Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab

2770 Palumbo Drive, Lexington, KY 40509 (859) 263-2410
For profit - Individual 120 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#234 of 266 in KY
Last Inspection: January 2023

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

Overview

Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the quality of care provided. They rank #234 out of 266 facilities in Kentucky, placing them in the bottom half, and #11 out of 13 in Fayette County, meaning only two local options are worse. Although the facility's issues have improved from 30 in 2023 to just 2 in 2025, the overall situation remains troubling, with critical incidents including a resident eloping through a disabled window alarm and inadequate supervision for residents at risk of falls. Staffing is below average with a 2/5 star rating and a high turnover rate of 59%, which is concerning as it can affect continuity of care. Additionally, fines of $255,922 are much higher than 96% of Kentucky facilities, suggesting persistent compliance problems and a lack of adequate RN coverage, being lower than 86% of the state facilities.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Kentucky
#234/266
Bottom 13%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
30 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
59% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$255,922 in fines. Higher than 91% of Kentucky facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Kentucky. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
37 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 30 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Kentucky average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 59%

13pts above Kentucky avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $255,922

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Staff turnover is elevated (59%)

11 points above Kentucky average of 48%

The Ugly 37 deficiencies on record

4 life-threatening 3 actual harm
Aug 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's job description, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff followed the standard of care for medication...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's job description, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff followed the standard of care for medication administration for 1 of 4 sampled residents, Resident (R) 57. Observation on 08/07/2025 revealed the North Unit Nurse Manager prepared medications for R57. She then transferred the cup of pills to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2, who administered the medications to the resident. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration by Route or Dosage Form, undated, revealed no specific guidelines for more than one nurse administering medications to a single resident. Review of the facility's job description Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), undated, revealed LPNs were expected to only administer medications personally prepared and did not leave medications at the bedside without an order to do so.Observation of medication administration with the North Unit Manager (UM) on 08/06/2025 at 8:30 AM revealed she prepared 14 medications for R57. R57's assigned staff nurse, LPN2, walked to the storage room twice during this time to obtain a nutrition supplement. After the North Unit UM had placed the pills in the medication cup, she handed it to LPN2, who had returned to the room entrance and immediately administered the medications to the resident, who was sitting just inside the door to the room. During interview with the North Unit UM on 08/06/2025 at 8:41 AM, she stated she would have to check the policy to determine whether one nurse preparing medications to be administered by another nurse was appropriate. During interview with LPN6 on 08/07/2025 at 8:50 AM, she stated it was not the acceptable standard of care to prepare medication and hand it to another staff to give or to administer medications prepared by another nurse. During interview with LPN10 on 08/07/2025 at 10:00 AM, she stated it was never an accepted standard of practice to prepare medications and hand them to someone else to give. She stated it was also unacceptable for staff to give medications they did not prepare because they did not know what was in the cup if they did not prepare the medications. She stated that was not a safe practice.During interview with LPN12 on 08/07/2025 at 10:45 AM, she stated it was not accepted practice to prepare and then hand medications to someone else to give due to safety issues.During a joint interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrative Assistant (interim Administrator) on 08/08/2025 at 1:45 PM, the DON stated her expectation was that nursing staff would prepare and administer medications to residents individually and would not hand medications to another staff member to give to a resident. She stated if a nurse received medications prepared by someone else, it was not safe because they would not know if it was the right medication for the right resident. The Administrative Assistant stated his expectation was that staff would follow the facility's policies.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had a right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homeli...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had a right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. Observations on 08/04/2025 and 08/07/2025 of three areas of the facility revealed stained and unraveled carpet. The findings include:The State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor requested an environmental policy from the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/08/2025 at 8:46 AM; however, the only documents provided were blank cleaning logs.Observation upon the initial entry to the facility on [DATE] at 3:00 PM revealed the carpet in the front lobby was overall dirty, visibly stained in multiple areas, and unraveling near the front reception desk.Observation on 08/04/2025 at 3:19 PM revealed the carpet on the North Hall was visibly stained in multiple areas throughout the unit. Observation on 08/07/2025 at 3:57 PM revealed the carpet on the South Hall was visibly stained in multiple areas throughout the unit. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 4 on 08/08/2025 at 9:59 AM, she stated it was important the carpets were clean in the facility, so dust and dirt were eliminated; and it was just overall unhealthy. RN4 further stated it made a bad first impression when people walked into the facility, and the first thing they noticed were visibly stained and dirty carpets.During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 08/08/2025 at 10:04 AM, she stated it was important the facility and the carpets were clean because the facility was home for the residents, and it should be clean. Additionally, she stated it left a bad impression when visitors or family walked into the facility, and the first thing they noticed were the carpets needed to be cleaned. During an interview with the Administrative Assistant (AA) on 08/08/2025 at 11:48 AM, he stated the facility's carpets should be clean, as well as the entire facility for resident safety related to infection prevention concerns. During an interview with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) on 08/06/2025 at 10:33 AM, he stated he was not clinical and was unaware of any standard practices for infection control. He stated he had recently replaced carpeting in the resident rooms, but the entire carpet replacement was a two-phase project that had not yet been completed due to the facility's financial trouble when he took over leadership a few years ago. The CEO further stated he had received three or four quotes from different companies to replace the carpet at the facility.
Sept 2023 13 deficiencies 2 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

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 ha...

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 have an effective system to develop and implement care plans with individualized person-centered interventions, to include adequate supervision and monitoring for residents at risk for elopement; and for residents with a history of falls, for seven (7) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Residents #1, #3, #18, #22, #24, #25, and #26). 1. Resident #1 eloped from the facility on 07/27/2023 without staffs' knowledge. The resident disabled a window alarm in his/her room and climbed out the window. Resident #1 was found at a nearby convenience store approximately forty-five (45) minutes later. Resident #1 had to cross two (2) busy roads with heavy traffic to get to the convenience store. 2. In addition, the facility failed to have an effective system to develop and implement comprehensive care plans with individualized person-centered interventions to evaluate falls and perform root cause analysis of the falls in order to implement individualized interventions, and to monitor the effectiveness of the interventions to prevent additional falls for six (6) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents (Residents #3, #18, #22, #24, #25, and #26). a). Resident #3 sustained a fall on 06/20/2023, from a wheelchair while unattended. The resident was transferred to a local hospital for evaluation, where he/she was evaluated to have a nasal fracture and a subdural hematoma. However, there were no intervetions in place to address the resident's impaired cognition and need to increase supervision and monitoring. b). Resident #24 was found by staff sitting in a chair on 06/25/2023, with pain and swelling to his/her right knee. The resident reported he/she had fallen from the bed during a self-transfer. Resident #24 was transferred to a local hospital where he/she was diagnosed with a right femur fracture. Resident #24 had to have surgery to repair the right femur fracture. c). Resident #26 sustained falls on 06/14/2023, 06/17/2023, 07/02/2023, 07/25/2023, 07/28/2023, two (2) falls on 08/02/2023; and, on 08/15/2023, a total of eight (8) falls. The fall on 07/02/2023 was due to a self-transfer attempt which resulted in fractures to Resident #26's right radius and ulna (bones of the forearm), as well as a fracture to radius ulna and nasal bone. However, Resident #26's care plan revealed no docuemted evidence of person-centered interventions to prevent falls related to the root cause of each fall. d). Resident #22 had falls on 07/07/2023, 07/15/2023, and 07/22/2023, which resulted in a right orbital blowout fracture. Review of the care plan revealed no documeted evidence of person-centered care plan interventions to address Resident #22's implaired cognition and need for increased supervison and monitoring. e). Resident #18 sustained falls from his/her bed twice while attempting to self-transfer from the bed to the wheelchair. On 07/09/2023, Resident #18 was found lying face down on the floor next to his/her bed, with swelling and blood to his/her lip and pain under the left arm. Resident #18 was transferred to the local hospital for evaluation, with no significant injuries evaluated. On 07/29/2023, Resident #18 was again found lying on the floor between the head of the bed and the wheelchair, soiled with feces, injuries noted. f). Resident #25 reported on 07/30/2023, that he/she had fallen the night before, rolling out of bed during care. The resident sustained a knot to the right hip and skin tear to the right elbow as a result of the fall; however, he/she was not sent to the hospital for evaluation. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/11/2023 and again on 09/05/2023 and was determined to exist on 07/27/2023 at 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care (F689) Free from Accidents/Hazards/Supervision/Devices and 42 CFR 483.21 Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans (F656). The IJ is ongoing. Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) was identified at 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care (F689) Free from Accidents/Hazards/Supervision/Devices. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 09/05/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Baseline and Comprehensive Care Plan Development, Implementation, and Revisions, dated 08/01/2019, revealed care plans were used to direct effective and person-centered care that focused on personal preferences, goals, medications, active diagnoses, and services to be received by the resident. Further review revealed if there was a conflict between the resident's rights and safety, the facility would explore care alternatives through a thorough care planning process in which the resident might participate. 1. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/31/2023, with diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Type II Diabetes, and Polyneuropathy. Review of Resident #1's admission MDS dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight (8) which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed the facility failed to complete the Cognitive Patterns Section of the MDS and failed to conduct a BIMS' assessment of the resident. Review of Resident #1's Care Plan dated 08/07/2023, revealed the facility care planned the resident for elopement risk on 04/21/2023, with interventions that included: placement of a Wander Guard bracelet; staff to be aware of the resident's location; and family to provide energy drinks for the resident to discourage wandering. Further review revealed the facility resolved the elopement area of the care plan on 08/04/2023, following the Nurse Practitationer''s determination that Resident #1 was competent to make his/her own decisions. Continued review revealed the care plan was updated on 08/07/2023 to include the resident signing himself/herself out to go to businesses in the surrounding area. However, there was no documented evidence the facility included interventions outlining assessment of Resident #1's current mental status; measures to be taken for the resident's safety while out of the facility; time frames he/she was permitted to be out of the facility; or interventions for diabetes management, such as blood sugar checks and insulin administration scheduling around times the resident was absent from the facility. Observation on 08/09/2023 at 2:14 PM, revealed no visual evidence of energy drinks in Resident #1's room. In an interview at the time of the observation revealed Resident #1 stated he/she did not know what interventions were in his/her care plan. Resident #1 stated he/she made multiple requests for the facility to buy energy drinks for him/her out of the money in his/her account. However, the facility failed to honor the requests. In an interview on 08/12/2023 at 6:46 PM, Certified Nursing Nurse (CNA) #9 stated she did not know what interventions were in Resident #1's care plan as far as elopement preventions, other than placement of a Wander Guard bracelet. Per CNA #9, she did not know if providing Resident #1 with an energy drink was an intervention in his/her care plan to prevent elopement. However, she did know the Physician had approved the resident to have one (1) sugar free energy drink per day upon request. CNA #9 further stated the importance of developing and following a care plan was to make sure the resident was safe, and for facility staff to know the resident's needs. In an interview on 08/08/2023 at 4:31 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 stated prior to Resident #1's elopement on 07/27/2023, his/her care plan included interventions such as having a sugar-free energy drink available for the resident and keeping a Wander Guard bracelet in place. She stated Resident #1 had not been care planned for specific monitoring such as fifteen (15) minute checks or 1:1 observation prior to his/her elopement. LPN #1 further stated the importance of care planning was to provide resident-centered care to meet the resident's needs. In an interview on 08/15/2023 at 4:49 PM, LPN #11, who was the Unit Manager of the South Hall, stated on the evening of 08/14/2023, staff reported to her that Resident #1 was attempting to go to the courtyard and they did not know if he/she was allowed to do that. LPN #11 stated she did not know if Resident #1's care plan had been updated to include that the resident was allowed to go to the courtyard without a staff member present. She stated she believed staff were confused with all the changes to Resident #1's care plan because he/she had worn a Wander Guard bracelet for months, then climbed out the window and was under 1:1 observation, and then was allowed to sign himself/herself out of the building. LPN #11 further stated the importance of care planning was to promote resident safety and communicate the residents' needs to staff. In an interview on 08/10/2023 at 10:46 AM, the Activities Director (AD) stated one (1) of her job duties was to go to the store for residents who had specific requests for items to be purchased with money from their resident account. The AD stated she rotated which residents she went to the store for each week because there were too many to go for all of them at once. She stated Resident #1 was not on her list of residents for whom she was to shop. The AD further stated she did not know Resident #1's preferences, as he/she was a newer (Resident was admitted in March, 2023) resident in the facility. However, she stated she planned to add the resident to the list of residents she would shop for in the future. In an interview on 08/21/2023 at 3:49 PM, the MDSC (Minimum Data Set Coordinator) stated Resident #1's care plan for exit seeking, prior to his/her elopement on 07/27/2023, was vague and failed to communicate resident specific interventions that would prevent elopement and ensure the safety of the resident. In interview on 08/24/2023 at 4:24 PM, the MDS Nurse stated all residents were identified as fall risks when admitted to the facility and basic interventions were implemented such as non-skid foot wear, and call light within reach at that time. The MDS Nurse further stated more interventions were put in place once a resident sustained falls. In an interview on 08/14/2023 at 8:23 AM, the Medical Director stated he did not know if providing energy drinks was included in Resident #1's care plan as an intervention to prevent elopement. He stated he believed Resident #1 was also motivated to go to the gas station for socialization, as well as for the energy drinks and cigarettes. The Medical Director further stated he should have been more proactive in contributing to care plan interventions for Resident #1, such as setting a time limit on the resident's absences to ensure the resident received his/her prescribed insulin doses and blood sugar monitoring for Diabetes. In an interview on 08/11/2023 at 9:46 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility told Resident #1's daughter she could bring in energy drinks for her parent; however, the facility did not provide those beverages. She stated the IDT (Interdiscplinary Team) discussed safety interventions for Resident #1 when he/she signed out of the facility independently to include signing out at the nurse's station and/or front desk, telling staff where he/she was going, and ensuring the resident had his/her cell phone in his/her pocket. However, the DON stated the IDT team had failed to include those interventions in Resident #1's care plan as a means to communicate the interventions to staff. She stated therefore, not everyone would have been aware of the safety measures which should have been in place for Resident #1. In an additional interview on 08/24/2023 at 12:19 PM, the DON stated her expectation was for residents' care plans to contain any focus assessments or conditions pertaining to the resident so the facility could have a plan and interventions to communicate the plan of care. In an interview on 08/24/2023 at 3:03 PM, the Administrator stated her expectation was for care plans to be comprehensive and resident centered. She stated the purpose of residents' care plans was to communicate the resident's care needs to staff. The Administrator stated care plan interventions for exit-seeking residents should be developed to address the root cause of the exit-seeking behavior for that particular resident. 2. Review of Resident #3's face sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/08/2022, with diagnoses that included Hemiplegia to the right side, Diabetes, and Cerebral Infarction. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 09/08/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eleven (11) out of fifteen (15) which indicated moderately impaired cognition. Continued review revealed the facility assessed Resident #3's Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) as one (1) person assist with his/her unsteady balance. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #3's mobility assist device as a manual wheelchair with substantial assistance needed. Review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed Resident #3 to have a BIMS' score of seven (7) out of fifteen (15) which indicted severely impaired cognition. Continued review revealed the facility assessed Resident #3's ADL status as requiring one (1) to (2) person extensive assistance. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #3's mobility as totally dependent per a manual wheelchair. Review of Resident #3's comprehensive care plan (CCP) dated 09/09/2022, revealed the facility identified the resident as a fall's risk with interventions which included: anticipate and meet the resident's needs; call light within reach and encourage use of assistance as needed; and wear proper footwear. Per review of the CCP, Resident #3 was identified on 06/12/2023 as a fall's risk due to right sided weakness and impulsiveness related to Cardiovascular Accident (CVA/stroke) with a revision date of 06/22/2023. Continued review revealed interventions which included: educating the family to alert staff when leaving if the resident was in the chair, and not to close the room door. Further review of the CCP revealed the facility identified Resident #3's safety insight as poor, with interventions implemented on 06/21/2023 for staff to conduct routine visual rounding per routine care task; however, there was no documented evidence of interventions for closer monitoring prior to the resident's fall on 06/20/2023. Additional review of the CCP revealed the facility identified Resident #3 as being cognitively impaired with poor decision-making skills on 06/13/2023. Further review revealed the interventions included observing Resident #3 for mental status changes; however, there was no documented evidence of interventions noted to guide direct care staff on what actions to take if observations of mental status changes were made; how often to make observations; or who to report their observations to. In interview, on 08/10/2023 at 1:30 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated care plans were maps of care for residents and everyone should be looking at them. She stated the Kardexes (direct care staff plans of care) were updated, and all staff were taught to check those each day. The DON further stated there was no process for auditing to determine if staff were checking the care plans and Kardexes as instructed; however, there was ongoing training and in-services provided. Review of the Nursing admission Data Collection form, dated 09/08/2022, revealed the facility assessed Resident #3 as a fall risk due to falls within three (3) months of admission, elimination with assistance, ambulated with problems/devices, and could not achieve balance without physical help. Review of the Fall Risk Assessment for Resident #3 dated 06/20/2023 at 3:57 PM, revealed the facility scored the resident as a six (6), which indicated he/she was a high risk for falls. Review of the Progress Notes for Resident #3 dated 06/14/2023 through 06/19/2023 revealed the resident was documented to have confusion. Continued review revealed no documented evidence the Physician was notified of Resident #3's confusion. Review of the Occupational Therapy (OT) note dated 06/14/2023, revealed during Activities of Daily Living (ADL) retraining Resident #3 required maximum assist with verbal cues. Review of the facility's Fall Scene Investigation Report dated 06/20/2023 at 4:02 PM, revealed Resident #3 was found lying on the floor in his/her room after ambulating alone and unattended. Continued review revealed Resident #3's mental status prior to the fall was confused and having decreased awareness. Further review revealed the Fall Prevention Book was to be updated. In an interview on 08/29/2023 at 2:25 PM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) at 2:25 PM, and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 at 2:40 PM, revealed the facility had no Fall Intervention Books which were noted on the 06/20/2023, Fall Scene Investigation Report. Review of Resident #3's Progress Note dated 06/20/2023 at 3:12 PM, revealed the Unit Manager was called to the resident's room after a CNA found him/her lying on the floor at the foot of the bed. Review of the Progress Note, dated 06/20/2023 at 4:03 PM, revealed the Primary Care Provider (PCP) was notified with a recommendation to send Resident #3 to the Emergency Department (ED). The facility transferred the resident to the ED. Review of the Progress Note, dated 06/21/2023 at 11:03 AM, revealed Resident #3 had been admitted to the hospital with a broken nose and subdural hematoma. Review of the Pain Evaluation dated 06/20/2023 at 4:02 PM, for Resident #3 revealed the Wong-Baker face scale for pain was utilized for assessing the resident's pain. Continued review of the Pain Evaluation revealed hurts even more with moaning and facial grimacing were marked on the form as well as, pain increasing with movement with the likely cause of the pain being the fall. Review of the local hospital records for Resident #3 dated 06/20/2023, revealed a Computerized Tomography (CT) scan was performed on the resident at 4:56 PM, of his/her head and facial bones. Review of the findings revealed an acute thin subdural hematoma and acute minimally displaced fracture of the nasal bone indicated from a frontal head injury. Observation of Resident #3 on 08/08/2023 at 9:25 AM and at 1:50 PM; and on 08/29/2023 at 2:30 PM revealed the resident alone in his/her room without supervision of staff nearby. Continued observation on 08/31/2023 at 11:55 AM, revealed Resident #3 sitting in the common area alone and unattended and no device observed to call for assistance if needed. In interview on 08/09/2023 at 12:55 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #38 stated she went by what she was told in shift report and did not always look at residents' Kardex for their care needs. In interview on 08/08/2023 at 9:30 AM with CNA #2 and at 4:30 PM with LPN #1 they stated Resident #3 could only respond to yes and no questions. In interview on 08/28/2023 at 4:06 PM, LPN #7 stated she had been told in report by night shift staff that during the night on 06/19/2023, Resident #3 had attempted to get out of bed two (2) times by placing his/her feet on the floor. She stated staff were constantly needing to remind Resident #3 to not get up and to call for help. The LPN stated on 06/20/2023, she thought Resident #3 had simply just stood up and tried to walk when he/she sustained the fall. She further stated that day staff had brought Resident #3 had brought him/her out into the common area to keep an eye on him/her until his/her daughter arrived. In interview with CNA #20 on 08/29/2023 at 1:15 PM, she stated she attempted to round more often on residents who had low BIMS scores; however, got busy and could not always do that. In an interview with CNA #16 on 08/28/2023 at 4:46 PM, she stated due to staffing shortages she no longer worked at the facility. She stated there were other residents besides Resident #3 who needed closer supervision residing at the facility. In an interview on 08/30/2023 at 9:55 AM, the Activities Director (AD) stated Resident #3 would not be safe to self-transfer and was seated in the common area due to concerns of his/her getting up without staff. She stated Resident #3 probably needed closer supervision due to his/her inability to remember instructions. In an interview with the ADON on 08/31/2023 at 2:11 PM, she stated the facility's documentation did not reveal a root cause analysis for Resident #3's fall sustained on 06/20/2023. She stated she was not that familiar with the incident since it had happened on the Rehabilitation Unit. 3. Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 02/02/2022, with diagnoses that included Dementia, Repeated Falls, Atrial Fibrillation, and urinary and bowel incontinence. Review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed Resident #24 to have a BIMS score of five (5) out of fifteen (15) which indicated he/she was severely cognitively impaired. Continued review revealed the facility assessed Resident #24's ADLs status as requiring the assistance of one (1) staff for transfers, walking, and toilet use. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #24's balance as unsteady and the resident was only able to stabilize with human assistance. In addition, record review revealed the facility assessed the resident to utilize a wheelchair for mobility. Review of the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of three (3) out of fifteen (15), also indicating severely impaired cognition. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident's balance as being only able to stabilize with human assistance. Review of Resident #24's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated 02/04/2022, revealed the facility identified the resident as a fall risk with interventions implemented on 02/07/2023, anti-roll back devices to his/her wheelchair for safety. Per review, additional interventions included toileting the resident every two (2) to three (3) hours with CNA rounds; however, with no revision date noted. Continued review revealed on 08/15/2023, Resident #24's care plan was revised with anti-roll-back devices, encourage, and remind the resident to use the call light. Further review of Resident #24's CCP revealed the facility also identified the resident as having impaired cognition related to Dementia on 06/30/2023, with interventions which included observations for any changes in the resident's cognitive function. However, there was no documented interventions informing staff what action to take if observations were made of changes resident's cognition. Further review of Resident #24's CCP revealed the facility identified the resident as having bowel and bladder incontinence which had been initiated on 02/17/2022 and revised on 01/18/2023. Review of the bowel and bladder incontinence care plan further revealed interventions implemented on 02/22/2022, and revised on 04/20/2023, which included to check and change the resident every two (2) hours. Review of the Progress Note, dated 03/21/2023, revealed Resident #24's Dementia was a contributing factor for his/her recurrent falls as he/she was uneducable and unable to remember to lock his/her brakes on the wheelchair, use the call light, or ask for assistance. Review of Resident #24's Fall Risk Assessments dated 03/19/2023 and 04/21/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a score of twelve (12) indicating he/she was a high fall risk. Review of the facility's Incident Report dated 06/25/2023 at 3:00 PM, revealed Resident #24 had been found to be sitting on his/her bottom on the floor by the bed with injury to his/her right knee. Continued review of the Report revealed the facility identified predisposing factors included for Resident #24 which included confusion, incontinence, gait imbalance, impaired memory, and ambulating without assistance. Review of the Fall Risk Assessment for Resident #24, dated 06/25/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a score of ten (10) indicating he/she was a high fall risk. Review of the facility's Fall Risk Evaluation dated 06/25/2023 at 3:31 PM, revealed Resident #24's cognition was baseline. Continued review revealed the resident had sustained falls since admission; required staff assistance with elimination; and was only able to stabilize for toilet use with staff's assistance. Review of the Progress Note dated 06/25/2023 at 3:30 PM, revealed upon assessment of Resident #24's right knee the resident complained of pain, and the knee was observed to be very swollen, with the resident unable to bear weight on that leg. Continued review revealed Resident #24 was transported to a local hospital for evaluation. Review of Resident #24's Progress Note, dated 06/27/2023 at 9:19 AM, provided by the DON, revealed right before the resident sustained the fall, he/she had been lying on his/her bed asleep. Continued review revealed the resident self-reported falling from his/her bed. Review of the hospital records, dated 06/25/2023, revealed Resident #24 received right knee/femur imaging performed at 7:35 PM, with the findings of the imaging noted as a fracture to the right femur. Continued review of the hospital records revealed Resident #24 underwent surgery for right femur nailing (procedure to stabilize the femoral bone) on 06/26/2023. Further review revealed Resident #24 was discharged and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Observation on 08/31/2023 at 2:15 PM, revealed Resident #24 sitting up unattended in a wheelchair with anti-roll back devices which he/she was moving about throughout facility. In interview on 08/31/2023 at 10:15 AM, CNA # 29 stated Resident #24 did not have a device to his/her wheelchair to prevent it from tilting, such as anti-roll backs. She stated the resident was confused and she tried to check on him/her frequently due to confusion. In interview on 08/30/2023 at 9:55 AM, the AD stated Resident #24 would just get up when he/she wanted to, and she felt the resident would never be safe enough to self-transfer. She further stated she would instruct staff regarding that information. In interview on 08/31/2023 at 2:11 PM, the ADON stated the RCA (Root Cause Analysis) for Resident #24's fall on 06/25/2023 was determined to have been his/her attempting to self-transfer and rolled out of bed while doing so. She further stated the RCA for Resident #24's other falls had been his/her attempting to self-transfer and his/her impulsiveness. In interview on 09/05/2023 at 11:35 AM, the DON stated a Fall Scene Investigation Report had not been performed on 06/25/2023, for Resident #24 fall. However, the entries documented in the Progress Notes was how the event occurred. 4. Review of Resident #26's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/12/2023, with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and Repeated Falls. Review of Resident #26's admission MDS Assessment, dated 05/22/2023, revealed no documented evidence the facility assessed the resident with a BIMS' score. Continued review revealed the facility assessed Resident #26 to require one (1) person physical assist when transferring between surfaces and when toileting. Review of Resident #26's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of seven (7) out of a possible fifteen (15), which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility again assessed Resident #26 to require one (1) person physical assist when transferring between surfaces and when toileting. Review of Resident #26's Care Plan dated 08/15/2023, revealed the facility identified the resident at risk for falls on 05/12/2023. Interventions included: Physical and Occupational Therapy (PT/OT) evaluations and treatment; conduct rounds per routine care task to determine additional safety cueing; ensure the resident used a walker for ambulation; and ensure the resident wore nonskid footwear during transfers. Continued review revealed the interventions included: placing a nightlight in his/her room; offering toileting before meals; and applying red tape to call light to remind resident to ask for assistance. Review of Resident #26's medical record revealed the resident sustained falls on 06/14/2023; 06/17/2023; 07/02/2023; 07/25/2023; 07/28/2023; on 08/02/2023 at 5:33 PM and 9:15 PM; and on 08/15/2023. Review of the facility's Fall Scene Investigation Report dated 06/14/2023 at 1:36 PM, revealed Resident #26 attempted to self-transfer back into the bed from too far away, causing the resident to fall to the floor. Continued review revealed the facility's initial interventions were to re-educate Resident #26 on asking for assistance when needed, and educating the resident on checking to make sure he/she was close enough to the object before sitting down. Review of Resident #26's Care Plan revealed no documented evidence of the interventions the facility identified for the resident after the 06/14/2023 fall. The interventions were to re-educate the resident to ask for assistance when needed; and, to check to ensure he/she was close enough to the object he/she was transferring to. Review of the facility's Fall Scene Investigation Report dated 06/17/2023 at 2:05 PM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 witnessed Resident #26 walking in the hallway with a cane, lose his/her balance and fall to the floor. Continued review revealed Resident #26 sustained no injury. Review of Resident #26's Care Plan revealed on 06/19/2023, the facility implemented an intervention for staff to ensure the resident had a walker when ambulating. Review of the facility's Fall Scene Investigation Report dated 07/02/2023 at 11:45 PM, revealed CNA #36 and LPN #8 found Resident #26 lying on the floor at the foot of his/her roommate's bed, near the bathroom, covered in blood. Review of Resident #26's hospital records dated 07/09/2023, revealed the resident was admitted to the hospital on [DATE], for fractures to his/her left radius and ulna, as well as nasal fractures due to a fall. Review of Resident #26's Care Plan revealed on 07/03/2023, the facility implemented an intervention of a night light to the resident's room for safety. Review further revealed however, no documented evidence the facility developed Resident #26's care plan to include interventions to address the resident's attempt to self-toilet. Review of Resident #26's Fall Scene Investigation Report dated 07/25/2023 at 2:06 AM, revealed LPN #14 found the resident sitting on the floor, leaning against the bathroom door. Review of Resident #26's Care Plan revealed on 07/25/2023, the facility implemented an intervention for having Resident #26 wear nonskid footwear when transferring. However, continued review revealed no documented evidence the facility developed interventions to address the resident's attempt to self-toilet as the cause of the fall. Review of the facility's Fall Scene Investigation Report dated 07/28/2023 at 2:30 PM, revealed LPN #3 found Resident #26 lying on the floor beside his/her bed after the resident attempted to self-transfer. Review of Resident #26's Progress Note documented dated 07/28/2023 at 2:41 PM, documented by LPN #3 revealed the resident told her he/she slid out of the lift chair while attempting to transfer to his/her bed. Continued review revealed LPN #3 re-educated Resident #26 to ask for assistance with transferring. Review of Resident #26's Care Plan revealed on 07/28/2023, the facility implemented an intervention of
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 policies, it was determined the facility failed to ...

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 policies, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure adequate supervision and monitoring to prevent elopements for one (1), Resident #1; and falls for six (6), Residents #3, #18, #22, #24, #25 and #26, of thirty-three (33) sampled residents. The facility failed to have an effective system to ensure adequate supervision and monitoring; and failed to develop and follow care plan interventions to prevent elopement for Resident #1. The facility was notified of the IJ at 42 CFR 483.25, Quality of Care, F689, Supervision to Prevent Accidents and 42 CFR 483.21, Comprehensive Care Plans, F656, Develop and Implement on 08/11/2023, which was determined to exist on 07/27/2023. 1. On 04/20/2023, Resident #1 attempted to exit the building by walking out of the front door of the facility. At that time, the facility failed to assess the resident's cognition. However, as a measure to prevent elopement, the facility placed a Wander Guard bracelet on the resident. Further, the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure the resident's window alarm, which alerted staff when opened, was checked routinely. Subsequently, the resident exited the facility, without staff knowledge, by disabling a window alarm in his/her room and climbed out of the window, on 07/27/2023. The resident was missing from the facility for approximately forty-five (45) minutes and was found at a nearby convenience store. The resident had to cross two (2) roads with heavy traffic to get to the store. In addition, the facility failed to have an effective system to determine the root cause: evaluate falls: implement individualized interventions, and to monitor their effectiveness to prevent additional falls for six (6) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Residents #3, #18, #22, #24, #25, and #26). 2. Resident #3 had a fall from a wheelchair on 06/20/2023, while unattended. The facility transferred the resident to a local hospital for evaluation. The hospital assessed Resident #1 to have a nasal fracture and a subdural hematoma. 3. The facility found Resident #24 sitting in a chair on 06/25/2023. The resident was noted to have pain/swelling to his/her right knee. Resident #24 reported he/she had fallen from the bed during a self-transfer. The resident was transferred to a local hospital; the radiology findings revealed a right femur fracture. The resident had surgery to repair the right femur fracture. 4. Resident #26 had falls on 06/14/2023, 06/17/2023, 07/02/2023, 07/25/2023, 07/28/2023, twice on 08/02/2023 and 08/15/2023. The fall on 07/02/2023 was due to a self-transfer attempt which resulted in fractures to the resident's right radius and ulna, as well as, a fracture to the nasal bone. 5. Resident #22 had falls on 07/07/2023, 07/15/2023, and 07/22/2023, which resulted in a right orbital blowout fracture. The fall on 07/22/2023 occurred while the resident was unattended and attempted to self-transfer. 6. Resident #18 had a fall from his/her bed twice while attempting to self-transfer from the bed to the wheelchair. On 07/09/2023, the facility found the resident face down on the floor next to the bed. The fall resulted in swelling and blood to the resident's lip and pain under his/her left arm. The facility transferred Resident #18 to the local hospital for evaluation, with no significant injuries found. Subsequently, on 07/29/2023, Resident #18 was found on the floor between the head of the bed and the wheelchair, soiled with feces. 7. Resident #25 reported, on 07/30/2023, that he/she had fallen the night before, on 07/29/2023, rolling out of the bed while staff assisted with the resident's care. The resident sustained a knot to the right hip and a skin tear to the right elbow. The incident; however, was not reported until 07/30/2023. Substandard Quality of Care was identified at 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care; (F689) Free from Accidents/Hazards/Supervision/Devices. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 08/11/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Elopement/Unsafe Wandering Risk Evaluations, not dated, revealed the facility ensured each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents, including elopement. Further review revealed elopement was defined as when a resident left the facility without authorization or supervision, usually without staff knowledge. 1. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #1, on 03/31/2023, with diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Type II Diabetes, and Polyneuropathy. Review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 04/10/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight (8) of fifteen (15) which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/05/2023, revealed the facility failed to assess the resident with a BIMS score, a cognitive assessment. Review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), dated 08/07/2023, revealed the facility care planned Resident #1 for an elopement risk, on 04/21/2023. Interventions included: placement of a Wander Guard bracelet, staff to be aware of resident's location, and family to provide energy drinks to resident to discourage wandering. Review of Resident #1's Progress Note, dated 04/20/2023, revealed the facility identified Resident #1 as an elopement risk when he/she attempted to exit the front door. Further review revealed the resident stated he/she wanted to go to the store to purchase cigarettes and an energy drink. Review of the Note revealed the facility failed to perform a cognitive assessment at that time. However, the facility placed a Wander Guard bracelet (a device placed on the resident that would trigger an alarm to sound if the resident exited a door equipped with an alarm) on Resident #1 as an elopement prevention measure. Review of Resident #1's Incident Report, dated 07/27/2023, revealed on 07/27/2023 at approximately 9:30 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #10 noted Resident #1 was not in his/her bed and initiated a Code Green. This code was used for a missing resident. Further review revealed CNA #9 located Resident #1 at a local gas station and brought him/her back to the facility at 10:15 PM, approximately forty-five (45) minutes after Resident #1 was noted to be missing. Further review revealed Resident #1 disabled the window alarm so staff would not hear him/her leave. Continued review revealed the facility assessed the resident to be free from injury upon return to the facility. Review of the weather data, according to www.weatherunderground.com, revealed on 07/27/2023 at 9:54 PM, the temperature in the area was eighty-six (86) degrees Fahrenheit with clear skies. Observation of the route to the gas station revealed it was seven-tenths (0.7) of a mile from the facility, crossing two (2) roads with heavy traffic. In an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:14 PM, Resident #1 stated, on 07/27/2023, he/she turned off the alarm on the window of his/her room and climbed out the window to get an energy drink and some cigarettes from the local gas station. He/she stated that prior to the night he/she climbed out the window, he/she had asked facility staff to take his/her money and buy him/her an energy drink, but they never provided the energy drink as requested. Resident #1 stated the first time he/she tried to exit the facility through the front door, facility staff told him/her that he/she was not allowed to leave the facility but did not explain why he/she was not allowed to leave. Per the interview, the nurses talked to the resident a few days after he/she came back to the facility and told the resident that he/she was allowed to leave the facility if he/she signed out and told staff where he/she was going. In an interview on 08/14/2023 at 4:42 PM, CNA #10 stated she was working the night Resident #1 eloped and had seen him/her in the courtyard at approximately 8:30 PM on 07/27/2023. She further stated she went to Resident #1's room while conducting routine resident care rounds at approximately 9:30 PM and noted the resident was not in his/her bed, so CNA #10 checked the courtyard. Per the interview, when she did not see Resident #1 in the courtyard, she informed the nurse, and they called the Code Green, the code for a missing resident. In further interview, CNA #10 stated Resident #1 often asked for an energy drink and cigarettes, and she believed if the resident had those items available in the facility, he/she would not have eloped. In an interview on 08/12/2023 at 6:46 PM, CNA #9 stated Resident #1 frequently asked for cigarettes and an energy drink, so when CNA #9 heard Resident #1 was not found in the building or on the grounds on 07/27/2023, she told Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 that she believed the resident might be at the local gas station. She stated she drove her car down to look for him/her. CNA #9 stated she found Resident #1 sitting on the curb at the gas station, smoking a cigarette, and drinking an energy drink. In further interview, CNA #9 stated the physician approved Resident #1 to receive one (1) sugar-free energy drink per day, due to his/her diabetes and heart conditions. However, she stated she was not sure how the energy drinks were made available to the resident or what was in the care plan about the process. CNA #9 stated Resident #1 had worn a Wander Guard bracelet as long as she had worked at the facility. However, she stated she was not sure why Resident #1 wore the Wander Guard bracelet. In an interview on 08/10/2023, LPN #3 stated she was working on 04/20/2023 and recalled Resident #1 attempting to exit through the front doors. She stated she redirected Resident #1 back to his/her room and after consulting with management, placed a Wander Guard bracelet on Resident #1 to alert staff if he/she attempted to exit through the doors. In an interview on 08/08/2023 at 4:31 PM, LPN #1 stated she was working on the South Hall on 07/27/2023 when Resident #1 eloped. She further stated when CNA #10 told her Resident #1 was not in his/her bed and the window was open, staff called a Code Green. She stated CNA #9 drove to the gas station where she found Resident #1 and brought him/her back to the facility. In an interview on 08/21/2023 at 3:23 PM, the Maintenance Director stated he did not perform routine inspections of window alarms, because that duty was assigned to housekeeping. In an interview, on 08/21/2023 at 3:31 PM, the Housekeeping Supervisor stated it was the responsibility of the housekeeping staff to check the window alarms. In further interview, she stated, prior to 07/27/2023, the housekeeping staff checked the batteries and the function of the window alarms twice per year by raising the window to check if the alarm sounded. The Housekeeping Supervisor stated the current owners of the facility did not have a policy on how often the batteries should be checked. In an interview on 08/14/2023 at 8:23 AM, the Medical Director (MD) stated the facility contacted him when Resident #1 eloped on 07/27/2023. He further stated his recommendations at that time were to ensure the resident remained in the building until the IDT met to discuss the resident. In further interview, the MD stated the facility was ultimately responsible for Resident #1 while he/she was a resident within the facility. In an interview on 08/11/2023 at 9:46 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident #1 first tried to exit the front door of the facility on 04/20/2023 to go to the gas station the resident was familiar with from the neighborhood near the facility where his/her daughter lived. The DON stated she told Resident #1 and his/her daughter, at that time, that the resident would not be allowed to walk out of the facility on his/her own due to his/her admission BIMS assessment that indicated cognitive impairment. The DON further stated the facility's process for determining if a resident was capable of making his/her own decisions was to look at the BIMS' score. The DON stated if the BIMS score was an eight (8) or below, the facility would not consider the resident to be mentally competent. In further interview, the DON stated when staff members noted Resident #1 was not in his/her bed on 07/27/2023, they knew where to look for the resident because the resident had previously stated he/she had frequented that gas station prior to admission to the facility. The DON further stated she worried about Resident #1 when he/she was out of the facility. In an interview, on 08/24/2023 at 3:03 PM, the Administrator stated the facility determined Resident #1 eloped from the facility on 07/27/2023 through the window in his/her room to go get energy drinks and cigarettes. She further stated, that prior to the resident's admission to the facility, the facility was not aware that Resident #1's daughter allowed the resident to go to the gas station independently, a habit which she stated could have been a contributing factor in his/her elopement. Review of the facility's policy titled, Falls Protocol, revised 03/18/2019, revealed the facility would assess residents for fall risks upon admission, readmission, and with a significant change in medical condition. Per the policy, in the event of an actual fall, an attempt would be made to eliminate the causal factors and prevent further falls. Residents experiencing an actual fall would have the following interventions: neurological checks performed and documented for falls that involved a possible head injury or were unwitnessed, incident investigation completed to determine the root cause of the fall and/or if the event was isolated in nature. Further review revealed implementation of preventative measures prior to the end of the shift based on the incident investigation findings, request of primary care physician (PCP) for x-ray order for any resident alert to self, only with any external signs of an injury after a fall to rule out a possible fracture, and review of the fall at the next Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meeting to assure that the interventions were appropriate, to evaluate the need for any additional preventative measures, and to verify appropriate interventions had been implemented. Further review of the facility's policy titled, Falls Protocol, revised 03/18/2019, revealed the care plan would be revised for any new fall prevention interventions, and the Fall Intervention Book would be updated immediately for staff reference. The policy stated a resident with two (2) falls within a ninety (90) day period would have a review conducted by the IDT regarding all documentation and findings related to previous falls and would discuss this with the resident/family and physician. Per the policy, additional educational interventions utilized for prevention and any refusals related to recommended safety interventions would be documented. 2. Review of Resident #3's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 09/08/2022, with diagnoses to include Hemiplegia to the Right Side, Diabetes, and Cerebral Infarction (Stroke). Review of Resident #3's admission MDS Assessment, dated 06/16/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of seven (7) of fifteen (15), indicating cognition to be severely impaired. A manual wheelchair was assessed on 06/16/2023 for an assistive device with the resident being totally dependent. Review of Resident #3's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), dated 09/09/2022, revealed he/she was identified as a fall risk with interventions in place which included anticipating and meeting the resident's needs, call light within reach and encourage usage for needed assistance, wear proper footwear, and the resident needed a prompt response for assistance. Additional review of Resident #3's CCP revealed the resident was identified on 06/12/2023 as a fall risk due to right sided weakness and impulsiveness due to stroke with revision date of 06/22/2023. Interventions were placed for educating family to alert staff when leaving if resident was in his/her chair and not to close the door. Continued review of the CCP revealed the resident's safety insight was poor, with interventions placed on 06/21/2023 for staff to conduct routine visual rounding per routine care task; however, no interventions for closer monitoring were indicated on the CCP prior to the fall on 06/20/2023. Review of Resident #3's Fall Scene Investigation Report (FSIR), dated 06/20/2023 at 4:02 PM, revealed Resident #3 was found on the floor in his/her room after ambulating while alone and unattended. The Fall Scene Investigation Report revealed Resident #3's mental status prior to the fall was confused, and the resident had decreased awareness. Continued review of the FSIR revealed the Fall Prevention Book would be updated. However, per interview on 08/29/2023 at 2:25 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 on 08/29/2023 at 2:40 PM, both stated there were no Fall Intervention Books, to update staff on new fall prevention interventions, as noted in the Fall Scene Investigation Report. Review of Resident #3's Progress Note, dated 06/20/2023 at 3:00 PM, revealed Resident #3 was transported to the Emergency Department (ED). Review of Resident #3's Progress Note, dated 06/21/2023 at 11:03 AM, revealed Resident #3 had been admitted to the hospital with a broken nose and a subdural hematoma. Review of Resident #3's Progress Note, dated 06/24/2023 at 10:00 AM, revealed Resident #3 returned to the facility from the hospital. Review of Resident #3's hospital records, dated 06/20/2023, revealed a Computed Tomography (CT) scan of the head and facial bones was performed on 06/20/2023 at 4:56 PM. The findings were an acute thin subdural hematoma and an acute minimally displaced fracture of the nasal bone indicated from a frontal head injury. Observation of Resident #3 on 08/08/2023 at 9:25 AM and at 1:50 PM; and on 08/29/2023 at 2:30 PM, revealed the resident was alone in his/her room without nearby staff. Continued observation on 08/31/2023 at 11:55 AM, revealed Resident #3 was sitting in the common area alone and unattended. In an interview with CNA #2 on 08/08/2023 at 9:30 AM and LPN #1 at 4:30 PM, they stated Resident #3 could only respond to yes and no questions. In an interview with LPN #7, on 08/28/2023 at 4:06 PM, she stated she had been told in report by night shift staff that Resident #3 had attempted to get out of bed two (2) times through the night by placing his/her feet on the floor on the night of 06/19/2023. Review of Resident #3's Medical Record; however, revealed no documented evidence to support staff assessed the resident to determine if his/her interventions were appropriate, to include providing increased supervision and monitoring of the resident when he/she attempted to get out of bed on 06/19/2023. In continued interview, the LPN stated staff constantly needed to remind Resident #3 to not get up and to call for help. She stated she thought Resident #3 had simply stood up and tried to walk when he/she fell. She stated, that on the day of the fall, staff had brought the resident to the common area to keep an eye on him/her until the resident's daughter arrived. In an interview with CNA #20 on 08/29/2023 at 1:15 PM, she said she attempted to round more often on residents who had a low BIMS score. However, she stated when she became busy, she could not always do that. In an interview with the Activities Director on 08/30/2023 at 9:55 AM, she stated Resident #3 would not be safe to self-transfer and would be seated in the common area due to concerns of getting up. She stated Resident #3 probably needed closer supervision because the resident was not able to remember instructions. In an interview with the Assisted Director of Nursing (ADON), on 08/31/2023 at 2:11 PM, she stated documentation did not reveal a root cause analysis for the fall sustained by Resident #3 on 06/20/2023. She stated she was not that familiar with the incident since it had happened on the Rehabilitation Unit. 3. Review of Resident #24's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 02/02/2022, with diagnoses to include Dementia, Repeated Falls, and Urinary and Bowel Incontinence. Review of Resident #24's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 04/28/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of three (3) of fifteen (15), indicating cognition to be severely impaired. Review of the facility's assessment revealed the resident required assistance of one (1) for transfers, walking, and toileting. In addition, the assessment revealed the resident's balance was unsteady, and he/she was only able to stabilize with human assistance. Continued review revealed the facility assessed the resident to require a wheelchair for mobility. Review of Resident #24's CCP, dated 02/04/2022, revealed Resident #24 was identified as a fall risk with interventions placed on 02/07/2023 for antiroll-backs for the wheelchair, with a revision date of 08/15/2023. Additional interventions included toileting every two (2) to three (3) hours with CNA rounds, no revision date noted. The CCP revealed staff were to encourage and remind the resident to use the call light with a revision date of 08/15/2023. Continued review of the CCP revealed Resident #24 was identified as having bowel and bladder incontinence initiated on 02/17/2022 and revised on 01/18/2023. Interventions placed on 02/22/2022 included check and change every two (2) hours with a revision date of 04/20/2023. A review of Resident #24's Falls Risk Assessment, dated 03/19/2023 and 04/21/2023, both revealed a score of twelve (12), indicating a High Fall Risk. A Falls Risk Assessment, dated 06/25/2023 revealed a score of ten (10), indicating a High Fall Risk. Review of Resident #24's Progress Note by the Physician's Assistant, dated 03/21/2023, revealed under assessment and plan, Resident #24's dementia was a contributing factor for recurrent falls as he/she was uneducable and unable to remember to lock the brakes on his/her wheelchair, use the call light and ask for assistance. Review of the resident's care plan; however, revealed staff were to encourage and remind the resident to use his/her care light. There was no documented evidence to support the facility reviewed the resident's care plan, on 03/21/2023, to ensure that the interventions were appropriate, evaluated for the need for additional preventative measures, and verified that appropriate interventions were implemented, as the resident was uneducable and was unable to remember. Review of Resident #24's Incident Report, dated 06/25/2023 at 3:00 PM, revealed Resident #24 was noted to be sitting on his/her bottom on the floor by his/her bed with an injury to the right knee. The report identified predisposing factors included confusion, incontinence, gait imbalance, impaired memory, and ambulating without assistance. Review of Resident #24's Progress Note, dated 06/25/2023 at 3:30 PM, revealed upon assessment of the right knee, the resident complained of pain. The note stated the right knee was noted to be very swollen, and the resident was unable to bear weight to the right leg. The note stated Resident #24 was transported to the local hospital for evaluation. Review of Resident #24's Fall Risk Evaluation, dated 06/25/2023 at 3:31 PM, revealed cognition was baseline, had sustained falls since admission, required staff assistance with elimination, and was only able to stabilize for toilet use with staff assistance. Review of Resident #24's hospital record, dated 06/25/2023, revealed a right knee/femur image series was performed at 7:35 PM with findings of a fracture to the right femur. Continued review revealed Resident #24 underwent surgery of the right femur nailing on 06/26/2023, was discharged , and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a copy of Resident #24's Progress Note, dated 06/27/2023 at 9:19 AM, and provided by the DON, after the SSA Surveyor requested a copy of the FSIR, revealed the resident self-reported he/she had fallen from his/her bed and right before the fall, Resident #24 had been sleeping in bed. Observations of Resident #24 from 08/08/2023 to 09/05/2023 , revealed the resident was unattended in a wheelchair mobilizing throughout the facility with an anti-rollback device on the wheelchair. In an interview with CNA #29, on 08/31/2023 at 10:15 AM, she stated Resident #24 did not have a device to the wheelchair to prevent tilting. She added Resident #24 was confused, and she tried to check on him/her frequently due to confusion. In an interview with the Activities Director on 08/30/2023 at 9:55 AM, she stated Resident #24 would just get up when he/she wanted, and she felt the resident would never be safe enough to self-transfer. She stated she did instruct staff of this. In an interview with the ADON, on 08/31/2023 at 2:11 PM, she stated the Root Cause Analysis (RCA) for Resident #24's fall on 06/25/2023 was attempting to self-transfer and rolled out of bed. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/05/2023 at 11:35 AM, she stated an Fall Scene Investigation Report (FSIR) had not been performed on 06/25/2023 for Resident #24's fall, but entries in the progress notes presented how the event happened. 4. Review of Resident #26's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 05/12/2023, with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and Repeated Falls. Review of Resident #26's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/22/2023, revealed the facility failed to assess the resident with a BIMS score. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident to require a one (1) person physical assist when transferring between surfaces and when toileting. Review of Resident #26's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/21/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident with a BIMS score of seven (7) of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident to require a one (1) person physical assist when transferring between surfaces and when toileting. Review of Resident #26's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), dated 08/15/2023, revealed the facility identified Resident #26 was at risk for falls on 05/12/2023 and included interventions such as physical and occupational therapy evaluation and treatment, conducting routine visual rounding per routine care task to determine additional safety cueing, ensuring the resident used a walker for ambulation, ensuring the resident wore nonskid footwear during transfers, place a nightlight, offer toileting before meals, and applying red tape to the call light to remind the resident to ask for assistance. Review of Resident #26's Fall Scene Investigation Report (FSIR), dated 06/14/2023 at 1:36 PM, revealed Resident #26 attempted to self-transfer back into the bed and sat down while too far away, causing him/her to fall onto the floor. The initial interventions listed were to re-educate the resident on asking for assistance when needed and educating the resident on checking to make sure he/she was close enough to the object before sitting down. Review of Resident #26's FSIR, dated 06/17/2023 at 2:05 PM, revealed LPN #4 witnessed the resident walking in the hallway with a cane, when the resident lost his/her balance and fell to the floor without injury. Observation on 08/30/2023 at 3:22 PM, revealed the facility failed to apply red tape to the call light after moving Resident #26 to a new room, as noted in the resident's care plan. In an interview, on 08/28/2023 at 10:48 AM, Resident #26 stated he/she used a wheelchair because if he/she tried to stand up and walk, he/she would fall. Resident #26 further stated he/she fell at home and that was why he/she moved into the facility so the staff could assist him/her and keep him/her safe. In an interview on 08/16/2023 at 2:36 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 stated he recalled Resident #26's fall in June when he/she was ambulating in the hallway with a cane. He further stated that though he did not recall if he was aware of the therapy's recommendations before the fall, he found out afterwards that therapy had recommended Resident #26 was not able to safely use a cane. He stated staff asked Resident #26's son to remove the cane so the resident would use his/her walker for ambulation. Review of Resident #26's Fall Scene Investigation Report (FSIR), dated 07/02/2023 at 11:45 PM, revealed CNA #36 and LPN #8 found Resident #26 at the foot of his/her roommate's bed, near the bathroom, covered in blood. In an interview on 09/03/2023 at 6:46 PM, CNA #36 stated, on 07/02/2023, she offered assistance with toileting to Resident #26 around 11:00 PM, but the resident stated he/she did not require assistance at that time. CNA #36 stated that around 11:30 PM, a new aide whose name she did not recall, told her he heard screaming from Resident #26's room, so she ran to the room and found Resident #26 lying on the floor with an open wound on his/her arm and large amounts of blood around it. She stated Resident #26 reported to her that he/she had been incontinent and was ashamed to ask for help, so he/she attempted to get to the bathroom without asking for assistance to clean himself/herself. In an interview on 08/23/2023 at 7:51 AM, LPN #8 stated she responded to CNA #36's call for help with Resident #26 on the night of 07/02/2023 and found Resident #26 on the floor with a large amount of blood around him/her, so LPN #8 called 911. She further stated she heard Resident #26 broke his/her arm and nose in the fall but did not recall any further details. Review of Resident #26's hospital records, dated 07/09/2023, revealed Resident #26 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] for a fall with fractures to the left radius and ulna, as well as nasal fractures. Review of Resident #26's FSIR, dated 07/25/2023 at 2:06 AM, revealed LPN #14 found Resident #26 sitting on the floor, leaning against the bathroom door. Further review revealed a section of a written statement from CNA #35, which revealed the CNA reported Resident #26 refused an offer to help with toileting at 1:00 AM, stating he/she did not need to go at that time. In an interview with CNA #35, on 09/04/2023 at 4:22 PM, he stated he did not recall Resident #26 falling on his shift on 07/25/2023. He further stated he checked on residents who had cognitive impairment and a history of falls every fifteen (15) minutes, although he could not recall if he had done that for Resident #26. Review of Resident #26's FSIR, dated 07/28/2023 at 2:30 PM, revealed LPN #3 found Resident #26 on the floor beside his/her bed after the resident attempted to self-transfer. Review of Resident #26's Progress Note, written by LPN #3 and dated 07/28/2023 at 2:41 PM, revealed Resident #26 told her that he/she slid out of the lift chair while attempting to transfer to bed. Per the note, LPN #3 re-educated the resident to ask for assistance with transferring. Review of Resident #26's FSIR, dated 08/02/2023 at 5:33 PM, revealed LPN #3 witnessed Resident #26 slide out of bed while attempting to self-transfer. Further review revealed LPN #3 described Resident #26 as impatient and his/her mental status as drowsier than baseline. Review of Resident #26's Progress Note, written by LPN #3 and dated 08/02/2023 at 5:25 PM, revealed LPN #3 observed Resident #26 slide out of bed onto the floor. Further review revealed LPN #3 assessed the resident and found the resident was wearing nonskid footwear, had adequate lighting, and had personal items within reach. Continued review revealed LPN #3 notified Resident #26's son, who requested a bedside commode to be placed in Resident #2[TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Administration (Tag F0835)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's Plan of Correction (POC) from the 01/28/2023 Recertification Survey, and review of the facility's Administrator's Job Description, it was de...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's Plan of Correction (POC) from the 01/28/2023 Recertification Survey, and review of the facility's Administrator's Job Description, it was determined the facility failed to be administered in a manner which enabled effective use of its resources to attain and maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Review of the 01/28/2023 Recertification Survey's Plan of Correction (POC), revealed the facility was previously cited at actual harm and Immediate Jeopardy (IJ). The 09/05/2023 survey had repeat deficiencies that had been cited on the 01/28/2023 survey. Review of the falls' list, dated 04/11/2023 through 08/15/2023 revealed the residents had a total of fifty-seven (57) falls, four (4) of which resulted in major injury. The facility's administration failed to have an effective system to investigate the root cause of the residents' falls; failed to develop and implement an action plan after each fall; and, failed to accurately assess the resident and/or residents' environment to determine whether adequate supervision was necessary to prevent accidents. The facility's failure to to have an effective system to ensure it was administered in a manner to prevent elopement and falls; and to prevent repeat deficient practice at actual harm and Immediate Jeopardy levels is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/11/2023 and again on 09/05/2023, and was determined to exist on 06/14/2023 at 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care, (F689) Free from Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices at a S/S of a K; 42 CFR 483.21 Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans (F656) at a S/S of a K; 42 CFR 483.70 Administration (F835) at a S/S of a K; and 42 CFR 483.75 Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement QAPI/QAA Program (F867) at a S/S of a K. The IJ is ongoing. Substandard Quality of Care was identified at 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care (F689) Free from Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices. The facility was notified of the IJ on 08/11/2023 and again on 09/05/2023. Refer to F656; F689; F837; and F867 The findings include: Review of the Administrator's job description, not dated, revealed the primary function of the Administrator was to manage the facility in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Further review revealed the Administrator was to conduct departmental meetings to ensure goals were being met and to implement an effective Quality Assurance program. Continued review revealed the Administrator was responsible for identification, investigation, and follow up on concerns identified. Review of the 01/28/2023 Recertification Survey's POC revealed F689, Quality of Care, Free from Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices was cited. The POC stated the facility failed to have an effective system to consistently investigate the root cause of the residents' falls and elopement; and failed to develop and implement care plan interventions to address a root cause if one was identified. Review of the POC revealed the facility's Administration/QAPI would conduct observations and review monthly to ensure residents who experienced a fall had an added intervention and the intervention had been implemented and this would occur for each fall. However, review of the facility's monthly meeting documentation revealed no documented evidence this was occurring with each fall as per the POC. Additionally the POC indicated findings would be reported to the Administrator with each review. However, observations, interview, and record review, during the 09/05/2023 survey revealed the facility failed to ensure F689 remained in compliance. F689 was a repeat deficiency cited at the IJ level. The facility's administration failed to develop and/or implement an effective system to ensure person centered care plans which were specific to each resident to address the causes of the residents' falls, specifically the need for increased supervision for cognitively impaired residents. Further the facility failed to provide effective administrative oversite of day-to-day operations of the facility; and failed to ensure an effective Quality Assurance Program to provide quality care and services to meet the needs of the residents. In interview on 08/30/2023 at 1:03 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated she met with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), where she was responsible for tracking and trending fall data. In further interview, the ADON was unable to produce analysis of the root cause of the residents' falls to develop systemic changes to ensure appropriate care plans were implemented for residents with repeat falls. The ADON stated they did not have a specific program to identify root case analysis. In an interview, on 09/01/2023 at 1:46 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she was a member of the IDT and Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) teams. She further stated her expectation when a resident fell was for the IDT to analyze the root cause of the fall and implement interventions specific to that resident. The DON stated the IDT identified that the fall investigation forms were not being completed correctly. However, she stated she believed the facility was following the correct process, just not documenting it correctly. In an additional interview on 09/05/2023 at 1:33 PM, the DON stated she and the Administrator comprised the Governing Body because the facility did not have a corporate structure. In continued interview, the DON stated the QAPI committee continued action from the POC by randomly reviewing care plans of one (1) to two (2) residents, which might include residents with repeated falls, but not all residents with recurrent falls and not all residents at high risk for fall. Per interview, the DON stated they were reviewing residents' care plans in QAPI, but were not currently focusing on residents at high risk or with repeated falls. In an interview on 09/01/2023 at 8:44 AM, the Medical Director (MD) stated it was the goal of the administration of the facility to prevent falls, and especially falls with injury. He further stated he was not concerned about the facility's increased number of falls since June 2023. The MD stated he would expect to see as many as thirty (30) falls per month in a facility of approximately one hundred twenty (120) beds (the size of this facility) without it indicating a problem because nursing home residents were prone to falls. The MD stated he did not recall specific measures put in place for residents with a high fall risk without reviewing notes. He did recall discussing educating staff on the importance of monitoring residents and answering call lights timely. In interview on 09/05/2023 at 2:08 PM, the Administrator stated when she started at the facility in June of 2023, she was surprised to find the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) process was based on reacting to falls that had already occurred, rather than taking action to prevent falls. The Administrator further stated the conversation about falls in the first two (2) QAPI meetings she attended focused on raw numbers, not analysis of patterns and instituting systemic changes to protect residents from accidents and hazards. The Administrator stated she knew that needed to change and was introducing a new QAPI process at the next meeting that would address data analysis and taking preventative action. In continued interview, the Administrator stated that because the facility was independently owned and did not have a separate governing body, there was no one to ensure continuity of care and maintain adherence to consistent policies through changes in administration. The Administrator further stated she was still reviewing the previous accptable POC, and was unsure if the facility's monitoring included ensuring interventions for falls were in place and being implemented.
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's policy, and review of the facility's Plan of Correction (PoC) for the survey completed on 01/28/2023, with a compliance date of 04/11/2023, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's policy, and review of the facility's Plan of Correction (PoC) for the survey completed on 01/28/2023, with a compliance date of 04/11/2023, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective system to address systemic failures through the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) process. The facility failed to ensure standards for quality of care regarding performance improvement measures were achieved and sustained. The facility failed to effectively track adverse resident events, analyze their causes, and implement preventative action(s). The facility failed to ensure there was an effective system to regularly review and analyze and audit data, including data collected under the QAPI program; and, failed to act on available data to make improvements and maintain substantial compliance. The facility reported the number of falls with injuries between 02/14/2023 and 07/29/2023 was thirteen (13). However, there was no evidence the facility discussed the falls, reviewed previous falls, or analyzed the time of day and staff patterns for each fall to determine the root cause of the falls, and implemented person-centered interventions to prevent further falls. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/11/2023 and again on 09/05/2023, and was determined to exist on 06/14/2023 at 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care; (F689) Free from Accidents/Hazards/Supervision/Devices; 42 CFR 483.21 Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans ( F656), 42 CFR 483.70 Administration (F835), and 42 CFR 483.75 Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement QAPI/QAA program (F867). The IJ is ongoing. Substandard Quality of Care was identified at 42 CFR 483.25 Quality of Care; (F689) Free from Accidents/Hazards/Supervision/Devices. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 08/11/2023 and again on 09/05/2023. The findings include: Review of the POC for the 01/28/2023 survey, with a compliance date of 04/11/2023, revealed during the morning meetings the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) would review residents who had experienced a fall or accident to ensure an appropriate intervention to assist in preventing further falls or accidents have been care planned and implemented, and the process was to occur indefinitely. During interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse on 08/24/2023 at 4:24 PM, she stated each resident was identified to be at risk for falls when admitted . The total census upon entrance on 08/08/2023 was one hundred and nine (109) residents. During an interview with the Social Worker on 08/31/2023 at 11:10 AM, she stated she was a member of the QAPI committee. She stated she presented information concerning psychotropic medications. The Social Worker stated the committee met every third Wednesday of the month and the meetings usually last thirty (30) to forty-five (45) minutes, but could not recall an Ad Hoc meeting related to falls. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 08/30/2023 at 1:05 PM, she stated she was a member of the QAPI Committee and the committee met every third Wednesday of the month. She stated meetings last approximately forty-five (45) minutes, but could go longer if needed. The ADON stated expectation of the meeting was to work on areas of improvement and to discuss if that process was working well. She stated the process was to identify the problem, strategize, and come up with a solution. She stated QAPI could be discussed in the IDT meeting, which was held each morning. She stated the falls plan was to review the number of falls from the previous month and see if there were repeat falls for a pattern, but at this time, QAPI had not identified any patterns. The ADON stated falls for the month of June were ten (10); fifteen (15) falls in July; and in August there were nineteen (19). She stated she did not know if the QAPI committee had identified any patterns for falls increasing. During further interview with the ADON on 08/31/2023 at 2:11 PM, she stated she was responsible for tracking falls and assessed for the root cause analysis (RCA). The ADON stated she was unable to identify an RCA for four (4) of eight (8) falls. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/31/2023 at 1:45 PM, she stated she was a member of the QAPI committee and they met monthly for an hour. She stated discussions were held in the meeting for all present issues and to evaluate the effectiveness of their process. The DON stated the facility looked at everything, including staff and the time of day the falls occurred. She stated with falls, the QAPI committee looked for an RCA and then the care plans were updated, with the IDT then evaluating the effectiveness of the care plan. In continued interview, the DON stated the QAPI committee continued action from the POC by randomly reviewing care plans of one (1) to two (2) residents, which might include residents with repeated falls. Per interview, the DON stated residents with repeated falls were not an area of special focus in the care plan reviews. During an interview with the Medical Director (MD) on 08/31/2023 at 8:45 AM, he stated he was a member of the QAPI committee and they met monthly on the third Wednesday for about twenty (20) to thirty (30) minutes. In the meetings, discussions were held about falls, wounds, staffing, reportables, behavior issues with residents, and medications, including costs for medications. He stated he did not have any concerns with quality measures not being met, and he did not recall any injuries from falls in the tracking process. The Medical Director stated he would need to look at meeting notes for any correlations, such as staffing issues, for falls occurring. He stated there had been a fifteen (15) percent (%) reduction rate in staffing since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). He stated he was not concerned about falls increasing since June. The MD stated falls change just like infections, one month they go up and another month they might go down. He stated falls could go as high as thirty (30) in a month since it was a nursing home. During further interview with the Administrator on 09/05/2023 at 1:39 PM, she stated she was a QAPI committee member and their tasks were to review policies, collaborate as a group to perhaps change processes, but they did not really use evidence-based information all the time. She stated the facility referred to other facilities to see what worked well for them. She stated their consultants used evidence-based information to add to the process. The Administrator stated the consultants also tracked and trended issues for policy changes when needed and usually she and the DON wrote the policies since they were the Governing Body. She stated she would speak with the Medical Director about falls if they were increasing. The Administrator stated QAPI was addressing falls by getting some things together now by using a new tracking tool that began in September. She stated they would discuss it more in the next QAPI meeting depending on the availability of the Medical Director. The Administrator stated one thing identified for the month of August was that more falls occurred on the three (3) to eleven (11) shift, but there was really no one to offer oversight during the transition since she was new and was still going through the POC manual. She stated she was not aware, per the POC, the DON was supposed to be reporting to her monthly regarding if care plan interventions were in place and her observations of the care plan interventions related to falls were being implemented for residents at high risk for falls.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to follow their policy reg...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to follow their policy regarding advanced directives for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #1). Upon admission to the facility, Resident #1's daughter signed his/her Advanced Directives due to his/her impaired cognition. The facility re-assessed Resident #1's cognition to be intact; however, they failed to provide Resident #1 with information about forming and/or reviewing his/her advanced directives. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Advance Directive Policy and Procedure, not dated, revealed if a resident was incapacitated at the time of admission and was unable to receive information or articulate whether or not he/she had executed an advance directive, the facility would give advance directive information to the individual's resident representative. In the event the resident's condition changed, based on regular comprehensive assessments, and the resident was able to receive information about advance directives, the facility would provide the resident with written information on the process to implement an advance directive. Continued review revealed the facility would periodically clarify and review the existing care instructions and encourage the resident's involvement in decision making. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on [DATE] with diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Type II Diabetes, and Polyneuropathy. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed Resident #1 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight (8) which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the BIMS, dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed Resident #1 with a score of thirteen (13) which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #1's Care Plan, dated [DATE], revealed the facility care planned the resident as having a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status with interventions that included, following the resident's wishes in the Living Will. Review of the facility's document, Advanced Directive Statement, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #1's Daughter, who was the resident's representative, signed the order for him/her to not receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if his/her heart stopped beating and/or he/she stopped breathing. The facility failed to produce evidence that Resident #1 had reviewed his/her advance directives after [DATE] when the nurse practitioner performed a mini mental exam, with a score of twenty-seven (27) out of thirty (30). According to the mini mental exam, Resident #1 was determined to be cognitively intact and competent to make his/her own choices. In an interview on [DATE] at 1:00 PM, Resident #1 stated the facility did not ask him/her about formulating an advanced directive. Resident #1 further stated his/her daughter signed the admission paperwork on his/her behalf. In an interview on [DATE] at 4:01 PM, Resident #1's Daughter stated she signed Resident #1's admission documents because he/she was confused at the time, but had previously expressed a desire to decline CPR. Resident #1's Daughter stated she was not aware of the facility going back to discuss the advanced directives with her parent after he/she had an improvement in mental status. In an interview on [DATE] at 10:35 AM, the Admissions Coordinator stated her role was to go over the admissions paperwork with the resident and family when the resident was admitted . She stated if changes needed to be made after that point, it would be the role of the management team to take care of it. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:14 AM, the Social Services Director (SSD) stated the process for a resident to review a previously signed Advanced Directive was for the resident to bring it up in a care plan meeting. She stated the process during a care plan meeting was to discuss basic information such as Advanced Directives, but she did not have documented evidence that the facility provided Resident #1 with this information. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:19 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the Admissions Coordinator handled the signing of a resident's advanced directive upon admission. She further stated that if a resident was not of sound mind at the time of admission, the resident's representative would sign. The DON stated if a resident's mental status improved after admission, she would expect someone to review the Advanced Directive with them. However, she was not aware of anyone reviewing Resident #1's Advanced Directive with him/her after the facility assessed him/her to be competent to make his/her own decisions. In an interview on [DATE] at 3:03 PM, the Administrator stated Resident #1 should have had the opportunity to review his/her Advanced Directives.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's incident report form, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from misa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's incident report form, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from misappropriation of property for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #6). Resident #6 reported he/she had money missing. The finding included: Review of the facility's policy, Abuse Protection, last revised 05/03/2022, revealed the resident had the right to be free from abuse, corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, neglect, and misappropriation of property. The policy defined misappropriation as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary or permanent, use of a resident's belongings or funds without the resident's consent. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #6 on 03/21/2023 with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Depression and Anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) examination, dated 03/21/2023. The facility assessed Resident #6 to have a BIMS' score of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15) which indicated the resident's cognition was intact. Review of the Quarterly BIMS' Assessment, dated 07/19/2023, revealed the facility assessed Resident #6 to have a BIMS score of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15) which indicated the resident's cognition was intact. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), dated 03/31/2023, revealed the facility assessed Resident #6 as having manipulative behaviors and to make false allegations. Further review revealed interventions that included: to allow Resident #6 to verbalize his/her feelings; intervene as necessary; and, monitor the resident's behavior. This was initiated on 05/24/2023. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 8:38 AM, Resident #6 stated that he/she had lost one thousand dollars ($1,000) since admission. Resident #6 stated that his/her money was missing after his/her transfer from the rehabilitation unit to his/her current room. Resident #6 stated that upon transfer to his/her current room, the lock on the locked box was not operational. Resident #6 stated that he/she reported this to the Administrator, Activity Director, and the Social Services Director. The resident stated that he/she gave his/her wallet to the Activity Director to keep it locked in the closet in the activity room Resident #6 stated the Activity Assistants or Activity Director would bring his/her wallet upon request. The resident stated that on or around 07/06/2023, he/she gave Activity Assistant (AA) #1 seventy dollars ($70) to purchase both of them (the resident and Activity Assistant #1) jackets. However, Activity Assistant #1 returned with only a jacket for the resident. However, Activity Assistant #1 did not return the balance of the money to him/her. The resident stated that when he/she asked Activity Assistant #1 why she did not purchase herself a jacket as originally agreed upon, the Assistant told resident that she had changed her mind. Resident #6 stated that AA #1 did not give an explanation for failure to return the balance of the $70.00. The receipt, dated 06/29/2023, listed Jean Jacket with a total amount of $20.14, a cash tendered amount of $70.00, and a change due amount of $49.86. Resident #6 could not account for the remainder of the four- hundred ($400.00) dollars missing. However reported that facility had returned $400 to him/her after report of loss of funds was completed. During an interview with the Business Office Manager on 08/11/2023 at 5:00 PM, he stated Resident #6 had reported he/she had money missing about a month ago. He stated that Resident #6 reported he/she had eighteen hundred ($1,800) dollars in a wallet and now it was missing. However, there was no record of the money. The Business Office Manager stated the resident had declined to open an account at the facility. During an interview on 08/12/2023 at 3:47 PM with Activity Assistant (AA) #1 she stated she was working as an activity assistant and hospitality aide, but she had since been suspended. She stated one day the Activity Department was taking residents to the store and Resident #6 had forgotten his/her money and they returned to facility. She stated that was when the resident discovered his/her money was missing. Activity Assistant #1 stated that the resident informed her that he/she had one thousand ($1,000) dollars missing, but no one had seen the money. When interviewed why she had been suspended, AA #1 stated Resident #6 had given her thirty ($30) dollars to go to a local store to buy him/her a jacket. She stated she told the resident she did not have enough gas, so the resident told her that the jacket was around twenty dollars, so use ten ($10) of the money for gas. AA#1 stated she did just that. When she returned, she gave Resident #6 the jacket and the change left over from the jacket she purchased. She stated when asked if she knew the facility's policy for accepting gifts and or money from residents, she stated, I do now. The AA stated management asked her to come to the office and asked about the one-thousand dollars ($1000.00). AA #1 stated at that time, she was informed she was not allowed to take money from residents, referring to the thirty dollars. She stated she was terminated and escorted out of the building. The AA stated this was sometime in July, but she was unable to give the exact day. During interview with the Activities Director (AD), on 08/15/2023 at 1:05 PM, she stated she had placed Resident #6's wallet in the closet in the activity department. She stated that when the resident needed money, she would give the resident his/her wallet, and the resident would take the money out that he/she needed. Observation of the activity closet on 08/15/2023 at 1:05 PM revealed a door with a lock. However, a key was in the lock. Continued observation, during the interview, revealed the AD opened the door to the closet. She stated the resident's wallet was placed on the top shelf. After the AD opened and closed the door, she placed the key behind a picture frame on the shelf next to the closet door, which was easily visualized. In interview with the Social Worker, on 08/10/2023 at 9:00 AM, she stated that each time she talked to Resident #6 he/she kept changing the amounts. She stated she had seen Resident #6 remove money from the safe in the wall and place it in his/her wallet, but she had not seen the money since that time. The Social Worker stated the money was not counted at that time with the resident. She stated the only time any money was seen and counted was on 05/30/2023 and that was when cash in the amount of nineteen hundred and ten dollars ($1,910.00) was given to the resident from the business office. The Social Worker stated that Resident #6 had kept forty ($40) dollars and had placed the rest in the wall safe. She stated this money was counted and witnessed by her, the Business Office Manager and the resident. During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/10/2023 at 1:30 PM, she stated AA #1 was terminated due to money that was reported per Resident #6 that was missing. In continued interview on 08/25/2023 at 1:33 PM the DON, stated when residents were admitted the facility offered to lock any valuables up in a facility safe, lock boxes or they let the family take the valuables home. The DON stated Resident #6 had been offered and educated on this system. She stated, We can't force a resident to do this. In an interview with the Administrator on 08/11/2023 at 3:55 PM she stated she had spoken to Resident #6 three (3) different times and during the conversations, the amount of money missing changed with the exception of four hundred ($400) dollars. The Administrator stated Resident #6 had reported to the Activity Director that he/she had money missing. She stated Resident #6 was re-imbursed four hundred ($400) dollars as good faith money since that was the amount that stayed consistent when asked about the one-thousand dollars missing. Review of the facility's investigation revealed it was incomplete, and there was no conclusion. Review of the investigation revealed a signed statement per the Business Officer Manager (BOM) that Resident #6 had declined a trust fund account, but had requested the BOM keep his/her money in the safe in the BOM's office. Review of the statement revealed when Resident #6 wanted money, the BOM would take it to him/her. However, no record was kept of the transactions. Further review of the investigation revealed the BOM was educated on 06/01/2023 by the previous Administrator to keep documentation of any money transactions.
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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review it was determined the facility failed to have a system in place to communicate appropriate...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review it was determined the facility failed to have a system in place to communicate appropriate information to the receiving health care facility to ensure a safe and effective transition of care for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #2) The facility transferred Resident #2 to an out of state facility on 03/23/2023 for the need of a locked dementia care unit. The facility informed the resident's Daughter that they would transfers the resident, because they could not provide sitters for 1:1 supervision (related to an elopement) unless the daughter paid for the sitters. The daughter stated she could not afford to pay for the sitters The facility failed to inform the Ombudsman of the transfer. The facility also failed to complete the Discharge Short Summary and failed to ensure the Primary Physician Summary was completed. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Discharging the Resident', dated 01/02/2018, revealed no resident would be discharged without a written order from the attending physician and timely notification of next of kin with the exception of medical reasons, his/her welfare, and non-payment. Guidelines included notice to be given within thirty (30) days with the exception if the safety of the resident would be endangered. Further review revealed a reference be made to Social Services policies for discharge planning documentation. Steps to be taken for discharging a resident included; if the resident was being discharged to another facility a transfer summary should be completed; and, assess and document the resident's condition and skin assessment at the time of discharge. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #2 on 11/12/2022 with diagnoses that included Dementia with Agitation, Repeated Falls, and Anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) examination, dated 11/16/2022. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #2 to have a score of four (4) out of fifteen (15) which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Quarterly BIMS' examination, dated 02/13/2023, revealed the facility assessed Resident #2 to have a BIMS' score of two (2) out of fifteen (15) which indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2's functional status required the assistance of one (1) staff. Review of Resident #2's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) revealed the facility assessed Resident #2 as an elopement risk with goals set to have no injuries related to wandering with a revision date of 02/27/2023; and, a target date of 05/11/2023. Further review of the CCP revealed interventions that included 1:1 supervision related to elopement with a revision date of 12/15/2022. However, no discharge CCP was noted in review. In interview with the Ombudsman on 08/15/2023 at 4:12 PM, she stated no notification was given to her office from the facility related to the discharge of Resident #2. In interview with Resident #2's Daughter on 08/15/2023 at 4:12 PM, she stated a facility nurse, whom she thought was the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Social Worker (SW) called on 03/21/2023 and informed her that the only alternative for Resident #2 to stay at the facility was for her to pay for a sitter after the resident's second elopement. Resident #2's Daughter stated that she told them that she would not pay, because she could not afford it. During continued interview, she stated that back in December, the facility had discussed with her about the need to transfer the resident after his/her elopements. The Daughter stated that on 08/18/2023, she had voiced her objections of the transfer to the facility due to it being so far away from her. She stated the response from the DON and SW was the only alternative was for her to pay for sitters 24/7 not giving a reason why. She stated she did feel her parent needed to be on a locked memory care unit to meet his/her safety needs. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/10/2023 at 1:30 PM, she stated she had spoken with Resident #2's Daughter and she was ok with the transfer. The DON stated the reason for the transfer was for the safety of the resident since the facility did not have a locked unit and could not provide sitters. She did not say why the facility could not provide sitters. The State Survey Agency requested a Discharge Summary for Resident #2. However, the DON did not provide the summary. The State Survey Agency (SSA) made a request to the Social Worker for transfer and discharge papers sent to the receiving facility for Resident #2. The Social Worker provided a Discharge Short Summary, dated 03/23/2023. However the Discharge Short Summary was incomplete and did not include a discharge summary from the Primary Care Physician.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's policy, and review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual it was determined the facility fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's policy, and review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual it was determined the facility failed to ensure completion of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments according to the RAI manual for one (1) of thirty- three (33) sampled residents (Resident #1). The facility failed to complete a cognitive assessment for Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment on 07/05/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, MDS Completion and Submission Timeframes, not dated, revealed the facility would submit Minimum Data Set Assessments in accordance with current federal and state submission time frames. Review of the Long-Term Care Facility RAI 3.0 User's Manual revealed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was part of the quarterly assessment. Further review revealed it was important to track a resident's change in condition and the assessment was to be submitted at least every ninety-two (92) days. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1, on 03/31/2023, with diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Type II Diabetes, and Polyneuropathy. Review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 04/10/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of eight (8) of fifteen (15) which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/05/2023, revealed the facility failed to complete the Cognitive Patterns section of the MDS assessment and failed to conduct a BIMS' assessment. In an interview on 08/10/2023 at 7:43 AM, the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) stated the process for completing a Quarterly MDS Assessment included coordinating with the Social Services Director (SSD). She stated the SSD completed the BIMS' Assessment and reported the results to the MDSC. She stated Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment was due on 07/05/2023 and should have included a BIMS' assessment. However, she stated the SSD was on vacation at the time the assessment was due. In an interview on 08/10/2023 at 9:48 AM, the SSD stated she was on vacation when Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment was due. The SSD stated the process for a missed BIMS' Assessment for a Quarterly MDS Assessment was to complete it the next quarter unless there were reports of a change in the resident. The SSD stated the next time she completed a BIMS score on Resident #1 was after the resident eloped on 07/27/2023. In an interview on 08/24/2023 at 12:19 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated her expectation for a Quarterly MDS Assessment was for the assessment to be inclusive of all areas affecting the resident's care, and to track the resident's condition and adjust the plan of care as needed. She stated a BIMS' score should be included in each Quarterly MDS Assessment, performed by either the SSD or nursing. The DON stated she did not know what led to the failure to complete Resident #1's BIMS' assessment on his/her 07/05/2023 Quarterly MDS Assessment. In an interview on 08/24/2023 at 3:03 PM, the Administrator stated her expectation was for a Quarterly MDS Assessment to contain all sections, including a BIMS' score, to assess the resident's current level of functioning. The Administrator further stated she discovered the facility had failed to establish communication between the MDSC and the SSD on ensuring they completed Resident #1's BIMS score for his/her 07/05/2023 Quarterly Assessment. In further interview, the Administrator stated the MDSC was new to that role, and the former MDSC had failed to provide her with adequate training.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #1). The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received insulin as ordered on seven (7) occasions between 08/04/2023 and 08/13/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Administering Medications, dated 04/2019, revealed medications were to be administered according to Physician's Orders. Further review revealed that if a resident was not available to receive medication during the medication pass, the nurse would flag the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and return to administer the medication at the end of the medication pass. Review of Resident #1's admission record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 03/31/2023 with diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Type II Diabetes, and Polyneuropathy. Review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility noted that Resident #1 had Diabetes and required daily insulin injections. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight (8) out of fifteen (15) which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the BIMS assessment, dated 07/28/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident with a BIMS' score of thirteen (13) out of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #1's Care Plan, dated 04/13/2023, revealed a plan for Diabetes. However, the facility failed to include interventions that included insulin administration and potential complications. Record review revealed Resident #1's had a Physician's Order for five (5) units of Humalog insulin to be administered subcutaneously (under the skin) twice per day before meals. Review of Resident #1's August Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the facility failed to administer Resident #1's afternoon insulin as scheduled on 08/04/2023 for the PM dose, and on 08/07/2023, and 08/11/2023 for the PM doses. Further review revealed the facility failed to administer both doses of insulin due on 08/10/2023. Review of Resident #1's blood sugar values for 08/2023 revealed the facility measured Resident #1's blood sugar at four hundred twenty-four (424) milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) on 08/05/2023 at 8:45 AM. Normal blood sugar ranges from 80 to 120 mg/dL. In an interview on 08/14/2023 at 1:25 PM, Resident #1 stated he/she received insulin three (3) times per week. He/she further stated that if insulin was due while he/she was out of the facility, a nurse should administer it when he/she returned. In an interview on 08/14/2023 at 1:27 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 stated he was Resident #1's nurse on 08/10/2023, the resident was out of the facility all day that day. LPN #4 stated the facility did not have a process for administering medications after the assigned administration window if the resident was not in his/her room at the time the medication was due. LPN #4 stated his process was to mark the resident as out of facility and pass it on to the next shift. The LPN stated it would be appropriate to ask for a one-time order to check the resident's blood sugar and administer insulin. However, LPN #4 stated there was not a policy requiring staff to do that. He stated it was important to administer insulin according to orders, so a resident did not experience complications of diabetes such as circulatory issues and diabetic coma. An interview was attempted via phone with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 08/25/2023 at 10:27 AM. A message was left; however the NP did not return the phone call. In an interview on 08/24/2023 at 12:19 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she was not aware Resident #1 missed doses of insulin when he/she signed out of the facility. She stated she expected the nurses to notify the physician of any questions about medications, including the need to reschedule a medication. In further interview, the DON stated it was important for a resident with diabetes to receive insulin as ordered to prevent complications from the disease. In an interview on 08/14/2023 at 8:23 AM, the Medical Director stated he failed to be proactive in setting a time limit on how long Resident #1 could be out of the facility unsupervised, and failed to ensure Resident #1 received his/her insulin and blood sugar checks as scheduled. In an interview on 08/24/2023 at 3:03 PM, the Administrator stated the facility educated Resident #1 on the importance of returning to the facility to receive his/her insulin. She further stated that because Resident #1 was deemed competent to make his/her own decisions, when Resident #1 failed to return to the facility for the insulin administration, that was his/her right to do so. In further interview, the Administrator stated she did not know if the clinical IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) discussed the missed doses of insulin in the morning meetings, but she would expect them to do so. The Administrator stated she did not know if the Medical Director was involved in discussing Resident #1's medications, but he was aware Resident #1 was signing out of the facility by himself/herself.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined facility the failed to secure medications in a locked storage area; and failed to ensure only authorized personnel would have acces...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined facility the failed to secure medications in a locked storage area; and failed to ensure only authorized personnel would have access for one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Resident #16). Observation on 08/14/2023 revealed a needleless unopened heparin lock flush was on Resident # 16's overbed table. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medications, dated 12/15/2018 revealed medications were stored in a safe, secure, and orderly manner in accordance with federal and state regulations and the facility's policies. The State Survey Agency (SSA) requested the facility's heparin flush and/or intravenous flush policy on 08/24/2023 at 3:54 PM. However, the facility did not provide either of the requested policies. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #16 on 07/24/2023 with diagnoses that included an infection following a procedure, Atrial fibrillation, and Diabetes. Review of the admission Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) examination, dated 07/28/2023 revealed the facility assessed Resident #16 to have a score of fifteen (15) which indicated his/her cognition was intact. Review of Resident #16's BIMS' score, dated 09/02/2023, revealed the resident's score was fourteen (14) which indicated his/her cognition was intact. Review of Physician's Orders dated 07/25/2023, revealed an order to flush IV (intravenous) line with five (5) milliliters of heparin after each medication. Observation on 08/14/2023 at 5:05 PM, revealed a needleless five (5) milliliter heparin lock flush lying on an over bed table next to Resident #16's supper tray in his/her room. Continued observation revealed Resident #16 had a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) to his/her upper left extremity. In an interview with Resident #16, at that time, he/she stated she was at the facility for antibiotic therapy after having back surgery. He/she stated the staff used his/her intravenous access to his/her left upper arm for antibiotics. Resident #16 stated staff flushed it, but he/she could not remember if they had flushed it that day. In an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 on 08/14/2023 at 5:35 PM, she stated she should not have left the flush at the bedside. She stated it was possible that someone could take it and that was unsafe.
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

Deficiency F0712 (Tag F0712)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's job description for the Medical Director, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were seen personally by a physician ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's job description for the Medical Director, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were seen personally by a physician as required per regulation for an initial comprehensive visit, and once every thirty days after admission for seven (7) out of thirty-three (33) sampled residents (Residents #1, #3, #4, #5, #18, #22, and #26) The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Role of Medical Director revealed the facility would designate a licensed physician to serve as Medical Director (MD). Continued review revealed the responsibilities of the MD would be defined with the organization to assure that elders have primary attending and backup physician coverage. However, the facility's policy did not speak of physician visits, timelines for the initial visit or required visits there after. 1. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 03/31/2023. Review of the Physician's Notes revealed the MD completed a regulatory visit for Resident #1 on 04/12/2023. However, the facility failed to produce any evidence the physician conducted any other visits with the resident. 2. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #3 on 06/16/2023. Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed the Nurse Practitioner completed the initial comprehensive visit on 06/16/2023. 3. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #4 on 01/25/2023. Review of the Physician's Notes revealed physician visits dated 02/01/2023, 03/22/2023, and 07/19/2023. However, the facility failed to produce evidence of any other visits by the physician. 4. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #5 on 02/21/2023. Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed the physician conducted a regulatory visit on 04/19/2023. However, the facility failed to produce evidence of any other visits by the physician. 5. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #18 on 03/22/2023. Review of the Physician's Notes revealed the physician failed to conduct regulatory visits every thirty (30) days for the first 90 days. Physician visits were conducted on 03/29/2023, 04/12/2023, 06/07/2023, and 08/16/2023 noted. 6. Review of Resident #22's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/17/2023. Review of the Physician's Notes revealed the MD visited Resident #22 on 03/28/2023. However, the facility failed to produce any evidence the physician conducted any other visits with the resident. 7. Review of Resident #26's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/12/2023. Review of the Physician's Notes revealed the MD visited Resident #26 on 07/19/2023 and 08/02/2023. However, the facility failed to produce any evidence the physician conducted any other visits with the resident. Unsuccessful attempt was made on 08/25/2023 at 10:25 AM to interview the Nurse Reactivation (NP). A message was left; however, the NP did not return the phone call. In an interview on 09/05/2023 at 8:44 AM, the Medical Director (MD) stated his process with scheduling regulatory visits was to have the Nurse Practitioner conduct the initial visit with the resident and get everything set up. Per interview, the MD would see the resident within the first thirty (30) days, then see the resident on an alternating basis with the nurse practitioner every thirty (30) days.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Census and Condition of Residents (Form 672), and review of the facility's asses...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Census and Condition of Residents (Form 672), and review of the facility's assessment, it was determined the facility failed to provide adequate staff to provide nursing and related services. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision for cognitively impaired and incontinent residents; and failed to respond to residents' requests for assistance in a timely manner. Observation revealed call lights were not answered for extended periods of time with no staff members observed in the halls to answer them. Resident interviews revealed they had to wait for extended periods of time to have call lights answered on night shift. Staff stated there was not sufficient staff to complete resident care tasks and provide sufficient monitoring for cognitively impaired residents. The findings include: Review of the facility's assessment, dated 02/03/2023 revealed the facility was supposed to staff with twelve (12) Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) from 7:00 AM-3:00 PM, twelve (12) CNAs from 3:00 PM-11:00 PM and seven (7) CNAs from 11:00 PM-7:00 AM. Further review revealed the facility's assessment listed common conditions of residents the facility cared for included: Psychosis with Hallucinations and Delusions, Impaired Cognition, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and Behaviors that Need Intervention. Continued review revealed the facility took those and other conditions into consideration when developing the facility's assessment to describe the resources, including staffing, needed to take care of residents. Review of the facility's schedule for 07/2023 revealed the facility did not staff according to its assessment for that month. Further review revealed the facility staffed each day with eleven (11) CNAs on first shift; should have had twelve (12). Ten (10) CNAs were scheduled on second shift instead of the assessed twelve (12) CNAs. Six (6) CNAs were scheduled on night shift, instead of the seven (7) CNAs per the facility's assessed needs. Review of the facility's time punch documentation revealed the facility was short staffed according to the facility's assessment for the month of 07/2023. Further review revealed the facility was short on CNA hours needed according to interviews with the Director of Nursing and Administrator for seventeen (17) of the thirty-one days. Review of the facility's CMS 672, dated 08/08/2023, revealed of a total census of one hundred and nine residents, fifty-nine (59) residents required one or two person assistance for transfers and thirty-six (36) were coded as dependent for transfers. Eighty-eight (88) residents were assessed as occasionally or frequently incontinent of bladder and seventy-three (73) were occasionally or frequently incontinent of bowel. 1. Observation on 08/16/2023 at 10:48 AM revealed Resident #33 calling, Hello, hello, repeatedly with increasing agitation. Continued observation revealed there was no staff member in the hallway until 10:59 AM, when Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #14 checked on the resident, who wanted to be pulled up in bed. Observation revealed LPN #14 told the resident she would have to get help, but she could not find another staff member in the hallway to help, so she went to another hall to find someone. Further observation revealed at 11:06 AM, LPN #14 returned with an aide from the therapy department and assisted the resident. In interview on 08/16/2023 at 11:20 AM, LPN #14 stated one of the CNAs on the South Unit was out at an appointment, another CNA was at lunch at that time, and the other two (2) were helping other residents, when Resident #33 needed help. The LPN stated she had to go find help. She stated the staff worked as a team and do their best to help the residents, but the residents might have to wait a few extra minutes if a CNA was out assisting a resident at an outside appointment. 2. Observation of the call light monitor screen at the North Nurse's Station on 08/30/2023 at 2:26 PM revealed the call light for Resident #31's room was activated at 1:59 PM and had not been answered. Further observation revealed no staff members were available in the hallway until 2:42 PM, when CNA #5 exited another room with dirty linens. Continued observation revealed CNA #5 entered Resident #31's room at 2:55 PM, twenty-nine minutes later. In an interview on 08/30/2023 at 2:38 PM, Resident #31 stated he/she was incontinent and needed staff to change his/her brief. Resident #31 further stated he/she activated his/her call light more than half an hour ago, and was still waiting for staff to respond. In an interview on 08/30/2023 at 2:58 PM, CNA #5 stated she turned off Resident #31's call light because the resident stated he/she activated it by accident. CNA #5 stated she had been busy with other resident care tasks, but she would return to change Resident #31's briefs immediately. Observation on 08/30/2023 at 3:04 PM revealed CNA #5 entered Resident #31's room with a package of briefs. In an interview on 08/11/2023 at 7:40 AM, Resident #5 stated he/she often had to wait over an hour for staff to answer his/her call light on night shift. The resident stated staff told him/her that the reason for the delay was short staffing. During an interview on 08/11/2023 at 3:10 PM, Resident #11 stated the facility worked short of CNAs multiple times a week on night shift. He/she stated, I lay here and pray nothing bad happens to me on night shift because they (do not) have enough people to help. In further interview, Resident #11 stated, on multiple occasions since he/she was admitted to the facility, there have only been three (3) CNAs in the entire building on night shift. In an interview on 09/01/2023 at 9:58 AM, Resident #31 stated the facility never had enough staff, especially on night shift. He/she stated the only thing night shift aides had time for was changing briefs. Resident #31 stated it was not uncommon to have to wait one (1) hour for staff to respond to his/her call lights. In an interview on 08/29/2023 at 2:36 PM, Resident #32 stated the facility did not have enough staff on night shift. Resident #32 further stated he/she made sure to ask the second shift aides to do everything he/she would need for the night before they left at 11:00 PM. Resident #32 stated if he/she needed anything after 11:00 PM, he/she would have to wait for up to an hour to get it. In an interview on 08/08/2023 at 10:45 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 stated there was never enough staff to give the residents the care they needed, such as timely incontinence care and timely answering of call bells. She stated the only time call bells were answered timely was when the State Survey Agency was in the building. In an interview on 08/13/2023 at 6:55 PM, CNA #14 stated the facility staffed too short on night shift to be able to provide the residents with their care needs, especially on the South Unit. She stated the facility did not take resident acuity into consideration with staffing and there were multiple dependent residents and residents with behaviors on the South Unit. CNA #14 stated she often could not find anyone to help while she was doing rounds, so she would get 2-person assist residents up by herself. She stated it was not possible to provide supervision to residents with behaviors or who were at risk for falls because there was not enough staff. In an interview on 08/15/2023 at 1:25 PM Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #16 stated the facility did not have enough staff to perform two (2) person assists for residents to transfer to the toilet according to their preference. The CNA stated she would have to use a bed pan if she could not find someone from the therapy department because it would be unsafe to get a resident up by herself if they required a two (2) person assist. She stated she was only able to give a limited number of residents a shower on a good day. In an interview on 08/16/2023 at 3:28 PM, CMA (Certified Medication Aide) #43 stated her work hours were primarily dedicated to medication administration, although she occasionally answered a call light or assisted a CNA with a transfer if she had time. In an interview on 08/31/2023 at 11:42 AM, LPN #9 stated the CNAs and nurses worked hard, but they had too many tasks to complete to be able to provide adequate supervision to cognitively impaired residents and residents with behaviors. In further interview, LPN #9 stated an additional CNA on each shift would make a significant impact for resident supervision. In continued interview, LPN #9 stated she did not express her concerns over staffing to management because she did not believe they would listen. In an interview on 08/19/2023 at 4:46 PM, LPN #11 stated the facility did not staff according to resident acuity and that caused residents not to be monitored appropriately, leading to the elopement and falls. LPN #11 stated the facility's management did not increase staffing when a CNA was needed to accompany a resident to an appointment, or when a CNA was needed to do one-on-one (1:1) observation, so the number of aides working on the floor in those cases would decrease. LPN #11 further stated that on night shift, there were only two (2) aides for forty-five (45) residents, and staff worked as hard as they could, but that was not enough to provide care according to resident specific care plans. In an interview on 08/15/2023 at 11:21 AM, the scheduler stated she was told to staff with eleven (11) CNAs on first shift, ten (10) CNAs on second shift, and six (6) on night shift. She stated if the facility could not find enough regular staff to work a shift, they posted it for agency staff to pick up. She further stated the facility did not take resident acuity into consideration when deciding how many staff members were needed to work. The scheduler stated she had never seen the facility's assessment and did not know how the staffing pattern described in the assessment was developed. In an interview on 08/15/2023 at 10:27 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #2, former Rehab Unit Manager, stated staffing at the facility was awful. She stated her staff frequently told her they did not have enough time to complete resident care tasks and answer call lights timely. RN #2 stated management staff was expected to be in meetings for most of the day, so she was not available to assist her staff with answering call lights or resident supervision. The RN stated she recalled residents' family members calling to complain about the amount of time residents had to wait for care, but she did not recall any specific names. In an interview on 08/24/2023 at 12:19 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the staffing pattern in the facility's assessment was written by the former Administrator. The DON stated she had no idea where those numbers came from. She further stated the staffing pattern the facility used was developed by the facility's consulting firm and was based on the facility's census. In further interview, the DON stated the staffing level for CNAs was set as: first shift (7:00 AM-3:00 PM) four (4) on both the North and South Units, and two (2) or three (3) CNAs on the Rehab Unit; second shift (3:00 PM-11:00 PM) was the same as first shift; third shift (11:00 PM-7:00 AM) was two (2) CNAs on each of the units. Per interview, the facility's staffing level for nurses was set as: day shift (7:00 AM-7:00 PM)- two nurses each on North and South, one nurse and one Certified Medication Assistant (CMA) on Rehab; second shift (3:00 PM-11:00 PM) one (1) CMA each came in for North and South; night shift (7:00 PM-7:00 AM) had one nurse each for North, South, and Rehab. In further interview, the DON stated she hoped' staff realized if they needed help, they could ask for it and she could talk to the consultant about ways to adjust staffing, especially if the census was high. Per interview, the DON stated she expected management to be out on the floor to answer call lights when not in morning meetings. In continued interview, the DON stated the facility identified opportunities for improvement when auditing call light response times by observation. The DON further stated that analyzing resident acuity was not taken into consideration when deciding on staffing levels. In an interview on 08/24/2023 at 3:03 PM, the Administrator stated the staffing pattern the facility used was not based on acuity, but on the facility's census. The Administrator stated the facility would need more staff if the facility was full of residents who required two-person assist. However, the Administrator stated she had not analyzed the 672 data to see what overall resident needs were. In further interview, the Administrator stated she believed staff should be able to accomplish resident care tasks with the current staffing level. In interview on 08/24/2023 at 4:52 PM, the Nurse Consultant stated the consulting company supported the facility in whatever they needed. She further stated the current staffing model was developed with input from the Director of Nursing. The Nurse Consultant stated that when she spoke with facility staff, some staff members told her the facility did not have enough staff; however, she stated this was because there would always be negative people who would complain no matter what.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0841 (Tag F0841)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the Medical Director's job description, it was determined the facility failed t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the Medical Director's job description, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective system to ensure the Medical Director was responsible for identifying, evaluating and addressing health care issues as well as administration and governance on safety issues. Six (6) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents had falls with injuries (Residents #3, #18, #22, #24, #25, #26), and one (1) of thirty-three (33) sampled residents left the facility without staff knowledge (Resident #1). Between 06/14/2023 and 08/15/2023, six (6) cognitively impaired residents had falls. The six (6) residents had falls for a combined total of eighteen (18) times related to self-transfers and incontinence. Four (4) of the falls resulted in major injuries. The Medical Director failed to ensure the facility identified and addressed the root cause of the falls to prevent harm to residents. On 07/27/2023, Resident #1 left the facility without staff knowledge. The Medical Director stated he was not as involved as he should have been related to Resident #1's elopement to ensure the resident received adequate supervision following the elopement. The findings include: Review of the facility' job description titled, Role of Medical Director, no date given, revealed the facility would designate a licensed physician to serve as Medical Director and appointment would be made by the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with the Director of Nursing. Further review of the policy revealed the Medical Director (MD) would provide clinical leadership by directing, coordinating and evaluating medical care, implementing elder medical care policies, identifying, evaluating and addressing health care issues and assuring elders have primary and backup physician coverage. Continued review revealed other responsibilities included services that reflected current standards of care and were consistent with regulatory requirements. Review of the Medical Director's job description revealed the Medical Director's responsibilities included addressing and resolving concerns and issues between physicians, health care practitioners and facility staff and resolving issues related to continuity of care and transfer of medical information between the facility and other care settings. Additional responsibilities included reviewing, discussing and intervening in individual elder cases for quality of care, consultants and medical care inconsistent with current standards of care. Record review revealed other job responsibilities included creation of policies and participating in provision of inservice trainings. The MD was responsible for coordinating physician services and medical services in the building, advise management, administration, and governance on health and safety recommendations. The MD was also responsible for directing the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement and being familiar with the facility's process for the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) and help the facility provide a safe environment. Record review revealed Resident #1 left the faciity on [DATE] without staff's knowledge. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as mildly cognitively impaired on 04/10/2023 and as at risk for elopement on 04/20/2023. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed on 06/20/2023 Resident #3 fell from a wheelchair while unattended. The facility transferred the resident to a local hospital for evaluation. The hospital assessed Resident #3 with a nasal fracture and subdural hematoma. Record review revealed Resident #18 fell from the bed twice attempting to self-transfer. On 07/09/2023, the resident was attempting to self-transfer. Staff found the resident face-down on the floor next to his/her bed. This fall resulted in swelling and blood to his/her lip, and pain under his/her left arm. The facility transferred the resident to the local hospital for evaluation. On 07/29/2023, the facility found Resident #18 on the floor between the head of the bed and wheelchair. The resident was soiled with feces. Record review revealed Resident #22 had a fall on 07/07/2023, 07/15/2023 and on 07/22/2023. The resident's fall resulted in the right orbital blowout fracture while attempting to self- transfer, unattended. Record review revealed Resident #24 was found sitting in a chair on 06/25/2023. The resident had complaints of pain/swelling to the right knee. Resident #24 self -reported that he/she had fallen from the bed during a self-transfer. Further record review revealed radiology findings that the resident had a right femur fracture. Record review revealed Resident #25 self-reported, on 07/30/2023, that he/she had fallen the night before. The resident stated that he/she rolled out of the bed during care. Further record review revealed the resident sustained a knot to his/her right hip and a skin tear to the right elbow. Record review revealed Resident #26 had falls on 06/14/2023, 06/17/2023, 07/02/2023, 07/25/2023, 07/28/2023, 08/02/2023, and 08/15/2023. Continued review revealed the fall on 07/02/2023 was due to the resident's self-transfer attempts. Further review revealed the resident's fall resulted in fractures to the resident's right radius and ulna, as well as a fracture to the nasal bone. In an interview on 08/14/2023 at 8:23 AM, the Medical Director (MD) stated he was made aware of Resident #1's elopement on 07/27/2023. He stated his recommendation at that time was to report the incident to the relevant state agencies; and to keep the resident in the building until the facility determined the resident's cognitive abilities related to signing out of the facility independently. The Medical Director stated he believed it was not a good idea to allow residents to sign out to do a walk about, because the facility was ultimately responsible for the resident. In further interview, the MD stated he was not as involved as he should have been in the discussion if Resident #1 should be allowed to sign out of the facility and what safety measures should have been in place for him/her. In an additional interview on 09/05/2023 at 8:44 AM, related to the Medical Director's job duties, the MD stated the facility had a copy of his job description and he did not provide his specific job duties during the interview. The MD stated in a facility of this size, he would expect to see as many as thirty (30) falls in a month without becoming concerned about it. He stated long term care residents were prone to falls. Per interview, the Medical Director stated they kept discussions of repeat falls to a high level during the QAPI meetings so the meeting would not last longer than forty-five (45) minutes. He stated he did not have any concerns about the effectiveness of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. In an interview on 09/05/2023 at 2:08 PM, the Administrator stated she did not recall the Medical Director making contributions to any discussion of policy development or implementation. She further stated the MD was present for discussions of residents with repeated falls, but she could not recall any recommendations the MD made regarding the fall management program.
Jan 2023 17 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

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** 2. Review of Resident #23's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/11/2021, with diagnoses including Alzheimer's ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident #23's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/11/2021, with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Adult Failure to Thrive, and Age-Related Debility. Review of Resident #23's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 11/06/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of two (2) out of fifteen (15), which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility also assessed Resident #23 as requiring limited assistance for transferring between surfaces, walking in his/her room, and toileting; and needed substantial assistance to put on footwear. Review of Resident #23's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 11/13/2022, revealed the facility identified the resident was at risk for falls and care planned him/her for the fall risk. Per review of the Care Plan, the interventions included: for staff to be sure the call light was within Resident #23's reach; place a bedside commode at his/her bedside; place nonskid strips in the bathroom; continue to re-educate the resident to ask for assistance with toileting; encourage the resident to wear appropriate footwear when up; and place a raised toilet seat in the resident's bathroom. Observation, on 01/17/2023 at 10:21 AM, revealed Resident #23 sitting on his/her bed with his/her walker out of reach of the bed, and a bedside commode placed directly outside the bathroom door, out of the resident's reach and with no receptacle in it for the resident to be able to use it. Further observation in Resident #23's bathroom revealed there was a raised toilet seat with grab bars; however, no nonskid strips were present in the bathroom as per the resident's care plan. Interview with Resident #23's Resident Representative (RR) on 01/18/2023 at 5:32 PM, revealed the resident had fallen on multiple occasions since admission to the facility. The RR stated Resident #23 had Dementia and forgot that he/she needed to use a walker when going to the bathroom. Per interview with the RR, the facility had been asked to keep a bedside commode at Resident #23's bedside so the resident would be able to urinate without needing to walk to the bathroom. Further interview revealed the RR stated the bedside commode was usually in the bathroom when the RR came to visit Resident #23, and not beside the bed as requested. Interview with CNA #40 on 01/23/2023 at 11:01 AM, revealed she was aware of Resident #23's history of falls, including a fall with an injury. CNA #40 stated when she cared for Resident #23, she knew if the resident tried to get up independently, he/she was at high risk for a fall with injury. Per CNA #40, she assisted Resident #23 with getting up to go to the bathroom in the morning and after meals, and assisted the resident to his/her recliner after toileting. Further interview revealed CNA #40 did not recall a bedside commode being located in the resident's room as per his/her care plan. She further stated Resident #23 did not like to use a walker or wheelchair, so she made sure she assisted the resident with ambulation to protect him/her from falling. Interview with LPN #11, South Unit Manager on 01/26/2023 at 2:07 PM, revealed she was aware of Resident #23's history of falls and his/her care plan interventions. LPN #11 stated there were nonskid strips in place in the resident's bathroom that the facility had reapplied when the strips showed signs of wear and tear. Per LPN #11, Resident #23 could not be educated due to the resident's Dementia diagnosis. Continued interview revealed staff had repeatedly educated Resident #23 about using his/her call bell and waiting for assistance to go to the bathroom; however, the resident continued to get up without assistance. LPN #11 stated Resident #23 did not like to use the bedside commode, and the facility attempted offering frequent toileting to the resident. According to the LPN, Resident #23 would tell staff he/she did not need help and a short time later would get up to go to the bathroom without staffs' assistance. Further interview revealed after that happened multiple times, the facility determined offering a toileting schedule was not an effective intervention for Resident #23 and therefore, discontinued the intervention. 3. Review of Resident #57's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/04/2019, with diagnoses which included Type II Diabetes, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Cellulitis of Bilateral Lower Limbs, and Stage III Chronic Kidney Disease. Review of Resident #57's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 11/07/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of a fourteen (14) out of fifteen (15), indicating the resident was cognitively intact and interviewable. Further review of the MDS Assessment revealed the facility assessed Resident #57 as having five (5) venous and/or arterial ulcers. Review of Resident #57's Care Plan, dated 01/06/2023, revealed the facility care planned the resident for impaired skin integrity with interventions including: to provide treatments to the bilateral lower extremities as per the Physician's Orders, and to encourage the resident to elevate his/her legs during the day. Observation of Resident #57 on 01/03/2023 at 2:08 PM, revealed gauze dressings on the resident's legs with a foul odor noted in the resident's vicinity. Continued observation revealed the gauze dressings were loose with yellow areas in multiple places on the dressings on each leg. Further observation of Resident #57 on 01/03/2023 at 3:50 PM, revealed the dressings remained with an odor and the appearance of the dressings was unchanged from the previous observation. Review of Resident #57's Physician's Orders, dated 01/17/2023, revealed staff were to daily clean the resident's bilateral lower extremities with wound cleanser, apply calcium alginate with silver to open lymph wounds, and secure with gentle tubi-grip (a pressure bandage). Review of Resident #57's wound note, dated 01/17/2023 at 7:08 AM, revealed the wound doctor's recommendation were to cover the topical medication on the resident's leg wounds with an absorbent pad, held in place by a stretchy gauze roll, covered by an ACE bandage, which was to be changed every day for thirty (30) days. Review of Resident #57's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated 01/2023, revealed the dressings on the resident's legs were not documented as having been changed as required on 01/22/2023 or 01/23/2023. Observation of Resident #57 on 01/23/2023 at 10:56 AM, revealed yellow areas observed on the gauze dressings bilaterally with no ACE bandage or tubi-grip in place as ordered. Observation further revealed Resident #57 was sitting up in his/her wheelchair with his/her eyes closed and his/her feet on the floor with no footrests for elevating his/her feet as per the care plan. Interview with Resident #57 on 01/23/2023 at 10:57 AM, revealed the dressings on his/her bilateral legs were only changed twice per week after his/her showers. Interview with CNA #40 on 01/23/2023 at 11:01 AM, revealed in her experience when caring for Resident #57, the dressings on his/her legs were only changed twice per week with showers, even if the resident had urinated on the dressings while trying to use a urinal, which she had witnessed multiple times. CNA #40 stated on those occasions, she had removed the urine-soaked dressings and informed the nurse. Further interview revealed there had been one (1) occasion when the dressings had not been reapplied the next day, though CNA #40 did not recall who the nurse was or when this had occurred. Interview with the MDS Coordinator on 01/27/2023 at 3:03 PM, revealed her practice was to update residents' care plans based on new orders put in their EMR by the wound care nurse. Further interview revealed the importance of following the care plan was so the residents received the care they needed through the interventions care planned. 4. Review of Resident #71's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/25/2019, with diagnoses including Hemiparesis of Right Dominant Side, Aphasia (inability to speak), Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and Gastrostomy (a feeding tube directly in the stomach). Review of Resident #71's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 01/13/2023, revealed the resident was not assigned a score under the BIMS assessment due to communication barriers and not being interviewable. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a gastrostomy feeding tube in place and to receive twenty-five percent (25%) or less of his/her total calories from tube feedings. Review of Resident #71's Care Plan dated 11/19/2022, revealed the facility care planned the resident for his/her tube feedings with interventions for gastrostomy care including site care and dressing changes to be performed each shift as per the Physician's Order. Observation, on 01/23/2023 at 9:26 AM, of Resident #71 revealed there was no dressing in place to the resident's gastrostomy site when LPN #5 pulled the resident's clothing back to begin gastrostomy site care. Continued observation revealed LPN #5 cleansed a moderate amount of dried brown drainage from around the gastrostomy tube insertion site. Further observation revealed LPN #5 removed the tube feeding and flush tubing from the previous shift that had not been dated. Interview with LPN #5 on 01/23/2023 at 9:32 AM, revealed the night shift nurse should have performed the gastrostomy site care, to include cleansing the drainage from around the gastrostomy site and re-applying a dressing to the site according to the Physician's Order. LPN #5 stated following the care plan and orders for gastrostomy site care was important to protect the resident from complications including skin breakdown. 5. Review of Resident #255's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/26/2022, with diagnoses including Sepsis, Pneumonitis due to Inhalation of Food and Vomit, Dysphagia, Seizures, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Review of Resident #255's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of five (5) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE], for Resident #255 revealed the facility discharged the resident assessed needs of: requiring extensive assistance to transfer between surfaces; utilizing a wheelchair; and requiring a mechanically altered diet. Review of Resident #255's Care Plan revealed the facility failed to develop care plans for the resident's need for aspiration prevention and fall prevention. Interview with Resident #255's RR on 01/04/2023 at 3:00 PM, revealed staff did not keep the resident's bed in the lowest position, and the height of the bed at times was concerning. The RR stated there had been nothing in place for Resident #255 regarding fall prevention such as, a fall mat, bed rails, or anything else. Further interview revealed there had been multiple occasions when the RR observed staff members, including CNA #13 and LPN #20 giving Resident #255 thin liquids, even after the RR told them the resident had aspirated on thin liquids in the past. Interview with CNA #13 on 01/06/2022 at 2:25 PM, revealed he recalled Resident #255 and remembered the resident had been a high fall risk and was unable to transfer from the bed to the chair without assistance. CNA #13 stated when he worked he ensured Resident #255 wore non-skid footwear and had his/her bed kept in the lowest position. He stated he offered the resident toileting every two (2) hours to reduce his/her risk of falling. In addition, CNA #13 stated he relied on shift report to know what Resident #255's needs were due to inconsistent documentation including the resident's care plan interventions. CNA #13 further stated the inconsistent documentation was due to the frequent management changes at the facility. 6. Review of Resident #348's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/05/2023, with diagnoses including Hemiplegia of the Left Side, Dysphagia, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Review of Resident #348's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility's assessed the resident with a BIMS score of three (3) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #348 as requiring a mechanically altered diet and extensive assistance with eating. Review of Resident #348's Care Plan dated 01/24/2023, revealed the facility failed to develop a care plan for the resident's need for aspiration prevention and extensive assistance with meals. Observation on 01/05/2023 at 3:13 PM, revealed LPN #5 was at Resident #348's bedside, encouraging him/her to take deep breaths and instructing the resident not to drink soda out of the can because he/she would get choked. Interview with LPN #5 at 3:16 PM, revealed Resident #348 became choked easily when his/her family provided soda that had not been thickened. LPN #5 stated she educated the resident's family, and they had taken the remaining cans of soda home with them. Further interview revealed LPN #5 stated Resident #348 required assistance with eating to prevent aspiration. Interview with the niece of Resident #348 on 01/18/2023 at 1:54 PM, revealed she did not understand why Resident #348 could not have soda to drink. She stated the facility would only provide thickened water for the resident to drink. Interview, with the MDS Coordinator on 01/27/2023 at 3:03 PM, revealed she was responsible for developing care plans based on residents' assessed conditions which were discussed in clinical meetings with the interdisciplinary care team (IDT). Per the MDS Coordinator, she also developed care plans according to new orders entered by the Physician. Further interview revealed she believed a resident's need for thickened liquids was adequately conveyed in the care plan under the weight loss section with the intervention of Diet per MD orders. Interview, with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/27/2023 at 3:34 PM, revealed her expectations were for care plans to be developed and followed according to policy. Interview with the Administrator on 01/28/2023 at 1:27 PM, revealed her expectations were for care plans to be individualized in development and interventions followed so residents could achieve their highest quality of life. The facility provided an acceptable Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Removal Plan on 01/18/2023, alleging removal of the IJ on 12/20/2022. Review of the IJ Removal Plan revealed the facility implemented the following: 1. On 11/22/2022, Resident #1 was placed on one-on-one (1:1) supervision immediately upon being brought back into the facility. 1:1 was provided by CNAs. Resident #1 received a head-to-toe assessment by LPN #3, with no new concerns noted. Wander Guard was initiated, and Physician and family were notified. 2. On 11/22/2022 Therapy Director (TD) and LPN #3 were re-educated on the elopement policy, the Wander Guard system, and the red box alarms by the DON. 3. On 11/22/2022 the Administrator and DON completed Ad Hoc Quality Assurance (QA) with the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) and the Clinical Consultant (CC) to discuss the interviews collected at the time of the event and the investigation preliminary to determine root cause of elopement to be LPN #3, did not notify the DON of an attempted exit seeking behavior of Resident #1, further LPN #3 requested assistance from Rehab staff to deactivate the alarm and did not validate the alarm had been reactivated completely. 4. Ad Hoc QA initiated corrective action validating the alarms and facility doors were in working condition on 11/22/2022. 5. Education for nursing, dietary, laundry, housekeeping, therapy, activities, and administrative staff was initiated by the Administrator and DON on 11/22/2022 and continued using the train the trainer method. Education consisted of: elopement policy and procedure; notification of elopement and exit seeking behavior; alarms and functioning; elopement assessment accuracy; care planning revisions and interventions; elopement binders and resident information; and maintaining equipment and access to keys to override sounding alerts. On 11/22/2022, The DON began conducting education with agency staff before assignment related to the elopement policy and procedure, notification of elopement and exit seeking behavior, alarms and functioning, elopement assessment accuracy, care planning revisions and interventions, elopement binders and resident information, maintaining equipment and access to keys to override sounding alerts. This training was amended on 11/24/2022 by the DON, with management staff then training their employees. Training consisted of the following: Red Box Alarm Key being placed on the North and Rehab Narcotic Key Ring; responding to the Red Box alarms; identifying the source for the alarm sounding; implementing an Elopement Drill if the source was not identified; Nurse printing off census and verifying each resident was accounted for; if not able to account for each resident to contact the Abuse Coordinator (the Administrator); the process of searching the facility and grounds; ensuring the alarm had been re-activated; and drill was complete once residents were all accounted for. 6. Education reconciliation completed by the Human Resources Director to ensure staff received education prior to working. Training initiated on 11/22/2022 immediately upon return of Resident #1 and continued through 11/27/2022. Staff not educated by this date were educated prior to working their next scheduled shift. 7. A door check function was completed by a contracted service with no concerns noted. 8. On 11/23/2022, the DON completed 1:1 education with the Social Services Director (SSD) related to care planning and elopement assessment. 9. On 11/23/2022, the DON and SSD reassessed all sixteen (16) residents on the rehab unit for elopement utilizing care plans, progress notes, and admission assessment tool to determine potential elopement risk. The DON and SSD completed reviews of care plans for residents identified at risk for wandering to ensure care plans reflected accurate interventions. Included sixteen (16) residents on rehab unit. 10. On 11/24/2022, Red Box Alarm access was modified by the Administrator to the nurses' stations and Maintenance Director. Modified access implemented nurses' response to door alarms and Maintenance Director as a backup for key retrieval. 11. On 11/24/2022 the QA Committee reviewed the door audits, elopement education, door alarm education, assessments of residents deemed at risk for elopement/wandering. The QA Committee reviewed the data and determined it appropriate according to the events of Resident #1 elopement from the facility on 11/22/22. 12. A medication review was completed on 11/25/2022 by the Consulting Pharmacist for Resident #1 with no new orders given. 13. Resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], after discharge to a psychiatric hospital on [DATE], with documentation of medication review completed by the psychiatric hospital. Medication changes implemented consisted of Depakote 125 milligram (mg) change from two times a day (bid) to three times a day (tid), and Seroquel 75 mg by mouth (PO) bedtime changed to Seroquel 50 mg PO at bedtime, Seroquel 25 mg PO at AM. 14. Nursing readmission assessment completed on 12/13/2022 by LPN #5, with Resident #1 deemed a potential risk for elopement. Wander Guard remained in effect, although the 1:1 intervention was discontinued. 15. Following a second elopement from the facility by Resident #1 on 12/14/2022, Resident #1 was placed on 1:1 observation by Administrator and DON to remain in effect until secure unit placement was established. 1:1 observation completed by CNAs. Additionally, the dining room doors were locked when not in use to prevent access to the dining room emergency exit. 16. On 12/14/2022, a skin assessment was attempted, and a pain evaluation was completed for Resident #1 by LPN #13. 17. On 12/14/2022, the facility Administrator along with the DON completed an ad hoc QA meeting with the CNO and CC to discuss the interviews collected at the time of the event and the investigation preliminary to determine the root cause of the elopement to be dining room emergency exit door did not annunciate at a volume that staff could respond to, which allowed the resident to exit the facility. The Ad Hoc Committee implemented immediate corrective training with staff on shift on supervising residents, additional training was initiated at the time to include the Wander Guard system, care planning, and elopement assessments by the DON and the Administrator and continue with each staff prior to being assigned or reporting to duty and continue until 100% staff training was completed. 18. The Medical Director and Resident #1's daughter (Daughter #1) were notified of the elopement by the Administrator on 12/14/2022. 19. A change of condition assessment was completed by the DON on 12/14/2022. 20. As of 12/14/2022, current staff have been re-educated on the Elopement Policy with an emphasis on notifying the DON when a resident attempts to leave the facility, responding to alarms, not turning off alarms without ensuring residents were accounted for. This education was completed by the DON and/or a nurse manager and continued using train the trainer method. Current facility staff educated: Administrative Staff: 20 of 20; Licensed Nurses: 5 of 5; Certified Medication Aides: 6 of 6; Certified Nursing Assistants: 34 of 34; Dietary Department: 13 of 13; Housekeeping/Laundry Department: 17 of 17; Maintenance Department: 1 of 1; and Therapy: 16 of 16. Staff not educated were to be educated prior to their next scheduled shift. Agency staff were to be educated prior to working by a nurse manager. Newly hired employees were to be educated during orientation. 21. On 12/14/2022, current facility licensed nurses were re-educated on completing Elopement Risk Assessments and accuracy and to complete a new Elopement Risk Assessment if the resident was wandering or exit seeking and to notify the DON if/when a resident was exhibiting exit seeking behavior or wandering. Current staff educated: Licensed Nurses: 5 of 5; Administrative Nurses: 6 of 6; agency staff were to be educated prior to working by a nurse manager; newly hired employees were to be educated during orientation; elopement drills were completed on rotating shifts by the interdisciplinary team. 22. On 12/15/2022, current facility residents had an Elopement Risk Assessment completed by the nurse management team, consisting of the DON, LPN #11, LPN #12, and the Wound Care Manager. This assessment included ninety-seven (97) residents. 23. Wander Guard placement was initiated on 12/15/2022 for residents deemed at risk for elopement/wandering. Risk assessment was completed by Social Services Director (SSD) and LPN #13. Three (3) of ninety-seven (97) residents evaluated for elopement/wander risk were found to be at risk, in addition to Resident #1, and Wander Guard placement was initiated. Wander Guard placement and function checks were completed for current residents with Wander Guards in place and identified at risk for elopement/wandering by SSD. 24. Care plan reviews and updates were completed for residents identified at risk for elopement/ wandering by SSD. Four (4) care plans were reviewed and updated. 25. Facility wide elopement books were reviewed and updated to reflect residents at risk for elopement/wandering by SSD. 26. A care plan review and update were completed by the Wound Care Manager. Revision made to care plan to reflect Resident #1 as a high risk for elopement. 27. On 12/19/2022, The IDT conducted an Ad Hoc QA meeting to discuss the root cause analysis of Resident #1's elopement from the facility on 12/14/2022. The root cause analysis of the event reviewed was the door alarms of the facility's main dining room and keypad did not annunciate to be audible at the nearest nurses' station. Thus, Resident #1 exited the facility through the main dining room emergency exit door on 12/14/2022. The Ad Hoc QA committee initiated corrective action validating that alarms, resident Wander Guard, and facility doors were in working condition. 28. On 12/19/2022, the QA Committee reviewed the door audits, education on elopements, care plans, elopement assessments, elopement drills, door alarms, and assessments of residents deemed at risk for elopement/wandering. The QA Committee reviewed the data and determined it to be appropriate according to the events of Resident #1's elopement from the facility on 12/14/2022. 29. On 12/19/2022, procedure implemented for the DON or assigned designee to conduct education with agency staff before assignment related to elopement policy and procedure, notifications of elopement and exit seeking behaviors, alarms and functioning, elopement assessment accuracy, care planning revisions and interventions, elopement binders/resident information, maintaining equipment, and access to keys to override sounding alarms. 30. On 12/19/2022 the Ad Hoc Committee implemented system changes, audits, and continued to evaluate the remaining investigation through chart reviews, staff interviews, facility environment, and education to adjust the ongoing changes as needed. 31. The main dining room door was rewired by a contracted agency on 12/22/2022 to annunciate at the north nurses station. 32. Daily door checks were being completed to verify maglock function, alarm annunciation, and red box proper alarm validation, Wander Guard and keypad function by the interdisciplinary team (IDT). 33. Elopement drills were completed on rotating shifts by the IDT. The elopement drills were completed on the following dates/times: 12/14/2022 at 7:26 PM; 12/14/2022 at 11:59 PM; 12/16/2022 at 4:40 PM; 12/17/2022 at 11:45 PM; 12/18/2022 at 1:00 PM; 12/19/2022 at 4:47 PM; 12/21/2022 at 2:00 PM; 12/29/2022 at 5:40 PM; 12/31/2022 at 3:45 PM; 01/06/2023 at 1:00 AM; 01/07/2023 at 4:00 AM; 01/09/2023 at 9:00 AM; and 01/13/2023 at 1:33 PM. 34. The Administrator would perform Quality Assurance Review to ensure the door checks were being completed accurately via review of the records and/or observation of the IDT while performing the door checks. The review was to occur five (5) to seven (7) times weekly for four (4) weeks, then three (3) to five (5) times weekly for four (4) weeks then one (1) to three (3) times weekly for four (4) weeks then monthly for six (6) months. Areas of concern were to be addressed immediately. Findings were to be reported to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee monthly. 35. The clinical IDT were to review current facility residents Elopement Risk Assessments and care plan quarterly and with a significant change to ensure the Elopement Risk Assessment had been completed accurately and the care plan had been updated with appropriate interventions to prevent an elopement. 36. The DON was to perform Quality Assurance Review to ensure the clinical IDT had reviewed the Elopement Risk Assessment and care plans for new residents during the daily clinical meeting and current facility residents quarterly and with a significant change. The review was to occur one (1) to three (3) times weekly for four (4) weeks then weekly for four (4) weeks then monthly for six (6) months. Areas of concern were to be addressed immediately. Findings were to be reported to the Administrator with each review and the QAPI Committee monthly. The State Survey Agency validated the implementation of the facility's IJ Removal Plan as follows: 1. Review of 1:1 Monitoring documentation revealed Resident #1 remained on one-on-one (1:1) observation by staff from 1:30 PM on 11/22/2022 through 11/29/2022 when transferred to a psychiatric facility, with a break from 11:45 AM on 11/26/2022 through 1:30 AM on 11/27/2022 at which time Resident #1 was out of the facility. Review of Resident #1's EMR revealed a skin assessment was completed by, LPN #3 on 11/22/2022 at 1:40 PM alleged, with no concerns identified. Review of Resident #1's Physician's orders revealed an order dated 11/22/2022 at 3:15 PM, to apply a Wander Guard for elopement risk. Continued review of Resident #1's EMR revealed a progress note dated 11/22/2022 at 3:39 PM, completed by the DON documenting the Physician was notified. Interview on 01/24/2023 at 10:39 AM with CNA #3 revealed she was one (1) of the first staff assigned to Resident #1's 1:1 supervision after the 11/22/2022 elopement. Per CNA #3, when providing the 1:1 supervision of Resident #1 she was to always keep the resident in sight. Interview on 01/24/2023 at 8:08 AM, with the Medical Director confirmed he was contacted on 11/22/2022, of Resident #1's elopement, by the DON. The Medical Director stated he was reassured by DON that the facility was proactively ensuring this type of event would not happen again. Further interview revealed the DON also informed him that Resident #1 had been moved and relocated to a more secure unit and staff were providing 1:1 supervision of the resident pending a psychiatric hospitalization. Interview on 01/23/2023 at 9:08 AM, with Resident #1's daughter (Daughter #1) confirmed the facility had contacted her following the resident's elopement. She stated she had visited the evening of 11/22/2022, and knew they had changed Resident #1's room to a more secure unit and placed an alarm bracelet on him/her. Further interview revealed Resident #1 had been doing well when she saw him/her the evening of 11/22/2022. 2. Review of facility's documentation revealed on 11/22/2022 at 3:20 PM, the DON spoke with LPN #3 regarding Resident #1's behavior prior to elopement, and discussed timely notification to the unit manager, DON, and Administrator of any behaviors indicative of elopement risk, and documenting and care planning those behaviors. Continued review of the facility's documentation revealed a note erroneously documented as an 11/12/2022 note, for the 11/22/2022 incident involving Resident #1, signed by the Administrator. Review of the note revealed the Administrator met with the Therapy Director (TD) in response to door alarms, by calling a code green, and notifying the DON and Administrator. Interview on 01/23/2023 at 3:26 PM, with the DON confirmed she re-educated the TD and LPN #3 on the facility's elopement policy. She stated she spoke to them and told them if a resident had been exhibiting exit seeking behaviors, they should have contacted the Administrator and [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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 policies and investigations, it was determined the ...

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 policies and investigations, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure residents who exhibited wandering behaviors or were assessed at risk for elopement received adequate supervision and monitoring for one (1) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents (Resident #1). The facility admitted Resident #1 on 11/12/2022 with diagnoses of Dementia with Agitation and assessed not to be an elopement risk on admission. The facility assessed the resident to have wandering behaviors on one (1) to three (3) days during the seven (7) day look back period. Resident #1 was documented to have been wandering the hallways and attempting to go into other residents' rooms on 11/18/2022; however, there was no documented evidence the facility reassessed the resident for elopement risk. Interview revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 was administering medication on 11/22/2022 at approximately 10:00 AM, when an alarm sounded, and the LPN observed Resident #1 at the emergency exit. LPN #3 stated even though Resident #1 often talked about having things to do outside of the facility, she did not feel the resident was at risk for elopement, and did not inform the Charge Nurse or Director of Nursing (DON) of that information. On 11/22/2022 at approximately 1:15 PM, Resident #1 eloped from the facility without staff's knowledge and without the alarm on the door sounding. The facility was notified by a passerby at 1:18 PM of a resident walking down the sidewalk next to a major road with no shoes on. Staff responded and located and returned Resident #1 to the facility at 1:26 PM. Staff determined the Resident #1 had exited the unsecured Southwest door on the rehab unit, which was the same door the resident had triggered the alarm on at 10:00 AM that same day. The facility was unable to determine if the red box alarm on the door had been turned off by a staff person, and why the magnetic (mag) lock keypad alarm had not been sounding. Resident #1 was placed on one to one (1:1) supervision until sent out to a psychiatric hospital on [DATE]; and readmitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE], with no report of exit seeking behaviors. Resident #1's comprehensive care plan had been revised on 11/22/2022, to include interventions of a Wander Guard (a device placed on a resident's ankle that caused a door also equipped with the Wander Guard to alarm when the resident exited the door), room change, and increased supervision by staff; however, the resident's one-to-one (1:1) supervision was not resumed. On 12/14/2022 at approximately 6:35 PM, the facility again allowed Resident #1 to elope from the facility without staff's knowledge, through an emergency exit door not equipped with a Wander Guard alarming system. Staff coming to work observed Resident #1 at the edge of the parking lot at 6:40 PM, and returned him/her to the facility. Per interview, alarms had sounded in the dining room which was in use at the time and with the doors closed the alarms could not be heard by staff at the nearest nursing station. The facility's failure to have an effective system in place to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and monitoring to prevent elopement has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 01/07/2023, and determined to exist on 11/22/2022 in the areas of 42 CFR 483.21 Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, F656, at a Scope and Severity (S/S) of a J; and 42 CFR 483.25 Free of Accidents/Hazards/Supervision, F689 at a S/S of a J, along with Substandard Quality of Care. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 01/07/2023. The facility provided an acceptable Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Removal Plan on 01/18/2023, alleging removal of the IJ on 12/20/2022. The State Survey Agency (SSA) validated removal of the IJ on 01/25/2023, prior to exit on 01/28/2023, and determined the facility had removed the immediacy of the Jeopardy on 12/20/2022, as alleged, before the initiation of the survey. However, additional deficient practice was identified at F689 at the scope and severity of G. The facility failed to protect residents from accidents for two (2) of the sixty-four (64) sampled residents, Resident #23 and Resident #255. On 12/26/2021, Resident #23 fell in his/her room, sustaining a fracture to his/her right arm, which required hospitalization. Resident #23 fell in the room again on four (4) additional occasions: on 04/08/2022, 07/10/2022, 09/14/2022, and 10/23/2022. On 08/28/2022, a staff member found Resident #255 lying on the floor, bleeding from a laceration on his/her forehead. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Elopement/Exit Seeking, revised 09/02/2019, revealed cognitively impaired residents with the physical ability to leave the facility without assistance, and who had demonstrated or vocalized a desire to leave the facility were to be placed on a unit with an electronic monitoring system or similarly secured unit. Continued review revealed the resident's elopement risk would be care planned to reduce the potential for elopement and/or redirect the resident if an elopement attempt was made. Further review revealed staff were to promptly report any resident who tried to leave the premises to the Charge Nurse or Director of Nursing (DON). Review of Resident #1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/12/2022, with diagnoses that included Dementia with Agitation, Anxiety Disorder Unspecified, and Insomnia Unspecified. Per review, of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 11/16/2022, for Resident #1 revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of four (4) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Continued MDS review revealed the facility assessed Resident #1 with wandering behaviors exhibited one (1) to three (3) days during the seven (7) day look-back period. Continued review of Resident #'1 EMR revealed a Progress Note, dated 11/18/2022 at 1:00 PM, signed by Registered Nurse (RN) #1, the Rehabilitation (Rehab) Unit Manager which documented the resident had been wandering in hallways and attempting to go into other residents' rooms, demonstrating agitation or aggressiveness with redirection or assistance. Review of the Progress Note, dated 11/18/2022, revealed RN #1 contacted the Nurse Practitioner (NP) and received an order for Ativan (a narcotic medication used to treat anxiety and insomnia) prn (as necessary). Review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed no documented evidence of a care plan addressing elopement or wandering behaviors for the resident prior to his/her elopement from the facility on 11/22/2022. 1. A. Review of the facility's incident report, dated 11/25/2022, revealed Receptionist #1 received a call on 11/22/2022 at 1:18 PM, of a potential missing resident walking on the sidewalk by a busy road next to the facility and was not wearing shoes. Per review of the report, Receptionist #1 notified the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator, and the facility initiated an elopement drill at 1:20 PM. Continued review revealed Resident #1 was located by staff ambulating on the sidewalk next to a busy road at 1:23 PM, and was returned to the facility by staff at 1:26 PM. Review of the incident report further revealed Resident #1 had last been seen in his/her room by staff at approximately 1:15 PM, and had exited the facility's southwest door on the rehab unit without alarms sounding and without staff's knowledge. Review of the report revealed Resident #1 was assessed, placed on 1:1 observation, and moved to a different room. Per the report, the Physician and family were notified, Resident #1's medications (meds) were reviewed, and his/her care plan was reviewed and updated. Further review of the facility's incident report revealed staff education and elopement drills were initiated, doors were checked by an outside contractor and deemed to be functioning properly, and door checks for security were ongoing. Observation, on 01/04/2023 at 3:00 PM, of the path taken by Resident #1 on 11/22/2022, from the facility's emergency exit to the sidewalk by the road, revealed it was approximately one hundred and sixty (160) feet from where Resident #1 was located. Review of Resident #1's care plan revealed on 11/22/2022, the care plan was updated to include a care area noted for elopement/wandering with interventions which included: distracting the resident by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food , conversation, television, and books. Continued review revealed the area on the care plan related to Resident #1's preferences was left blank. Further review revealed additional interventions included: monitoring Resident #1 throughout each shift, documenting his/her wandering behaviors and attempted diversions; providing structured activities to include walking inside and outside, reorientation strategies including signs, pictures and memory boxes and toileting; placement of a wander guard to him/her related to elopement; and 1:1 supervision related to elopement. Review of the facility's 1:1 Monitoring documentation revealed the facility kept Resident #1 on 1:1 staff observation from 11/22/2022 at 1:30 PM through 11/29/2022 when the resident was transferred to the psychiatric facility. Continued review of the 1:1 Monitoring documentation revealed a break in the 1:1 documentation from 11/26/2022 at 11:45 AM through 11/27/2022 at 1:30 AM. Review of Resident #1's EMR revealed a skin assessment was completed by LPN #3 on 11/22/2022 at 1:40 PM with no concerns identified. Per EMR review, an elopement risk assessment was completed on 11/22/2022 by LPN #11 with Resident #1 noted as at high risk for elopement with a score of fourteen (14), with anything over a ten (10) indicating a risk for elopement. Further review of the elopement risk assessment revealed Resident #1's room had been changed and a wander guard placed, with orders for the wander guard at that time. Review of pharmacy documentation revealed the Consultant Pharmacist reviewed Resident #1's medications on 11/25/2022 and determined the resident was not on any medication that would cause or increase agitation. Resident #1 was started on Seroquel 25 mg at hour of sleep (hs) following the 11/22/2022 elopement. Review of a Time and Materials Ticket from an outside contractor revealed all facility doors had been checked on 11/22/2022, with all doors determined to be functioning properly. Interview, with Receptionist #1 on 01/20/2023 at 2:11 PM, revealed she received a call after lunchtime on 11/22/2022 from a lady who said she saw an older person on a nearby busy highway with no shoes on. Receptionist #1 stated as soon as she got off phone she went to the DON's (Director of Nursing) office, where the DON, Administrator, and all unit coordinators were at that time. She stated she announced a code green, and everybody went to search. Interview ,on 01/04/2022 at 2:26 PM, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2, who worked the rehab unit where Resident #1 was initially admitted , revealed she described Resident #1 as very confused when he/she first arrived, constantly talking about wanting to go home, needing to go to the bank, or wanting to pick up vehicles from the mechanic. She stated Resident #1 had been unsteady upon arrival and staff had to walk with him/her. CNA #2 stated Resident #1 would wander around the unit, and although the resident would go to the doors, he/she would stop at the doors. Continued interview revealed CNA #2 had been working on 11/22/2022, assisting CNA #3 with a resident who required a Hoyer (brand of mechanical lift) lift to go to bed, at the far hallway with the resident's door closed. She stated when she and CNA #3 came out of that room, they heard the code green paged overhead. Per CNA #2, she and CNA #3 started checking resident rooms and noted Resident #1 was not in his/her room. According to CNA #2, she had observed Resident #1 in his/her room maybe five (5) minutes prior to assisting CNA #3 with the Hoyer lift. She stated she stayed on the unit while RN #1 and LPN #3 went other places to search. Further interview revealed when staff returned with Resident #1, they stated he/she was just outside the fence standing next to the road. CNA #2 further stated she sat with Resident #1 until the end of her shift at 3:00 PM, and it was her understanding other staff sat with Resident #1 until he/she was moved that evening to another unit. Interview on 01/04/2022 at 2:45 PM, with CNA #3 revealed Resident #1 was pleasant with wild moments, which she described as the resident would start yelling and nothing you could do would calm him/her down, you would just have to walk away. She stated Resident #1 would sometimes pack all his/her stuff, come to the door, and state he/she was going to catch the bus. Per CNA #3, just about everyday Resident #1 would yell about catching the bus and would talk about leaving the facility often. The CNA stated Resident #1 made comments in front of nursing staff about leaving. She stated she was working on 11/22/2022 with CNA #2 putting a resident to bed in that resident's room with the door closed. Continued interview revealed they heard the code green called overhead when they came out of the room. She stated they did a head count of all residents on the unit and could not locate Resident #1. According to CNA #3, she and a nurse ran down the road to catch Resident #1, who had been standing on the sidewalk right next to the road heading towards an intersection, with a jacket on and non-skid socks on his/her feet. Further interview revealed Resident #1 asked if we were taking him/her back to jail, and when staff told the resident they were taking him/her back to the building, he/she was okay with that. CNA #3 further stated when brought back in, Resident #1 laid down on the bed in his/her room. Interview with LPN #3 on 01/05/2022 at 9:01 AM, and again on 01/06/2022 at 1:20 PM, revealed Resident #1's baseline had been confusion. She stated Resident #1 would often talk about being in the market for a car, having a job interview later, or a meeting scheduled with an attorney, or would be waiting for a train. Continued interview revealed she described Resident #1's behavior as confused, rambling and stated if she had believed the resident to be an elopement risk, she would have stayed glued to him/her. LPN #3 stated she was working the morning of 11/22/2022, and Resident #1 had been up at the nurse's station that morning, looking for a train. Per LPN #3, around 10:00 AM, Resident #1 had set the alarm off on the Southwest emergency exit door of the unit, and when she observed the resident, he/she was holding his/her arms up as though startled and being arrested. Interview revealed LPN #3 had not observed Resident #1 attempting to exit, and it appeared he/she had accidentally set the alarms off by leaning on the door. LPN #3 stated as she did not have a key to the red box alarm on the door that was sounding, she asked the Therapy Director (TD) to turn off the alarm. The LPN stated she observed the TD turn the alarm off, then turned it back to the on position once it stopped alarming. Additionally, LPN #3 stated her intent had been to alert the Unit Manager, RN #1, about the incident of Resident #1 setting off the alarm when she returned to the unit from staff meetings; however, she had not considered it a priority as she did not believe Resident #1 to be exit seeking. Continued interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 on 01/05/2022 at 9:01 AM, and again on 01/06/2022 at 1:20 PM, revealed when she left for her lunch break, Resident #1 had been standing at the nurse's station talking to CNA #12 (also a medication aide). She stated when she returned from her lunch break, Resident #1 was in his/her room, after having eloped from the facility. She stated she did a head-to-toe assessment of him/her and took vitals. Per LPN #3, Resident #1 had no injuries and was at his/her baseline confusion. Further interview revealed she had been told the alarms had not sounded. Interview further revealed it was believed one (1) of the housekeepers had disabled the alarms, as they had been in and out earlier in the day to go to a storage room; however, she was not there and did not know for certain. Interview with CNA #12, on 01/06/2022 at 10:20 AM, and again on 01/10/2022 at 5:00 PM, revealed she had worked with Resident #1 once or twice prior to his/her elopement. CNA #12 stated Resident #1 had been on one-on-one (1:1) at those times due to his/her behaviors, as the resident had aggressive behaviors and tried to strike a staff member. Per CNA #12, Resident #1 walked around the unit, and often talked about going home. Continued interview revealed CNA #12 had been working on 11/22/2022, when Resident #1 set off the door alarm that morning, and later on was at the nurse's station talking about going home. According to CNA #12, that afternoon she was on the medication (med) cart (as she was a medication aide) and noted Resident #1 was really confused and was again talking about going home. CNA #12 stated she encouraged Resident #1 to sit down, at which point the resident went back towards his/her room. Further interview revealed CNA #12 went back to passing medications (meds) and did not hear any alarms going off. She further stated if the alarm had gone off, it was quite loud and she would have heard it sounding. In addition, she stated she did not see Resident #1 again until staff brought him/her back inside after the resident eloped, at which point he/she had been placed on 1:1 supervision. Interview with RN #1, the Rehab Unit Manager on 01/05/2022 at 1:09 PM; on 01/06/2022 at 2:18 PM; and again on 01/23/2023 at 2:48 PM, revealed Resident #1 was kind of everywhere, and when asked to clarify that statement, she stated the resident had not appeared as focused on one (1) specific thing and walked around a lot. She stated Resident #1 would talk about wanting to play poker, and did other things not available at the facility, but never said anything specific about leaving the facility. According to RN #1, when asked about the progress note she made on 11/18/2022, Resident #1 had been wandering and attempting to enter other residents' rooms. She stated she did not consider Resident #1 as an elopement risk. RN #1 stated she was working on 11/22/2022; however, she had not heard about Resident #1 setting the alarm off earlier that morning, because she was probably in a meeting when that occurred. Continued interview revealed had she been aware of Resident #1 setting off the alarm that morning, it would have prompted her to put interventions in place to address that behavior. She stated interventions would probably have included moving Resident #1 to a more secure unit and 1:1 supervision, which were the common interventions for exit seeking residents. Per RN #1, when Resident #1 eloped, she was in her office on the far hallway of the unit and might not have been able to hear the alarm, even if it had been functioning correctly. Further interview revealed alarms had not been sounding when she received the phone call alerting her to a potential elopement. RN #1 further stated she had never known the red box or keypad alarms to not function unless the red box was turned off with a key and someone had punched in the code for the keypad alarm. In addition, RN #1 stated Resident #1 was moved to the South Unit on 11/22/2022, for increased supervision, as they had a Wander Guard system over there. Interview on 01/05/2023 at 9:45 AM, with the Housekeeping Supervisor (HS) and Housekeeping #2, revealed carpet cleaning machines used to be stored in a storage area on the rehab unit which was through the Southwest emergency exit. However, the machines had been moved to the nursing side as it was more convenient. The HS stated she used to have a key to the red box alarms on the doors, but after the incident of Resident #1 eloping, she now had to get nursing staff to turn off the alarms. Continued interview revealed the Housekeeping staff members had no idea who might have turned the red box alarm off on 11/22/2022, the day Resident #1 eloped. Interview on 01/05/2023 at 10:08 AM, with the Director of Therapy (DT), whose department was just outside the rehab unit, revealed she was working on 11/22/2022, and had Resident #1 on her caseload. She stated she had already been to the rehab unit that day, and last observed Resident #1 lying on his/her bed. Per the DT, she had been at her 9:00 AM morning meeting, when she heard a loud alarm on the rehab unit. Continued interview revealed LPN #3 asked her if she could come reset the door alarm, as Resident #1 had leaned up against the door causing it to go off. The DT stated she turned the red box alarm off, then back to the on position. According to the DT, she then went and provided Resident #1's thirty (30) minute occupational therapy session. Interview revealed later that day when the code green was called overhead, the alarms were not sounding on the rehab unit. She stated they had received several in-services since that day, on what to do when the alarm was sounding. Further interview revealed she had not been aware staff should have done a head count and ensured all residents were present when the alarm went off that morning. Interview with the Administrator on 01/05/2023 at 10:24 AM, revealed the red box alarm was not sounding when Resident #1 eloped from the rehab unit on 11/22/2022. She stated the alarms were working, but the red box alarm had been turned off, and she had not been able to determine who had turned it off. Per the Administrator, at the time Resident #1 eloped, various department heads had a key to the door alarms, which included therapy and housekeeping, as well as maintenance. She stated the keypad alarm was found to be working as well, although someone had punched in the code so it was not alarming. Continued interview revealed she had not been able to determine who had done that. She stated Resident #1 got out the exit door, traveled just outside facility property, and was located by staff. The Administrator stated the red box alarm keys were now kept on the two (2) nurse's stations with the narcotic room keys, and with maintenance to ensure proper oversight of alarms. Further interview revealed staff had been educated on the facility's alarm system and how to respond to alarms. The Administrator further stated Resident #1 was moved to a different unit which was considered more secure and was placed on 1:1 supervision until transfer to a psychiatric facility on 11/29/2022. Interview, on 01/05/2023 at 9:28 AM, with Maintenance revealed he had not been present for either of Resident #1's elopements on 11/22/2022. He stated prior to Resident #1's elopement on 11/22/2022 he had been checking all exits doors weekly for functioning, and since the elopement he had been checking the doors daily. He stated he checked to ensure the red boxes were on and functioning, and that the mag locks were locked. Interview, on 01/24/2023 at 8:08 AM, with the Medical Director revealed he had been contacted on 11/22/2022 by the DON of Resident #1's elopement. Per interview, he was reassured by the DON that the facility was proactively ensuring elopements would not happen again. Further interview revealed the DON further assured him Resident #1 had been relocated to a more secure unit and staff were sitting with him/her 1:1 supervision pending psychiatric hospitalization. Interview, on 01/23/2023 at 9:08 AM, with Resident #1's daughter (Daughter #1) revealed the facility had contacted her following Resident #1's elopement. She stated she had visited the evening of 11/22/2022 and knew they had changed Resident #1's room to a more secure unit and placed an alarm bracelet on him/her. Further interview revealed Resident #1 was doing well when she saw him/her the evening of 11/22/2022. Interview on 01/25/2023 at 3:15 PM, with the Consulting Pharmacist revealed she completed a pharmacy review on Resident #1 medications on 11/25/2022. She stated a review was requested as Resident #1 had been found outside of the facility. Continued interview revealed she reviewed Resident #1's medications looking for anything that would cause or contribute to Resident #1's agitation and the resident was not on any medication which would make him/her agitated. She stated Resident #1 was on Trazadone for anxiety, and prn Lorazepam for severe agitation, and was started on Quetiapine (med used to treat some mood/mental conditions) following the elopement. Interview on 01/23/2023 at 2:13 PM with the MDS Coordinator (RN #3), revealed she updated Resident #1's care plan to include the 1:1 observation and Wander Guard placement the evening of 11/22/2022. Review of Resident #1's EMR revealed a Progress Note from 11/29/2022 noting Resident #1 had been transferred to an inpatient psychiatric facility at 6:30 PM by ambulance. Continued review revealed a nursing readmission assessment completed by LPN #5 upon Resident #1's return on 12/13/2022 revealed the resident to be at risk for elopement. Review of the documentation from the psychiatric facility noted Resident #1 had been treated for a urinary tract infection (UTI) with Macrobid 100 mg bid (an antibiotic) while there. Per review, Seroquel 75 mg hours of sleep (hs) changed to Seroquel 50 mg hs and Seroquel 25 mg at 9:00 AM. In addition, Divalproex 125 mg twice a day (bid) for anxiety was increased to Divalproex 125 mg tid. 1. B. Review of Resident #1's EMR revealed the the resident was readmitted from the psychiatric facility on 12/13/2022, and reassessed as at risk for elopement. Resident #1 again eloped from the facility 12/14/2022 (the day after being readmitted ) as per review of the facility's incident report dated 12/19/2022. Review of the incident report revealed RN #4 arrived at the facility at 6:42 PM on 12/14/2022, and saw Resident #1 standing at the entrance to the parking lot as she pulled in. Per review, RN #4 observed Resident #1 with his/her thumb out (as if hitchhiking), and rolled her window down to ask the resident if he/she needed a ride. Continued review revealed Resident #1 told RN #4, he/she did need a ride to get to the bus stop. Review revealed RN #4 invited Resident #1 into her vehicle to get warm, and Resident #1 agreed and got into the car. The incident report review revealed RN #4 turned on her seat warmers and parked the vehicle, observing Resident #1's clothing to be barely wet (it was raining outside). Per the incident report, RN #4 called the Administrator and chatted with Resident #1 until the Administrator arrived at approximately 6:57 PM, and the resident was escorted back into the facility at 7:02 PM, with the wander guard intact on his/her right ankle. Review revealed during the investigation, Resident #1's wheelchair was observed in the doorway of the dining room, and it was determined the resident had exited the facility through the dining room emergency exit, with the alarms sounding. According to review of the incident report, the alarms were not able to be heard at the nearby nurses station with the dining room doors closed. Further review revealed Resident #1 was assessed, the Physician and family were notified, the care plan was reviewed and updated, and the resident was placed on 1:1 observation ongoing. Review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed an elopement/wandering care plan with an intervention for 1:1 supervision was added on 12/14/2022, the day he/she eloped from the facility (the resident's care plan had also been revised with 1:1 supervision on 11/22/2022). Review revealed the elopement/wandering care plan interventions also included checking the resident's wander guard daily to ensure proper functioning which was added on 12/15/2022. Review of the facility's 1:1 Monitoring documentation revealed Resident #1 was placed on the monitoring upon return to the facility following the 12/14/2022 elopement. Review of an Invoice from a contract company, dated 12/29/2022 revealed on 12/22/2022 the company wired the dining room door to sound at the nurse's station when the emergency exit was opened. Interview with RN #4 on 01/24/2023 at 8:03 AM, revealed she had cared for Resident #1 when the resident was placed on the rehab unit. She stated she came in to work a little early on the evening of 12/14/2022, and saw Resident #1 standing in the parking lot in the rain, with his/her thumb out like he/she was hitchhiking. Per RN #4, she rolled down her window and asked Resident #1 if he/she needed a ride somewhere, and the resident replied yes, he/she needed a ride to the bus stop. RN #4 stated she encouraged the resident to get in and turned on the seat warmer and heat. Further interview revealed Resident #1 did not appear very wet, and she believed the resident hadn't been outside for very long. RN #4 stated she called the Administrator, who arrived quickly and the resident was returned to the facility with the Administrator. Interview with RN #3, the MDS Coordinator, on 01/23/2023 at 2:13 PM, revealed she updated Resident #1's care plan to include 1:1 supervision on 12/14/2022, after his/her elopement. In addition, she stated she also updated the resident's care plan for checking the functioning of his/her wander guard daily on 12/15/2022. Interview with CNA #6 (also a medication aide) on 01/05/2023 at 3:01 PM, revealed Resident #1 was very confused, hard to redirect, and combative at times. She stated on 12/14/2022 staff were up front waiting on meal trays, and she was passing meds. Per CNA #6, she remembered Resident #1 coming out into the hallway, flailing his/her arms and yelling something she could not understand. CNS #6 stated she continued passing meds, and within thirty (30) minutes she heard Resident #1 had gotten out. She stated Resident #1 had a wander guard on when brought back into facility; however, she had not heard any alarms going off. CNA #6 stated after Resident #1 came back in, staff were assigned to 1:1 supervision of the resident to keep an eye on him/her, twenty-four hours (24) a day seven (7) days a week. Continued interview revealed she had not observed Resident #1 around any of the doors, although he/she would walk up and down the hallway, and was always talking about leaving. CNA #6 further stated since Resident #1's elopement, the alarm now sounded at the nurse's station. Interview on 01/05/2023 at 3:27 PM, with CNA #8 who had been assigned as Resident #1's aide at times after his/her elopement to sit with him/her to provide 1:1 supervision. CNA #8 revealed she had been working on 12/14/2022, when Resident #1 eloped; however, she had been giving showers and had not heard the alarm or the code green announced. She stated when Resident #1 was returned to the facility, he/she had been a little wet, tired, and stated he/she was going to lay down. She stated she sat near Resident #1's bedside when he/she did so. Interview on 01/18/2023 at 8:47 AM, with CNA #29 revealed when they called the code green on 12/14/2022, she ran outside the facility looking for the resident. Interview with the Administrator on 01/05/2023 at 10:24 AM, revealed Resident #1 exited through the dining room emergency exit and had still been in the parking lot when a staff member pulled in for work and noticed the resident. She stated the doors worked and the alarms were supposed to and were sounding; however, during the investigation it was determined the alarm had not been audible at the nurse's station. Further interview revealed following the elopement, Resident #1 was placed on 1:1 supervision, and the doors to the dining room had been locked until the alarm was rewired by the contract company in order for it to be audible at the nurse's stat[TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide food prepared in a form designated to meet individual needs for one (1) out of sixty-four (64) sampled residents (Resident #255). Resident #255's was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital where the resident had been treated for Pneumonitis due to Inhalation of Food and Vomit. During the resident's stay in the facility, staff provided the resident with thin liquids when the prescribed diet was for honey thickened liquids. The resident was sent back to the hospital, after a two (2) day stay in the facility, with a diagnosis of Aspiration Pneumonia. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Thickened Liquids, not dated, revealed the facility was expected to ensure residents with Dysphagia (swallowing difficulty) received appropriately thickened liquids to minimize aspiration (liquid going into the lungs which could cause pneumonia) risk. Further review revealed residents who were admitted to the facility with an order for thickened liquids were referred to Speech Therapy for evaluation, and Nurses obtained Physician diet orders for the thickened liquids and communicated these orders to the Dietary Department. Further review revealed water pitchers containing thin water were not to be kept at the bedside for residents who were at risk for aspiration. Review of Resident #255's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 08/26/2022, a Friday, after transfer from an acute care hospital, with diagnoses including Sepsis, Pneumonitis due to Inhalation of Food and Vomit, Dysphagia, Seizures, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Further review revealed Resident #255 only stayed in the facility for approximately forty (40) hours and was discharged back to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of Resident #255's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 08/28/2022, revealed the facility assessed Resident #255 as requiring a mechanically altered diet while a resident of the facility. Review of Resident #255's Care Plan, dated 08/28/2022, revealed no information about dietary needs. Review of Resident #255's Discharge Summary from the acute care hospital, dated 08/26/2022 at 10:11 AM, listed the resident as requiring honey thickened liquids. Review of the facility's document Order Summary Report revealed the diet order for Resident #255 was dated 08/29/2022, the day after the resident had been sent back to the hospital. Review of the details of this order revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) had entered it on 08/29/2022 at 3:29 PM. Review of the facility's document Dining Services Communication Form, not dated, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #20 checked the box indicating honey thickened liquids for Resident #255. Review of Resident #255's dietary record, not dated, revealed an unknown staff member selected thin liquids from a drop-down box in the system used by the dietary department to generate meal tickets for residents. Review of Resident #255's History and Physical from the acute care hospital, dated 08/29/2022, revealed the resident was diagnosed with Aspiration Pneumonia and treated with antibiotics for his/her 08/28/2022 hospital admission. Review of the Progress Note, from the acute care hospital, dated 09/01/2022, revealed the hospital performed a barium swallow study to check for swallowing difficulty and aspiration and found Resident #255 experienced probable aspiration with thin liquids, but there were no identified issues with thickened liquids. Interview with Resident #255's Resident Representative (RR), on 01/04/2023 at 3:00 PM, revealed the RR witnessed multiple staff members, including Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #13 and LPN #20, give Resident #255 thin liquids, even after the RR informed staff the resident required honey thickened liquids to prevent choking. The RR reported CNA #13 stated he gave Resident #255 thin water because that was what previous shifts had done, and no one had told him that Resident #255 needed thickened liquids. Interview with CNA #13, on 01/06/2023 at 2:25 PM, revealed he recalled Resident #255 required thickened liquids and reported witnessing the resident cough after drinking thin water. CNA #13 further stated he recalled seeing cups of thin liquids in the resident's room when he would begin his shift and went to the kitchen to get thickened liquids for Resident #255. CNA #13 stated he primarily relied on shift report to know what a resident's specific dietary needs were because documentation at the facility was inconsistent. Interview with CNA #2, on 01/05/2023 at 2:20 PM, revealed she asked the previous shift about a resident's dietary needs because if a resident was given thin liquids when they needed thickened liquids, he/she could choke. CNA #2 stated she did not work at the facility when Resident #255 was there. Interview with CNA #28, on 01/16/2023 at 7:21 PM, revealed he did not recall Resident #255 specifically. CNA #28 stated he was unsure if special dietary needs were documented in the point-of-care charting system the CNA's used at the facility. He stated he relied upon report from the nurse responsible for the resident and meal tickets on the resident's tray to know if a resident needed thickened liquids. Interview with LPN #20, the nurse who completed Resident #255's admission assessment, was attempted via telephone on 01/06/2023 at 2:12 PM, 01/08/2023 at 2:41 PM, and 01/11/2023 at 10:35 AM, with messages left for a return call. However, LPN #20 made no contact with the State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor. Interview with LPN #2, on 01/05/2023 at 2:04 PM, revealed she asked the nurse giving report from the acute care hospital about the dietary needs for a resident being admitted to the facility when she was the receiving nurse. LPN #2 further stated dietary needs were entered in the orders because receiving the correct diet was important to the resident's safety related to aspiration. Further interview revealed LPN #2 was not familiar with Resident #255. Interview with LPN #16, on 01/14/2023 at 5:05 PM, revealed LPN #16 did not recall Resident #255 specifically, but it was her practice to fill out the Dietary Communication Form for a new resident and make sure to pass this information along in report. LPN #16 further stated that because ancillary services such as Speech Therapy were not available on the weekends, it was the responsibility of nursing to make sure safety measures were in place for the residents. Interview with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), on 01/12/2023 at 10:20 AM, revealed the CDM did not work in the facility when Resident #255 was admitted , so he could not speak to the process used by previous staff, and the computer system did not log who entered information into the resident's profile. He stated it was currently the CDM's role to enter information from the Dietary Communication Form submitted by nursing into the computer system that generated meal tickets with information including a resident's need for thickened liquids. He stated he reviewed Resident #255's Dietary Communication Form and compared it to the computer print-out. He stated the person who entered the information into Resident #255's dietary profile had made an error, but he did not wish to speculate on how that had occurred. Interview with the Administrator, on 01/17/2023 at 10:30 AM, revealed the previous owner took many of the personnel records, and the facility had limited information on prior employees. Interview with the Speech Language Pathologist (SLP), on 01/05/2023 at 12:52 PM, revealed the facility had no therapy records for Resident #255, indicating the resident had not been evaluated by anyone in the therapy department. The SLP stated the facility did not have coverage for Speech Therapy on the weekend, so if a resident was admitted on a Friday evening, that resident would not be evaluated by Speech Therapy until the following Monday. She stated she expected the resident's diet, prior to her evaluation, to be what the resident received at the previous facility. The SLP stated it was her role to communicate her swallowing evaluation findings to frontline care staff and to the kitchen to ensure the residents received the correct diet on their trays. She also stated she tried to ensure staff did not bring the resident thin liquids if that was inappropriate for that resident. The SLP further stated if a resident needed thickened liquids and received thin liquids instead, the resident would be at high risk for aspiration pneumonia and a resulting overall decline in health status due to the pneumonia. Interview with the Director of Therapy, on 01/05/2023 at 1:45 PM, revealed it was her expectation that everyone from the Therapy Department evaluate a resident as soon as possible on Monday following a weekend admission. She further stated residents came from the hospital with dietary orders that nursing and dietary followed until Speech Therapy could evaluate the resident. She stated if a nurse had concerns about a resident aspirating, this should be communicated with the Physician on-call for the weekend. Interview with LPN #11/South Unit Manager, on 01/10/2023 at 2:43 PM, revealed it was her expectation that if a resident required thickened liquids, the Admitting Nurse would enter the order for thickened liquids in the EMR, fill out the Dietary Communication form, send the form to the kitchen, and notify aides assigned to that resident of the need for thickened liquids. LPN #11 stated the facility stocked thickened liquids in the nourishment rooms, and staff could request thickened liquids from the kitchen if the resident asked for something not premixed. She stated it was her expectation for staff to follow the orders for specialized diets whether or not the resident had been evaluated by Speech Therapy. Interview with the Medical Director, on 01/09/2023 at 3:17 PM, revealed it was his expectation for residents to receive thickened liquids as ordered and for these orders to be communicated in the EMR, the care plan, and in shift report. Further interview revealed it was the facility's process for the Admitting Nurse to enter initial orders based on the discharge summary from the hospital, and the Physician would go behind and cosign the orders. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 01/13/2023 at 8:44 AM, revealed it was her expectation that the Admitting Nurse enter the initial order set, including if the resident needed thickened liquids and for the Unit Managers to look over the orders and correct them as needed. The DON further stated she did not specifically remember entering Resident #255's diet order, but the date on it suggested she had seen the order had been missed, or entered incorrectly, and she corrected it following the clinical meeting, when she returned to work that Monday, 08/29/2022. The DON could not answer why the order had been entered incorrectly into the dietary system. She stated her oversight was for nursing, who filled out the Dietary Communication Form correctly. Further interview revealed the DON stated this process was important to ensure the residents received appropriate diets to prevent aspiration. Interview with the Administrator, on 01/28/2023 at 1:27 PM, revealed it was her expectation for diet orders to be followed according to the resident's needs. She further stated the orders were checked in the clinical meeting, which occurred each day, Monday through Friday. She stated Unit Managers were expected to check over admission orders for each admission, including admissions that occurred on the weekend.
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 interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to immediately notify the resident's representative of an accident involving the resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to immediately notify the resident's representative of an accident involving the resident which resulted in injury for one (1) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents (Resident #23). On 12/26/2021 at 6:05 PM, Resident #23 experienced a fall in his/her room, sustaining a fracture to his/her right hand and a laceration to his/her forehead, requiring transfer to the hospital. However, the facility failed to notify the resident's responsible party of the fall, injuries, and transfer to the hospital, until 8:41 PM, which was after Resident #23 had already been sent to the hospital. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Notification of Change of Condition: Responsible Party/Guardian, dated 01/03/2019, revealed the facility was to notify the resident's responsible party when a resident experienced a fall and when the resident was transferred to the hospital emergency room (ER). Review of Resident #23's electronic medical record (EMR), revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/11/2021, with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, Adult Failure to Thrive, and Age-Related Debility. Review of Resident #23's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 11/06/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of two (2) of fifteen (15), which indicated severe cognitive impairment. In addition, the facility assessed Resident #23 as non-interviewable. Review of Resident #23's Nurses' Note dated 12/26/2022 at 8:33 PM, written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #32, revealed the facility sent the resident to the emergency room following a fall on the previous shift. Further review revealed Resident #23's responsible party expressed concern that she was not notified until over two (2) hours after the incident took place. Interview with Resident #23's responsible party, on 01/18/2023 at 5:32 PM, revealed the facility had not informed her in a timely manner of Resident #23's falls on two (2) separate occasions, which also included the fall the resident sustained on 12/26/2022. Further interview revealed the facility transferred Resident #23 to the hospital for stitches of a forehead laceration and treatment of a right hand fracture. The responsible party further stated however, the facility did not notify her until approximately two (2) hours after the resident sustained the fall. Interview with LPN #32 was not attempted as the LPN was no longer employed at the facility, and no telephone number was available. Interview with LPN #11/Unit Manager South, on 01/25/2023 at 2:07 PM, revealed her expectation was for staff to notify a resident's responsible party immediately if there was a change in condition with the resident, such as a fall or transfer to the hospital. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 01/27/2023 at 3:34 PM, revealed her expectation was for the nurse responding to the incident to notify the resident's responsible party of a fall as soon as the resident was safe. She further stated she did not consider it acceptable to wait over two (2) hours to notify the responsible party. Interview with the Administrator, on 01/28/2023 at 1:27 PM, revealed her expectation was for the staff responding to a resident's fall to notify the resident's representative in real time of a change of condition or as soon as the resident was safe following an incident, such as a fall.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, it was determined the facility failed to submi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, it was determined the facility failed to submit the initial admission Assessment within the required fourteen (14) day period for one (1) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents (Resident #20). The facility admitted Resident #20 on 07/08/2022; however, the facility did not submit the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment within the required timeframe. The facility submitted Resident #20's admission Assessment on 07/28/2022, twenty (20) days after his/her admission. The findings include: Review of the RAI User's Manual, effective 10/01/2019, revealed for the admission Assessment, the MDS completion date must be no later than fourteen (14) days after the entry date. Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 07/08/2022, with diagnoses of Fracture of Right Lower Leg, Diabetes Mellitus Type Two (2), Dementia, Anxiety and Depression. Review of Resident #20's admission MDS Assessment, dated 07/13/2022, revealed the entry date was noted as 07/08/2022. Continued review revealed the MDS completion date was signed on 07/21/2022 by the MDS Coordinator; however, sections of the MDS Assessment (under section Z0400) were not signed and dated as completed until 07/27/2022. Review further revealed Resident #20's admission MDS Assessment was not submitted until 07/28/2022, which was not within the required time frame. Interview with the MDS Coordinator/Registered Nurse (RN), on 01/21/2023 at 2:39 PM and on 01/25/2023 at 8:22 AM, revealed she had been working by herself and had not completed Resident #20's MDS Assessment within the required time frame, and therefore it was submitted late. She stated she was aware the facility followed the RAI User's Manual, which noted admission MDS Assessments were to be submitted within fourteen (14) days of admission; however, that had not occurred with Resident #20's admission MDS Assessment. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 01/25/2023 at 9:17 AM, revealed the facility followed the RAI User's Manual which noted the admission MDS Assessment should be submitted in a timely fashion, and within required timeframes. The DON further revealed however, Resident #20's admission MDS Assessment had not been submitted within the required timeframe. Interview with the Administrator, on 01/25/2023 at 9:40 AM, revealed the facility followed the RAI User's Manual for guidance. She further stated her expectations were for MDS Assessments to be completed and submitted within the required time frames.
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

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 a Kentucky Board of Nursing (KBN) Scope of Nursing Comparison Chart, r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, review of a Kentucky Board of Nursing (KBN) Scope of Nursing Comparison Chart, review of an American Nurses Association (ANA) Issue Brief, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received care according to professional standards of care and the comprehensive care plan for three (3) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents (Residents #57, #252, and #255). The facility admitted Resident #5, on 10/04/2019, with a diagnosis of Cellulitis of Bilateral Lower Limbs. The facility failed to provide care according to the Physician's recommendations for lymphedema and bilateral lower extremity wound care. The facility admitted Resident #255, on 08/26/2022, with a diagnosis of Seizures. The facility failed to ensure the resident received his/her Lacosamide (an anti-seizure medication) for three (3) ordered doses. The facility admitted Resident #252, on 06/29/2022 with a diagnosis of Epilepsy with Partial Seizures. The facility failed to administer two (2) ordered doses each of Lacosamide and Gabapentin (a medication given for nerve pain and/or seizure activity). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Administering Medications, revised April 2019, revealed medications were to be administered within one (1) hour before or after the prescribed time. Review of the website www.nursingworld.org/practice, American Nurses Association (ANA) Issue Brief, Use of Medication Assistants/Aides/Technicians, dated 04/2021, revealed the administration of medications involved complex thinking and application of scientific knowledge. It stated there were now eight (8) rights of medication administration. The rights included: the right resident, right medication, right dose, right route, right time, right documentation, right reason, and right response. Per the Brief, nurses had been educated to observe for signals and cues as to whether the medication was working as intended, while calculating the risk associated with the medication and a readiness to act appropriately and effectively when it was not. Review of the Kentucky Board of Nursing (KBN) RN/LPN (Registered Nurse/Licensed Practical Nurse) Scope of Practice Comparison Chart per Kentucky Revised Statute - (KRS) 314.011, revealed the RN implemented the nursing plan of care and was responsible for making sure delegated or assigned tasks were completed according to policy and procedure, whether these tasks were directly or indirectly assigned. Per the Comparison Chart, the LPN could implement appropriate aspects of the nursing plan of care that had been developed by the RN. The LPN was responsible for ensuring that tasks were completed according to policy and procedure. 1. Review of Resident #57's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 10/04/2019, with diagnoses that included Type II Diabetes, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Cellulitis of Bilateral Lower Limbs, and Stage III Chronic Kidney Disease. Review of Resident #57's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 11/07/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident's cognitive status using the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) tool. Resident #57 scored fourteen (14) of fifteen (15), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact and interviewable. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #57 to have five (5) venous and/or arterial ulcers on the bilateral lower extremities (BLE). Review of Resident #57's Care Plan, dated 01/06/2023, revealed the facility included his/her impaired skin integrity in his/her care plan. The interventions included to provide treatments to the bilateral lower extremities per the Physician's Orders and to encourage the resident to elevate his/her legs during the day. Review of Resident #57's Physician's Order, dated 01/17/2023, revealed staff was to clean the resident's BLE's with wound cleanser, apply calcium alginate with silver to the open lymph wounds, and secure with gentle Tubi-grip (compression sleeve) every day. Review of a wound note, dated 01/17/2023 at 7:08 AM, revealed the wound doctor's recommendation was to cover the topical medication on the leg wounds with an absorbent pad. Continued review revealed the pad was to be held in place by a stretchy gauze roll, and covered by an ACE bandage (a compression bandage of stretchable cloth used to wrap around a wound), to be changed every day for thirty (30) days. Review of Resident #57's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 01/2023, revealed the dressings on the resident's legs were not documented as changed on 01/22/2023 or 01/23/2023. Observation of Resident #57, on 01/03/2023 at 2:08 PM, revealed gauze dressings on the resident's legs with a foul odor were noted in the resident's vicinity. The gauze dressings were loose and stained yellow in multiple places on each leg. Further observation, on 01/03/2023 at 3:50 PM, revealed the dressings were unchanged in odor and appearance from previous observation. Observation of Resident #57, on 01/23/2023 at 10:56 AM, revealed yellow stains on the gauze dressings with no ACE bandage or Tubi-grip in place. Continued observation revealed Resident #57 appeared asleep in his/her wheelchair with his/her feet on the floor and no footrests elevating his/her feet. Interview, with Resident #57, on 01/23/2023 at 10:57 AM, revealed he/she stated the dressings on his/her legs were changed twice per week after showering. Interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #40, on 01/23/2023 at 11:01 AM, revealed in her experience with Resident #57, the dressings on his/her legs were only changed twice per week with showers, even if the resident had urinated on the dressings while trying to use a urinal, as she had witnessed multiple times. CNA #40 stated on those occasions, she had removed the urine-soaked dressings and informed the nurse, but there had been an occasion the dressings had not been reapplied the next day. 2. Review of Resident #255's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 08/26/2022, after transfer from an acute care hospital. The resident's diagnoses included Sepsis, Dysphagia, Seizures, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Review of Resident #255's acute care facility (hospital) record, dated 08/28/2022, revealed the acute care providers assessed Resident #255 to be in a postictal (after seizure) state upon arrival to the hospital. Further review revealed a blood test for Resident #255's Depakote (anti seizure medication) indicated the resident's valproic acid level was twenty-three (23) micrograms per milliliter, which fell below the minimum therapeutic level of fifty (50) micrograms per milliliter. Review of Resident #255's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated August 2022 revealed the facility failed to administer three (3) doses of two hundred fifty (250) milligrams (mg) each of Lacosamide to Resident #255 during his/her admission to the facility. The missed doses were: the AM and PM doses on 08/27/2022 and the AM dose on 08/28/2022. The resident was discharged to the hospital before the PM dose on 08/28/2022 was due. In addition, the resident's other prescribed seizure medication, Depakote, had all doses marked as given, not refused. Review of Resident #255's Progress Note, dated 08/27/2022 at 9:24 AM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #19 wrote that the Pharmacy had not delivered the Lacosamide, and he had called the Pharmacy for an estimated delivery time for the medication. Review of Resident #255's Progress Note, dated 08/27/2022 at 11:09 PM, revealed Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) #32 wrote that Lacosamide was not available but did not indicate any further action. Review of Resident #255's Progress Note, dated 08/28/2022 at 7:21 AM, revealed LPN #30 wrote that Resident #255 experienced a three (3) minute seizure at 2:40 AM. Further review revealed LPN #30 called the facility's Medical Director and left a message at 3:00 AM; and, the Medical Director called back at 6:50 AM and gave no new orders for Resident #255 at that time. Review of Resident #255's Progress Note, dated 08/28/2022 at 10:39 AM, revealed LPN #20 wrote that Lacosamide was on order but did not indicate any further action. Review of the Pharmacy's document Shipment Details, dated 08/28/2022, revealed the pharmacy filled and delivered thirty (30) tablets of fifty (50) mg each of Lacosamide and thirty (30) tablets of two hundred (200) mg each of Lacosamide for Resident #255 at 7:46 PM on 08/28/2022. Interview with Resident #255's Resident Representative (RR), on 01/04/2023 at 3:00 PM, revealed the facility's Medical Director told her Resident #255 had been refusing to take the seizure medication. However, because the Pharmacy had not delivered the medication, this was not possible for Lacosamide; and, the doses for Depakote had been signed as administered. Interview with KMA #20, on 01/10/2023 at 8:54 AM, revealed he did not work at the facility when Resident #255 was admitted ; however, he stated his practice for a missing medication was to check the emergency medication dispenser for the medication, and then notify the Pharmacy to get the medication delivered as soon as possible. He further stated that if the medication did not arrive on the next Pharmacy run after notifying them that the medication was missing, he would get the nurse to contact the Physician so the medication could be ordered from a local Pharmacy that could deliver the medication promptly. Interview with KMA #32, on 01/21/2023 at 1:38 PM, revealed he vaguely remembered Resident #255's seizure medication not being available but did not remember exactly what he did in response to this. KMA #32 stated his usual practice when a medication was unavailable would be to call the Pharmacy and inform the nurse so the nurse could call the Physician. Interview attempted via telephone with LPN #19, on 01/11/2023 at 10:24 AM, with a message left for a return call, but no call back was received. Interview, with LPN #20 attempted via telephone on 01/06/2023 at 2:12 PM, 01/08/2023 at 2:41 PM, and 01/11/2023 at 10:35 AM, with messages left for a return call; however, no return call was received. Interview with LPN #30 was not possible due to LPN #30 no longer worked at the facility. The facility did not provide a telephone number. Interview with the Order Entry Manager (OEM) from the pharmacy, used by the facility at the time of Resident #255's admission), on 01/11/2023 at 10:05 AM, revealed the Pharmacy could not dispense Lacosamide for Resident #255 without a hard copy of the prescription due to its classification as a controlled substance. The OEM stated the Pharmacy notified the resident's attending physician (facility Medical Director) via fax of the need for a hard copy of the prescription, but received no reply. Interview, with the facility's Medical Director (MD), on 01/26/2022 at 1:08 PM, revealed facility staff notified him on the afternoon of 08/28/2022, as Resident #255 was being sent to the hospital, of Resident #255's Lacosamide being unavailable all weekend. The MD stated he was not able to speculate as to why he was not notified earlier. Further interview revealed the MD stated Resident #255's seizure, on 08/28/2022 at 2:40 AM, was over in three (3) minutes and did not require emergency intervention. He further stated the missed doses of Lacosamide could have been the cause of the resident's seizure. 3. Review of Resident #252's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 06/29/2022, after transfer from an acute care hospital with diagnoses that included Epilepsy with Partial Seizures, Fracture of Right Wrist, Repeated Falls, and Corneal Transplant. Further review revealed the resident was sent to the acute care hospital on [DATE]. Review of Resident #252's MAR, dated 06/2022, revealed the facility failed to administer the 06/29/2022 evening dose of two hundred (200) mg of Lacosamide and the 06/30/2022 morning dose of two hundred (200) mg of Lacosamide. Further review revealed the facility failed to administer the 06/29/2022 evening dose of three hundred (300) mg of Gabapentin and the 06/30/2022 morning dose of three hundred (300) mg of Gabapentin. Review of the Pharmacy's document Shipment Details, dated 06/30/2022, revealed the Pharmacy filled and delivered sixty (60) tablets of two hundred (200) mg of Lacosamide each and sixty (60) tablets of three hundred (300) mg each of Gabapentin for Resident #252 at 3:31 PM on 06/30/2022. Review of Resident #252's Progress Note, dated 06/30/2022 at 5:56 PM, revealed LPN #17 documented Resident #252 had not received his/her doses of Gabapentin or Lacosamide in more than twenty-four (24) hours. LPN #17 notified the MD, who was the Attending Physician for Resident #252. The MD ordered four hundred (400) mg of Lacosamide and three hundred (300) mg of Gabapentin to be given to the resident as soon as possible before resuming the normally scheduled dosing. LPN #17 documented in the Progress Note that she administered these doses to Resident #252 as ordered. Interview, with Resident #252's daughter, on 01/11/2023 at 1:44 PM, revealed Resident #252 had a history of petit mal (silent) seizures, which manifested as her parent looked like he/she was staring off into space, not answering questions. Resident #252's daughter further stated when the resident was discharged from the hospital, the nurses told the family it was very important for the seizure medication to be filled at the Pharmacy and gave them a paper prescription, which they in turn gave to the facility upon Resident #252's arrival to the facility. Further interview revealed Resident #252's daughter stated facility staff told her that her parent's seizure medication was not available until the afternoon of 06/30/2022, over twenty-four (24) hours since Resident #252 received his/her last dose of seizure medication. Interview, was attempted via telephone with LPN #17, on 01/11/2023 at 10:30 AM and on 01/14/2023 at 3:28 PM, with messages left for a return call. LPN #17 did not make a return call. Interview attempted via telephone with LPN #18, on 01/11/2023 at 10:33 AM and 01/14/2023 at 3:30 PM, with messages left for a return call. LPN #18 did not return the call. Interview with Pharmacist #2, on 01/26/2022 at 10:32 AM, revealed abrupt discontinuation or missed doses of Lacosamide was associated with an increased risk of seizures. Interview, with LPN #11/Unit Manager South, on 01/10/2023 at 2:43 PM, revealed it was her expectation for staff to call the Pharmacy to have missing medications sent as quickly as possible and to document any phone call to Pharmacy or to the Physician. She further stated staff could get commonly used medications, which did not include Lacosamide, out of the emergency box to ensure residents received all medications in a timely manner. Further interview revealed LPN #11 stated it was especially important for residents to receive their seizure medications so they would not have seizures. Interview with the facility's Medical Director (MD), on 01/26/2022 at 1:08 PM, revealed his expectation for when a medication, such as a seizure medication, was not available from the Pharmacy was for staff to notify him. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 01/13/2023 at 8:44 AM, revealed during the time of Resident #255 and Resident #252's admissions, the facility's process for obtaining controlled medications such as Lacosamide was to get a paper prescription from the hospital that was sent with the resident to the facility, and send that paper prescription over to the Pharmacy for it to be filled. She stated the facility encountered multiple situations, including the admissions for Residents #255 and #252 where the hospital did not send paper prescriptions. When this occurred, the DON stated the Admitting Nurse was expected to call the Physician to fax a new prescription to the Pharmacy, but this process created a delay in the resident receiving their medication if the medication was not available in the emergency box, as was the case with Lacosamide. Further interview revealed the facility changed the Pharmacy in October 2022 and began having the Admissions Coordinator ensure that hospitals faxed the prescriptions for controlled substances to the Pharmacy before discharging the resident to the facility. Interview with the Administrator, on 01/28/2023 at 1:27 PM, revealed it was her expectation for the facility to review medications listed in the resident's hospital discharge summary and ensure all medications were ordered and delivered in time to be administered to the resident according to the Physicians' Orders. She also stated she expected all care provided to the residents was according to the facility's policies and professional standards of care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the facility's policies, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, it was determined the facility failed to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the facility's policies, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, it was determined the facility failed to ensure four (4) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents (Resident #21, #90, #150, and #348), who had an indwelling urinary catheter, received treatment and services in accordance with accepted standards of practice intended to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI). Observations of Resident #21, Resident #90, Resident #150 and Resident #348 revealed the residents had indwelling urinary catheters that were either resting on the floor, or on wheels of the bed, were unanchored, or did not have a dignity bag cover. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Foley Catheter Care Procedure, revised 03/22/2022, revealed the catheter should be secured to the leg to prevent pulling on the catheter (unless contraindicated) and to empty the bag regularly. Further review revealed the drainage spout should not touch anything while emptying the bag, and if it did, the spout should be wiped with an alcohol swab to clean the spout. Continued review revealed the resident's catheter bag should be covered with a privacy bag. Review of the facility's policy titled, Indwelling Catheter Care, undated, revealed routine hygiene, such as cleansing of the urethral meatus surface (point of entry of the catheter) during daily bathing or showering, was appropriate. Further review revealed residents with indwelling catheters were to have an order for catheter care every shift with soap and water done by the nursing staff during the bath or shower, or daily hygiene should be done after toileting. Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET) presentation, dated 2015, revealed catheter care essentials included use of a catheter securement device to anchor the catheter. Further review revealed catheter care included keeping the collection bag off the floor. Review of the CDC's Guideline for Prevention of Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI), dated 2009, revealed proper techniques for catheter maintenance included to maintain unobstructed urine flow and to keep the catheter and tube free from kinking. Further review revealed the collecting bag should always be kept below the level of the bladder and should not rest on the floor. 1. Review of Resident #21's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 11/10/2022, with diagnoses of Diabetes Mellitus II (DM), Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, Unspecified Dementia, and Essential Hypertension. Review of Resident #21's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 01/18/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of thirteen (13) of fifteen (15), which indicated intact cognition. Review of Resident #21's Physician's Orders, 01/02/2023, revealed orders to ensure catheter care was completed every shift, change Foley (brand of indwelling urinary catheter) as needed, and the reason for the Foley catheter, size 20 French, was due to the resident's coccyx wound. Review of Resident #21's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), dated 11/19/2022, revealed a focus for an indwelling catheter with interventions of catheter care per policy, change catheter per Physician's Orders, check tubing for kinks, clean perineal area front to back, monitor/document for pain/discomfort due to the catheter, and privacy bags at all times. Review of Resident #21's Progress Notes, from 12/28/2022 through 01/26/2023, revealed the resident's Foley catheter was changed five (5) times, based on the clinical indications such as infection, obstruction, or when the closed system was compromised. Per the notes, the changes occurred on 01/10/2023, 01/14/2023, 01/15/2023, 01/16/2023, and 01/23/2023. Additional review of the Progress Notes revealed there was a change of the catheter, on 01/19/2023, related to leakage around the tubing. Observation of Resident #21, on 01/19/2023 at 3:55 PM, revealed there was no dignity cover on his/her urinary catheter collection bag. Further observation revealed the tubing was not anchored/secured to his/her leg. Interview with Resident #21, on 01/19/2023 at 3:55 PM, revealed he/she was aware the collection bag should be covered and hanging from the bed frame. 2. Review of Resident #90's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 09/05/2022, with diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, and a History of UTI. Review of Resident #90's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 12/10/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of ten (10) of fifteen (15), which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #90's Physician's Orders, dated 12/21/2022, revealed an order for a Foley catheter related to urinary retention. Further review revealed to monitor the Foley catheter output every shift; to irrigate the catheter with thirty (30) milliliters (ml) of normal saline if clogged; change the catheter every month and as needed; and, to ensure catheter care was completed every shift. Review of Resident #90's CCP revealed a focus, dated 10/05/2022 and revised 11/30/2022, for Foley catheter in place due to urinary retention. Interventions, dated 10/05/2022, included: catheter care per policy, change catheter per Physician's Orders, check tubing for kinks, clean perineal-area front to back, monitor for signs and symptoms of discomfort on urination and frequency, privacy bags at all times, and secure catheter to reduce friction. Observation of Resident #90, on 01/18/2023 at 3:45 PM, revealed the Foley catheter bag resting on the base of his/her bed. Further observation revealed the catheter tubing was not anchored in any way. Continued observation revealed there was no dignity cover for the collection bag of the catheter. Interview of Resident #90, on 01/18/2023 at 3:45 PM, revealed the staff did not clean the tubing every day. He/she stated he/she was not sure about the anchoring or ensuring the collection bag was off the floor. Observation of Resident #90, on 01/20/2023 at 6:21 AM, revealed the Foley catheter bag resting on the floor. Further observation revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #27 changed the position of the bag off the floor. Observation of Resident #90, on 01/26/2023 at 11:30 AM, revealed Resident #90's Foley catheter bag was resting on the floor with the tubing laying loose on the floor. In addition, the collection bag had no dignity cover. Interview with LPN #29, on 01/26/2023 at 11:38 AM, revealed Foley catheter bags should not touch the floor due to infection control. Further interview revealed the challenge for Resident #90 was that his/her bed must be in a low position due to his/her fall risk but must be in a higher position to get the bag off the floor. LPN #29 stated it was also a concern to change the catheter out after being on the floor because that could also risk exposure to pathogens. LPN #29 stated she was not sure of the facility's catheter care policy. 3. Review of Resident #150's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 01/05/2023, with diagnoses including Necrotizing Fasciitis, COPD, Hemiplegia, and Cerebral Infarction. Review of Resident #150's admission MDS Assessment, dated 01/14/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognition. Review of Resident #150's Physician's Orders, dated 01/18/2023, revealed an order for a Foley catheter due to retention. Interventions included to ensure catheter care was completed every shift, and to change the Foley catheter every month and as needed based on clinical indications such as infection, obstruction, or when the closed system was compromised. Review of Resident #150's CCP, dated 01/05/2023, revealed the resident had a focus of a Foley catheter for urinary retention. Further review revealed interventions: to position the catheter tubing and bag below the level of the bladder and away from the entrance room door; to monitor for signs and symptoms of discomfort on urination and frequency; and to monitor/document for pain/discomfort due to the catheter. Further review revealed a goal, dated 01/16/2023, for risk of UTI related to urinary retention. Review of the goal interventions revealed to give antibiotic therapy as ordered and monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. Review of Resident #150's Progress Note, dated 01/05/2023, revealed Resident #150 was admitted with a Foley catheter already in place. Review of lab results revealed a urine culture and sensitivity was pending at the time of the survey exit. Observation of Resident #150, on 01/19/2023 at 4:20 PM, revealed the Foley catheter bag was facing the entrance door and resting on the floor. Interview with Resident #150, on 01/19/2023 at 4:20 PM, revealed he/she could not see the collection bag from his/her vantage point while sitting in bed. He/she stated he/she was aware it should not touch the floor. 4. Review of Resident #348's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 01/05/2023, with diagnoses of Hemiplegia, COPD, and Cerebral Infarction. Review of Resident #348's admission MDS Assessment, dated 01/14/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident with a BIMS' score of three (3) of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment, and the resident was not interviewable. Review of Resident #348's Physician's Orders, dated 01/09/2023, for Foley catheter for urinary retention, and Foley catheter care every shift. Review of Resident #348's CCP, dated 01/05/2023 revealed a focus for urinary catheter care per Physician's Orders. Observation of Resident #348, on 01/18/2023 at 3:48 PM, revealed the Foley catheter was resting on the floor. Further observation revealed the catheter tubing was not anchored in any way. Interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #34, on 01/18/2023 at 3:52 PM, revealed Resident #348's collection bag should not be resting on the floor to help prevent infections. CNA #34 stated she had only seen a catheter anchoring device on one (1) resident since working in the facility. Observation of Resident #348, on 01/20/2023 at 5:57 AM, revealed the Foley catheter collection bag was no longer resting on the floor, but was still unsecured. Interview with LPN #27, on 01/20/2023 at 5:57 AM, revealed catheter bags should be hanging below the level of the bladder and off the floor as well as the tubing secured to the resident's leg. Interview with CNA #44, on 01/22/2023 at 3:45 PM, revealed Foley catheter bags should not be resting on the floor to prevent contamination. Further interview revealed there were elastic leg bags to help secure the tubing. Interview with CNA #10, on 01/24/2023 at 10:47 AM, revealed there was a task in the Point Click Care (PCC, an electronic charting software) system for catheter care, which provided a means to document any care given for Foley catheters. CNA #10 stated catheter collection bags should have a dignity cover and should never touch the floor due to possible contamination. Interview with CNA #9, on 01/26/2023 at 10:30 AM, revealed Foley catheters usually should be secured to the resident, so the tubing did not pull or cause discomfort. CNA #9 stated, for a resident who required a low bed position for fall risk prevention, the bed should be raised one (1) to two (2) notches to ensure the bed wheels locked. The CNA stated that was typically high enough to prevent the catheter collection bag from touching the floor. CNA #9 stated the tubing was supposed to be secured to the resident's leg. Interview with LPN #5, on 01/20/2023 at 7:55 AM, revealed Foley catheters should be secured by hanging to the bed frame. LPN #5 also stated the collection bag should not be touching the floor for infection control or to prevent infection. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #5, on 01/22/2023 at 11:45 AM, revealed Foley catheters could precipitate catheter associated infections, and the collection bags should not touch the floor in order to help prevent infection. RN #5 stated tubing should be secured to a resident's leg with a stat lock tape or with an elastic band made for the purpose. Interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) Nurses, LPN #11 and LPN #12, on 01/25/2023 at 10:50 AM, revealed both also served as Unit Managers. Continued interview with LPN #11, on 01/25/2023 at 10:50 AM, revealed it was never acceptable for the Foley catheter bag to rest on the floor. She stated, if the catheter was too long, there must be some kind of barrier between the bag and the floor. She further stated catheters must have a dignity bag, and the catheter brand the facility used included a dignity bag in the kit. However, she stated sometimes residents came from the hospital with a different brand. LPN #11 stated the facility had stocked dignity bags in the supply area. Interview, with LPN #12, on 01/25/2023 at 10:50 AM, revealed, if residents with indwelling urinary catheters could tolerate a securement device, one should be used. The LPN stated, if a resident did not have skin issues to prevent using the adhesive anchor, then she expected it and for the elastic band securement device to be used. LPN #12 stated, if the resident was not able to tolerate the securement device, it should be noted in the chart. Interview, with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 01/28/2023 at 12:45 PM, revealed she began her position in August 2022, and this was her first position as DON. She stated she expected Foley catheter care to be provided as ordered, and perineal care was essential. She stated she was not sure how it was charted in PCC. The DON stated the Foley catheter tubing should be anchored with stat lock, paper tape, or the elastic catheter securement device to prevent trauma to the urethra. She stated the catheter collection bag should be secured to the bed frame with the hook and should never touch the floor. The DON further stated even with a low bed position, a catheter bag should not touch the floor. She stated she expected staff would not allow this to happen. Interview with Administrator, on 01/28/2023 at 1:47 PM, revealed she had been in this position since 08/15/2022, and her job was to be the checks and balances, so that all departments complied and followed their responsibilities. She stated the facility had a policy for catheter care developed at the corporate level, but the expectation was to follow accepted standards of practice, even if they were not specified in the policy. The Administrator stated catheter bags should be above the floor for infection control purposes and be secured/anchored as well as have a dignity bag.
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 interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to maintain accept...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, including usual body weight for one (1) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents (Resident #4). Resident #4 had a severe weight loss of twenty-eight percent (28%) from 08/01/2022 to 01/02/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Weight Monitoring and Weight Loss Intervention, revised 07/02/2020, revealed the facility was expected to implement interventions to prevent further weight loss in residents who experienced significant weight loss. Further review revealed when a resident who lost seven and a half percent (7.5%) or greater of his/her usual body weight, the facility's policy was to notify the Dietician, notify the Physician, discuss the resident at the weight loss committee meeting, weigh the resident weekly, evaluate use of nutritional supplements, follow up on the Dietician's recommendations, and review intake for possible additional calorie needs based on the resident's preference. Review of Resident #4's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 07/28/2022, with diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes, Schizophrenia, and Bipolar Disorder. Review of Resident #4's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility used the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scored the resident at a seven (7) of fifteen (15), which indicated severe cognitive impairment and that the resident was non-interviewable. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #4 as requiring set up help with eating, required a therapeutic diet, and identified the resident had experienced a significant weight loss. Review of Resident #4's Care Plan, dated 12/21/2022, revealed nutritional interventions were listed under the Diabetic care section of the Care Plan. Interventions included a dietary consult, maintaining a carbohydrate-controlled diet with regular texture, and monitor compliance with diet. Review of Resident #4's Physician's Order, dated 11/03/2022, revealed to weigh the resident weekly on Tuesdays. Review of Resident #4's EMR revealed the facility failed to weigh the resident for the weeks of 11/13/2022, 11/20/2022, 12/11/2022, 12/18/2022, 12/25/2022, and 01/15/2023. Review of Resident #4's EMR revealed Resident #4 weighed two hundred four (204) pounds on 08/01/2022 and one hundred forty-seven pounds (147) on 01/02/2023, which represented a loss of twenty-eight percent (28%). Review of Resident #4's Progress Note, dated 11/11/2022, revealed the Registered Dietician wrote the resident had experienced a significant weight loss of twenty percent (20%) in three (3) months and recommended adding a Glucerna shake for a bedtime snack. Further review revealed the Dietician wrote Resident #4 ate an average of fifty-two percent (52%) of meal trays but did not document any interventions for meeting calorie needs based on resident preference. Review of Resident #4's Progress Note, dated 01/06/2023, revealed the Registered Dietician wrote the resident lost thirteen and a half percent (13.5%) of his/her weight in the previous three (3) months and recommended adding a sugar free health shake at medication administration. Further review revealed the Dietician wrote Resident #4 ate an average of fifty-six percent (56%) of meal trays but did not document any interventions for meeting calorie needs based on resident preference. Interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #40, on 01/23/2023 at 11:01 AM, revealed Resident #4 had complained about the food not tasting good in the past. CNA #40 stated the facility had supplied the resident with supplemental nutritional shakes, which the resident drank inconsistently. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #15, on 01/20/2023 at 5:33 AM, revealed CNA's typically weighed residents as ordered, but ultimately, it was the responsibility of the Nurse to ensure weights were completed. Interview with the Registered Dietician (RD), on 01/19/2023 at 1:54 PM, revealed she attended the monthly Nutrition at Risk (NAR) meeting and documented the discussion from the meeting in the Nurse's Notes. The RD stated the facility provided her a list of residents with weight loss, and she made recommendations for those residents and followed up on those recommendations. Interview with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC), on 01/27/2023 at 3:03 PM, revealed residents with weight loss should have resident-specific care plan interventions, but she was unaware Resident #4 had lost weight, so she was unable to adjust the care plan. Interview with the Administrator, on 01/28/2023 at 1:27 PM, revealed it was her expectation that the facility identified what was causing a resident to lose weight and implement resident-specific interventions to address the weight loss.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

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's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ca...

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 care for the resident's feeding tube to prevent complications of enteral feedings by not dating the feedings when hung and by not performing site care as ordered for one (1) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents, Resident #71. The findings include: Review of Resident #71's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident, on [DATE], with diagnoses that included: Hemiparesis of Right Dominant Side, Aphasia (inability to speak), Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and Gastrostomy (a tube placed directly in the stomach for liquid nutritional feedings and medications). Review of Resident #71's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated [DATE], revealed the resident was not assigned a score under the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) tool due to communication barriers and was not interviewable. Further review revealed the resident had a gastrostomy feeding tube in place and received twenty-five percent (25%) or less of his/her total calories from tube feedings. Review of Resident #71's Care Plan, dated [DATE], revealed the care plan contained interventions for gastrostomy care including site care and dressing changes to be performed each shift per the Physician's Order. Observation, on [DATE] at 12:18 PM, revealed a bottle of tube feeding hanging, connected to Resident #71's gastrostomy tube. The tube feeding did not have a label with the time and date it was hung and/or expired. Observation, on [DATE] at 9:26 AM, revealed no dressing in place when Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5 pulled back Resident #71's clothing to begin gastrostomy site care. LPN #5 cleaned a moderate amount of dried brown drainage from around the tube insertion site and removed the tube feeding and flush tubing from the previous shift that had not been dated. Interview with LPN #5, on [DATE] at 9:32 AM, revealed the night shift Nurse should have performed site care, cleaned the drainage, and re-applied the dressing to the gastrostomy tube site according to the orders to perform these tasks each shift. LPN #5 stated the nurse who initiated the tube feeding should date the bottle and dispose of the remaining tube feeding and connecting tubing when the prescribed nocturnal feeding was completed. LPN #5 stated following the care plan and orders for gastrostomy site care was important to protect the resident from complications including skin breakdown. Interview with the Administrator, on [DATE] at 1:27 PM, revealed the Administrator was the checks and balances of the facility management to ensure policies were followed and to analyze current practice to follow up with whatever was needed to bring the facility into compliance.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to provide timely Dialysis management for one (1) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents (Resident #198). The facility admitted Resident #198 on 07/22/2022 and he/she required Dialysis Care. The facility, however, failed to ensure arrangements were made to assist the resident with Dialysis Care until 07/26/2022, when the resident's spouse alerted the facility, the resident was discharged from the hospital on Hemodialysis. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure documentation of the resident's visits to his/her Dialysis provider was kept in his/her medical records, as per the facility's policy. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Dialysis Care, revised 09/01/2021, revealed residents with Dialysis therapy ordered would be monitored and documentation maintained in the medical record, and all Dialysis residents would be assessed before and after treatment and for compliance with their individualized plan of care. Continued review of the policy revealed guidelines included that all residents receiving Hemodialysis (HD) would have their access site assessed every shift. Additional policy review revealed a Physician's order was needed for Dialysis treatment and medical information/records received from the Dialysis Provider should be maintained as part of the resident's medical record. Per the policy, the facility was responsible for contacting the Dialysis provider to obtain the required documentation, if said documents were not sent back by the Dialysis provider, for the resident's medical record. Review of Resident #198's Acute Care Hospital Discharge Placement Request and Summary - Hospital Course, dated 07/22/2022, revealed Resident #198 was referred for short term care (STC) for rehabilitation with outpatient Hemodialysis (HD) planned. Continued review revealed he/she had a Hemodialysis (HD) catheter placed on 07/13/2022 and HD was initiated. Further review of the hospital discharge summary revealed no documentation to support the resident's need for Hemodialysis after discharge. Review of Resident #198's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident, from an acute care hospital, on 07/22/2022 with diagnoses to include: Unspecified Acute Kidney Failure, Dependence on Renal Dialysis, Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease, and Unspecified Kidney Failure. Review of Resident #198's Physician's Orders, dated 07/22/2022, revealed no documentation to support the resident had orders for Hemodialysis (HD). Review of Resident #198's Baseline Care Plan, dated 07/22/2022, revealed Resident #198 was care planned for the need for Hemodialysis, with a goal of no signs and symptoms of Dialysis complications through the next review date. Interventions included fluid restriction as ordered; keep the access site clean and dry; monitor the access site for redness, swelling or drainage; and report any abnormalities to the Physician. Resident #198 was also care planned to send a Dialysis communication form with the resident to the Dialysis Center. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/26/2022, revealed the facility had assessed Resident #198 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five (5) of fifteen (15), which indicated he/she was severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #198's Medical Provider initial Progress Note, dated 07/26/2022, revealed the facility reported that Resident #198 was supposed to be set up with Dialysis upon admission; however, they had not been given the information required to set the resident up. The Medical Provider documented that Resident #198's spouse stated that prior to hospital discharge, the spouse was informed by the hospital that the resident's Dialysis was already set up. Continued review revealed the Medical Provider documented that Resident #198 had received Dialysis on 07/22/2022, prior to discharge, and that Dialysis was set to start on 07/28/2022. Review of the Dialysis Communication documentation revealed no documentation to support the facility kept a record of the communication between the facility and the Dialysis provider. Further review revealed the only communication the facility had record of was dated for 08/20/2022. The State Survey Agency (SSA) requested the Dialysis Communication Documentation, on 01/09/2023, for services provided to the resident on 07/28/2022, by the Dialysis provider. The facility, however, failed to ensure documentation of the resident's Dialysis treatment was maintained in his/her medical record, as per the facility's policy. Further, the facility provided documentation of the resident's visit to the Dialysis provider to the SSA Surveyor on 01/11/2023, which revealed the resident had received Dialysis from 07/28/2022 until 09/01/2022. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and South Unit Manager, on 01/11/2023 at 1:40 PM, stated they only had one (1) communication sheet from the Dialysis provider, and they had a difficult time getting sheets returned. Further interview revealed the DON did not contact the Dialysis provider to obtain the communication documentation sheets. Interview with the South Unit Manager revealed she called the Dialysis provider, but the provider was not receptive to sending the sheets back with the residents. The South Unit Manager stated she remembered a resident that was admitted on a Friday, 07/22/2022. She stated she did not work that day, but when she returned to work on Monday, she realized the resident had orders for Dialysis. Per the interview, she made arrangements for the resident to be transported and to receive Dialysis services. Interview with Resident #198's Physician, on 01/26/2023 at 1:08 PM, revealed the hospitals did not discharge individuals that required Dialysis until the Dialysis appointment was already set up. He stated the need for Dialysis should be very clear upon discharge, which was a standard for case management and discharge planning. He stated it was not good that Resident #198 to go without his/her Dialysis. Further, the Physician revealed there should have been a process to have accounted for human error. Telephone interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6, on 01/27/2023 at 10:40 AM, revealed she had been the Admitting Nurse for Resident #198 on 07/22/2022, but was no longer employed at the facility. She stated she did not remember the exact admission but felt she would have read the history and physical (H&P) and determined Resident #198 was a Dialysis resident. LPN #6 stated she would have passed along the need for Dialysis to day shift to call the Physician regarding orders for Dialysis. She stated that typically she did not call Physicians on night shift for concerns such as Dialysis. Further interview with LPN #6 revealed the system was broken and things sometimes got missed. Interview with the Admissions Director, on 01/27/2023 at 1:40 PM, revealed Resident #198 was admitted on [DATE], and she did not start at the facility until 07/25/20222. She stated the process was to receive a fax notification of the referral/admission, at which point she would notify Department Heads, Unit Managers, the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Administrator. She stated Dialysis information should be included on the fax referral, as well as, the Dialysis provider that accepted the resident. Additionally, she stated transportation for at least the resident's first appointment should have been included, so the facility could then make transportation arrangements for all other scheduled appointments. She stated it was not an expectation for family to transport a resident unless that was the resident/family preference. The Admission's Director stated she was unable to locate a fax referral for Resident #198. Further interview revealed she did not have the resident's admission notes, adding, I used post-it notes. Additional interview with the DON, on 01/27/2023 at 4:22 PM, revealed process changes were now in effect related to Resident #198's admission experience regarding Dialysis. She stated it was now the facility process that a Dialysis resident would not be accepted until the sending facility had made arrangements for Dialysis and transportation; and the Admissions Department confirmed the information located on the resident's discharge summary. The DON stated the Admitting Nurse was responsible for ensuring the Dialysis appointment and transportation was finalized and that information would be passed along in shift report. Further, she stated that at the time of Resident #198's admission, there had not been a process in place to ensure the H&P from the sending facility was read, that it included the appointment/transportation information, and that the information was relayed to the appropriate facility staff, including the Physician. Interview with the Administrator, on 01/27/2023 at 4:37 PM, revealed it was her expectation that staff followed facility processes.
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide routine medications for two (2) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents (Residents #252 and #255). The facility failed to ensure Resident #252 received his/her prescribed seizure and pain medications on the evening of 06/29/2022 and the morning of 06/30/2022, placing the resident at risk for seizures. Interview revealed the Pharmacy had not been able to fill the order for Resident #252's seizure and pain medications and deliver the medications to the facility. The facility failed to ensure Resident #255 received his/her prescribed seizure medication on 08/27/2022 and 08/28/2022, because the Pharmacy had not been able to fill the order and deliver the medication to the facility. Therefore, Resident #255 experienced a seizure on 08/28/2022 at 2:40 AM. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Missing Medications Procedure, dated 12/08/2022, revealed if a prescribed medication was not in the medication cart or in the CUBEX, (a medication dispensing system) the Nurse was expected to call the Pharmacy and order the missing medication. Further review revealed the Nurse was expected to notify the Physician if the medication was not able to be received timely. Review of the facility's policy titled, Administering Medications, revised April 2019, revealed medications were to be administered within one (1) hour before or after the prescribed time. 1. Review of Resident #252's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident on 06/29/2022, with diagnoses that included Epilepsy with Partial Seizures, Fracture of Right Wrist, and Repeated Falls. Review of Resident #252's Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility identified the resident had a seizure disorder. Review of Resident #252's Care Plan dated, 06/29/2022, revealed the facility failed to ensure the care plan contained interventions for medication management or seizure precautions. Review of Resident #252's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 06/2022, revealed the facility failed to administer the afternoon (PM) dose of Lacosamide (a seizure medication) 200 milligrams (mg) on 06/29/2022, and the morning (AM) dose of 200 mg of Lacosamide on 06/30/2022. Continued review revealed the facility failed to administer the PM dose of 300 mg of Gabapentin (a seizure medication also used to treat nerve pain) on 06/29/2022, and the AM dose of 300 mg of Gabapentin on 06/30/2022. Review of the Pharmacy's document noted as Shipment Details, dated 06/30/2022, revealed the Pharmacy filled and delivered sixty (60) tablets of 200 mg of Lacosamide each, and sixty (60) tablets of 300 mg of Gabapentin each for Resident #252 on 06/30/2022 at 3:31 PM. Review of Resident #252's Progress Note, dated 06/30/2022 at 5:56 PM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #17 documented the resident as not having received his/her doses of Gabapentin or Lacosamide in more than twenty-four (24) hours. Per review of the Note, LPN #17 notified the facility's Medical Director, who was the Attending Physician for Resident #252. Continued review revealed the Medical Director ordered 400 mg of Lacosamide and 300 mg of Gabapentin to be given to the resident as soon as possible, before resuming the normally scheduled dosing of those medications. Further review revealed LPN #17 documented in the Note that she administered the doses Lacosamide and Gabapentin medications to Resident #252 as ordered by the Medical Director. Interview with Resident #252's daughter on 01/11/2023 at 1:44 PM, revealed the resident had a history of petit mal (an absence, generalized onset seizure) seizures, which manifested as her parent looked like he/she was staring off into space, and did not answer questions. Resident #252's daughter stated when Resident #252 was discharged from the hospital, the nurses told the family it was very important for the resident's seizure medication to be filled at the Pharmacy and gave the family a paper prescription. Per interview, Resident #252's family gave the paper prescription to the facility upon the resident's arrival to the facility. Further interview revealed Resident #252's daughter stated staff told her that her parent's seizure medications had not been available until the afternoon of 06/30/2022, over twenty-four (24) hours after Resident #252 received his/her previous dose of seizure medication. Interview was attempted by telephone with LPN #17 on 01/11/2023 at 10:30 AM, and on 01/14/2023 at 3:28 PM, with messages left requesting a return call; however, no return call was received. Interview was attempted by telephone with LPN #18 on 01/11/2023 at 10:33 AM, and on 01/14/2023 at 3:30 PM, with messages left requesting a return call; however, no return call was received. 2. Review of Resident #255's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/26/2022, with diagnoses that included Sepsis, Pneumonitis due to Inhalation of Food and Vomit, Dysphagia, Seizures, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Further review revealed the resident was discharged from the facility back to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of Resident #255's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility failed to assess and complete Physician notification for a potentially clinically significant medication issue during Resident #255's admission. Review of Resident #255's hospital record from the 08/28/2022 admission, revealed the acute care provider assessed the resident to be in a postictal (after seizure) state upon arrival to the hospital. Continued review revealed a blood test for Resident #255's Depakote level (brand name for a seizure medication prescribed for the resident) revealed the resident's valproic acid level (generic name for the seizure medication prescribed for the resident) was twenty-three (23) micrograms (mcg) per milliliter (ml) which was below the minimum therapeutic level of fifty (50 mcg/ml. Review of Resident #255's MAR dated 08/2022, revealed the facility failed to ensure three (3) doses of the resident's 250 mg Lacosamide were administered as ordered to the resident during his/her admission at the facility. Continued review revealed the three (3) doses of Lacosamide not administered as ordered were the AM and PM doses on 08/27/2022 and the AM dose on 08/28/2022. Further review revealed Resident #255 was discharged back to the hospital before the PM dose on 08/28/2022 was due. Review of Resident #255's Progress Note dated 08/27/2022 at 9:24 AM, revealed LPN #19 documented the Pharmacy had not delivered the resident's Lacosamide. Continued review revealed LPN #19 noted he called the Pharmacy for an estimated delivery time for the medication. Review of Resident #255's Progress Note dated 08/27/2022 at 11:09 PM, revealed Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) #32 documented the resident's Lacosamide was not available for administration; however, the KMA did not note any further action having been taken to obtain the medication. Review of Resident #255's Progress Note dated 08/28/2022 at 7:21 AM, revealed LPN #30 documented Resident #255 experienced a three (3) minute seizure at 2:40 AM. Further review revealed LPN #30 called the facility's Medical Director and left a message at 3:00 AM. Additional review revealed the Medical Director called the nurse back at 6:50 AM, and gave no new orders for Resident #255 at that time. Review of Resident #255's Progress Note dated 08/28/2022 at 10:39 AM, revealed LPN #20 documented the Lacosamide was on order. Further review revealed however, LPN #20 did not note that any further action was taken in order to obtain the resident's medication. Review of the Pharmacy's document noted as Shipment Details dated 08/28/2022, revealed the Pharmacy filled and delivered thirty (30) tablets each of 50 mg Lacosamide and thirty (30) tablets each of 200 mg Lacosamide for Resident #255, on 08/28/2022 at 7:46 PM. Interview with Resident #255's representative on 01/04/2023 at 3:00 PM, revealed the Medical Director told her the resident had been refusing to take his/her seizure medication. Per the representative, Resident #255 could not have refused to take the Lacosamide as the pharmacy had not delivered the medication. Further interview revealed Resident #255 was also on Depakote, another seizure medication. Interview with KMA #20 on 01/10/2023 at 8:54 AM, revealed he had not worked at the facility when Resident #255 was admitted ; however, his practice for a missing medication was to check the emergency medication dispenser for the medication, and then notify the Pharmacy to get the medication delivered as soon as possible. He stated if the medication did not arrive on the next Pharmacy delivery after notification of the medication missing, he had the Nurse contact the Physician so the medication could be obtained from a local Pharmacy, which could deliver the medication promptly. Interview with KMA #32 on 01/21/2023 at 1:38 PM, revealed he vaguely remembered Resident #255's seizure medication not being available. However, he did not remember exactly what he did to respond. He stated his usual practice when a medication was unavailable was to call the Pharmacy and inform the Nurse so the Nurse could call the Physician. Interview was attempted by telephone with LPN #20, on 01/06/2023 at 2:12 PM, on 01/08/2023 at 2:41 PM, and on 01/11/2023 at 10:35 AM; and with LPN #19 on 01/11/2023 at 10:24 AM; however, the attempts were unsuccessful. Messages were left requesting a return call with no return calls received. Interview with LPN #30 was not attempted as the LPN was no longer employed by the facility, and no telephone number was available to call. Interview with the Order Entry Manager (OEM) from the facility's contract Pharmacy (used by the facility at the time of Resident #255's admission) on 01/11/2023 at 10:05 AM, revealed the Pharmacy had not been able to dispense Lacosamide for Resident #255 without a hard copy of the prescription, due to its classification as a controlled substance. The OEM further stated the Pharmacy notified the resident's Attending Physician (the facility's Medical Director) by fax of the need for a hard copy of the prescription; however, received no reply. Interview with LPN #11/South Unit Manager on 01/10/2023 at 2:43 PM, revealed it was her expectation for staff to call the Pharmacy to have missing medications sent as quickly as possible and to document any telephone call made to the Pharmacy or Physician. She stated staff could get commonly used medications out of the facility's emergency box to ensure residents received all medications in a timely manner. Further interview revealed however, Lacosamide was not a medication in the emergency box. In addition, she stated it was especially important for residents to receive their seizure medications to prevent seizures. Interview with Pharmacist #2 on 01/26/2023 at 10:32 AM, revealed abrupt discontinuation or missed doses of Lacosamide was associated with an increased risk for seizures. Interview with the facility's Medical Director on 01/26/2023 at 1:08 PM, revealed his expectations for when a medication was not available from the Pharmacy was for staff to notify him. He stated facility staff notified him on the afternoon of 08/28/2022, as they were sending Resident #255 to the hospital, of the resident's Lacosamide being unavailable all weekend. Continued interview revealed he was not able to speculate as to why he was not notified earlier; however, he should have been. The Medical Director stated Resident #255's seizure, that occurred on 08/28/2022 at 2:40 AM, was over in three (3) minutes and did not require emergency intervention. He further stated the missed doses of Lacosamide could have been the cause of the resident's seizure. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/13/2023 at 8:44 AM, revealed at the time of admission for Resident #252 and Resident #255, the facility's process for obtaining controlled medications, such as Lacosamide, was to get a paper prescription from the hospital that was sent with the resident to the facility, and send it to the Pharmacy to be filled. She stated the facility encountered multiple situations, including the admissions for Resident #252 and #255, where the hospital did not send paper prescriptions. Continued interview revealed when that occurred, the Admitting Nurse was expected to call the Physician to fax a new prescription to the Pharmacy; however, that process created a delay in the resident receiving their medication if the medication was not available in the facility's emergency box. She stated that had been the case with the Lacosamide medication. Further interview revealed the facility changed the Pharmacy they had been using in October 2022, and began having the Admissions Coordinator ensure hospitals faxed the prescriptions for controlled substances directly to the Pharmacy before discharging the resident to the facility. Interview with the Administrator on 01/28/2023 at 1:27 PM, revealed it was her expectation for the facility to review medications listed in the residents' hospital discharge summaries, and ensure all medications were ordered and delivered in time to be administered to the resident, according to the Physician's Orders.
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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to develop the baseline care plan within forty-eight (48) hours for four (4) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents (Resident #21, Resident #90, Resident #255 and Resident #348). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Planning Process, review date of 10/01/2021, revealed the facility was to develop a baseline care plan within twenty-four (24) hours of a resident's admission to the facility. Continued review revealed the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) or Registered Nurse (RN) Designee was to review the resident's baseline care plan no more than seventy-two (72) hours from admission to confirm all risk factors had been care planned. Further review revealed high-risk areas such as falls, skin, wounds, pain, safety, and weight loss must be included in the resident's baseline care plan immediately upon identification of the risk for the resident. 1. Review of Resident #21's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/10/2022, with diagnoses which included Stage Four (4) Sacral Pressure Ulcer, Type Two Diabetes, and Dementia. Review of Resident #21's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility identified the resident as at risk for falls, nutritional status, pressure ulcers, and pain. Review of Resident #21's Baseline Care Plan revealed no documented evidence the high-risk areas identified in the admission MDS Assessment which included falls, wounds, and pain for the resident were care planned until 11/19/2022, nine (9) days after the facility admitted the resident on 11/10/2022. 2. Review of Resident #90's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/05/2022, with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) with Acute Exacerbation, Dysphagia, and Enterocolitis due to Clostridium Difficile. Review of Resident #90's admission MDS Assessment, dated 09/09/2022 revealed the facility identified the resident as at risk for falls, pressure ulcers, and nutritional status. Review of Resident #90's Baseline Care Plan revealed no documented evidence the high-risk areas which included falls, skin integrity, pain, and nutritional status were care planned until 10/05/2022, thirty (30) days after the facility admitted the resident on 09/05/2022. 3. Review of Resident #255's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/26/2022, with diagnoses including Sepsis, Pneumonitis due to Inhalation of Food and Vomit, Dysphagia, Seizures, and COPD. Review of the discharge paperwork from the acute care hospital revealed Resident #255 was at high risk for falls. Review of Resident #255's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed Resident #255 as requiring extensive assistance to transfer between surfaces and utilizing a wheelchair. However, review of Resident #255's Baseline Care Plan revealed no documented evidence the resident's high risk for falls was care planned with interventions were in place to address fall prevention for the resident. 4. Review of Resident #348's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/05/2023, with diagnoses including Left-side Hemiplegia, and Dysphagia. Review of Resident #348's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident to require a mechanically altered diet for his/her diagnosis of Dysphagia following a cerebral infarction (stroke) and as at risk for weight loss. Review of Resident #348's Baseline Care Plan, revealed no documented evidence the facility care planned the resident's risk of weight loss until 01/18/2023, thirteen (13) days after the facility admitted the resident on 01/05/2023. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, on 01/05/2023 at 2:04 PM, revealed residents' baseline care plans were important for communicating basic safety information about new residents. Continued interview revealed however, in her experience, baseline care plans at the facility might not include key information needed, such as a resident's need for thickened liquids. Interview with LPN #6, on 01/06/2023 at 2:52 PM, revealed she initiated a care plan on admission to communicate the basic needs of the newly admitted resident as found on nursing assessments, Physician's Orders, and what had been reported from the previous facility. Interview with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC), on 01/27/2023 at 3:03 PM, revealed her expectations for baseline care plan development, was for the admitting nurse to enter an initial assessment, which triggered a baseline care plan for the new resident, which she reviewed and enhanced if needed. She stated if the admitting nurse did not lock in the initial assessment in the new resident's electronic health record (EHR), the baseline care plan would not have the necessary information carried over to ensure the resident was care planned appropriately. Continued interview revealed the baseline care plans for Resident #21, Resident #90, and Resident #348 were late having necessary care areas care planned, as she had been working by herself without any assistance. She further stated she had to get the volume of all her work done in the specified time frames which was difficult with no assistance. Further interview revealed the importance of baseline and other care plans was for the facility's staff to know what care residents needed and what interventions were appropriate for each resident. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 01/27/2023 at 3:34 PM, revealed her expectations regarding baseline care plans, was for the admitting nurse to fill out the initial assessment, which triggered the baseline care plan for key care areas identified. Continued interview revealed the next step was for the MDSC to review the baseline care plan and to add to it, if necessary, in the time frame specified by policy. She further stated she would have to review the policy to remember what the exact time frame was the policy required. Interview with the Administrator, on 01/28/2023 at 1:27 PM, revealed her expectations for baseline care plans was for the care plans to be completed in the required time frames. Further interview revealed baseline care plans were to include the pertinent information for areas of concern identified from the initial assessment of the resident.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to revise the care plan following a change in condition for three (3) of sixty-four (64) s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to revise the care plan following a change in condition for three (3) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents, Resident #4, Resident #87, and Resident #348. The facility failed to revise Resident #4's care plan when he/she lost a significant amount of weight. The facility failed to revise Resident #87's care plan when he/she developed a respiratory infection. The facility documented the catheter care section of Resident #348's care plan as Resolved while the resident still had an indwelling urinary catheter. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plan Process, review date of 10/01/2021, revealed the interdisciplinary team (IDT) was expected to update (revise) residents' care plans: quarterly; when the resident had a change of status; and upon identification that a desired outcome had not been met. Further review revealed the policy stated high-risk areas such as falls, wounds, pain, safety, and weight loss must be care planned immediately upon identifying the resident's risk for those items. 1. Review of Resident #4's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/28/2022, with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes, Schizophrenia, and Bipolar Disorder. Review of Resident #4's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 12/08/2022, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven (7) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #4 as requiring set up help with eating, requiring a therapeutic diet, and identified the resident as having experienced a significant weight loss. Review of Resident #4's Care Plan, dated 12/21/2022, revealed nutritional interventions were listed under the diabetic care section of the care plan. Review of the care plan revealed interventions which included a dietary consult, maintaining a carbohydrate-controlled diet with regular texture, and monitoring the resident's compliance with diet. Continued review of Resident #4's EMR revealed a Physician's Order, dated 11/02/2022, to weigh the resident weekly on Tuesdays. Continued review of Resident #4's Care Plan revealed the facility failed to list the Physician's Order to weigh the resident weekly on Tuesdays as an intervention on his/her care plan. Review of Resident #4's Progress Note, dated 11/11/2022, revealed the Registered Dietician (RD) documented the resident to have experienced a significant weight loss of twenty percent (20%) in three (3) months and recommended adding a sugar free shake for a bedtime snack. Review of Resident #4's Care Plan revealed the facility failed to add the RD's recommendation for the sugar free shake as a bedtime snack as an intervention to the resident's care plan. Review of Resident #4's Progress Note, dated 01/06/2023, revealed the RD documented the resident as having lost thirteen point five percent (13.5%) in weight in the previous three (3) months and noted the resident should receive a sugar free health shake at medication administration. Review of Resident #4's Care Plan revealed the facility failed to add the RD's recommendation for the sugar free shake at medication administration to the resident's care plan. Interview, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #40, on 01/23/2023 at 11:01 AM, revealed Resident #4 had complained about his/her food not tasting good and did not want to eat some days. Per CNA #40, the facility had supplied Resident #4 with supplemental nutritional shakes, which the resident drank inconsistently. Interview, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #21, on 01/24/2023 at 1:14 PM, revealed in his experience, CNA's typically weighed residents on the day the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) notified staff the resident's weight was due. Continued interview revealed in LPN #21's experience a resident with weight loss received a supplemental shake and had care plan interventions to address the weight loss. LPN #21 further stated that not revising a care plan could result in a bad outcome for the resident. Interview with the Registered Dietician (RD), on 01/19/2023 at 1:54 PM, revealed she attended the facility's monthly Nutrition at Risk (NAR) meeting and documented the discussion from the meeting in the Nurses Notes. The RD stated the facility provided her a list of residents with weight loss and she made recommendations for those residents and followed up on those recommendations. What about ensuring the residents' care plans were revised to include her recommendations? This is all we have on that. We didn't ask her about care plans specifically Interview, with LPN #11/South Unit Manager, on 01/26/2023 at 2:07 PM, revealed Resident #4 was included in the NAR committee's discussion, and the RD gave recommendations for him/her. LPN #11 stated Resident #4 had refused to be weighed in the past. Continued interview revealed Resident #4's refusal should have been documented in the medical record. She further stated Resident #4's care plan should have been revised to include interventions about weight loss and incorporate the RD's recommendations. Interview with the MDS Coordinator, on 01/27/2023 at 3:03 PM, revealed residents with weight loss should have care plan interventions tailored to help them gain weight. She stated she was unaware Resident #4 had lost weight, and therefore had been unable to adjust the resident's care plan. The MDS Coordinator stated she was on the facility's Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and received information about residents in order to update/revise their care plans. Further interview revealed staff were not weighing Resident #4 as ordered; however, she had not known the resident was experiencing weight loss. 2. Review of Resident #87's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident on 02/11/2022, with diagnoses which included: Stage 3 Chronic Kidney Disease, Adult Failure to Thrive, and Generalized Muscle Weakness. Review of Resident #87's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 01/12/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS' score of eleven (11) out of fifteen (15) which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Further review of the Annual MDS Assessment revealed the facility failed to assess Resident #87 had used supplemental oxygen therapy during the preceding fourteen (14) days. Review of Resident #87's Care Plan, dated 01/19/2023, revealed no documented evidence of interventions for the resident's respiratory status, to include the use of oxygen and his/her productive cough. Additional review of Resident #87's EMR revealed documentation noting on 01/18/2023, Resident #87 was sent to the emergency room per the resident's request after he/she reported feeling like his/her throat was closing up. Further review revealed upon return to the facility Resident #87 tested positive for Influenza Type A on 01/21/2023; however, the facility failed to update the resident's care plan to reflect interventions for to address the condition. Observation, on 01/17/2023 at 9:38 AM, revealed Resident #87 was wearing a nasal cannula attached to an oxygen concentrator and coughing frequently, sometimes spitting yellow respiratory secretions into a plastic cup on his/her bedside table. Interview with Resident #87 on 01/17/2023 at 9:38 AM, revealed he/she wore the oxygen cannula most days. Resident #87 further stated he/she had developed a cough over the past week. Interview, with CNA #40 on 01/23/2023 at 11:01 AM, revealed she was aware that Resident #87 had developed a respiratory infection, because the resident had requested to go to the hospital for evaluation earlier that week due to having trouble breathing. Interview, with the MDS Coordinator, on 01/27/2023 at 3:03 PM, revealed she did not know Resident #87 had a new onset respiratory infection. She stated however, a resident with a respiratory infection should have care plan interventions that addressed the resident's respiratory status. Further interview revealed she should have known Resident #87 had the respiratory infection, but must have missed new orders related to it. In addition, she stated she must have also missed discussion in the IDT meeting that Resident #87 had a change in status related to his/her respiratory status/care. 3. Review of Resident #348's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/05/2023, with diagnoses including Hemiplegia of the Left Side, Dysphagia, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Review of Resident #348's admission MDS Assessment, dated 01/14/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of three (3) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed Resident #348 as having an indwelling urinary catheter. Observation, on 01/19/2023 at 11:09 AM, revealed Resident #348 had an indwelling urinary catheter in place. Review of Resident #348's Care Plan, dated 01/24/2023, revealed the facility noted the resident's indwelling catheter as resolved on the care plan. Further review revealed therefore, the facility failed to include interventions to communicate to staff what was required to care for Resident #348's current indwelling catheter. Observation, on 01/25/2023 at 1:30 PM, revealed Resident #348's indwelling urinary catheter was still in place. Continued observation revealed LPN #13 cleansed Resident #348's catheter and noted the leg strap to anchor the catheter was missing. LPN #13 replaced the adhesive leg strap anchor and explained to Resident #348 the purpose of the anchor was to prevent the catheter from becoming dislodged by accident. Interview with LPN #13 on 01/25/2023 at 1:30 PM, revealed catheter care should have been noted on Resident #348's care plan with interventions listed in order to communicate the resident's catheter needs. Interview with LPN #11/South Unit Manager on 01/26/2023 at 2:07 PM, revealed it was her expectation that residents' care plans were updated by the MDS Coordinator following the daily clinical meeting where the IDT discussed new orders, admissions, and incidents such as falls and hospitalizations that would trigger an update to a resident's care plan. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/27/2023 at 3:34 PM, revealed it was her expectation that residents' care plans were updated to reflect any change of condition in a resident. Interview with the Administrator on 01/28/2023 at 1:27 PM, revealed it was her expectation that care plans were revised any time a resident experienced a change of condition, such as a fall or significant weight loss.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review, and the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide weekend Registered Nurse (RN) coverage from 08/27/2022 through 01/14/2023, for a total of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide weekend Registered Nurse (RN) coverage from 08/27/2022 through 01/14/2023, for a total of fifteen (15) weekends. Review of weekend staff schedules and timecards revealed appropriate RN coverage for eight (8) consecutive hours on weekends was not ensured by the facility during that period of time. The findings include: Review of the Facility Assessment, last reviewed 08/30/2022, revealed RN coverage was to be provided daily, on a full-time basis. Review of weekend staff schedules from 08/27/2022 through 01/14/2023, along with facility provided timecard documentation, revealed there were fifteen (15) weekends when there was no documented proof of appropriate RN coverage for (8) consecutive hours. Further review revealed that on 08/27/2022, 09/11/2022, 10/08/2022, 10/09/2022, 10/15/2022, 12/31/2022 and 01/14/2023, there was no documented evidence of RN coverage provided on those days. Additional review revealed that on 11/26/2022, 11/27/2022, 12/03/2022, 12/04/2022, there was no documented evidence a RN was present for an entire (8) hour shift. Further review revealed that on 09/25/2022, 10/30/2022, 12/18/2022, and 12/25/2022, the Director of Nursing (DON) provided RN coverage for those days. Interview with the Clinical Consultant, Director of Nursing (DON), and Administrator collectively, on 01/26/2023 at 2:40 PM, regarding RN coverage on the weekends, revealed reports provided included an agency staffing report and a facility staffing report. Further interviews revealed there was no documented RN coverage on the weekends in either report for 08/27/2022, 08/28/2022 and 09/03/2022. They stated the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse provided coverage on 09/04/2022 and a Unit Manager provided coverage on 09/10/2022; however, no RN coverage was documented for 09/11/2022. Further interviews revealed the MDS Nurse provided coverage on 09/17/2022 for 5.27 hours; however, they validated no documented RN coverage for eight (8) hours. They also validated there was no RN coverage on 09/18/2022. Interview with the DON, on 01/27/2023 at 4:22 PM, revealed RN coverage for weekends was covered by the MDS Nurse, a Unit Manager or herself, as the facility did not currently have a dedicated weekend RN Manager. She stated she believed resident safety was ensured, even though the facility did not meet the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidelines related to a DON acting as a Charge Nurse in a facility with a resident census greater than one hundred twenty (120) residents. Additional interview revealed the facility did occasionally have weekend agency RN coverage. Continued interview with the Administrator, on 01/26/2023 at 2:40 PM, revealed agency staffing reports and facility staffing reports should have shown the Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for the weekends. Further, she stated daily posted staffing schedules would have shown RN coverage. Additionally, the Administrator revealed the salaried employees were not required to clock in and would not have appeared on a report if they had worked a weekend.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently acc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Observations revealed three (3) of the five (5) medication carts were observed left unlocked. In addition, one of the medication carts was observed to have medication dispenser cup three-quarters (3/4) full of pills of various shapes and sizes, without a label, indicating what the pills were or for which resident they were intended. Further observations of medication carts revealed, Gabapentin Oral Solution, which had a pharmacy sticker that noted the medication required refrigeration, which was not stored in the refrigerator; and two (2) multi-dose bottles of medication were not dated when opened. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Administering Medications, revised April 2019, revealed multi-dose containers should be labeled with the date opened on the container. Further review revealed the medication cart should be kept closed and locked when out of sight of the nurse or medication aide. Review of the Gabapentin Oral Solution information website, https://accessdata.fda.gov, revealed the medication should be stored in the refrigerator between thirty-six (36) Degrees Fahrenheit (F) to forty-six (46) Degrees Fahrenheit. Observation, on 01/20/2023 at 4:30 AM, revealed all three (3) medication carts located at the North Unit Nurses' Station were left unlocked and out of the sight of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #15. Further observation at 5:26 AM, revealed LPN #15 left the medication cart unlocked, facing outward to the hallway, when she went into Resident #72's room to administer medications. Observation, on 01/20/2023 at 5:05 AM, revealed the top drawer of LPN #15's medication cart contained a medication dispenser cup three-quarters (3/4) full of pills of various shapes and sizes without a label indicating what the pills were or for which resident they were intended. Observation, on 01/20/2023 at 5:49 AM, revealed LPN #15's medication cart contained one (1) container of Sucralfate Suspension (used to treat stomach ulcers) and one (1) container Polyethylene Glycol (used to treat constipation) that were opened without expiration labels. Interview with LPN #15, on 01/20/2023 at 5:53 AM, revealed she was responsible for the contents of the medication cart assigned to her for the shift, including expired medications, which she stated should have been labeled when opened. She further stated that she had not prepared the medication cup full of pills in the top drawer of the cart and had discarded them, as it would not be safe to administer unlabeled pills to a resident. Further interview revealed LPN #15 stated it was important to always keep the medication carts locked when unattended because medications could be accessed from an unlocked cart by unauthorized people, including residents. Observation, on 01/20/2023 at 6:26 AM, revealed a bottle of Gabapentin Oral Solution was stored in the medication cart for the Rehabilitation Hall, despite having a sticker from Pharmacy that indicated the medication should be refrigerated. Observation, on 01/20/2023 at 6:37 AM, revealed one (1) Ozempic (Diabetes medication) pen was opened with one (1) pen needle missing from the package, but the label for writing the opened date was blank. Interview with LPN #23, on 01/20/2023 at 6:39 AM, revealed she called the Pharmacy to ask about the Gabapentin Oral Solution, and the Pharmacy Technician who answered the phone told her it did not need to be refrigerated, so she left the bottle in the medication cart. Further interview revealed LPN #23 stated the Ozempic pen should have been labeled by the person who opened it. Interview, with Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) #19, on 01/20/2023 at 7:43 AM, revealed medication carts should always be locked when unattended to protect residents. KMA #19 stated multi-dose bottles of medication should be labeled with the date they were opened, as they usually expired thirty (30) days after opening. Interview, with LPN #11/Unit Manager South, on 01/26/2023 at 2:07 PM, revealed it was her expectation that staff should label multi-dose bottles of medication when they were opened and store medications according to Pharmacy and manufacturer recommendations, including refrigeration when indicated. She further stated that a cup of pills without a label should not be kept in a medication cart, particularly as a means of preparing medication administration early. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 01/27/2023 at 3:34 PM, revealed she expected staff to follow the manufacturer's and Pharmacy's guidelines, including labeling a multi-dose bottle when opened and refrigerating a medication labeled as requiring refrigeration. Further interview revealed the DON expected medication carts to remain locked when a staff member was not in attendance at the cart for the safety of the residents. Interview with the Administrator, on 01/28/2023 at 1:27 PM, revealed her expectations for medication storage were for staff to follow Pharmacy requirements for storage, and any unlabeled medications were to be discarded and never administered to residents. Interview with LPN #23, on 01/20/2023 at 6:39 AM, revealed she called the Pharmacy to ask about the Gabapentin Oral Solution, and the Pharmacy Technician who answered the phone told her it did not need to be refrigerated, so she left the bottle in the medication cart. Further interview revealed LPN #23 stated the Ozempic pen should have been labeled by the person who opened it. Interview with Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) #19, on 01/20/2023 at 7:43 AM, revealed medication carts should always be locked when unattended to protect residents. KMA #19 stated multi-dose bottles of medication should be labeled with the date they were opened, as they usually expired thirty (30) days after opening. Interview with LPN #11/Unit Manager South, on 01/26/2023 at 2:07 PM, revealed it was her stated expectation that staff should label multi-dose bottles of medication when they were opened and store medications according to Pharmacy and manufacturer recommendations, including refrigeration when indicated. She further stated that a cup of pills without a label should not be kept in a medication cart, particularly as a means of preparing medication administration early. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 01/27/2023 at 3:34 PM, revealed she expected staff to follow the manufacturer's and Pharmacy's guidelines, including labeling a multi-dose bottle when opened and refrigerating a medication labeled as requiring refrigeration. Further interview revealed the DON expected medication carts to remain locked when a staff member was not in attendance at the cart for the safety of the residents. Interview with the Administrator, on 01/28/2023 at 1:27 PM, revealed her stated expectations for medication storage were for staff to follow Pharmacy requirements for storage, and any unlabeled medications were to be discarded and never administered to residents.
CONCERN (F)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, review of Lippincott's Manual of Nursing Practice (11th edition), and review of the facility's policy, it was determined residents requiring respiratory care were not ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, review of Lippincott's Manual of Nursing Practice (11th edition), and review of the facility's policy, it was determined residents requiring respiratory care were not provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice. Observation revealed residents had oxygen with no signage outside of their rooms to indicate oxygen use and no dating of the oxygen tubing as well as residents with no documentation of oxygen tubing change in the electronic medical record (EMR) for eleven (11) of sixty-four (64) sampled residents, Residents #3, #28, #32, #33, #36, #37, #44, #52, #57, #80, and #150. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration, undated and unsigned, revealed staff must place an Oxygen in Use sign outside the resident's room entrance door. Additional review revealed staff should check the mask, tank humidifying jar, etc., to be sure they were in good working order and were securely fastened. The policy stated documentation requirements were the date and time the procedure was performed, the name and title of the staff who performed the procedure, the rate of oxygen flow, the route and rationale as well as the frequency and duration of the treatment, and to update the resident's plan of care as appropriate. There were no details in the policy regarding further care and maintenance for oxygen use in the facility. Review of oxygen administration practice in Lippincott's Manual of Nursing Practice, 11th edition , revealed the standard of practice included posting No Smoking signs on the individual's door who received oxygen therapy. 1. Review of Resident #3's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 04/22/2021, with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), Atrial Fibrillation (AF), and Acute Pulmonary Edema. Review of Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Annual Assessment, dated 01/09/2023, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of thirteen (13) of fifteen (15), indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #3's Clinical Physician's Orders revealed an order for oxygen, dated 07/16/2021, at two (2) liters per nasal cannula. Further review revealed an order to change oxygen cannula/tubing once weekly on Tuesdays during first shift and as needed (PRN), as of 09/06/2022. Review of Resident #3's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), dated 12/23/2021, revealed a focus for COPD with interventions including give oxygen therapy as ordered by the physician. Review of Resident #3's January 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the resident's oxygen tubing was documented as changed on 01/17/2023. Review of Resident #3's Progress Notes revealed a Nursing Note, dated 01/18/2023 at 4:38 PM, reflecting an oxygen tubing change from a PRN administration task. Observation of Resident #3, on 01/17/2023 at 11:30 AM, revealed the resident had oxygen applied at two (2) liters per minute (LPM) per nasal cannula (NC) with no date label on the tubing. Further observation revealed about two (2) to three (3) centimeters (cm) of the tubing was very brown, and the resident demonstrated the tubing had become loose and would come apart. Continued observation revealed no oxygen signage on the door or outside the room. Interview with Resident #3, on 01/17/2023 at 11:30 AM, revealed it had been at least two (2) weeks since the tubing had last been changed, and there was no set regularity to changing. Additional interview with Resident #3, on 01/18/2023 at 3:45 PM, revealed his/her oxygen tubing had not been changed the previous day as documented. Observation at the same time revealed the same, brown-stained oxygen tubing. Interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #19, on 01/18/2023 at 3:56 PM, revealed the CNA could see the TAR and that Resident #3's tubing was changed on 01/17/2023 per documentation but would report the tubing condition to the nurse. Review of Resident #3's Progress Note, dated 01/19/2023 at 8:34 AM, revealed his/her oxygen tubing had been changed on 01/18/2023 at 4:57 PM. 2. Review of Resident #28's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 08/31/2022, with diagnoses that included Parkinson's Disease, Dysphagia, Anemia and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Review of Resident #28's MDS Annual Assessment, dated 12/22/2022, revealed a BIMS' score of eight (8) of fifteen (15), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #28's Physician's Orders revealed an order for oxygen at two (2) LPM per NC for shortness of air (SOA), titrate to keep oxygen saturation greater than ninety-three percent (93%). There was no order for tubing change or other maintenance. Review of Resident #28's CCP, dated 03/07/2022, revealed an intervention to give oxygen as ordered by the Physician related to altered cardiovascular status. Review of the January 2023 TAR revealed no documentation of oxygen tubing change. Review of Resident #28's Progress Notes revealed no documentation of oxygen tubing change from 12/28/2022 through 01/27/2023. Observation, of Resident #28, on 01/17/2023 at 12:14 PM, revealed oxygen in the room, but it was not applied at that time. Further observation revealed no date or labeling was on the tubing. Continued observation revealed there was no oxygen signage on the door or outside the room. 3. Review of Resident #32's EMR revealed the facility initially admitted the resident, on 03/30/2021, with diagnoses of Acquired Absence of Right Leg Above Knee, COPD, Chronic Pain, and Macular Degeneration. Review of Resident #32's Five (5) Day MDS Assessment, dated 01/16/2023, revealed a BIMS score of seven (7) of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #32's Physician's Orders revealed an order for oxygen at 3 LPM via NC continuously, dated 01/16/2023. Continued review of orders revealed no order for changing oxygen tubing. Review of the January 2023 TAR revealed a task for ensuring oxygen application every shift, beginning 01/16/2023. Continued review revealed no task for changing oxygen tubing or other supplemental oxygen care and maintenance. Review of Resident #32's Progress Notes, from 01/16/2023 through 01/27/2023, revealed no documentation of oxygen tubing changes. Observation of Resident #32, on 01/17/2023 at 11:55 AM, revealed the resident was napping with oxygen applied per NC at three (3) LPM. Further observation revealed the oxygen tubing had no date label. 4. Review of Resident #33's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 10/19/2022, with diagnoses of COPD, Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, and Pneumonia. Review of the MDS Quarterly Assessment, dated 01/03/2023, revealed the resident had a BIMS' score of eleven (11) of fifteen (15), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #33's Physician's Orders revealed a supplemental oxygen order of four (4) LPM per NC continuous, dated 10/19/2022. Further review revealed an order, dated 01/11/2023, for weekly oxygen tubing change every Wednesday during day shift and as needed. Review of Resident #33's January 2023 TAR revealed a tubing change was documented on 01/11/2023 and 01/18/2023. Observation of Resident #33, on 01/17/2023 at 11:49 AM, revealed oxygen applied at four (4) LPM per NC with no date labeling. Further observation revealed no oxygen signage on the door or outside the room. 5. Review of Resident #36's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 02/23/2017, with diagnoses of COPD, Pulmonary Fibrosis, Anemia, and Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Review of Resident #36's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 01/03/2023, revealed a BIMS' score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognition. Review of Resident #36's Clinical Physician's Orders revealed an order, dated 01/11/2023, for supplemental oxygen at 3 LPM via NC continuous. Further review revealed an order, revised 01/24/2023, for weekly oxygen tubing change with no day or shift specified. Review of Resident #36's CCP, dated 10/07/2021, revealed interventions for Impaired Gas Exchange related to COPD, including oxygen per Physician's order and change oxygen tubing and clean filters as directed. Review of Resident #36's Progress Notes, from 01/11/2023 through 01/26/2023, revealed no documentation of tubing change. Observation of Resident #36, on 01/17/2023 at 12:00 PM, revealed the resident was receiving oxygen applied per NC at 3 LPM with no date label on tubing. Interview with Resident #36, on 01/17/2023 at 12:00 PM, revealed his/her oxygen tubing had been changed recently, but he did not recall a day or date and made no statement of staff washing his/her tubing. 6. Review of Resident #37's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 09/01/2021, with diagnoses including Acute Kidney Failure, COPD, Diabetes Mellitus, Respiratory Failure, and CHF. Review of Resident #37's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 01/06/2023, revealed a BIMS' score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognition. Review of Resident #37's Physician's Orders revealed an order, revised on 08/25/2022, for oxygen at 2 LPM per NC. Further review revealed orders, dated 08/25/2022, to change oxygen tubing and to change nebulizer mask and tubing, with no frequency or other timing specified for either. Review of Resident #37's December 2022 TAR and January 2023 TAR revealed no documentation of oxygen tubing or nebulizer mask/tubing changes. Review of Resident #37's CCP, dated 09/02/2021, revealed an intervention for Impaired Airway Clearance focus, dated 09/02/2021, of oxygen saturation as ordered and an intervention, dated 09/13/2021, of change oxygen tubing every week. Review of Resident #37's Progress Notes, from 12/28/2022 through 01/26/2023, revealed no documentation of oxygen tubing or nebulizer mask/tubing changes. Observation of Resident #37, on 01/17/2023 at 12:26 PM, revealed the resident had oxygen applied at two (2) LPM per NC with no date label on the tubing. Interview with Resident #37, on 01/17/2023 at 2:25 PM, revealed he/she did not recall the last time the oxygen tubing was changed. 7. Review of Resident #44's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 07/16/2022 with diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, COPD, Chronic Respiratory Failure, and CHF. Review of the resident's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 11/22/2022, revealed a BIMS score of twelve (12) of fifteen (15), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #44's Physician's Orders revealed an order, dated/12/25/2022, for continuous oxygen at 3 LPM with no route of administration listed. Further review revealed no order for oxygen tubing change or other oxygen maintenance order. Review of Resident #44's December 2022 TAR and January 2023 TAR revealed no documentation of oxygen tubing change or other oxygen care and maintenance. Review of Resident #44's Progress Notes, from 12/29/2022 through 01/24/2023, revealed no documentation of oxygen tubing change or other oxygen care and maintenance. Observation of Resident #44, on 01/17/2023 at 12:35 PM, revealed the resident had oxygen applied at 3 LPM per NC with no date label on tubing. Interview with Resident #44, on 01/17/2023 at 12:35 PM, revealed no specific recollection of the last time the oxygen tubing was changed. 8. Review of Resident #52's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 05/15/2018, with diagnoses including Chronic Respiratory Failure, COPD, Diabetes Mellitus, and CHF. Review of Resident #52's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 01/19/2023, revealed a BIMS score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognition. Review of Resident #52's Clinical Physician's Orders revealed an order, dated 10/08/2019, for oxygen every shift at 2 LPM as needed to maintain oxygen saturation levels at ninety percent (90 %) or greater. Further review revealed an order, dated 06/09/2019, to change oxygen tubing every Sunday on night shift. Review of Resident #52's December TAR revealed no documentation for the task to change oxygen tubing every Sunday night. Review of Resident #52's January 2023 TAR revealed oxygen tubing change was documented on 01/01/2023, 01/08/2023, and 01/15/2023, but not on 01/22/2023. Review of Resident #52's CCP, dated 04/21/2018, revealed interventions for Impaired Airway Clearance, including change nebulizer mask and tubing weekly, initiated 11/20/2019, and change oxygen tubing and filter per MD order, initiated 05/04/2019. Review of Resident #52's Progress Notes, from 12/28/2022 through 01/26/2023, revealed no documentation of oxygen tubing changes nor nebulizer mask or tubing changes. Observation of Resident #52, on 01/17/2023 at 12:45 PM, revealed the resident had oxygen applied at 2 LPM per NC with no date label on tubing. Further observation revealed no date label on nebulizer mask and tubing. Interview with Resident #52, on 01/17/2023 at 12:45 PM, revealed it had been a long time since tubing was changed. Further interview revealed the resident had to beg for new tubing, and the staff member stated it was not his/her job to change the tubing. She stated two (2) weeks ago a staff member finally brought new tubing. At that time, Resident #52 stated the tubing was twisted. Continued interview revealed he/she had not had oxygen tubing for the tank on his/her wheelchair; and when asked for it, the resident had been told you don't need it now. Resident #52 stated the tubing was changed during a recent tornado warning when all residents had to be in the hallway for safety. Prior to that, Resident #52 stated it had been at least a month before his/her oxygen tubing was changed. Additional interview revealed previously he/she thought maintenance staff came weekly on Wednesdays to take care of oxygen equipment. Additional interview with Resident #52, on 01/18/2023 at 3:40 PM, revealed his/her oxygen tubing was definitely not changed on Sunday (01/15/2023), but it was the prior Saturday (01/07/2023) or Sunday (01/08/2023). Further interview revealed a nurse (was not identified) had brought new tubing, which was observed resting on the concentrator, unconnected. Resident #52 stated he/she lacked the strength to change that new tubing himself/herself. 9. Review of Resident #57's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 10/04/2019, with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus, COPD, Chronic Respiratory Failure, and CHF. Review of Resident #57's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 11/07/2022, revealed a BIMS score of fourteen (14) of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognition. Review of Resident #57's Clinical Physician's Orders revealed an order, dated 01/05/2022, for oxygen at 2 LPM as needed for shortness of breath (SOB), with no route of administration described. Further review revealed no order for oxygen tubing change or other oxygen care and maintenance. Review of Resident #57's January 2023 TAR revealed no task for change of oxygen tubing. Review of Resident #57's CCP, dated 04/21/2018, revealed an intervention, initiated 10/26/2019, for focus of Impaired Airway clearance including oxygen per Physician's Order, and to see the TAR. Review of Resident #57's Progress Notes, from 12/28/2022 through 01/26/2023, revealed no documentation of oxygen tubing changes. 10. Review of Resident #80's EMR revealed the facility admitted the resident, on 07/21/2022, with diagnoses of Dislocation of Left Knee, COPD, Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage, Heart Failure, and Malignant Neoplasm of Liver. Review of Resident #80's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 11/21/2022, revealed a BIMS' score of fifteen (15) of fifteen (15), indicating intact cognition. Review of Resident #80's Clinical Physician's Orders revealed an order for oxygen at 2 LPM, day and night, as of 11/14/2022. Further review of the orders revealed no details for administration of the oxygen. Continued review revealed orders, dated 11/14/2022, to change oxygen cannula/tubing once weekly on Wednesdays during day shift and as needed. Staff were to change the nebulizer tubing on the fifteenth (15th) day of each month. 11. Review of Resident #150's EMR revealed the facility admitted him/her on 01/05/2022 with diagnoses of Diarrhea, Morbid obesity, essential hypertension and history of Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA). Review of the admission MDS assessment, dated 01/14/2023, revealed a BIMS score of 15/15. Review of the Physician's Orders revealed an order, dated 01/19/2022, for oxygen at 2 LPM via NC as needed for comfort/SOB. Further review revealed no orders for oxygen cannula/tubing changes. Review of Resident #150's CCP revealed no interventions involving supplemental oxygen administration. Observation of Resident #150 on 01/18/2023 at 4:20 PM revealed oxygen applied at 2 LPM per NC with no date label on the tubing. Interview with Resident #150 on 01/18/2023 at 4:20 PM revealed tubing had never been changed since admission, and the tubing had been applied while at the previous rehabilitation facility. Interview, with LPN #21 on 01/20/2023 at 7:40 AM revealed oxygen care was a nursing responsibility. Further interview and observation revealed the task showed on the resident's TAR to prompt changing the tubing at the appropriate time. Further interview revealed the task was triggered from an order specifying the change on specific days and shifts. Continued interview revealed he/she was not sure about a specific policy for oxygen tubing change frequency nor how a nurse would know when to change tubing without that or without the task if there was no order. Interview, with LPN #5 on 01/20/2023 at 7:55 AM revealed oxygen tubing changes should be completed per physician's order and should show as a task on residents' TARs as a task on the specified day. Further interview revealed he/she was not familiar with the specific policy and could not say how the nurse would know when to change the tubing if there was no task from an order. Continued interview revealed he/she would document oxygen tubing change with a nursing note if there was not a task. Interview with RN #5 on 01/22/2023 at 3:51 PM revealed nurses change oxygen tubing, usually weekly and a task on the TAR reflected when to complete the task. Further interview revealed no knowledge of why some residents on oxygen would not have the order to change the tubing. Continued interview revealed it was important to change tubing periodically because it can harbor bacteria. Interview with LPN #7 on 01/24/2023 at 2:22 PM revealed it was a nurse's task to change oxygen tubing if it was on the MAR and it was usually set on certain days. He/she also stated he always tried to look to see if there were missing orders. Interview with LPN #29 on 01/26/2023 at 11:38 AM revealed oxygen tubing could hold bacteria. The LPN stated it was changed periodically for infection control. LPN #29 stated the resident's TAR would show the task to be done. Further interview revealed he/she was new from a staffing agency and was not familiar with the facility's policy details. Continued interview revealed a tubing change should be charted on the task, or without a task, documented somewhere such as a nursing note. Additional interview revealed that rooms where residents with oxygen live should have a sign for safety. Interview with Unit Managers (UM), LPN #11 and LPN #12, on 11/25/2023 at 11:50 AM revealed they also were Infection Preventionists. Further interview revealed oxygen tubing was not labeled because changes were documented in Point Click Care (PCC). Interview with LPN #11 revealed she assigned oxygen tubing changes to night shift nurses. She further stated the nurse could document the task in PCC or just give the UM a list of those residents whose tubing was changed. Further interview revealed the expectation was staff would change oxygen tubing per the task in PCC or as needed. Continued interview revealed the nurse could write a progress note for tubing change if there was no task to document on. Interview with LPN #12 revealed no knowledge of why a resident would have an oxygen order without an order for maintenance care or tubing changes. She also stated the vendor changed the filters on concentrators, and that task was part of their maintenance. Additional interview revealed any resident on oxygen should have the Oxygen in Use sign on the door. Interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/28/2023 at 12:45 PM revealed oxygen tubing should be changed as needed. She also stated the nurse could look at oxygen tubing and assess the need to change or not. Continued interview revealed supplemental oxygen was automatically populated in the PPC system. She further stated it would have to be entered separately per the physician order, but every resident should have an order. Additional interview revealed the order to change oxygen tubing triggered a task on the TAR and the nurse should write a nursing note if changing tubing when there was not a specific task. Interview with Administrator on 01/28/2023 at 1:47 PM revealed Oxygen in Use signage was important so the staff would know who was on oxygen and could ensure safety from anything that was flammable. Further interview revealed oxygen tubing should be changed by standards of practice or as needed. Continued interview revealed she was not sure if there were orders to prompt the action to change the tubing. However, she stated it would be best practice to put an order for changing so it populates on the MAR, but otherwise it should be charted in the nursing notes to document that the task was done.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's document, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to store food in all three (3) nourishment refrigerators in a safe and sanitary manner. Observations, during the survey, revealed the nourishment refrigerators were soiled, and the residents' food that had been brought in from outside was not labeled or dated. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Refrigerators and Freezer, not dated, revealed monthly tracking sheets for all refrigerators and freezers would be maintained to record temperatures, and all food would be dated to ensure proper rotation by expiration dates. Per the policy, refrigerators and freezer would be kept clean, free of debris, and cleaned with sanitizing solution. Review on 01/23/2023 at 11:47 AM, of the facility's form, titled, Acceptable Temperature Ranges, dated January 2023, revealed the temperature log for the refrigerator was incomplete for 01/21/2023 and 01/22/2023 on the 100 Unit. The form revealed the last date of recording temperatures was 01/20/2023. Observation, on 01/18/2023 at 1:10 PM, of the 100 Unit nourishment refrigerator revealed the freezer section appeared soiled with a dry white and yellow substance on the bottom shelf toward the back. Observation of a white to-go bag and a to-go container in the refrigerator revealed it had a resident's name and room number, but no date was on either. Continued observation revealed a round to-go container and a square Styrofoam container with no name or date. Observation, on 01/18/2023 at 11:15 AM, of the 200 Unit nourishment refrigerator revealed a small white bag with unknown food with no date or name; a plastic grocery bag dated 12/28/2022 was stuck to a shelf with a resident's initials on the bag; a blue lid container with a yellow substance with no name and not dated; a red top container with brown beans one-half (1/2) full with no name and not dated; a brown dried substance on the bottom shelf and bottom of the door; a strawberry yogurt tube package with no name and not dated; a coffee cup one-quarter (1/4) full, left in the shelf door with no name and not dated; two (2) lid covered plastic containers with an unknown substance with no name and not dated; a red lid container found in the refrigerator drawer with unknown substance and no name and not dated; and another red top container with three (3) chicken thighs with no name and not dated. Observation of the refrigerator's freezer section revealed a cup of uncovered chocolate ice cream treat with no name and not dated; a meal of pasta and vegetables (not in the original box) with no name and not dated; an eight (8) ounce container of chicken fried rice with no name and dated 10/12/2022; and an opened wrapper of one-quarter (1/4) of a chocolate bar lying on the freezer shelf with no name and dated 10/2022. Continued observation, on 01/18/2023 at 11:15 AM, of the 200 Unit nourishment room revealed a sign, undated, over the sink by the liquid hand soap dispenser of Please take all dirty trays back to the kitchen. Please do not put in nutritional rooms. However, observation revealed soiled dishes on a resident's tray left in the nourishment room. Additional observation, on 01/23/2023 at 9:55 AM, again revealed soiled dishes on a resident's tray left in the nourishment room. Observation on 01/18/2023 at 1:17 PM, of the Rehabilitation Unit nourishment refrigerator, revealed the inside of the refrigerator door shelves appeared soiled. Food items stored in the refrigerator included one-quarter (¼) package of grape tomatoes with no name and no date; an A.1. sauce bottle with no name and no date; a container of pimento spread with an expiration date of 05/16/2022 with no name; a jar of used mayonnaise with no name and no date; grapes in a container with no name and no date; a container of garden vegetable cream cheese spread with no name and no date; rolls with no name and not dated; sliced cucumbers in a zip lock bag with no name and no date; two (2) cans of monster energy drinks with no name and not dated; one-half ( ½) stick of wrapped used butter with no name and not dated; one (1) jar of Kosher Baby [NAME] three-quarters (¾) full with no name but dated; and a second plastic container of cucumbers with no name and not dated. Observation of the nourishment room revealed the sink in the kitchen island was soiled with gnats flying out of the sink when the water was turned on into the sink. Additional observations, on 01/23/2023 at 10:46 AM and 01/23/2023 at 11:40 AM, of the Rehabilitation Unit nourishment refrigerator revealed the outside door and shelves were soiled, and there was a cold pizza in the box left on the counter near the refrigerator with no name and not dated. Further observation, on 01/25/2023 at 3:00 PM, revealed the Rehabilitation Unit's sink in the kitchen island remained soiled with gnats flying out of the drain. Observation also revealed a cold, half-eaten pizza left in the box sitting on the kitchen island with no name and not dated. Interview with the Housekeeping Manager, on 01/18/2023 at 10:39 AM, revealed housekeeping was responsible for cleaning the counters in the nourishment rooms and recording the refrigerator and freezer temperatures of the nourishment refrigerators. Interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #42, on 01/24/2023 at 3:14 PM, revealed she worked on the Rehabilitation Unit and the refrigerator on the unit was cleaned every Thursday by nursing on the night shift. She stated she did not know who was responsible for cleaning the island and other areas in the kitchen. CNA #42 stated she went nightly to the Dietary Department to get snacks for residents. She stated if the resident's family brought in food, it was labeled with the resident's name and date. She stated if the resident's food brought in by the family looked bad or was expired, it was tossed, and the nurse was informed so the nurse could call the family to replace the food. CNA #42 stated no soiled trays were kept in the kitchen area; and, if the dirty tray missed the dietary cart, it was returned to the Dietary Department. Interview with CNA #33, 100 Unit, on 01/24/2023 at 3:45 PM, revealed she did not know whose responsibility it was to clean the nourishment room or refrigerator. She stated if the resident's family brought in food, it was labeled with the resident's name and date. She stated sometimes dietary would stock the nourishment room; but if it was not stocked, the CNA would go to the Dietary Department and get snacks to stock the nourishment room. Interview with CNA #40, 200 Unit, on 01/24/2023 at 3:32 PM, revealed housekeeping was responsible for cleaning the nourishment room including the refrigerator. She stated CNA's were responsible for keeping the nourishment room stocked with snacks for residents. She stated if the resident's family brought in food for the resident, it was labeled with the resident's name and date. She stated if trays were left after the meal cart was gone, staff put the dirty trays in the day room and went to the Dietary Department to get another cart to put the dirty trays on it and return them to the Dietary Department. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7, Rehabilitation Unit, on 01/23/2023 at 10:46 AM, revealed when a resident's family brought food to the resident, the food was labeled with the resident's name, room number, and date. LPN #7 stated if food was not dated, the food should be thrown away. Interview with the Dietary Manager, on 01/19/2023 at 1:15 PM, revealed he was not responsible for the Rehabilitation Unit's kitchen area and the nourishment rooms on the units. He stated CNA's picked up nourishments for the nourishment rooms. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 01/25/2023 at 9:22 AM, revealed Housekeeping was responsible to record temperatures for the nourishment refrigerators. She stated Dietary was responsible to clean and rotate refrigerated foods. She stated Nursing was responsible to keep the nourishment refrigerator clean and throw out expired food items, along with housekeeping and all staff. She stated Nurses should label and date any food items brought to residents from family. Interview with the Administrator, on 01/25/2023 at 9:45 AM, revealed whenever family brought in food to a resident, the staff member that took the food should notify the Nurse. The Administrator stated the Nurse should check for food temperature and if the food would be tolerated by the resident. She stated all food should be labeled, dated, and have the resident's name and room number. She stated she expected the temperature logs would be completed for the refrigerators. She stated the soiled trays should not be kept in the clean area of the nourishment room, and Nursing staff should clean up spills as they occurred. The Administrator stated Dietary was responsible for the nourishment room: to keep the nourishment refrigerator clean, to rotate food items, and to throw out expired foods.
Dec 2019 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

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 facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident who is fed by enteral means receives appropriate services to prevent complications for two (2) of nine (9) sampled residents. (Residents #87 and #300). Observation on the Rehabilitation Unit during initial tour on 12/17/19, and again on 12/18/19, revealed the tube feeding bottle/bags that were hanging for Residents #87 and #300 were not properly labeled as to Resident Identification, type of formula, date and time formula was prepared, rate of administration, and nurse's initials who hung the formula. The findings include: Review of the facility Procedure: Enteral Tube Feeding via Continuous Pump Policy, dated 03/2015, revealed the purpose of this procedure is to provide nourishment to the resident who is unable to obtain nourishment orally. Check the enteral nutrition label against the order before administration. Check the following information: Resident name, ID (Identification) and room number, type of formula, date and time formula was prepared, route of delivery, access site, method and rate of administration. Review of the [NAME] Laboratories Best Practices for Managing Tube Feeding: A Nurses Pocket Manual 2015, page 31, revealed closed system formulas can safely hang for twenty-four to forty-eight (24-48) hours. Follow the manufacturer's recommendations and instructions for use and record date/time container hung. Using a closed system container with a recessed spike is preferable. Use clean technique when preparing tube-feeding formula for administration and change tubing according to manufacturer's recommendations. Further review revealed for an open system (formula decanted from original container to feeding reservoir), hang ready-to-use formula eight to twelve (8-12) hours. Hang reconstituted formula or formula with modular components up to four (4) hours. NEVER add fresh formula to hanging formula. Change container/tubing at least every twenty-four (24) hours. 1. Review of Resident #87's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/20/19 with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, Aphasia, and Dysarthria. Review of Resident #87's current Physician's orders as of 12/19/19, revealed orders to change Gastric Tube Enteral Feeding bag and Tubing every twenty-four (24) hours, with a start date of 11/20/19. Review of the Medical Administration Record (MAR), dated December 2019, revealed on 12/18/19, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 signed to indicate the Gastric tube Enteral Feeding Bag and Tubing was changed. However, observation on the Rehabilitation Unit, on 12/18/19 at 8:42 AM, 10:45 AM and 3:50 PM, revealed Resident #87's Enteral Feeding bottle was hanging per a closed system and infusing at 45 milliliters per hour (ml/hour). There was a white label across the bottle with the date of 12/18/19 written in black marker. The label contained no Resident identification, type of tube feeding, rate, time, or initials of the nurse who hung the bottle. Interview on 12/19/19 at 10:42 AM with LPN #3, who documented the Gastric tube Enteral Feeding Bag and Tubing was changed on 12/18/19, revealed Resident #87's tube-feeding label should have included the date and time the formula was hung rate of administration, formula type, resident identification, and room number. 2. Review of Resident #300's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/16/19 with diagnoses including Mild Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Anxiety, Acute Kidney Failure, and Depression. Review of Resident #300's current Physician's orders as of 12/19/19, revealed orders to change Gastric tube Enteral Feeding bag and Tubing every twenty-four (24) hours. Review of the MAR, dated December 2019, revealed the Gastric tube Enteral Feeding Bag and Tubing was marked as changed on 12/17/19 by LPN #2. However, observation on the Rehabilitation Unit, on 12/17/19 at 3:30 PM and 5:00 PM, revealed Resident #300's Enteral Feeding bag was an open system and tube feeding was infusing at 75 ml/hour. The Enteral Feeding bag was not labeled with Resident identification, type of tube feeding, rate, time, route or initials of the nurse who hung the bag. Interview on 12/19/19 at 10:02 AM, with LPN #2, revealed she worked the Rehabilitation Unit on 12/17/19 from 7:00 AM-7:00 PM shift, and did sign the MAR as hanging the Gastric tube Enteral Feeding Bag and Tubing on that date. Per interview, she had written the date on Resident #300's tube feeding bag using a black marker. Per interview, another nurse then changed the enteral feeding bag again and did not put all the information on the label. Per interview, the enteral feeding bag should have had a label including Resident identification, type of tube feeding, rate, time, route or initials of the nurse who hung the bottle. Interview on 12/19/19 at 9:23 AM, with the Rehabilitation Nurse Manager, revealed per the facility Policy the enteral feeding formulas could safely hang for twenty-four to forty-eight (24-48) hours, depending on the type of open or closed system. Per interview, the tube feeding bag or bottle must be labeled with the resident's name, type of formula, rate to be infused, date and time it was hung, and the nurse's initials. Per interview, if the enteral feeding was not properly labeled with this information, it should be discarded. Interview on 12/19/19 at 10:49 AM, with the Acting Director of Nursing, revealed it was important to label the enteral feeding bags and bottles with the resident's name, type of formula, rate to be infused, date and time it was hung, and the nurse's initials. Per interview, if the enteral feeding bags and bottles were hung without being labeled with this information, they should be discarded with a new enteral feeding bottle/bag should be set up. Interview on 12/19/19 at 11:51 AM, with the Administrator, revealed it was her expectation for staff to properly label enteral feeding bottles or bags in order to avoid complications related to enteral feedings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biological were labeled in accordance with currently accepted profession...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biological were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration dated when acceptable. Observation of the Rehab Medication Cart, on 12/20/19, revealed two (2) insulin pens in the medication cart: one (1) Lantus Solostar Insulin Pen and one (1) NovoLog Insulin Flex Pen, both of which were unopened and stored in a bag that stated refrigerate until opened. There was no date on the Insulins to indicate when the medication was removed from the refrigerator, and therefore the date of expiration could not be determined. Observation of the North Medication Cart, on 12/20/19 at 10:45 AM, revealed a Levemir Flex touch Insulin pen was unopened and in a bag that stated Refrigerate. There was no date on the Insulin to indicate when the medication was removed from the refrigerator, and therefore the date of expiration could not be determined. The findings include: Review of the facility's Storage of Medications Policy, revised 2007, revealed medications requiring refrigeration must be stored in the refrigerator located in the drug room at the nurse's station or other secured location. Medications must be stored separately from food and must be labeled. Review of the Insulin Storage Recommendation, dated April 2019, revealed the Lantus Insulin Pen can be refrigerated until the expiration date, and it can be kept at room temperature unopened for twenty-eight (28) days. Lantus Pen can be kept opened at room temperature for twenty-eight (28) days. Further review revealed the NovoLog Insulin Pen can be refrigerated until the expiration date, and it can be kept at room temperature unopened for twenty-eight (28) days. The NovoLog Pen can be kept opened at room temperature for twenty-eight (28) days. Continued review revealed the Levemir Insulin Pen can be refrigerated until the expiration date, and it can be kept at room temperature unopened for forty-two (42) days. The Levemir Pen can be kept opened at room temperature for forty-two (42) days. 1. Review of the Lantus Solostar insulin glargine package label, revealed store refrigerated at thirty-six to forty-six (36-46) degrees Fahrenheit. Use within twenty-eight (28) days after initial use. Review of the NovoLog FlexPen package label, revealed keep in a cold place, avoid freezing, and protect from light. Observation of the Rehab Medication Cart, on 12/20/19 at 10:30 AM, revealed two (2) insulin pens in the medication cart: one (1) Lantus Solostar Insulin Pen and one (1) NovoLog Insulin Flex Pen, both of which were unopened and stored in a bag that stated refrigerate until opened. There was no date on the Insulins to indicate when the medication was removed from the refrigerator. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6, on 12/20/19 at 10:32 AM, who was working the Rehab Medication Cart, revealed Insulin pens should be stored in the refrigerator until they were in use. She further stated she could not use the undated pens because she could not be sure of the efficacy of the medication. 2. Review of the Levemir FlexTouch Manufacturer's Recommendation, revealed unopened Levemir should be kept in the refrigerator at temperature range between thirty-six to forty-six (36 -46) degrees Fahrenheit. Observation of the North Medication Cart, on 12/20/19 at 10:45 AM, revealed a Levemir Flex touch Insulin pen was unopened and in a bag that stated Refrigerate. There was no date on the Insulin to indicate when the medication was removed from the refrigerator Interview with LPN #3, on 12/20/19 at 10:49 AM, revealed the insulin pens should be stored in the refrigerator until ready for use. She stated leaving the pen out of the refrigerator while not in use could possibly decrease the effectiveness of the medication. Interview with LPN #4, 12/20/19 at 10:55 AM, revealed when administering Insulin to residents, she would check the date the insulin was opened which should be the same date it was removed from the refrigerator, to ensure the medication was not expired. She stated when Insulin was delivered from pharmacy she placed the medication in the refrigerator unless it was needed for use. Interview with LPN #5, on 12/20/19 at 11:05 AM, revealed unopened Insulin pens should be kept in the refrigerator prior to use because the label stated to refrigerate until in use. Interview with the facility Pharmacist, on 12/20/19 at 11:20 AM, revealed the expiration date for Insulin vials or pens began as soon as removed from the refrigerator, regardless of when it was opened. Per interview, that was the reason Insulin should be stored in the refrigerator until ready for use. Interview with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON), on 12/20/19 at 12:05 PM, revealed it was her expectation for medications to be stored appropriately and as per the facility's policy. She stated insulin should be kept in the refrigerator until the medication was opened, then staff should be dating the medication with the date it was opened. Per interview, if Insulin was not dated as soon as it was removed from the refrigerator, staff would not know the date of expiration of the Insulin, and it may not be effective if used. Interview with the Administrator, on 12/20/19 at 12:15 PM, revealed she was not clinical, but she expected all medications to be stored appropriately and as per facility policy.
Nov 2018 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0659 (Tag F0659)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's Policy, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to ensure services were provided by qualified persons in accordance each resident's written plan of care for one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents (Resident #72). Resident #72's Comprehensive Plan of Care revealed an intervention to secure the indwelling urinary catheter to reduce friction. However, observation of indwelling urinary catheter care on 11/01/18, revealed there was no securement device to prevent pulling and/or dislodgement of the indwelling urinary catheter. The findings include: Review of the facility Policy, titled Care Plans-Comprehensive, revised October 2010, revealed Care Plans were developed and maintained for each resident that identifies the highest level of functioning the resident may be expected to attain and was designed to incorporate identified problems, reflect goals timetables and objectives in measurable outcomes, aide in preventing or reducing declines in the residents' functional status and/or levels. Identifying problem areas and their causes and developing interventions are interdisciplinary processes that required careful data gathering, proper sequencing of events and complex clinical decision making. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, dated October 2016, revealed the Comprehensive Care Plan is an interdisciplinary communication tool and must include measurable objectives and time frames and must describe the services to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Further review revealed the services provided or arranged must be consistent with each resident's written Plan of Care. 1. Review of Resident #72's clinical record revealed the facility re-admitted the resident on 09/17/18 with diagnoses including Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Enterocolitis due to Clostridium Difficile (inflammation of the small intestine and colon due to bacterium causing severe diarrhea), Overactive Bladder, Urinary Tract Infection, and Urinary Retention related to Obstructive Uropathy. Review of Resident #72's Comprehensive Plan of Care, revised 01/24/18, revealed a focus problem stating the resident had an Indwelling Urinary Catheter. The goal revealed the resident would remain free from catheter-related trauma through the next review. There were several interventions including: catheter care per policy, and secure catheter to reduce friction and check the catheter tubing for kinks. Further review of Resident #72's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed no documented evidence the resident refused to have the indwelling catheter securing device or leg strap applied. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated, 07/25/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of seven (7) out of fifteen (15) indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as frequently incontinent of bowel and as requiring the use of an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident #72's Physician's Orders, dated 09/18/18, revealed orders for a sixteen (16) French Foley indwelling urinary catheter for Urinary Retention due to Obstructive Uropathy. Review of Physician's Order dated 09/19/18, revealed orders to provide catheter care for the indwelling catheter every shift and monitor for redness, irritation, swelling and other signs and symptoms of urinary tract infection (UTI). Observation on 11/01/18 at 9:10 AM, of catheter care for Resident #72, performed by State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #1, revealed the resident did not have a securing device to secure the indwelling urinary catheter tubing to the resident's leg, as per the Comprehensive Care Plan. Interview, on 11/01/18 at AM, with SRNA #1, revealed residents with indwelling urinary catheters should have leg straps to secure the catheter tubing to the resident's inner thigh in order to prevent friction, tension, and the potential introduction of bacteria into the resident's urinary system. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, on 11/01/18 at 10:00 AM, revealed residents with indwelling urinary catheters should have leg straps to secure the tubing to prevent the catheter from being pulled out or causing pain and trauma to the resident. Continued interview revealed the facility had leg strap kits with small adhesive sticker-like foam applicators used for holding the catheter tubing in place on the resident's thigh. Per interview, if the resident refused the leg strap, it should be documented in the medical record and reported to the MDS nurses to care plan for the refusal. Further interview revealed the Care Plans should be followed related to ensuring as securement device for the indwelling urinary catheter tubing. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #4, on 11/01/18 at 10:45 AM, revealed Resident #72 should have had a leg strap in place to secure the indwelling urinary catheter tubing to the resident's leg to prevent tension and friction of the catheter, to prevent the catheter from being pulled out causing pain or trauma, and to help prevent urinary tract infection to the resident, as per the Comprehensive Care Plan. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 11/01/18 at 10:50 AM, revealed it was her expectation Resident #72 have a leg strap to secure the indwelling urinary catheter to the resident's leg as per the Care Plan. She stated this was to keep the catheter in a comfortable position, prevent the catheter from being pulled on or pulled out, and prevent pain or trauma to the resident. Continued interview with the DON, revealed it was her expectation Care Plans be followed related to the securement devices for indwelling urinary catheters unless the resident refused the securement device. Interview with the Administrator, on 11/01/18 at 5:00 PM, revealed it was his expectation for staff to follow the Care Plans related to catheter care and ensuring the securement device for indwelling urinary catheters were in place. He stated if the resident refused the securement device, this would need to be documented on the Care Plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter receives appropriate care and servi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter receives appropriate care and services to prevent excessive tension on the catheter, which could lead to urethral tears or dislodging of the catheter for one (1) of two (2) sampled residents observed for catheter care out of a total sample of twenty (20) residents (Resident #72). Observation on 11/01/18, revealed Resident #72's indwelling urinary catheter was not anchored with a securement device to prevent pulling and/or dislodgement of the catheter that could result in potential trauma to the resident. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy, titled, Urinary Catheter Care, revised 10/2016, revealed facility associates should ensure the indwelling catheter remains secured with a leg strap to reduce friction and movement at the insertion site (catheter tubing should be strapped to the resident's inner thigh). 1. Review of Resident #72's clinical record revealed the facility re-admitted the resident on 09/17/18 with diagnoses to include Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Enterocolitis due to Clostridium Difficile (inflammation of the small intestine and colon due to bacterium causing severe diarrhea), Overactive Bladder, Urinary Tract Infection, and Urinary Retention related to Obstructive Uropathy. Review of Resident #72's Comprehensive Care Plan, revised 01/24/18, revealed a focus problem stating the resident had an Indwelling Urinary Catheter. The goal stated the resident would remain free from catheter-related trauma through the next review. The interventions included: catheter care per policy, secure catheter to reduce friction and check the catheter tubing for kinks. Additional review of Resident #72's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed no documented evidence the resident refused to have the indwelling catheter securing device or leg strap applied. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated, 07/25/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of seven (7) out of fifteen (15) indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as frequently incontinent of bowel and as requiring the use of an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident #72's Physician's Orders, dated 09/18/18, revealed orders for a sixteen (16) French Foley indwelling urinary catheter for Urinary Retention related to Obstructive Uropathy. Review of Physician's Order dated 09/19/18, revealed orders to provide catheter care for the indwelling catheter every shift and to monitor for redness, irritation, swelling and other signs and symptoms of urinary tract infection (UTI). Observation on 11/01/18 at 9:10 AM, of catheter care for Resident #72, performed by State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #1, revealed the resident did not have a securing device to secure the indwelling urinary catheter tubing to the resident's leg, as per the facility policy. Interview, on 11/01/18 at AM, with SRNA #1, revealed residents with indwelling urinary catheters should all have leg straps to secure the catheter tubing to the resident's inner thigh in order to prevent friction, tension, and the potential introduction of bacteria into the resident's urinary system. Further interview with SRNA #1, revealed when she found a resident without a leg strap to secure the urinary catheter tubing, she was to report this to the nurse. Interview with SRNA #2, on 11/01/18 at 11:12 AM, revealed all residents with indwelling urinary catheters were to wear leg straps on their inner thighs to secure the urinary catheter tubing. Further interview revealed the leg straps were used to prevent tension on the catheter tubing and helped prevent kinking and promoted proper urine flow. SRNA #2 stated she was also a SRNA Leader and encouraged other SRNAs to always check their assigned residents to ensure they were wearing leg straps for residents with an indwelling urinary catheter. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, on 11/01/18 at 10:00 AM, revealed residents with indwelling urinary catheters should have leg straps to secure the tubing to prevent the catheter from being pulled out or causing pain or trauma to the resident. Further interview revealed the facility had leg strap kits with small adhesive sticker-like foam applicators used for holding the catheter tubing in place on the resident's thigh. LPN #2 stated if the resident refused the leg strap, it should be documented in the medical record and reported to the MDS nurses to care plan for the refusal. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #4, on 11/01/18 at 10:45 AM, revealed all residents with indwelling urinary catheters should have leg straps in place to secure the catheter tubing. Further interview revealed the facility had kits to secure the indwelling urinary catheter tubing to the resident's thigh. Further interview revealed the indwelling urinary catheter should be secured to the resident's leg to prevent tension and friction of the catheter, to prevent the catheter from being pulled out causing pain or trauma, and to help prevent urinary tract infections. Additional interview with RN #4, revealed it was facility policy to utilize leg straps for resident's with indwelling urinary catheters. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 11/01/18 at 10:50 AM, revealed it was her expectation for residents with indwelling urinary catheters to have a leg strap to keep the catheter in a comfortable position, prevent the catheter from being pulled on or pulled out, and to prevent pain or trauma to the resident. Continued interview with the DON, revealed it was her expectation that any resident with an order for an indwelling catheter have a leg strap to secure the catheter tubing at all times unless the resident had documented evidence of refusal of the leg strap. Interview with the Administrator, on 11/01/18 at 5:00 PM, revealed it was his expectation for staff to follow facility Policy and ensure the indwelling catheter remained secured with a leg strap in order to keep the catheter in a comfortable position, and to prevent the catheter from being accidentally pulled out causing trauma, pain, or inability to urinate. Continued interview revealed he expected residents with indwelling urinary catheters to have leg straps in place unless there was documented evidence of refusal in the medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policies, it was determined the facility failed to establish and maintain an Infection Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitar...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's Policies, it was determined the facility failed to establish and maintain an Infection Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of infections for one (1) of two (2) sampled residents observed for pericare/catheter care out of a total sample of twenty (20) residents (Resident #72). Observation of pericare-Foley catheter care for Resident #72 on 11/01/18, revealed poor infection control technique related to peri care/Foley catheter care, handwashing and glove usage. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy, titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised 09/2017, revealed the facility considered hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. Hand Hygiene was defined as washing hands with soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: when hands are visibly soiled and following contact with a resident with infectious diarrhea including, but not limited to infections caused by norovirus, salmonella, shigella, and c-difficile. Continued review revealed staff were to use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least sixty-two (62%) percent alcohol or soap (anti-microbial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations (not all inclusive): 1. Before and after resident contact. 2. Before and after handling an invasive device (urinary catheters, IV access sites). 3. Before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care. 4. After contact with blood or body fluids. 5. After contact with objects (medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the resident. 6. After removing gloves. All associates shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other associates, residents and visitors. Review of the facility's Policy, titled, Urinary Catheter Care, dated 11/2007, revised 10/2016, revealed, the purpose for catheter care was to prevent infection of the resident's urinary tract. The following equipment and supplies would be necessary to perform catheter care if a catheter kit was unavailable: Wash basin, soap, water, wash cloth and towel or container of disposable moist cloths. Additional review of the policy revealed the following detailed steps of the procedure as follows: Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. Assist the resident into a supine position; Wash the resident's genitalia and perineum thoroughly with disposable moist cloth. Wash in the direction from clean to dirty area; Rinse the area well and towel dry; Remove gloves and discard into the designated container. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly; Put on clean gloves; With non-dominant hand, separate the labia of the female resident. Maintain the position of this hand throughout the procedure; Using the disposable moist cloth, cleanse the labia; Use one area of the disposable moist cloth for each downward, cleansing stroke; Change the position of the moist cloth and cleanse around the urethral meatus; With a clean disposable moist cloth, using the above technique, cleanse and rinse the catheter starting from the insertion site to approximately four (4) inches outward; Remove gloves and discard into designated containers. Wash and dry hands thoroughly; Reposition the bed covers. Make the resident comfortable and place the call light within easy reach of the resident; Wash and dry hands thoroughly. 1. Review of Resident #72's clinical record revealed the facility re-admitted the resident on 09/17/18 with diagnoses to include Enterocolitis due to Clostridium Difficile (inflammation of the small intestine and colon due to bacterium causing severe diarrhea), Overactive Bladder, Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Seizure Disorder, Type 2 Diabetes, Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated , 07/25/18, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven (7) out of fifteen (15) indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as frequently incontinent of bowel and as requiring the use of a urinary catheter. Observation on 11/01/18 at 09:10 AM, revealed State Registered Nurse Assistant (SRNA) #1 and Resident #72's Personal Living Assistant (PLA) washed hands with soap and water in the resident's private bathroom and applied clean gloves prior to gathering the resident's incontinent care supplies (disposable moist cloths). Continued observation revealed SRNA #1 and PLA positioned Resident #72 into a supine position and removed the resident's blankets and top sheet, exposing the resident's genitalia and lower abdomen. However, SRNA #1 failed to wash hands again after gathering supplies, and repositioning the resident, and prior to proceeding to perform peri care and Foley Catheter (FC) care. In addition, after performing peri care and FC care, SRNA #1 failed to dry the peri area and the catheter. Further observation revealed SRNA #1 provided bowel incontinence care, removed the feces soaked chuck, and applied a clean chuck. SRNA #1 then while wearing the soiled gloves, pulled up the resident's blankets and raised the head of the bed handling the bed control with the soiled gloves. Additional observation revealed SRNA #1 removed gloves and entered the resident's private bathroom to wash her hands prior to exiting the resident's room. Interview with SRNA #1, on 11/01/18 at 9:25 AM, revealed she had been employed with the facility for over one (1) year, and had received Handwashing/Hand Hygiene training upon hire and quarterly. Continued interview revealed she was aware of the need to wash her hands and apply clean gloves prior to providing pericare and FC care to prevent cross contamination. Further interview revealed she should have dried the resident's peri area and indwelling urinary catheter after providing pericare and catheter care. Continued interview revealed after providing pericare, catheter care and incontinence care, she should have removed her soiled gloves and washed her hands prior to touching objects such as pulling up the resident's blanket and handling the bed control. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, on 11/01/18 at 10:00 AM, revealed she was assigned to care for Resident #72. Per interview, SRNA #1 should have washed her hands after gathering incontinence care supplies and repositioning the resident in bed and prior to providing perineal care and FC care for Resident #72 . LPN #2 further stated SRNA #1 should have ensured the resident's periarea and catheter were dried after cleaning. Per interview, SRNA #1 should also have removed soiled gloves, washed hands and applied clean gloves after providing incontinence care and prior to repositioning the resident in bed, and touching the resident's bed linens and bed control. Further interview revealed washing hands and applying clean gloves was important in the prevention of potential spread of disease and infection to residents, staff and visitors to the facility. LPN #2 stated It is important to keep infections down because we have vulnerable residents here. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #4/Quality Improvement Nurse/Infection Control Nurse, on 11/01/18 at 10:45 AM, revealed Handwashing/Hand Hygiene was important to prevent the spread of potential disease and infection to residents, visitors and staff. Additional interview revealed SRNA #1 should have washed hands and applied clean gloves after gathering incontinence care supplies and repositioning the resident in bed, and prior to providing perineal care and Foley catheter care to Resident #72. Additional interview revealed the SRNA should have ensured the resident's peri area and catheter was dried after cleansing. Per interview, SRNA #1 should also have ensured she washed her hands with soap and water after providing the incontinence care and before touching objects such as the resident's linens and bed control. Continued interview revealed it was every associate's responsibility to remain diligent with hand hygiene to prevent the spread of illness to residents, visitors and other associates in the facility. Further interview revealed it was her expectation that all associates adhere to Brookdale Richmond Place's Policies when providing resident care. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 11/01/18 at 10:50 AM, she had been with the facility since July 18, 2018 and was familiar with Resident #72. Further interview revealed it was her expectation associates adhere to the policies, procedures, and practices of the facility and corporation. Per interview, SRNA #1 failed to adhere to the facility's Infection Control and Handwashing/Hand Hygiene Policies. Interview with the Administrator on 11/01/18 at 5:00 PM, revealed it was his expectation that staff adhere to facility policy and procedures related to infection control, hand washing, and peri care/Foley catheter care. Further interview revealed SRNA #1 failed to follow the facility's policies.
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?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $255,922 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 37 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $255,922 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 4 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab 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 Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab Staffed?

CMS rates Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 59%, which is 13 percentage points above the Kentucky average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 69%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab?

State health inspectors documented 37 deficiencies at Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab during 2018 to 2025. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, and 30 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 Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab?

Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 120 certified beds and approximately 110 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Lexington, Kentucky.

How Does Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab Compare to Other Kentucky Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kentucky, Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (59%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab?

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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 4 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 Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab is high. At 59%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Kentucky average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 69%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab Ever Fined?

Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab has been fined $255,922 across 4 penalty actions. This is 7.2x the Kentucky average of $35,638. 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 Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?

Lexington Premier Nursing & Rehab 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.