Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & Well

331 South Main Street, Lawrenceburg, KY 40342 (502) 839-7246
For profit - Corporation 94 Beds SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#259 of 266 in KY
Last Inspection: October 2021

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

Overview

Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & Well has received an F trust grade, indicating significant concerns with the facility's operations and care quality. Ranking #259 out of 266 in Kentucky places this nursing home in the bottom half of facilities statewide, although it is the only option in Anderson County. The situation appears to be worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2021 to 9 in 2023. Staffing is a relative strength, rated 4 out of 5 stars, with a 41% turnover rate that is below the state average, and there is good RN coverage, exceeding 76% of Kentucky facilities. However, the facility has incurred a concerning $185,227 in fines, which is higher than 95% of other Kentucky facilities, and there have been critical findings, including failures to investigate allegations of narcotic misappropriation and to properly develop care plans for residents, leading to potential risks in resident safety and well-being.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Kentucky
#259/266
Bottom 3%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% turnover. Near Kentucky's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$185,227 in fines. Higher than 50% of Kentucky facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Kentucky. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2021: 2 issues
2023: 9 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (41%)

    7 points below Kentucky average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Kentucky average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near Kentucky avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $185,227

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record

5 life-threatening
Sept 2023 9 deficiencies 5 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

4. Review of Resident #62's closed medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/03/2020 with diagnoses which included Pain, Hypertension, Major Depressive Disorder and Venous Insuf...

Read full inspector narrative →
4. Review of Resident #62's closed medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/03/2020 with diagnoses which included Pain, Hypertension, Major Depressive Disorder and Venous Insufficiency. Further review revealed the resident expired on 11/29/2022. Review of Resident #62's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 10/18/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #62's Police Report, dated 08/30/2022, revealed a 911 call was placed at 10:00 PM by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) as outlined in the Elder Justice Act Policy and Procedure. Per the report, Police Unit #132 responded and talked with facility staff when he learned the facility was reporting an elderly resident gave an employee money, and the facility needed to file a report. Review of the report revealed the resident was able to consent to giving the money to the facility's employee. Review of the Event Report, dated 08/30/2022 at 10:15 PM, revealed an allegation of misappropriation. Per the report, on 08/30/2022, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 had reported to the DON that Resident #62 had reported that he/she had given Housekeeper #1 a gift of a substantial amount of money. Per the report, the resident asked if Housekeeper #1 was fired because he/she had heard the Housekeeper called to the office. Further review revealed when interviewed by the Administrator and the DON, the resident stated he/she had gifted the Housekeeper $10,000 and it was a gift not a loan. Per the report, the resident stated he/she wanted to help the housekeeper's daughter with dentures. Continued review revealed the Administrator initiated the investigation as soon as the allegation was made. The Physician and the Resident's Representative were notified as documented on the Event Report. Review of the Facility's Investigation, dated 09/07/2022, revealed a copy of the bank statement which included a picture of the check Resident #62 wrote to Housekeeper #1, on 06/27/2022, for $10,000 which was processed by the bank on 06/28/2022. The facility's investigation included questionnaires that were used for interviewing residents with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of eight (8) and above. The questions included: 1) Have you ever given employees money or anything of value? 2) Have you witnessed any elder give any employees any money or anything of value and not reported it? and 3) Do you feel safe? The interview sheets were provided for review. Twenty-nine (29) residents were interviewed with no resident reporting a problem with misappropriation to their knowledge. The investigation included documentation of education provided to staff regarding Abuse, Neglect or Misappropriation. The date listed was 08/31/2022 through 09/01/2022 for the education to the staff. At the same time the staff received education on the Elder Justice Act policy. After the education was provided, the staff were required to complete a quiz over the content. It was determined by the facility that the allegation for misappropriation was substantiated. Further review of the facility's investigation revealed the Contracted Housekeeping Services provided Employee Corrective Action to Housekeeper #1 on 09/03/2022, which revealed the housekeeper was terminated from the contract company. In an interview with Resident #62's emergency contact (Pastor), on 09/19/2023 at 4:12 PM, he stated he was a friend of the resident and had knowledge the resident had written the check to Housekeeper #1. He stated it was the resident's money to spend as he/she wished. He stated the resident did not have family and upon the death of the resident, the estate was willed to the church. In an interview with Housekeeper #1, on 09/20/2023 at 11:50 AM, she stated she did get money from Resident #62. She stated she had used some of the money to buy things the resident requested and used some for her daughter's dental work. She stated the Pastor knew about the money. She also stated the facility settled and made her pay back one-half (1/2)of the money, $5,000, which she paid with a cashiers check. She stated she wished it had never happened. In a telephone interview with the former Housekeeping Supervisor, on 09/20/2023 at 4:07 PM, he stated after finding out about the situation on 08/30/2022, he along with the former Administrator called to speak with Housekeeper #1 about the allegation. The former Supervisor stated the housekeeper was asked if she had received money from Resident #62 and she stated, Yes, it was a gift to help with dental work for my daughter. The former Supervisor stated when asked how much money, the housekeeper stated it was $10,000. Per the former Supervisor, Housekeeper #1 was suspended pending the outcome of the investigation at which time her employment with the contract company was terminated on 09/02/2022. In an interview with the former Administrator on 09/19/2023 at 3:34 PM, she stated she talked with the former resident who stated he/she had given the check to Housekeeper #1 as a gift to get her daughter's dental work completed. The former Administrator stated the facility did not reimburse the resident because she stated it was a gift. Per the former Administrator, the resident also was responsible for making his/her own decisions and had a BIMS score of fifteen (15). The former Administrator stated Housekeeper #1 did return $5000 to the resident. Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation, review of the police report, and review of the facility's policies, and the Kentucky Incident Based Reporting System (KYIBRS) Report, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation of property for four (4) of sixty-one (61) sampled residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, and 62). Three (3) residents, Resident #1, #2, and #3 had medication misappropriated. A facility employee acceptable ten thousand dollars ($10,000) from Resident #62. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 reported to the Director of Nursing (DON) that Registered Nurse (RN) #1 was exhibiting suspicious behaviors of wearing a backpack at work; being in the bathroom for long periods of time, and acting weird. While the DON was in the facility, on 08/11/2023 at 3:00 AM, RN #1 stayed in the bathroom for extended periods and walked around with a backpack. However, the DON reported there were no concerns, and staff members' reports were just speculation. In an interview with LPN #3, she stated on 08/26/2023 she observed RN #1 take a bottle of Morphine out of her pocket and place it into the medication cart at approximately 11:30 PM. LPN #4, stated she observed RN #1 on 08/26/2023 at approximately 10:00 PM talking belligerently, slurring her words, and her pupils were pinpoint. LPN #4 stated at 10:46 PM, she observed RN #1 enter the bathroom, and she did not exit until 11:26 PM. LPN #4 stated she called the DON at 10:46 PM initially and told her that RN #1 was higher than a f .ing kite. LPN #4 stated she informed the DON that she wanted to call the police because she thought RN #1 had taken the Morphine that was delivered from the pharmacy at approximately 10:00 PM for Resident #2. In an interview with the Administrator, he stated on 08/27/2023 at 7:30 AM, he was made aware by the DON that the police had been called on 08/26/2023. The Administrator stated staff had texted the DON on 08/26/2023. However, she was not aware of the text until the next morning on 08/27/2023. He stated he was told by the DON that RN #1 had been arrested, and Morphine was found in RN #1's backpack. Despite this, the facility's initial investigation unsubstantiated the allegation of misappropriation due to the ongoing investigation by local law enforcement as they awaited a pending liquid medication analysis and toxicology report. However, the facility's Administrator and DON failed to immediately take action to investigate and report, implement corrective action consistent with the investigation's findings, and failed to take steps to eliminate any ongoing danger to the resident(s) in a timely manner. (See F610 and F835). The facility's failure to ensure residents were protected from misappropriation of narcotics and to take immediate action and have a system in place to ensure the residents were protected is likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care were identified on 09/21/2023 and determined to exist on 08/26/2023 in the area of 42 CFR 483.12 Freedom from Abuse and Neglect, F602 and F610 with a Scope and Severity of a J. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 09/21/2023. The IJ is ongoing. In addition, on 06/27/2022, Housekeeper #1 accepted $10,000 as a gift from Resident #62. The money was to be used to provide dental work for Housekeeper #1's daughter. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Abuse, Neglect, or Misappropriation of Resident Property, revised 10/17/2022, revealed the facility's intention was to prevent the occurrences of misappropriation of resident property and to assure all alleged violations of federal or state laws which involved misappropriation of resident property were investigated and reported immediately to the Facility's Administrator, and the State Survey Agency, and other appropriate State and local agencies in accordance with Federal and State law. Per the policy, the organization would include screening, training, prevention, identification, investigation, protection, and reporting to provide protection for the health, welfare and rights of each resident residing in the facility. Further, the policy revealed the Administrator, or designee, would conduct a reasonable investigation of each alleged violation. In addition, the Administrator would make reasonable efforts to determine the root cause of the alleged violation and would implement corrective actions consistent with the investigation findings and take steps to eliminate any ongoing danger to the resident or residents. Continued review revealed the Administrator would identify, intervene, and correct situations in which reported abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property might recur. Further review of the policy revealed exploitation was defined as taking advantage of a resident for personal gain, through the use of manipulation, initiation, threats, or coercion; and, misappropriation of resident property was defined as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary, or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. The policy stated, Under no circumstances shall any Stakeholder accept any money, property, inheritance or anything else of value from a resident or resident's family member, nor enter into any joint ownership of any property, bank account, business, or anything else of value, with a resident, unless the resident is a family member of the Stakeholder. Additionally, the policy stated the facility trained employees on hire and annual thereafter related to abuse, including misappropriation of resident property. Review of the facility's policy, Controlled Medication and Drug Diversion Policy, revised 07/07/2022, revealed the facility was to investigate and make every reasonable effort to reconcile reported narcotic discrepancies. Per the policy, if a major discrepancy or a pattern of discrepancies occurred or if there was apparent criminal activity, the Director of Nursing (DON) would notify the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Nurse Care Consultant (NCC), Regional Vice-President (RVP), and pharmacy immediately. Review of the facility's policy, Elder Justice Act Policy and Procedure, revision 04/05/2016, revealed it was the intent of the facility to uphold The Elder Justice Act as established under the Social Security Act and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 which required covered individuals to report reasonable suspicion of a crime to their state regulatory agency and to local law enforcement within specific time frames. The guide of the Elder Justice Act was if a covered individual had a reasonable suspicion, that individual must report this directly to both local law enforcement and the state survey agency without fear of retaliation. Per the policy, the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON) or Abuse Coordinator could report the suspicion on behalf of a covered individual if that was the desire of the individual. Review of Registered Nurse (RN) #1's Employee File revealed a hire date of 03/02/2023, with the most recently received abuse education Agency Orientation Guide/Checklist, dated March 2023. 1. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/10/2021, with diagnoses that included Cerebral Palsy, Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia, Psychosis, and Severe Intellectual Disabilities. Review of Resident #1's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 06/14/2023, revealed the facility could not assess the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score due to Resident #1 being never or rarely understood. Review of Resident #1's care plan, initiated on 02/08/2021, revealed a problem for pain with a long-term goal target date of 12/12/2023, that Resident #1 would verbalize or demonstrate relief or reduction of pain within one (1) hour after receiving interventions. Interventions included to administer medications as ordered, monitor, record any complaints of pain, record any nonverbal signs of pain, and use pain relief measures as needed. Review of Resident #1's Physician's Orders revealed an order, dated 08/07/2023, for Morphine Sulfate (an opioid used to relieve moderate to severe pain) 100 milligrams (mg)/5 milliliters (ml) (20 mg/ml), amount five (5) mg (0.25 ml) oral concentration liquid. Resident #1 was to receive 0.25 ml orally every six (6) hours for pain. Review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 08/25/2023 through 08/26/2023, revealed RN #1 administered Resident #1's scheduled Morphine Sulfate on 08/25/2023 at 12:00 AM, with documentation on the Narcotic Record of 0.25 ml of the dose dispensed and 16.25 ml dose present/remaining. Further review of Resident #1's MAR documentation, dated 08/26/2023, revealed no documented evidence of RN #1's administration of Morphine Sulfate to Resident #1 on 08/26/2023 and no assessed pain evaluation. 2. Review of Resident #2's closed medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 08/19/2023, with diagnoses that included Down's Syndrome, Encephalopathy, and Anxiety. Review of Resident #2's admission MDS Assessment, dated 08/26/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident with a BIMS' score of zero (0) of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #2's care plan, initiated on 08/21/2023, revealed a problem for chronic pain with a goal that the resident would verbalize or demonstrate relief or reduction of pain within one (1) hour after receiving interventions. Interventions included positioning, report uncontrolled pain to physician and/or hospice nurse and MD, evaluate effectiveness of pain management interventions, observe, and record any complaints of pain. Review of Resident #2's Physician's Orders revealed an order, dated 08/21/2023, to admit Resident #2 to Hospice Services with a diagnosis of Mild Protein-Calorie Malnutrition. Further review revealed an order, dated 08/26/2023, for Resident #2 to receive Morphine Sulfate 100 mg/5 ml (20 mg/ml), amount five (5) mg (0.25 ml) oral concentration liquid to administer 0.25 ml orally every four (4) hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Additional review revealed a new order, dated 08/26/2023, for Resident #2 to receive Morphine Sulfate 100 mg/5 ml (20 mg/ml), amount ten (10) mg (0.5 ml) oral concentration liquid, to administer 0.5 ml orally every four (4) hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Review of the facility's Controlled Drug Record revealed on 08/26/2023 at approximately 10:00 PM, pharmacy delivered a thirty (30) ml bottle of Morphine Sulfate 100 mg/5 ml oral concentration liquid for Resident #2. The order stated to administer 0.5 ml orally every four (4) hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Further review revealed Resident #2's Morphine narcotic medication was signed off as received by RN #1 and witnessed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3. Review of Resident #2's MAR, dated 08/25/2023, revealed RN #1 administered Resident #2's PRN Morphine Sulfate at 10:17 PM with an assessed pain score of three (3) of ten (10), with no follow-up pain assessment documented. Further review revealed on 08/26/2023 at 5:34 AM, RN #1 administered Resident #2's PRN Morphine Sulfate with an assessed pain score of seven (7) of ten (10), with no follow-up pain assessment documented. In addition, review of Resident #2's Narcotic Record revealed on 08/26/2023 at 10:30 PM, RN #1 signed that she had administered PRN Morphine Sulfate 0.5 ml to Resident #2. However, according to Resident #2's MAR, there was no documented evidence of RN #1's administration of Morphine Sulfate 0.5 ml to Resident #2 on 08/26/2023 at 10:30 PM, and no assessed pain evaluation was documented. Review of Resident #2's Progress Note, dated 08/27/2023 at 4:13 AM, revealed LPN #2 contacted the on-call Nurse Practitioner (NP) to request a new prescription be sent to the pharmacy to replace Resident #2's Morphine that had been confiscated by the police. 3. Review of Resident #3's closed medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/07/2017, with diagnoses that included Dementia, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) III, and Congestive Heart Failure (CHF). Review of Resident #3's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 05/28/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of five (5) of fifteen (15) which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #3's care plan, dated 02/20/2023, revealed a focus for Hospice/Palliative Care with a goal that the resident would be supported to promote comfort and dignity throughout the dying process. There was an intervention to notify the physician/hospice provider if pain or discomfort was not alleviated by current preventative measures, treatment regimen, or medications provided. Review of Resident #3's Physician's Orders, dated 06/27/2023, revealed an order to admit Resident #3 to Hospice Services with a diagnosis of Mild Protein-Calorie Malnutrition. Further review revealed an order, dated 08/09/2023, for Resident #3 to receive Morphine Sulfate 10 mg/5 ml, (2 mg/ml) oral concentration liquid, to administer one (1) ml orally every two (2) hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Review of Resident #3's MAR dated 08/26/2023, revealed no assessed pain evaluation or PRN pain medication of Morphine had been documented as administered by RN #1. Review of the Narcotic Record for 08/26/2023 revealed the Morphine had not been administered. Review of Resident #3's Progress Note, dated 08/27/2023 at 4:34 AM, revealed LPN #2 contacted the on-call NP to request a new prescription be sent to the pharmacy to replace Resident #3's bottle of suspected tampered Morphine. The bottle of Morphine had been confiscated by police as evidence to be sent to the Kentucky State Police (KSP) Central Lab for testing. Review of the Long-Term Care Facility-Self-Reported Incident Form/Initial Report, dated 08/27/2023, with no time documented and signed by the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed an Allegation of Misappropriation of resident property occurred on 08/27/2023, involving Residents #1, #2, and #3. Additional review revealed the DON was notified that Agency Nurse/RN #1, had been pulled over by police after her shift ended at 11:00 PM last night', with suspicion of impairment and was noted to have syringes, blue food coloring, and saline in her backpack. Afterwards, the report stated police came to the facility and took Morphine from the medication carts for testing. Review of the Kentucky Incident Based Reporting System (KYIBRS) Report of incident KY 23-212, dated 08/27/2023 at 12:35 AM, revealed police were contacted by the facility's staff, LPN #3, who reported an employee (RN #1) was possibly under the influence was reportedly leaving intoxicated. The report revealed the driver failed to signal when turning into a parking lot. Officer #1 conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle for failure to signal and to conduct a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) investigation at 12:37 AM. At that time, RN #1 advised Officer #1 that the seven (7) syringes with the blue liquid were Morphine, and she had taken them from the facility. Per the report, RN #1 also advised Officer #1 she had taken a dose of Morphine while on shift earlier tonight while caring for twenty-one (21) residents. Further review of the report revealed RN #1 said she had taken the Morphine because she wanted to kill herself, and then RN #1 started to have chest pains. Continued review revealed the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called for medical treatment. RN #1 was transported to the hospital by paramedics related to her stating she wanted to commit suicide. Review of the Kentucky Incident Based Reporting System (KYIBRS) Report, while enroute RN #1 informed EMS personnel she had been conducting this unlawful act since January 2023. Per the report, an arrest warrant was issued for RN #1 on 08/27/2023 at 2:36 AM. The report stated RN #1 was implicated on eight (8) counts for the charge of Theft of a Legend Drug (a drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that could be dispensed to the public only with a prescription); twenty-one (21) counts of Wanton Endangerment in the First Degree; seven (7) counts of Possession of Controlled Substance; seven (7) counts of Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition; three (3) counts of Knowingly Abuse or Neglect of an Adult by Stealing; three (3) counts of Tampering with Physical Evidence; and one (1) count of Drug Paraphernalia. Review of the Administrator's Witness Statement, dated 08/28/2023 and signed by the Administrator, revealed on 08/26/2023 at 11:30 PM, he was called by the DON and was informed staff members were saying RN #1 was acting weird, walking around the nurse's station, had been to the bathroom several times, and was wearing her backpack. Per the statement, the DON told the Administrator, It's not a big deal; RN #1 was being budgeted at 11:00 PM anyway; she had spoken with RN #1; and RN #1 was going to finish up some charting and go home. The Administrator stated he asked the DON about RN #1's backpack, and the DON responded that RN #1 usually had one with her and in the bathroom. The Administrator stated the DON told him she had worked with RN #1 and that RN #1 went to the bathroom with the backpack. Further review revealed the Administrator stated the DON informed him that RN #1 had gastrointestinal (GI) issues. Per the statement, the DON told the Administrator that it had just been a crazy evening, and she had instructed the staff to call her for any issues with the medication cart count or if they needed anything else. The Administrator stated he told the DON to let him know if she heard anything more; however, he did not hear from the DON again until 7:30 AM on 08/27/2023. Review of State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #2's telephone Witness Statement, dated 08/31/2023, signed by the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations (VPCO), revealed during her shift on 08/26/2023, she observed RN #1 looking in the narcotic box for a long period of time. SRNA #2 stated it appeared that RN #1 was flipping through the narcotics. SRNA #2 stated she had seen other nurses get in the narcotic box, but they did not look for a long time like RN #1 did. SRNA #2 also stated, while RN #1 was looking through the narcotic box, she kept looking around and over her shoulder. SRNA #2 stated RN #1 saw her watching, and RN #1 then shut the narcotic box quickly, put her backpack on, and went to the bathroom. SRNA #2 stated she immediately informed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, LPN #3, and LPN #4 of RN #1's suspicious behavior. Review of LPN #2's telephone Witness Statement, dated 08/31/2023, signed by Unit Manager UM/LPN #10, revealed on 08/26/2023 at approximately 8:00 PM, SRNA #2 alerted LPN #2 that RN #1 had been going through the narcotic drawer with her backpack on. The statement revealed RN #1 continued to go to the bathroom frequently with her backpack on and stayed in the bathroom for forty (40) minutes. LPN #2 stated when RN #1 came out of the bathroom, LPN #3 met RN #1 to count the carts with her, and RN #1 then took Morphine out of her pocket and returned it to the medication cart. Further, LPN #2 stated, while counting the medication, the new bottle of Morphine was marked exactly at thirty (30) ml in the bottle. Per the statement, RN #1's face was flushed, and she was talking slowly while counting with LPN #3. Review of LPN #1's telephone Witness Statement, signed by the DON, undated, revealed the DON and Administrator spoke with LPN #1 via telephone on 08/28/2023. LPN #1 stated that RN #1 was witnessed by LPN #3, after RN #1 returned from the bathroom, to remove a Morphine bottle from her pants pocket and return the bottle to the medication cart (no date or time given). LPN #1 stated that was when she called the DON. Per the statement, RN #1 counted the medication cart with LPN #3, walked down the hallway three (3) times, and then went into the bathroom with her backpack and came out with her backpack. After this occurred, LPN #1 stated RN #1 continued to finish her charting, swaying at the medication cart, and then left through the laundry room door with her backpack on. Per the statement, RN #1 then came back inside without her backpack on, stopped at the medication cart to sign herself out, and walked out of the facility without her backpack. Further, LPN #1 stated she directly went out the laundry room door and saw RN #1's backpack lying by the facility dumpster with needles and syringes inside. Per the statement, RN #1 was observed driving from the facility, and she almost hit a fence. At that time, LPN #1 stated the police were called at 12:45 AM (no date given), and police were in and out of the facility and retrieved Morphine bottles for evidence. Review of the DON's typed Witness Statement, dated 08/31/2023 and signed by the DON, revealed she received a call from LPN #1, an agency nurse, around 10:45 PM on 08/26/2023, stating that RN #1 was in the building, had not taken her backpack off the entire time, and was using the bathroom frequently. Per the statement, LPN #1 told the DON that RN #1 appeared like she was doing drugs because RN #1 was walking around the nurses station, going to the bathroom frequently, and would not take the backpack off. The DON stated, at that point, the decision was made to remove RN #1 from the schedule, and staff needed to arrange how to cover the assignments while she called RN #1 to tell her that her shift was ending. The DON stated she called RN #1 and informed her that she was being cut, and RN #1 explained to the DON that she needed to complete some charting before she went home. The DON stated that she had spoken to RN #1 twice on the phone during her shift, once when RN #1 called her about some items to follow-up on clinically on Monday, and the other was when the DON called RN #1 about the need to end her shift. The DON stated during her contact with RN #1 on 08/26/2023, there were no signs of impairment, slurred speech, or altered cognition. Continued review of the statement revealed the DON stated LPN #1 called her back and notified her that there was a medication bottle wrapper in the trash can. The DON stated LPN #1 told her that she needed to call the police department, but no behavior changes had been relayed to her at that time, and she did not call the police. The DON stated she notified the Administrator of LPN #1's statements, and then she called the facility and told staff to call her back if they noticed any changes of behaviors, signs of impairment, or if the narcotic count was incorrect. The DON stated, they never called me back. Further, the DON stated she woke up on 08/27/2023 to see text messages from LPN #1 stating staff had found RN #1's backpack out by the dumpster, and police had confiscated it. The DON stated she was informed that the backpack contained needles and syringes filled with a blue substance, and the police officers had taken the Morphine in the building for evidence, along with RN #1's backpack. The DON stated she received additional text messages that RN #1 had been arrested, and she notified the Administrator immediately. Review of the Long-Term Care Facility-Self-Reported Incident Form/Final Report, dated 09/01/2023, signed by the facility's Administrator, revealed an allegation of misappropriation of resident property occurred on 08/27/2023, which involved Residents #1, #2, and #3. Review of the Final Report revealed the facility's Determination of Findings as documented: After a thorough investigation and interviews with staff and residents, at this time we are unable to substantiate that the alleged (RN #1) took the resident's medication due to the ongoing investigation still in process with the Local Police Department. According to the investigating officer, the results of the medication testing could take up to thirty (30) days to complete. Once the finalized results were complete, the facility would follow up with an addendum. The facility does substantiate that RN #1 was observed to be impaired at the end of her shift, was wearing a backpack that was later found to have syringes filled with a blue liquid solution, and was detained and taken to the Emergency Department (ED) due to impairment and voicing suicidal ideations to the officer. Review of the facility's Addendum dated 08/31/2023, revealed after additional information was available that was not available at the time when the five (5) day report was due, the nurse in question, RN #1, confessed to the arresting police officers that she had stolen Morphine from the places she worked. The facility substantiated neglect against RN #1. Review of LPN #3's telephone Witness Statement, dated 09/07/2023, no witness signature documented, revealed on 08/26/2023, she witnessed RN #1 go into the bathroom for forty (40) minutes and heard two (2) other nurses call the DON for help. LPN #3 stated she then witnessed RN #1 take a bottle of Morphine out of her pocket and placed it back into the medication cart. LPN #3 stated she went into the bathroom and found the seal from the new Morphine bottle, took a picture, and provided it to the police. In addition, LPN #3 stated she counted the narcotics with RN #1 and noted the new Morphine bottle only had thirty (30) ml and not the thirty-four (34) ml as was in new bottles. LPN #3 stated she asked RN #1 about it, and RN #1 told LPN #3 that she did not know about the missing medication. During an interview on 09/13/2023 at 1:50 PM with SRNA #1, she stated she worked night shift and had worked with RN #1 about a month ago. She stated RN #1 appeared under the influence of something. She stated that on the night shift about a month ago, RN #1 was mean to her and was yelling at her. SRNA #1 stated that both RN #1 and another agency nurse that night looked intoxicated, but she did not remember the other nurse's name. SRNA #1 stated they were both running around and were very unfocused. The SRNA stated that sh[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation, and review of the facility's policies, and the Kentuc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation, and review of the facility's policies, and the Kentucky Incident Based Reporting System (KYIBRS) Report it was determined the facility failed to ensure an thorough investigation was conducted timely; and failed to protect the safety of the residents after they were informed of an allegation of misappropriation related to narcotic (Morphine) drug diversion for three (3) of sixty-one (61) sampled residents (Residents #1, #2, and #3). Residents #1, #2, and #3 were prescribed Morphine (an opioid given to relieve moderate to severe pain). The Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON) became aware of an allegation of misappropriation that Registered Nurse (RN) #1 had diverted narcotic medications on 08/26/2023. However, an investigation was not initiated until 08/27/2023. In addition, the Administrator, who was the Abuse Coordinator, did not come to the facility until 08/28/2023. The facility's Ad Hoc meeting to address the diversion was not held until 08/29/2023. The facility's failure to take immediate action to prevent drug diversion and have a system in place to ensure the residents were protected is likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care were identified on 09/21/2023 and determined to exist on 08/26/2023 in the area of 42 CFR 483.12 Freedom from Abuse and Neglect, F602 and F610 with a Scope and Severity of a J. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 09/21/2023. The IJ is ongoing. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation of Property, revised 10/17/2022, revealed the Administrator would investigate all allegations and provide complete and thorough documentation of the investigation of abuse/misappropriation. The Administrator would also determine the root cause; take steps to eliminate the ongoing danger to residents; and notify the Medical Director. Review of the facility's policy,Controlled Medication and Drug Diversion Policy revision date 07/07/2022, revealed the facility was to investigate and make every reasonable effort to reconcile reported narcotic discrepancies. The policy stated if a major discrepancy or a pattern of discrepancies occurred or if there was apparent criminal activity, the DON would notify the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Nurse Care Consultant (NCC), Regional Vice-President (RVP), and pharmacy immediately. 1. Review of Resident #1's admission record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 08/10/2021 with diagnoses that included Cerebral Palsy, Scoliosis, and Severe Intellectual Disabilities. Review of Resident #1's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 06/14/2023, revealed the facility could not assess the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score due to Resident #1 being never or rarely understood. Review of Resident #1's Physician's Orders revealed an order, dated 08/07/2023, for Morphine Sulfate 100 milligrams (mg)/5 milliliters (ml) (20 mg/ml), amount five (5) mg (0.25 ml) oral concentration liquid to administer 0.25 ml orally every six (6) hours for pain. 2. Review of Resident #2's admission record revealed the facility admitted Resident #2 on 08/19/2023 with diagnoses of Down's Syndrome, Encephalopathy, and Anxiety. Further review revealed Resident #2 was a Hospice/Palliative care resident. Review of Resident #2's admission MDS Assessment, dated 08/26/2023, revealed the facility could not assess the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score due to Resident #2 being never or rarely understood. Review of Resident #2's Physician's Orders revealed an order, dated 08/26/2023, for Resident #2 to receive Morphine Sulfate 100 milligrams (mg)/5 milliliters (ml) (20 mg/ml), amount five (5) mg (0.25 ml) oral concentration liquid to administer 0.25 ml orally every four (4) hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Additional review revealed a new order, dated 08/26/2023, for Resident #2 to receive Morphine Sulfate 100 mg/5 ml (20 mg/ml), amount ten (10) mg (0.5 ml) oral concentration liquid, to administer 0.5 ml orally every four (4) hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Review of Resident #2's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the resident received a dose of Morphine 5 mg on 08/26/2023 at 12:33 PM with effective results. No further documentation was noted on the MAR for 08/26/2023. Review of the facility's Controlled Drug Record revealed on 08/26/2023 at approximately 10:00 PM, pharmacy delivered a thirty (30) ml bottle of Morphine Sulfate 100 mg/5 ml oral concentration liquid for Resident #2, with an order to administer 0.5 ml orally every four (4) hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Further review revealed Resident #2's Morphine narcotic medication was signed off as received by Registered Nurse (RN) #1 and witnessed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3. 3. Review of Resident #3's admission record revealed the facility admitted Resident #3 on 11/07/2017 with diagnoses of Down's Syndrome, Dementia, Epilepsy, and Anxiety. Further review revealed Resident #3 was a Hospice/Palliative care resident. Review of Resident #3's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility could not assess the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score due to Resident #3 being never or rarely understood. Review of Resident #3's Physician's Orders, dated 06/27/2023, revealed an order, dated 08/09/2023, for Resident#3 to receive Morphine Sulfate 10 mg/5 ml, (2 mg/ml) oral concentration liquid, to administer one (1) ml orally every two (2) hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Review of the Kentucky Incident Based Reporting System (KYIBRS) Report of incident KY 23-212, dated 08/27/2023 at 12:35 AM, revealed the police stopped RN #1 for her vehicle's failure to signal and to conduct a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) investigation at 12:37 AM. At that time, RN #1 advised Officer #1 that the seven (7) syringes with the blue liquid were Morphine, and she had taken them from the facility. Per the report, RN #1 also advised Officer #1 she had taken a dose of Morphine while on shift earlier tonight while caring for twenty-one (21) residents. Per the report, while enroute to the hospital, RN #1 informed Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel (called because RN #1 was expressing suicidal ideation) she had been conducting this unlawful act since January 2023. Per the report, a warrant of arrest was issued for RN #1 on 08/27/2023 at 2:36 AM, which included eight (8) counts for the charge of Theft of a Legend Drug (a drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that could be dispensed to the public only with a prescription); twenty-one (21) counts of Wanton Endangerment in the First Degree; seven (7) counts of Possession of Controlled Substance; seven (7) counts of Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition; three (3) counts of Knowingly Abuse or Neglect of an Adult by Stealing; three (3) counts of Tampering with Physical Evidence; and one (1) count of Drug Paraphernalia. Review of the Long-Term Care Facility-Self-Reported Incident Form/Initial Report, dated 08/27/2023, revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) was notified on 08/27/2023 at 7:30 AM that Registered Nurse (RN) #1 was pulled over by the police after her shift ended at 11:00 PM on 08/26/2023. The RN was pulled over for suspicion of impairment and was noted to have syringes, blue food coloring, and saline in her backpack. Further review revealed the police came to the facility and took Morphine from the medication carts for testing, and stated they would follow up. Per the investigation, Residents #1, #2, and #3's responsible parties, Hospice, and the Medical Director were notified; pain assessments were completed; pharmacy was notified and the medication (Morphine) was sent immediately (stat); all narcotic counts were completed and were accurate; and the investigation was started immediately. However, during an interview on 09/13/2023 at 8:17 PM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 she stated she had observed RN #1, on 08/26/2023 at approximately 10:00 PM, talking belligerently, with slurred speech and pinpoint pupils. LPN #4 stated she contacted the DON at approximately 10:46 PM and informed her that RN #1 was higher than a f**king kite. LPN #4 stated the DON was made aware that LPN #3 had observed RN #1 take a Morphine bottle from her pocket and place it in the medication cart after RN #1 came out of the bathroom around 11:26 PM. LPN #4 stated she informed the DON that she felt the police should be contacted due to staff's suspicion that RN #1 had taken the Morphine that was delivered at approximately 10:00 PM for Resident #2. LPN #4 stated that she was informed not to call the police, but to let the DON contact the Administrator, and she would call her back. LPN #4 stated, on the return phone call from the DON around 11:30 PM, the DON instructed her to send RN #1 home, and they would deal with RN #1 later. LPN #4 stated she was informed by the DON that the Administrator stated that it was only speculation that RN #1 had misappropriated narcotics. LPN #4 stated she spoke with the DON two (2) different times and conversed by text message all the other times. Review of LPN #2's telephone Witness Statement, dated 08/31/2023, signed by the Unit Manager (UM/LPN) #10, revealed on 08/26/2023 at approximately 8:00 PM, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #2 alerted LPN #2 that RN #1 had been going through the narcotic drawer with her backpack on. The statement revealed RN #1 continued to go to the bathroom frequently with her backpack on and stayed in the bathroom for forty (40) minutes. LPN #2 stated when RN #1 came out of the bathroom, LPN #3 met RN #1 to count the carts with her, and RN #1 then took Morphine out of her pocket and returned it to the medication cart. Further, LPN #2 stated, while counting the medications, the new bottle of Morphine was marked exactly at thirty (30) ml in the bottle. Per the statement, RN #1's face was flushed, and she was talking slowly while counting with LPN #3. Review of the Long-Term Care Facility-Self-Reported Incident Form/Final Report, Addendum, dated 08/31/2023, revealed after additional information was available that was not available at the time when the five (5) day report was due, the nurse in question, RN #1, confessed to the arresting police officers that she had stolen Morphine from the places she worked, and the facility substantiated neglect against RN #1. Review of LPN #3's telephone Witness Statement, dated 09/07/2023, no witness signature documented, revealed on 08/26/2023, she witnessed RN #1 go into the bathroom for forty (40) minutes and heard two (2) other nurses call the DON for help. LPN #3 stated she then witnessed that RN #1 took a bottle of Morphine out of her pocket and placed it back into the medication cart. LPN #3 stated she went into the bathroom and found the seal from the new Morphine bottle, took a picture, and provided it to the police. In addition, LPN #3 stated she counted off the narcotics with RN #1 and noted the new Morphine bottle only had thirty (30) ml and not the thirty-four (34) ml as was in new bottles. LPN #3 stated she asked RN #1 about it, and RN #1 told LPN #3 that she did not know about the missing medication. During an interview on 09/19/2023 at 3:31 PM with the Medical Director (MD), he stated he had been the MD since 2019. He stated the Administrator made him aware of the unfortunate incident on Tuesday 08/29/2023. He stated he had been informed that RN #1 was arrested outside the building, and had been suspended. The Medical Director stated they had discussed how RN #1 had replaced Morphine with water and blue food coloring and ways to prevent this in the future. The MD stated that everybody was in crisis mode and trying to figure out how to deal with it. He further stated that nobody had notified him about the incident prior to 08/29/2023, and he did not get any phone calls about residents being in pain. The Medical Director stated he recommended switching residents from liquid form to tablet form of Morphine. He stated at the Ad-Hoc meeting participants were just brainstorming. He stated he was not sure if pharmacy had come up with anything yet to prevent this from happening again. The MD stated he should have been notified immediately for something that was this major. He said his expectation of administration would be for them to go to the facility immediately after being made aware of the situation. The Medical Director stated the risk with residents not receiving their ordered Morphine would be they could have opiate withdrawal, and it could potentially be fatal. During an interview on 09/15/2023 at 6:03 PM with the Administrator, he stated he was the designated person for completing the investigation as the Abuse Coordinator. He stated that he received a phone call on 08/26/2023 at approximately 11:30 PM from the DON reporting that she had been contacted by LPN #4. The DON stated LPN #4 informed her that RN #1 was acting weird, wearing a backpack, and going into the bathroom frequently. The Administrator stated he and the DON decided to send RN #1 home. He stated he was made aware of the situation involving suspected narcotic diversion involving RN #1 by the DON on 08/27/2023 at 7:30 AM. He further stated he did not come into the facility until 08/28/2022, and an Ad-HOC meeting was not completed until 08/29/2023. During an interview on 09/19/2023 at 2:07 PM with the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations (VPCO), she stated that she was informed by the Administrator and DON of an alleged incident of misappropriation of narcotics on 08/26/2023. She further stated that the Administrator and DON did not come into the facility until Monday morning, on 08/28/2023, but they should have come to the facility to address the situation on 08/26/2023.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Someone could have died · 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's policy, it was determined the facility failed to de...

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's policy, it was determined the facility failed to develop and/or implement a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) to ensure it met the residents' medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs as identified on his/her comprehensive assessment and other assessments for one (1) of sixty-one (61) sampled residents (Residents #66). The facility assessed Resident #66 as requiring a pureed, nectar thick diet and needing supervision with meals. The resident had a diagnosis of Dysphagia. Resident #66 had a Physician's Order for nectar thickened liquids, and a pureed diet with double portions at dinner. Review of Resident #66's CCP, dated [DATE], revealed the facility care planned the resident as at risk for dehydration related to his/her risk of aspiration, and a mechanically altered diet. However, record review revealed no documented evidence of specific interventions for assisting Resident #66 with performing safe swallowing techniques or monitoring the resident during meals. Therefore, Resident #66 was found with a partially eaten cheeseburger, unresponsive and slumped over the dining room table after lunch. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived and it was determined Resident #66 was deceased upon EMS' arrival. Review of Resident #66's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated [DATE] and revised on [DATE], revealed the resident was at risk for aspiration and had a mechanically altered diet. However, there was no evidence of interventions to assist or monitor Resident #66 while eating. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on [DATE] and determined to exist on [DATE] in the areas of 42 CFR 483.21 Comprehensive Resident Centered Care Plan, F656 and 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care, F684 at a S/S of a J. The facility was notified of the IJ on [DATE] and the IJ is ongoing. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Accidents and Incidents effective [DATE], revealed the facility's intent was to provide an environment free from accidents and incidents that were avoidable. Further policy review revealed the facility investigated occurrences with applicable documentation and appropriate reporting. Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans effective [DATE], revealed the CCP was based on a thorough assessment which included but not limited to the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) and Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments. Continued review revealed care plan interventions were implemented for residents' problem areas, and the causes. Further review revealed the CCPs were prepared by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), and were ongoing. In addition, the CCP's were to be revised as information about the resident and the resident's condition changed. 1. Review of Resident #66's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Dementia; Dysphagia, Oropharyngeal Phase, and Anxiety. Review of Resident #66's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of thirteen (13) out of fifteen (15), indicating he/she was cognitively intact. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #66 to require setup help only, when eating. Review of the Physician's Order dated [DATE], revealed Resident #66 had orders for nectar thickened liquids and a pureed diet related to Dysphagia (swallowing problem). Further review revealed Resident #66 was to receive double portions with dinner. Review of Resident #66's CCP dated [DATE] and revised on [DATE], revealed the facility care planned the resident as at risk for aspiration and to have a mechanically altered diet. However, further review revealed no documented evidence of specific person-centered interventions for Resident #66 to have assistance with meals, or to monitor him/her related to the resident's swallowing problems. Review of the Speech Therapist (ST) Note dated [DATE], revealed Resident #66's impulsivity continued, and the resident required minimal to moderate verbal cues to slow the rate of eating, and consume appropriate bolus (bite) size. Review of the ST Note dated [DATE], revealed Resident #66 was able to verbalize safe swallowing techniques; however, the resident did not always carry out those techniques independently. Review of Resident #66's Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Evaluation Form dated [DATE], revealed supervision of Resident #66 was needed for his/her eating ability; Dysphagia referenced under swallowing ability; and the need for a Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) was also referenced. During interview on [DATE] at 10:17 AM, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #6 stated Resident #66 choked once before when eating a pork chop. The SRNA further stated Resident #66 did not eat his/her cheeseburgers and hid them in his/her shirt to take to his/her room. In interview on [DATE] at 1:01 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #9 stated Resident #66 had a prior incident of choking on a pork chop. LPN #9 stated Resident #66's roommate, Resident #10 often ordered two (2) cheeseburgers as a substitute for lunch and dinner and sometimes kept cheeseburgers in the room, which Resident #66 had access to. The LPN further stated a partially eaten cheeseburger was found on the table beside Resident #66 when the resident was found unresponsive and slumped over the table. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:55 PM, the Regional Clinical Dietitian, stated as she was the Regional RD she did not know Resident #66. She stated after review of the MNT Evaluation Form dated [DATE], Resident #66 was to have supervision at all meals. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:20 AM, the MDS Coordinator stated it was her responsibility to ensure the CCP was developed and person-centered to meet the assessed needs of the residents. She stated Resident #66's Annual MDS dated [DATE], documented the resident was independent with set up and supervision for meals. The MDS Coordinator further stated, after she reviewed the ST Notes, Resident #66 required supervision at mealtime; however, that was not reflected on the resident's CCP. In addition, she stated Resident #66's need for supervision at mealtime was not discussed in the clinical meetings. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:30 AM, the Rehabilitation Therapy Director (RTD) stated therapy staff held a weekly meeting for review of residents' CCPs and then reported to the IDT to ensure the CCPs were resident specific. The RTD stated Resident #66's CCP did not reflect the resident's specific care needs for swallowing interventions and monitoring during meals. The RTD further stated she was not able to explain why she had not received the information regarding Resident #66's need for monitoring and swallowing interventions from the ST. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:06 PM, the Administrator stated he was not aware of Resident #66's need for supervision.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

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's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the residents received quality of care based on the facility's identified care and treatment needs, and failed to ensure professional standards of practice were provided that would meet the residents' physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for one (1) of sixty-one (61) sampled residents (Resident #66). The facility assessed Resident #66, on 11/28/2022, as needing a pureed, nectar thick diet and supervision with meals. Resident #66 was found unresponsive, slumped over at the dining room table after lunch, with a partially eaten cheeseburger on the table. Staff called the Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Prior to EMS' arrival Resident #66 was moved to the floor. Upon arrival EMS found Resident #66 laying on his/back with a blanket underneath his/her head in the dinning hall area of the nursing home. Resident #66 had no pulse. The resident's face was pale with a bluish color, the resident was rolled over and had mottled skin on the back of his/her arms and back. Resident #66 was pronounced dead at 3:55 PM. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 09/29/2023 and determined to exist on 06/24/2023 in the areas of 42 CFR 483.21 Comprehensive Resident Centered Care Plan, F 656 and 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care, F 684 at a S/S of a J. The facility was notified of the IJ on 09/29/2023. The IJ is ongoing. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Accidents and Incidents, effective 06/01/2015, revealed it was the intent of the facility to provide an environment free from accidents and incidents that were avoidable, and to investigate occurrences with applicable documentation and appropriate reporting. 1. Review of Resident #66's closed medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/27/2019, with diagnoses that included Anxiety, Dementia, Dysphagia, and Oropharyngeal Phase (feeding difficulties). Review of Resident #66's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of thirteen (13) out of fifteen (15), indicating he/she was cognitively intact. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #66 to require setup help only, when eating. Review of Resident #66's, Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST), revealed Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) orders, dated 04/17/2022. Review of the Physician's Order dated 11/28/2022, revealed Resident #66 had orders for nectar thickened liquids (NTL) and Dysphagia (swallowing problem). Resident #66 was to receive a pureed diet with double portions with dinner. Review of Resident #66's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated 07/15/2022 and revised on 04/27/2023, revealed the resident was at risk for aspiration and had a mechanically altered diet. However, there was no evidence of interventions to assist or monitor Resident #66 while eating. Review of the Speech Therapist (ST) Notes dated 06/11/2023, revealed Resident #66's impulsivity continued; he/she required minimal to moderate verbal cues to slow the rate while eating, and should consume appropriate bolus (bite) size. Review of the ST Note dated 06/12/2023, revealed Resident #66 was able to verbalize safe swallowing. However, he/she did not always do this independently. Review of the ST Note dated 06/15/2023, revealed after the swallowing evaluation, education was provided to Resident #66 and staff on general safe swallowing. Review of the Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Evaluation Form for Resident #66 dated 06/12/2023, revealed supervision was marked under eating ability; Dysphagia was marked under swallowing ability; under Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) for treatment. Review of the Swallow Consult Form for Resident #66 titled, Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing Report dated 06/14/2023, revealed a safe PO (by mouth) diet was not recommended for Resident #66 due to the penetration/aspiration of thin liquids and nectar thick liquids (NTL), and the inability for full clearance of puree solids with risk for penetration/aspiration. If the resident continued with PO intake despite the risks for aspiration, it was recommended to continue a puree diet with NTL and after swallowing bites of puree, followed with two (2) to three (3) teaspoons (tsp.) of NTL before the next puree bite. Further review revealed the recommendation for the need of a gastrointestinal (GI) consult for further evaluation of an esophageal component, affecting the pharyngeal swallow. Review of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Run Sheet dated 06/24/2023, revealed EMS was dispatched to the facility on [DATE] at 3:23 PM, and arrived to the facility at 3:25 PM and made contact with Resident #66 at 3:26 PM. Further review revealed EMS was dispatched to the facility for a resident that was unresponsive and not breathing. The resident was found laying on his/her back with a blanket underneath his/her head in the dining hall area of the nursing home. Prior to EMS' arrival, staff stated Resident #66 was moved to the floor and was found to have a faint pulse;.after being placed on the floor, Resident #66 lost his/her pulse. Further review revealed Resident #66's face was pale and bluish in color, and the resident had mottled skin on the back of his/her arms and back when EMS rolled him/her over. Continue review revealed Resident #66 was not allowed to have solid food and only puree food, but a piece of a hamburger was sitting on the table in the dining area close to the resident. None of the staff knew what really had happened to Resident #66, but stated the resident looked like he/she was falling asleep before the incident happened. Resident #66 was pronounced dead upon EMS arrival to the facility. 2. Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/06/2023, with diagnoses that included Diabetes Mellitus, Anxiety, Depression, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Review of Resident #10's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a BIMS score of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15), indicating he/she was cognitively intact. During an interview with Resident #10, roommate of Resident #66, on 09/26/2023 at 7:49 AM, the resident stated he/she did not share a hamburger with Resident #66. Resident #10 stated he/she ordered two (2) hamburgers at lunch and supper every day. He/she further stated Resident #66 was on a processed diet and appeared to cough or choke a lot at lunch. Review of a Nursing Progress Note, dated 05/11/2023 at 6:17 AM, revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #3 documented that Resident 66's roommate, Resident #10, gave Resident #66 a bag of goldfish crackers. Further review revealed RN #3 explained to both residents that Resident #66 could not have crackers, because it went against his/her diet order. During an interview with State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA)//Restorative Aide #12 on 09/28/2023 at 12:30 PM, she stated Resident #66's roommate (Resident #10) took cheeseburgers back to his/her room and she often had to remind Resident #10 not to give Resident #66 any food. During an interview with SRNA #6 on 09/26/2023 at 10:17 AM, she stated Resident #66's roommate kept cheeseburgers wrapped up in the room. SRNA #6 stated during the same week (did not say which day prior to 09/24/2023) Resident #10 had given Resident #66 a cheeseburger and she had instructed Resident #10 not to give Resident #66 a cheeseburger. During an interview with ST #1, on 09/20/2023 at 8:48 AM, she stated Resident #66's diet order was puree with NTL. She provided Resident #66 with strategies for a safe swallow, and even with cues. She stated the resident could not safely swallow and required supervision with a pureed diet. During an interview with the Dietary Manager, on 09/25/2023 at 9:10 AM and 4:46 PM, and on 09/27/2023 at 12:10 PM, he stated Resident #66 was not on the assisted at meals list. He stated Resident #66 often sat in the dining room after a meal and asked for a drink, and Resident #66 did not have supervision with thickened drinks. He further stated Resident #66 would ask for regular food, but he had to explain to the resident that he/she could not be offered regular food due to his/her diet. He stated Resident #66's roommate (Resident #10), ordered two (2) cheeseburgers at lunch and supper. He stated the resident took the cheeseburgers and other food back to his/her room often hidden in his/her jacket. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #9, on 09/26/2023 at 1:01 PM, she stated she went to the dining room with Registered Nurse (RN) #6 and found Resident #66 laying over the table. She stated she left RN #6 to find Resident #66's code status and called EMS. She stated she then returned to the dining room to find RN #6 had Resident #66 on the floor. She stated she observed a cheeseburger with three (3) to four (4) bites sitting on the table where Resident #66 was found. She further stated Resident #66's roommate liked to keep cheeseburgers in his/her room. However, she had not seen Resident #10 give Resident #66 a cheeseburger. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 09/27/2023 at 9:13 AM, she stated she did not recall if it was discussed in the morning meeting or clinical meeting that Resident #66 had requested regular food. The ADON stated staff were not assigned to the dining room after mealtime. However, they passed through' the dining room to observe residents who gathered on their own to watch television and listen to music. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/28/2023 at 8:18 AM, she stated staff did not observe Resident #66 choke. She stated the staff's supervision in the dining room during mealtime was supposed to be two (2) State Registered Nursing Assistants (SRNA) and one (1) Nurse. She stated the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) had not discussed the incident and the facility had not completed an investigation of the incident. During an interview with the Administrator, on 09/27/2023 at 5:06 PM, he stated the incident was isolated with Resident #66 and the facility did not investigate it. During an interview with the Medical Director, on 09/26/2023 at 12:26 PM, he stated he was not informed of Resident #66's death on 06/24/2023 until he attended the Ad-Hoc meeting on 06/29/2023. He stated he should have been made aware of Resident #66's death and if the resident was eating regular food. The Medical Director stated if on a regular diet, Resident #66 could have choked, causing aspiration pneumonia and/or death.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's policy and the Administrator's job description it was determined, th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's policy and the Administrator's job description it was determined, the facility failed to be administered in a manner which enabled its' effective use of resources to attain and maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. The facility failed to immediately conduct an investigation of an allegation of misappropriation residents' narcotic medications. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 reported to the Director of Nursing (DON) that Registered Nurse (RN) #1 was exhibiting suspicious behaviors of wearing a backpack at work; being in the bathroom for long periods of time, and acting weird. While the DON was in the facility, on 08/11/2023 at 3:00 AM, RN #1 stayed in the bathroom for extended periods and walked around with a backpack. However, the DON reported there were no concerns, and staff members' reports were just speculation. In an interview with LPN #3, she stated on 08/26/2023 she observed Registered Nurse RN #1 take a bottle of Morphine out of her pocket and placed it into the medication cart at approximately 11:30 PM. LPN #4, stated she observed RN #1 on 08/26/2023 at approximately 10:00 PM talking belligerently, slurring her words, and her pupils were pinpoint. LPN #4 stated at 10:46 PM, she observed RN #1 enter the bathroom, and she did not exit until 11:26 PM. LPN #4 stated she called the DON at 10:46 PM initially and told her that RN #1 was higher than a f .ing [NAME]. LPN #4 stated she informed the DON that she wanted to call the police because she thought RN #1 had taken the Morphine that was delivered from the pharmacy at approximately 10:00 PM for Resident #2; however, the DON told her not to call the police. In an interview with the Administrator, he stated on 08/27/2023 at 7:30 AM, he was made aware by the DON that the police had been called on 08/26/2023. The Administrator stated staff had texted the DON on 08/26/2023. However, she was not aware of the text until the next morning on 08/27/2023. He stated he was told by the DON that RN #1 had been arrested, and Morphine was found in RN #1's backpack. The facility's Administrator and DON failed to immediately take action to investigate and report, implement corrective action consistent with the investigation's findings, and failed to take steps to eliminate any ongoing danger to the resident(s) in a timely manner. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care were identified on 09/21/2023 and determined to exist on 08/26/2023 in the area of 42 CFR 483.12 Freedom from Abuse and Neglect, F602 and F610 with a Scope and Severity of a J. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 09/21/2023. The IJ is ongoing. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Facility Administration revised 09/05/2018, revealed the facility was operated under the direction of a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in accordance with Federal and State laws and professional standards. Continued review revealed the CE0 or Administrator was to report unusual occurrences to appropriate agencies in accordance with specific state and/or federal guidelines. Per review, the facility had a governing body consisting of the CEO, Director of Nursing (DON) and Medical Director that was legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies regarding the management and operation of the facility. Further review revealed the facility's policies and procedures were maintained and updated periodically to reflect current professional standards and practice through annual review. Review of the job description for the Administrator dated 03/2021, revealed the Administrator reported to the Regional [NAME] President of Operations and was to lead and direct the overall operations of the facility in accordance with residents' needs, government regulations and company policies, with focus on maintaining excellent care for the residents while achieving the facility's business objectives. Per review, the Administrator was to monitor Data Points and address issues that affected the performance of the facility. Continued review revealed the Administrator was also to monitor each department's activities; communicate policies; evaluate performance; provide feedback and assist, observe, coach, and discipline as needed. Further review revealed the Administrator was to oversee via regular rounds the monitoring of delivery of nursing care, operation of support departments, cleanliness and the appearance of the facility; morale of the staff, and ensure resident needs were being addressed. In addition, the Administrator was to utilize survey information to address areas of importance as defined by the residents and he/she was responsible for the facility's Quality Assurance (QA) program. Review of the job description for the Director or Nursing (DON) dated 03/2021, revealed the DON reported to the Administrator and was to manage the overall operations of the facility's Nursing Department in accordance with company policies and standards of nursing practices and governmental regulations, so as to maintain excellent care for all residents' needs. Continued review revealed in the role of the DON, he/she was to plan, develop, organize, implement, evaluate and direct the Nursing services department, as well as its programs and activities, in accordance with current rules, regulations, and guidelines given the long-term care facility. Further review revealed the DON was responsible for informing the State of any reportable incidents within the appropriate time frames and complete the investigative analysis as required. In addition, the DON was to regularly inspect the facility and nursing practices for compliance with federal, state, and local standards and regulations. On 08/11/2023 at 3:00 AM, the DON was in the facility working due to the facility requiring staff coverage and to observe Registered Nurse (RN) #1's behaviors which had been reported as suspicious. While the DON was in the facility on 08/11/2023, RN #1 stayed in the bathroom for long periods and walked around with a backpack on as reported by staff. However, the DON reported the staff members' reports as just speculation and there were no concerns regarding RN #1. On 08/26/2023, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 reported to the DON that Registered Nurse (RN) #1 had suspicious behaviors of acting weird, being in the bathroom for long periods of time, and wearing a backpack at work. During an interview with LPN #3, she stated on 08/26/2023, at approximately 11:30 PM she saw RN #1 remove a bottle of Morphine from her pocket and place it in the medication cart. During an interview with LPN #4 on 09/13/2023 at 8:17 PM, she stated on 08/26/2023 at approximately 10:00 PM, she saw RN #1 slurring her words, speaking belligerently, and observed the RN's pupils as pinpoint. LPN #4 stated she saw RN #1 at 10:46 PM, enter the bathroom, and not come out of the bathroom until 11:26 PM. LPN #4 stated she called the DON initially at 10:46 PM, to tell the DON that RN #1 was higher than a f .ing [NAME]. LPN #4 stated she told the DON she wanted to call the police because she thought RN #1 had taken Morphine meant for Resident #2 from the medication cart which had delivered from the pharmacy at approximately 10:00 PM. The Administrator stated in interview on 08/27/2023 at 7:30 AM, that the DON made him aware the police had been called on 08/26/2023. He stated staff had texted the DON on 08/26/2023. However, he was not aware of the text messages until the morning of 08/27/2023. He stated the DON told him RN #1 had been arrested, and Morphine was found in the RN's backpack. In interview on 09/15/2023 at 6:03 PM, the Administrator stated he and the DON decided to send RN #1 home. The Administrator stated he was made aware of the situation involving suspected narcotic diversion by RN #1 by the DON on 08/27/2023 at 7:30 AM. However, he stated he did not go to the facility until 08/28/2022, and an Ad-HOC meeting was not completed until 08/29/2023. The Administrator stated he was the designated person for completing the investigation as the Abuse Coordinator. In interview on 09/15/2023 at 2:20 PM, the DON stated her attorney wanted to be present during any interviews, therefore no interview was obtained from the DON. In an interview on 09/19/2023 at 3:31 PM, the Medical Director stated he had been the facility's Medical Director since 2019. He stated, when he was asked about the recent drug diversion in the facility, he stated he had not been notified immediately. The Medical Director stated he had talked with the Administrative Team, and they were currently working on a process so the diversion did not happen again. He stated the Administrator notified him of the unfortunate incident on Tuesday, 08/29/2023. The Medical Director stated no one had notified him about the incident prior to 08/29/2023, and he did not get any phone calls about residents being in pain. He stated he set up a Quality Assurance (QA) meeting to deal with the incident, and he attended an Ad- Hoc Quality Assurance over the phone but no full blown' Quality Assurance and Prevention Improvement (QAPI) meeting. The facility had a QAPI meeting scheduled 09/19/2023 to discuss the incident going forward. He stated he had not heard of anyone having increased pain in the facility. The Medical Director stated the facility was in the process of decreasing the Morphine dose for Resident #1 and the plan was to either discontinue it or switch to pill form. He stated we had several Ad Hoc meetings over the phone about the incident, and his recommendation had been for getting the resident a new supply of morphine. In continued interview on 09/19/2023 at 3:31 PM, the Medical Director stated he was not aware of how quickly medications were replaced at the facility; however, he thought it was within twenty-four (24) hours. He stated reporting needed to be immediately, was to go up the chain of command, and he should have been notified immediately for something that major. The Medical Director stated if he had been notified immediately after the incident, he would have switched the narcotic pain medication to a pill form from the liquid form. He stated he would have started brainstorming quicker with the facility's administration on how to prevent the incident from happening again. Per the Medical Director, Everyone here is my patient, he would have made sure the morphine was replaced quicker and a pain assessment completed on everyone. He stated for Something that big I would have thought they would have called me. The Medical Director stated, We were going to discuss what the plan in place was at today's QAPI meeting. He stated his expectation for the administration role going forward, after an incident like that one was for them to go into the facility, and he also stated, I was shocked, and I didn't ask why they didn't come into the building. when notified. The Medical Director stated he thought it would show leadership and help staff see things were being taken seriously and issues were being taken care of if administration had come into the building. He further stated the risk for residents not receiving their Morphine was they could have opiate withdrawal and it could potentially be fatal. The Medical Director stated for residents not receiving their Morphine would be they would have increased pain from the withdrawal. In addition, he further stated psychosocial harm would be a result of the pain incurred.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to protect residents' rights and dignity for one (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to protect residents' rights and dignity for one (1) of sixty-one (61) sampled residents (Resident #73). Review of the Facility's Investigation revealed on 10/31/2022, State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #2 told Resident #73 to use the bathroom in his/her brief. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, dated 06/01/2015, revealed all residents should have the right to be treated with respect and dignity, and these rights would be promoted and protected by the facility. The policy stated all residents would be treated in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of quality of life. Per the policy, when providing care and services, the stakeholders would respect the residents' individuality and value their input by providing them a dignified existence, through self-determination and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. Additionally, under Section Two (2), the policy stated the resident was entitled to exercise his/her rights and privileges as a resident of the facility and as a citizen or resident of the United States, to the fullest extent possible without interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal. Furthermore, under Section Three (3), the policy stated the facility would make every effort to support each resident in exercising his/her right to ensure that the resident was always treated with respect, kindness, and dignity. Review of Resident #73's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/22/2022 with diagnoses of Age-Related Osteoporosis, Anxiety Disorder, and Other Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility. Review of Resident #73's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 09/21/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of ten (10) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #73's Care Plan, initiated on 09/22/2022, revealed a focus that stated Resident #73 would have a reduced risk regarding complications related to decreased mobility. The care plan stated Resident #73 would be transferred with two (2) staff assistance and use the walker for toileting. In addition, a mechanical lift was care planned to be used if needed for transfers. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 10/31/2022, revealed SRNA #2 told the Administrator, on 11/02/2022, she did ask Resident #73 to use his/her brief for toileting as she felt that Resident #73 was not safe to transfer with a lift due to a recent fall. Furthermore, the investigation revealed SRNA #2 was suspended at the time pending completion of the investigation. Resident #73 was not available for interview because he/she had been discharged from the facility in November 2022. During an interview, on 09/23/2023 at 12:45 PM, with SRNA #2, she stated she did ask Resident #73 to use the bathroom in his/her brief as she felt that Resident #73 was not safe to transfer with a lift due to a recent fall. SRNA #2 stated there was an agency nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #13, working with her that was available for assistance with Resident #73's care. However, LPN #13 no longer worked at the facility. The State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor called LPN #13, on 09/23/2023 at 2:00 PM, 09/25/2023 at 10:14 AM, and 09/26/2023 at 5:24 PM. A voice message was left; with no call returned. During an interview on 09/25/2023 at 10:24 AM, with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON)/Regional Nurse, she stated asking a resident to use the bathroom in a brief was inappropriate. She stated that residents should be toileted based on how the resident was care planned. During an additional interview on 09/25/2023 at 4:50 PM, the Interim DON/Regional Nurse stated that asking a resident to use the brief was a dignity issue and her expectation was that staff followed the facility's policy. In an interview on 09/26/2023 at 4:39 PM with the Interim Administrator, he stated asking a resident to use the bathroom in a brief was inappropriate and was a dignity issue. Furthermore, he stated his expectation was that all staff members, regardless of their discipline, were expected to follow the facility's Resident Rights policy.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to notify the Medical Director (MD) of the change in the medical condition and the cause of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to notify the Medical Director (MD) of the change in the medical condition and the cause of death for one (1) of sixty-one (61) sampled residents (Resident #66). Interview with the MD revealed he was not notified that Resident #66 required supervision and monitoring during meals per the Speech Therapy (ST) evaluations. In addition, the MD was not informed that the resident's death was from choking on a cheeseburger on 06/24/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Accidents and Incidents effective date 06/01/2015, revealed the intent was for the facility to provide an environment free from accidents and incidents that were avoidable. The facility investigates occurrences with applicable documentation and appropriate reporting. The Nurse Supervisor/Charge Nurse and/or the department director or supervisor shall initiate and document investigation of the accident or incident. The time the resident's Physician was notified, as well as the time the physician responded and his or her instructions shall be documented. Review of the facility's policy titled, Charting and documentation, last reviewed on 04/14/2021, revealed incidents, accidents or changes in the resident's condition must be recorded. Documentation of the procedures and treatment shall include care-specific details and shall include at a minimum notification of the family, physician, or other staff. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #66 on 12/27/2019 with diagnoses that included Dementia, Anxiety, Dysphagia, and Oropharyngeal Phase. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 06/15/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of thirteen (13) out of fifteen (15) which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #66's Physician Orders, dated 06/09/2023, revealed an order for the Speech Therapist to evaluate and treat the resident, as indicated. Review of Resident #66's Speech Therapy (ST) Notes, dated 06/11/2023, revealed the resident's impulsivity continued; he/she required minimal to moderate verbal cues to slow the rate while eating and should consume appropriate bolus (bite) size. The ST Note, dated 06/12/2023, revealed Resident #66 was able to verbalize safe swallowing; however, he/she did not always do this independently. The ST Note dated 06/15/2023, revealed after the swallowing evaluation, education was provided with the resident and staff on general safe swallowing precautions. During an interview with ST #1, on 09/20/2023 at 8:48 AM, she stated Resident #66's diet order was puree with NTL. She provided Resident #66 with strategies for a safe swallow, and even with cues, the resident could not safely swallow and required supervision with a puree diet. She stated the Therapy Director attended the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meeting and was supposed to report any new information related to therapies. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #6, on 09/25/2023 at 9:10 AM, she stated on 06/24/2023 after the lunch meal, Resident #66 was found slumped over at the dining room table. RN #6 stated she was alerted to Resident #66 being slumped over the table in the dining room with a partially eaten cheeseburger on the table. The RN stated she attempted to clear Resident #66's mouth of food. She stated the resident remained unresponsive and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #9, on 09/26/2023 at 1:01 PM, she stated she went to the dining room with Registered Nurse (RN) #6 and found Resident #66 laying over the table. LPN #9 stated she called EMS, then returned to the dining room to find RN #6 had Resident #66 on the floor. She stated she observed a cheeseburger with three (3) to four (4) bites sitting on the table where Resident #66 was found. Review of the EMS run sheet, dated 06/24/2023 at 3:23 PM revealed the resident was dead upon EMS' arrival. Review of the Progress Note, dated 06/24/2023 at 4:02 PM, revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) documented the Power of Attorney (POA) was notified; however, there was no documentation the Medical Director (MD) was notified. During an interview with the Medical Director, on 09/26/2023 at 12:26 PM, he stated he did not remember being notified of Resident #66 death. He stated he would remember an unusual death. The MD stated he was not aware of Resident #66 death until the Ad-hoc meeting on 06/29/2023. He stated he was not aware Resident #66 had eaten regular food. The MD stated he had not been made aware that Resident #66 required supervision and monitoring during meals. During an interview with the DON, on 09/28/2023 at 8:18 AM, she stated the MD was informed after the event. She stated the MD should be contacted immediately for death of a resident, reportable events, and medical errors. During interview with the Interim Administrator, on 09/28/2023 at 8:35 AM, he stated the Medical Director should be notified of any change in condition and should have been notified about Resident #66.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to accurately assess and reflect the resident's current status for one (1) of sixty-one (61) sampled residents (Resident #66). Review of Resident #66's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident as setup help only for functional status when eating. However, review of Resident #66's Speech Therapy (ST) Notes, dated 06/11/2023, revealed impulsivity continued, and the resident required minimal to moderate verbal cues to slow the food intake rate and consume appropriate bolus (bite) size. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans (CCP) effective 04/06/2015, revealed the CCP was based on a thorough assessment which included but was not limited to RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) and MDS assessments. Continued review revealed care plan interventions were implemented for residents' problem areas, and the causes. Further review revealed the CCPs were prepared by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and were ongoing, and the CCPs were to be revised as information about the resident and the resident's condition changed. Review of the MDS Registered Nurse (RN) Job Description dated 03/2021, revealed duties to oversee the coordination and participate in the completion of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), MDS, Care Area Assessment (CAA) and Care Plan. Further review revealed duties to assist in completion of the RAI with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), and to complete the MDS using the medical record, bedside assessment, and staff, resident and/or family interviews. Review of Resident #66's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/27/2019, with diagnoses that included Dysphagia, Oropharyngeal Phase, Dementia and Anxiety. Review of Resident #66's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of thirteen (13) out of fifteen (15) which indicated he/she was cognitively intact. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #66 to require setup help only under functional status when eating. Review of the Physician's Order, dated 11/28/2022, revealed Resident #66 had orders for nectar thickened liquids and a pureed diet related to Dysphagia (swallowing problem). In addition, the resident was to receive double portions at supper. Review of Resident #66's CCP dated 07/15/2022 and revised on 04/27/2023, revealed the facility care planned the resident as at risk for aspiration and to have a mechanically altered diet. Further review revealed no documented evidence of specific person-centered interventions for Resident #66 to have assistance with meals, or to monitor the resident for swallowing problems. Review of the Speech Therapist (ST) Notes, dated 06/11/2023 and 06/12/2023, revealed Resident #66 was able to verbalize safe swallowing. However, the resident did not always carry this out independently and needed supervision due to continued impulsiveness. Review of the Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Evaluation Form, dated 06/12/2023, revealed supervision was needed for Resident #66's eating ability; Dysphagia was referenced under swallowing ability; and the need of a Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) was also referenced. During an interview with the MDS Coordinator, on 09/27/2023 at 8:20 AM, she stated it was her responsibility to ensure the MDS and CCP were developed and person-centered to meet the assessed needs of residents. She stated Resident #66's Annual MDS dated [DATE], documented the resident was independent with set up instead of supervision for meals. She stated after review of the ST Notes, Resident #66 required supervision at mealtime and not set up only. She further stated that Resident #66's need for supervision at mealtime was not discussed in the clinical meetings. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 09/27/2023 at 9:13 AM, she stated that she along with the MDS Coordinator and Director of Nursing (DON) ensured the MDS and CCP were completed and updated. During an interview with the Regional Clinical Dietitian, on 09/27/2023 at 3:55 PM, she stated after review of the MNT Evaluation Form dated 06/12/2023, Resident #66 required supervision at meals. During an interview with the Administrator, on 09/27/2023 at 5:06 PM, he stated the MDS Coordinator and the IDT were responsible for the accuracy of the MDS and CCP.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

4. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #9 on 08/06/2023 with diagnoses which included Parkinson's Disease, Vascular Dementia and Anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (M...

Read full inspector narrative →
4. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #9 on 08/06/2023 with diagnoses which included Parkinson's Disease, Vascular Dementia and Anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 08/13/2023, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of four (4) out of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was not interviewable. In an interview with State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #5, on 09/23/2023 at 4:42 PM, she stated she and SRNA #6 were providing incontinent care to Resident #9. While changing the resident, SRNA #5 jokingly said to SRNA #6, Why am I always wiping the asses? She stated she said this to her coworker in the presence of Resident #9 and the resident's spouse was at the bedside. In an interview with SRNA #6, on 09/23/2023 at 7:07 PM, she stated SRNA #5 made the comment about wiping the asses in front of the resident and his/her spouse. She said she felt this met the definition of abuse and reported the incident to Administration. A review of the facility's final investigation, dated 09/18/2023, revealed SRNA #5 was removed from the floor and suspended and the facility immediately initiated the investigation. Initial skin assessments and pain assessments were completed with no issues noted. Following the facility's investigation, SRNA #5 was terminated. In an interview with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/18/2023 at 3:23 PM, she stated she expected staff to report any suspicion of abuse immediately. In an interview with the Interim Administrator, on 09/19/2023 at 2:34 PM, he stated all staff had been educated on abuse and the abuse policy. He also stated when abuse was reported, it was investigated. It was his expectation all staff would follow the facility's abuse policy. 5. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #50 on 06/07/2019 with diagnoses which included Cerebral Infarction, Flaccid Hemiplegia, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety, Impulse Disorder, Personality Disorders and Dementia with Behaviors. Review of the most recent Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 06/07/2023, revealed the facility assessed Resident #50 to have a BIMS' score of fourteen (14) out of fifteen (15) which indicated the resident was interviewable. In an interview with Hospitality Aide (HA) #2, on 09/22/2023 at 7:57 PM, she stated HA #1 became upset when Resident #50 raised his/her voice saying the resident had made a racial comment using the N word. HA #1 told the resident to go to hell as she was leaving the room. During further interview HA #1 stated the resident had a history of making inappropriate comments to staff while they were providing care. She stated she reported the incident to the nurses. In a interview with Resident #50, on 09/22/2023 at 9:30 AM, he/she stated remembering the incident with Hospitality Aide #1, but not the details. According to the resident, he/she recalled HA #1 saying something ugly to him/her. The resident stated he/she heard the HA got fired that day. In an interview with HA #1, on 09/24/2023 at 1:34 PM, she stated Resident #50 said something about her being black, which she stated she was not black. Review of the facility's final investigation, dated 04/01/2022, revealed after a thorough investigation, it was determined Hospitality Aide (HA) #1, was verbally abusive to Resident #50. The facility terminated HA #1. During an interview, on 09/18/2023 at 3:23 PM with the Special Projects Director of Nursing (SPDON), she stated that she expected staff to report any suspicion of abuse immediately and for all staff to follow the facility's policies. During an interview on 09/19/2023 at 2:34 PM with the Interim Administrator, he stated that he expected all staff to follow the facility's abuse policy. Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's abuse policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an environment that was free from abuse involving eight (8) of sixty-one (61) sampled residents (Residents #9, #35, #41, #50, #59, #66, #69 and #74). 1. On 01/11/2023, Resident #74 grabbed Resident #35's right arm causing a skin tear. 2. On 08/24/2022, Resident #41 was observed sitting on the side of Resident #69's bed holding Resident #69's arm and yelling at Resident #69, resulting in a bruise to the arm and a scratch to Resident #69's face. 3. On 03/11/2023, Resident #66 hit Resident #59 with his/her grabber device. 4. On 09/13/2023, State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #6 observed SRNA #5 when she made a comment in the presence of Resident #9 and his/her spouse. SRNA #5 stated, Why do I have to be the one to wipe the asses. 5. On 03/29/2023, Hospitality Aide #1 was observed telling Resident #50 to go to hell after the resident had made a comment to her. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation of Property, effective date 05/27/2016, revised on 07/06/2022, revealed it was the organizations's intention to prevent the occurrence of abuse, neglect, exploitation, injuries of unknown origin, and misappropriation of residents' property. Abuse was defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition, cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish. It included verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse including abuse facilitated or enabled through the use of technology. Verbal abuse was defined as the use of any oral, written or gestured language that include any threat, or any frightening, disparaging or derogatory language, to the residents or their families, or within their hearing distance, regardless of age, ability to comprehend, or disability.1. Review of the facility' investigation dated 08/29/2022 revealed staff found Resident #41 setting on the side of his/her roommate's bed (Resident #69) screaming at him/her. Resident #41 had Resident #69's right arm in his/her hand. Resident #69 had bruising on his/her right arm and scratches on the right side of his/her face. Resident #41 and Resident #69 were separated. Resident #41 was placed on 1:1 monitoring. Resident #69 was moved to another room. Review of Resident #41's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/13/2017 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and Unspecified Dementia without Behavior. Review of Resident #41's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 07/22/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of eight (8) out of fifteen (15) which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #69's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 02/17/2021 with diagnoses that included Unspecified Dementia without Behavior Disturbance, Schizoaffective Disorder, Cognitive Communication Disorder. Review of Resident #69's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 06/30/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of zero (0) out of fifteen (15) which indicated severe cognitive deficit. Review of the Nurse's Progress Note, dated 08/24/2022 at 4:35 PM entered by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #13, revealed Resident #41 had been seen grabbing Resident #69's arm and Resident #69 had a small scratch to his/her face with visible blood coming from the scratch. Review of Resident #69's care plan, dated 04/21/2022, revealed the resident was at risk and/or had active behavior problems, was physically abusive, and resistant to care. During an interview, on 09/24/2023 at 8:47 PM, with Housekeeper #2, he stated that he had heard yelling coming from Resident #41's and Resident #69's room. Housekeeper #2 stated when he looked in, he saw Resident #41 with Resident #69's arm in his/her hand and it appeared that he/she was trying to pull Resident #69 up out of the bed. He further stated that Resident #41 was saying to Resident #69 this is my bed. 2. Review of Resident #74's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/01/2015 with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Dementia, Congestive Heart Failure, Major Depressive Disorder, Epilepsy, and Schizoaffective. Review of Resident #74's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 11/12/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five (5) out of fifteen (15) which indicated the resident had severe impaired cognition. Review of Resident #35's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/27/2020 with diagnoses that included Unspecified Dementia, Dysphagia, generalized muscle weakness, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of Resident #35's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 12/20/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of six (6) out of fifteen (15) which indicated the resident had severe impaired cognition. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 01/11/2023 revealed SRNA (State Registered Nurse Aide) #12/Restorative Aide heard verbal yelling. Upon entry to the room, SRNA #12/Restorative Aide witnessed Resident #74 grab his/her roommate's (Resident #35) right arm, which resulted in a skin tear. Per the investigation, Resident #74 was redirected to the nurses station for closer monitoring. Review of Resident #35's Physician Orders, dated 01/11/2023, revealed a new order to monitor Resident #35's right forearm for signs and symptoms of infection every shift until healed. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed starting on 01/11/2023 the staff documented monitoring of the injury, with no signs or symptoms of infection noted, until 01/31/2023, when the injury was healed. During an interview, on 09/24/2023 at 6:01 PM with SRNA #12/Restorative Aide, she stated she remembered the verbal yelling and Resident #74 grabbed Resident #35's arm causing a skin tear. She also stated she did not know of any other altercations between the two (2) residents. During interview with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)/Unit Manager #10, on 09/25/2023 at 9:24 AM, she stated this was the only incident between these two residents. 3. Review of the facility's investigation, dated 03/11/2023, revealed Resident #66 hit his/her roommate Resident #59 with his/her grabber (an assistive device used to pick up items). Resident #66 and Resident #59 were separated. Resident #66 was placed on 1:1 observation and moved to a private room. Further review of the investigation revealed a skin assessment was performed on Resident #59 with no injuries noted. Review of Resident #66's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/27/2019 with diagnoses that included Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Lack of Coordination, Paranoid Personality Disorder, Other Schizoaffective Disorders, Epileptic Seizures related to external causes, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy. Review of Resident #66's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 03/10/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15) which indicated the resident had intact cognition. Review of Resident #66's CCP revealed the facility care planned the resident on 12/13/2022 for at risk and/or active behavior problems including being physically and verbally abusive as evidenced by combative behavior with staff, threatening, cursing and yelling at staff and others, sexually inappropriate toward staff. Interventions included: intervene as needed to protect the rights and safety of others; approach in calm manner; divert attention; remove from situation and take to another location as needed. Review of Resident #59's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/01/2015 with diagnoses that included History of Traumatic Brain Injury, Heart Failure, Unspecified Intracranial Injury, Seizures, and Aphasia. Review of Resident #59's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 02/16/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of zero (0) out of fifteen (15) which indicated the resident had severely impaired cognition. Review of the Nursing Progress Note, dated 03/11/2023 at 4:37 PM entered by LPN #6, revealed Resident #66 had been witnessed hitting his/her roommate with a grabber and was combative cursing at staff. Review of the Nursing Progress Note, dated 03/11/2023 at 4:44 PM entered by LPN #6 revealed Resident #59 had been smacked with a grabber by his/her roommate with no marks or bruising at that time. During an interview, on 09/24/2023 at 7:12 PM with SRNA #10, she stated as she was walking down the hall at approximately 3:00 PM on 03/11/2023, she observed Resident #66 in his/her room with a grabber in his/her right hand. Resident #66 was sitting in his/her wheelchair beside Resident #59's bed. SRNA #10 stated Resident #66 proceeded to lift the grabber up behind his/her head and came down on Resident #59's chest while he/she was in bed. SRNA #10 further stated Resident #59 attempted to stop the grabber from hitting him/her and grabbed it.
Oct 2021 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to follow the comprehensive Person-Centered Resident Care Plan for one (1) of twenty (20) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to follow the comprehensive Person-Centered Resident Care Plan for one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents, Resident #58. Resident #58's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was not followed for correct application of the seat beat while he/she was in the wheelchair, which resulted in a fall with an injury for Resident #58. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated 07/19/2021, revealed the Person-Centered Comprehensive Care Plan would include how the facility would assist the resident to meet their needs, goals, and preferences. Review of Resident #58 medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident initially, on 09/30/2020, and his/her latest readmission was on 02/26/2021. Patient #58's diagnoses were Abnormal Weight Loss, Major Depression, Anxiety Disorder, and Lack of Coordination. Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/14/2021, revealed the facility assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five (5) of fifteen (15) for severe cognitive impairment. Continued review of the MDS Assessment, revealed, under section G, Functional Status, that Patient #58's transfers required a two (2) person assist. Section P, Restraints, revealed limb restraints for the seatbelt was required. Continued review of Resident #58's medical record revealed he/she sustained a fall, on 07/23/2021 at 10:15 AM, which resulted in bruising above the eye. Resident #58 was placed into the wheelchair by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4, per the record, and she applied the seatbelt. However, the record stated the seatbelt was not applied correctly, which resulted in a fall with an injury. The record stated LPN #4 did not follow Resident #58's CCP for placement of the seatbelt to Resident #58, while he/she was sitting in the wheelchair. The seatbelt was applied around the resident and attached to the cushion in the wheelchair. Review of Resident #58's CCP, under goals, dated 11/04/2020, revealed a restraint would be used when the resident was out of bed in a wheelchair, and the resident would be free of falls and/or would not sustain an injury related to falling through the next review date. Further review of the CCP, dated 11/19/2020, revealed a physical restraint was needed when the resident was in a wheel chair because of anxiety and decreased safety awareness, and the wheelchair seat belt could be used as the physical restraint. Continued review, under Approach, dated 12/02/2020, revealed an alarming seatbelt would be used, while the resident was in the wheelchair, for increased safety. Further review, under Approach, dated 07/23/2021, after the fall, revealed staff would receive a proper demonstration on how to utilize the wheelchair seatbelt. Interview with State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #3, on 10/28/2021 at 3:15 PM, revealed Resident #58 required a two (2) person assist for transfers. She stated the resident had formerly used a wheelchair with a seat belt. She did not know about Resident #58's fall; however, she had access to the resident's CCP. The SRNA who assisted Resident #58 to the wheelchair with LPN #4, was not available for interview. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4, on 10/28/2021 at 3:58 PM, revealed Resident #58 asked the nurse to get up. She stated the resident had not been out of bed for months. LPN #4 stated, with the assistance of an aide, they placed the resident into the wheelchair. She stated she applied the seat belt around the resident sitting in the wheelchair. LPN #4 stated she thought the seat belt was in place; however, the resident slid out of the chair. She further stated the seat belt was applied wrong. She stated she did not realize the seatbelt was attached to the cushion in the wheelchair, which made the resident unsecured. LPN #4 stated she had not followed the resident's CCP. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the facility's Corporate Consultant, on 10/28/2021 at 4:15 PM, revealed the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), which consisted of facility Department Managers, reviewed and revised care plans. She stated the IDT discussed falls and care plan interventions to see if revisions were needed. She also stated changes to the CCP were made by the MDS Coordinator, but staff nurses or the Regional Nurse Director also could make revisions. The DON stated Resident #58's care plan should have been followed, and anytime a resident sustained a fall, he/she should be reassessed and new interventions put into place, if indicated. Interview with the Administrator, on 10/28/2021 at 4:56 PM, revealed she expected the care plan to be followed to prevent falls and accidents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to prevent a fall for one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents, Resident #58. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to prevent a fall for one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents, Resident #58. Resident #58 had a fall in the hallway due to the improper application of the seat beat to the residents wheel chair cushion which resulted in an injury. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Falls, dated 11/06/2019, revealed the intent of the facility was to provide residents with assistance and supervision in an effort to minimize the risk of falls and fall related injuries. Review of Resident #58's John Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool, dated 07/14/2021, revealed the resident had a score of twenty-five (25), which made him/her a high fall risk. Review of the facility form Observation Detail List Report, dated 07/23/2021, revealed Resident #58's pre-restraining evaluation revealed the reason for the screening was to evaluate if a restraint was needed because medical symptoms warranted restraint use. Psychosocial considerations were Resident #58 was disoriented/confused and did not understand what was being said. Physical considerations were Resident #58's balance was unstable with transfers. The form stated a restraint alternative was a low bed and pillows. It also listed the facility was to continue using a seat belt for Resident #58 when up in the wheelchair to prevent falls. Observations of Resident #58, on 10/26/2021 at 10:30 AM, on 10/27/2021 at 12:00 PM, and on 10/28/2021 at 3:00 PM revealed the resident lying in bed with his/her eyes closed. Further observation revealed Resident #58 had a pressure mattress on the bed, bolsters to bilateral sides of the the bed, and fall mats bilateral to the sides of the bed. Review of Resident #58's medical record revealed the facility initially admitted the resident, on 09/30/2020, and he/she had a readmission date of 02/26/2021. Patient #58's diagnosis were Abnormal Weight Loss, Major Depression, Anxiety Disorder, and Lack of Coordination. Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/14/2021, revealed the facility assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five (5) of fifteen (15) for severely cognitively impaired. Continued review of the MDS Assessment revealed, under Section G, functional status, that transfers required a two (2) person assist. Review of Resident #58's Physician orders, dated 05/09/2021, revealed to use a seat belt for the wheelchair when the resident was up and to release the seat belt every two (2) hours to reposition the resident. Further review of the orders revealed, on 07/23/2021, after the fall, an order to initiate the falls prevention program for Resident #58. Review of Resident #58's fall investigation form, Event Report, dated 07/23/2021, revealed the resident fell forward in the wheelchair, hitting the left side of the face on the floor, on 07/23/2021 at 10:15 AM, outside of the resident's room in the hallway. The report stated the resident's current diagnoses included Dementia, Anxiety, and Depression. The report stated Resident #58 expressed no pain upon assessment; however, he/she was noted to have bruising and a bump on the left side of the face. In addition, per the report, the seat belt was in use with the wheelchair at the time of the fall. Review of Resident #58's Summary of the Fall, dated 07/23/2021 at 10:35 AM, revealed the resident got out of bed to sit in a wheelchair in the hallway. The seat belt was placed on the resident as ordered. Further, the Resident #58 moved forward in the wheelchair and fell forward hitting the left side of the face on the floor. Per the Summary, there was a hematoma to the left forehead above the left eye. Resident #58 was assisted to back to the wheelchair and then back to bed. Neurological (neuro) checks were started and ordered to be continued by the Nurse Practitioner. Resident #58's assessment with vital signs were unremarkable, and the resident had no complaints of pain at this time. At the completion time of the Summary, Resident #58 was resting in bed. The Summary stated staff continued to rouse the resident for neuro checks and assessments. Continued review of Resident #58's medical record revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 documented the fall, on 07/23/2021 at 10:15 AM, with no pain, bruising, bump, seatbelt in place. Fall in the hallway. Further documentation, on 07/26/2021 at 10:31 AM, by the Interdisciplinary team (IDT), which had the facility's Department Managers as its members, revealed the IDT met this day to discuss the fall that occurred, on 07/23/2021, with Resident #58. The IDT stated Resident #58 was placed in the wheelchair by LPN #4, who fastened the seat belt. However, when LPN #4 went to clamp the seat belt, she improperly clamped it to the wheelchair cushion around the resident. The intervention deemed most appropriate by the IDT was staff would receive a proper demonstration on how to utilize the wheelchair with a seat belt. Interview with State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #3, on 10/28/2021 at 3:15 PM, revealed Resident #58 required a two (2) person assist for transfers, and the information available for transfers was on the care plan or tablet. She stated the resident no longer used a wheelchair with a seat belt but uses a geri-chair when up. The SRNA who assisted LPN #4 was not available for interview. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4, on 10/28/2021 at 3:58 PM, revealed Resident #58 asked to get up out of the bed. The resident had not been out of the bed for months. LPN #4 stated, with the help of an aide, she assisted the resident to the wheelchair. LPN #4 stated she applied the seat belt and thought she had the seat belt correctly placed; however, the resident slid out of the wheelchair. LPN #4 stated the resident was assessed for injury; vitals signs were checked; and the Power-of-Attorney, physician, and the Administrator were notified. LPN #4 explained further she did not secure the seat belt properly. She further revealed she had previously, before and since the fall, received education on the correct use of the seat belt. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Corporate Consultant, on 10/28/2021 at 4:15 PM, revealed anytime a resident sustained a fall, he/she was assessed and new interventions were put in place. The DON stated staff was educated on using the seat belt correctly. Interview with the Administrator, on 10/28/2021 at 4:56 PM, revealed she expected staff to follow the care plan to prevent accidents.
Mar 2019 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents are free from abuse for one (1) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Resident #13). Resident #54 had a history of exhibiting sexually inappropriate behavior and making inappropriate sexual remarks towards staff. The resident also had a history of being aggressive with other residents. However, the facility failed to have interventions in place to ensure residents were protected from Resident #54's sexual behaviors. On 03/11/19, State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1 reported witnessing Resident #54 inappropriately touching Resident #13's chest area. The findings include: Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation Policy, reviewed 11/16/17, revealed it is Signature's policy to prevent the occurrence of abuse, neglect, exploitation, injuries of unknown origin, and misappropriation of property. Abuse is defined as the willful inflicting of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation or punishment, with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Abuse includes physical abuse, mental abuse, verbal abuse and sexual abuse. Sexual abuse includes sexual harassment, sexual coercion, or sexual assault. Review of the facility Self Report Incident, dated 03/11/19 and signed by the Administrator, revealed on 3/11/19 at approximately 3:45 PM, it was reported to the Unit Manager by State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1, Resident #54 was witnessed inappropriately touching Resident #13's chest area. SRNA #1 intervened, separated the residents, and placed Resident #54 on 1:1 (one on one) supervision. Nursing staff completed skin assessments on both residents, and no injuries were found. Further review revealed care plans were updated, and the physician and families were made aware of the incident. Review of the facility's Investigation, completed 3/15/19, revealed the facility conducted skin assessments on all residents with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven (7) or below and interviewed all residents with BIMS scores of eight (8) or above. Per the Investigation, no residents interviewed had concerns related to abuse from another resident. Resident #54 was seen by the in house psychiatric provider on 03/12/19 who increased his/her Zoloft (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor medication). Further review of the Investigation, revealed the Social Service Director followed up with both Resident #54 and Resident #13 after the incident. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/13/16 with diagnoses including Unspecified Dementia without Behavior Disturbance, Dysphagia, and Muscle Weakness. Resident #13 was assessed by the facility per the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], as having a BIMS Score of 99, indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #13's Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 03/11/19 revealed a problem of reportable inappropriate touch. The goal stated the resident would exhibit no signs or symptoms of increased emotional distress and would allow needs to be met daily. The interventions included: one (1) to one (1) visits by social service; all staff to provide support, encouragement, and reassurance; nursing and social services to observe daily for increased distress, withdrawal, and one (1) on one (1) for twenty -four (24) hours, then fifteen (15) minute checks for seventy-two (72) hours. Review of Resident #54's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/18/18 with diagnoses including Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation, Dementia with Lewy Bodies, History of Falling, and Cognitive Communication Deficit. Resident #54 was assessed by the facility per the Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 03/01/19 as having a BIMS score of three (3) out of fifteen (15) indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having physical behavioral symptoms directed towards others, one (1) to three (3) days during the last seven (7) days. Review of Resident #54's Psychiatric Consult, dated 01/08/19, revealed this was an initial consult for behavioral disturbances including sexually inappropriate behavior towards staff. Per the Consult, the resident had a history of sexually acting out and had sexually inappropriate behavior at times, primarily at night. Review of Resident #54's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 1/08/19, revealed the resident had alteration in behavior, would become physically aggressive with other residents, and would hit, push, and strike out. The goal stated the resident would have reduction or elimination of episodes of physical aggression towards other residents through use of behavior management techniques. The interventions included: immediately intervene with residents, decrease stimulation, remove resident to a quiet area, and provide resident with verbal reassurance. However, the CCP did not address the resident's inappropriate sexual behaviors, nor did it include specific interventions to prevent inappropriate sexual abuse towards other residents. Review of Resident #54's Psychiatric Consult, dated 01/30/19, revealed the resident was identified to have a diagnosis of v49.89, sexually acting out. Per the Consult, the resident had a history of exhibiting behaviors to include being physically, sexually and verbally aggressive. Further review of the Consult, revealed the resident was started on Zoloft (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor medication), Zyprexa (antipsychotic medication) and Ativan (antianxiety medication) for behavior. Further review of Resident #54's Comprehensive Care Plan, revealed a problem of Resident-to-Resident altercation initiated 03/11/19. However, there was no goal identified. In addition, the intervention for one (1) on one (1) for twenty-four (24) hours for safety was marked through with a line and a d/c beside the intervention. No other interventions were added to the Care Plan. The Care Plan failed to identify the 3/11/19 incident as sexual behavior towards another resident with appropriate goals or interventions to prevent recurrence. Review of Resident #54's Psychiatric Consult, dated 03/12/19, revealed the resident was identified as having the diagnosis of v49.89 sexually acting out. The section titled, History of Present illness, revealed the resident grabbed a female staff member on 3/11/19. (However, review of the facility of the Facility Self-Reported Incident Form dated 3/11/19 revealed Resident #54 grabbed Resident #13's breast not a female staff member). Interview with State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1, on 03/21/19 at 9:45 AM, revealed on 03/11/19 after lunch, she was standing at the nurse's station reading the care plan book and looked behind her and saw Resident #54 grabbing Resident #13's left breast. Per interview, both residents were in the hallway in their wheelchairs. Continued interview revealed she immediately separated the residents and reported the incident to the Unit Manager. Per interview, in her mind Resident #54 knew what he/she was doing when he/she grabbed Resident #13's breast because he/she told SRNA #1, he/she was trying to open it, referring to the Resident #13's shirt. Per interview, SRNA #1 was not sure if Resident # 54 exhibited sexual behaviors towards other residents, but stated he/she would sometimes touch staff inappropriately and then laugh about it. Continued interview revealed the facility had trained the employees on types of abuse and abuse reporting, which is why she thought it was so important to report this incident on 03/11/19. Per interview, the facility was aware Resident #54 had a history of exhibiting sexual behaviors towards staff. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, on 03/21/19 at 4:03 PM, revealed Resident #54 had not exhibited any behaviors since the increase in his/her medication by psychiatric services. However, she stated, the resident had a history of exhibiting inappropriate behaviors with staff including hitting, pinching, grabbing, and also grabbing nursing staff on the bottom. Per interview, the resident would laugh after grabbing the nurses on the bottom, every time. Interview with the Unit Manager (UM), on 03/21/19 at 4:14 PM, revealed staff had informed him of Resident #54's combative behaviors including pinching and hitting staff, but he was unaware of the resident exhibiting sexual behaviors. Per interview, he had not reviewed Resident #54's Psychiatric Consults in which the resident's sexual behaviors toward staff were discussed prior to the incident with Resident #13. He stated if he had reviewed the Psychiatric Consults he would have identified the resident was exhibiting inappropriate sexual behaviors towards others and ensured the Care Plan included interventions to protect other residents as well as staff. Per interview, the facility trained staff on abuse prevention, and how to identify different types of abuse in order to implement interventions to protect residents from abuse. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 03/21/19 at 4:30 PM, revealed Resident #54 had a history of pinching, patting, grabbing at staff's legs and chest, and was touchy feely with staff. She stated the resident would also make sexual remarks towards staff; however, she had never known of the resident to exhibit sexual behaviors towards other residents until the incident on 03/11/19. Per interview, the resident's sexual behavior had been addressed with outpatient psychiatric consultation and the resident was being treated for this behavior. The DON stated she did not think Resident #54 was trying to get Resident #13's shirt off, although he/she was witnessed grabbing Resident #13's left breast. Continued interview with the DON, revealed she ensured only male staff assisted Resident #54 with showers due to his/her sexual behaviors; however, this was not addressed on the Care Plan. Further interview revealed Resident #54's Care Plan did not address the resident's sexual behaviors towards others, nor interventions to protect other residents from sexual abuse. Additional interview revealed Resident #54's Care Plan should have included interventions to prevent the resident's sexual behaviors towards others to the extent possible, and interventions to protect other residents from his/her sexual behaviors. Continued interview revealed the facility provided the staff with abuse training at orientation, annually and as needed and was her expectation residents were protected from abuse from staff as well as from other residents. Interview with the Administrator, on 03/21/19 at 4:45 PM, revealed the facility trained all staff on abuse and all aspects of the policy including identification of abuse and prevention of abuse during orientation, annually and as needed. Per interview, the facility attempted to protect all residents from abuse by ensuring staff followed the Abuse Policy. The Administrator stated the facility was aware of Resident #54's inappropriate sexual behavior and should have had interventions in place on the Care Plan to protect other residents.
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual Version 1.16, it was determined the facility failed to submit Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the required timeframe for two (2) of twenty-three (23) sampled residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2). Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/23/19 was not submitted to CMS until 03/18/19. In addition, Resident #2's Quarterly MDS Assessment, with an ARD of 01/11/19, was not submitted to CMS until 03/18/19. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy, titled MDS Assessment Completion, revised February 2016, revealed the facility will conduct and submit resident assessments in accordance with the RAI Manual including federal and state submission timeframes. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual Version 1.16, dated October 2018, Chapter 5 Submission and Correction of MDS Assessments, revealed comprehensive assessments must be transmitted electronically within fourteen (14) days of the Care Plan Completion Date (V0200C2 + 14 days). All other MDS assessments must be submitted within fourteen (14) days of the MDS Completion Date (Z0500B + 14 days). 1. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/01/15 with diagnoses to include Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Pneumonia, Dysphagia, Alzheimer's Disease, Repeated Falls, Muscle Weakness, Anxiety Disorder, Type 2 Diabetes, Psychosis, Oxygen Dependence, and Major Depressive Disorder. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, revealed the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) was 01/23/19. However, further review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the MDS Assessment was not submitted to CMS until 03/18/19. Additional review of the MDS Assessment, revealed Sections C, D, E, and Q were not completed until 03/18/19. 2. Review of Resident #2's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/29/17 with diagnoses to include Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation, Osteoarthritis, Difficulty Walking, and End Stage Renal Disease Review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS Assessment, revealed the ARD was 01/11/19; however, further review revealed the MDS Assessment was not submitted to CMS until 03/18/19. Additional review of the MDS Assessment, revealed Sections C, D, E, and Q were not completed until 03/18/19. Interview with MDS Coordinator #1, on 03/21/19 at 9:06 AM, revealed she had worked at the facility for ten (10) years as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and in October 2018 she transitioned to MDS Coordinator. She stated she did not work for a period of time in January 2019 due to health issues and during this time the Social Service Director resigned without completing the Social Services portion of the MDS Assessments. She stated she was unaware of these incomplete assessments until she was notified by CMS on 3/11/19, that they were late. Further interview revealed all sections of the MDS Assessment have to be completed and locked before it will transmit. She stated the Corporate MDS Coordinator came to the facility on [DATE] and helped complete an audit of all residents' assessments and found Resident #1 and Resident #2's MDS Assessments had not been transmitted during the fourteen (14) day window after completion of the assessment. She further stated these two (2) residents' MDS Assessments were a late submission and facility policy was not followed. Interview with MDS Coordinator #2, on 03/21/19 at 9:25 AM, revealed she was a Registered Nurse (RN) and had been in this position for two (2) months. She stated the completion and transmission of assessments for Resident #1 for the Quarterly MDS Assessment, with ARD date of 01/23/19; and Resident #2 for the Quarterly MDS Assessment, with ARD date of 01/11/19 was overlooked. She further stated when they realized these two (2) MDS Assessments had not been locked and transmitted, they were completed on 03/18/19 and submitted to CMS. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 03/21/19 at 1:42 PM, revealed if MDS Assessments were submitted late, it was likely due to the Social Service Director resigning and the MDS Coordinator being on leave. Further interview revealed MDS assessments should be accurate and timely. Interview with the Administrator, on 03/21/19 at 4:15 PM, revealed she was aware of the regulation related to MDS Assessments needing to be transmitted within fourteen (14) days once completed. Further, she was aware of the concern of Resident #1 and Resident #2's MDS Assessments not being transmitted in the allotted fourteen (14) days. Additional interview, revealed the Interdisciplinary Team conducted a Quality Assurance Meeting on 03/11/19, when the problem was identified and on 03/18/19, the Corporate MDS Coordinator came to the facility and conducted an audit of all residents' MDS Assessments. Continued interview revealed the audit revealed only Resident #1 and Resident #2's MDS Assessments were incomplete and the MDS Coordinator locked and transmitted the MDS Assessments that day. Additional interview revealed it was her expectation for the Assessments to be completed and submitted timely as per the RAI Manual.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, review of facility Policy, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual Version 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident's comprehensive assessment accurately reflects the resident's status for one (1) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Resident #55). Resident #55's Occupational Therapy (OT) Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 01/25/19, revealed the resident had contractures to his/her right and left elbows and hands requiring a splinting/orthotic device. However, the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], did not reflect the resident's Functional Limitations in Range of Motion (ROM), nor was the MDS Assessment coded for an active diagnosis of Contractures. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy, titled Resident Assessment, reviewed 07/31/18, revealed the facility must conduct initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate, standardized reproducible assessment of each resident's functional capacity. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual Version 3.0, Chapter 3, Section G0400, revealed the intent of the section was to determine whether functional limitation in ROM interferes with the resident's Activities of Daily Living or places the resident at risk for injury. This was a three (3) step which included: 1) testing the resident's upper and lower extremity ROM; 2) if the resident is noted to have limitation of upper and lower extremity ROM, review G0110 and /or directly observe the resident to determine if the limitation interferes with function or places the resident at risk for injury; and Code G0400 A/B as appropriate based on the above assessment. Further review revealed Section I, identified Active Diseases and Infections that drive the current Plan of Care. Medical Record sources for physician diagnoses included; Progress Notes, the most recent History and Physical, Transfer Documents, Discharges Summaries, Diagnosis/Problem list, and other resources available. Review of Resident #55's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/23/19 with diagnoses including Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Parkinson's disease, and Contracture of Multiple Muscles. Observation on 03/19/19 at 3:53 PM, revealed the resident was in bed, and contractures were noted to the resident's bilateral arms/hands. Review of Resident #55's Physician's Orders, revealed orders dated 01/25/19 for Occupational Therapy (OT) evaluation. Review of Resident #55's OT Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 01/25/19, revealed the resident was to receive OT for diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease and muscle contractures of multiple sites. Further review revealed the short-term goal was to safely wear the least restrictive splinting/orthotic device for two (2) hours on and two (2) hours off and improve Passive Range of Motion (PROM) for adequate hygiene. The long-term goal was to safely wear the least restrictive splinting/orthotic device for four (4) hours on and four (4) hours off, as well as placing the resident on a Restorative Nursing Program (RNP) for PROM and splinting upon discharge from OT. Further review revealed Resident #55 had contractures to his/her right and left elbows and hands. Review of Resident #55's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident as having both short-term and long-term memory problems and having severe impairment in cognitive skills for daily decision making. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having no Functional Limitations in Range of Motion of his/her upper or lower extremities. Additional review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility did not assess the resident as having an Active Diagnoses section of contractures. Continued review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring total dependence of two (2) staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting; and as requiring extensive assistance from one (1) staff member for eating and personal hygiene. Interview on 03/21/19 at 4:24 PM, with MDS Coordinator #2, revealed she had been in the MDS role for approximately two (2) months. She stated the purpose of the MDS Assessment was to provide an accurate picture of the resident for billing purposes as well as for care purposes. She stated the Comprehensive Care Plan was generated from the MDS Assessment, and therefore the MDS Assessment must be accurate. Further interview revealed Resident #55 did have contractures and therefore the admission MDS Assessment, dated 01/30/19 should have reflected the resident had functional limitations in range of motion; and also the Assessment should have reflected the resident's active diagnosis of contractures. Interview on 03/21/19 at 4:33 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed the purpose of the MDS Assessment was to capture a picture of the resident and their current status and care needs. Per interview, the MDS Assessments were to be accurate in order to set the triggers for the care plan. Further interview revealed Resident #55's admission MDS Assessment should have been coded to indicate functional limitations in range of motion and an active diagnosis of contractures. Additional interview revealed it was important for contractures to be coded on the MDS Assessment in order for the Plan of Care to be developed between nursing, therapy, and any other disciplines for the management and/or reduction of contractures. Interview on 03/21/19 at 4:47 PM, with the Administrator, revealed the purpose of the MDS was to send information to CMS regarding the care the facility was providing for each resident. Per interview, Resident #55's admission MDS should have reflected the resident's contractures and limited ROM and diagnosis of contractures because this Assessment would affect the care the resident received regarding his/her Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). The Administrator stated it was her expectation the MDS Assessments be completed accurately.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for three (3) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Resident #54, #55, and #146). Although Resident #54 had a history of exhibiting sexually inappropriate behavior towards staff and being aggressive with other residents, the facility failed to develop and implement a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) to address the resident's sexual behaviors. On 03/11/19, staff witnessed Resident #54 inappropriately touching Resident #13's chest area. (Refer to F-600) Resident #55 was admitted with contractures to his/her bilateral hand, wrists, and elbows. However, these contractures were not addressed in the (CCP). (Refer to F-641) In addition, Resident #146's Physician's Orders dated 03/08/19, revealed orders for heel boots for bilateral heels when in bed or up in chair. However, there was no documented evidence the CCP, dated 03/18/19 was developed to include the intervention for heel boots. Observation of Resident #146 on 03/18/19, 03/19/19 and 03/20/19 revealed the resident was in bed and was not wearing the heel boots. Also, Resident #146's CCP, dated 03/18/19, revealed an intervention to float heels when in bed. However, observation of Resident #146 on 03/18/19, 03/19/19 and 03/20/19, revealed the CCP was not implemented related to the intervention to float the resident's heels. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans, revised 07/19/18, revealed a person-centered comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs would be developed for each resident. Further review revealed the Comprehensive Care Plan is based on a thorough assessment that includes, but is not limited to, the Resident Assessment Instrument. 1. Review of the facility Self Report Incident, dated 03/11/19, revealed on 03/11/19 at approximately 3:45 PM, it was reported to the Unit Manager by State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1, Resident #54 was witnessed inappropriately touching Resident #13's chest area. Per the Report, SRNA #1 intervened, separated the residents, and placed Resident #54 on 1:1 (one on one) supervision. Nursing staff then skin assessments on both residents, and no injuries were found. Additional review revealed care plans were updated, and the physician and families were made aware of the incident. The Report was signed by the Administrator. Review of the facility's Investigation, completed 03/15/19, revealed the facility conducted skin assessments on all residents with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven (7) or below and also interviewed all residents with BIMS scores of eight (8) or above. Further review of the Investigation, revealed the residents interviewed had no concerns related to abuse from another resident. Per the Investigation, Resident #54 was seen by the in house psychiatric provider on 03/12/19 who increased his/her Zoloft (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor medication). Additional review of the Investigation, revealed the Social Service Director followed up with both Resident #54 and Resident #13 after the incident. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/13/16 with diagnoses to include Unspecified Dementia without Behavior Disturbance, Dysphagia, and Muscle Weakness. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a BIMS Score of 99, indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #13's CCP, initiated 03/11/19, revealed a problem of inappropriate touch. The goal revealed the resident would exhibit no signs or symptoms of increased emotional distress and would allow needs to be met daily. The interventions included: one (1) to one (1) visits by social service; all staff to provide support, encouragement, and reassurance; nursing and social services to observe daily for increased distress, withdrawal, and one (1) on one (1) supervision for twenty -four (24) hours, then fifteen (15) minute checks for seventy-two (72) hours. Review of Resident #54's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/18/18 with diagnoses to include Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation, Dementia with Lewy Bodies, History of Falling, and Cognitive Communication Deficit. Review of Resident #54's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 03/01/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a BIMS score of three (3) out of fifteen (15) indicating severe cognitive impairment. Additional review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having physical behavioral symptoms directed towards others, one (1) to three (3) days during the last seven (7) days. Review of Resident #54's Psychiatric Consult, dated 01/08/19, revealed this was an initial consult due to the resident's behavioral disturbances which included sexually inappropriate behavior towards staff. Further review of the Consult, revealed the resident had a history of sexually acting out and had sexually inappropriate behavior at times, primarily at night. Review of the CCP, dated 01/08/19, revealed Resident #54 had alteration in behavior, would become physically aggressive with other residents, and would hit, push, and strike out. The goal revealed the resident would have reduction or elimination of episodes of physical aggression towards other residents through use of behavior management techniques. The interventions included: immediately intervene with residents, decrease stimulation, remove the resident to a quiet area, and provide the resident with verbal reassurance. However, the CCP was not developed to address the resident's inappropriate sexual behaviors, nor did it include specific interventions to implement to prevent inappropriate sexual abuse towards other residents. Review of Resident #54's Psychiatric Consult, dated 01/30/19, revealed the resident had a diagnosis of v49.89, sexually acting out. The Consult revealed the resident had a history of exhibiting physically, sexually and verbally aggressive behaviors. Continued review of the Consult, revealed the resident was started on Zoloft (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor medication), Zyprexa (antipsychotic medication) and Ativan (antianxiety medication) for behavior. Continued review of Resident #54's CCP, revealed a problem of Resident-to-Resident altercation initiated 03/11/19. However, there was no goal noted. Also, the intervention for one (1) on one (1) for twenty-four (24) hours for safety was marked through with a line and a d/c beside the intervention. There were no other interventions added to the CCP. The Care Plan failed to address the 03/11/19 incident as sexual behavior towards another resident with appropriate goals or interventions to prevent recurrence. Review of the Psychiatric Consult, dated 03/12/19, revealed Resident #54 was identified as having the diagnosis of v49.89 sexually acting out. The section titled, History of Present illness, revealed the resident grabbed a female staff member, on 03/11/19. (However, review of the facility of the Facility Self-Reported Incident Form dated 3/11/19 revealed Resident #54 grabbed Resident #13's breast). Interview with State Registered Nursing Assistant (SRNA) #1, on 03/21/19 at 9:45 AM, revealed on 03/11/19 after lunch, while she was standing at the nurse's station reading the care plan book, she looked behind her and saw Resident #54 grabbing Resident #13's left breast. She stated both residents were in the hallway in their wheelchairs. Further interview revealed she immediately separated the residents and reported the incident to the Unit Manager. Per interview, in her mind Resident #54 knew what he/she was doing when he/she grabbed Resident #13's breast because he/she told SRNA #1, that he/she was trying to open it, referring to the Resident #13's shirt. Additional interview, revealed SRNA #1 was not sure if Resident #54 exhibited sexual behaviors towards other residents, but stated he/she would sometimes touch staff inappropriately and then laugh. SRNA #1 stated the facility was aware Resident #54 had a history of exhibiting sexual behaviors towards staff. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, on 03/21/19 at 4:03 PM, revealed Resident #54 had not exhibited any inappropriate behaviors since the increase in his/her medication by psychiatric services. However, she revealed the resident had a history of exhibiting inappropriate behaviors with staff including hitting, pinching, grabbing, and also grabbing nursing staff on the bottom. Further interview revealed the resident would laugh after grabbing the nurses on the bottom, every time. Interview with the Unit Manager (UM), on 03/21/19 at 4:14 PM, revealed staff had informed him of Resident #54's combative behaviors including pinching and hitting staff in the past, but he was unaware of the resident exhibiting sexual behaviors. He stated he had not reviewed Resident #54's Psychiatric Consults in which the resident's sexual behaviors toward staff were discussed prior to the incident with Resident #13. Further, if he had reviewed the Psychiatric Consults he would have identified the resident was exhibiting inappropriate sexual behaviors towards others and ensured the CCP included interventions to protect other residents as well as staff. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 03/21/19 at 4:30 PM, revealed Resident #54 did have a a history of pinching, patting, grabbing at staff's legs and chest, and was touchy feely with staff. She stated the resident also had a history of making sexual remarks towards staff; however, she had never known of the resident to exhibit sexual behaviors towards other residents until the incident on 03/11/19. The DON stated the resident's sexual behavior had been addressed with outpatient psychiatric consultation and the resident was being treated for this behavior. The DON further stated she did not think Resident #54 was trying to get Resident #13's shirt off, although he/she was witnessed grabbing Resident #13's left breast. Additional interview with the DON, revealed she ensured only male staff assisted Resident #54 with showers due to his/her sexual behaviors; however, the resident's CCP did not include this intervention. Per interview, Resident #54's Care Plan did not address the resident's sexual behaviors towards others, and did not include interventions for staff to implement to protect other residents from the resident's sexual behavior. Further interview revealed Resident #54's Care Plan should have been developed to address the resident's sexual behaviors and should have included interventions to be implemented in order to protect other residents from his/her sexual behaviors. Interview with the Administrator, on 03/21/19 at 4:45 PM, revealed the facility was aware of Resident #54's inappropriate sexual behavior prior to the incident with Resident #13. Further interview revealed Resident #54's CCP should have been developed to address these behaviors and included interventions to be implemented to protect other residents from Resident #54's sexual behaviors. 2. Review of Resident #146's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 02/27/19 with diagnoses including End Stage Renal Disease, Muscle Weakness and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Review of the Baseline admission Care Plan, dated 02/28/19, revealed the resident had impaired skin integrity. The goal stated the resident would remain free from new areas of skin breakdown and wounds would show signs of healing and be free from infection. There were several interventions including weekly skin assessment and report changes, treatments as ordered; and heel boots as ordered. Review of Physician's Orders dated 03/08/19, revealed orders for heel boots for bilateral heels when in bed or up in chair. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 03/16/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of twelve (12) out of fifteen (15) indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring extensive assistance of two (2) staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. Additional review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having one (1) Stage II Pressure ulcer on admission, and one (1) unstageable Pressure ulcer on admission. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), dated 03/18/19, revealed the resident had unstageable pressure ulcers to the mid-back spine, right lateral ankle, right elbow, and right heel related to immobility, incontinence and Motor Vehicle Accident. The goal stated the pressure ulcers would exhibit signs of healing by 04/18/19. There were several interventions initiated on 03/18/19 including: report changes in skin status, observe effectiveness of response to treatments, weekly skin check, notify nurse immediately of any new areas of skin breakdown, consult Dietician as needed, assist PRN (as needed) to reposition, and float heels in bed. There was a new intervention dated 03/20/19 for heel boots when up in chair as elder will allow. However, there was no documented evidence of an intervention for heel boots when in bed as per the Physician's Orders, dated 03/08/19. Observation of Resident #146, on 03/18/19 at 7:30 PM, revealed the resident was lying on a pressure relief mattress with no heel boots noted on either foot, as per Physician's Orders. In addition, the resident was on his/her back with his/her heels lying directly on the mattress and not floated. Observation of Resident #146 on 03/19/19 at 1:30 PM, revealed the resident was lying on a pressure relief mattress with no heel boots on either foot, as per Physician's Orders. In addition, the resident's heels were not floated, as per the CCP. State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #1 was assigned to the resident during this observation. Review of Physician's Orders, dated 03/19/19, revealed orders for heel off-loading cushion while in bed per resident's tolerance, and alternating air mattress to bed for pressure reduction. Observation of Resident #146, on 03/19/19 at 3:05 PM, revealed the resident was lying on an air mattress with his/her right foot floated on a pillow. However, the resident had no heel boots on bilateral feet, as per the Physician's Orders. SRNA #1 was assigned to the resident during this observation. Observation of Resident #146, on 03/20/19 at 9:00 AM, revealed the resident was lying on an air mattress with perimeter bolsters. No pressure heel boots were noted on either foot as per Physician's Orders and the resident's heels were not off loaded as per the CCP. SRNA #1 was assigned to the resident during this observation. Interview on 03/21/19 at 9:50 AM, with SRNA #1, revealed she had been assigned to Resident #146 the past few days. She stated she referred to the [NAME] (Nurse Assistant Care Plan) for guidance on providing care. Further interview revealed Resident #146's [NAME] had interventions for heel booties to both feet while in bed or in the wheelchair and therefore the resident should wear the heel boots and the resident's heels should not be directly on the mattress. Further interview revealed the resident had never refused heel boots or other measures to relieve pressure to the heels to her knowledge. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1/Wound Nurse, on 03/21/19 10:30 AM, revealed Resident #146 should have pressure relieving devices in place to include heel boots when in bed or when up in the wheelchair. Further interview revealed the floor nurses were responsible for ensuring the heel lift boots were in place as ordered. She stated Resident #146 often refused to wear the heel boots. Observation of Resident #146, on 03/21/19 at 1:15 PM, revealed the resident was lying on an alternating pressure air mattress. The heel boots were on top of the bedside chest of drawers. In addition, the resident's feet were not offloaded, as per the CCP. Interview with Resident #146, on 03/21/19 at 2:00 PM, revealed he/she was unable to apply heel boots or prop his/her heels without assistance. He/she stated he had never refused to wear the heel boots when staff offered to apply them, nor did he/she refuse other measures to relieve pressure to his/her lower extremities. Resident #146 verbalized the reason for the heel boots was to take pressure off his/her heels. Further interview revealed his/her right heel wound resulted from the heel lying directly on the mattress for an extended amount of time, and the possible consequence of a pressure wound to the foot was the loss of the foot. Interview on 03/21/19 at 3:30 PM, with MDS Nurse #2, revealed the CCP should be developed to include any applicable Physician's Orders and wound recommendations. She further stated the purpose of the CCP was to guide staff in providing care for the residents in all aspects of care. Further interview revealed Resident #146's CCP should have been developed to include the intervention for heel boots since there was a Physician's Order written for the heel boots on 03/08/19. Further interview revealed staff should implement all Resident #146's CCP interventions to relieve pressure, which would include off loading the heels. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 03/21/19 at 3:00 PM, revealed once Physician's Orders were written, they were to be added to the CCP by the MDS Nurse the next business day. Per interview, Resident #146's CCP should have been developed to include the orders for heel boots. Further interview revealed nursing interventions for the wounds on Resident #146's right heel included dressings as ordered, and off-loading to relieve further pressure on the heel. Per interview, Resident #146's CCP should be followed for all interventions including off loading the heels. Interview with the Administrator, on 03/21/19 at 3:30 PM, revealed the Physician's Orders were to be carried over to the CCP, and it was her expectation that both the Physician's Orders and the CCP be followed. 3. Review of Resident #55's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/23/19 with diagnoses including Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Parkinson's disease, and Contracture of Multiple Muscles. Observation of Resident #55 on 03/19/19 at 3:53 PM, revealed the resident was in bed, and contractures were noted to the resident's bilateral arms/hands. Review of Resident #55's Physician's Orders, revealed orders dated 01/25/19 for Occupational Therapy (OT) evaluation. Review of the OT Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 01/25/19, revealed Resident #55 was to receive OT for diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease and muscle contractures of multiple sites. Continued review revealed the short-term goal was to safely wear the least restrictive splinting/orthotic device for two (2) hours on and two (2) hours off and improve Passive Range of Motion (PROM) for adequate hygiene. Further, the long-term goal was to safely wear the least restrictive splinting/orthotic device for four (4) hours on and four (4) hours off, as well as placing the resident on a Restorative Nursing Program (RNP) for PROM and splinting upon discharge from OT. Additional review revealed Resident #55 had contractures to his/her right and left elbows and hands. Review of Resident #55's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident as having both short-term and long-term memory problems as well as severe impairment in cognitive skills for daily decision making. Continued review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having no Functional Limitations in Range of Motion of his/her upper or lower extremities. Additional review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring total dependence of two (2) staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting; and as requiring extensive assistance from one (1) staff member for eating and personal hygiene. Further review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility did not assess the resident as having an Active Diagnosis of contractures. (Refer to F-641) Review of Resident #55's CCP, dated 02/06/19, revealed a problem area of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Self-Care deficit. The goal associated with this problem area revealed the resident would not develop any complications related to decreased ADL self-performance. The interventions to help achieve the stated goal included: staff to provide all ADL care, refer to therapy services as needed, and 1/4 side rails to the top of Resident #55's bed on both sides. Review of Physician's Orders dated 02/08/19, revealed orders for Resident #55 to be discontinued from OT due to his/her highest practical level being achieved. Review of Resident #55's OT Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed it was determined that a splint/orthotic device was not appropriate for Resident #55 due to muscle tone. Continued review revealed Resident #55 was placed on a Functional Maintenance Program (FMP) for stretching to bilateral shoulder, elbows, wrists, and fingers to facilitate decreased tone/tightness. Further review of Resident #55's CCP, revealed no documented focus area, goal, or interventions related to his/her contractures and no interventions related to the Functional Maintenance Program. Review of the submitted FMP documentation, revealed Resident #55 was receiving Functional Maintenance Program (FMP), as prescribed for daily stretching to bilateral shoulders, elbows, wrists, and fingers, which started 02/09/19. Interview on 03/21/19 at 4:20 PM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #40 revealed she was assigned to Resident #55. She stated Resident #55 was on a Functional Maintenance Program as directed by Occupational Therapy. She further stated the resident received PROM daily as per OT instructions. Per interview, the nurses were responsible for providing the PROM. Interview on 03/21/19 at 4:24 PM, with MDS Coordinator #2, revealed Resident #55 did have contractures and therefore the admission MDS Assessment, dated 01/30/19 should have reflected the resident had functional limitations in range of motion; and also the Assessment should have reflected the resident's active diagnosis of contractures. Per interview, the CCP was generated from the MDS Assessment, and therefore the MDS Assessment must be accurate in order for the CCP to be developed and implemented. Continued interview revealed Resident #55's CCP should have been developed with interventions related to the resident's contractures and FMP. Interview on 03/21/19 at 4:33 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed the purpose of the CCP was to identify the care needs and direct the care the resident receives. She stated it was her expectation the CCP be developed to include all care to be provided by staff . She further stated the MDS Coordinator was responsible for developing the CCP from the MDS Assessment. Continued interview, revealed Resident #55's contractures should have been addressed on the CCP. She stated it was important it was important for the CCP to be developed with interventions to help prevent further or worsening contractures, address and treat possible pain from the contractures, ensure no skin issues arise from the contractures, and address any other concerns related to the contractures. Interview on 03/21/19 at 4:47 PM, with the Administrator, revealed the purpose of the CCP was to ensure that staff were aware of the needs of the resident. She stated the MDS Coordinator was responsible for developing the CCP based on the resident's medical record, observations, and information on the MDS Assessment. Further interview revealed Resident #55's CCP should have been developed to address the resident's contractures in order for the resident to receive the proper care related to the contractures and proper assistance with his/her ADLs.
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 Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper storage of drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with accepted professi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper storage of drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with accepted professional principles and include the expiration date. Observation on 03/19/18 at 1:20 PM, revealed one (1) bottle of Timolol eye drops 0.25 % and one bottle of of Timolol eye drops 0.5%, which had been opened and had not been marked to indicate the date they were opened or the expiration or end-of-use date. The findings include: Review of the facility Policy, titled Medication Storage, Section 4.1, dated 09/2018, revealed the provider pharmacy dispenses medications in containers that meet state and federal labeling requirements. Outdated medications are to be immediately removed from stock and disposed of and reordered from pharmacy. Further review revealed each prescription label should include resident's name, directions for use, medication name, strength of medication, prescriber's name, date medication is dispensed, quantity dispensed, expiration or end-of-use date, name, address and telephone number of the dispensing pharmacy, prescription number, accessory/precautionary labels, and dispensing pharmacists's initials. Observation of the B Hall medication Cart, on 03/19/19 at 1:20 PM, revealed one (1) bottle of Timolol eye drops 0.25% which had been opened. The facility pharmacy label indicated the medication was delivered on 01/02/18, and further indicated the medication would expire twenty-eight (28) days after the bottle was opened. However, there was no written documentation on the label to indicate when the bottle had been opened. Continued observation revealed one (1) bottle of Timolol 0.5% eye drops which had been opened. The label had a printed date of 01/08/18, indicating a the delivery date. However, there was no written documentation on the label to indicate when the bottle had been opened. There was no facility prescription label on the bottle. Interview with State Registered Nurse Aide/Kentucky Medication Aide #4, on 03/19/19 at 1:25 PM, revealed the bottle of Timolol 0.5% without the facility label was being used because the resident brought it with him/her from the hospital. Per interview, facility policy allowed residents to bring medications from the hospital to be used until pharmacy could send medications as per the new Physician's Orders. Continued interview revealed staff should write the open date on bottles of eye drops at the time they were opened in order for staff to know when the medication was expired. Per interview, if expired medications were administered, this could lead to adverse side effects for the residents. Further interview revealed it was important to follow the policy related to the storage and labeling of medications for the safety of the residents. Interview with the Unit Manager, on 03/21/19 at 4:14 PM, revealed it was important to follow facility policy related to the storage and labeling of medications for the safety of the residents. Per interview, medications received from outside sources such as Hospitals should be replaced by medications from the facility pharmacy as per policy. Continued interview revealed nurses should date medications at the time they were opened, in order for staff to know the expiration date of the medications. Per interview, it was important to know the expiration date in order to follow the manufacturer's guidelines related to discarding medication after expiration. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 03/21/19 at 4:30 PM, revealed it was a nursing standard of practice and it was also facility policy to date multidose medications when opened. Per interview, it was important for the safety of the residents to ensure expired medications were not administered. The DON stated residents may bring in medications such as eye drops from the hospital upon admit or re-admit to the facility and these medications were sometimes used for a day or two (2) until new medications were received from the facility pharmacy. However, further interview revealed it was facility protocol to use medications supplied by the facility pharmacy. Per interview, it was her expectation for staff to follow facility policy regarding storage and labeling of medications. Interview with the Administrator, on 02/21/19 at 4:45 PM, revealed it was her expectation for staff to label medications appropriately with the open date at the time the medications were opened in order to be able to identify when medications would expire and to dispose of expired medications. Continued interview revealed she would also expect staff to replace hospital medications with medications from the facility pharmacy. Continued interview revealed it was her expectation for all staff to follow facility policy related to medication storage and labeling of medications. Per interview, staff was expected to to be knowledgeable related to proper handling of medication and knowledgeable of the facility policy regarding medication storage.
Apr 2018 7 deficiencies
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.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 41% turnover. Below Kentucky's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 5 life-threatening violation(s), $185,227 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 23 deficiencies on record, including 5 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $185,227 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Kentucky. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 5 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Signature Healthcare At Heritage Hall Rehab & Well's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & Well an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Kentucky, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Signature Healthcare At Heritage Hall Rehab & Well Staffed?

CMS rates Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & Well's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Kentucky average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Signature Healthcare At Heritage Hall Rehab & Well?

State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & Well during 2018 to 2023. These included: 5 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 18 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Signature Healthcare At Heritage Hall Rehab & Well?

Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & Well is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 94 certified beds and approximately 82 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Lawrenceburg, Kentucky.

How Does Signature Healthcare At Heritage Hall Rehab & Well Compare to Other Kentucky Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kentucky, Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & Well's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Signature Healthcare At Heritage Hall Rehab & Well?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Signature Healthcare At Heritage Hall Rehab & Well Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & Well has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Kentucky. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Signature Healthcare At Heritage Hall Rehab & Well Stick Around?

Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & Well has a staff turnover rate of 41%, which is about average for Kentucky nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Signature Healthcare At Heritage Hall Rehab & Well Ever Fined?

Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & Well has been fined $185,227 across 1 penalty action. This is 5.3x the Kentucky average of $34,931. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Signature Healthcare At Heritage Hall Rehab & Well on Any Federal Watch List?

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