of the Note, revealed LPN #4 applied ice to swelling on the right ankle, notified the physician at 7:55 PM, and sent the resident to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. Per the Note, Medic transported the resident via stretcher with two (2) attendants to the Emergency Department. Review of the Hospital Emergency Department Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #6 was diagnosed with a Closed Fracture of the Distal End of the Right Fibula. Further review revealed a follow up with an orthopedic surgeon was necessary in one (1) week, and if symptoms worsen follow up with the Hospital Emergency Department. Review of the Nurse's Note, dated 09/21/18 at 12:22 AM, completed by, LPN #4 revealed Resident # 6 returned from the Emergency Department via Medic transport via stretcher with two (2) attendants, with a diagnosis of Closed Fracture of the Distal End of the Right Fibula. Per the Note, the resident was wearing a hard splint and had no complaints of pain or discomfort. Further review of the Note, revealed surgery was to be scheduled by the facility, no new orders were received, and the resident's call light was in reach. Review of the subsequent Nursing Note, dated 09/21/08 at 9:18 AM, revealed Resident #6's fall event on 09/20/18 at 7:30 PM, was reviewed during clinical startup meeting. Per the Note, the Root Cause Analysis of the fall was determined to be bilateral lower extremity weakness with buckling of the right knee related to a diagnosis of MS. Further review revealed the post fall intervention was for Therapy to screen, evaluate and treat Resident #6 pending recommendations from the Ortho-surgeon. Interview with Resident #6, on 10/02/18 at 10:26 AM, revealed he/she sustained a fall resulting in a fracture approximately two (2) weeks ago. Resident #6 stated he/she had to ring the call bell for help getting up from his/her bed to the wheelchair; however, he/she did not recall why he/she was getting up. Continued interview revealed when SRNA #2 answered the call bell, on the evening of the fall, both Resident #6 and SRNA #2 decided together not to use the STS lift because the resident was not feeling weak. Resident #6 stated he/she transferred independently many times after staff assisted him/her to sit on the side of the bed, and moved the chair close to the bed, and he/she felt the lift was not needed. Resident #6 stated he/she took a few steps from the bed towards the electric wheelchair, while SRNA #2 was with him/her and was supervising with no hands on assistance, and just stand by assistance for the transfer. Per interview, during the transfer he/she became weak and fell on to both knees. Continued interview revealed SRNA #2 assisted him/her to a lying position and alerted LPN #4, who came to his/her room and assessed him/her. Resident #6 revealed LPN #4 and SRNA #2 then used the full mechanical lift (Hoyer lift) to assist the resident from the floor to the bed, and the STS lift to transfer him/her back to the electric wheelchair for dinner. Per interview, the STS lift was used again after dinner to transfer the resident back to bed. Resident #6 stated he/she noted discomfort and swelling to his/her right ankle when being transferred per the STS lift from the wheelchair to the bed after dinner. Per interview, LPN #4 told the resident he/she could have broken his/her ankle and the physician recommended transferring him/her to the Emergency Department for further evaluation. Interview with SRNA #2, on 10/03/18 at 5:00 PM, revealed he was assisting Resident #6 on 09/20/18 when the resident fell and broke his/her ankle. He stated the fall occurred before dinner when he was assisting the resident to get out of bed. Per interview, SRNA #2 asked Resident #6 how he/she felt that day and the resident verbalized he/she was ok to stand and pivot, and did not need to use the STS lift. SRNA #2 stated he assisted the resident to sit up on the side of the bed, and unhooked the resident's indwelling catheter urinary drainage bag so the resident could stand and pivot. SRNA confirmed he did not assist hands on with the transfer, and he was the only staff in the resident's room during the transfer. SRNA #2 further stated when the resident stood to pivot, his/her right foot got caught on the small wheel on the electric wheelchair. He stated the resident started yelling oh God I'm falling. Additional interview with SRNA #2, revealed his first reaction was to prevent the resident from falling and he tried to stabilize him/her. However, he stated the Resident slowly fell down and he assisted the resident to a sitting position on the floor and then laid him/her back. SRNA #2 stated the resident's right foot was behind him/her, and his/her right leg was bent at the knee. SRNA #2 further stated he straightened out the resident's leg and went to alert LPN #4. Per interview, LPN #4 came to Resident #6's room and assessed the resident, and then helped use the total mechanical lift (Hoyer lift) to assist the resident back to bed. Further interview revealed Resident #6 had on TED ( Thrombo-Embolic Deterrent) hose and non-skid socks during the fall, and did not complain of pain after the fall. SRNA #2 stated he then used the STS lift to transfer Resident #6 from the bed to the wheelchair for dinner and then transferred the resident back to bed after dinner. However, he stated when he removed Resident #6's TED hose after dinner he noticed swelling and bruising to the resident's right ankle and the resident verbalized pain. SRNA #2 stated he asked LPN #4 to assess the resident and the nurse had the resident transferred to the hospital. Continued interview with SRNA #2, revealed prior to Resident #6's transfer on 09/20/18, he reviewed the CGIS to check the level of assistance and care the resident required. He stated at that time the resident was to be transferred with a STS lift PRN. SRNA #2 further stated prior to the resident's fall he relied on shift report from the SRNA on the previous shift and what the resident told him when determining if the STS lift should be used for Resident #6's transfers during his shift. Further interview revealed prior to the resident's fall, Resident #6's transfer status varied related to his/her diagnosis of MS, and the resident was weak on most days. However, he stated in order to ensure safety during transfer on 09/20/18, Resident #6's transfer technique should have been consistent and specific i.e. extensive assist of two (2) staff with STS lift for all transfers to avoid any question on the correct transfer status and to decrease the risk of injury for the resident and staff. Telephone interview with LPN #4, on 10/04/18 at 1:00 PM, who was assigned to Resident #6 at the time of the fall on 09/20/18, revealed direct care staff used the CGIS as a guide for providing the required assistance needed for each resident. Per interview, the CGIS was to indicate how many staff were required for transfers and if a mechanical lift was required. However, he stated prior to Resident #6's fall on 09/20/18, the resident was weaker on some days and would verbalize to staff if he/she was able to stand and pivot for transfer or needed to use the STS lift for transfer. Per interview, with either transfer technique two (2) staff were required to transfer the resident, but it was up to the SRNAs to determine if the resident was strong enough before each transfer to stand and pivot or needed to use the STS lift. Continued interview with LPN #4, revealed on 09/20/18 around 7:30 PM, he was alerted by SRNA #2 that Resident #6 was on the floor. Per interview, SRNA #2 told him Resident #6 was transferring independently from bed to the wheelchair when his/her knee gave out, and SRNA #2 eased the resident to the floor. Further interview with LPN #4, revealed upon entering the resident's room, the resident was lying on the floor, on his/her back by the bed. Continued interview revealed the resident told LPN #4 he/she thought he/she twisted his/her ankle. LPN #4 stated he assessed Resident #6's ankles after removing the TED hose, and there was no swelling, bruising or complaints of pain from the resident at the initial assessment. Per interview, the resident was assisted off the floor to bed with the total mechanical lift (Hoyer lift) and LPN #4 assessed the Resident again for injuries. Further interview, revealed thirty (30) minutes later, Resident #6 was complaining of pain and swelling to the right ankle. Per interview, the Physician was notified and the resident was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department for further evaluation. LPN #4 stated the CCP and the CGIS should specify how many staff are required for each resident's transfer and the specific transfer technique to be used to ensure residents were provided consistent and safe care. Interview with SRNA #1/Restorative Aide on 10/04/18 at 2:00 PM, revealed Resident #6 was receiving Transfer Training per the Restorative program prior to his/her most recent fall on 09/20/18. Per interview, Resident #6 would stand from a sitting position with assistance of two (2) staff. Additional interview revealed Resident #6 did require weight bearing assistance with transfers in the Restorative Program and some days the resident was weaker and required more assistance. Further interview revealed prior to the most recent fall, Resident #6 used a STS lift PRN with assistance of one (1) to two (2) staff outside of the Restorative Program when the SRNAs on the floor were transferring the resident related to his/her fluctuating functional/transfer status due to the diagnosis of MS. Interview with the Occupational Therapist, on 10/04/18 at 2:12 PM, revealed the Therapy Department became involved with a resident's transfer status and use of mechanical lifts only when there was an identified change in a resident's current transfer status and nursing staff requested a therapy evaluation. She stated the licensed nursing staff completed Lift Transfer Evaluations otherwise. Further interview revealed Resident #6 had not been seen recently by therapy services related to transfer technique prior to the fall on 09/20/18. However, she stated if a resident sometimes required the use of a mechanical lift for transfers, the mechanical lift should be used consistently for safety. Interview with the MDS Coordinator, on 10/03/18 at 4:01 PM, revealed prior to Resident #6's fall on 09/20/18, the resident had fluctuating functional status and lower extremity weakness on most days. Per interview, at that time, the resident's transfer status related to assistance needed varied on a day-to-day, hour-to-hour basis. Further interview revealed there was a Lift Binder on each hallway with Lift Transfer Evaluations for each resident's mechanical lift requirements. Per interview, the SRNAs were to use these Evaluations along with the CGIS to check for transfer technique when transferring residents. Continued interview revealed the SRNA who transferred Resident #6 on 09/20/18, had to determine at time of transfer if the resident was able to stand and transfer, or was too weak requiring the Lift. Additional interview with the MDS Coordinator, revealed at the time Resident #6 sustained the fall on 09/20/18, the resident's CCP did not specify two (2) staff were required for transfer as per the MDS Assessment, and the CCP was not specific related to transfer technique required due to the resident's fluctuating functional status. She stated the CGIS which was to be a reflection of the CCP and was used as a source of reference in providing care by the SRNAs, did not specify the exact transfer technique or number of staff to assist with transfers. Continued interview revealed it was important to revise the CCP to ensure staff had specific guidance in providing care to residents. She acknowledged it was important to ensure the falls CCP had specific transfer interventions in an attempt to reduce the residents' risk for falls and injury. The MDS Coordinator further revealed there should be consistent individualized care to all residents for their safety, and there should be no confusion as to transfer technique on the CCP or the CGIS. Interview with the DON, on 10/04/18 at 2:54 PM, revealed she expected staff to provide adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accident to residents. Per interview, the facility's goal was to keep residents as safe as possible and provide the best care. She stated she expected facility policy, state and federal regulation and professional standards to be followed in all care. Per interview, she felt the PRN use of mechanical lifts was acceptable practice because the facility wanted the residents to remain as independent as possible. She stated she would not want to limit residents to a STS lift if the resident was capable of transferring with assistance of staff on some days. However, she stated she did realize there were safety risks involved for residents and staff when placing the SRNAs in a situation where they had to determine the transfer status of residents before each transfer. Continued interview with the DON, revealed staff was aware Resident #6 was at high risk for falls prior to the fall on 09/20/18, related to his/her diagnosis of MS, history of fall and fluctuating functional status. Per interview, on 09/20/18 the resident sustained a Fracture during transfer as the resident was not transferred per his/her most dependent transfer technique. Continued interview revealed the MDS Nurse was responsible for Care Planning each resident's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) function per the Resident Assessment Instrument. Per interview, she could see how the CCP and the CGIS needed to be specific and consistent related to transfer technique and number of staff needed for transfers to maintain resident safety and quality care. Interview with the Administrator, on 10/04/18 at 3:08 PM, revealed it was acceptable practice for a mechanical lift to be used PRN because it allowed residents to have the most independence possible. However, further interview revealed there was the risk of resident and staff safety involved when SRNAs determined the transfer status of residents for each transfer. Continued interview revealed Resident #6's CCP and CGIS should have specified the resident's self-performance level, the level of staff support required for transfers, and the STS lift for transfers, prior to the resident's transfer on 09/20/18. Interview with Medical Director on 10/04/18 at 3:50 PM, revealed she expected the licensed staff at the facility to determine a resident's transfer status. Additional interview revealed SRNAs or residents should not determine transfer status at the time of transfer because they may not have the knowledge or skills to assess for proper transfer technique. Continued interview revealed a resident's CCP should be specific and should specify the type of transfer and how many staff were required to assist with transfers. Further interview revealed it was important for the CCP to be specific to each resident's needs to ensure staff provided the resident with safe, consistent care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessmen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, and nursing needs for one (1) of thirty-five (35) sampled residents (Resident #54). Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and Departmental Notes dated 05/14/18 and 05/15/18, revealed the resident had bilateral foot drop and contractures of the right hand. Observation of Resident #54 on 10/04/18, revealed the resident had bilateral foot drop and an inverted left foot as well as contractures of the fingers of the left hand. However, the Comprehensive Care Plan was not developed to include services to treat and prevent further decline in function related to foot drop and contractures. (Refer to F-688) The findings include: Although, a Care Plan Policy was requested, the Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/04/18 at 3:32 PM, stated the facility relied on the MDS Manual 3.0 for care plan guidance. 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. Continued review revealed the services provided or arranged must be consistent with each resident's written Plan of Care. Review of Resident #54's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the facility on 05/09/18 with diagnoses to include Major Depressive Disorder, Abnormal Posture, Muscle Weakness, and Hemiplegia following Cerebral Infarction affecting Left Non-dominant Side. Review of the Departmental Note, dated 05/14/18 at 12:07 PM, revealed the Unit Manager documented the resident had foot drop to bilateral feet. Continued review of Departmental Notes dated 05/15/18 at 11:26 AM, completed by Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator #2, revealed the resident's right hand had fingers drawn in. Review of Resident #54's Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 05/24/18, revealed there was no identified problem of bilateral foot drop or contractures, no goals or target dates for prevention of further foot drop or contractures and no interventions to increase range of motion and/or prevent further decrease in range of motion. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/31/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of seven (7) out of fifteen (15) indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having no impairment in functional range of motion of the upper extremities (including shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand) and lower extremities (including hip, knee, ankle, and foot). Review of the Physical Therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed the resident was discharged from the therapy program when the highest practical level of function was achieved. Additional review of the Summary, revealed Resident #54 was assessed as able to rotate feet in and out and rotate legs inward and outward. Foot drop and contractures were not referenced in the Summary. Continued review of the Summary, revealed at discharge from physical therapy, a restorative program was not recommended, but Range of Motion (ROM) by nursing was recommended. However, further review of Resident #54's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed these recommendations for ROM were not addressed as interventions on the Care Plan. Interview with the Director of Therapy, on 10/04/18 at 9:25 AM, revealed Resident #54's initial evaluations did not indicate foot drop, inversion of the left foot, or contractures. She revealed following discharge from physical therapy, Resident #54 should have received ROM from the SRNAs, although there were no specific instructions related to the ROM to be performed, as per the Discharge summary dated [DATE]. Review of Resident #54's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 08/21/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a BIMS of seven (7) out of fifteen (15) indicating severe cognitive impairment. Additional review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having impairment in functional range of motion of the upper and lower extremities on one (1) side, indicating a decline in function in range of motion since the previous MDS Assessment. Review of Resident #54's Care Giver Information Sheet, dated 10/04/18, which provided guidance for nursing assistants in providing care for the residents, revealed no instructions to provide range of motion (ROM). Observation of a dressing change for Resident #54, on 10/04/18 at 8:10 AM, revealed the resident had contractures of the left hand and fingers, and there was no device related to the contractures. Additional observation of the resident on 10/04/18 at 9:21 AM, revealed the resident's left foot was pointing downward and there was inversion of the left foot. Although Heel protectors were in place for the left foot; no other positional devices for the foot were in use. Interview with State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #4, on 10/04/18 at 10:40 AM, revealed she was assigned to Resident #54 used the Care Given Information Sheet as a reference for providing care to the residents. Per interview, Resident #54 did not receive therapy or restorative nursing care. SRNA #4 further stated she only performed hand range of motion exercise when bathing the resident which was twice a week. She stated there were no specific instructions given to the SRNAs for ROM for Resident #54 and ROM was not on Care Giver Information Sheet. Interview with LPN #6, on 10/04/18 at 2:14 PM, revealed he performed the initial nursing assessment for Resident #54 at the time of admission. He further stated he recalled a contracture in one (1) of the resident's upper extremities, in the arm and hand, on admission, but did not recall any foot or leg contractures or deformities. Per interview, SRNAs could perform range of motion exercise, but he was unsure of any current range of motion provided to Resident #54. LPN #6 stated there were no documented instructions for specific ROM exercises for the residents, and the SRNAs did not document ROM after it was performed. Interview with MDS Coordinator #2 on 10/04/18 at 1:04 PM, revealed she was responsible for the development and updating of the Comprehensive Care Plan for Resident #54. She stated she assessed residents face to face at the time of admission. MDS Coordinator #2 stated she always examined the joints and limbs of residents on the initial assessment. Continued interview revealed she did not recall any contractures or foot drop for Resident #54 during the initial assessment; however, the Departmental Note documented by her on 05/15/18 did reveal the resident's hand was drawn in. She stated the Comprehensive Care Plan should have been developed to identify bilateral foot drop and contractures with goals and interventions for treatment, and should have included the additional recommendations from Physical Therapy for ROM. Interview with the Unit Manager on the unit where Resident #54 resided, on 10/04/18 at 8:10 AM and at 2:20 PM, revealed she thought Resident #54 was in a restorative program; however, she could not locate a Physician's Order, referral, or notes related to restorative treatment for the resident. The Unit Manager assessed Resident #54 during this interview and stated the resident had bilateral foot drop and an inverted left foot as well as contractures of the fingers of the left hand. Further interview with the Unit Manager, revealed the MDS Coordinators were responsible for development and updates of the Comprehensive Care Plan. Per interview, the MDS Coordinators developed the Comprehensive Care Plan based on the comprehensive assessment and input from the interdisciplinary team. She further stated a daily clinical stand up meeting provided information to the MDS Coordinators for development and updating of the Comprehensive Care Plan. Per interview, the Care Plan provided individualized approaches for residents to ensure optimal health and was important for consistent care. Continued interview revealed Resident #54's Comprehensive Care Plan should have been developed to identify the residents foot drop and contractures, as was identified in the Departmental Notes prior to the Care Plan being initiated on 05/24/18. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 10/04/18 at 3:24 PM, revealed the MDS Coordinators were responsible for incorporating the interdisciplinary team's expertise and input into the Comprehensive Care Plan. Per interview, the Care Plan served as the blueprint for each individual resident's care. She further stated she would expect a Care Plan to include goals and interventions for contractures and foot drop. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 10/04/18 at 3:32 PM, revealed nursing, therapy, and the MDS Coordinators initially assessed each new admission. Per interview, the interdisciplinary team discussed findings in the daily clinical stand up meeting. She stated the MDS Coordinators synthesized the information in the Comprehensive Care Plan, and the Care Plans were updated as appropriate based on information and communication among the clinical team in the stand-up meetings and verbally at other times. The Director of Nursing revealed it was her expectation for the Care Plan to reflect optimization of resident's range of motion, especially if contractures were present. She stated the Comprehensive Care Plan helped ensure all care was consistent and positively impacted resident outcomes. Continued interview revealed Resident #54's Care Plan should have been developed to address the residents foot drop and contractures and ROM should have been added as an intervention to the Care Plan, especially after recommendation from Physical Therapy. Interview with the Administrator on 10/04/18 at 3:54 PM, revealed he would expect foot drop and contractures to be reflected on the initial assessments of the clinical team. He further stated it was his expectation for the MDS Coordinators to accurately use the initial and ongoing assessments of the interdisciplinary team to develop and update Comprehensive Care Plans. Further interview revealed the Comprehensive Care Plan provided consistent, individualized approaches designed to obtain the best outcomes possible for residents, and Resident #54's Care Plan should have been developed to address to address the foot drop and contractures.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or prevent further decrease in range of motion for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents reviewed for limited Range of Motion (ROM) out of a total sample of thirty-five (35) residents (Resident #54). Although record review and staff interview were inconsistent related to Resident #54's impairment in functional range of motion and functional status since admission on [DATE], observation of Resident #54 on 10/04/18, revealed the resident had bilateral foot drop and an inverted left foot as well as contractures of the fingers of the left hand. The Physical Therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed the resident was discharged with recommendations for Range of Motion (ROM) by nursing. However, record review revealed no documented evidence the resident received ROM. (Refer to F-656) The findings include: Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/04/18 at 3:32 PM, revealed the facility did not have a policy related to ROM. 1. Review of Resident #54's medical record revealed the facility admitted the facility on 05/09/18 with diagnoses to include Major Depressive Disorder, Abnormal Posture, Muscle Weakness, and Hemiplegia following Cerebral Infarction affecting Left Non-dominant Side. Review of the Acute Care Hospital admission History and Physical, dated 05/02/18, revealed Resident #54 was admitted with a History of Stroke with Left-sided Hemiplegia for treatment of a draining sacral wound. There was no information regarding contractures or foot drop. Review of Resident #54's admission Clinical Health Status, dated 05/09/18, completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6, revealed a question asking if the resident had foot deformities, and this was marked no. Further review revealed the resident was 'Assist of 2 for transfers and Assist of 1 for walking and locomotion. However, review of the Departmental Note dated 05/09/18 at 5:00 PM, revealed the resident required total lift and assist of two (2) with transfers Review of the Departmental Note, dated 05/14/18 at 12:07 PM, revealed the Unit Manager documented foot drop to bilateral feet. Further review of Departmental Notes dated 05/15/18 at 11:26 AM, completed by Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator #2, revealed the resident's right hand had fingers drawn in. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 05/24/18, revealed there was no problem identified related to contractures or foot drop. There were no goals or target dates for prevention of further contractures or foot drop. In addition, there were no interventions to address the resident's contractures or foot drop. Review of the Physical Therapy Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 05/25/18, revealed Resident #54's short-term goal was to use verbal cues for proper positioning to get in/out of bed. The Evaluation further stated the resident had good rehabilitation potential based on his/her ability to follow two (2) step directions. Per the Evaluation, transfer was not attempted due to safety concerns and walking was not applicable. Further review of the Evaluation, under the Musculoskeletal System Assessment Section, revealed the resident was assessed as having no functional limitations present due to contractures. Further review revealed foot drop was not referenced. Review of the Occupational Therapy Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 05/25/18, revealed the resident was assessed as having no functional limitations present due to contractures. Further review revealed foot drop was not referenced. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/31/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of seven (7) out of fifteen (15) indicating severe cognitive impairment. Additional review revealed the facility assessed the resident as transfer and ambulation did not occur. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having no impairment in functional range of motion of the upper extremities (including shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand) and lower extremities (including hip, knee, ankle, and foot). Review of the Occupational Therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed the resident was discharged from therapy on 07/13/18, when the highest practical level of function was achieved. Further review of the Summary, revealed there was no documented evidence the Occupational Therapist addressed the need for a restorative program or functional maintenance program upon discharge. Review of the Physical Therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed the resident was discharged from the therapy program when the highest practical level of function was achieved. Further review of the Summary, revealed Resident #54 was assessed as able to rotate feet in and out and rotate legs inward and outward. Foot drop and contractures were not referenced. Continued review of the Summary, revealed at discharge from physical therapy, a restorative program was not recommended, but Range of Motion (ROM) by nursing was recommended by the Physical Therapist. Review of the Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 08/21/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a BIMS of seven (7) out of fifteen (15) indicating severe cognitive impairment. Additional review revealed the facility assessed the resident as transfer and ambulation did not occur. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having impairment in functional range of motion of the upper and lower extremities on one (1) side, indicating a decline in function in range of motion since the previous MDS Assessment. Review of Resident #54's Physician Orders dated May 2018 through October 2018, revealed no orders for restorative nursing or treatment to prevent further decrease in ROM. Review of the Care Giver Information Sheet, dated 10/04/18, which provided guidance for nursing assistants in providing care for the residents, revealed no instructions to provide range of motion (ROM) to Resident #54. Observation of Resident #54, on 10/02/18 at 11:23 AM, revealed a team of two (2) Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) transferred the resident to bed from a stretcher upon return from a community medical appointment. The resident did not stand nor ambulate during the transfer. Observation of a dressing change for Resident #54, on 10/04/18 at 8:10 AM, revealed the resident had contractures of the left hand and fingers, and there was no device related to the contractures. Further observation of the resident on 10/04/18 at 9:21 AM, revealed the resident's left foot was pointing downward and there was inversion of the left foot. Heel protectors were in place for the left foot; however, no other positional devices for the foot were in use. Interview with State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #4, on 10/04/18 at 10:40 AM, revealed she was assigned to Resident #54 and relied on the Care Given Information Sheet she received at the beginning of each shift for resident care information. She stated Resident #54 did not receive therapy or restorative nursing care. SRNA #4 further stated the resident was turned and repositioned every two (2) hours and she only performed hand range of motion exercise when bathing the resident which was twice a week. Per interview, there were no specific instructions given to the SRNAs for ROM for this resident, and ROM was not on Resident #54's Care Giver Information Sheet. Further interview revealed ROM was not recorded in SRNA documentation. Interview with SRNA #5, on 10/04/18 at 10:53 AM, revealed, although she was not currently assigned to Resident #54, she was familiar with his/her care and was sometimes assigned to care for the resident. She stated ROM exercise for Resident #54 was not scheduled; however, she performed it when bathing the resident on scheduled bathing days. Per interview, the resident was scheduled two (2) total baths a week. She further stated ROM was not assigned and was not on the Care Giver Information Sheet for Resident #54. SRNA #5 stated when she performed ROM, the ROM was not documented as there was no flowsheet or paperwork in which to document ROM had been performed. Interview with SRNA #6, on 10/04/18 at 1:34 PM, revealed she was not familiar with Resident #54; however, she could care for any resident based on the written Care Giver Information Sheet she received at the beginning of the shift. She stated range of motion exercise was not specific related to type of ROM, or repetitions for any resident and when performed, it was not documented by the SRNAs. SRNA #6 stated she learned about ROM in her SRNA training classes, but had not received any additional education from the facility. Interview with SRNA #7, on 10/04/18 at 1:50 PM, revealed she had never cared for Resident #54. She stated she learned about ROM exercises in school, but had received no education from the facility related to range of motion. SRNA #7 stated she generally performed range of motion for residents as part of her care, although it was not specific to certain joints or repetitions. Per interview, ROM was not documented anywhere in the medical record. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5, on 10/04/18 at 1:53 PM, revealed she was familiar with the care of Resident #54, as she had been assigned to the resident many times. LPN #5 further stated the admitting nurse completed the initial assessment of a new resident including documentation of any contractures or deformities at the time of admission. She further stated she recalled Resident #54 having contractures of the left foot and hand at the time of admission, but she was not the admitting nurse and thus, would not have documented this in the Medical Record. LPN #5 stated she did not recall therapy asking nursing to assist in ROM care after therapy's initial treatment for Resident #54. She further stated she did not recall therapy providing any education relative to care for Resident #54. Further interview revealed SRNAs could perform range of motion; however, ROM was not listed as an intervention on the Care Giver Information Sheet for residents with contractures, and ROM was not documented in the medical record. Interview with LPN #6, on 10/04/18 at 2:14 PM, revealed Resident #54 was not assigned to him on this date, but he was sometimes assigned to the resident and was familiar with the care. He stated he performed the initial nursing assessment for Resident #54 at the time of admission. He further stated he recalled a contracture in one (1) of the resident's upper extremities, in the arm and hand, on admission, but had no recollection of any foot or leg contractures or deformities. Continued interview revealed restorative nursing aides provided restorative nursing as recommended from Therapy. He further stated SRNAs could perform range of motion exercise, but he was unsure of any current range of motion provided to Resident #54. LPN #6 stated there were no documented instructions for specific ROM exercises for residents, and the SRNAs did not document ROM after it was performed. He did not recall any range of motion education being offered at the facility for nursing staff. Interview with MDS Coordinator #2, on 10/4/18 at 1:04 PM, revealed she did not recall Resident #54 having contractures at the time of admission, although she had written the Departmental Note on 05/15/18, revealing the resident's right hand had fingers drawn in. She stated she assessed new residents shortly after admission to the facility and was responsible for development of the initial Care Plan and subsequent updates. The MDS Coordinator reviewed Resident #54's Care Plan and stated there was nothing specific related to care for contractures and foot drop, although she would expect to see this addressed for a resident with contractures or foot drop. Interview with the Director of Therapy, on 10/04/18 at 9:25 AM, revealed Resident #54 was discharged from therapy due to limitations from the sacral wound during therapy sessions. The Director reviewed the Therapy Notes, and stated the initial evaluations did not indicate foot drop, inversion of the left foot, or contractures. She stated following discharge from physical therapy, Resident #54 should have received ROM from the SRNAs, although there were no specific instructions related to the ROM to be performed per the Discharge summary dated [DATE]. The Director of Therapy was unsure how nursing documented ROM in the Medical Record. Interview with the Unit Manager on the unit where Resident #54 resided, on 10/04/18 at 8:10 AM and at 2:20 PM, revealed she thought Resident #54 was in a restorative program; however, she could not locate an order, referral, or notes related to restorative treatment for the resident. An observation of Resident #54 was made with the Unit Manager during this interview. The Unit Manager revealed the resident had bilateral foot drop and an inverted left foot as well as contractures of the fingers of the left hand. The Unit Manager stated she recalled the resident had foot drop at the time of admission, but was unsure if it was charted. Further interview with the Unit Manager, revealed every new resident was evaluated by therapy, but she was unsure of the protocol for further treatment once a resident was discharged from therapy. She stated therapy did not discuss any specific follow up with the nursing staff for Resident #54 after the resident was discharged from therapy. The Unit Manager revealed Resident #54 needed another therapy evaluation, and ordered an evaluation to be completed on 10/04/18, at the time of interview with the State Agency Representative. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 10/04/18 at 3:24 PM, revealed all new facility admissions received an initial nursing assessment from the nurse on duty at the time of admission, and all new admissions were evaluated by therapy. Per interview, if therapy discharged a resident to restorative care, the restorative staff would assume treatment of the resident. Further interview revealed if no restorative referral was made, SRNAs could perform range of motion exercises on appropriate residents, but the care would not be documented. She stated the SRNAs relied on the Care Giver guide each shift to direct the resident's care; however, Resident #54's Care Giver guide did not include an intervention for ROM. The DON stated she was not aware of any ROM education offered by the facility. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/04/18 at 3:32 PM, revealed the charge nurse usually performed the initial nursing assessments for new admissions, and Therapy evaluated new admissions. Per interview, Nursing and therapy should assess and document findings related to foot drop and contractures for new admissions. The DON stated therapy discharged residents, when appropriate, to restorative care. Per interview, if restorative care was not recommended by therapy, residents received range of motion exercise from the SRNAs. Continued interview revealed the Care Giver Information Sheet given to SRNAs at the beginning of the shift provided guidance for the care of each resident. She stated Resident #54's Care Giver Sheet and Comprehensive Care Plan should have had instructions for ROM and the resident should have been receiving ROM. Per interview, ROM should be performed by the SRNAs while providing Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Care; however, she stated there was no special place for SRNAs to document ROM in the medical record. Per interview, she recalled no specific ROM education by the facility; however, stated therapy provided education on occasion. Interview with the Administrator on 10/04/18 at 3:54 PM, revealed it was his expectation for residents to be assessed, and the assessment documented, related to foot drop and contractures on admission. Further, therapists performing an initial assessment should accurately document findings. He further stated he expected appropriate treatment to be delivered by the nursing and therapy staff to ensure residents did not experience a preventable decline in range of motion and mobility. The Administrator stated the MDS Coordinators were responsible for developing and updating Care Plans to guide residents' care and ensure optimal results.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 4 harm violation(s), $87,165 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $87,165 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Kentucky. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Carter Nursing And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Carter Nursing And Rehabilitation Staffed?

CMS rates Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Kentucky average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Carter Nursing And Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation during 2018 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 4 that caused actual resident harm, and 14 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Carter Nursing And Rehabilitation?

Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by DAVID MARX, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 111 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Grayson, Kentucky.

How Does Carter Nursing And Rehabilitation Compare to Other Kentucky Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kentucky, Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Carter Nursing And Rehabilitation?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Carter Nursing And Rehabilitation Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Kentucky. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Carter Nursing And Rehabilitation Stick Around?

Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation has a staff turnover rate of 48%, 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 Carter Nursing And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation has been fined $87,165 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Kentucky average of $33,951. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Carter Nursing And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

Carter Nursing and Rehabilitation 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.