HOME OF THE INNOCENTS

1100 EAST MARKET STREET, LOUISVILLE, KY 40206 (502) 596-1000
Non profit - Corporation 76 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
29/100
#228 of 266 in KY
Last Inspection: February 2023

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

Overview

Home of the Innocents in Louisville, Kentucky has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #228 out of 266 facilities in Kentucky, placing it in the bottom half of all nursing homes in the state, and #30 out of 38 in Jefferson County, which suggests limited better options nearby. The facility's trend is improving, with issues decreasing from five in 2023 to four in 2025, but there are still serious deficiencies present, including critical incidents where a resident eloped from the facility undetected, violating their care plan for supervision. Staffing is a relative strength, with a turnover rate of 25%, which is below the state average, and there is more RN coverage than 93% of Kentucky facilities. However, the facility has faced concerning fines totaling $21,220, which is higher than 86% of Kentucky nursing homes, indicating ongoing compliance problems.

Trust Score
F
29/100
In Kentucky
#228/266
Bottom 15%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
25% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 23 points below Kentucky's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$21,220 in fines. Lower than most Kentucky facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 49 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Kentucky. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
10 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 5 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

  • Low Staff Turnover (25%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (25%)

    23 points below Kentucky average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Kentucky average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Federal Fines: $21,220

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Sept 2025 4 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 F0603 (Tag F0603)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

483.12 freedom from abuse, neglect and exploitation F603 DBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from involunt...

Read full inspector narrative →
483.12 freedom from abuse, neglect and exploitation F603 DBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from involuntary seclusion for 1 of 3 residents sampled for abuse out of the total sample of 20 residents, (Resident (R)14). The findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, Protecting Residents from Abuse and Neglect, revised July 2024, revealed abuse was defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Continued review revealed abuse also included the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of goods or services that were necessary to attain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Review of the facility policy titled, Protecting Residents From Abuse and Neglect 02.05.01, defined involuntary seclusion as separation of a resident, from other residents or from her/his room or confinement to his/her room (with or without roommates) against the resident's will or the will of the resident's representative. Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Monitoring and Supervision 02.01.14.02, revealed involuntary seclusion included but was not limited to in attempt to isolate a resident to prevent him/her from leaving an area, the resident is involuntarily confined to an area by staff placing furniture, carts, chairs in front of doorways or areas of egress. Further review revealed involuntary seclusion also included a resident physically placed in an area without access to call lights, and/or other methods of communication creating an environment of seclusion and isolation.Record review revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/09/2002, with diagnoses of Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy; severe intellectual disabilities; spastic quadriplegic Cerebral Palsy; Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia; Tracheostomy Status; and Gastrostomy Status.Review of R14's Comprehensive Care Plan 01/15/2024, revealed the facility care planned the resident as at risk for injury related to lack of self-mobility with lack of safety awareness, behaviors including history of self-injurious behaviors, and presence of enteral feeding tube and tracheostomy tube. Per review of the care plan, staff direct supervision was required for residents who ambulated or had active mobility in wheelchair. Continued review of the care plan revealed active intervention was required to prevent them from wandering in unsupervised areas or exiting the facility. Further review revealed the care plan noted R14 must not be left unattended when up in his wheelchair, including in his room.Review of the Progress Notes dated 03/21/2024, revealed on that date, R14 had been in isolation due to having Rhinovirus (the virus causing the common cold which was highly contagious and spread through respiratory droplets). Review of the Progress Notes dated 03/21/2024, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 13 noted on at 2:47 PM on that date, that R14 reported no new changes and remained in droplet precautions.Review of the facility's investigation initiated on 03/21/2024, revealed it was noted at approximately 3:00 PM that day, Nurse Manager (NM) 3 observed R14 in his room on Maple Way, with his bed positioned in a way preventing him from reaching his doorway. Per review, the Physician, family, and Department for Community Based Services (DCBS) were notified. Witness statements were attached to the report. R14 care plan, safety assessment, face sheet and history and physical were attached to the report. Continued review of the investigation revealed the facility confirmed its team members had positioned R14's bed in a way that did not allow the resident to exit his room freely. Review of the investigation revealed the team members voiced concerns, they had attempted to allow R14 to have movement in his wheelchair while following the facility's requirements for infection prevention related to the resident being on droplet precautions. Further review revealed all team members received re-education immediately, and the team members assigned to R14 received a documented disciplinary coaching regarding the facility's policy/procedures, 02.05.01.01-Protecting Residents from Abuse and Neglect and 02.01.14.02. Resident Monitoring and Supervision.In interview with NM 3 on 09/12/2025 at 10:00 AM, she stated she had been the unit manager since February 2024, and her duties were to oversee the unit referred to as Maple Way. She reported on 03/21/2024, she had been making rounds with the Director of Support Services (DSS) and observed R14's in his room, through the window which had the blinds pulled up. NM 3 said she observed R14 up in his wheelchair, with the bed positioned behind him in a manner prohibiting him from exiting his room. She explained she entered R14's room and moved his bed to its original position, and made sure the resident was okay. NM 3 further stated she educated the staff on the unit, and informed them blocking R14 from leavings his room had not been safe and that action was considered seclusion.In interview with LPN 11 on 09/13/2025 at 10:40 AM, he stated he had been the nurse on the unit on 03/21/2024, and recalled the incident involving R14. He said he had been the nurse taking care of two of the four residents living in that room. LPN 11 reported the residents in the room were all in isolation and on droplet precautions. He explained the residents' curtains had been drawn around the beds for droplet precautions. The LPN said he visualized R14 in his wheelchair, from the window on the day of the incident. He reported he did not recall how long R14 was up in the wheelchair, and said the resident should have been on one to one (1:1) supervision as he could not stay in bed all day. LPN 11 further stated the unit manager was to be notified for any concerns regarding situations like what happened to R14.In interview with LPN 13 on 09/13/2025 at 12:30 PM, she stated she dis not typically work on the unit where R14 resided. She said she had been taking care of R14 on 03/21/2024; however, did not recall all the details of the incident and could not recall what time it occurred. LPN 13 reported she remembered one of the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's) had positioned R14's bed, preventing the resident from getting out of his area. She said however, she did not recall the CNA's name she had been working with on the day of the incident. LPN 13 stated as she did not work on R14's unit often, she thought that placing the bed in that position was something that was done. She further stated NM 3 had notified her close to 3:00 PM, it was not allowed for R14's bed to be placed that way, and she also said she received education on abuse/ neglect and seclusion.In interview with CNA3 on 09/12/2025 at 2:47 PM, stated she had worked here (at the facility) for 37 years and worked as a restorative aide (RA). She reported R14 needed to be on 1:1 supervision because he could become excited at times and somewhat difficult to work with. CNA 3 said stated she had not been aware of anyone blocking residents in their rooms. She further stated it was the residents rights to be able to freely wheel in their rooms. In interview with CNA 10 on 09/13/2025 at 12:21 PM, stated R14 had been in isolation on the date of the incident, and the safety monitor (the additional, CNA on the unit) refused to go in and sit with the resident because he had been in isolation. She said she and another aide had gone in and gave R14 a bed bath that day, and the other CNA positioned the resident's bed so he could not leave the room. CNA 10 reported the other CNA told her to position the bed in that manner and told her the nurses working there did not say anything about it. She stated when the blinds were up in R14's room, you could see the resident and what he was doing in his room. She further stated she received a verbal warning and had been re-educated on the facility's abuse/neglect and seclusion policies/procedures.In interview with the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Manager on 09/13/2025 1:06 PM, she stated all residents were assessed for safety, and the safety monitor was responsible for monitoring, to ensure the safety of all residents. She said those staff were to help during mealtimes by monitoring the alarms. The QAPI Manager stated R14 should have been on 1:1 supervision, when up in his chair. She further stated she had initiated the facility's report and made notifications the same day.In interview on 09/13/2025 at 3:16 PM, the Compliance Officer stated the facility's process, when it came to allegations of any type of abuse, was to get documentation and video footage, interview the resident if interview able, then interview the team members. The Compliance Officer said the purpose was to identify if there were any gaps in training, identify learning needs or correct procedures, or updating compliance and quality improvement. In further interview the Compliance Officer further stated the purpose was to report it to the external investigators, and it was the responsibility of the external reviewer to determine as to whether occurrences had occurred, or were substantiated.In interview with the Administrator on 09/13/2025 at 4:00 PM, she stated she expected any reports of abuse and neglect to be reported immediately. She said, regarding the incident that occurred on 03/21/2024 involving R14, had been handled appropriately. She reported R14 had been in isolation precautions on the day of the incident, and resident had been care planned to be 1:1 when up in his wheelchair. The Administrator stated the aide blocked R14 in, by re-positioning his bed and that was seclusion, and all staff working on the Maple Unit (R14's unit) had been re-educated. She further stated she had not placed anyone on leave, because she felt like the education they received immediately had been sufficient.
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

483.12 freedom from abuse, neglect, and exploitation F607 EBased on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure all allegations of abuse and injuries of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
483.12 freedom from abuse, neglect, and exploitation F607 EBased on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure all allegations of abuse and injuries of unknown origin were reported within 2 hours to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 1 of 3 residents sampled for abuse out of the total sample of 20 residents, (Resident (R)77). The findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, KCC DTI Protecting Residents from Abuse and Neglect, effective 11/2018 and revised 07/2024, revealed the facility was obligated to report a suspicion of a crime to law enforcement and report any allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property to the appropriate authorities, which included Child or Adult Protective Services (CPS/APS) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The policy also stated leadership team members were to report incidents/allegations to the state agencies immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury.Review of the admission Record for R77 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/12/2021, with diagnoses including Lesch Nyhan Syndrome (a rare congenital disorder occurring at birth that affects a child's brain and behaviors causing symptoms of uncontrollable self-injury, including lip and finger biting or head banging); spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy; and moderate intellectual abilities. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/21/2025, revealed the facility assessed R77 to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 06 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the facility document titled, Initial Report, submitted to the OIG on 07/07/2025, revealed R77 reported to staff on 07/05/2025, that Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 8 had been hitting him at night.In interview on 09/13/2025 at 10:25 AM, the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Manager stated staff were trained to report all allegations of abuse to leadership immediately and leadership was expected to report the allegation within 2 hours to OIG. When asked about the delay in submitting the Initial Report until 07/07/2025, after being aware of the allegation on 07/05/2025, she stated she had been made aware of R77's allegation of abuse on 07/05/2025 and initiated an internal investigation. The QAPI Manager reported however, she had not initially planned to report the resident's allegation to the OIG. She explained because of R77's Lesch Nyhan Syndrome (LNS) diagnosis, he frequently made false accusations and made outlandish statements such as his bus being involved in a crash on the way home from school or a family member hitting him though they were not even in the building. The QAPI Manager said CNA 8 had not worked in the days leading up to R77's accusation, so staff thought the allegation was odd. She said after consulting with the facility's Chief Quality and Compliance Officer (CQCO) on 07/07/2025; however, it was decided the facility should go ahead and report the incident to OIG to ensure they were not missing things. The QAPI Manager reported since the discussion with the CQCO on 07/07/2025, if R77 made an allegation of physical abuse we do the whole process. She further said residents could have an injury or emotional distress and we could miss something, or it could happen again if all allegations were not reported as required.During interview with CNA 8 on 09/13/2025 at 11:47 AM, he stated R77 said I hit him. He loved to say things like that. He stated (when asked how staff were trained to respond to a resident's allegation of abuse) he responded, tell the supervisor so leadership can investigate it. CNA 8 further stated, I was suspended while they investigated this, and then after the investigation I got to come back.In interview with Neighborhood Nurse Manager (NM) 2 on 09/13/2025 at 12:11 PM, he said R77 tended to fabricate things; however, stated it doesn't change anything related to the facility's abuse policy and procedures. He reported staff were trained to immediately notify a member of leadership if a resident reported an allegation of abuse, adding, there is no confusion about that as far as I know.During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 09/13/2025 at 2:38 PM, she stated her expectation was for staff to immediately notify leadership of any resident allegation of abuse so it can be assessed appropriately. She explained leadership should relay the resident allegation information to her, and then she would notify either the QAPI Manager or the Administrator. The DON said, The QAPI Manager then notifies OIG if it is reportable. She further stated (when asked about the required timeframes for reporting allegations of abuse to OIG), I am not exactly sure. The QAPI Manager handles that, I rely on her to make the determination and to do the reporting.During interview with the Administrator on 09/13/2025 at 4:00 PM, she stated abuse allegations were to be immediately reported to a leader and then we determine our next steps. She said allegations come to me or the QAPI Manager. We get together to discuss it and determine when to report. The Administrator stated, If it is a report of abuse, we need to report it within 2 hours. She reported if a resident had a history of making false reports and we can't find corroborating evidence; we don't report it (to OIG). The Administrator explained specifically with R77, because of his disease he isn't a reliable reporter, so if we can't find validity, we don't report it. We might wait to see if he perseverates on it. She said (regarding the allegation R77 made against CNA 8), the CNA hadn't worked with R77 recently and there had been inconsistencies in his (R77's) reporting. The Administrator stated there had been no evidence of injury to R77, and nothing had been observed by team members. We do investigate but don't report. So, there are caveats. If there is only a remote possibility it may have happened, we don't report it. She further stated (related to why the facility ultimately reported the allegation), I think we decided to err on the side of caution. The Administrator additionally said if abuse allegations were not reported to OIG in a timely manner, It could potentially delay the investigation, which could put the child (resident) at risk.In interview with the Quality and Compliance Officer (QCO) on 09/13/2025 at 3:15 PM, she reported, I rely heavily on [the QAPI Manager] to determine whether an incident is a 2-hour reportable or 24 hours, reportable incident. She said, Abuse should be reported immediately or at least within 2 hours. The QCO stated continued mistakes, errors, harm to residents could occur if reports were not made as required. She explained R77 can say beautiful, sweet things and then also say that people mistreat him; however, when the QAPI Manager told her about the allegation, I told her we can't take any chances, even with his diagnosis, so we made a report. The QCO stated (when asked whether the facility's Initial Report had been submitted to OIG within the required timeframe) the allegation should have been reported sooner, saying it had, not been handled appropriately. She further stated, When I heard about it, I said, ‘I know it is constant, but we have to report it because if it is true, it is our job to protect him and if it isn't we will find it out. The QCO additionally said, I am not over there working with him on a regular basis, but I know this is something constant with R77.
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

483.12 Freedom from abuse, neglect, and exploitation F610 DBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure it conducted a complete and thorough investigation for an i...

Read full inspector narrative →
483.12 Freedom from abuse, neglect, and exploitation F610 DBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure it conducted a complete and thorough investigation for an injury of unknown origin for 1 of 3 residents sampled for abuse out of the total sample of 20 residents, (Resident (R)75). The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Protecting Residents from Abuse and Neglect, effective 11/2018, revealed the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Manager or assigned designee was to initiate an investigation of any allegation of abuse, neglect, or misappropriation. Further review revealed the QAPI Manager or assigned designee was to take immediate action to ensure the safety of residents.Review of R75's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/08/2025, with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy. Review of the Progress Notes for R75 dated 08/08/2025, revealed no documented evidence the facility noted discovering an abdominal bruise on the resident. Review of the facility's, Final Report/5 Day Follow Up, dated 08/08/2025, revealed the facility had not initiated their own full internal investigation of the injury of unknown origin (abdominal bruise) for R75. Continued review of the Final Report/5 Day Follow Up revealed it was noted, CPS is currently investigating, so interviews have been paused to prevent interfering in their investigation. No team members were named by CPS as potential perpetrators of abuse or neglect. In interview on 09/12/2025 at 3:31PM, the QAPI Manager stated Per KRS, what we have been told as a childcare agency is that interviewing during an investigation is obstructing. The QAPI Manager said my supervisor said we are told not to interview or discuss incident during an investigation. We do investigate, but we do not interview. The QAPI Manager reported Once CPS come in and officially open an investigation, we stop interviews. Based on our experience as a childcare facility, we do not interview. KRS 620-we address this in our overarching procedure, and we follow those. In interview on 09/12/2025 at 1:47 PM, the Child Protective Services (CPS) Case Manager stated, CPS never advised the facility that they could not investigate until the CPS investigation was complete. She reported CPS do not ever advise any facility not to investigate, and said, most facilities start their internal investigation immediately. The CPS Case Manager explained the hospital did not have any concerns of abuse which is why R75 was released back to the facility. She further stated she was still investigating at the time. In interview on 09/13/2025 at 2:37 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, I did not participate in this investigation. Since this occurred, we had a QAPI meeting on Monday. I do not recall discussion of this incident during the QAPI meeting. She said Anytime CPS is involved, we are not allowed to ask until resolved, as CPS performs their own investigation. The DON reported it was her understanding if CPS was involved, we do not interfere, nor ask questions. She stated there were certain things the QAPI Manager might discuss with CPS, but otherwise we stop all processes and let them investigate. The DON said if we do not know the cause, of an injury we report that. She explained the facility still conducted their investigation to see if we can determine how the bruise (or injury) occurred. The DON reported the purpose of the facility's investigation was to determine if someone had not followed the facility's policies/procedures; if retraining was needed to protect residents; and to ensure staff had the information they needed. She stated if a facility investigation was not done, we may miss interviews, which are necessary to determine how and what happened, and what needs to be done to prevent recurrence. The DON said QAPI made the determination to report the injury of unknown origin and did the reporting, and she did not personally have access to make reports. She further stated her understanding was the investigation was still pending. In interview on 09/13/2025 at 3:14 PM, the Chief Quality and Compliance Officer (CQCO) stated the purpose of investigating injuries of unknown origin was to determine why the resident had been harmed, with a goal to protect the resident. She reported if the facility's investigation was not completed the potential issues included, continued mistakes, errors, or harm. The CQCO said the purpose of reporting to the state agency was to ensure the external reviewers determine abuse/neglect, as the facility did not substantiate abuse internally. She stated, by the 5-day report, the facility had summarized interviews, did the documentation, performed physician consults, and completed medical chart information.In interview on 09/13/2025 at 3:59PM, the Administrator stated the facility investigation continues to ensure protection, root cause, and training. The Administrator further stated, CPS/APS investigations take precedence; we do not interview when they are involved.
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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received medications in a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received medications in accordance with professional standards of practice related a discontinued medication order not being communicated to the resident's school and pharmacy, resulting in administration of a discontinued medication for 1 of 3 residents sampled for medications out of the total sample of 20 residents, (Resident (R)40).The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, KCC DTI Off-site School Medication Distribution, revised 03/2025, revealed the Resident Education Nurse Coordinator (NC) or designee was required to conduct daily order reviews to identify any changes to medication orders, complete a new order form reflecting any changes, and send it to the contracted pharmacy. Further review revealed however, no documented evidence the policy addressed completing school forms or updating the school regarding residents' medication changes.Review of the admission Record for R40 revealed the facility admitted him on 06/13/2024, with diagnoses including autism, spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, and restlessness. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/19/2024, revealed the facility assessed R40 as demonstrating refusals of care and behaviors of hitting and grabbing.Review of the physician's order dated 07/11/2025, revealed the provider prescribed R40 Aripiprazole (an atypical antipsychotic used to treat mental conditions which included irritability associated with autism) 3 milligram (mg) daily, increasing to 5 mg after three days. Review of the facility document titled, Permission Form for Prescribed or Over-the-Counter Drugs, dated 07/11/2025, revealed the Resident Education NC notified R40's school on 07/11/2025 of the new aripiprazole order. Review of the facility document titled, School Medication Order Form, dated 07/11/2025, revealed the contract pharmacy had been notified by the facility of the physician's order on that date. Review of the facility document titled, School Medication Order Form revealed the contract pharmacy delivered the Aripiprazole to R40's school on 08/04/2025. Review of the facility document titled, Order Listing Report, dated 08/18/2025, revealed however, the Aripiprazole order was discontinued on 07/25/2025 (10 days prior to the medication being delivered to R40's school). Review of the facility's investigative report revealed R40 experienced a change in mental status and was transported to the hospital on [DATE].Review of the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE], revealed that during medication reconciliation at the hospital, it was discovered the school continued to administer the Aripiprazole 5 mg to R40 after the medication had been discontinued on 07/25/2025. Further review of the hospital discharge summary revealed however, the treating physicians at the hospital determined there had been no connection between the Aripiprazole medication and R40's altered mental status.Review of the facility's document titled, 5 Whys Root Cause Analysis Template, dated 08/21/2025, revealed the facility determined there had been a process failure that allowed the Aripiprazole medication error to bypass the facility's medication-order double-check process. Review further revealed there had been no communication to the school and contract pharmacy about the Aripiprazole medication having been discontinued.During interview with the contract pharmacy's Director of Pharmacy Services on 09/12/2025 at 9:07 AM, he stated the pharmacy had been notified of the Aripiprazole order for R40 on 07/11/2025. He further stated the pharmacy received no further notification of any medication change regarding the Aripiprazole medication until 08/29/2025.During interview with R40's school nurse on 09/12/2025 at 9:48 AM, she stated the school did not accept verbal orders and required written forms for all medications. She said she received the routine medication and over-the-counter medicine form for R40 that included the Aripiprazole medication on 08/06/2025. The school nurse reported she had not became aware the Aripiprazole medication had been discontinued until after R40's hospitalization on 08/15/2025. She further stated R40 received the first dose of Aripiprazole on 08/07/2025, his first day of school, and continued to receive it at school until 08/15/2025 (a total of eight days).During interview with the Resident Education NC on 09/11/2025 at 2:40 PM, she stated she called and spoke with a nurse at R40's school and verbally discontinued the resident's Aripiprazole order. When questioned regarding the process for communicating medication changes to schools, she stated there was a school form that was to be completed and faxed or emailed. The Resident Education NC acknowledged however, that form had not been completed for the discontinuation of R40's Aripiprazole medication. She further stated the facility sometimes called verbal orders to the schools.During interview with the Director of Support Services (DSS) on 09/11/2025 at 3:15 PM, she stated the process for school medications involved the use of two forms. She reported the two forms were the School Medication Order Form, referred to in the policy as the Monthly School Medication Order Form. and the school Permission Form for Prescribed or Over the Counter Drugs. The DSS said the School Medication Order Form was to be scanned to the pharmacy and the school Permission Form for Prescribed or Over the Counter Drugs, was to be faxed or emailed to the school nurse. She further stated she personally audited residents' medications to ensure accuracy at both the pharmacy and the school.During interview with the Quality Assurance Nurse (QAN) on 09/12/2025 at 9:40 AM, she stated the team reviewed the root cause analysis for the medication error involving R40 in the August QAPI meeting, and identified failures in the facility's process. When asked what types of outcomes could occur when medication changes were not communicated, she stated there could be a negative outcome if a resident continued receiving a discontinued medication, such as an allergic reaction or even a fatal event.During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 09/12/2025 at 2:28 PM, she stated orders were to be checked daily and medication changes should be communicated to the pharmacy and the school within 24 hours of any changes. She further stated the potential for a negative outcome involving a resident receiving a discontinued medication could include overdose, or even death.During interview with the Administrator on 09/13/2025 at 3:59 PM, she stated when a medication order was changed, the expectation was for the Nursing Education Coordinator to receive the order change information, and fill out the correct school forms. The Administrator said the Nursing Education Coordinator was expected to send the order change information via email or fax to the school and the facility's contracted pharmacy. She stated, The breakdown was that when the medication was changed, the double check did not occur, and the form was not filled out and the change was not communicated to the school. The Administrator further stated the potential outcome to not communicating medication order changes could be a serious injury up to death for a client receiving a discontinued medication.
Feb 2023 5 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, interviews, record review, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility fai...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record review, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the care planned intervention to provide continuous line-of-sight monitoring was consistently implemented for one (1) of twelve (12) sampled residents (Resident #66). The facility developed a care plan that included an intervention for Resident #66 to always be within staff's line of sight when he/she was up in a wheelchair. However, on 12/14/2022, the facility failed to supervise Resident #66. Resident #66 exited the facility through the emergency/fire exit doors located on the Ocean Avenue Unit without staff's knowledge. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 02/10/2023 and determined to exist on 12/14/2022. The facility was notified of the IJ on 02/10/2023 at 6:05 PM. The State Survey Agency (SSA) received an acceptable IJ removal plan on 02/12/2023. The SSA validated the removal plan and determined the Immediate Jeopardy had been removed, before exit on 02/12/2023. Noncompliance was lowered to a scope and severity of D The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, titled Resident Care Plan and Physician Orders, revised March 2022, revealed, Care Plans shall focus on the treatment of actual and prevention of potential problems for each resident considering the resident's strengths and unique characteristics. The policy also stated, Care Plans shall be developed and implemented to meet the resident and/or guardian's preferences and goals and provided to each resident to assist in attaining or maintaining his or her highest practicable quality of life. Review of the facility's job description for Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs), dated as reviewed 2022, revealed, The general purpose of your job is to keep children who are clients of [the facility] safe at all times and to be respectful of the children and their families as valued customers. Review of the facility's job description for Staff Nurses (Registered Nurses and Licensed Practical Nurses), dated 2022 revealed, The general purpose of your job is to keep children who are clients of [the facility] safe at all times and to be respectful of the children and their families as valued customers. Review of an admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #66 on 06/30/2021 with diagnoses that included spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy (the most severe type of cerebral palsy, a group of disorders that affect movement, muscle tone, balance, and posture, marked by the inability to control and use the legs, arms, and body), epilepsy (a neurological disorder that causes seizures or unusual sensations and behaviors), restlessness, and agitation. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should not be completed. Further review revealed Resident #66 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision-making per a staff's assessment for mental status. The MDS indicated the resident used a wheelchair for mobility and required extensive assistance with locomotion on and off the unit. According to the MDS, the resident had not exhibited wandering behavior during the seven-day assessment period. Review of the care plan, dated as initiated 06/30/2021, revealed the resident was at risk for injury related to an inability to protect self from injury; self-mobility in bed, on mat and in wheelchair; and behavioral symptoms including resisting care, screaming out, crying out, entering other residents' rooms or unauthorized spaces, elopement, impulsivity; and had limited self-preservation skills. Review of an intervention dated 06/30/2021, indicated the resident was at risk for Wandering/Elopement and an intervention, dated 07/01/2021, revealed the resident must be in line of sight of staff while up in the wheelchair for safety. Review of the Long Term Care Facility-Self-Reported Incident Form revealed that on 12/14/2022 at approximately 2000 [8:00 PM], {Resident #66} exited the building through a fire door onto the patio in a wheelchair. Review of the facility's Continued 5 [Five] Day Follow Up report for the 12/14/2022 incident revealed the facility identified that Resident #66 was able to exit a faulty fire exit door due to damaged wiring in the ceiling that disabled the alarm, allowing the door to be opened without a proximity card. According to the report, the team members were all providing care in residents' rooms during the time the resident was able to exit through the fire doors during the beginning of a new shift. The facility identified that clear communication regarding monitoring and supervision of the common area had not occurred during shift change. Additionally, the report indicated while team members moved in and out of the area, no one had been directly assigned to monitor the common area as expected. On 02/09/2023 at 11:25 AM, review of the facility's video surveillance footage revealed at 7:46:21 PM, Resident #66 was at the fire exit door and exited the facility at 7:48:25 PM. At 7:56:08 PM, a staff member came to the door to get help with bringing Resident #66 into the facility. The resident was outside from 7:48:45 PM to 7:56:08 PM. Telephone interview, on 02/08/2023 at 7:10 PM with CNA #15, revealed she was assigned to take care of Resident #66 on 12/14/2022 from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM. She stated prior to leaving the facility at 7:00 PM, Resident #66 was by the nursing station. CNA #15 stated she gave report to CNA #14 and believed she was taking the resident to his/her room or for a snack or a shower. According to CNA #15, she read the residents' [NAME] and care plans before taking care of the residents. She stated staff also gave report about resident care. CNA #15 stated she did not think Resident #66 required one-on-one supervision prior to the incident, but the facility normally had a sitter (Cottage Safety Monitor [CSM]) to supervise the residents. CNA #15 stated if they did not have a sitter, a staff member would have to sit with the residents. CNA #15 stated Resident #66 had not tried to get out of the door before the incident, and she did not think Resident #66 was at risk for elopement, but that he/she was just monitored like other residents in the common area. During a telephone interview, on 02/08/2023 at 6:22 PM, CNA #14 stated on 12/14/2022, she worked the night shift and was assigned to take care of Resident #66. She stated she saw Resident #66 in the common area at 7:00 PM before she began doing rounds on other residents. She stated she and the nurse were in the same room providing resident care when staff found the resident outside. CNA #14 stated at that time, she was unaware there was not a CSM in the common area to monitor the residents. The CNA stated she reviewed residents' [NAME]/care plans for information on how to take care of the residents and staff also did walking rounds and discussed resident care prior to each shift. Continued interview revealed the nurses updated the care plans if there were any changes; however, CNA #15 stated she was unaware, prior to the 12/14/2022 incident, that Resident #66 was required to always be within staff's line of sight when up in a wheelchair. Attempts were made to interview Registered Nurse (RN) #22, via telephone on 02/08/2022 at 7:41 PM, on 02/09/2022 at 6:35 PM, and on 02/10/2023 at 7:49 AM. Unsuccessful attempts were made via telephone on 02/09/2023 at 4:03 PM and 02/09/2023 at 6:35 PM to reach CSM #20, who was scheduled on 12/14/2022. During an interview, on 02/09/2023 at 12:40 PM, the Infection Preventionist/Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (IP/QAPI) Specialist stated on 12/14/2022, the facility was supposed to have a CSM on duty until 8:00 PM. However, CSM #20 clocked out at approximately 2:40 PM without notifying anyone. She stated staff should have recognized there was no CSM and made sure all residents were supervised in the common area, as required. She stated the incident happened at shift change while the staff were doing their rounds. During an interview, on 02/09/2023 at 3:48 PM, the Manager of Resident Care stated she updated the care plan after the incident, she thought by distracting the resident, the resident would be more occupied by the distraction instead of trying to leave. The Manager of Resident Care stated she was aware this might not prevent the resident from eloping but might distract the resident from being interested in going toward the exit doors. During an interview, on 02/10/2023 at 4:14 PM, the [NAME] President of Nursing (VPN) stated she expected staff to follow resident care plans and to constantly monitor the residents. She stated that the incident related to Resident #66 occurred because staff failed to supervise Resident #66 as care planned. During an interview on 02/10/2023 at 8:49 AM, the Administrator stated the 12/14/2022 incident occurred because supervision was not provided to prevent Resident #66 from exiting the building. She stated Resident #66 was in the common area and staff left the resident unsupervised while they did rounds. Further review revealed staff were present on the unit but did not keep Resident #66 in their line of sight. According to the Administrator, staff knew Resident #66's care plan required the resident to always be within staff's line of sight. She stated staff may have thought the CSM was present to monitor the residents, but either way, Resident #66 was not supervised as required. The Administrator stated she expected staff to follow the care plans and that staff should have recognized and supervised Resident #66. The facility provided an acceptable Immediate Jeopardy Removal Plan alleging removal of the IJ on 02/12/2023. Review of the IJ Removal Plan revealed the facility implemented the following: 1. The following action steps were taken to remove immediate jeopardy from Resident #66. The direct threat in which Resident #66 experienced an elopement was removed on 12/14/2022 when Resident #66 was brought back into the facility by a nurse. Actions taken to further remove the immediacy and severity of the threat included: a review and revision of the Care Plan for Resident #66 on 12/14/2022 by the Manager of Resident Care to add a risk of wandering and elopement along with resident-centered interventions. The interventions included: distraction and redirection and offering engaging activities to mitigate risk of exit seeking and elopement. Review of all residents' Care Plans was conducted to determine if any resident was affected by the same deficient practice of failure to provide line-of-sight supervision on 12/15/2022 by the Manager of Resident Care. No other residents were found to be affected as no other residents required line-of-sight supervision. The Care Plan assessment conducted by the Manager of Resident Care identified 16 residents at risk for elopement and wandering. On 12/15/2022, the Manager of Resident Care revised the Care Plans of the 16 residents identified at risk to include goals and resident-centered interventions to mitigate the risk of elopement including but not limited to distraction and redirection and offering engaging activities to mitigate risk of wandering and elopement. 2. Further action taken on 02/10/2023 included Mandatory Retraining and Notification of Immediate Jeopardy created by the Manager of Resident Care and implemented for all team members. This training included an attestation statement of requirement, responsibility, and expectation in reading, understanding, and following information found in the resident Care Plan and [NAME], before providing care to residents and implementing the plan of care for each resident including providing continuous supervision of residents in the community areas. The Standard of Care Audit Form was revised on 02/10/2023 by the Senior [NAME] President/Administrator to include monitoring elopement risk interventions to the Safety category of Care Plan Auditing Care Task. The Standard of Care Audit Form will be used by the Leadership Team including Manager of Resident Care, Manager of Training and Development, Neighborhood Nurse Managers, Manager of Respiratory Therapy, [NAME] President of Therapy, Manager of Support Services, Director of Medical Social Services, Director of Nursing, and [NAME] President of Nursing to document findings of audits of care delivery to ensure care delivery will be implemented according to the residents' Care Plan. Standards of Care Audits will be conducted weekly on at least ten (10) residents to ensure their person-centered Care Plan will be implemented as written. 9/26 Administrative, 48/90 Nursing, 43/70 CNAs, 2/11 Resident Enrichment Specialists, 13/28 Respiratory Therapists, 1/24 Ancillary Therapists, and 2/4 contractors have completed training as of 2/12/2023 at 9 AM [9:00 AM]. All team members will be required to complete the retraining prior to the start of their next shift. 3. The Medical Director was notified of the Office of Inspector General's finding of immediate jeopardy, including mitigation efforts that included, but were not limited to the review of all residents' care plans, implementation of dedicated team members to provide supervision of residents in the community areas, training of all team members, contractors, and students prior to providing care or service, and standard of care auditing to ensure care plan and physician's orders were implemented as written, on Friday, 02/10/2023, at 8:47 PM by the Senior [NAME] President/Administrator. 4. Outcome measures for completion of Standards of Care Audit Tools will be monitored weekly and tabulated monthly by the [NAME] President of Nursing and reported monthly to the IP/QAPI Specialist. The IP/QAPI Specialist shall report outcomes measures quarterly to the Quality Improvement Committee. The [NAME] President of Nursing shall monitor for trends in non-compliance and address concerns with team members when identified. The [NAME] President of Nursing shall report all findings to the IP/QAPI Specialist monthly for 12 months. IP/QAPI Specialist shall report outcomes measures quarterly Quality Improvement Committee for 12 months. The State Survey Agency validated the implementation of the facility's IJ Removal Plan as follows: The State Survey Agency validated the implementation of the facility's IJ Removal Plan as follows: The survey team conducted observations, record/document reviews, and interviews on 02/12/2023 to ensure the facility's removal plan was fully implemented and the immediacy was removed, as follows: 1. Review of Resident #66's care plan revealed the facility revised the care plan on 12/14/2022 with interventions that included distracting the resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversions (preferred toys), conversation, television, or a book. Observations of Resident #66 during the survey from 02/07/2023 through 02/12/2023 revealed the resident was within a staff member's line of sight during all observations. Staff provided supervision of the resident as required by the resident's care plan. An interview with the Manager of Resident Care on 02/12/2023 at 12:49 PM revealed the care plans for 16 residents (Residents #5, #10, #45, #39, #19, #46, #69, #64, #72, #52, #66, #56, #8, #58, #22, and #70), who were assessed at risk for elopement/wandering, were updated. Review of the care plans for Residents #5, #10, #45, #39, #19, #46, #69, #64, #72, #52, #66, #56, #8, #58, #22, and #70, revealed the facility revised the care plans with resident-centered interventions to address elopement prevention. Observations of these residents on 02/12/2023 revealed the facility had implemented their care plans. 2. A review of re-training documentation, dated 02/10/2023 through 02/12/2023, revealed the Manager of Resident Care provided retraining regarding understanding and following residents' care plan/[NAME] before providing care and implementing the care plan for each resident. Interview with the IP/QAPI Specialist, on 02/12/2023 at 9:40 AM revealed the agency staff that had returned to the facility had been re-trained, and the additional agency staff had been notified they were not to return to work at the facility until the training was completed. She stated she ensured all staff were trained prior to working their next shift. A phone interview with Nursing Supervisor #39 on 02/12/2023 at 11:45 AM revealed staff were responsible to review the care plan/[NAME] to be informed of residents' care needs. A phone interview with CNA #40 on 02/12/2023 at 11:50 AM revealed she received training related to reviewing the care plan/[NAME] and to read and understand the care plan/[NAME]. A phone interview with RN #41 on 02/12/2023 at 11:55 AM revealed she received training regarding reviewing care plans to make sure staff knew how to take care of the residents. During a phone interview with CNA #42 on 02/12/2023 at 12:10 PM, she stated she received training to always review the [NAME]/care plan and if there were any questions to ask the supervisor. A phone interview with CNA #43 on 02/12/2023 at 12:17 PM revealed she also she received training related to always reviewing the care plan/[NAME] prior to providing any resident care. During an interview with CNA #44 on 02/12/2023 at 12:25 PM, she stated staff were to review the [NAME] before the beginning of each shift and notify staff of any alerts on the [NAME]/care plan. An interview with Nursing Supervisor #45, on 02/12/2023 at 12:40 PM, revealed that, based on the training, staff were supposed to check the [NAME]/care plan before taking care of the residents. An interview with CNA #46, on 02/12/2023 at 12:50 PM revealed she recently received training that staff were to review care plans/[NAME] prior to taking care of the residents. Interview with CNA #47, on 02/12/2023 at 1:10 PM, revealed she received training that the care plans/[NAME] were to be reviewed before the shift and during the shift if needed. She stated the care plan had information about the care of the residents, their behaviors, and the care they required. 3. A review of an email to the Medical Director, dated 02/11/2023, revealed the facility notified him of the Immediate Jeopardy findings. 4. Interview with the IP/QAPI Specialist, on 02/12/2023 at 9:40 AM, revealed the agency staff that had returned to the facility had been re-trained, and the additional agency staff had been notified they were not to return to work at the facility until the training was completed. She stated she ensured all staff were trained prior to working their next shift. An interview with the IP/QAPI Specialist on 02/12/2023 at 1:03 PM revealed all staff were trained to review residents' care plan/[NAME] at the start of every shift.
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, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide effective monitoring and supervision to prevent elopement for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #66). The facility assessed Resident #66 to be at risk for elopement and was care planned for him/her to always be within staff's line of sight when up in a wheelchair. However, the resident exited the facility undetected by staff on 12/14/2022 at 7:48 PM and was outside unsupervised for approximately eight (8) minutes. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 02/10/2023. The IJ was determined to exist on 12/14/2022, when Resident #66 exited the facility through the emergency/fire exit doors located on the Ocean Avenue unit and accessed the outside patio unsupervised for eight (8) minutes. The State Survey Agency (SSA) received an acceptable IJ removal plan on 02/12/2023. The SSA validated the Immediate Jeopardy had been removed, before exit on 02/12/2023. Noncompliance was lowered to a scope and severity of D The findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Resident Monitoring and Supervision, revised March 2022, revealed the Facility shall provide resident monitoring and supervision as an intervention and a means of mitigating risks. Monitoring and supervision shall be determined based on the residents' assessed needs, including behavioral health needs, and identified hazards in the care environment. Levels of supervision may vary from resident to resident and from time to time for the same resident. Review of job descriptions for the facility's staff nurses (Registered Nurses and Licensed Practical Nurses) and for Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) revealed, The general purpose of your job is to keep children who are clients of [the facility] safe at all times and to be respectful of the children and their families as valued customers. Review of an undated facility training document titled, Cottage Safety Monitor: [Contract Agency Name] Training, revealed, Cottage Safety Monitoring shall be utilized during working hours on cottages where additional supervision is required to monitor residents and mitigate the risk of injury, abuse or neglect. The document also indicated the primary roles of Cottage Safety Monitors (CSMs) included, Provide continuous oversight and supervision of residents. Monitor mobile residents at all times in the community area. Maintain awareness of where residents are on the cottage, paying particular attention when residents leave the community area activities. Ensure continuous coverage of the cottage by delegating the CSM role to another available team member. The document indicated additional expectations of the CSMs included, When the CSM needs to leave the community area for breaks and meal times, team members on the cottages shall provide coverage and supervision until the CSM has returned. Review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #66 on 06/30/2021 with diagnoses that included spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy (the most severe type of cerebral palsy, a group of disorders that affect movement, muscle tone, balance, and posture, marked by the inability to control and use the legs, arms, and body), epilepsy (a neurological disorder that causes seizures or unusual sensations and behaviors), restlessness, and agitation. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should not be completed. Further review revealed Resident #66 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision-making per an assessment for mental status. The MDS assessment indicated the resident used a wheelchair for mobility and required extensive assistance with locomotion on and off the unit. According to the MDS, the resident had not exhibited wandering behavior during the seven-day assessment period. Per the MDS, the cognitive assessment was the staff's assessment for mental status - they did not complete a BIMS. Review of a care plan, dated as initiated 06/30/2021, revealed the resident was at risk for injury related to an inability to protect himself/herself from injury; self-mobility in bed, on mat, and in wheelchair; behavioral symptoms including resisting care, screaming out, crying out, entering other residents' rooms or unauthorized spaces, elopement, impulsivity, and had limited self-preservation skills. Interventions included for staff to monitor for and respond to behavioral symptoms which placed the resident at risk for injury, as the resident was self-mobile in a wheelchair and had a RED Safety Circle Designation. An intervention dated as initiated 06/30/2021 indicated, Wandering/Elopement, and an intervention dated as initiated 07/01/2021 indicated the resident must be in line of sight of staff while up in wheelchair for safety. A review of an incident report, dated 12/14/2022 at 8:02 PM, revealed Resident #66 went out the back door of the facility after last having been seen by Registered Nurse (RN) #22 at approximately 7:00 PM in the common area. The report indicated the emergency exit door alarm did not sound to alert staff that the door had been opened. The report indicated Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #16 went outside for a break and saw the resident outside in his/her wheelchair, unattended. The report revealed LPN #16 attempted to take the resident back inside, but the resident held the wheels of the wheelchair and repeatedly said no. LPN then locked the brakes on the resident's wheelchair, went to the door, and called for assistance, after which LPN #23 came and assisted LPN #16 to get the resident inside the building. The report indicated upon entering the unit, all team members were in other residents' rooms. Further review of the facility's investigation revealed the resident was assessed to have no injuries and all facility doors were assessed to ensure proper functioning. Further review revealed the investigation indicated the door through which the resident exited the building was found to have a malfunctioning fire exit bar that did not alarm and allowed the door to open by just pushing the door. Continued review revealed that Resident #66 was able to exit the facility through the malfunctioning fire door while the team members who were assigned to the resident's unit were all providing care in other residents' rooms. The investigation revealed clear communication regarding monitoring and supervision of the common area had not occurred during shift changes. While team members moved in and out of the area, no one had been directly assigned to monitor the common area as expected. A review of an online Weather History report at (https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ky/louisville) revealed on 12/14/2022 at 7:56 PM, the temperature in the city where the facility was located was 56 degrees Fahrenheit (F) with no precipitation noted. Review of Progress Notes revealed a Social Services Note, dated 12/15/2022 at 5:15 PM, which indicated Resident #66 had a temporary elopement from the facility last night. Further review of the Progress Notes revealed a Parent/Guardian Contact Note, dated 12/15/2022 at 3:30 PM which indicated staff had a conference call with Resident #66's guardian and provided a recap of the resident's elopement. Observation on 02/07/2023 at 11:10 AM revealed Resident #66 in bed. Observation of Resident #66 on 02/07/2023 at 1:15 PM revealed the resident was sitting in a wheelchair participating in an activity with a staff member. During a telephone interview, on 02/08/2023 at 6:22 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #14 stated that on 12/14/2022, she worked the night shift (7:00 PM - 7:00 AM) and was assigned to Resident #66's hall that night. She stated that when she started her rounds, Resident #66 was in the common area, and CNA #14 was unaware supervision was not being provided by a CSM at that time. She stated she and RN #22 went into a room to assist other residents and did not see Resident #66 go outside. CNA #14 stated she was unaware that the exit door was malfunctioning prior to the incident with Resident #66. During a telephone interview, on 02/08/2023 at 7:10 PM, CNA #15 stated that on 12/14/2022, she was assigned to take care of Resident #66 from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM. She stated the last time she saw Resident #66 was at 7:00 PM in the common area of the cottage when she gave report to CNA #14. She stated CNA #14 was assigned to take care of Resident #66 for the 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 12/14/2022. During a telephone interview on 02/08/2023 at 7:23 PM, LPN #16 stated on 12/14/2022 at 8:00 PM, she stepped outside from another unit to get some fresh air and noticed a resident sitting in a wheelchair in the grass near the patio area. She stated it was not cold or raining and that the resident was fully dressed. LPN #16 indicated she looked to see if any staff were with the resident but found no one. She stated she attempted to take Resident #66 back inside the facility, but the resident grabbed the wheels of the wheelchair and yelled no. The LPN stated she locked the wheelchair brakes and went to the door to yell for assistance. She stated no one came to help the first time she called out, but then LPN #23 came and helped her get Resident #66 back into the facility. Further interview revealed she was told RN #22 was assigned to Resident #66, but she was in another resident's room at the time of the incident. LPN #16 stated the supervisors asked about the monitors (CSMs), and she informed them that she did not see a monitor and that the monitors often left the area without telling anyone they were leaving. On 02/09/2023 at 11:25 AM, the SSA team reviewed the video footage for the date/time of the incident. The video footage timestamp at 7:46:21 PM revealed Resident #66 was at the exit door. At 7:48:25 PM, the resident exited the facility. At 7:56:08 PM, a staff member came to the door to get help with bringing Resident #66 back into the facility. The resident was outside from 7:46 PM to 7:56 PM. During an interview on 02/09/2023 at 10:09 AM, the Maintenance Director stated he was not aware of any doors not working properly prior to the incident on 12/14/2022 with Resident #66. He stated he was not notified about the door not working properly until the next day. He asserted that he checked the doors on a weekly basis but did not keep a log. He stated he expected staff to notify maintenance if they had any issues with the doors. During an interview, on 02/09/2023 at 12:40 PM, the Infection Preventionist/Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (IP/QAPI) Specialist stated that on 12/14/2022, the facility was supposed to have a CSM to monitor the residents in the common area until 8:00 PM, but the CSM (CSM #20) left at 3:00 PM without notifying anyone. She stated the staff did not realize there was no one monitoring the residents in the common area. During an interview, on 02/09/2023 at 5:14 PM, the [NAME] President of Nursing (VPN) stated after the elopement of Resident #66 on 12/14/2022, the facility immediately checked all the exit doors to ensure they were locking and alarming appropriately. He stated the exit door through which Resident #66 exited the building was fixed the following day and monitored until it was fixed. The VPN indicated she expected all facility staff to be responsible for the residents. During an interview, on 02/10/2023 at 8:49 AM, the Administrator stated that immediately after the incident on 12/14/2022, the door company was contacted and came that night to assess the door, which was fixed the next day. She stated all residents were accounted for to ensure resident safety. The Administrator indicated she expected staff to keep all the residents safe and prevent any type of injury. She stated the failure occurred because supervision was not provided to prevent Resident #66 from exiting the building. She stated the CSM was scheduled to work until 8:00 PM but left around 3:00 PM without notifying anyone. The Administrator stated the staff should have recognized this and supervised the resident. She stated Resident #66 was in the common area, and staff left the resident unsupervised while they did their rounds. She stated they were unaware the door did not work properly until after this incident. The State Survey Agency validated the facility had taken the following actions: 1. The following action steps were taken to remove immediate jeopardy from Resident #66. Further action was taken to remove the immediate jeopardy from Resident #66 including conducting 30-minute checks on Resident #66 immediately following the elopement throughout the night while Resident #66 slept from 12/14/2022 - 12/15/2022. The RN Clinical Supervisor circulated each Neighborhood on 12/14/2022 and confirmed the whereabouts and safety of all residents on all Neighborhoods. All residents were accounted for and safe. 2. Actions taken to further remove the immediacy and severity of the threat included a review and revision of the Care Plan for Resident #66 on 12/14/2022 by the Manager of Resident Care to add a risk of wandering and elopement along with personalized interventions which included but were not limited to distraction and redirection, offering engaging activities to mitigate the risk of exit seeking. A review of all resident Care Plans was conducted on 12/15/2022 by the Manager of Resident Care which identified 16 residents at risk for elopement and wandering. On 12/15/2022, the Manager of Resident Care revised the Care Plans of the 16 residents identified at risk to include goals and interventions to mitigate the risk of elopement. 3. The RN Clinical Supervisor confirmed that all exit doors were secured, locked, prox [proximity] card readers were properly functioning, alarms were sounding, with the exception of the Ocean Avenue Patio door. The Ocean Avenue Patio door through which the resident eloped was unlocked and no alarm was functional. The Ocean Avenue Patio door was then continuously monitored by a [Company Name] team member until the vendor arrived on-site on 12/15/2022 and repaired the door securing it and ensuring the door was working properly with the exception of 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM, during which time Resident #66 was off campus and other residents at risk for elopement were supervised by team members. 4. Actions taken to further remove the immediacy and severity of the threat also included checks of all exit doors every two (2) hours by the RN Clinical Supervisor on shift beginning 12/14/2022 documenting findings on the Neighborhood Emergency Door Rounding Log. The checks will be documented on the Neighborhood Emergency Door Rounding Log and will include the expectation to ensure the door was locked, could not be opened without using the prox card, alarm sounded when the fire egress bar was compressed, door opened after the fire egress bar was compressed for 15-30 seconds, door closed completely, and was locked following the check. The RN Clinical Supervisor on shift shall notify the Maintenance on-call team member if any issues were identified and assign a team member to continuously monitor the door until a Maintenance team member arrived. The RN Clinical Supervisors will continue checks until the door hardware has been replaced by a certified vendor and the vendor certified the door functioned as expected. RN Clinical Supervisors were trained on the expectation of door checks. 5. Further action included implementing routine door checks by Maintenance or Information Management Technology team members beginning on 02/10/2023 twice daily between 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM, and again between 4:00 PM and 10:00 PM. This will continue until the immediacy has been abated; the door hardware has been replaced; and, the vendor has verified the doors were fully functioning as expected. Team members or contractor will be assigned to supervise residents when in community areas to ensure residents remain in the building and will complete training prior to providing care. Routine door checks by Maintenance or Information Management Technology team members shall continue daily for 30 days, then weekly for 12 months. Door checks shall ensure: the door was locked; cannot be opened without using the prox card; alarm sounded when the fire egress bar was compressed; door opened after the fire egress bar was compressed for 15-30 seconds; door closed completely and was secure following the check. Maintenance and Information Technology team members completing door checks shall take immediate action to correct the identified issue and/or request the vendor to report to the facility and repair the door. Maintenance and Information Technology team members were provided retraining by the Chief Operations Officer on their role to check doors or will be trained prior to completing door checks. Maintenance and Information Technology team members signed an attestation of training and commitment. 6. Further action taken included the purchase of replacement delayed egress crash bar hardware and access control through the vendor on 2/10/2023 by the Director of Information Technology and the purchase of Alarm Mats on 02/08/2023 by the Director of Procurement to serve as a secondary alarm notification of a resident approaching an exit door. The alarm mats were expected to be delivered on 02/14/2023. Mitigation interventions included the above-noted door checks and Maintenance door checks shall continue until doors are certified by the vendor to function as expected. 7. Further action taken to remove the Immediate Jeopardy includes the implementation of unannounced rounding observations on each Neighborhood by leadership team members, including the Manager of Resident Care, Manager of Training and Development, Neighborhood Nurse Managers, Manager of Respiratory Therapy, [NAME] President of Therapy, Manager of Support Services, RN Clinical Supervisors, Director of Medical Social Services, and [NAME] President of Nursing, twice daily beginning on 12/20/2022 to ensure compliance of supervision expectations. Leadership team members document findings on the Neighborhood Supervision Compliance Auditing Tool. Observations were completed twice daily and will continue until replacement of the door hardware, then completed daily for 30 days and at least twice weekly for 12 months to ensure continued compliance. 8. Further action taken on 12/16/2022 included immediate mandatory retraining of all team members on their role and expectations for providing resident supervision while residents were in the community areas to prevent resident elopement. Supervision and Safety Training with Attestation of Commitment was created by the Manager of Training and Development and expectation for completion was communicated via email by the Senior [NAME] President/ Administrator on 12/16/2022 to all team members. All team members, contractors, and students were required to complete the mandatory training prior to the start of their next shift. 23/23 Administrative, 92/93 Nurses, 67/69 CNAs, 27/27 Respiratory Therapists, 30/30 Ancillary Therapists/Resident Enrichment have completed training as of 02/11/2023. Agency team members, if used, will complete retraining on providing supervision. They cannot be sitting at the door and providing supervision simultaneously. Supervision of residents while residents are in the community area prevents any resident elopement. 9. Further action taken on 02/10/2023 to mitigate risk included assigning team members, or select contractors, to provide dedicated supervision and monitoring of residents on all Neighborhoods from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM while residents were present in common areas to prevent resident elopement, accidents, and hazards. 10. Further action was taken to remove Immediate Jeopardy on 02/10/2023 including Mandatory Retraining and Notification of Immediate Jeopardy created by the Manager of Resident Care and implemented for all team members. This training included Expectations for Resident Supervision and an Acknowledgement Attestation of Training and Expectations of Supervision. 09/26 Administrative, 48/90 Nursing, 43/70 CNAs, 02/11 Resident Enrichment Specialists, 13/28 Respiratory Therapists, 01/24 Ancillary Therapists, and 2/4 contractors have completed training as of 02/12/2023 at 9:00 AM. All team members, contractors, and students were required to complete the retraining prior to the start of their next shift. 11. Further action taken on 02/11/2023 included notification of contracted agency by the [NAME] President of Nursing that the individual contractor, who was assigned to Ocean Avenue on 12/14/2022, and left the Neighborhood prior to the end of her shift without notifying members of her departure was no longer permitted to return to the facility. Contractors will complete retraining prior to the start of their shift should they be permitted to provide services. RN Clinical Supervisor on shift shall ensure training was completed prior to the team member, contractor, or student providing care or service. To ensure coverage, the facility continued to ensure each individual had the required training prior to providing care or service. 12. Outcome measures for completion of [Company Initials] Incident Response Attestation and Immediate Jeopardy Notification and Retraining with Acknowledgment Attestation of Training and Expectations for Supervision, will be tabulated weekly by the Manager of Training and Development and reported weekly to the IP/QAPI Specialist for quarterly reporting to the Quality Improvement Committee for review and compliance. Outcome measures from the completion of Neighborhood Supervision Compliance Observation Tools will be tabulated and reported by the [NAME] President of Nursing weekly for 12 months. The [NAME] President of Nursing shall monitor for trends in non-compliance and address concerns with team members when identified. The [NAME] President of Nursing shall report all findings to the IP/QAPI Specialist monthly for 12 months. IP/QAPI Specialist shall report outcomes measures quarterly Quality Improvement Committee for 12 months. The State Survey Agency validated the facility took the following actions: 1. Review of Resident #66's medical record revealed the facility staff brought the resident back into the facility on [DATE]. The resident was assessed to have no injuries. Multiple observations were made of Resident #66 throughout the survey, and the resident was always in line of sight of staff. Resident #66 was observed from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM on 02/11/2023 and from 10:00 AM to 11:20 AM on 02/12/2023, with no concerns identified. Staff provided ongoing supervision, as per the care plan. 2. Review of Resident #66's Progress Notes revealed RN #22 documented 30-minute checks on 12/14/2022 through 12/15/2022. A phone interview with CNA #14 on 02/08/2023 at 6:22 PM revealed the staff did 30-minute checks on Resident #66 from 12/14/2022 through 12/15/2022. An interview with the Administrator on 02/10/2023 at 8:49 AM revealed the resident was placed on 30-minute checks from 12/14/2022 to 12/15/2022. Interview with RN #17 on 02/09/2023 at 5:04 PM revealed she confirmed the safety and whereabouts of all residents on 12/14/2022. She stated all residents were accounted for and were safe. Review of Resident #66's care plan revealed the facility revised the care plan on 12/14/2022 with interventions that included distracting the resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversions (preferred toys), conversation, television, or a book. An interview with the Manager of Resident Care, on 02/12/2023 at 12:49 PM revealed on 02/10/2023, the care plans for 16 residents, who were assessed for elopement/wandering, were updated with interventions. Review of the care plans for Residents #5, #10, #45, #39, #19, #46, #69, #64, #72, #52, #66, #56, #8, #58, #22, and #70, identified by the facility as at risk for elopement/wandering, revealed the facility had revised the care plans with resident-centered interventions to prevent elopement. Observations of Residents #5, #10, #45, #39, #19, #46, #69, #64, #72, #52, #66, #56, #8, #58, #22, and #70 on 02/12/2023 revealed the facility was implementing their care plans. 3. During an interview on 02/09/2023 at 5:14 PM, the VPN confirmed that all other exit doors were secured, the card readers were properly functioning, and alarms were sounding. She stated the Ocean Avenue patio door through which the resident eloped was unlocked and the alarm was not functional at the time of the incident on 12/14/2022 so she ensured a staff member continuously monitored the Ocean Avenue patio door until a vendor arrived on-site on 12/15/2022. On 12/15/2022, the vendor repaired the door, securing it and ensuring the door was working properly. An interview with the Maintenance Director on 02/09/2023 at 10:09 AM revealed the door company came to the facility on [DATE] to assess the exit door and then returned at 8:00 AM on 12/15/2022 to repair the door. 4. Review of Neighborhood Emergency Door Rounding Logs revealed the RN Clinical Supervisors monitored all exit doors every two hours beginning 12/14/2022. Interviews with RN #17 on 02/09/2023 at 5:04 PM and Nursing Supervisor #45 on 02/12/2023 at 12:40 PM revealed they were monitoring all exit doors every two hours to ensure the doors were locked, could not be opened without using a proximity card, alarms sounded when fire egress bars were compressed, doors opened after fire egress bars were compressed for 15-30 seconds, closed completely, and were locked following the checks. Nursing Supervisor #45 indicated she was still checking the doors every two hours and if she found any concerns, she would notify maintenance or administration. 5. Review of Maintenance Door Checks revealed routine door checks were completed twice daily by the maintenance staff or information management staff beginning on 02/10/2023 between 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM and again between 4:00 PM and 10:00 PM. An interview with Maintenance on 02/12/2023 at 12:10 PM revealed since 02/10/2023, the maintenance department had monitored the doors twice daily. 6. A review of purchase invoices revealed the facility purchased delayed egress crash bar hardware and alarm mats. An interview with the Administrator on 02/10/2023 at 8:49 AM revealed the door mats and replacement egress crash bar hardware had been ordered for all exit doors. 7. A review of Neighborhood Supervision Compliance Auditing Tools revealed observation rounds were completed twice daily beginning 12/20/2022 by members of the leadership team. An interview with the Administrator on 02/10/2023 at 8:49 AM revealed leadership continued to do unannounced observations twice daily since 12/20/2022. 8. A review of training documentation dated 12/16/2022 revealed staff received Supervision and Safety Training. During a phone interview with CNA #14 on 02/08/2023 at 6:22 PM, she stated after the incident, she completed an online training about resident safety and staff responsibilities. During a phone interview with CNA #50 on 02/08/2023 at 6:59 PM, she stated she received retraining about resident supervision responsibilities after the incident on 12/14/2022. A phone interview with LPN #16 on 02/08/2023 at 7:23 PM revealed she had an online training after the incident on 12/14/2022. 9. Review of staffing schedules revealed staff were assigned to provide dedicated supervision on all Neighborhoods from 8:00 AM-10:00 PM daily, starting 02/10/2023. An interview with the Administrator on 02/12/2023 at 9:50 AM revealed staff knew that supervisors, along with staff, were to continuously monitor the residents at all times. She indicated staff were aware they were responsible to not leave the residents until someone else was monitoring or supervising them. 10. Review of training documentation dated 02/10/2023 through 02/12/2023 revealed staff were trained on the expectations for resident supervision. A phone interview with Nursing Supervisor #39 on 02/12/2023 at 11:45 AM revealed staff were responsible for the residents and, if there were no CSMs, the staff were responsible for the safety of the residents. She stated staff were responsible for monitoring the doors/residents at all times. A phone interview with CNA #40 on 02/12/2023 at 11:50 AM revealed she received training related to supervision responsibilities and monitoring the doors and residents at all times. A phone interview with RN #41 on 02/12/2023 at 11:55 AM revealed she received training on supervision and monitoring the doors and residents at all times. A phone interview with CNA #42 on 02/12/2023 at 12:10 PM revealed all staff were responsible to keep the residents safe at all times and if there was no CSM then they need to supervise/monitor the residents at all times. During a phone interview with CNA #43 on 02/12/2023 at 12:17 PM, she stated she received training that residents should always be in staff' line of sight while in the common area, and they were to always monitor/supervise all of the residents to make sure the residents were safe. During an interview with CNA #44 on 02/12/2023 at 12:25 PM, she stated the trainings were about how the staff were to protect the residents at all times, and if no CSM was present, the staff would rotate to make sure the residents were kept safe. She stated it was everyone's responsibility to keep the residents safe. During an interview with Nursing Supervisor #45 on 02/12/2023 at 12:40 PM, she stated the trainings were about supervision of the residents to include always having someone monitoring the residents. She indicated it was the staff's responsibility to monitor and supervise the residents. 11. A review of training documentation dated 02/10/2023 through 02/12/2023 revealed contract staff had been retrained to ensure each staff member had the required training prior to providing care and services to the facility's residents. Review of an e-mail, dated 02/11/2023, revealed notification to the contract company that the CSM on duty on 12/14/2022 was no longer allowed to work at the facility. An interview with the Administrator on 02/10/2023 at 8:49 AM revealed the issue with the CSM was addressed with the agency company. 12. Interview with IP/QAPI staff on 02/12/2023 at 9:40 AM, revealed they trained the agency staff that had returned to the facility and the additional staff had been notified they were not to return to work until this training was completed. An interview with Agency CSM #48 on 02/12/2023 at 1:14 PM revealed she received training on her roles and responsibilities as a CSM. She stated if a resident was in a common area, they were to monitor the resident and listen for any alarms. She stated she would keep the residents safe at all times.
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 F0561 (Tag F0561)

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 facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to treat each ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to treat each resident with dignity and respect, and failed to care for each resident in a manner and environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of the resident's quality of life for one (1) of sixteen (16) sampled residents (Resident #102). Resident #102 did not feel well and requested to lie down. The Enrichment Specialist (ES) requested Resident #102 attend an activity which the resident and Clinic Nurse #1 stated he/she did not want to attend. The ES attempted multiple times to get Resident #102 to go to the activity with the resident continuing to refuse. After multiple attempts, the ES informed Resident #102 she was going to report him/her for not attending activities. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Ethical Boundaries, revised June 2022, and reviewed April 2023, revealed ethical boundaries foster appropriate professional relationships which ensure respect for the rights and dignity of others. Continued review revealed ethical boundaries also set limits for safe, acceptable, equitable, and effective behavior by team members in providing care and treatment for recipients. Review of Resident #102's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/16/2021, with diagnoses which included Duchenne or [NAME] Muscular Dystrophy (condition that weakens skeletal and heart muscle that quickly gets worse with time), Anxiety Disorder, and Developmental Disorder. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #102, dated 03/18/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a score of fifteen (15) out of a possible fifteen (15) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the facility's Investigation Report, dated 04/04/2023, revealed a witness statement provided by the Clinic Nurse, on 04/05/2023 at 9:40 AM, which noted the ES was adamant about Resident #102 attending an activity after multiple attempts to explain to the ES he/she did not want to go. Continued review of the witness statement revealed the ES stated, Fuck it. Further review of the witness statement revealed the ES stated she would notify the DON to report Resident #102 for not participating in the activity. Review of the facility's Investigation Report revealed a phone interview conducted by the Infection Preventionist (IP)/Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Specialist and the Administrator, dated 04/04/2023. Per review, the ES reported she was frustrated about the situation due to Resident #102 not wanting to attend the activity. Continued review of the phone interview documentation revealed the ES reported she told Resident #102 she was tired of him/her not doing your activities. Review of the report revealed the ES then told Resident #102, I am going to fucking report you to the DON. Further review revealed the ES stated if Resident #102 did not do his/her activities, I can't do my job. During interview on 05/15/2023 at 4:47 PM, with Resident #102, he/she stated he/she recalled the incident with the ES. Resident #102 stated the ES was upset that he/she did not want to attend an activity. Continued interview revealed the resident had not been feeling well and wanted to lie down. According to Resident #102, the ES used the F-word. However, the resident could not remember the ES's exact statement. Further interview revealed Resident #102 was upset because he/she and the ES had a friend-like relationship before the incident, and he/she did not understand why the ES said that towards him/her. The State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor attempted to contact the ES twice by telephone. However, the attempts were unsuccessful. An attempt on 05/15/2023 at 5:38 PM, revealed an automated message stating, the line was no longer in service. Interview, on 05/16/2023 at 8:44 AM, with Clinic Nurse #1 revealed she witnessed the incident between Resident #102 and the ES. Per interview, she and Resident #102 were returning to his/her room when the ES approached them and the resident was told he/she needed to attend an activity. During continued interview Clinic Nurse #1 stated she informed the ES, that Resident #102 did not feel well and needed to lie down after just returning from the hospital following surgery. Per interview, the ES was adamant about Resident #102 attending the activity after the resident repeatedly told the ES he/she did not want to go. Clinic Nurse #1 stated she heard the ES make the statement, fuck it after the multiple attempts to get the resident to attend the activity. Interview on 05/16/2023 at 8:57 AM, with the IP/QAPI Specialist revealed she received a message from the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding the incident who requested the IP/QAPI assist with the follow-up of the incident. Continued interview revealed she and the Administrator completed a phone interview with the ES on the alleged incident date, 04/04/2023. Per the IP/QAPI Specialist the ES stated Resident #102 was supposed to do the yard sale activity and he/she needed to attend it. Further interview revealed the ES told them she was tired of Resident #102 not doing his/her activities and was going to report him/her to the DON. In addition, the ES reported she was frustrated with the situation due to the amount of work put into the activity that was specific towards Resident #102's wants and/or needs. Interview, on 05/16/2023 at 9:10 AM, with the Social Services Director (SSD), revealed she followed up with Resident #102 regarding the incident with the ES. Per the SSD, Resident #102 reported he/she was upset and felt as if he/she lost the ES as a friend. She stated Resident #102 had not wanted to upset the ES; however, the resident thought the ES was upset by him/her not attending the activity. Further interview revealed the SSD stated the ES received training regarding resident rights and abuse in March of 2023. Interview on 05/16/2023 at 9:34 AM, with the Administrator revealed education and training were provided on resident rights and abuse and completed by the ES on 03/27/2023 prior to the incident on 04/04/2023. Per the Administrator, the incident was reported, and the ES was placed on administrative leave pending the results of the investigation. The Administrator stated after the investigation and discussion with Human Resources (HR), review of the findings revealed actions of the ES did not align with the facility's core values and was a violation of the code of conduct which ultimately led to the termination of the ES. During interview on 05/17/2023 at 3:48 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated at first when she received the information regarding the incident from Resident #102 it was concerning verbal abuse. However, after further investigation Resident #102 had been upset due to his/her close relationship with the ES and not understanding why the ES made the statement with the foul language and acts of frustration. The DON stated she was aware the ES put together the activity for Resident #102 and after multiple attempts to try to get him/her to go, she was frustrated that the resident did not want to attend. She stated there were good intentions on the part of the ES; however, the ES could not make the resident do activities if he/she chose not to.
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure its abuse prohibition policy was implemented, by failing to verify and maintain docume...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure its abuse prohibition policy was implemented, by failing to verify and maintain documentation of screening and training, including criminal record checks, for contract agency employees. This had the potential to affect all residents. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Protecting Residents from Abuse and Neglect, revised October 2022, revealed; Screening 1. (The facility) shall make reasonable inquiries pre-employment/before entering contractual arrangements, and follow-up checks thereafter, and require applicant/team member self-disclosure to ensure that we shall not knowingly employ or enter a contractual relationship with any person or entity who: a. Has been convicted of a felony or any criminal offense including offenses involving neglect, violence, theft, dishonesty, and financial misconduct b. Is listed on any abuse registries c. Is listed as debarred, excluded, or otherwise ineligible for participation in federally funded healthcare programs. During an interview on 02/09/2023 at 12:40 PM, the Infection Preventionist/Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (IP/QAPI) Specialist stated the facility utilized sitters from a staffing agency. During an interview, on 02/09/2023 at 1:05 PM, the Administrator stated the contract company that provided the sitters was responsible for the screening and training of contract/agency employees. She stated the facility did not maintain any evidence on site that the required abuse screening and training was completed for agency staff. During an interview on 02/09/2023 at 5:14 PM, the [NAME] President of Nursing (VPN) stated the agency company was responsible for maintaining the agency staff files and the facility did not have a hard copy of those files. She indicated the facility did not do any spot checks on the agency employees' files.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to: Consistently monitor and document temperatures and sanitizer levels for the dishwasher to en...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to: Consistently monitor and document temperatures and sanitizer levels for the dishwasher to ensure dishes were thoroughly cleaned and sanitized. The facility failed to consistently monitor and document the refrigerator/freezer temperatures to ensure perishable food items were stored at safe temperatures. The facility also failed to consistently monitor and document the temperature of food on the steam table to ensure food was served at safe temperatures and prevent potential food borne illness for residents who received meals from the kitchen. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Dish Machine Temperature Log, copyright 2019, revealed Dishwashing staff will monitor and record dish machine temperatures to assure proper sanitizing of dishes. Further review revealed, 2. Staff will record dish machine temperatures for the wash and rinse cycles at each meal. a. The director of food and nutrition services will spot check this log to assure temperatures are appropriate and staff is correctly monitoring dish machine temperatures. During tour of the facility's kitchen, on 02/07/2023 at 9:45 AM, review of the temperature/sanitizer log for the dish machine (Machine Warewashing Low Temperature Monitoring Form) for December 2022 through January 2023 revealed inconsistent documentation of dishwasher temperatures and/or sanitizer levels on the following dates: 12/07/2022 lunch and dinner: no documentation of a sanitizer check; 12/12/2022 lunch: no documentation of the wash and rinse temperatures and the sanitizer check; 12/13/2022 dinner: no documentation of the wash and rinse temperatures and the sanitizer check; 12/16/2022 lunch: no documentation of the wash and rinse temperatures; 12/20/2022 breakfast: no documentation of the wash and rinse; 12/29/2022 dinner: no documentation of the wash and rinse temperatures and the sanitizer check; 01/16/2023 breakfast, lunch, and dinner: no documentation of the wash and rinse temperatures and the sanitizer check; 01/22/2023 breakfast: no documentation of the wash and rinse temperatures and the sanitizer check; 01/25/2023 lunch: no documentation of the wash and rinse temperatures and the sanitizer check; 01/25/2023 dinner: no documentation of the wash and rinse temperatures and the sanitizer check; 01/26/2023 dinner: no documentation of a sanitizer check; and on 01/31/2023 dinner: no documentation of the wash and rinse temperatures and no documentation of a sanitizer check. During an interview with [NAME] #24 on 02/09/2023 at 12:22 PM, she stated she had received training on documenting the temperatures for the dishwasher. Interview, on 02/09/2023 at 12:26 PM with the Dietary Manager, revealed staff were trained on keeping the logs up to date and accurate. She stated she did not do spot checks on the temperature logs. During an interview with Administrator, on 02/10/2023 at 8:49 AM, she stated she expected dietary staff to follow the regulations and the facility's policy and keep the temperatures logs up to date. 2. Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Temperatures, copyright 2019, revealed The temperatures of all food items will be taken and properly recorded prior to service of each meal. During tour of the kitchen on 02/07/2023 at 9:45 AM, review of the steamtable, Temperature Logs for December 2022 through February 2023 revealed steamtable temperatures were not recorded for the following meals: 12/05/2022, breakfast; 12/18/2022, dinner; 01/22/2023,breakfast, lunch, and dinner; 01/24/2023, breakfast, lunch, and dinner; 01/29/2022, breakfast, lunch, and dinner; and on 02/02/2023: dinner. During an interview on 02/09/2023 at 11:45 AM, [NAME] #21 stated the food temperatures were to be checked before food was placed on the steam tables. The [NAME] stated this would ensure the food was the right temperature to be served to the residents. She stated they had to document the temperatures and if there were any issues, they were to report them to the supervisor. [NAME] #1 stated she did not know why the logs were not completed, but when she worked, she filled them out. During an interview with [NAME] #24, on 02/09/2023 at 12:22 PM, she stated she had received training on documenting the temperatures for the steamtable. She stated food temperatures were to be checked when the food was placed on the steamtable. During an interview with the Dietary Manager on 02/09/2023 at 12:26 PM, she stated staff were trained on their duty of keeping the temperature logs up to date and accurate. She stated steamtable temperatures should be taken when the food was placed on the steamtable. The Dietary Manager stated she did not do spot checks on the logs but she expected staff to keep the log sheets up to date and accurate. During an interview with Administrator on 02/10/2023 at 8:49 AM, she stated she expected dietary staff to follow the regulations and the facility's policy. She stated she expected staff to keep the temperatures logs up to date. 3. During tour of the kitchen, on 02/07/2023 at 9:45 AM, review of the Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature Chart for December 2022 through February 2023 revealed the temperatures were to be checked and recorded three (3) times a day, at 6:00 AM, 10:00 AM, and 5:30 PM. Further review revealed there were no temperatures documented for the following dates and times: 12/01/2022 at 6:00 AM; 12/02/2022 at 6:00 AM; 12/04/2022 at 5:30 PM; 12/09/2022 at 6:00 AM, 10:00 AM, and 5:30 PM; 12/13/2022 at 5:30 PM; 12/21/2022 at 10:00 AM and 5:30 PM; 12/25/2022 at 10:00 AM and 5:30 PM; 12/30/2022 at 6:00 AM, 10:00 AM and 5:30 PM; 01/26/2023 at 10:00 AM and 5:30 PM ; and on 02/01/2023 at 5:30 PM. During an interview on 02/09/2023 at 11:45 AM, [NAME] #21 stated the refrigerator and freezer logs were to be completed three (3) times a day. She stated she did not know if anyone checked to see if the logs were completed. During an interview with [NAME] #24 on 02/09/2023 at 12:22 PM, she stated she had received training on documenting temperatures for the freezers and refrigerators. She stated temperatures for the refrigerator and freezer were to be checked three (3) times a day. During an interview with the Dietary Manager on 02/09/2023 at 12:26 PM, she stated staff were trained on their duty of keeping the temperature logs up to date and accurate. She stated refrigerator and freezer temperatures were to be checked three (3) times a day. The Dietary Manager stated she did not do spot checks on the logs, but she expected staff to keep the log sheets up to date and accurate. During an interview with the Administrator, on 02/10/2023 at 8:49 AM, she stated she expected dietary staff to follow the regulations and the facility's policy and keep the temperatures logs up to date.
Oct 2019 1 deficiency
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, record review, and facility policy review it was determined the facility failed to store food i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review it was determined the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. On initial tour of the kitchen, observations revealed multiple food items not properly dated and/or sealed, boxes of food opened and not covered in a food preparation area, and refrigerated items dated past the 72-hour retention period. In addition, observations revealed expired foods stored in the dry pantry, molded bread stored with the bread supply, and a scoop in a container of thickener. Review of facility policy, Leftover Foods stated all refrigerated leftover foods were used within seventy-two (72) hours or discarded. Leftover cold foods were covered with foil wrap or freezer wrap and each tray or container was dated and identified. Review of the facility policy, Refrigerated Storage, revealed all foods will be properly wrapped and/or stored in sealed containers and dated and labeled. Review of facility policy, Frozen Storage, revealed all frozen foods will be properly wrapped, dated, and labeled. Observation of the reach-in freezer, on 10/27/19 at 10:11 AM, revealed opened, undated boxes/packages of cookies, vegetarian burgers, sealed with a twist tie, with ice formation along the bottom and sides of the burgers; and no items dated or labeled with an opened date. Observation of the reach-in refrigerator, on 10/27/19 at 10:19 AM, revealed a covered, plastic container of liquid labeled beef broth and dated 10/18; a covered, plastic container of liquid labeled chicken broth and dated 10/21; and a covered, plastic, individual container labeled soup for and listed a name, dated 10/21. Observation of the dry food storage pantry, on 10/27/19 at 10:30 AM, revealed a bag of sandwich-sliced bread containing four (4) to six (6) slices. Two (2) of the slices of bread contained a greenish, fuzzy substance growing on it. All bags of bread in the storage area were stamped with good through [DATE], or Good through [DATE]. Three (3) bags of wheat rolls indicated no expiration date. Five (5) pieces of white, sandwich-style bread were wrapped in plastic and not dated. Continued observation of dry goods storage revealed no opened boxes labeled with an opened date. A bag of pasta appeared to have been previously opened, the top tied in knot, with small puncture holes from the pasta throughout the bag, and four inch (4) open gap in the seam. A bag of wide noodles appeared to have been previously opened, tied in knot, and undated. Other bags of pasta, a bag of granola, and a package of drink mix all appeared to have been previously opened, but undated. Further observation of dry goods storage revealed a bottle of red wine vinegar opened, and dated on a white label with 01/18/10, and with a manufacturer's expiration date of 06/04/19. A second bottle of unopened red wine vinegar contained the manufacturer's expiration date of 05/28/19. Other items included an opened container of black pepper dated 05/19/17; a container of opened bread crumbs labeled opened on 06/01/17. Observations of dry goods storage revealed an opened, unsealed bag of twelve inch (12) burritos, dated 09/08; an opened, unsealed bag of twelve inch (12) burritos labeled opened 8/27/19; an opened, undated bag of chocolate chips with no expiration date listed on the bag. Other observations included an opened bag of coconut flakes wrapped in plastic wrap and dated 11/05/18; and a milk crate of bakery decorating items, undated and with no expiration dates, including an opened bottle of chocolate sauce and a bottle of raspberry dessert sauce dated best before 02/24/19. Continued observation of the dry good storage revealed a bottle of unopened, bulk ranch dressing dated 09/12 with no expiration date; an opened box of thickener with the top of the cardboard box cut off and the thickener in an opened, unsealed, and untied plastic bag; and an individual pack of tuna fish with a best by date of 05/12/19. Continued observation of the dry good storage revealed four (4) bags of unopened marshmallows with a best by date of 3/5/19 and a bag of opened marshmallows with the top three-fourths (3/4) wrapped in plastic wrap and labeled opened 6/15. Additionally, loose pieces of shell-shaped chocolate candy in a large box; a box of shell-shaped chocolates with the top of the box opened with the chocolate exposed, with an expiration of 11/30/18; a tin of chocolate rolls containing an opened bag with a best by date of 07/19/19. Observation of the walk-in refrigerator during continued observation of the kitchen revealed a plastic container of banana nut bread puree, covered with plastic wrap, dated 10/16; a jar of sandwich spread without the top secured. Observation of the food preparation area during the continued tour of the kitchen revealed a scoop left in an open container that held the thickener next to the food processor; an opened, undated box of rice mixture was on the bottom shelf of a cart located next to the oven, with the top torn open, exposing the rice. Boxes of dry wheat cereal, cornstarch, and cane sugar were located on the shelf next to the food preparation area, all opened and undated, with their contents exposed. Interview with the Cook, on 10/27/19 at 10:11 AM, revealed staff retained opened, refrigerated items no longer than three (3) days. The [NAME] stated the opened bag of bread should be thrown out, and remarked that she observed something on it. When the surveyor asked the cook about the opened bag of thickener in the dry storage area, she stated bugs could get in there and it's always been done this way. She stated she was not aware of the policy for food storage. Interview with the Director of Support Services (DSS), on 10/27/19 at 11:15 AM, revealed staff looked for mold and moisture each time they removed bread for use. She stated kitchen staff performed rounds daily, checking for expired foods and dating containers they opened; but stated she did not know the policies. She stated anything prepared in the kitchen was stored for a maximum of three (3) days and pre-made items were kept for a maximum of seven (7) days after opening. Staff monitored refrigerated items by the best by or expiration date. The DSS stated staff reviewed food items at least monthly. The DSS acknowledged the facility cared for medically fragile resident and stated anyone could get sick from molded bread or expired or contaminated foods. Interview with the Assistant Dietary Manager (ADM), on 10/30/19 at 08:26 AM, revealed the kitchen's labeling and dating system was a little broken related to new staff. She revealed items should be dated when received and dated when opened. The ADM stated kitchen staff did not document their review for food dating or labeling, or expiration checks. She stated cross-contaminated or expired foods could make a healthy person sick and could be detrimental to the health of the facility's medically fragile residents. Interview with the Administrator, on 10/31/19 at 5:06 PM, revealed he was not aware of concerns regarding labeling and dating of food items.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 25% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 23 points below Kentucky's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 10 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $21,220 in fines. Higher than 94% of Kentucky facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (29/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 29/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Home Of The Innocents's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns HOME OF THE INNOCENTS 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 Home Of The Innocents Staffed?

CMS rates HOME OF THE INNOCENTS's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 25%, compared to the Kentucky average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Home Of The Innocents?

State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at HOME OF THE INNOCENTS during 2019 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 8 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 Home Of The Innocents?

HOME OF THE INNOCENTS is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 76 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LOUISVILLE, Kentucky.

How Does Home Of The Innocents Compare to Other Kentucky Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kentucky, HOME OF THE INNOCENTS's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (25%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Home Of The Innocents?

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

Is Home Of The Innocents Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Home Of The Innocents Stick Around?

Staff at HOME OF THE INNOCENTS tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 25%, the facility is 21 percentage points below the Kentucky average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 14%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Home Of The Innocents Ever Fined?

HOME OF THE INNOCENTS has been fined $21,220 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Kentucky average of $33,291. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Home Of The Innocents on Any Federal Watch List?

HOME OF THE INNOCENTS 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.