CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to consult with the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with hi...
Read full inspector narrative →
.
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to consult with the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative(s) when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications); and a need to alter treatment significantly (a need to discontinue an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment) for two (2) out of twenty (20) sampled residents, (Resident #19 and Resident #93). Nursing staff were aware of Resident #19 having open areas to the left toe and right bunion; however, failed to inform the attending physician and obtain orders for treatments. In addition, Resident #93 sustained a 12% weight loss, from 03/10/18 until 04/23/18, according to the facility's weight log. Although, the resident was evaluated by the facility as part of a Quality Assurance and Improvement Plan related to inaccurate weight recording, neither the physician, or the resident or resident's spouse were notified of weight loss.
The findings include:
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Change in Condition, with no revision date, revealed the facility would evaluate and document changes in a resident's health status, relay evaluation information to physicians, and document actions that required a change in treatment.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Skin Evaluations Policy revised 02/15/18, revealed the licensed nurse must complete and document all resident Weekly Skin Evaluations and notify the Physician and family with all newly identified alterations in resident skin integrity.
Review of the Facility's policy entitled, Weight Monitoring, undated, revealed if significant weight loss was identified the nurse would complete the .SBAR and the healthcare provider and resident and or resident representative will be notified, the Registered Dietician will be notified for any recommendations, lab work will be monitored as ordered by the physician, nurse practioner or physicians assistant .
Review of facility's Competency Training Records for LPN #4, dated January 2018, revealed no documented evidence education was provided related to the facility's policy and procedure for notification to the physician and family related to change in a resident's condition.
Review of facility's Competency Training Records for LPN #2, dated 2001, revealed no documented evidence education was provided related to the facility's policy and procedure for notification to the physician and family related to changes in a resident's condition.
Review of facility's Competency Training Records for LPN #3, dated December 2017, revealed no documented evidence education was provided related to the facility's policy and procedure for notification to the physician and family related to change in a resident's condition.
1. Review of Resident #19's clinical record revealed, the facility re-admitted the resident on 12/24/17, from an acute care hospital with diagnoses to include: Vascular Dementia, Heart Failure, Contracture of Muscles; multiple sites, Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Chronic Pain, Contractures of the Bilateral Hands, Abnormal Posture, Coronary Artery Disease, Hemiplegia left side, Diabetes Mellitus Type Two (2), Osteoarthritis, and Gout.
Review of Resident #19's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 09/21/17, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognitive response. No behaviors during assessment reference date. Further review of the MDS revealed, the facility assessed Resident #19 to require extensive assistance of two (2) staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene; extensive assistance of two (2) staff for eating; total assistance of one (1) staff for locomotion in wheelchair; total assistance of two (2) staff for bathing. Per review of the MDS, Resident #19 had functional limitations in range of motion (ROM), impairment on one side upper extremity, and impairment both sides lower extremity. Continued review revealed, no pain medications were scheduled or taken as needed and he/she had a zero (0) pain rating. Further review revealed, the facility assessed the resident to have no swallowing disorder or weight loss. Additional review revealed, the facility assessed Resident #19 to be at risk for developing a pressure ulcer and received a pressure reducing device for his/her chair and bed.
Review of Resident #19's Physician Orders, dated 04/18/18, revealed no documented evidence orders were obtained related to treatment for pressure areas/skin impairment to the medial right foot over the great toe joint, and the medial left toe.
Review of Resident #19's Physician Progress Notes, dated 03/23/18, 04/11/18, and 04/16/18, revealed no documented evidence the resident was assessed/evaluated related to pressure areas/skin impairment to the medial right foot over the great toe joint, and the medial left toe.
Review of Resident #19's Nursing Notes, dated 03/01/18 through 04/25/18, revealed no documented evidence the resident was assess/evaluated related to pressure areas/skin impairment to the medial right foot over the great toe joint, and the medial left toe.
Review of Resident #19's Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated on 12/21/17, with no revision date, revealed no documented evidence the resident was care planned for pressure areas/skin impairment to the medial right foot over the great toe joint, and the medial left toe.
Review of Resident #19's weekly Skin Assessment, dated 03/01/18 through 04/21/18, revealed on 03/15/18, LPN #4 documented the resident's right foot had a red pressure area to the bottom joint area of the right great toe; however there was no documented evidence the resident was assess/evaluated for pressure areas/skin impairment to the medial right foot over the great toe joint, and the medial left toe.
Observation of Resident #19's Skin Assessment, performed by LPN #3, on 04/26/18 at 10:25 AM, revealed a discolored purple irregular oval shape, non-blanchable, four (4) centimeters (cm) by five (5) cm discoloration with dry transparent scaly skin layers towards center of a wound on the right medial side of the foot and an area over a bony joint at base of the great toe. Surrounding skin on right medial foot was boggy. Continued observation revealed, an open area on the left medial great toe, one (1) cm by one (1) cm circular with a dry red wound bed with dry transparent layers circling the outer edges of the wound. Wound edges were higher than center of wound. Surrounding skin on left great toe was red and blanchable. Further observation revealed, a red linear area three (3) cm by three (3) cm, between Resident #19's legs, on the left medial upper thigh.
Interview with Resident #19, on 04/26/18 at 10:25 AM, revealed he/she was not certain how the areas to his/her left toe and right foot happened but they hurt.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 3:50 PM, with State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1 revealed on 04/21/18 or 04/22/18, SRNA #1 reported to LPN #2, that Resident #19 had an open area to his/her left great toe. Continued interview revealed, LPN #2, went into Resident #19's room and assessed the Resident's feet. Further interview revealed, LPN #2 placed an adhesive bandages to Resident #19's left toe and right bunion. Additional interview revealed, one (1) week ago SRNA #1, reported to LPN #2, that Resident #19 had an open area to his/her right foot, bunion area. SRNA #1 stated, LPN #2, assessed the area and stated that it was a friction rub and placed an adhesive bandage to the open bunion area.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 3:40 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 revealed she had worked at the facility for seventeen (17) years and was familiar with Resident #19. LPN #2 stated, on 04/25/18, she had identified a scabbed area on the side of Resident #19's left toe. Continued interview revealed, that LPN #2 did not notify the family or physician on 04/25/18 related to the change in Resident #19's skin. Further interview revealed, over the weekend, 04/21/18 or 04/22/18, SRNA #1 notified her that Resident #19 had an open area on his/her left toe and right foot, bunion area. Per interview, when she was made aware of the change in Resident #19's skin, she placed an adhesive dressing to each area newly identified, without a physician's order, to create a barrier between the break in the skin and the bed. Additional interview revealed, after assessing Resident #19's feet on 04/21/18 or 04/22/18, she should have called the physician, to obtain new orders related to the breaks in the resident's skin to ensure the resident was cared for and did not get worse.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 5:00 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, revealed shehad been employed at the facility for one (1) year. Continued interview revealed, she was unaware of when the areas on Resident #19's left and right feet were initially identified and felt that the nurse who identified the areas should have notified the physician. Further interview revealed, she should have notified the physician of the areas on Resident #19's feet on 04/26/18, to ensure the Resident received good care.
Post survey interview, on 05/02/18 at 5:05 PM, with LPN #4 revealed that she had been employed by the facility for nine (9) months, on night shift, and had been a LPN for twenty-three (23) years. Continued interview revealed, nurses were responsible for notifying the doctor, and the resident's family with all changes in condition. Further interview revealed, on 03/15/18, she should have notified the doctor related to the newly identified pressure area on Resident #19's right foot. Per interview, LPN #4 stated, to ensure the health and well-being of residents, following facility policies was important. Additional interview revealed, to not notify the doctor of a change in a resident's condition could hinder the interdisciplinary team's awareness of a change in the resident and could create a potential for more problems and issues. LPN #4 stated, best practice was to follow the policy so that residents would receive the care and treatment they needed.
Telephone interview, on 04/26/18 at 3:17 PM, with Physician #1 revealed he was not aware Resident #19 had pressure areas/ skin impairment to his/her medial right foot, or medial great toe joint. Continued interview revealed, he was in the facility on 04/23/18, and nursing staff did not notify him of a change in the resident's skin condition. Continued interview revealed, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) was in the facility on 04/25/18, saw Resident #19 and did not document concerns with the resident's skin. Additional interview revealed, his expectation was to be notified of any change in condition for all residents because notification ensures the resident received the necessary care and treatment.
Interview, on 04/26/18 on 4:29 PM, with Interim Director of Nursing, Administrator, and Administrator of Sister facility/Corporate Consultant revealed the physicians should be notified immediately regarding any change in condition of a resident. Continued interview revealed, it was the facility's expectation the physician would be notified of any change in a resident so that the resident would receive proper care.
2. Review of Resident # 93's medical record revealed, the resident was admitted by the facility on 03/10/18 with diagnoses to include: Parkinson's Disease, Essential Hypertension, Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Mild, Unspecified Cirrhosis, Presence of Right Artificial Shoulder Join and Anxiety Disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 03/29/18, revealed the facility assessed Resident #93 to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of ten (10) out of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was moderately impaired.
Review of the facility's weight records, in the Electronic Medical Record, indicated Resident #93 weighed two hundred eleven and six tens (211.6) pounds on 03/12/18, for and weight two hundred thirty and three tenth (230.3) pounds on 04/05/18. Further review revealed a second weight for 04/05/18 as one hundred eight-eight (188) pounds that was marked out with a red line in the Electronic Medical Record, Continued review revealed, on 04/09/18, a documented weight of one nundred ninety one and two tenth pounds, on 4/16/18 was one hundred eighty-eight and six tenth pounds and on 4/23/18 the weight was document as one hundred eighty-six pounds. Resident #93 suffered a twenty-five pound weight loss or twelve percent loss in six (6) weeks. The surveyor requested the resident to be re-weighed on 04/26/18, however, the resident refused.
Record review of the facility's Nutritional At Risk Subacute Review Form, dated 04/09/18, by the Registered Dietician revealed, Resident #93 was addressed as having increased weight, although the form stated that nutritional needs and hydration needs were not always met with current intake. Continued review revealed Resident #93 had been on a Special Nutrition Plan, to include fortified foods at breakfast. Further review revealed, on 4/25/18, the facility's Registered Dietician questioned Resident #93's weight history with fluctuations, nutritional needs not always met with current orders and hydration needs not always met with current intake and a 2.7 % weight loss in two (2) weeks; however, there was no documented evidence the resident's twenty-five (25) pound weight loss, twelve (12) percent of the resident's body weight was addressed.
Record review of the Physician's Orders, dated April 2018, revealed an order for a regular diet. No documented evidence there was an order for an intervention of a Special Nutritional Program. Record review of Physicians Progress notes, dated 04/09/18, revealed Resident #93's weight as two hundred thirty and three tenths (230.3) pounds. However, there was no documented evidence of an inaccurate weight, Resident #93's weight loss or interventions for weight loss.
Interview with Resident #93, on 04/24/18 at 11:00 AM, revealed he/she was unaware of any weight loss or any interventions placed by the facility to prevent his/her continued weight loss or to improve his/her nutritional status.
Interview with Resident # 93's spouse, on 4/25/18 at 4:00 PM, revealed the facility had not discussed the resident's weight loss with him/her; however, he/she was aware by looking at the resident. Continued interview revealed, he/she did not know how much weight had been lost not had she/he been informed by staff of any nutritional interventions the facility had in place regarding weight loss for the resident.
Interview with Unit B Manager, on 04/26/18 at 1:50 PM, stated she had been employed by the facility for one and a half years (1.5) in this capacity and nine (9) years of total employment. Continued interview revealed, staff should follow the facility's weight monitoring policy to ensure the nutritional status for Resident #93. Further interview revealed, she could not find any documentation in the medical record the Resident, Resident family or physician were notified of the weight loss or a significant weight loss. Additional interview revealed, if an incorrect weight was identified, or a weight loss was identified, the physician and the Registered Dietician should be notified so they could implement the comprehensive care plan should be updated to ensure appropriate treatment for the resident.
Interview with the Dietary Manager, on 04/26/18 at 1:30 PM, revealed she had been employed by the facility for two (2) years. Per interview, it was in her job duties to review the weekly and monthly weights given to her by the nurse's and run the weight variance reports, then report the information to the Registered Dietician. Continued interview revealed, when the weights on Unit B were off in April, the facility recognized it must be a weight scale problem and borrowed a scale from a sister facility until they could purchase a new scale and all the resident's in question were weighed three (3) times each, and that number was added together and divided by three (3) after they had subtracted the weight of the wheelchair (40.4 pounds). She further stated, Resident #93 had a re-weight on 04/09/18, of one hundred eighty-eight (188) pounds. Per interview, she believed she marked the weight out in error.
Continued interview of the Dietary Manager on 4/26/18 at 5:10 PM revealed, Resident #93 did not trigger for weight loss on the weight loss variance reports despite a twenty-five (25) pound weight loss in six weeks. Further interview revealed, the weight reports were run weekly and monthly, and she was unable to explain why the resident did not trigger. Additional interview revealed, the Registered Dietician, The Director of Nursing and the IDT team knew about the issue with the scales and the residents involved.
Interview with Registered Dietician, on 04/26/18 at 4:00 PM, revealed he was made aware the facility had an issue with inaccurate scales and that weights were off on several residents on the B Unit. Per interview, he had to use the incorrect weight in his assessment, even though he knew it was incorrect because it was the weight in the Electronic Medical Record and he did not see issues with using an incorrect weight or did not have any suggestions towards further assessment for weight loss other than a Special Nutritional Plan at breakfast. Per interview, on 04/09/18, he put the resident on a regular no added salt diet, which he identified as an intervention for weight gain as well as weight loss. Additional interview revealed, he did not expect to see a twenty-five (25) pound weight loss in six (6) weeks; however, he could not think of any further interventions for nutritional support other than the special nutritional program at all meals. Continued interview revealed, Dietary orders should be on the physician orders so that staff were aware of the dietary needs of the resident.
Interview with Resident #93's physician, on 04/25/18, revealed she had been notified the facility was having issues with their scale in early April and had made attempts to correct the problem and monitor the issue, however, she was not aware Resident #93 was in the group of residents with the scale issue. Further interview revaled she had never been notified of any significant weight loss for this resident. Additional interview revealed, her expectation was to be, notified if the resident had significant weight loss so that labs or additional interventions could have been implemented. Furthermore, she would have expected the resident to have been re-weighed if an incorrect weight was suspected
Interview with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON), on 04/26/18 at 4:15 PM, revealed she had been employed by the facility for three (3) weeks. Per interview, it was important to identify residents with weight loss and be processed through the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to identify any causative factor and have interventions such as hydration and snack carts. Continued interview revealed, Resident #93 was identified as having an issue with the scale to weigh the resident but not with a weight loss. Further interview revealed, it was her expectation for staff to follow the facility's weight monitoring policy and to notify the physician for all the resident status changes.
Interview with Administrator, on 04/26/18 at 4:20 PM, revealed it was her expection the physican, resident and family were notified by staff, per the facility's policy for a change in the resident's status to include a weight loss.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a Baseline Care Plan for each resident that includ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a Baseline Care Plan for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that met professional standards of quality care for one (1) out of twenty (20) sampled residents, (Resident #23).
Resident #23 had bilateral lower extremity limited mobility, discomfort, altered pigmentation, dry, edematous skin and a diagnosis of Venous Insufficiency. Further, Resident #23 had surgical incisions related to a recent hospitalization; however, a Baseline Care Plan or revision to the Comprehensive Care plan were not developed or implemented related to associated risk factors related to Venous insufficiency and Impaired Skin Integrity.
The findings include:
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Baseline Plan of Care, with no revision date, revealed a baseline plan of care should be developed and implemented within forty-eight (48) hours of admission including but not limited to any services and treatments to be administered by the facility personnel. Further review revealed, the comprehensive care plan, should also be updated with necessary information related to the admission of the resident.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Care Plans-Comprehensive, with no revision date, revealed Comprehensive Care Plans were developed and revised for each resident and included identified problem areas, associated risk factors and reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Skin Evaluations, with a revision dated of 02/15/18, revealed the admitting nurse would complete and document the resident's skin evaluations within four (4) hours of admission, and a Braden Scale at the time of admission/re-admission. Further review revealed, the admitting nurse would generate a skin baseline care plan based on the skin evaluation documentation.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Skin Assessment Competency, reviewed 06/01/2015, revealed Skin Assessments were completed weekly by a Licensed Nurse and would include a physical head to toe assessment with emphasis to include the neck, abdomen, extremities and over all condition of the resident's skin.
Review of the facility's Competency Training Records for Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, dated 12/20/17, revealed no documented evidence, LPN #3 was provided education regarding the facility's policy and procedure related to Admission/re-admission of a resident, baseline/comprehensive care plans for a resident, skin evaluations/assessments, or documentation.
Review of the facility's Competency Training Records for Registered Nurse (RN) #2, dated February and March of 2018, revealed no documented evidence RN #2 was provided education related to the facility's policy and procedure for Admission/re-admission of a resident, baseline/comprehensive care plans for a resident, skin evaluations/assessments, or documentation.
Review of Resident #23's clinical record revealed, the facility re-admitted the resident on 04/20/18, after a twelve (12) day hospital stay related to placement of a Pace Maker (artificial device for stimulating the heart muscle and regulating its contractions), and a Pericardial Window (procedure in which a small part of the sac around the heart is surgically removed to drain excess fluid), with diagnoses to include: Diabetes Mellitus Type Two (2), Hyperlipidemia, Hypertension, Iron Deficiency Anemia, Moderate Pericardial Effusion, Morbid Obesity with Body Mass Index forty-five (45) to forty-nine (49), Paroxysmal Atrial fibrillations, and Venous Insufficiency. Review of Resident #23's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 01/29/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognitive response. Further review revealed, the facility assessed Resident #23 to require extensive assistance of two (2) staff for bed mobility, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene; setup supervision of one (1) staff for eating; total assistance of two (2) staff for transfers, locomotion in wheelchair, and bathing.
Review of Resident #23's Physician Orders, dated 04/20/18, revealed orders to follow discharge instructions for the resident.
Review of Resident #23's Baseline Care Plan, dated 04/23/18, revealed no documented evidence the facility implemented a Baseline Care Plan, related to associated risk factors related to Venous Insufficiency or Impaired Skin. Further review of the Baseline Care Plan revealed, the facility implemented a Care Plan related to Risk for Cardiovascular Complications; however, approaches did not include risk factors related to Venous Insufficiency. Additionally, a Care Plan for Risk for Impaired Skin was implemented; however, approaches did not include risk factors related to all impairments to Resident's skin.
Review of Resident #23's Skin Assessment, dated 04/20/18, revealed no documented evidence the resident was assessed/evaluated related to his/her anterior or posterior lower extremity skin conditions or surgical incisions.
Observation,on 04/24/18 at 10:05 AM, revealed Resident #23 sitting in a high fowlers position in the bed with his/her bilateral legs below the knees uncovered. Continued observation revealed, Resident #23's bilateral lower extremities were noted to be edematous, dry, flaky, red and shiny; the right posterior medial heel had a round shaped dark red discolored area. The resident had limited mobility in bilateral lower extremity as evidence by Resident not able to lift feet off pillow at foot of bed.
Observation, on 04/26/18 at 10:27 AM, of Skin Assessment performed by LPN # revealed Resident #23 had multiple dark purple discolorations to his/her bilateral forearms, bilateral antecubital area, and to the top of the left hand. Continued observation revealed, the left lateral neck to have a clean, dry, and intact (CDI) adhesive dressing with blue dye around the dressing. Further observation revealed, a dark purple discoloration to the right chest, under the clavicle. Additional observation revealed, a linear surgical incision to the right chest, three (3) centimeters (cm) in length with multiple staples; a left midline abdomen linear scar, approximately twenty (20) cm by zero point five (0.5) cm, with two (2) staples noted above, a CDI adhesive dressing covering the bottom portion of the incision in the left lower abdomen quadrant. Further observation revealed, bilateral lower extremity edema, with dry, flaky, red and shiny skin. Bilateral great toenails discolored black on medial edge of nails.
Interview with Resident #23, on 04/26/18 at 10:27 AM , revealed the discolorations on his/her arms were from peripheral intravenous (PIV) sites from his/her recent hospitalization. Resident #23 stated, these areas were related to procedures at the hospital. Continued interview revealed, his/her legs and feet were chronically swollen, and looked better since treatment in the hospital. Further interview revealed, his/her bilateral legs hurt chronically.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 10:30 AM, with State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1 revealed she had worked at the facility for five (5) years, and had been a SRNA for twenty (20) years. Continued interview revealed, he/she was assigned to Resident #23 routinely. SRNA #1 stated, Resident #23's legs had been red and swollen for a long time.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 5:00 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 revealed she had been employed at the facility for one (1) year. Continued interview revealed, when a resident returned from the hospital, the nurse assigned to the resident was responsible for completing an admission Assessment and a Baseline Care Plan.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 4:18 PM, with Registered Nurse (RN) #2 revealed she had worked at the facility for two (2) months, on twelve (12) hour day shifts, and was familiar with Resident #23. Continued interview revealed, she was assigned to Resident #23 on 04/20/18, when he/she returned to the facility from the hospital at 5:20 PM. Further interview revealed, since the Resident had been out of the facility for more than twenty (24) hours the facility required an admission Assessment to be completed. Additional interview revealed, upon return to the facility, on 04/20/18, Resident #23's bilateral lower extremities were pink and smooth, his/her right leg and foot had one (1) plus edema, and bilateral great toenails were discolored. RN #2 stated, this was a normal finding for Resident #23.
Per interview, she did not complete the admission Assessment or the Baseline Care Plan for Resident #23 upon his/her re-admission from the hospital. RN #2 stated, she had never completed an admission Assessment related to a resident returning from the hospital. Further RN #2 stated that he/she should have completed the admission Assessment, Baseline Care Plan and documented an accurate Skin Assessment with all skin conditions for Resident #23 upon re-admission. Additional interview revealed, complete and accurate documentation was important to capture all changes in a resident and to ensure consistent, necessary care was provided to the resident.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 4:29 PM, with the Staff Development Nurse revealed, she had been in her current role for four (4) months. Continued interview revealed, new nursing staff received part of the new hire orientation from nurses on the unit. Further interview revealed, training on completing a re-admission Assessment and Baseline Care Plan were covered during orientation from nurses on the unit. The unit nurses were responsible for completing re-admission Assessments and a Baseline Care Plans when residents returned from the hospital.
Telephone interview, on 04/26/18 at 3:17 PM, with Physician #1 revealed, he was aware that Resident #23 had bilateral lower extremity edema, open areas to his/her buttocks, discolored toenails and surgical incisions. Continued interview revealed, Resident #23 had been hospitalized recently and had chronic Venous Insufficiency. Further interview revealed, he expected Resident Care Plans to address the Resident needs. Additional interview revealed, accurate documentation was important to ensure necessary treatment and care were provided to the resident.
Interview, on 04/26/18 on 4:29 PM, with Interim Director of Nursing (DON), Administrator, and Administrator of a Sister facility/Corporate Consultant, revealed the Charge Nurse was responsible for creating the Baseline Care Plan within three (3) days of admission, and the IDT was responsible for updating and revising the Care Plan with any changes; however, the nurse could update the Care Plan with immediate concerns. Continued interview revealed, the facility expected the Baseline Care Plan to be completed within forty-eight (48) hours of admission per the facility's policy to ensure the resident received the care needed based on their individual needs and to provide continuity of care amongst staff. Further interview revealed, a potential negative outcome of Baseline Care Plans not being completed would be care provided to the resident was not individualized to meet the resident's needs. Additional interview revealed, the nurse assigned to the resident was required to complete a Skin Assessment on Admission, re-admission and weekly thereafter. Per interview, Skin Assessments were to be completed and be an accurate reflection of what was going on with the resident to ensure correct care could be provided to the resident.
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 observation, interview, and record review and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed t...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on observation, interview, and record review and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to revise the Comprehensive Care Plan for two (2) out of twenty (20) sampled residents, (Resident #19 and Resident #93). Resident #93's care plan was not revise to include interventions for significant weight loss. Resident #19 had newly identified pressure areas/ skin impairment to bilateral feet, however, the Comprehensive Care Plan was not reviewed and revised related to the actual skin impairments.
The findings include:
Review of the facility's policy entitled Care Plans-Comprehensive Policy, with no revision date, revealed Comprehensive Care Plans were developed and revised for each resident and included identified problem areas, associated risk factors and reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions.
Review of the facility's policy, Skin Evaluations Policy, revised 02/15/18, revealed licensed nurses must complete and document all resident Weekly Skin Evaluations. Continued review revealed, all newly identified alterations in resident skin integrity would be documented on the Pressure Ulcer Record or Non-Pressure Skin Conditions record. Physician and family notification must be made with all newly identified alterations in resident skin integrity and documented in the Wound Evaluation by the nurse identifying the new skin alteration. Further review revealed, an incident report would be completed, the resident's Care Plan would be revised and/or updated, and the alteration in skin integrity would be tracked weekly thereafter.
Review of the facility's Competency Training Records for LPN #4, dated January 2018, revealed no documented evidence education was provided related to the facility's policy and procedure for revising or updated the Comprehensive Care Plan for a resident.
Review of the facility's Competency Training Records for LPN #3, dated December 2017, revealed no documented evidence education was provided related to the facility's policy and procedure for revising or updating Comprehensive Care Plans for a resident.
Review of the facility's Competency Training Records for LPN #3, dated December 2017, revealed no documented evidence education was provided related to the facility's policy and procedure for revising or updating Comprehensive Care Plans for a resident.
Review of Resident # 93's medical record revealed, the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include: Parkinson's Disease, Essential Hypertension, Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Mild, Unspecified Cirrhosis, Presence of Right Artificial Shoulder Joint, Anxiety Disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 03/29/18, revealed the facility assess the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of ten (10) out of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was moderately impaired. Further review of the MDS revealed, the resident did not trigger any indicators for weight loss.
Review of the facility's weight records in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR), revealed Resident #93 weighed two hundred eleven and six tenth (211.6) pounds on 03/12/18, tow hundred thirty and three tenths (230.3) pounds on 04/05/18. Continued review revealed, a second weight for this date of one hundred eighty-eight (188) pounds with this marked out with a red line in the EMR. Further review revealed, a weight on 4/09/18 of one hundred ninety-one and two tenths (191.2) pounds, a weight on 4/16/18 of one hundred eighty-eight and six tenth (188.6) pounds and a weight on 4/23/18 of one hundred eighty-six (186) pounds. Thus indicating, a twenty-five (25) pound weight loss in six weeks, which would be twelve (12) percent in six weeks.
Record review of the facility's Nutritional At Risk Subacute Review Form, dated 04/09/18, completed by the Registered Dietician revealed, Resident #93 was addressed as having an increased weight, although the form stated that nutritional needs and hydration needs were not always met with the current intake. Continued review revealed, Resident #93 had been on Special Nutrition Plan, to include fortified foods at breakfast. Further review revealed, on 4/25/18 a questionable weight history with fluctuations, nutritional needs not always met with current orders and hydration needs not always met with current intake and a 2.7 % weight loss in two (2) weeks addressed on form; however, there was no documented evidence a twenty-five (25) pound weight loss, which was twelve (12) percent of the resident's body weight was addressed.
Record review of the Physician Orders, dated April 2018, revealed the resident was order to receive a regular diet . Continued review of the orders revealed, no documented evidence the intervention for a Special Nutritional Program was noted on Physician's orders for April.
Record review of Physicians Progress Notes, dated 04/09/18, revealed Resident #93 weighed two hundred thirty and three tenths (230.3) pounds. Continued review revealed, no documented evidence of inaccurate scales resident weight loss. Further interview revealed, no documented evidence interventions for weight loss were noted on physicians progress note.
Record review of Resident #93's comprehensive care plan, dated 03/30/18, revealed a problem of nutritional risk related to a high Body Mass Index (BMI) of 32.4, with a goal of Resident's weight will remain within plus or minus five pounds and his/her BMI would be stable with in next review date. Continued review revealed, the interventions included weights and monitoring results to be completed by Nursing and Dietary; however, no specifications of how often weights were to be done were noted on the care plan. Further review revealed, staff were to monitor and report any significant weight changes to the physician. Additionally, on 4/13/18, the intervention of regular diet was added; however, there was no documentation an intervention for a special nutritional plan for breakfast was listed on care plan and no revision for significant weight loss was noted on care plan.
Interview with Resident #93, on 04/24/18 at 11:00 AM, revealed he/she was unaware of weight loss or any interventions in place by the facility to prevent continued weight loss or to improvement to his/her nutritional status.
Interview with Resident # 93's spouse, on 4/25/18 at 4:00 PM, revealed the facility had not discussed the resident's weight loss with him/her and he/she was aware of the weight loss by looking at the resident. Continued interview revealed, However, she did not know the amount of weight lost nor had he/she been informed per any staff related to any nutritional interventions the facility had in place regarding weight loss for the resident.
Interview with Unit B Manager, on 04/26/18 at 1:50 PM , employed by the facility for one and a half (1.5) years in this capacity and nine (9) years of total employment stated, staff should follow the facility's weight monitoring policy to ensure the nutritional status for Resident #93. Continued interview revealed, she could not find documentation in the medical record the Resident, the Resident's family or the physician were notified of the weight loss or that a significant weight loss Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) was completed by staff. Further interview revealed, if an incorrect weight was identified, the Physician and the Registered Dietician should be notified so they can plan appropriate treatment and care for the resident and so the staff could follow and update the care plan. Additional interview revealed, no documented evidence care plan updates were completed to provide interventions for weight loss.
Interview with the Dietary Manager, on 4/26/18 at 5:10 PM, revealed she had been employed by the facility for two years and was responsible for completing the nutritional section of the (MDS) and was responsible for revisions on the nutritional care plans. Continued interview revealed, she had not done a revision on Resident #93's care plan because he had not had a quarterly MDS yet and would updated the care plan at that time. Further interview revealed, she understood the twenty-five (25) pound weight loss was significant, she was not sure why the resident did not trigger on the weight variance reports or why the care plan would need to be updated for further interventions before a quarterly MDS was due.
Interview with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON), on 04/26/18 at 4:15 PM, revealed she had been employed by the facility for three (3) weeks. Continued interview revealed, it was important to identify residents with weight loss in connection to the care plan, Further interview revealed, it was her expectation for staff to follow policy in regards to following and revising the care plan in order to provide optimal care for the resident.
Interview with Administrator, on 04/26/18 at 4:20 PM, revealed it was her expectation for her nursing staff to follow policy regarding following and revising the care plan to include interventions for weight loss and monitoring to provide appropriate care for the resident and for the staff to know how to take care of the resident.
Interview with Resident #93's Physician, on 04/25/18, revealed it was important for the staff to revise the care plan to have an accurate picture of the resident. Continued interview revealed, the care plan was important to provide appropriate care of the resident and it would be her expectation for staff to follow the policy in regards to following and revising the care plan.
2. Review of Resident #19's clinical record revealed, the facility re-admitted the Resident on 12/24/17, from an acute care hospital with diagnoses to include: Vascular Dementia, Heart Failure, Contracture of Muscles; multiple sites, Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Chronic Pain, Contractures of the bilateral hands, Abnormal Posture, Coronary Artery Disease, Hemiplegia left side, Diabetes Mellitus Type Two(2), Osteoarthritis, and Gout.
Review of Resident #19's Physician Orders revealed, no documented evidence an order was obtained for treatment to skin impairment/pressure area to the bilateral feet.
Review of Resident #19's Physician Progress Notes dated 03/23/18, 04/11/18, and 04/16/18 revealed no documentation related to pressure areas/skin impairment to bilateral feet.
Review of Resident #19's Nursing Notes, dated 03/01/18 through 04/25/18 revealed no documentation related to pressure areas skin impaired to bilateral feet.
Review of Resident #19's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 09/21/17, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15), cognitively intact. No behaviors during assessment reference date. Further review revealed, the facility assessed Resident #19 to require extensive assistance of two (2) staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene; extensive assistance of two (2) staff for eating; total assistance of one (1) staff for locomotion in a wheelchair; total assistance of two (2) staff for bathing. Continued review revealed, the facility assess the resident to have functional limitations in range of motion (ROM), impairment on one side upper extremity, and impairment both sides lower extremity. Per review, the resident received no pain medications scheduled or as needed and had a zero (0) pain rating. Additional review revealed, Resident #19 had no swallowing disorder or weight loss; however, was was at risk for developing a pressure ulcer and he/she received a pressure reducing device for his/her chair and bed.
Review of Resident #19's Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated on 12/21/17, with no revision date, revealed the resident was at risk for developing skin-breakdown related to requiring extensive to total assist with bed mobility, with a goal for the resident to have intact skin, free of redness, blisters, or discoloration over a bony prominence through the next review dated of April 2018. Continued review revealed, the approaches included to report changes in the skin status to the nurse and Physician, to assist the resident as needed to reposition to relieve pressure, to float his/her heels when in bed as tolerated and minimize pressure over bony prominences.
Continued review of Comprehensive Care Plan, revealed a care plan initiated on 11//10/16, with no revision dated, for Actual/potential cardiovascular problems related to history of Cardiovascular Accident, Coronary Artery Disease, and Hypertension, with a goal the resident would be free from exacerbation through review dated of April 2018. Continued review revealed, the approaches included to monitor the lower extremities for pain, swelling or redness as need.
Additional review of Comprehensive Care Plan, revealed a care plan initiated on 11/10/16, with no revision date, for ADL self-care deficit and risk for complications related to history of Cardiovascular Accident with Left Hemiparesis with a goal resident would participate with care and be clean, groomed, and dressed per resident's choice through review dated of April 2018. Continued review revealed, the approaches included the assist of two (2) staff for bed mobility.
Review of Comprehensive Care Plan revealed, a care plan initiated on 11/10/16, with no revision date, for Risk for mood/behavior instability related to diagnosis and episodes of rejection of care. With a goal that resident will exhibit no signs or symptoms of increase emotional distress through review date of April 2018. Approaches include but are not limited to support, observation and monitoring of emotional distress, mood and behaviors, and clinical lab results.
Further review of Comprehensive Care Plan revealed, a care plan initiated on 11/10/16, with a revision date of April 2018, for nutritional risk related to Diabetes Mellitus, Dementia, hemiparesis, Honey thick liquids, pureed diet, and Weight loss. Continued review revealed, a goal the resident's weight would remain stable of current weight through next review date, April 2018. Further review revealed, the approached included to monitor and report labs results, signs and symptoms of chewing/swallowing and weight changes to the physician, to administer supplements, scoop plate for meals, and a Special Nutrition Program (SNP) a high protein calorie diet for all meals.
Review of Resident #19's weekly Skin Assessment, 03/01/18 through 04/21/18, revealed documentation on 03/15/18, by LPN #4, right foot had a red pressure area to the bottom joint area of right great toe. Continued review revealed, no documented evidence of additional documentation related to evaluation and assessment.
Observed Skin Assessment, on 04/26/18, at 10:25 AM, revealed a discolored purple irregular oval shape, non-blanchable, four (4) centimeters (cm) by five (5) cm discoloration with dry transparent scaly skin layers towards the center of the wound on the right medial side of foot; area over bony joint at base of great toe. Surrounding skin on right medial foot was boggy. Additional observation revealed, an open area on the left medial great toe, one (1) cm by one (1) cm circular with a dry red wound bed with dry transparent layers circling the outer edges of the wound. Wound edges were higher than center of wound. Surrounding skin on left great toe was red and blanchable. Further, a red linear area three (3) cm by three (3) cm, between the resident's legs, on the left medial upper thigh.
Interview with Resident #19, on 04/26/18 at 10:25 AM, revealed he/she was not certain how the areas to his/her left toe and right foot happened but they hurt.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 10:30 AM, with State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1 revealed she had worked at the facility for five (5) years, and had been a SRNA for twenty (20) years. Continued interview revealed, the open area to Resident #19's left great toe, and right foot bunion area were previously reported to LPN #2 and were not newly identified areas to the Resident's skin. Continued interview with State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1 revealed that on 04/21/18 or 04/22/18, he/she should have filled out a STOP and WATCH form when she identified a change in Resident #19's skin; however, she could not find the STOP and WATCH form at the nursing station. Further interview revealed , she should have asked the charge nurse for a STOP and WATCH form when the form was not found on the unit. SRNA #1 stated that a STOP and WATCH form should be filled out for any change in a resident and given to a nurse. Additional interview revealed, completing a STOP and WATCH form when a change in a resident was identified was important because it helped to ensure the change was assessed and treated so the resident would not get worse.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 3:40 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 revealed she had worked at the facility for seventeen (17) years and was familiar with Resident #19. LPN #2 stated, on 04/25/18, she had identified a scabbed area to the side of the Resident's left toe and she placed an adhesive dressing to each area newly identified, to create a barrier between the break in the skin and the bed. Continued interview revealed, she did not revise Resident #19's Care Plan related to the change in the resident's skin. Further interview revealed she should have revised the Resident's Care Plan to ensure the breaks in Resident's skin were cared for and did not get worse.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 5:00 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, revealed she had been employed at the facility for one (1) year. LPN #3 stated, all nurses were responsible for revising care plans as necessary. Continued interview revealed, she did not update Resident #19's care plan with the identified area documented on the skin assessment because the areas did not look new and they were reported by the off going nurse during the morning report. Further interview revealed, she was unaware of when the areas on Resident #19's left and right feet were initially identified and felt that the nurse who identified the areas should have revised the care plan. Additional interview revealed, she should have revised the care plan with the newly identified areas on Resident #19's left great toe, and right foot bunion area, identified during the Skin Assessment, to ensure the resident received good care.
Post survey interview, on 05/02/18 at 5:05 PM, with LPN #4 revealed she had been employed at the facility for nine (9) months, on night shift, and had been a LPN for twenty-three (23) years. LPN #4 stated all new skin impairments identified were documented on the Resident's Care Plan as a revision, as well as any new orders related to the change in condition. Continued interview revealed, all nurses were responsible for updating the Care Plan with changes in condition. Per interview, she had received limited training by the facility related to revising the Care Plan. Further interview revealed, on 03/15/18, she should have revised Resident #19's Care Plan with the pressure areas identified on the Skin Assessment. Continued interview revealed, not revising a resident's care plan with a change in condition could hinder the interdisciplinary team's awareness of a change in the resident and could create a potential for more problems and issues. Per interview, best practice was to follow the policy so that residents would receive the care and treatment they need to ensure the health and well-being of residents.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 4:29 PM, with the Staff Development Nurse, revealed that she had been in this for for four (4) months at the facility. Continued interview revealed, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurses were responsible for completing comprehensive and routine updates to Resident Care Plans; however, floor/unit nurses could update the resident care plans if a significant change in a resident's condition was identified.
Telephone interview, on 04/26/18 at 3:17 PM, Physician #1 revealed he was not notified that Resident #19 had an open area to his/her left toe, and medial aspect of right foot. Continued interview revealed, he was in the facility on 04/23/18, and nursing staff had not added Resident #19 to the list of Residents who needed to be seen. Further interview revealed, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) was in the facility and saw Resident #19 on 04/25/18 and did not document concerns with the Resident's skin. Additional interview revealed, skin assessments should be accurately documented by nurses and care plans should be revised with changes in the resident. Per interview accurate documentation was important to ensure the resident received necessary care and treatment.
Interview, on 04/26/18 on 4:29 PM, with Interim Director of Nursing, Administrator, and Administrator of Sister facility/Corporate Consultant, revealed the IDT was responsible for updating and revising the Care Plan with any changes; however, the nurse could update the care plan with immediate concerns. Continued interview revealed, updating and revising the Care Plan would ensure the resident received care based on their individual needs and to provide continuity of care amongst staff. Further interview revealed, a potential negative outcome of a care plan not being revised with a change in a resident's condition would be the care provided to the resident was not individualized to meet the Resident's needs.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment based on the assessment of the resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment based on the assessment of the resident in accordance with professional standards of practice; the comprehensive care plan should identify and provide needed care and services per professional standards of practice for one (1) out of twenty (20) sampled residents, (Resident #23).
Resident #23 had limited mobility, discomfort, altered pigmentation, dry, edematous bilateral lower extremities with a diagnosis of Venous Insufficiency with actual impaired skin integrity; however, a Care Plan was not developed or revised to include associated risk factors related to Venous Insufficiency or Skin Impairment. Additionally, the re-admission Assessment and Skin Evaluation/Assessment documentation was incomplete and inaccurate.
The findings include:
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Aspects of Care, with no revision date, revealed the goal of Clinical Services was to assist the resident in attaining and maintaining the maximum physical well- being to ensure quality of life. Continued review revealed, Clinical Services was responsible for the assessment and delivery of nursing needs, administration of medications and treatment, implantation of resident specific measures to prevent complications of immobility and meet professional standards.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Baseline Plan of Care, with no revision date, revealed a baseline plan of care should be developed and implemented within forty-eight (48) hours of admission including but not limited to any services and treatments to be administered by the facility personnel. Continued review revealed, the comprehensive care plan should also be updated with necessary information related to the admission of the resident.
Review of the facility's policy entitled Care Plans-Comprehensive, undated, revealed Comprehensive Care Plans were developed and revised for each resident and included identified problem areas, associated risk factors and reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Skin Assessment Competency, reviewed 06/01/2015, revealed Skin Assessments were completed weekly by a Licensed Nurse and would include a physical head to toe assessment with emphasis including but not limited to extremities and buttocks.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Skin Evaluations, revised 02/15/18, revealed the admitting nurse would complete and document the resident's Braden scale and would complete and document the skin evaluations within four (4) hours of admission. Continued review revealed, the admitting nurse would generate a skin baseline care plan base on the skin evaluation documentation. Further review revealed, all newly identified alterations in a resident's skin integrity would be documented, the physician and family would be notified, an incident report would be completed, the resident's care plan would be revised or updated and tracked weekly thereafter.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Change in Condition, undated, revealed the facility would evaluate and document changes in a resident's health status, relay evaluation information to physicians, and document actions that required a change in treatment.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Pressure Ulcer Management Resource, dated 06/01/2015, revealed the wound would be measured and documented, the physician would be informed, and the care plan would be revised to reflect a change in condition and new treatment goals and approaches.
Review of facility Competency Training Records for LPN #3, dated 12/20/17, revealed no documented evidence LPN #3 was provided education related to the facility's policy and procedure for Admission/re-admission of a resident, baseline/comprehensive care plans for a resident, skin evaluations/assessments, or appropriate documentation.
Review of facility Competency Training Records for RN #2, dated February and March of 2018, revealed no documented evidence RN #2 was provided education related to the facility's policy and procedure for Admission/re-admission of a resident, baseline/comprehensive care plans for a resident, skin evaluations/assessments, wounds and appropriate documentation.
Review of Resident #23's clinical record revealed, the facility re-admitted the resident on 04/20/18, after a twelve (12) day hospital stay related to the placement of a Pace Maker (artificial device for stimulating the heart muscle and regulating its contractions), and a Pericardial Window (procedure in which a small part of the sac around the heart is surgically removed to drain excess fluid), with diagnoses to include: Diabetes Mellitus Type Two (2), Hyperlipidemia, Hypertension, Iron Deficiency Anemia, Moderate Pericardial Effusion, Morbid Obesity with Body Mass Index forty-five (45) to forty-nine (49), Paroxysmal Atrial fibrillations, and Venous Insufficiency. Review of Resident #23's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 01/29/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognitive response. Continued review revealed, the facility assessed Resident #23 to require extensive assistance of two (2) staff for bed mobility, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene; setup supervision of one (1) staff for eating; total assistance of two (2) staff for transfers, locomotion in wheelchair, and bathing.
Review of Resident #23's Physician Orders, dated 04/20/18, revealed an order to follow the discharge instructions from the acute care facility. Review of the monthly Physician orders, dated April 2018, revealed no documented evidence orders were obtained for treatment of the surgical incision sites, moisture associated skin damage to the buttock, or the open area to ischium.
Review of Resident #23's re-admission Assessment, dated 04/20/18, revealed RN #2 completed three (3) of the seven (7) Nursing admission Information Assessments; System Evaluation section, Skin Evaluation section and Pain Evaluation section on 04/21/18 at 9:47 PM. Review of the System Evaluation section notes, dated 04/21/18, by RN #2 revealed, Resident #23 had weakness related to Quadriplegia, paralysis to all four limbs, and a history or complaints of non-pitting edema. Review of the Skin Evaluation section notes, dated 04/21/18, by RN #2 revealed the absence of pedal pulses in the left and right feet. Continued review of the Skin Evaluation section revealed, no current of history of redness, dry skin, or edema. Further review of the Skin Evaluation section revealed, no documented evidence the resident was assessed/evaluated for issues or concerns related to a Pace Maker, a Pericardial Window procedure, or a neck incision. Review of a Nursing note, within the Nursing admission Information Assessment, dated 04/21/18, revealed additional evaluation of Resident #23's skin to have a Dressing to the left of the incision, however, no documented evidence of measurements or location of incision; an old drain site; however, no documented evidence of a location of drain site; staples to be removed in three (3) weeks; however, no documented evidence of measurements or location of sutures. Further review revealed, documentation of bilateral lower legs pink, right lower leg and foot with one (1) plus edema, no edema to left lower leg, no dressings or wraps on legs. Review of the Pain Evaluation, dated 04/21/18, by RN #2 revealed completion of a Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) scale with a score of zero (0), indicating the resident was not in pain. Review of the Nursing Note, within the Nursing admission Information Assessment, dated 04/21/18 at 9:47 PM, revealed Resident #23 was awake and oriented to person, place and time.
Review of Resident #23's Baseline Care Plan, dated 04/23/18, revealed no documented evidence the facility implemented a Baseline Care Plan, regarding associated risk factors related to Venous insufficiency. Further review revealed, no documented evidence the Care Plan had been updated to include skin impairments identified on 04/21/18.
Review of Resident #23's Skin Assessment, dated 03/08/18, revealed no anterior skin conditions, and a posterior skin condition of redness to the right upper thigh. Review of the Skin Assessment, dated 03/15/18, revealed no anterior skin conditions, and a posterior skin condition of redness to the left and right upper thighs. Review of the Skin Assessment, dated 03/29/18, revealed anterior or posterior skin conditions related to bilateral lower extremities. Review of the Skin Assessment, dated 04/20/18, revealed no documented evidence of anterior or posterior skin conditions.
Observation, on 04/24/18, at 10:05 AM, revealed Resident #23 sitting in a high fowlers position in the bed with his/her bilateral legs below the knees uncovered. Continued observation revealed, the bilateral lower extremities were noted to be edematous, dry, flaky, red and shiny; right posterior medial heel with round shaped dark red discolored area. The resident had limited mobility in bilateral lower extremity as evidence by Resident #23 was not able to lift his/her feet off the pillow at the foot of the bed.
Observation of a Skin Assessment, performed by LPN #3, on 04/26/18 at 10:27 AM, revealed Resident #23 had multiple dark purple discolorations to his/her bilateral forearms, bilateral antecubital area, and on top of his/her left hand.
Continued observation revealed, Resident #23's left lateral neck had a clean, dry, and intact (CDI) adhesive dressing that had blue dye around the dressing. Resident #23 had a dark purple discoloration to his/her right chest, under the clavicle with a linear surgical incision to the right chest, approximately three (3) centimeters (cm) in length with multiple staples. Further observation revealed, a left midline abdomen linear scar, approximately twenty (20) cm by zero point five (0.5) cm, with two (2) staples noted above, a CDI adhesive dressing covering the bottom portion of the incision. Further observation revealed, Moisture Associated Skin Damage (MASD) to his/her bilateral buttocks with red macerated skin. Resident #23's left inner buttock, near the intergluteal, had an open irregular area, circular in shape, red wound bed, with a measurement of one (1) cm by one (1) cm. Observation, of the right ischium revealed, an open area, irregular oval shape, with a shiny red wound bed that measured two (2) cm by three (3) cm. The surrounding skin was dry, red and blanchable. Additional observation revealed, the resident's bilateral lower extremity with edema, dry, flaky, red and shiny skin. The right posterior medial side of the heel had a round dark red discolored area, one (1) cm by one (1) cm, with intact and non-blanchable skin. Resident #23's bilateral great toenails were discolored black on medial edge of the nails.
Interview with Resident #23, on 04/26/18 at 10:27 AM, revealed the discolorations were from peripheral intravenous (PIV) sites from his/her recent hospitalization. Continued interview revealed, the surgical incisions of his/her chest, abdomen and neck were related to procedures at the hospital. Further interview revealed, his/her legs and feet were chronically swollen, and looked better since treatment in the hospital. Additional interview revealed, the resident had chronic pain to his/her bilateral legs.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 10:30 AM, with State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1, revealed she had worked at the facility for five (5) years, and had been a SRNA for twenty (20) years. Continued interview revealed, she was assigned to Resident #23 routinely. SRNA #1 stated, Resident #23's buttock and legs had been red and swollen for a long time. Further interview revealed, the open area to Resident #23's right ischium was a new open area.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 5:00 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, she had been employed by the facility for one (1) year. Continued interview revealed, the facility required a weekly Skin Assessments for all residents, and that all abnormal findings such as open areas, edema, discolorations or incisions were to be documented on a Skin Assessment, and new abnormal findings were to be reported to the Physician. Further interview revealed, it was the responsibility of all nurses to revise the resident's care plan and completed a Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation (SBAR) for new changes identified on a resident's skin. Additional interview revealed, Skin Assessments should be an accurate representation of the resident's skin. Per interview, Resident #23's documented Skin Assessment for 04/26/18, did not include a circular discolored area to right side of his/her heel because the area was not new and had always been there and stated it was a birthmark. Additionally, the Skin Assessment did not include the red, dry, edematous lower extremities, discolored great toenails, or open area to right ischium because they were not new for the Resident #23. She stated, she did not measure and document the open area to Resident #23's ischium, complete a SBAR, notify the physician, or revise the care plan, and she should have, to ensure the resident received good care.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 4:18 PM, with RN #2 revealed she had worked at the facility for two (2) months, on twelve (12) hour day shifts and was familiar with Resident #23. Continued interview revealed, RN #2 was assigned to Resident #23 on 04/20/18 when he/she returned to the facility from the hospital at 5:20 PM. Further interview revealed, since the resident had been out of the facility for more than twenty (24) hours, the facility required an admission Assessment to be completed. RN #2 stated, on 04/20/18, Resident #23's bilateral lower extremities were pink and smooth, his/her right leg and foot had one (1) plus edema, and his/her bilateral great toenails were discolored; however, these were normal findings for the resident. Additional interview revealed, she had never completed an admission Assessment related to a resident returning from the hospital. RN #2 further stated, that she did not get the admission Assessment or the Baseline Care Plan completed for Resident #23 before his/her shift ended. Per interview, she should have completed the admission Assessment, Baseline Care Plan and documented an accurate Skin Assessment with all skin conditions for Resident #23. Additional interview revealed, Skin Assessments were completed monthly; however, if a change in a Resident's skin was identified before a monthly assessment, the change was documented that day. Per interview, any change in a Resident's skin was reported to the Director of Nursing, the Resident's family and the physician. RN #2 stated, she was unaware she was responsible to revise the Resident Care Plans for changes in condition. Per interview, complete and accurate documentation was important to capture all changes in a resident and to ensure consistent, necessary care was provided to the resident.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 4:04 PM, with RN #3 revealed that she had worked at the facility for three (3) years on day shift. Per interview, Skin Assessments were completed weekly, and any change in condition for a Resident was documented on a the SBAR, the physician and the resident's family were notified, and new interventions were implemented related to the change. RN #3 stated, that all skin conditions were documented on a Skin Assessment. Continued interview revealed, she was familiar with Resident #23 and had cared for the Resident approximately six (6) weeks ago. Further interview revealed Resident #23 preferred treatment to his/her bilateral extremities related to lower extremity edema, decreased activity, and red dry skin to be completed by 10:00 AM daily. Further interview revealed, the resident had received pink wet wraps to bilateral lower extremities for years until recently when wound care was discontinued, the treatment was changed to an ointment and wraps to lower extremities. Additional interview revealed, on 03/29/18, she did not document Resident #23 had lower extremity edema or red dry skin on the Skin Assessment because on that date, there was no redness or swelling. RN #3 stated, accurate documentation was important and ensured Residents received consistent good care.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 4:29 PM, with the Staff Development Nurse revealed she had been in her current role for four (4) months. Continued interview revealed, nursing staff received part of their orientation from nurses on the unit. Further interview revealed, training on completing a re-admission Assessment and Baseline Care Plan was supposed to be covered during orientation from nurses on the unit. The unit nurses were responsible for completing re-admission Assessments and a Baseline Care Plans when residents returned from the hospital.
Telephone interview, on 04/26/18 at 3:17 PM, with Physician #1 revealed he was aware Resident #23 had bilateral lower extremity edema, open areas to his/her buttocks, discolored toenails and surgical incision. Continued interview revealed, the resident had been hospitalized recently and had chronic Venous Insufficiency. Further interview revealed, he expected to be notified with all changes in condition related to the Residents and for Resident Care Plans to be revised as necessary with changes. Additional interview revealed, accurate documentation was important to ensure necessary treatment and care.
Interview, on 04/26/18 on 4:29 PM, with Interim Director of Nursing, Administrator, and Administrator of Sister facility/Corporate Consultant, revealed the Charge Nurse was responsible for creating the Baseline Care Plan within three (3) days of admission, and the IDT was responsible for updating and revising the Care Plan with any changes; however, the nurse could update the Care Plan with immediate concerns. Continued interview revealed, the facility expected the Baseline Care Plan to be completed within forty-eight (48) hours of admission. To ensure the resident received care provided based on their individual needs and to provide continuity of care amongst staff. Further interview revealed, a potential negative outcome of the Baseline Care Plans not being completed would be care provided to the resident was not individualized to meet the Resident's needs. Per interview, the nurse assigned to the resident was required to complete a Skin Assessment on Admission, re-admission and weekly thereafter. Additionally, the facility expected Skin Assessments to be a complete and accurate reflection of what was going on with the resident to ensure correct care could be provided to the Resident. Per interview, the resident's physician should be notified immediately regarding any change in the condition of the resident and it was the facility's expectation the physician would be notified with changes to ensure the resident received the proper care. Per interview, providing the correct care to the resident was important and that nurses were expected to follow professional standards of practice.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received care, consistent with professional standards of pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers and not develop pressure ulcers; and a resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for one (1) out of twenty (20)sampled residents, (Resident #19).
Nursing staff had identified pressure areas/ skin impairment to Resident #19's medial right foot over great toe joint, and medial left toe; however, failed to document completely, accurately, inform the attending physician or obtain orders for treatments.
The findings include:
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Aspects of Care, with no revision date, revealed the goal of Clinical Services was to assist the resident in attaining and maintaining the maximum physical well-being to ensure quality of life. Continued review revealed, Clinical Services was responsible for the assessment and delivery of nursing needs, administration of medications and treatment, implantation of resident specific measures to prevent complications of immobility and meet professional standards.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Change in Condition, with no revision date, revealed the facility would evaluate and document changes in a resident's health status, relay evaluation information to the physician, and document actions that require a change in treatment.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Skin Evaluations, revised 02/15/18, revealed licensed nurses must complete and document all resident Weekly Skin Evaluations. Continued review revealed, all newly identified alterations in resident skin integrity would be documented on Pressure Ulcer Record or Non-Pressure Skin Conditions record. Further review revealed, Physician and family notification must be made with all newly identified alterations in resident skin integrity and documented in the Wound Evaluation by the nurse identifying the new skin alteration. In addition, an incident report would be completed, the resident's Care Plan would be revised and/or updated, and the alteration in skin integrity would be tracked weekly thereafter.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Skin Assessment Competency, dated 06/01/15, revealed Skin Assessments were completed weekly by a Licensed Nurse and would include a physical head to toe evaluation with emphasis to include the extremities with examination of all bony prominences and heels.
Review of the facility's policy entitled, Pressure Ulcer Management Resource, dated 06/01/15, revealed the wound would be measured and documented, the physician would be informed, and the care plan would be revised to reflect changes in condition and new treatment goals and approaches.
Review of the facility's policy entitled,Care Plans-Comprehensive, with no revision date, revealed Comprehensive Care Plans were developed and revised for each resident and included identified problem areas, associated risk factors and reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions.
Review of the facility's Competency Training Records for LPN #2, dated 2001, revealed no documented evidence education was provided related to the facility policy and procedure for the notification to the physician and resident family with a Change in Condition, revising or updating Comprehensive Care Plans for a resident, Skin Evaluations/Assessments, or Documentation.
Review of the facility's Competency Training Records for LPN #3, dated 12/20/17, revealed no documented evidence education was provided related to the facility policy and procedure for notification to the physician and resident family with a Change in Condition, revising or updating Comprehensive Care Plans for a resident, Skin Evaluations/Assessments, Wounds, or Documentation.
Review of the facility's Competency Training Records for LPN #4, dated January 2018, revealed no documented evidence education was provided related to the facility's policy and procedure for notification to the physician and family related to change in a resident's condition, revising or updated the Comprehensive Care Plan for a resident, Skin Evaluations/assessments, Wounds, or Documentation.
Review of the facility's Competency Training Records for RN #2, dated February and March of 2018, revealed no documented evidence education was provided related to the facility policy's and procedure for notification to the physician and resident family with a Change in Condition, revising or updated the Comprehensive Care Plan for a resident, Skin Evaluations/assessments, Wounds, or Documentation.
Review of Resident #19's clinical record revealed the facility re-admitted the Resident on 12/24/17, from an acute care hospital. Resident diagnosis includes but are not limited to Vascular Dementia, Heart Failure, Contracture of Muscles; multiple sites, Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Chronic Pain, Contractures bilateral hands, Abnormal Posture, Coronary Artery Disease, Hemiplegia left side, Diabetes Mellitus Type Two(II), Osteoarthritis, and Gout.
Review of Resident #19's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 09/21/17, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15)out of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognitive response. No behaviors during assessment reference date. Continued review revealed, the facility assessed Resident #19 to require extensive assistance of two (2) staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene; extensive assistance of two (2) staff for eating; total assistance of one (1) staff for locomotion in wheelchair; total assistance of two (2) staff for bathing. Additional review revealed, functional limitations in range of motion (ROM), impairment on one side upper extremity, and impairment both sides lower extremity. Per review, the resident required no pain medications scheduled or as needed and had a zero (0) pain rating. Further review revealed, the resident had no swallowing disorder or weight loss; however was at risk of developing a pressure ulcer and had received a pressure reducing device for his/her chair and bed.
Review of Resident #19's Physician Orders, dated 04/18/18, revealed documented evidence orders were obtained related to treatment for pressure areas/skin impairment to medial right foot over great toe joint, and medial left toe.
Review of Resident #19's Physician Progress Notes, dated 03/23/18, 04/11/18, and 04/16/18, revealed no documented evidence the resident was evaluated by the physician related to pressure areas/ skin impairment to medial right foot over great toe joint, and medial left toe
Review of Resident #19's Nursing Notes, dated 03/01/18 through 04/25/18, revealed no documented evidence the resident was evaluated/assessed related to pressure areas/skin impairment to medial right foot over great toe joint, and medial left toe.
Review of Resident #19's Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated on 12/21/17, revealed no documented evidence a care plan was revised to include pressure areas/skin impairment to medial right foot over great toe joint, and medial left toe.
Review of Resident #19's weekly Skin Assessment, 03/01/18 through 04/21/18, revealed documentation on 03/15/18, by LPN #4, the right foot had a red pressure area to bottom joint area of right great toe. Continued review revealed, no documented evidence of pressure areas/skin impairment to the medial right foot over great toe joint, and the medial left toe.
Observation of a Skin Assessment performed by LPN #3, on 04/26/18 at 10:25 AM, revealed a discolored purple irregular oval shape, non-blanchable, four (4) centimeters (cm) by five (5) cm discoloration with dry transparent scaly skin layers towards center of wound on the right medial side of foot; area over bony joint at base of great toe. Surrounding skin on right medial foot boggy. Additional observation revealed an open area on the left medial great toe, one (1) cm by one (1) cm circular with a dry red wound bed with dry transparent layers circling the outer edges of the wound. Wound edges were higher than center of wound. Surrounding skin on left great toe was red and blanchable. Further observation revealed, a red linear area three (3) cm by three (3) cm, between the resident's legs, on the left medial upper thigh.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 3:50 PM, with State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1 revealed on 04/21/18 or 04/22/18, SRNA #1 reported to LPN #2, that Resident #19 had an open area to his/her left great toe. SRNA #1 stated, LPN #2, came into Resident #19's room and assessed the Resident's feet.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 3:40 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, revealed she had worked at the facility for seventeen (17) years. LPN #2 stated, on 04/25/18, she had identified a scabbed area to the Resident's left toe. Continued interview revealed, she did not complete a Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) form, a skin assessment, revise the Resident's Care Plan, or notify the family or physician on 04/25/18 related to the change in Resident #19's skin. Further interview revealed, after assessing Resident #19's feet on 04/21/18 or 04/22/18, she should have called the physician, to obtain new orders related to the breaks in Resident's skin to ensure the Resident was cared for and did not get worse.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 5:00 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, revealed she had been employed at the facility for one (1) year. LPN #3 stated on 04/26/18, a skin assessment was documented for Resident #19, noting an old abrasion on the left foot and an old scabbed skin tear to the right foot because during morning report, on 04/26/18, those descriptions of the areas on Resident #19's feet were reported by the off going nurse. Continued review revealed, she was unaware of when the areas on Resident #19's left and right feet were initially identified and felt that the nurse who identified the areas should have completed the SBAR, notified the physician, and revised the Care Plan. Further interview revealed, she had received limited training in the facility related to Skin Evaluations/assessments, and wounds. Per interview, the SBAR form, Care Plan revisions, or notification to the physician were not completed because the areas identified during the skin assessment did not look new; however, she stated she should have completed these. for the newly identified areas on the great toe and right foot bunion area to ensure the resident received the care that he/she required.
Post survey interview, on 05/02/18 at 5:05 PM, with LPN #4 revealed that she had been employed at the facility for nine (9) months, on night shift, and had been a LPN for twenty-three (23) years. LPN #4 stated, the nurses were responsible for notifying the doctor, and the resident's family with all changes in condition. Continued interview revealed, on 03/15/18, she should have notified the doctor and revised the resident's Care Plan related to the newly identified pressure area on Resident #19's right foot. LPN #4 stated, all nurses were responsible for notifying the doctor with a change in condition and revision of the Care Plan with the change in condition. Further interview revealed, she had received limited training by the facility related to notification of the doctor and resident family with a Change in Condition, revising the Care Plan, Skin Evaluations/assessments, Wounds, or Documentation. LPN #4 stated, to ensure the health and well-being of residents, following facility policies were important. Not notifying the doctor or updating a care plan with a change in condition could hinder the interdisciplinary team's awareness of the change in the resident and could create potential for more problems and issues. That best practice was to follow the policy so that residents would receive the care and treatment they need.
Interview, on 04/26/18 at 4:29 PM, with the Staff Development Nurse, revealed that she had been in this position for four (4) months. Continued interview revealed, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurses were responsible for completing comprehensive and routine updates to the Resident Care Plans; however, floor/unit nurses could update a Resident Care Plans if a significant change in a resident's condition was identified.
Telephone interview, on 04/26/18 at 3:17 PM, with Physician #1 revealed she was not aware Resident #19 had pressure areas/ skin impairment to medial right foot, or medial great toe joint. Continued interview revealed, she was in the facility on 04/23/18, and nursing staff did not notify her of change in skin condition. Further interview revealed, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) was in the facility on 04/25/18, and saw Resident #19 and did not document concerns with the Resident's skin. Physician #1 stated, she expected to be notified of any change in condition for all residents. Further interview revealed, skin assessments should be accurately documented by nurses and Care Plans should be revised with changes in the Resident to ensure the Resident received necessary care and treatment.
Interview, on 04/26/18 on 4:29 PM, with Interim Director of Nursing, Administrator, and Administrator of Sister facility/Corporate Consultant, revealed the IDT was responsible for updating and revising the Care Plan with any changes; however, the nurse could update the Care Plan with immediate concerns, to ensure the Resident received care based on their individual needs and to provide continuity of care amongst staff. Further interview revealed, a potential negative outcome of not revising Care Plans or notifying the physician the care provided to the resident was not individualized to meet the resident's needs. Additional interview revealed, it was the facility's expectation the Skin Assessments were complete an an accurate reflection of what was going on with the Resident to ensure correct care could be provided to the resident. Additionally, the facility expected the resident's physician would be notified immediately regarding any change in condition of a resident to ensure the resident received proper care.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility' policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensu...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility' policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, for one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents, (Resident #93). The facility was aware Resident #93 had significant weight loss; however, did not inform the medical provider to obtain orders or interventions.
Resident #93 sustained a 12% weight loss from 03/10/18 until 4/23/18 according to the facility's weight log. Although, the resident was evaluated by the facility as part of a Quality Assurance and Improvement Plan related to inaccurate weight recording, neither the physician, the resident or resident's spouse were notified of the weight loss.
The findings include:
Review of the Facility's policy titled, Weight Monitoring,undated, revealed New admissions would be weighed weekly for four (4) weeks, the admission weight was a baseline weight and there were to be four (4) more weekly weights to total (5) consecutive weights. Continued review revealed, a re-weight was to be obtained for any weights that was plus or minus five (5) pounds in one (1) month or plus or minus three (3) pounds in one week. Further review revealed, parameters for significant weight loss were five (5) percent in one month, seven point five percent (7.5) percent in three (3) months and ten (10) percent weight loss in six months. Per policy, if significant weight loss was identified, the nurse would complete the Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) form, the healthcare provider, resident and or resident representative would be notified, the Registered Dietician would be notified for any recommendations, lab work would be monitored as ordered by the physician, nurse practitioner or physicians assistant. Per policy, weights would be monitored weekly for four weeks or until stable as determined by the Registered Dietician (RD) or the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). Additionally, the scale would be checked monthly by maintenance.
Review of Resident # 93's medical record revealed, the resident was admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, Essential Hypertension, Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, mild, Unspecified Cirrhosis, Presence of Right Artificial Shoulder Joint, Anxiety Disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) on 03/29/18, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of ten (10), which indicated the resident was moderately impaired.
Review of the facility's weight records in the Electronic medical Record indicated indicated Resident #93 weight 211.6 pounds on 03/12/18, for 04/05/18 as 230.3 lbs with a second weight for this date as 188 lbs and the 188 lbs marked out with a red line in the Electronic Medical Record, weight on 4/09/18 as 191.2 lbs, weight on 4/16/18 as 188.6 , weight on 4/23/18 186 lbs. Thus indicating a twenty-five pound weight loss in six weeks, which would be twelve (12) percent in six weeks. The surveyor requested the resident to be re-weighed on 04/26/18, however, the resident refused.
Record review of the facility's Nutritional At Risk Subacute Review Form dated 04/09/18, by the Registered Dietician revealed, the Resident #93 was addressed as having increased weight, although the form stated that nutritional needs and hydration needs were not always met with current intake. Resident had been on since and Special Nutrition Plan, to include fortified foods at breakfast. On 4/25/18 the Nutritional At Risk Subacute Form documented on by the facility's Registered Dietician revealed, questionable weight history with fluctuations, nutritional needs not always met with current orders and hydration needs not always met with current intake and a 2.7 % weight loss in two (2) weeks addressed on form, however, twenty-five pound weight loss, which is twelve percent in six weeks was not addressed.
Record Review of April 2018 Physician Orders revealed Regular diet . No intervention for Special Nutritional Program was noted on Physician's orders for April.
Record review of physicians progress note dated 04/09/18 revealed Resident #93 weight as 230.3. No detain in note of inaccurate scales or possible scale deviation or resident weight loss. No interventions for weight loss were noted on physicians progress note.
Review of Resident # 93's medical record revealed, the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include: Parkinson's Disease, Essential Hypertension, Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Mild, Unspecified Cirrhosis, Presence of Right Artificial Shoulder Joint, Anxiety Disorder. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 03/29/18, revealed the facility assess the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of ten (10) out of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was moderately impaired. Further review of the MDS revealed, the resident did not trigger any indicators for weight loss.
Interview with Resident # 93's spouse, on 4/25/18 at 4:00 PM, revealed the facility had not discussed the resident's weight loss with him/her and he/she was aware by looking at the resident that some weight loss had occurred. Continued interview revealed, he/she did not know the amount of weight loss and had not been informed per any staff related to any nutritional interventions the facility had in place regarding weight loss for the resident.
Interview with Unit B Manager, on 04/26/18 at 1:50 PM, revealed the policy was to follow the facility weight monitoring policy to ensure the nutritional status for Resident #93. Continued interview revealed, she could not find any documentation in the medical record the resident, resident family or physician were notified of the weight loss or that a significant weight loss SBAR was completed by staff. Further interview revealed, if incorrect weights were identified, the physician and the Registered Dietician should be notified so they could plan appropriate treatment and care for the resident and staff could update and follow the care plan.
Interview with the Dietary Manager, on 04/26/18 at 1:30 PM, revealed it was in her job duties to review the weekly and monthly weights given to her by the nurse's and run the weight variance reports, then report the information to the Registered Dietician. Per interview, when the weights on Unit B were off in April, the facility recognized it must be a scale problem and borrowed a scale from a sister facility until they could purchase a new scale and all the resident's in question were weighed three (3) times each, and that number was added together and divided by three after they had subtracted the weight of the wheelchair (40.4 pounds). Continued interview revealed, Resident #93 did not trigger for weight loss on the weight loss variance reports despite a twenty-five (25) pound weight loss in six (6) weeks. Per interview, the weight reports were run weekly and monthly, and the resident did not trigger on the reports. Further interview revealed, she was not able to explain why the resident did not trigger other than the incorrect weight on 04/05/18 of two hundred thirty and three tenths (230.3) pounds; however, there were weights on 04/09/18 and 4/16/18 and 4/23/18 with weight loss of twelve (12) percent in six (6) weeks. Continued interview revealed, the Registered Dietician, The Director of Nursing and the IDT team knew about the issue with the scales and the residents involved; however, she does not know how the weight variance between the two weights between the two hundred thirty (230) pounds, which would have been a nineteen (19) pound weight gain and the one hundred eighty-eight (188) pound weight, resulting in a twenty-three (23) pound weight loss and per interview either weight should have triggered on weight variance report.
Interview with Registered Dietician, on 04/26/18 at 4:00 PM, revealed he was made aware the facility had an issue with inaccurate scales and that weights were off on several residents on the B Unit. Per interview, he had to use the incorrect weight in his assessment, even though he knew it was incorrect, because it was the weight in the Electronic Medical Record and he did not see issues with using an incorrect weight. Per interview, he did not have any suggestions towards further assessment for weight loss other than a Special Nutritional Plan at breakfast or putting the resident on a regular no added salt diet. Per interview, a no added salt diet was an intervention for weight gain and upon interview stated could be intervention for either weight gain or loss. Further interview revealed, although the Registered Dietician did not expect to see a twenty-five (25) pound weight loss in six (6) weeks he could not think of any further interventions for nutritional support other than the special nutritional program at all meals. Continued interview revealed, Dietary orders should be on the physician orders so that staff were aware of what the dietary needs of the resident.
Interview with Resident #93's physician, on 04/25/18, revealed the physician had been notified the facility was having issues with their scale in early April and had made attempts to correct the problem and monitor the issue. Continued interview revealed, she was not aware Resident #93 was in the group of residents with the scale issue and had never been notified of any significant weight loss for this resident. Per interview, she expected to be notified if the resident had significant weight loss and would have expected the resident to have been re-weighed when identified as incorrectly weighed and she should have been notified of the weight issues so recommendations for labs or interventions could be made. Further interview revealed, she relied on recommendations from the Registered Dietician and weekly weight reports.
Interview with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON), on 04/26/18 at 4:15 PM revealed it was important to identify residents with weight loss and in any resident identified with weight loss, needed be processed through the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and identify a causative factor and have interventions such as hydration and snack carts. Continued interview revealed, it seemed that Resident #93 was identified as having an issue with the scaled, but not identified as having an issue with weight loss. Further interview revealed it was her expectation for staff to follow the facility's policy related the monitoring resident weights.
Interview with Administrator, on 04/26/18 at 4:20 PM, revealed it was her expectation for her nursing staff to follow policy regarding weight monitoring and for the Registered Dietician to provide appropriate interventions for weight loss. Continued interview revealed, SBAR was not done per policy, physician notification was not done, family and the resident were not notified of the significant weight loss per the facility's policy. Continued interview revealed, the Administrator believed the incorrect weight was struck out in the Electronic Medical Record on 4/05/18 and the correct weight should have been one hundred eighty-eight (188) pounds, which was how the Physician and the Registered Dietician used the incorrect weight on their progress notes on 04/09/18. Per interview, the facility was aware of a problem with the scales and Resident #93 had been identified as one of the residents with incorrect April weights, with both Registered Dietician and Physician notification prior to 4/09/19. Per interview, the Administrator could not say why inaccurate weights continued to be used in the medical record when the facility knew they were not accurate.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and included the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for two (2) out of five (5) medication carts. Observations on 04/25/18 revealed open and undated glucose test strips, glucose control solution opened and dated 11/01, a Novolog pen opened and undated as well as two eye drops opened and undated in the medication carts on Unit D and Unit E.
The findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medication, dated 11/17, revealed the open date should be written on the label for insulin vials and pens when first opened. Further review revealed, outdated medications should immediately be removed from stock, disposed of properly, and re-ordered from pharmacy if appropriate.
Review of the facility's Appendix of Resources section 9.11 titled, Medications with Special Expiration Date Requirements revealed, eye drops expire 60 days after opening or according to manufacturer recommendation. Further review revealed, Novolog Insulin Pens expired 28 days after opening.
Review of manufacturer's guidelines for EvenCare G2 blood glucose control solutions and test strips titled, Medline EvenCare G2 Healthcare Professional Operator's Manual and In-Service Guide, undated, revealed test strips and glucose control solutions should be dated upon opening. Continued review revealed, EvenCare G2 test strips should be discarded six (6) months after opening. Further review revealed, EvenCare G2 low and high blood glucose control solutions should be discarded ninety (90) days after opening.
Review of the package insert for Lantanoprost Ophthalmic Solution 0.005%, undated, revealed Lantanoprost Ophthalmic Solution, trade name Xalatan, may be stored at room temperature for six (6) weeks after opening.
1) Observations, on 4/25/18 at 9:20 AM, of the medication cart on the Heavenly Hill unit revealed, one (1) container of EvenCare G2 glucose test strips were opened with no date on the bottle; one (1) bottle EvenCare G2 Low glucose control solution was opened with an open date of 11/1; one (1) bottle of EvenCare G2 High glucose control solution was opened with an open date of 11/1; Novolog FlexPen opened with no open date on the label; one (1) bottle Brimonide Tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.2% opened with no open date on the label and two (2) bottles of Lantanoprost 0.005% eye drops opened with no open date on the bottle or box.
Interview, on 4/25/18 at 9:50 AM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed the eye drops and insulin pen in the medication cart were not labeled correctly. Per interview, the medications and medical supplies should have been dated when opened. She further stated that if she were to have found the undated medication she would look for the pharmacy delivery date. If the delivery date was within the appropriate time frame (28 days for insulin, 60 days for eye drops) she would label the medication with the delivery date as the opened date. Continued interview revealed, if she were unable to locate a delivery date, she would discard the medication and re-order the medication from pharmacy as appropriate. Further interview revealed, the glucose test strips and control solutions were not labeled correctly. LPN #1 further stated, she would discard the test strips since there was no way to know when they were opened. She also stated, she would discard the control solutions as they had expired. Additional interview revealed, negative consequences of using expired medications could include the medication not being effective and negative consequences of using expired test supplied could include inaccurate readings.
2) Observation, on 4/25/18 at 11:21 AM, of the medication cart on Unit D revealed one (1) bottle of EvenCare G2 low glucose control solution and one (1) bottle of EvenCare G2 high glucose control solution opened with no open date.
Interview with Unit Manager (UM) #1, on 4/25/18 at 4:00 PM, revealed it was her expectation that staff label and date medications appropriately in accordance with the facility's policies. It was also her expectation staff discard medication and medical supplies when they are past the expiration date. Continued interview revealed, if a medication without an open date was found by nursing staff in the medication cart, it was her expectation that staff discard the medication, re-order the medication from pharmacy, use a dose from the emergency medication box until the new medication arrived. Further interview revealed, negative consequences of using expired medication included the medication not being effective and negative consequences of using expired glucose test strips and/or glucose control solutions included inaccurate readings leading to inaccurate treatment of blood glucose levels.
Interview with the acting Director of Nursing (DON), on 4/26/18, at 8:47 AM revealed it was her expectation staff date medication as soon as they were opened. Per interview, if staff find medications opened and undated they were to attempt to determine when the medicine arrived. If unable to locate a delivery date, staff were expected to discard the medication and re-order from pharmacy. Continued interview revealed, if an expired medication was used the staff were expected to notify the MD, pharmacy, next of kin, and to monitor the resident for adverse effects. Further interview revealed, the DON was unable to name any specific negative consequences that could derive from using outdated or expired medication.
Interview with the facility Administrator, on 4/26/18 at 8:47 AM, revealed it was her expectation that staff date medication as it was received and when it was opened. Per interview, it was also her expectation for staff to notice if there were no opened dates on medications or if medications have expired. Continued interview revealed, if staff find outdated or expired medication it was her expectation that staff alert the DON and Administrator of expired medication, discard the medication, and re-order the medication from pharmacy as appropriate. Further interview revealed, if expired or outdated medication was used, staff were supposed to notify the pharmacy, MD, power of attorney for the resident, and to monitor the resident for adverse effects. Additional interview revealed, the Administrator was unable to name specific adverse effects that could derive from using outdated or expired medication.