Louisville East Post Acute

4200 Browns Lane, Louisville, KY 40220 (502) 459-8900
For profit - Limited Liability company 178 Beds PACS GROUP Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
21/100
#237 of 266 in KY
Last Inspection: July 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Louisville East Post Acute has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's performance. It ranks #237 out of 266 nursing homes in Kentucky, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and #31 out of 38 in Jefferson County, meaning there are very few local options that are worse. While the facility is improving, having reduced issues from 10 in 2024 to 2 in 2025, there are still serious concerns. Staffing is rated poorly at 1 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 49%, which is roughly average for the state. On a positive note, there have been no fines recorded, which suggests some compliance with regulations. However, critical incidents have occurred, including a resident with major neurocognitive impairment who was able to elope from the facility by climbing out of a window, posing a serious safety risk. Additionally, residents have reported dissatisfaction with the food quality, describing it as unappetizing and poorly presented. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility.

Trust Score
F
21/100
In Kentucky
#237/266
Bottom 11%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
10 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
49% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kentucky facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Kentucky. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 10 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Kentucky average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 49%

Near Kentucky avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: PACS GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Aug 2025 2 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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' baselin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' baseline care plan which provided instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care for each resident was implemented for 1 of 5 (Resident (R) 9) sampled residents reviewed for elopement risk. Resident 9, who had major neurocognitive impairment, was care planned to be monitored frequently for his whereabouts, however, on 07/27/2025, the Resident left the facility by removing his bedroom window and climbing through it without staff knowledge/supervision. The Resident walked approximately 1.3 miles, in the dark. The failure to implement R9's baseline care plan to prevent R9's elopement during 81-degree heat with 90-degree heat index created Immediate Jeopardy with the likelihood for serious harm or death.Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/13/2025 and was determined to exist on 07/27/2025 in the areas of 42 CFR S483.25, F689 Free of Accident/Hazards/Supervision/Devices and 42 CFR S 483.21, F656 Develop/Implement Comprehensive Care Plan. Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) was identified at 42 CFR S483.25, F689 Free of Accident/Hazards/Supervision/Devices. The facility was notified of the IJs on 08/13/2025.On 08/13/2025 at 4:00PM, the Director of Nursing, Administrator and the Regional Director of Clinical Services were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and provided a copy of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) IJ Template and was notified that R9's elopement from the facility on 07/27/2025 constituted an IJ.The facility provided an acceptable plan for removal of the IJ on 08/15/2025, alleging removal on 08/04/2025. The State Survey Agency (SSA) survey team validated the IJ was removed on 08/04/2025, prior to the SSA entrance on 08/07/2025, according to the facility's implementation of the plan for removal of the immediate jeopardy. The deficient practice was determined to be past non-compliance. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy, Safety and Supervision of Residents ((C) 2001 MED-PASS, Inc.) revealed the facility used a facility and resident oriented approach to environmental safety. Per review, their systems approach considered hazard identified and individual resident risk factors and adjusted interventions accordingly. Per review, the facility mitigated safety and accident hazards with an individualized, resident-centered approach which included: identifying specific hazards by analyzing assessments and observations, provide targeted interventions, which may include adequate supervision.Review of the facility's policy Wandering and Elopements ((C) 2001 MED-PASS, Inc.) revealed the facility would identify residents at risk for unsafe wandering and elopement and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the lease restrictive environment. Per review, those identified at risk would have identified strategies and interventions included in their plan of care to maintain resident safety. Closed Record review of R9's Face Sheet, revealed the facility admitted R9 into its secure memory loss unit on 07/24/2025 with diagnoses including moderate dementia, cataracts and unilateral hearing loss.Review of R9's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/28/2025 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9/15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Per this MDS, R9 required supervision and/or touch prompts, throughout or intermittently, for indoor ambulation and he displayed wandering behaviors for 1-3 days during the assessment period. Review of R9's baseline care plan initiated on 07/24/2025 revealed the Resident was at risk for elopement. Multiple interventions were assigned; admission to secure memory loss unit, medications as ordered, document/notify physician if behavior interferes with daily function, monitor for environmental hazards - which may increase supervision requirements, check exit/stairwell/door alarms on a routine schedule for operability, monitor whereabouts frequently, redirect as needed, wander alarm (a device, usually placed on resident's ankle which triggers an alarm if exiting doors with companion equipment) checking placement and functionality every shift. Additionally, explain all care before providing to reduce resident tension and promote a comfortable experience, observe for behavior/cognitive status change and notify physician if they occur.Review of a Nursing note dated 07/24/2025 at 4:15 PM revealed R9 was pleasant but confused. Continued review revealed the resident started looking for his keys saying it was time to go. Per review of the note, the resident was placed on a wander alarm to his left ankle.Review of a Nursing note dated 07/24/2025 at 10:12 PM, revealed R9 stated he was ready to go home and wanted his keys. Review of a Nursing note dated 07/26/2025 at 5:00 AM described R9 as increasingly anxious the prior evening, 07/25/2025. R9 stated he was leaving the facility, packed up his personnel belongings in paper bags and approached the exit. Per review of the note, the Resident stayed near the exit door of the unit waiting to leave. However, there was no documentation to support the Resident's care plan was implemented to monitor his whereabouts frequently.Review of a Nursing note dated 07/27/2025 at 4:50 AM revealed R9 eloped and his Power of Attorney (POA) was notified.Review of a Nursing note dated 07/30/2025 at 7:20 PM revealed R9 had become increasingly agitated with staff and was verbally threatening to fight staff if they prevented him from leaving. R9 was transferred to the Veterans Administration hospital for evaluation and treatment. The Resident did not return to the facility. Observation on 08/11/2025, at 1:00 PM traveled by car on the path R9 followed to the church, revealed a heavily wooded primarily residential area, with scattered sidewalks. The streetlights were present, but the tree canopy would limit their effectiveness and there was no active crosswalk. An interview on 08/11/2025 at 3:11 PM with R9's family member revealed she recalled R9 asking for his suitcases one day when she was at the facility. Per the interview, she stated that on the day the resident eloped from the facility, Police Officer (PO) called her when R9 was found, and she drove straight to the location provided. The resident was found at a local church, sitting at a picnic table with all his earthly belongings packed into a couple brown paper bags. She stated the Resident was confused and had told the PO he had driven himself there in his mother's car. During a telephone interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)5 on 08/12/2025 at 8:25AM, she stated R9 got frustrated sometimes because staff could not give him enough attention, adding, he was a talker. She stated sometimes she could redirect him, but his anxiety increased during the part of the evening when CNAs were typically busy putting other residents to bed. CNA5 stated she wished she had had more things to offer R9 so that he could stay independently busy. She went on to say, I offered to get him some cards, but he said he didn't play.Further, CNA5 stated on 08/12/2025 at 8:25 AM, the evening of the elopement, R9 was aggravated on and off. She stated she recalled R9 followed the nurse down the hall talking to him as he passed medications but then R9 refused to take his own medications. CNA5 stated she did not think to talk with her nurse or her supervisor about his behavior. A phone interview with LPN4 on 08/09/2025 at 6:56 PM, revealed he was the nurse caring for R9 on 07/27/2025 when R9 eloped. LPN4 said R9 was courteous but began asking for his keys on his first day and told him, it was time to go home. LPN4 stated he thought the Resident was ‘sundowning' and described R9 as more anxious in the evening than in the day. LPN4 stated ‘I asked him to go to his room, and he ignored me'. LPN4 stated the aids were checking him regularly; however, stated he never contacted Administration to ensure increased supervision for the Resident was provided, as per the Resident's care plan. He stated he would have been dayshift to have made that call. An interview with the Director of Maintenance on 08/11/2025 at 3:11 PM, he stated he was called on 07/27/2025 at 7:00 AM, the morning of the elopement, and he went to the facility. The Director of Maintenance said R9 had broken the window stop, which had been secured with a [NAME] head screw. Further, he stated this allowed R9 to move the lower sash enough to engage the tilt latch and remove the lower sash from the window frame entirely. He stated he was not sure how R9 removed the screws, stating they were not in super tight, or the tension would have split the vinyl, but they were too tight to loosen by hand. He stated R9 had later apologized for breaking the window frame but did not elaborate on how he had dismantled the hardware.An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/12/2025 at 2:35 PM, she stated it was her expectation for nursing staff to utilize the interventions on the resident's plan of care. She further stated safety was first; and staff should increase the resident's supervision without permission or an order, according to their judgement. Further, she stated staff should also inform their supervisor and/or the provider before the end of their shift, so ongoing staffing arrangements could be made. An interview with the Administrator on 08/12/2025 at 2:35 PM revealed it was his expectation that the facility would always have increased resident supervision and one-to-ones (1:1) covered. Per interview, he stated that staffing was not an issue and a supervisor present at all times to pitch in when needed. The facility provided an acceptable plan for the removal of the Immediate Jeopardy on 08/14/2025. The State Survey Agency (SSA) survey team validated the IJ was removed on 08/04/2025 at 2:15 PM according to the facility's implementation of the plan for removal of the immediate jeopardy. The deficient practice was determined to be past non-compliance. The Removal of Immediate Jeopardy/Past Non-compliance was validated with implementation of the following measures:On 07/27/2025 the Facility initiated Emergency Preparedness Plan, and the Administrator, Emergency Contact, and Police were notified. On 07/27/2025 upon return to the facility Resident 9 received a head-to-toe physical and psychosocial assessment with no injury or emotional distress noted. Resident placed one on one supervision. His wander guard placement and functionality were validated. On 07/27/2025 R9's Wandering/Elopement Risk Observation/Assessment, Brief Mental Status Exam (BIMS), Elopement/Wandering Risk Care Plan interventions were all updated. On 07/27/2025 all windows were checked for proper functionality.On 07/28/2025 all exit door armed with the wander guard system was functioning properly.On 07/27/2025 and 07/28/2025 staff assigned to R9 at time of incident received one on one education including but not limited to increased behaviors, exit seeking, notification of supervisor and physician of change of condition, resident care plan and following care plan interventions, and potential need to increase supervision.On 07/28/2025 an audit of all facility resident Elopement and Wandering safety risk was conducted by completion of: Wandering Risk/Observation Assessments, Identification of any additional potentially at-risk residents, Care Plan updates, Verification of Interventions and Inclusion in the Elopement Binders.On 07/28/2025 an Ad Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee (QAPI) met and performed an incident root cause analysis. An updated procedure for all new referrals was established, to ensure Resident functional status, mobility level, goals, and desire for placement are reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). Additionally, the secure unit began to conduct hourly rounding for all new admissions for 72 hours, this supervision will increase to every 15 minutes if residents actively exit seek, express the desire to leave, or has a noted change of condition. The QAPI committee will meet monthly and as needed. On 07/28/2025 the IDT began a daily review of the Elopement Binders and Care Plans will be reviewed for accuracy for individuals at risk for elopement. On 07/27/2025 all windows were sealed shut with adhesive caulk. Daily door checks and weekly window checks conducted for four (4) weeks, then every other week for four (4) weeks and monthly thereafter until compliance is maintained for at least three consecutive months and the QAPI Committee reviews for potential safety concerns for accidents or hazards.From 07/27/2025 through 07/28/2025 staff on the secured unit were educated on recognizing exit seeking behaviors in residents with dementia, appropriate verbal redirection and other non-pharmacological intervention, resident change in condition, notification of supervisor, person-centered care plan, and implementation of appropriate interventions to promote resident safety, identify potential elopement risks, and the process changes for screening, referrals and supervising new admissions. From 07/28/2025 through 08/04/2025 all facility staff were educated recognizing exit seeking behaviors in residents with dementia, appropriate verbal redirection and other non-pharmacological intervention. The facility elopement/wandering policy, and emergency protocol. Facility elopement/wandering policy, and emergency protocol, change of condition, care plan updates, increase behaviors, and supervision were also reviewed.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained free of accident hazards and provide adequate supervision for one (Resident (R) 9) of five sampled residents reviewed for elopement risk. Resident 9, who had major neurocognitive impairment, eloped from the facility on 07/27/2025. Facility safety processes and systems used for supervision failed when the resident left the facility by removing the bedroom window and climbing through it without staff knowledge/supervision. The resident walked approximately 1.3 miles, in the dark. The failure to prevent R9's elopement during 81-degree heat with 90-degree heat index created Immediate Jeopardy with the likelihood for serious harm or death.Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/13/2025 and was determined to exist on 07/27/2025 in the areas of 42 CFR S483.25, F689 Free of Accident/Hazards/Supervision/Devices and 42 CFR S 483.21, F656 Develop/Implement Comprehensive Care Plan. Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) was identified at 42 CFR S483.25, F689 Free of Accident/Hazards/Supervision/Devices. The facility was notified of the IJs on 08/13/2025.On 08/13/2025 at 4:00PM, the Director of Nursing, Administrator and the Regional Director of Clinical Services were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and provided a copy of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) IJ Template and was notified that R9's elopement from the facility on 07/27/2025 constituted an IJ.The facility provided an acceptable plan for removal of the IJ on 08/15/2025, alleging removal on 08/04/2025.The State Survey Agency (SSA) survey team validated the IJ was removed on 08/04/2025, prior to the SSA entrance on 08/07/2025, according to the facility's implementation of the plan for removal of the immediate jeopardy. The deficient practice was determined to be past non-compliance. The findings include:Review of facility policy titled, Emergency Response (Emergency Preparedness Planning and Resource Manual, pages 18-21, undated), revealed the facility defined elopement as, a situation where a resident with impaired decision making ability who was oblivious to his/her own safety needs and therefore at risk for injury outside the confines of the facility had left the facility without the knowledge of staff. Further review revealed the Resident plan of care would identify interventions to reduce the risk of elopement through use of alarms, exit avoidance, visual cues, engagement, distraction, and increased supervision. Closed Record review of R9's Face Sheet, revealed the facility admitted R9 to the secure memory loss unit on 07/24/2025 with diagnoses including moderate dementia, cataracts and unilateral hearing loss. Review of R9's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/28/2025, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9/15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Per this MDS, R9 required supervision and/or touch prompts, throughout or intermittently, for indoor ambulation and he displayed wandering behaviors for 1-3 days during the assessment period. These factors indicated R9 was at a significant risk of potential danger, if outside the facility unsupervised. Review of R9's admission summary, dated [DATE] revealed R9 was a falls risk and would be evaluated by therapy. Additionally, an admission elopement and wandering risk observation/assessment completed the same day, triggered a risk score of 10, moderate risk of elopement., based on R9's risk factors, as follows; independent ambulation, disorientation/confusion, both his hearing and his vision were impaired, psychotropic medication which may cause irritability and/or restlessness.Review of R9's baseline care plan initiated on 07/24/2025 revealed the Resident was at risk for elopement. Multiple interventions were assigned; admission to secure memory loss unit, medications as ordered, document/notify physician if behavior interferes with daily function, monitor for environmental hazards - which may increase supervision requirements, check exit/stairwell/door alarms on a routine schedule for operability, monitor whereabouts frequently, redirect as needed, wander alarm (a device, usually placed on resident's ankle which triggers an alarm if exiting doors with companion equipment) checking placement and functionality every shift. Additionally, explain all care before providing to reduce resident tension and promote a comfortable experience, observe for behavior/cognitive status change and notify physician if they occur.Review of R9's initial skilled nursing assessment dated [DATE] entered by Advanced Practice Nurse Practitioner (APRN) revealed R9 was found wandering the streets, unable to identify where he lived on 07/14/2025. He was hospitalized on a Geriatric Psychiatric unit, where he was treated for aggression, depression and dementia. Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] directly from the Geriatric Psychiatric unit. Review of R9's progress notes in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a steady increase in exit seeking behavior and irritability, following his admission up to his elopement: Review of a Nursing Note dated 07/24/2025 and entered at 4:15 PM by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)5, revealed R9 was pleasant but confused. [R9] started looking for his keys saying it was time to go. A wander alarm was placed on the resident's left ankle at that time. Review of a Nursing Note dated 07/24/2025 entered by LPN4 at 10:12 PM, revealed R9 stated he was ready to go home and wanted his keys. Review of a Nursing Note entered by LPN4 dated 07/26/2025 entered at 5:00 AM described R9 as increasingly anxious the prior evening 07/25/2025. R9 stated he was leaving the facility, packed up his personnel belongings in paper bags and approached the exit. Further review of the Nursing Note revealed the Resident stayed near the exit door of the unit waiting to leave. Review of a Nursing Note dated 07/27/2025 at 4:50 AM revealed LPN4 entered R9 eloped, and his Power of Attorney (POA) was notified. Review of the facility's Initial Report, dated 07/27/2025 and signed by the Administrator, revealed R9 exited the facility without staff's knowledge or supervision on 07/27/2025, sometime after 2:40 AM. Staff noted R9's absence at approximately 4:00AM, when staff entered his room and discovered the window was removed, placed by the bathroom door and the screen was on the ground outside the facility. Notifications were completed appropriately. At 6:40 AM R9 was found by the police at a nearby park sitting at a picnic table and he returned to the facility with the Administrator and R9's sister, arriving at 7:15 AM. Resident 9 had no injuries; his wander alarm was intact and functional, and he was placed on one-to-one supervision. Review of the form, Division of Health Care, Long-term Care Facility - Self-Reported Incident Form, Final Reports/5 Day Follow-Up, (5-Day FU report), dated 08/01/2025 and signed by the Administrator, revealed that all staff members working on the secure memory loss unit were interviewed following the incident. The form indicated no one saw R9 exit the building. Further review of the 5-Day FU Report revealed staff discovered R9's absence during their 4:00 AM rounds. The last round was done between 2:30 AM and 2:40 AM, during which R9 was in bed with his eyes closed. Further review revealed R9 expressed he had wanted to go for a walk, clear his head and get some peace and quiet. Resident 9 also told the Administrator he was upset and frustrated with his sister. Review of the map attached to the 5-Day FU report revealed R9 had walked 1.3 miles to a nearby church. Observation on 08/11/2025, at 1:00 PM traveled by car on the path R9 followed to the church, revealed a heavily wooded primarily residential area, with scattered sidewalks. The streetlights were present, but the tree canopy would limit their effectiveness and there was no active crosswalk. According to the National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOWData revealed the low temperature for July 27, 2025, occurred in the early morning when R9 was walking, was 81 degrees with a heat index of 90. An interview on 08/11/2025 at 3:11 PM with R9's family member, revealed R9 did not want to stay [at the facility] and voiced he wanted to go home. She stated the Resident slept in his room most of the time; and R9 would communicate with the staff but never with other residents, unless they came in his room. Per the interview, she stated the day the resident eloped from the facility, LPN4 called her at 4:00 AM, on 07/27/2025 and reported the resident was gone. R9's family member stated she went to the facility and noticed the resident's window, in his room, did not appear to be broken. She said she assumed it must have been easy to open, adding, the resident did not normally mess with things like that. R9's family member stated she spoke to the police and the Administrator, then she went to look for R9. Later in the morning, the police called and stated the resident was found at a local church. She went to the church immediately. Per the interview, she stated R9 refused to get in the car with her but willingly returned to the facility with the Administrator in his car, arriving at 7:15 AM.Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 on 08/08/2025 at 3:40 PM revealed she had worked for the facility for over 15 years, and the secured memory care unit had been her home unit for seven years. She stated she remembered admitting R9 and stated as soon as she saw him, she was concerned how the unit would handle him. She described him as agile for his age, jumping down from the transport stretcher. She also stated he did not fit in with the other residents on the unit, they had advanced dementia. She also stated the report from the transferring hospital indicated he had recently wandered from his home and was picked up by the Crisis Intervention Team (a specialized police team trained to work with individuals with mental illness). She stated she had learned R9's sister was trying to get him somewhere safe and had motioned for emergency guardianship. LPN1 stated R9 initially presented he ‘had it all together' but when she spent some time with him his memory loss started to show. During a telephone interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)5 on 08/12/2025 at 8:25 AM, she stated she had worked 6:00PM to 6:00 AM 'nightshift' on 07/26/2025, the day of R9's elopement. She further stated R9 was 'her resident' that night. CNA5 stated she 'rounded on him' between 12:30 AM and 1:00 AM and he had struggled to get to sleep. Resident 9 wanted to know when his sister would be coming in to pick him up and ‘I told him I didn't know'. I got him a snack and a cold drink. We talked awhile and R9 settled down. She reported, upon returning to his room between 2:20 AM and 2:30 AM, her two-hour rounds, R9 appeared to be asleep. She remembered his blue jeans folded on his bedside table and his shoes next to the bed. She further explained CNAs did not document patient (resident) rounds. She stated when it was about time for her next round, she heard a code called overhead. She stated she did a headcount on the front half of her hallway and then searched all the rooms and bathrooms for R9. A phone interview with LPN4 on 08/09/2025 at 6:56 PM, revealed he was the nurse caring for R9 on 07/27/2025 when he eloped. LPN4 had cared for R9 frequently including the day of his admission, 07/24/2025. Per the interview, LPN4 stated he thought R9 was ‘sundowning' and described R9 as more anxious in the evening than in the day. LPN4 relayed on his next shift 07/25/2025 R9 packed up his stuff in paper bags and said he was ready to go. He stated R9 then went to the exit doors and waited there to leave. LPN4 stated R9 finally went to bed around 9:00 PM. He further stated, after the other Residents went to bed, R9 was still wandering around the unit. LPN4 stated ‘I asked him to go to his room, and he ignored me'. LPN4 stated nurses rounded once a shift and he thought the aids rounded more but not sure how frequently. LPN4 said he knew R9 was gone when he saw the windowpane in the frame next to the restroom and the screen outside. LPN4 stated he did not know how the resident got the window apart. Further, he stated he alerted the CNAs, called the police, R9's sister and the Administrator. An interview with the Director of Maintenance on 08/11/2025 at 3:11 PM, he stated he was called on 07/27/2025 at 7:00 AM, the morning of the elopement, and he came straight in. The Director of Maintenance stated that when he entered R9's room, he noted a staff person stationed at the window to ensure resident safety. The staff monitor remained until the window was repaired and secure. The Director of Maintenance said R9 had broken the window stop, which had been secured with a [NAME] head screw. Further, he stated this allowed the Resident to move the lower sash enough to engage the tilt latch and remove the lower sash from the window frame entirely. He stated he was not sure how R9 removed the screws, stating they were not in super tight, or the tension would have split the vinyl, but they were too tight to loosen by hand. He stated R9 had later apologized for breaking the window frame but did not elaborate on how he had dismantled the hardware.An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator, on 08/12/2025 at 2:35 PM, revealed the DON stated she learned about R9's elopement while on vacation. She stated secure memory loss unit staff were trained on hire and annually on the care of residents with Dementia and the staff who cared for R9 the day he eloped were 'well-seasoned,' long term employees. During the initial interview with the Administrator, on 08/07/2025 at 1:30 PM, he stated the elopement was a 'one off', R9 was an inappropriate admission for the secured memory care unit. He stated, R9 represented 0.0001% the residents on the secure memory care unit, and no other resident could have dissembled the window or crawled through it. He further stated the facility's Director of Maintenance came in immediately following the elopement and assessed all facility windows for similar issues and found none. Per the interview, he stated that following a team discussion, the Director of Maintenance sealed all the windows shut with adhesive silicone to ensure resident safety. The Administrator relayed in continued interview, on 08/12/2025 at 2:35 PM, the facility's newly created memory care unit admission's process, staff education, coupled with the daily elopement risk review was in place to prevent any future elopement. The facility provided an acceptable plan for the removal of the Immediate Jeopardy on 08/14/2025. The State Survey Agency (SSA) survey team validated the IJ was removed on 08/04/2025 at 2:15 PM according to the facility's implementation of the plan for removal of the immediate jeopardy. The deficient practice was determined to be past non-compliance. The Removal of Immediate Jeopardy/Past Non-compliance was validated with implementation of the following measures:On 07/27/2025 the Facility initiated Emergency Preparedness Plan, and the Administrator, Emergency Contact, and Police were notified. On 07/27/2025 upon return to the facility Resident 9 received a head-to-toe physical and psychosocial assessment with no injury or emotional distress noted. Resident placed one on one supervision. His wander guard placement and functionality were validated. On 07/27/2025 R9's Wandering/Elopement Risk Observation/Assessment, Brief Mental Status Exam (BIMS), Elopement/Wandering Risk Care Plan interventions were all updated. On 07/27/2025 all windows were checked for proper functionality.On 07/28/2025 all exit door armed with the wander guard system was functioning properly.On 07/27/2025 and 07/28/2025 staff assigned to R9 at time of incident received one on one education including but not limited to increased behaviors, exit seeking, notification of supervisor and physician of change of condition, resident care plan and following care plan interventions, and potential need to increase supervision.On 07/28/2025 an audit of all facility resident Elopement and Wandering safety risk was conducted by completion of: Wandering Risk/Observation Assessments, Identification of any additional potentially at-risk residents, Care Plan updates, Verification of Interventions and Inclusion in the Elopement Binders.On 07/28/2025 an Ad Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee (QAPI) met and performed an incident root cause analysis. An updated procedure for all new referrals was established, to ensure Resident functional status, mobility level, goals, and desire for placement are reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). Additionally, the secure unit began to conduct hourly rounding for all new admissions for 72 hours, this supervision will increase to every 15 minutes if residents actively exit seek, express the desire to leave, or has a noted change of condition. The QAPI committee will meet monthly and as needed. On 07/28/2025 the IDT began a daily review of the Elopement Binders and Care Plans will be reviewed for accuracy for individuals at risk for elopement. On 07/27/2025 all windows were sealed shut with adhesive caulk. Daily door checks and weekly window checks conducted for four (4) weeks, then every other week for four (4) weeks and monthly thereafter until compliance is maintained for at least three consecutive months and the QAPI Committee reviews for potential safety concerns for accidents or hazards.From 07/27/2025 through 07/28/2025 staff on the secured unit were educated on recognizing exit seeking behaviors in residents with dementia, appropriate verbal redirection and other non-pharmacological intervention, resident change in condition, notification of supervisor, person-centered care plan, and implementation of appropriate interventions to promote resident safety, identify potential elopement risks, and the process changes for screening, referrals and supervising new admissions. From 07/28/2025 through 08/04/2025 all facility staff were educated recognizing exit seeking behaviors in residents with dementia, appropriate verbal redirection and other non-pharmacological intervention. The facility elopement/wandering policy, and emergency protocol. Facility elopement/wandering policy, and emergency protocol, change of condition, care plan updates, increase behaviors, and supervision were also reviewed.
Jul 2024 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to issue a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) that included all required appeal contact information for three (3) of three (3) residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to issue a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) that included all required appeal contact information for three (3) of three (3) residents reviewed for beneficiary notices out of a total sample of 39 residents, Resident (R)13, R58, and R219. Additionally, the facility failed to correctly complete the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) for R13 and R58, informing residents or their responsible party of information related to a Medicare A; and the facility failed to follow the appropriate instructions for the SNFABN form. This failure could lead to residents or their responsible party not understanding their options when skilled care was ending. Findings include: Review of the Form Instructions Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (ABN), provided by the facility when the SNFABN instructions were requested, revealed .The ABN is a notice given to beneficiaries in original Medicare to convey that Medicare is not likely to provide coverage in a specific case. Notifiers include: Physicians, providers (including institutional providers like outpatient hospitals), . Medicare inpatient hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) use other approved notices for Part A items and services when notice is required in order to shift potential financial liability to the beneficiary. 1. Review of the facility completed SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review form, revealed R13 began a Medicare A skilled stay on 02/05/2024 and received skilled therapy and skilled nursing. Her last covered day (LCD) was 02/16/2024. The facility issued her a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC). She was also issued a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN). Both notices were issued on 02/14/2024. R13 signed both notices for herself. During an interview with R13, on 07/19/2024 at 1:30 PM, it was confirmed she signed the forms and was remaining in the building for long-term care. Review of R13's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/12/2024, located in the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the MDS tab, revealed the facility assessed R13 as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Review of the NOMNC, provided by the facility, revealed it did not include the teletypewriters (TTY), a phone system that allows deaf and hard of hearing to use the phone as directed, in the appeal information. Review of the SNFABN, revealed the form did not include R13's name and patient identification number at the top of the form. On the form under, Items or Services: Room and Board, the facility entered the semi-private cost for room board and indicated the amount was $250 per day, Therapy- PT OT [physical therapy and occupation therapy] $75 per unit, & ST [speech therapy] $150 per unit. The Because information was not completed. In the options, the facility had two (2) boxes for choices. The first option stated, Yes, I want to receive these items or services. I understand that Medicare will not decide whether to pay unless I receive these items or services. I understand you will notify me when my claim is submitted and that you will not bill me for these items or services until Medicare makes its decision. If Medicare denies payment, I agree to be personally and fully responsible for payment. That is, I will pay personally, either out of pocket or through any other insurance that I have. I understand that I can appeal Medicare's decision. The second option stated, No. I will not receive these items or services. I understand that you will not be able to submit a claim to Medicare and that I will not be able to appeal your opinion that Medicare won't pay. I understand that, in the case of any physician-ordered items or services, should notify my doctor who ordered them and that I did not receive them. R13 marked option two (2), indicating she did not want to receive any skilled nursing or therapy. The facility used instructions for completing an ABN form instead of the SNFABN form and failed to address why services would not be covered. 2. Review of the facility completed SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review form, revealed R58's Medicare A skilled stay started on 02/05/2024. R58 received skilled therapy and skilled nursing. Her LCD was 04/05/2024. The facility issued her a NOMNC and SNFABN. Review of the facility provided NOMNC, revealed it did not include the TTY (teletypewriters), a phone system that allows deaf and hard of hearing individuals to use the phone. Review of the facility provided SNFABN form, revealed it did not include R58's name and patient identification number at the top of the form. On the form under Items or Services: Room and Board, the facility entered the semi-private cost for room board and indicated the amount was $250 per day, Therapy PT OT (physical therapy and occupation therapy) $75 per unit & ST (speech therapy) $150 per unit. The Because information was not completed. In the options the facility had two (2) boxes for choices. The first option stated, Yes, I want to receive these items or services. I understand that Medicare will not decide whether to pay unless I receive these items or services. I understand you will notify me when my claim is submitted and that you will not bill me for these items or services until Medicare makes its decision. If Medicare denies payment, I agree to be personally and fully responsible for payment. That is, I will pay personally, either out of pocket or through any other insurance that I have. I understand that I can appeal Medicare's decision. The second option stated, No. I will not receive these items or services. I understand that you will not be able to submit a claim to Medicare and that I will not be able to appeal your opinion that Medicare won't pay. I understand that, in the case of any physician-ordered items or services, should notify my doctor who ordered them and that I did not receive them. R58 marked option two (2), indicating she did not want to receive any skilled nursing or therapy. The facility used instructions for completing an ABN form instead of the SNFABN form and failed to address why services would not be covered. Review of R58's Part A Discharge MDS with an ARD of 05/05/2024, located in the resident's EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a BIMS score of seven (7) out of 15, indicating she was severely cognitively impaired. Review of the EMR contained a Face Sheet located in the Profile tab which indicated R58 had a power of attorney (POA.) On 07/19/2024, two (2) attempts were made to reach the resident's niece, but were unsuccessful. 3. Review of R219's EMR admission Note, revealed the facility originally admitted the resident on 03/01/2024 for therapy. Her LCD for Medicare was 03/29/2024. R219 planned to return home with one of her children. Review of R19's NOMNC did not include the TTY number. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 1:57 PM, the Business Office Manager (BOM) revealed she created the form for the social workers to issue to residents. The BOM was not aware the TTY number was required to be on the NOMNC and the SNFABN was to indicate why the facility did not believe Medicare would continue to pay. The BOM was not aware the ABN instructions they followed were not the same as the SNFABN instructions. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 3:00 PM, the Administrator revealed the facility followed the instructions for the NOMNC and SNFABN located on Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS.). NOMNC instructions were requested, but not received prior to survey exit.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of R73's undated admission Record, located in the resident's EMR under the Profile tab, revealed the facility admitted...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of R73's undated admission Record, located in the resident's EMR under the Profile tab, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/25/2023 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, gout, vascular dementia, and type 2 diabetes. Review of the care plan, dated 06/17/2024, located under the EMR Care Plan tab, revealed R73 was at risk for complications with urinary system related to obstructive uropathy; which requires indwelling catheter (suprapubic catheter). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 05/29/2024, revealed the facility assessed R73 as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of four (4) out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the MDS, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having an indwelling catheter. Review of the EMR Progress Note, dated 10/22/2023, located under the EMR Progress Notes tab, revealed R73 had a change in condition and was sent out to the hospital for further evaluation. Review of the [Hospital] document, provided by the facility and dated 10/22/2023, revealed R73 was discharged to the facility in stable condition and had a diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection (UTI). Further review of R73's medical record, revealed there was no documented evidence of a transfer notice sent to the resident/resident representative regarding the hospital transfer. 3. Review of R150's undated admission Record, located in the resident's EMR under the Profile tab, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/19/2024 with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Further review revealed the resident was readmitted on [DATE]. Review of R150's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 06/25/2024, located in the resident's EMR under the MDS tab, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a BIMS score of 14 out of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of R150's nurse's Progress Note, dated 06/09/2024 and located in the resident's EMR under the Progress Notes tab, revealed, . Resident c/o [complained of] SOB [shortness of breath], weakness, nausea . 2L [liters] of oxygen, resident O2 [oxygen] continued to decrease, resident also stated she was not feeling any better. NP [Nurse Practitioner] notified and recommended to send resident to hospital. EMS [Emergency Medical Service] was called and resident was transferred . Further review of the Progress Notes. revealed R150 returned to the facility on [DATE]. During an interview, on 07/16/2024 at 12:32 PM, R150 stated she was admitted to the hospital approximately two (2) or three (3) weeks ago. R150 stated she did not receive anything in writing about her hospital transfer or any information regarding her right to return to the facility. During an interview on 07/19/2024 at 1:40 PM, the Business Office Manager (BOM) stated the facility did not send written transfer notices to residents nor their representatives. The BOM stated she was not aware of the requirement to send written notification; however, she stated she was responsible for transfer notices when residents were emergently transferred to the hospital. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 5:29 PM, the Administrator stated he was not aware of the regulatory requirement to send written notice after a resident's emergent transfer to the hospital. Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to issue the resident or their representative a written notification of transfer when the resident was transferred to the hospital for three (3) of five (5) sampled residents reviewed for emergency transfers out of a total sample of 39 residents, Resident (R)73, R124, and R150. The facility failed to have a system in place for sending written notifications to residents and/or their representatives. This failure created the potential for the resident and/or the representative to lack the knowledge of where and why a resident was transferred, and/or how to appeal the transfer, if desired. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Transfer or Discharge, Emergency, revised August 2018, revealed Emergency transfers or discharges may be necessary to protect the health and/or well-being of the resident(s) . 4. Should it become necessary to make an emergency transfer or discharge to a hospital or other related institution, our facility will implement the following procedures: . d. Prepare a transfer form to send with the resident; e. Notify the representative (sponsor) or other family member; . 1. Review of the undated admission Record, located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed the facility admitted R124 on 09/10/2022 with diagnoses to include dementia and a subdural hemorrhage. Review of R124's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 06/12/2023, located in the resident's EMR under the MDS tab, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five (5) out of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of R124's Progress Notes, located in the EMR under the Progress Notes tab, revealed the resident fell on [DATE] and was sent to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation and treatment. R124 returned to the facility on [DATE]. R124's responsible party could not be reached for interview. Further review of R124's medical record, revealed there was no documented evidence of a transfer notice sent to the resident/resident representative regarding the hospital transfer.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive person-cen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan was developed related to falls for one (1) of 39 sampled residents, Resident (R)110. The facility assessed R110 to be at high risk for falls; however, there was no documented evidence a Care Plan was developed in an attempt to prevent falls. This placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs and at an increased risk of sustaining a fall. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person Centered, revised March 2022, revealed A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial, and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident . 1. The interdisciplinary team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident . 3. The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment . 10. When possible, interventions address the underlying source(s) of the problem area(s), not just symptoms or triggers . Review of R110's undated admission Record, located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included muscle weakness, arthritis, morbid obesity, and osteoarthritis of left knee. Review of R110's Nursing Fall Risk Observation/Assessment, dated 03/20/2024 and located in the resident's EMR under the Assessment tab, revealed the facility assessed the resident as at high risk for falls. Review of R110's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/27/2024, located in the resident's EMR under the MDS tab, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a fall prior to admission to the facility. The facility further assessed the resident as dependent on staff for transfers. His walking ability was not assessed due to a medical condition or safety concerns. Continued review of the MDS, specifically the Care Area Assessment (CAA) section, revealed the assessment triggered the care area of Falls and indicated it would be addressed in the resident's care plan. Review of R110's comprehensive Care Plan, located in the resident's EMR under the Care Plan tab, revealed a care plan was not developed to include the problem area of risk for falls with goals and interventions. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 12:01 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed R110's care plan and confirmed the care plan did not address the resident's risk of falls. The DON stated it was her expectation the resident's care plan would have been developed to address and mitigate the resident's risk for falls. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 12:06 PM, the MDS Coordinator (MDSC) stated she was responsible for the development of R110's comprehensive care plan. The MDSC confirmed the care plan did not address the resident's risk of falls. The MDSC stated R110's care plan should have addressed the resident's risk for falls and she was not sure how she omitted this. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 5:29 PM, the Administrator stated it was his expectation R110 would have had a care plan developed to address the resident's risk for falls.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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, the facility failed to provide appropriate services ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide appropriate services to prevent and or treat pressure ulcers for two (2) of four (4) sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers out of a total sample of 39 residents, Resident (R)9 and R267. The facility failed to implement pressure ulcer prevention measures and accurately assess a pressure ulcer for R9. This failure had the potential to contribute to development of new pressure ulcers and/or a lack of wound healing or wound deterioration for R9. Additionally, the facility failed to provide pressure ulcer treatments as ordered for R267. This failure had the potential to contribute to a lack of wound healing or wound deterioration for R267. Findings include: 1. Review of R9's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including morbid obesity, type 2 diabetes with diabetic neuropathy, and muscle weakness. Review of R9's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/26/2024, located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed a score of 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating intact cognition. Per the MDS, R9 did not exhibit behavioral symptoms. R9 required partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility and was at risk for development of pressure ulcers. Per the MDS, R9 did not have an unhealed pressure ulcer. R9 received pressure-reducing devices for his chair and bed and application of ointments/topical medications. A. Heel Lift Boot Review of R9's EMR under the Orders tab, revealed a Physician's order, dated 01/11/2024, for Heel-lift boots to bilateral feet while in bed. Review of R9's Care Plan, revised 07/11/2024 and located in the Care Plan tab of the EMR revealed, Resident is at risk for impaired skin integrity related to diabetes, pain, morbid obesity, and recurring yeast to body folds. History of pressure injury left lateral ankle, stage III - resolved 03/18/2024. Stage III left lateral ankle- 07/08/2024. The approaches included, Heel lift boots bilateral, initiated 01/12/2024. Further review of the Care Plan, revealed Resident has a pressure ulcer to Left lateral ankle and is at risk for further breakdown and/or slow, delayed healing related to cardiovascular disease, decreased mobility, diabetes. During an interview with R9, on 07/16/2024 at 11:29 AM, in his room, the resident stated he had a boot on his left foot, but nothing on his right foot. R9 was observed lying in bed on his back with a large pressure-relieving boot to the left foot and his bare right foot was resting on the mattress. During an observation of R9, on 07/17/2024 at 1:20 PM, he was lying in bed in his room. R9 had a large boot on his left foot and his right foot was bare and resting on the mattress. During an observation, on 07/18/2024 at 1:41 PM, in R9's room, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)12 prepared to complete wound care on R9's left foot while he was lying in bed. LPN12 verified R9 wore a pressure-relieving boot on his left foot and did not have a boot on the right foot. During an interview, on 07/18/2024 at 2:55 PM, LPN12 stated R9 only wore a boot on the left and did not have a boot for the right foot. LPN12 stated she was unaware the order specified boots to be worn on both feet, and stated she would clarify with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) whether he was supposed to wear only the left boot or left and right boots. During an interview, on 07/18/2024 at 3:17 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 4 stated R9 only had a boot for the left foot and did not wear any boot on the right foot. CNA4 stated R9 did not ever refuse to wear the the boot on the left foot and was compliant with care. During an interview, on 07/18/2024 at 5:45 PM, LPN12 stated she had verified with the NP, R9 was to wear boots on both feet, not just the left foot, for pressure ulcer prevention. LPN12 stated she spoke with R9 and he was agreeable to wearing the right boot in addition to the left. B. Wound Assessment Review of the facility Prevention of Pressure Injuries policy, dated October 2023, revealed, Conduct a comprehensive skin assessment upon admission, with each risk assessment, as indicated according to the resident's risk factors, and prior to discharge During the skin. assessment, inspect: . a. Presence of erythema; b. Temperature of skin and soft tissue; and c. Edema . The physician will help identify medical interventions related to wound [prevention and] management. Review of R9's Nursing - Comprehensive Skin Evaluation/Assessment, dated 07/08/2024 and located under the Evaluations tab of the EMR, revealed a pressure ulcer, stage III, to R9's left outer ankle and old pressure area reopened. Review of R9's Skin/Wound Note, dated 07/09/2024 and located in the Progress Notes tab of the EMR, revealed, Resident with area to left lateral ankle (this was a previously opened area). Treatment in place; encouraged to wear heel boots and not to rub on the mattress. Will continue to observe. Review of R9's Nursing - Comprehensive Skin Evaluation/Assessment, dated 07/11/2024 and located in the Evaluations tab of the EMR, revealed R9 did not have any wounds present. Review of R9's Nursing - Comprehensive Skin Evaluation/Assessment, dated 07/15/2024 and located under the Evaluations tab of the EMR, revealed a left outer ankle pressure ulcer, stage III, was present. During an observation of wound care for R9 in his room, on 07/18/2024 at 1:41 PM with LPN12, a small, round wound was observed on the bony part of the outside of the resident's left ankle that appeared scabbed and dry. During an interview, on 07/18/2024 at 2:55 PM, LPN12 stated R9 developed a pressure sore on 07/08/2024 and it was healing well. During a telephone interview, on 07/19/2024 at 1:48 PM, LPN9 stated she had completed the 07/11/2024 skin assessment. LPN9 stated, I must have missed the pressure ulcer on the skin assessment. She further stated the wound most likely was present at that time as, typically, it would not close up and then re-open that quickly. LPN9 stated, I bounce around a lot on different units and depend on the aides to let me know of new issues . I try to do an observation of the skin, but since it's on night shift, they don't want to be bothered . so I can't see their skin . It must have been a mistake on my part. It is hard to know the residents when I'm all over the place . It must not have been told to me in report. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 2:31 PM, Unit Manager (UM) 1 stated it was not acceptable for a nurse to conduct a skin assessment without visualizing the resident's skin. UM1 stated R9's pressure ulcer should have been reflected on his 07/11/2024 skin assessment. UM1 stated the assessments could be done at the beginning of the shift or during rounding to ensure the nurse was able to view the resident's skin. UM1 stated if a resident refused a skin assessment, it should be documented as a refusal rather than documented that there were no wounds present. 2. Review of R267's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the EMR, revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE], re-admitted on [DATE], and discharged from the facility on 08/04/2021. R267's diagnoses included chronic osteomyelitis (bone infection), deep vein thrombosis (blot clot) in the lower extremity, paraplegia, morbid obesity, multiple stage IV pressure ulcers (left heel, sacrum, and left hip), and noncompliance with other medical treatment and regimen. Review of R267's Admit/Re-Admit Screener, dated 06/08/2016 and located in the Evaluations tab of the EMR, revealed he was admitted to the facility with nine (9) pressure ulcers which were located in the following areas: left heel, right heel, scrotum, left hip, left buttock, right hip/buttock, right buttock/coccyx, coccyx bridge, and right coccyx/hip/buttock. Review of R267's Nursing - Admission/re-admission Assessment, dated 05/18/2021 and located in the Evaluations tab of the EMR, revealed chronic wounds to both feet, both heels, the left hip, and the coccyx present upon re-admission from the hospital. Review of R267's quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 05/23/2021, located in the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed a score of 15 out of 15 on the BIMS, indicating intact cognition. Per the MDS, R267 did not exhibit any mood or behavioral symptoms. R 267 was totally dependent on two (2) or more staff for bed mobility and had not transferred out of bed. He required extensive assistance with personal hygiene. Further review of the MDS, revealed R267 had two (2) stage IV pressure ulcers present on admission and surgical wounds. R267 used a pressure-reducing mattress and received pressure ulcer care and surgical wound care including application of dressings and ointments. Review of R267's Care Plan, located in the Care Plan tab of the EMR and last updated 06/18/2021, revealed R267 had wounds to the left heel, left hip, right hip, right ankle, left dorsal foot, left plantar foot, left calf, and left shin. The Care Plan documented R267 was resistant to turn and reposition and refused wound care and treatment at times. The interventions included provision of a pressure-reducing mattress, wound care specialist evaluation and treatment, encourage repositioning every two (2) to three (3) hours, monitor for infection, and provide wound treatments as ordered. Review of R267's Treatment Administration Record [TAR], dated July 2021 and located under the Orders tab of the EMR, revealed the following wound treatments were not documented as completed: A. Left Heel Pressure Ulcer Physician's Orders dated 06/26/2021 through 07/19/2021 revealed: Apply Santyl ointment (used to remove damaged tissue from chronic skin ulcers) and calcium alginate (highly absorptive, non-occlusive dressing made of soft, non-woven calcium alginate fibers), cover with abdominal (ABD) gauze pad and wrap with kerlix (crinkle weave gauze roll) daily. However, there was no documented evidence this treatment was provided on 07/04/2021 and 07/11/2021. B. Right Buttock Wound Physician's Orders dated 05/18/2021 through 07/25/2021 revealed: Apply foam dressing to right buttock daily. However, there was no documented evidence this treatment was provided on 07/04/2021, 07/11/2021, 07/21/2021, and 07/24/2021. C. Right Hip Physician's Orders dated 07/09/2021 revealed: Apply Skin Prep (wipes that form a protective barrier between the skin and adhesives to help preserve skin integrity) daily. However, there was no documented evidence this treatment was provided on 07/11/2021, 07/21/2021, and 07/24/2021. Physician's Orders dated 06/25/21 through 07/08/2021 revealed: Apply calcium alginate and bordered gauze daily. However, there was no documented evidence this treatment was provided on 07/04/2021. D. Left Dorsal Foot Physician's Orders dated 07/09/2021 through 07/25/2021 revealed: Apply skin prep and cover with Hydrocolloid (a waterproof dressing that provides a moist and insulating environment to promote wound healing) every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday However, there was no documented evidence this treatment was provided on 07/21/2021. Physician's Orders dated 07/03/2021 through 07/08/2021 revealed: Apply a collagen sheet and ABD pad and wrap with kerlix every day. However, there was no documented evidence this treatment was provided on 07/04/2021. E. Left Hip Physician's Orders dated 06/25/2021 through 07/25/2021 revealed: Apply and pack with calcium alginate and cover with a border dressing daily. However, there was no documented evidence this treatment was provided on 07/04/2021, 07/11/2021, 07/21/2021, and 07/24/2021. F. Right Ankle Physician's Orders dated 06/25/2021 through 07/08/2021 revealed: Apply calcium alginate and cover with border gauze daily. However, there was no documented evidence this treatment was provided on 07/04/2021. G. Left Calf Physician's Orders dated 07/16/2021 through 07/25/2021 revealed: Apply calcium alginate and cover with dry dressing daily. However, there was no documented evidence this treatment was provided on 07/21/2021 and 07/24/2021. H. Left Plantar Foot Physician's Orders dated 07/09/2021 through 07/25/2021 revealed: Apply calcium alginate and ABD pad, wrap with kerlix every day. However, there was no documented evidence this treatment was provided on 07/11/2021, 07/21/2021, and 07/24/2021. I. Right Buttock Physician's Orders dated 05/18/2021 through 07/25/2021 revealed: Apply foam dressing every day. However, there was no documented evidence this treatment was provided on 07/04/2021, 07/11/2021, 07/21/2021, and 07/24/2021. Review of R267's Progress Notes revealed no documentation on 07/04/2021, 07/11/2021, 07/21/2021, or 07/24/2021 to indicate a reason why the treatments were not provided nor was there documentation to indicate the physician had been notified. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 2:57 PM, LPN10 stated R267 frequently refused care, including turning and repositioning, showers, and wound care. LPN10 stated his wounds would briefly heal, then would deteriorate again due to the resident's noncompliance. LPN10 stated when a resident refused a treatment, the refusal should be documented on the TAR and in a corresponding Progress Note to describe the situation. LPN10 stated the physician should be notified of any refusal of medications or treatments and the notification was typically documented in the Progress Notes. LPN10 stated when the TAR was left blank, it was most likely a refusal from the resident, but there was no way of knowing. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 4:54 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated any refusal should be documented on the TAR using the corresponding numeric code. The DON stated she did not know why the TAR would be left blank, and stated without any documentation, there was no way to know whether the treatments had been done as ordered or refused.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Orders and Receipt Record, revised April 2007, revealed The facility shall...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Orders and Receipt Record, revised April 2007, revealed The facility shall document all medications that it orders and receives . 2. The medication order/receipt record shall contain: a. The prescription number . Review of R717's undated admission Record, located in the resident's EMR under the Profile tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included open wound to right foot and mononeuropathy of right lower limb. Review of R717's nurse's Progress Note, dated 07/09/2024 at 3:50 PM, and located in the resident's EMR under the Progress Notes tab, revealed, Patient arrived via facility transport . Patient currently in room resting . During an interview, on 07/16/2024 at 2:19 PM, R717 stated it took one and a half days to receive her narcotic pain medication after she arrived at the facility. R717 stated at one point her pain level was a 10, on a scale from one (1) to 10, with 10 being the highest pain level. During further interview, on 07/19/2024 at 2:55 PM, R717 stated she did not really start experiencing the pain level of 10 until the day after she was admitted to the facility. R717 stated after she was admitted to the facility and while awaiting her medication to arrive from the pharmacy, she received one (1) tablet of her narcotic pain medication from her supply from the previous facility and a Tylenol. When asked how long she was in pain at level 10, R717 stated, maybe two hours. Review of R717's Physician's Orders, located in the resident's EMR under the Orders tab, revealed an order dated 07/09/2024 for Acetaminophen Tablet 325 milligrams (mg), give two (2) tablets by mouth every four (4) hours as needed. The Physician's Orders also included an order dated 07/09/2024 for Oxycodone-acetaminophen oral tablet 7.5-325 mg., give one (1) to two (2) Tablets by mouth every four (4) hours as needed for pain. Review of R717's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated July 2024 and located in the resident's EMR under the Orders tab, revealed the resident was administered two (2) 325 mg acetaminophen tablets on 07/09/2024 at 10:38 PM. Review of R717's nurse's Progress Note, dated 07/09/2024 at at 10:38 PM, revealed R717 was administered two (2) 325 mg acetaminophen tablets for mild pain. R717 rated her pain at a six (6), on a scale of zero (0) to ten with ten being the highest. Review of R717's nursing Progress Note, dated 07/10/2024 at 12:44 AM, revealed the follow-up pain assessment for the administration of the acetaminophen on 07/09/24 at 10:38 PM was documented as Ineffective. Review of R717's nurse's Progress Note, dated 07/10/2024, at 12:35 PM, revealed . received new order from NP [Nurse Practitioner]-okay to give pain medication from other facility until meds [medication] arrive from pharmacy. Oxycodone 10/325 tablet administered at this time. Review of R717's untitled fax confirmation, revealed the prescription for oxycodone-acetaminophen 10 mg-325 mg tablet was received by the pharmacy on 07/10/2024 at 6:37 PM, more than 26 hours after admission. An interview and review of R717's Control Drug Use Record for oxycodone 10-325 mg, was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 07/19/2024 at 4:25 PM. The Control Drug Use Record revealed one (1) tablet of oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg was signed out on 07/10/2024 at 12:30 PM by Certified Medication Technician (CMT)1. The DON stated the CMT obtained a one-time order from the Nurse Practitioner (NP) to administer R717 a dose of her pain medication she brought with her from the discharging facility. The DON stated this was the first dose of narcotic pain medication R717 received after admission to the facility. During further interview, on 07/19/2024 at 4:25 PM, the DON stated the nurse who admitted R717 put the order in the EMR for oxycodone-acetaminophen on 07/09/2024 at approximately 8:00 PM. The DON stated the pharmacy delivered the medication on 07/10/2024 at 9:13 PM, more than 25 hours later. The DON further stated the reason the medication took so long to be delivered was because the admitting nurse was using the resident's discharge summary from the discharging facility to enter the orders for the medications. The DON explained that even though the order was put in the system, there was no prescription for the pharmacy to use to fill it. The DON further stated when the medication had not arrived on the 07/10/2024 midnight delivery, the nurse called the pharmacy and was told a prescription was needed, so the nurse notified the on-call NP to get a prescription. In continued interview, the DON stated the facility emergency medication system had the oxycodone-acetaminophen medication available and she would have expected the nurse to call the NP or physician to get an order for the medication to be dispensed and administered as ordered. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 5:00 PM, the NP stated the nurse called the on-call nurse practitioner (who was no longer employed by the facility) to obtain a prescription for R717's narcotic pain medication. However, the on-call nurse practitioner failed to follow through and send a prescription into the pharmacy for the medication. The NP stated this failure was on the facility and R717 should not have been without her pain medication. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 5:29 PM, the Administrator stated it was his expectation R717's pain medication would have been obtained timely from the pharmacy. Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were available for administration per Physician's orders for two (2) of 39 sample residents (R74 and R717). These failures placed the residents at risk of harm or discomfort related to missed medication doses. R74 was ordered Eliquis (apixaban, an anticoagulant medication) five (5) milligrams (mg) twice daily for stroke prevention on 03/23/2023. However, there was no documented evidence the resident received the scheduled doses of medication on 05/21/2024 at 8:00 AM, 06/05/2024 at 8:00 PM and 06/19/2024 at 8:00 AM. The Progress Notes on these dates revealed the medication was re-ordered or the medication was unavailable. R717 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] at approximately 3:50 PM, and Physician's Orders on admission included Oxycodone-acetaminophen (narcotic pain medication) oral tablet 7.5-325 mg., give one (1) to two (2) Tablets by mouth every four (4) hours as needed for pain. Per the resident's Control Drug Use Record, and staff interview, R717 did not receive the Oxycodone-acetaminophen medication until 07/10/2024 at 12:30 PM, when staff obtained a one-time order from the Nurse Practitioner (NP) to administer R717 a dose of her pain medication she brought with her from the discharging facility. Findings include: 1. Review of R74's undated admission Record, located under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including congestive heart failure and history of stroke. Review of R74's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/08/2024, located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed she scored 14 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating intact cognition. Per the MDS, R74 did not exhibit any mood or behavioral symptoms. R74 used an anticoagulant medication daily. During an interview, on 07/16/2024 at 10:16 AM, R74 stated she had missed her dose of Eliquis (apixaban, an anticoagulant medication) three (3) times recently. R74 stated she was concerned about missed doses of this important medication negatively affecting her health. Review of R74's Care Plan, dated 05/23/2024, revealed Resident is at risk for bleeding and bruising related to anticoagulant use and documented the approach, Medication as ordered. Review of R74's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated May 2024 and located under the Orders tab of the EMR, revealed a Physician's order, which originated on 03/23/2023, for apixaban, five (5) milligrams (mg) twice daily for stroke prevention. Per the MAR, the drug was not given with the code of Other/See Nurses' Notes, on 05/21/2024 at 8:00 AM. Review of R74's eMar - Medication Administration Note, dated 05/21/2024 and located under the Progress Notes tab of the EMR, revealed, Apixaban Oral Tablet 5 MG . reordered. There was no documentation to indicate the physician was notified or the medication was obtained from the emergency kit. Review of R74's MAR, dated June 2024 and located under the Orders tab of the EMR, revealed the 03/23/2023 order for apixaban, 5 mg, twice daily. Per the MAR, the drug was not given with the code of Other/See Nurses' Notes on 06/05/2024 at 8:00 PM and on 06/19/2024 at 8:00 AM. Review of R74's eMar - Medication Administration Note, dated 06/05/2024 and located under the Progress Notes tab of the EMR, revealed, Apixaban Oral Tablet 5 MG . medication not available. There was no documentation to indicate the physician was notified or the medication was obtained from the emergency kit. Review of R74's eMar - Medication Administration Note, dated 06/19/2024, written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 6, and located under the Progress Notes tab of the EMR, revealed, Apixaban Oral Tablet 5 mg . Medication unavailable. Pharmacy notified. There was no documentation to indicate the physician was notified or the medication was obtained from the emergency kit. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 12:48 PM with LPN6, she stated, on 06/19/2024, she was unable to locate the apixaban for R74 in the medication cart. LPN6 stated typically the nurse would fax a reorder request to the pharmacy when there was a medication supply to last six (6) or seven (7) days. However, she was unable to find evidence the medication had been reordered prior to the medication running out on 06/19/2024. LPN6 stated she did not give R74 the apixaban dose on 06/19/2024, but could not remember if she had notified the resident's physician of the missed dose. LPN6 stated the physician should be notified any time a dose was missed, and this was typically documented in the Progress Notes. LPN6 confirmed there was no Progress Note to indicate she had notified the physician. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 2:15 PM, Unit Manager (UM) 1 stated when a medication could not be found on the medication cart, the nurse should use the medication from the emergency kit, if available. The UM stated apixaban was available in the facility's emergency kit. UM1 stated a medication should be reordered ahead of time so a dose was not missed. UM1 stated she expected the physician to be notified of any missed doses of medications. During a subsequent interview, on 07/19/2024 at 2:53 PM, LPN6 stated she had not obtained the apixaban from the emergency kit on 06/19/2024 for R74, as she did not know what was in the kit at the time. LPN6 stated she first found out about and used the emergency kit yesterday. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 5:10 PM, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated she would expect a missed dose of apixaban to be reported to her, and she was not aware that R74 had recently missed three (3) doses of the medication. The NP stated the facility should not run out of the medication because of automatic refills through the pharmacy and availability in the emergency kit. The NP further stated one (1) missed dose of the medication may not be too detrimental to the resident's health, but more than one (1) missed dose could be dangerous. During an interview on 07/19/2024 at 4:54 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she was surprised to hear the staff documented the Eliquis medication was unavailable as it was available in the emergency kit.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to remove expired hydrogen peroxide and accu-check glucose control solutions from one (1) of two (2) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to remove expired hydrogen peroxide and accu-check glucose control solutions from one (1) of two (2) medication storage rooms. This failure could result in the potential of residents being subject to unsafe or ineffective treatment. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Labeling and Storage, revised 02/2023, revealed .2) The nursing staff is responsible for maintaining medication storage and preparation areas in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner. 3) If the facility has discontinued, outdated or deteriorated medications or biologicals, the dispensing pharmacy is contacted for instructions regarding returning or destroying these items. Observation of the medication room at the nurses' station was conducted on 07/17/24 at 1:47 PM, accompanied by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1. There were two (2) bottles of hydrogen peroxide with an expiration date of 02/2023 found on a shelf within a cabinet. In addition, three (3) boxes of accu-check glucose control solutions with an expiration date of 07/05/2024 were found in a drawer. LPN1 confirmed these items were expired and removed them from the medication room. During an interview, on 07/18/2024 at 1:48 PM, LPN1 stated, the supply person checked the medication rooms daily for expiration dates and stock for reordering. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 11:00 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated the unit manager and pharmacy performed medication cart audits. The ADON stated she would have to check to see how often the audits were performed. The ADON further stated it was also the nurse's responsibility to remove expired medications and biologicals. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 11:38 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, pharmacy checked the medication rooms once a month. Typically, the nursing staff checked the medication carts for expired medications and biologicals. We don't have a designated supply person that does it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, medical record review, review of facility policy and review of the Centers for Disease Control ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, medical record review, review of facility policy and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The following failures could promote the spread of multi drug resistant organisms (MDROs) throughout the facility: The facility failed to ensure staff wore appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) when providing care, Resident (R) 129. Additionally, he facility failed to ensure staff cleaned and disinfected patient equipment after use for one (1) of eight (8) residents reviewed for infection control, R139. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure staff followed hand hygiene practices during wound care for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, R9. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Isolation - Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions, revised 09/2022, revealed the three types of transmission-based precautions are contact, droplet and airborne. The facility did not submit any policies related specifically to EBP. Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website https://www.cdc.gov/long-term-care-facilities/hcp/prevent-mdro/PPE.html, titled, Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multi-drug resistant Organisms (MDROs), updated: 04/02/2024 revealed, Enhanced Barrier Precautions expand the use of PPE and refer to the use of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of MDROs to staff hands and clothing. MDROs may be indirectly transferred from resident-to-resident during these high-contact care activities. Nursing home residents with wounds and indwelling medical devices are at especially high risk of both acquisition of and colonization with MDROs. The use of gown and gloves for high-contact resident care activities is indicated, when Contact Precautions do not otherwise apply, for nursing home residents with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices regardless of MDRO colonization as well as for residents with MDRO infection or colonization. Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring gown and glove use for Enhanced Barrier Precautions include: -Dressing -Bathing/showering -Transferring -Providing hygiene -Changing linens -Changing briefs or assisting with toileting -Device care or use: central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator -Wound care: any skin opening requiring a dressing . Because Enhanced Barrier Precautions do not impose the same activity and room placement restrictions as Contact Precautions, they are intended to be in place for the duration of a resident's stay in the facility or until resolution of the wound or discontinuation of the indwelling medical device that placed them at higher risk. 1. Review of R129's admission Record under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an admission date of 05/02/2023. The admission Record included a diagnosis of anoxic brain damage. Review of R129's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/07/2024, located under the EMR MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Observation of R129's room, on 07/17/2024 at 2:15 PM, revealed signage on the door frame stating, STOP Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP); however, there was no isolation cart outside the doorway. Observation of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4 providing a wound care treatment to R129's left foot on 07/17/2024 at 2:20 PM, revealed LPN4 wore gloves, but no gown during patient care. During an interview on 07/17/2024 at 2:25 PM, R129 stated, All the staff use hand sanitizer and wash their hands. They always wear gloves, but no they don't wear a gown. During an interview on 07/18/2024 at 10:25 AM, LPN4 stated, I don't know what I did wrong with R129's treatment . I have had EBP training. I should have worn a gown maybe. My last training on EBP was this past February. I'm not sure what type of resident I would need to wear a gown with, except for the contact precaution residents. But I will find out and let you know. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 11:02 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated, I'm also the Infection Control Preventionist for the facility. Well, I do training often and every day at this point. I have a running list of all the residents that are on precautions. The ADON further stated she updated the list daily during morning meeting and went through the list with every unit manager, MDS nurse, ADON, Director of Nursing (DON) and the dietician. Per interview, they went through every new order and checked for whatever was urgent or whoever needed to be on precautions. She stated those rooms had a magnetic sign placed on the door and a PPE cart was to be placed outside of the doorway. In further interview, she stated EBP was still new, and the facility had to learn about it quickly, but the goal to get into the habit of using EBP precautions. The ADON further stated, My expectation is staff use EBP for residents with wounds, foley catheters, central line, G-tubes [gastronomy tubes] and any recent history of MDRO. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 11:39 AM, the DON stated, It's so new. We're still learning. At first, we thought it was just ostomies, but now we've learned the staff need to gown up with direct contact with residents that also have open wounds, foley catheter, G-tubes, an IV [intravenous line], and with a history of an MRDO. We've already began educating our staff on EBP, since this has been brought to our attention this week. 2. Review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Items and Equipment, revised 09/2022, revealed resident-care equipment, including reusable items and durable medical equipment will be cleaned and disinfected according to current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for disinfection and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. Non-critical items are those that come in contact with intact skin, but not mucous membranes. Non-critical resident-care items include bedpans, blood pressure cuffs, crutches, and computers. Non-critical items require cleaning followed by either low- or intermediate-level disinfection following manufacturers' instructions. Disinfection is performed with an EPA-registered disinfectant labeled for use in healthcare settings. Low-level disinfection is defined as the destruction of all vegetative bacteria (except tubercle bacilli) and most viruses, some fungi, but not bacterial spores . Low-level disinfection is generally appropriate for most non-critical equipment. Review of the CDC Disinfection and Sterilization Guideline. on page 3 of 45, under 3.c. revealed: Perform low-level disinfection (noncritical items; will come in contact with intact skin) for noncritical patient-care surfaces (e.g., bedrails, over-the-bed table) and equipment (e.g., blood pressure cuff) that touch intact skin. 4.c. Ensure that, at a minimum, noncritical patient-care devices are disinfected when visibly soiled and on a regular basis (such as after use on each patient or once daily or once weekly). Review of R139's admission Record in the Profile tab of the EMR, revealed an admission date of 05/23/2023. The admission Record stated diagnoses including chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure and chronic kidney disease, stage 3. Review of R139's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/28/2024 and located under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. During observation on 07/19/2024 at 10:20 AM, R139 was sitting in a wheelchair outside of his doorway. LPN5 was observed using a blood pressure wrist cuff to take the resident's blood pressure. LPN5 then removed wrist cuff, wrote down the blood pressure reading on a sheet of white paper, and then placed the wrist cuff down on the same sheet of white paper on top of the medication cart. LPN5 then administered R139 his medications, locked the medication cart, and walked away. LPN5 returned to her medication cart at 10:41 AM and opened her laptop. During an interview on 07/19/2024 at 10:42 AM, LPN5 stated, I like to bring my own equipment. Once I'm done, I get it sanitized. I have my own special alcohol because this is my cuff. The last time I used the wipe here, it made the sensor not read. So this is a new cuff. I clean it after each use, but R139 was my last one because he doesn't like to take medicine. I won't use this one again until I clean it again. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 11:22 AM, the ADON/Infection Control Preventionist stated, If staff use their own equipment, I still expect staff to clean all the equipment. Staff are still expected to clean before and after they use them. The ADON/Infection Control Preventionist further stated staff should use the micro-kill disinfectant wipes in their medication carts to disinfect equipment. During an interview, on 07/19/24 at 11:47 AM, the DON stated, Staff are expected to disinfect patient equipment after using and in between. If they bring their own equipment, I still expect them to disinfect after each use. She further stated staff should use the disinfectant wipes to disinfect equipment. 3. Review of the facility's Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy, dated October 2023 and provided by the facility, revealed, Hand hygiene is indicated . immediately after glove removal. Review of R9's admission Record located under the Profile tab of the EMR, revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including morbid obesity, type 2 diabetes with diabetic neuropathy, and muscle weakness. Review of R9's annual MDS assessment with an ARD of 06/26/2024, under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed he scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS, indicating intact cognition. R9 was assessed as not exhibiting behavioral symptoms. Per the MDS, R9 required partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility and was at risk for development of pressure ulcers. R9 currently did not have an unhealed pressure ulcer; and he received pressure-reducing devices for his chair and bed and application of ointments/topical medications. Review of R9's Nursing - Comprehensive Skin Evaluation/Assessment, dated 07/08/2024 and located under the Evaluations tab of the EMR, revealed a pressure ulcer, stage III, to R9's left outer ankle which was documented as, old pressure area reopened. Review of R9's EMR under the Orders tab, revealed a Physician's order, which originated on 07/16/2024, to cleanse the left, lateral ankle wound with wound cleanser, pat dry, and wipe with Skin Prep (wipes that form a protective barrier on the skin to help preserve skin integrity). During an observation, on 07/18/2024 at 1:41 PM, in R9's room, LPN12 completed wound care on R9's left foot while he was lying in bed. She donned (put on) a gown and washed her hands, then donned gloves. LPN12 then cleaned the wound with wound cleanser, removed her gloves, and without performing hand hygiene, donned new gloves and applied the Skin Prep to the wound. LPN12 then discarded her gown and gloves and washed her hands. During an interview, on 07/18/2024 at 2:55 PM, LPN12 stated she had not sanitized or washed her hands after removing her dirty gloves and before donning a clean pair of gloves to apply the Skin Prep. LPN12 stated she typically would use hand sanitizer before donning a clean pair of gloves; however, the sanitizer was in her pocket, and she could not reach it because of the gown she was wearing. During an interview, on 07/19/2024 at 2:31 PM, Unit Manager (UM) 1 stated the nurse should have performed hand hygiene after removing the dirty gloves, and before donning the clean pair of gloves to apply the Skin Prep to R9's wound. During an interview on 07/19/2024 at 4:54 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) verified her expectation was for staff to perform hand hygiene using hand sanitizer after doffing gloves, before donning a new pair of gloves.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to serve meals that were palatable and attractive. Interviews with Residents (R)13, R26, R74, R81, R86, revealed co...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to serve meals that were palatable and attractive. Interviews with Residents (R)13, R26, R74, R81, R86, revealed concerns related to the foods not being palatable, or attractive with foods running together on the plate, causing the food to be watery and sloppy. Additionally, during the Group Interview, conducted by the State Survey Agency, R22, R12, and R46 all stated the food was not appetizing and did not taste good, partly because the foods were overcooked and watery and plated in a manner in which fluids from one food would run into the others. Furthermore, during an observation of tray line during lunch meal service in the kitchen, on 07/18/2024 beginning at 11:06 AM, Cook1 served a chicken leg and thigh, a scoop of macaroni and cheese, and a scoop of green beans all on the same plate for all diet types. Visible liquid spread over the plates when the green beans were added. Moreover, during an observation of tray line during the dinner meal service in the kitchen, on 07/18/2024 at 5:18 PM, Cook2 served red beans and sausage in gravy and boiled greens both on the same plate without using bowls. Visible liquids from the foods were observed running on the plates. In addition, observation of a test tray with the Dietary Manager (DM), on 07/18/2024 at 5:45 PM, in the 300/400 Hall, revealed the plate of greens and red beans and sausage had visible liquid running on the plate. The food on the plate appeared soupy and the juices from the foods were running together, making the meal appear unappetizing. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Enhancing the Dining Experience through Garnishing, dated 2018, revealed, It is important to remember that a guest eats with their eyes first . Elements of Good Table and Plate Presentation . Complimentary food combinations with attractive arrangements on the plate . [and] using separate dishes to hold food with liquid. 1. An interview was conducted, on 07/16/2024 at 10:16 AM, with R74, who was assessed per the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/08/2024, as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 indicating intact cognition. R74 stated the food was terrible and bland and all the foods ran together on the plate. R74 further stated this had always been a problem and though it has been addressed with staff, nothing had changed. 2. An interview was conducted on 07/16/2024 at 10:46 AM with R81, who was assessed per the quarterly MDS assessment, with an ARD of 04/26/2024, as having a BIMS score of four (4) out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. R81 stated she received ground foods, and they all ran together on the plate and tasted the same. 3. An interview was conducted on 07/16/2024 at 10:55 AM, with R26, who was assessed per the quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 06/05/24, as having a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 intact cognition. R26 stated the food was not plated well and juice from vegetables often ran into other foods on the plate. R26 stated this happened recently when he was served pizza with boiled greens on the side, and the juice from the greens turned his pizza crust soggy. Per interview, this happened often with other foods and was unappetizing. R26 further stated this concern had been brought to the attention of staff many times, but had not yet been addressed. 4. An interview was conducted with R86 on 07/16/2024 at 12:00 PM, who was assessed per the quarterly MDS assessment, with an ARD of 04/22/24, as having a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. R86 stated the food was not good and did not appear appetizing. 5. An interview was conducted with R13 on 07/16/2024 at 2:15 PM, who was assessed per the quarterly MDS assessment, with an ARD of 05/03/24, and as having a BIMS score of 13 out of 15 indicating intact cognition. R13 stated the food was not good and described the food as watery and sloppy. R13 stated all the foods ran together on the plate because they were so watery. 6. The State Survey Agency conducted a Group Interview, on 07/18/2024 beginning at 9:58 AM. R22, R12, and R46 all stated the food was not appetizing and did not taste good, partly because the foods were overcooked and watery and plated in a manner in which fluids from one food would run into the others. The residents stated this had been a concern for a while and they had already brought it to staff's attention without any follow-up. R22's annual MDS assessment, with an ARD of 05/30/24, revealed a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. R12's quarterly MDS assessment, with an ARD of 06/24/24 revealed a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. R46's quarterly MDS assessment, with an ARD of 05/09/24, revealed a BIMS, score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. 7. During an observation of tray line during lunch meal service in the kitchen, on 07/18/2024 beginning at 11:06 AM, Cook1 served a chicken leg and thigh, a scoop of macaroni and cheese, and a scoop of green beans all on the same plate for all diet types. The green beans on the steam table were in liquid, and the liquid was drained for approximately two (2) seconds prior to plating. Visible liquid spread over the plates when the green beans were added. 8. During an observation of tray line during the dinner meal service in the kitchen, on 07/18/2024 at 5:18 PM, Cook2 served red beans and sausage in gravy and boiled greens both on the same plate without using bowls. The beans and sausage dish appeared soupy, and the greens were stored in liquid on the steam table. [NAME] 2 drained the greens for approximately two (2) seconds before plating, and visible liquid from the foods was observed running on the plates. 9. Observation of a test tray with the Dietary Manager (DM), on 07/18/2024 at 5:45 PM, in the 300/400 Hall, revealed the plate of greens and red beans and sausage was had visible liquid from both dishes running on the plate. The food on the plate appeared soupy and the juices from the food were running together, making the meal appear unappetizing. The DM stated the foods had a lot of liquid and she would expect the soupy beans and sausage dish to be served in a bowl rather than directly on the plate. The DM further stated the facility did not have enough bowls to use, and she had already placed an order for more bowls for this purpose, but had not yet received them. She further stated the facility did have Styrofoam bowls available for use. During continued interview with the DM on 07/18/2024 at 5:45 PM, she stated she needed to direct the staff to drain out more of the liquid from foods before placing it on the steam table. The DM stated she had not provided any education to dietary staff regarding draining foods or plating foods with liquids to avoid draining on the plate. The DM further stated the residents had recently brought up this concern to her during a cook out, when the baked beans liquid ran into the hamburger buns on the plate. The facility provided an order receipt for 48 large bowls. Per the receipt, the order was placed on 06/06/2024 and received on 06/12/2024. No additional information was provided regarding a plan of action to address residents' concerns related to food palatability.
CONCERN (F)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure garbage was stored in containers and off the ground to prevent potential spread of insect or rodent activi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure garbage was stored in containers and off the ground to prevent potential spread of insect or rodent activity. This failure affected all 172 facility residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Food-Related Garbage and Refuse Disposal, dated October 2017, and provided by the facility, revealed, All food waste shall be kept in containers . All garbage and refuse containers are provided when stored or not in continuous use. and must be kept covered . Garbage and refuse containing food wastes will be stored in a manner that is inaccessible to pests . Outside dumpsters provided by garbage pickup services will be kept closed and free of surrounding litter. During an observation, on 07/17/2024 at 8:00 AM, in the outdoor dumpster area in a corner of the facility parking lot, a trash compactor was observed with a large pile of dirty and decaying trash underneath it on the ground. During an observation and concurrent interview with the Dietary Manager (DM), on 07/18/2024 at 12:11 PM, the trash compactor was again observed with a large pile of dirty trash on the ground underneath it. The DM stated trash was piled on the ground under the compactor and needed to be cleaned up. The DM further stated the compactor was no longer used and she did not often go out to the dumpster area. In continued interview, the DM stated the trash pile on the ground created a potential to attract bugs and rodents.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control progra...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the facility was free of pests. During tours of the facility, on 07/16/2024 and 07/17/2024, live roaches were observed in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and in the the dry storage area of the kitchen. Additionally, interviews with residents and staff revealed they had seen roaches in the building. All 172 residents had the potential to be affected. The findings include: Review of facility's policy titled, Pest Control with a revision date of May 2008, revealed the facility shall maintain an effective pest control program and the facility will maintain an ongoing pest control program to ensure the building is kept free of insects and rodents. Review of the Pest Activity Log, revealed resident rooms 124, 309, 402, 416; 300/400 area; resident rooms 422 through 428; kitchen; and nurses' station were treated on 05/08/2024 for non-stated pests. Review of the Pest Activity Log, revealed the kitchen; biohazard room; and resident rooms 102, 112, 408, and 416, were treated on 05/23/2024 for gnats, oriental roaches, and ants. Review of the Pest Activity Log, revealed resident rooms and offices were treated for oriental roaches on 06/19/2024 and 06/12/2024. The Log did not state which specific rooms or offices were treated. Review of the Pest Activity Log, revealed the kitchen dish room; and resident rooms 216, 309, 416, 424, were treated for oriental roaches on 07/16/2024. An interview was conducted, on 07/16/2024 at 10:55 AM, with Resident (R)26, who was assessed per the quarterly Minimum Data Set, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/05/2024, as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. R26 stated there were roaches in his room and he watched a roach crawl around yesterday. He further stated the facility did routine spraying which seemed to help; however, they were still present. Observation on 07/16/2024 at 10:57 AM, revealed a roach crawling out from under the bed of room [ROOM NUMBER]. R26 ran over the roach with his bedside table and killed it. He stated he killed the roaches so they wouldn't crawl all over his room. An interview was conducted, on 07/16/24 2:15 PM, with Resident (R)13, who was assessed per the quarterly MDS, with an ARD date of 05/03/2024, as having a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. R13 stated she had seen big roach-like bugs in her room about every night. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4 and CNA1 on 07/17/2024 at 8:20 AM, they stated they had not seen roaches, but had heard other staff discuss seeing roaches within the facility. LPN4 stated the insect problem seemed to be more significant in the 300/400 hall area according to discussions. Interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 2, on 07/17/2024 at 8:50 AM, revealed she had witnessed roaches in the facility. Observation during tour of the kitchen, on 07/17/2024 at 9:35 AM, revealed a roach was crawling in the dry storage area from underneath food storage shelves. A roach trap was under the storage shelves and a separate trap was in an area beside the baking pan storage area; both contained dead bugs. Interview with the Assistant Dietary Manager, on 07/17/2024 at 9:35 AM, revealed she had worked in the facility for three (3) years. She stated the Pest Control Services sprayed the kitchen once a month and more if requested by the facility. She further stated the insect problem seemed to have worsened in the last three to four (3-4) months in the building. The Assistant Dietary Manager stated roach traps were changed every four to five (4-5) months or as needed, but she could not recall the last time the traps were changed. Interview with Resident (R)171's family member (F5), on 07/17/2024 at 6:40 PM, revealed she had witnessed roaches in R171's room while he was a resident at the facility. She further stated she had made complaints regarding the roaches to facility staff while R171 was in the facility; however, the problem continued. F5 further stated the Administrator refused to return her calls after R171 was discharged . Closed record review revealed Resident 171 resided in the facility from [DATE] until 07/29/2022. Interview with the Director of Environmental Services, on 07/18/2024 at 8:40 AM, and 3:15 PM, revealed he had been employed with the facility for 27 years. He stated roaches had been an issue in the past, but the problem got worse in the last six to seven (6-7) months, mostly affecting resident rooms 401-416. In further interview, he stated he and other staff checked the affected rooms and made sure any food was in sealed containers. He further stated he had staff check room [ROOM NUMBER] regularly after each mealtime to clean food up food the resident dropped on the floor during mealtime. The Director of Environmental Services stated there had been discussions in the Morning Meeting which included department heads, regarding roaches and what could be done to stop the problem or slow the spreading. Interview with the Pest Control Company Representative, on 07/18/2024 at 9:00 AM, revealed the facility had contracted with this company since 1992. He stated the facility was treated twice monthly, but did request additional treatments outside of the regular treatment schedule due to sightings/issues. The Representative stated the method of treatment utilized within the facility depended on the area of the facility being treated. He further stated the standard of treatment being used for this facility was generally effective, but there were other options if this method was not working for the facility. The Representative could not provide additional information as to what was causing the infestation of roaches. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 07/19/2024 at 8:10 AM, revealed she has been employed as the DON since February 2023. The DON stated she did recall a resident complaint in a Resident Council meeting awhile back regarding pests, but she did not recall consistent complaints. She stated she was not involved in meetings specific to pest control issues. She further stated roach issues had probably been discussed in Morning Meetings. The DON stated no formal education had been provided to nursing staff as to how to report or prevent roaches in the facility. However, the DON stated it was her expectation the facility be kept as clean as possible, and free of pests. Interview with the Administrator, on 07/19/2024 at 8:20 AM, revealed he had been employed as administrator of the facility since April 2020. The Administrator stated he did not feel roaches were a problem in the facility. He further stated he felt the facility provided a homelike environment, and homes sometimes had pests. Per interview, he had been told the State Agency Surveyors located six (6) dead roaches in a trap in the kitchen area, and further stated, then we are doing our job. During continued interview with the Administrator on 07/19/2024 at 8:20 AM, he stated roaches had been discussed in the Morning Meetings with the interdisciplinary team and solutions included continued pest control, cleanliness, and open food placed in containers. He further stated the Director of Environmental Services was immediately called when a roach was discovered in the facility. Per interview, he was sure he had probably had recent discussions with the Director of Environmental Services regarding pest control, but he couldn't recall any recently. In further interview, the Administrator stated he felt it was his job to put the right people in place to take care of things such as the Director of Environmental Services and limit his involvement to an as needed basis. He stated he could not recall having any complaints from families regarding roaches.
May 2019 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of Hospital Records, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for one (1) of five (5) sampled residents related to transfers. Resident #20 was care planned for two (2) staff to transfer resident with the use of a mechanical lift, however; on 09/29/18, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 transferred the resident without the assistance of another staff and without the use of a lift which resulted in the resident sustaining a fractured ankle. The findings include: Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #20 on 01/09/09 with diagnoses which included Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Heart Failure, and Hemiplegia affecting left non-dominant side. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the facility assessed Resident #20's cognition as severely impaired with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven (7) which indicated the resident was not interviewable. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan for Self-Care Performance Deficit dated 03/14/17 revealed an intervention for two (2) staff to transfer Resident #20 with the use of a mechanical lift. However, review of Incident report dated 10/03/18 and interview with Resident #20 on 05/15/19 at 8:20 AM revealed CNA #1 transferred the resident by himself from bed to wheelchair without the mechanical lift by standing the resident up and pivoting the resident. Review of the Discharge Plan and Radiology Report dated 10/03/18 revealed Resident #20 had a fracture involving the proximal tibia and fibula (ankle area) with no displacement. A splint was applied and the resident was advised to take Tylenol as needed for pain. Attempted interviews with CNA #1 (transferred resident), on 05/14/19 at 12:48 PM and 4:45 PM, and on 05/15/19 at 9:22 AM, were unsuccessful. Interview on 05/15/19 at 9:00 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, Unit Manager revealed each CNA has the opportunity to use the CNA [NAME] and the computerized Kiosk located on the walls on the unit to find out what each resident requires for transfers. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/15/19 at 4:48 PM revealed she expected all staff to transfer the resident per their Comprehensive Care Plan/Physician Orders. **The facility implemented the following actions to correct the deficient practice: 1. All staff were inserviced on 10/03/18 by administrative staff on identifying and reporting abuse, detecting change in residents' condition, preventing injuries with topics included: body mechanics in transfers, lifting safely, using equipment safely, keeping patients safe in facility and watching for hazards/accidents; new facility process for [NAME] paper access/kiosk, accessing care plans and [NAME] in Point Click Care, assisting with positioning and transferring including safe lifting and movement of residents, Safety precautions and mechanics for lifting, falls management and prevention, understanding legal and ethical aspects of healthcare, and how to properly operate Battery Powered Patient Lifts 2. Immediate skin assessments were conducted on 10/03/18 to 10/05/18 for every resident to identify skin issues, and any injuries not previously known. 3. An audit was conducted facility wide repeatedly from 10/03/18 to 12/04/18 on the Use of Lift and Transfer Audit to observe and verify CNA proper lifting techniques and that plan of care was followed for transfers. 4. A facility wide [NAME] and Care Plan audit was completed 10/03/18 to 10/07/18 to ensure correct mobility and transfer interventions were in place and clearly identified. 5. Interviews were conducted with each resident by administrative staff 10/03/18 to 10/04/18 to identify if there were any concerns with care or transfers. 6. Interviews were conducted with each staff member 10/03/18 to 10/07/18 by administrative staff to ensure that no staff members had any concerns with their co-workers regarding care issues, transfers. 7. New Hire Orientation and Agency Orientation reviewed in QA Committee (Administrator, Director of Nursing, Social Services Director, Unit Managers, Dietary Manager, MDS Coordinators) to include agency orientation to [NAME]. **The State Survey Agency validated the corrective action taken by the facility as follows: 1. Review of education logs revealed all staff were educated by 10/07/18 on identifying and reporting Abuse, body mechanic in transfers, lifting safely, using equipment safely, keeping patients safe in facility, watching for hazards/accidents, and new facility process for [NAME] paper access/kiosk. In addition, Nursing staff were inserviced on accessing care plans and [NAME] in Point Click Care, detecting change in resident status, Falls management and prevention, Understanding Legal and Ethical aspects of healthcare, and how to properly operate Battery Powered Patient Lifts. Interviews on 05/15/19 with LPN #1 at 9:00 AM, LPN #2 at 10:43 AM, LPN #3 at 10:50 AM, and LPN #7 at 4:30 PM revealed they were educated on abuse reporting, transferring residents with Hoyer lift, following care plans, [NAME] use and reporting injuries. Interviews on 05/15/19 with CNA #2 at 10:30 AM, CNA #4 at 10:52 AM, revealed they were educated on transfers, activities of daily living, care plans, proper use of Hoyer lift, [NAME] use, and how to find the CNA care plan for each resident. Interview CNA #3 at 10:40 AM, with revealed she is an Agency staff and when she started working at the facility, she was educated on Fall Risk education, Abuse, Use of Hoyer lift with two people, [NAME] use, and Care Plan Binder to find residents needs. 2. Review of facility skin assessments revealed they were completed on 10/03/18 through 10/05/18 for all residents with no concerns identified 3. Review of facility audits revealed they were completed throughout the facility facility from 10/03/18 to 12/04/18 to verify all CNA's were using proper lifting techniques and plan of care was followed for transfers. 4. Review of facility audits dated 10/03/18 through 10/07/18 revealed all staff were audited to ensure proper used of [NAME] and Care Plans and that correct mobility and transfer interventions were in place and clearly identified. 5. Review of documentation of interviews revealed each resident with a BIMS score of eight (8) or above were interviewed by administrative staff on 10/03/18 to 10/04/18 to identify if there were any concerns with care or transfers. 6. Review of documentation of interviews conducted with each staff member by administrative staff on 10/03/18 to 10/07/18 revealed they were interviewed to identify if they had any concerns with their co-workers regarding care issues, and transfers. Further review revealed all staff was interviewed. 7. Review of the QA Committee Minutes revealed the New Hire Orientation and Agency Orientation packets, which also included agency orientation to [NAME], were reviewed by QA members (Administrator, Director of Nursing, Social Services Director, Unit Managers, Dietary Manager, MDS Coordinators)
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, facility policy review, and Hospital Medical Record review, it was determined the facility f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, facility policy review, and Hospital Medical Record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of three (3) sampled residents received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents related to the use of a Hoyer lift (Resident #20). Resident #20 was assessed and care planned for a two (2) person transfer with mechanical lift; however, on 09/29/18 the Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) transferred the resident from bed to wheelchair by himself without assistance of another staff and the use of the lift. The resident sustained a fracture to the right ankle. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Safe Lifting and Movement of Residents, last revised July 2017, revealed in order to protect the safety and well-being of staff and residents, and to promote quality care, this facility uses appropriate techniques and devices to lift and move residents. Mechanical lifting devices shall be used for heavy lifting, including lifting and moving residents when necessary. Only staff with documented training on the safe use and care of the machines and equipment used in this facility will be allowed to lift or move residents. Staff will be observed for competency in using mechanical lifts. Mechanical lifts shall be made readily available and accessible to staff 24 hours a day. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #20 on 01/09/09 with diagnoses which included Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Heart Failure, and Hemiplegia affecting left non-dominant side. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the facility assessed Resident #20's cognition as severely impaired with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of seven (7) which indicated the resident was not interviewable. Further review revealed the resident was totally dependent on two (2) staff members for transfers. Review of Resident #20's Comprehensive Care Plan for Self-Care Performance Deficit dated 03/14/17 revealed a goal for the resident's Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) needs to be met daily and resident will maintain a neat, well-groomed appearance. Further review revealed an intervention for two staff members to transfer the resident with a mechanical lift due to weakness, poor activity tolerance, and left sided weakness. Review of the Lift Screen for Resident #20, dated 09/05/18 revealed the resident was non-weight bearing, unable to bend hips/knees/ankles independently; however can use both upper extremities. The facility determined the Total Body Lift was to be utilized with resident. Review of the Nursing Notes revealed Resident #20 complained of new pain on 09/30/18 to left leg during the PM shift. The resident was given Tylenol and leg was repositioned. There was no swelling, bruising or heat to touch. Tylenol was effective. On 10/01/18, the day shift nurse revealed the resident did not want to get out of bed related to pain in the left leg from the knee down. LPN #5 assessed the leg and there was no swelling, redness, bruising and was not warm to touch. LPN #5 did non pharmacological interventions related to resident stating that he/she was in pain but that he/she was fine. Review of a Incident Report dated 10/03/18 revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 revealed Resident #20 complained of left lower extremity pain on 10/03/18. LPN #4 did a head to toe assessment and called the Nurse Practitioner and DON to further assess resident. Orders were received and she called the resident's power of attorney. An x-ray was completed at the facility and after the reading, the physician sent the resident to the Emergency Department for Evaluation and Treatment. Review of the Hospital Medical Record Emergency Department Provider Notes, dated 10/03/18 revealed Resident #20 presented with left lower leg pain that began one (1) week ago after he/she was transferred at nursing home without a lift. Review of the Radiology Report from Emergency Department visit dated 10/03/18 revealed Resident #20 had a fracture involving the proximal tibia and fibula with no displacement. Review of the Discharge Plan revealed to apply a splint, take Tylenol as needed for pain, and follow up with an orthopedist for further evaluation and management. Review of the Resident #20's Progress Notes, revealed the resident went to a follow up appointment with an Orthopedist on 10/08/18 and the resident was to continue with wearing the splint and non-weightbearing. Interview with Resident #20 on 05/15/19 at 8:20 AM revealed his/her left ankle was injured when Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 transferred him/her without the assistance of another staff and without the use of a lift. Resident #20 stated when the CNA pivoted him/her from the bed to the wheelchair, his/her ankle did not move and he/she had instant pain in his/her left ankle. He/she stated the CNA was not trying to hurt him/her, he knew he/she wanted to get to bingo. Attempted interviews with CNA #1 (transferred resident), on 05/14/19 at 12:48 PM, 05/14/19 at 4:45 PM, and 05/15/19 9:22 AM, were unsuccessful. Review of the facility investigation revealed on 10/08/18, the Administrator interviewed CNA #1 and he revealed he had seen other people transfer the resident without using the lift; however, he was unable to recall any names or description of the staff who had transferred the resident without the mechanical lift. Interview on 05/15/19 at 9:00 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, Unit Manager revealed CNA #1 knew the resident was a mechanical lift for transfers and required two (2) staff. She stated she makes sure her staff know their residents regarding transfers and he was oriented to the residents when he started to work at the facility. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/15/19 at 4:48 PM revealed she expected all staff to transfer the resident per their Comprehensive Care Plan/Physician Orders. **The facility implemented the following actions to correct the deficient practice: 1. All staff were inserviced on 10/03/18 by administrative staff on identifying and reporting abuse, detecting change in residents' condition, preventing injuries with topics included: body mechanics in transfers, lifting safely, using equipment safely, keeping patients safe in facility and watching for hazards/accidents; new facility process for [NAME] paper access/kiosk, accessing care plans and [NAME] in Point Click Care, assisting with positioning and transferring including safe lifting and movement of residents, Safety precautions and mechanics for lifting, falls management and prevention, understanding legal and ethical aspects of healthcare, and how to properly operate Battery Powered Patient Lifts 2. Immediate skin assessments were conducted on 10/03/18 to 10/05/18 for every resident to identify skin issues, and any injuries not previously known. 3. An audit was conducted facility wide repeatedly from 10/03/18 to 12/04/18 on the Use of Lift and Transfer Audit to observe and verify CNA proper lifting techniques and that plan of care was followed for transfers. 4. A facility wide [NAME] and Care Plan audit was completed 10/03/18 to 10/07/18 to ensure correct mobility and transfer interventions were in place and clearly identified. 5. Interviews were conducted with each resident by administrative staff 10/03/18 to 10/04/18 to identify if there were any concerns with care or transfers. 6. Interviews were conducted with each staff member 10/03/18 to 10/07/18 by administrative staff to ensure that no staff members had any concerns with their co-workers regarding care issues, transfers. 7. New Hire Orientation and Agency Orientation reviewed in QA Committee (Administrator, Director of Nursing, Social Services Director, Unit Managers, Dietary Manager, MDS Coordinators) to include agency orientation to [NAME]. **The State Survey Agency validated the corrective action taken by the facility as follows: 1. Review of education logs revealed all staff were educated by 10/07/18 on identifying and reporting Abuse, body mechanic in transfers, lifting safely, using equipment safely, keeping patients safe in facility, watching for hazards/accidents, and new facility process for [NAME] paper access/kiosk. In addition, Nursing staff were inserviced on accessing care plans and [NAME] in Point Click Care, detecting change in resident status, Falls management and prevention, Understanding Legal and Ethical aspects of healthcare, and how to properly operate Battery Powered Patient Lifts. Interviews on 05/15/19 with LPN #1 at 9:00 AM, LPN #2 at 10:43 AM, LPN #3 at 10:50 AM, and LPN #7 at 4:30 PM revealed they were educated on abuse reporting, transferring residents with Hoyer lift, following care plans, [NAME] use and reporting injuries. Interviews on 05/15/19 with CNA #2 at 10:30 AM, CNA #4 at 10:52 AM, revealed they were educated on transfers, activities of daily living, care plans, proper use of Hoyer lift, [NAME] use, and how to find the CNA care plan for each resident. Interview CNA #3 at 10:40 AM, with revealed she is an Agency staff and when she started working at the facility, she was educated on Fall Risk education, Abuse, Use of Hoyer lift with two people, [NAME] use, and Care Plan Binder to find residents needs. 2. Review of facility skin assessments revealed they were completed on 10/03/18 through 10/05/18 for all residents with no concerns identified 3. Review of facility audits revealed they were completed throughout the facility facility from 10/03/18 to 12/04/18 to verify all CNA's were using proper lifting techniques and plan of care was followed for transfers. 4. Review of facility audits dated 10/03/18 through 10/07/18 revealed all staff were audited to ensure proper used of [NAME] and Care Plans and that correct mobility and transfer interventions were in place and clearly identified. 5. Review of documentation of interviews revealed each resident with a BIMS score of eight (8) or above were interviewed by administrative staff on 10/03/18 to 10/04/18 to identify if there were any concerns with care or transfers. 6. Review of documentation of interviews conducted with each staff member by administrative staff on 10/03/18 to 10/07/18 revealed they were interviewed to identify if they had any concerns with their co-workers regarding care issues, and transfers. Further review revealed all staff was interviewed. 7. Review of the QA Committee Minutes revealed the New Hire Orientation and Agency Orientation packets, which also included agency orientation to [NAME], were reviewed by QA members (Administrator, Director of Nursing, Social Services Director, Unit Managers, Dietary Manager, MDS Coordinators)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, san...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Observations of a medication pass on 05/15/19, revealed a staff touched medications with their bare hand. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Administering Medications, last revised December 2012, revealed staff shall follow established facility infection control procedures (e.g., handwashing, antiseptic technique, gloves, isolation precautions, etc.) for the administration of medications, as applicable. Observation of a medication administration pass on 05/15/19 at 8:23 AM, revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #1, removed a capsule from a medication card with his bare hand, prior to administering the medication to the resident. Interview with RN #1 on 05/15/19 at 8:50 AM, revealed he should not have removed the medication from the pack with his bare hand because it was unsanitary. RN #1 stated the capsule was difficult to remove from the package, as normally with applied pressure, the medication would just pop out. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/16/19 at 3:37 PM, revealed RN #1 should not have removed the medication from the blister pack with his bare hand. She stated he could have used a pair of gloves to remove the pill. The DON further stated the facility did not have a policy specifically regarding handling medications with bare hands; however, the facility follows state and federal regulations related to infection control during medication administration.
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

Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure food was stored, in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Observ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure food was stored, in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Observation of the kitchen, on 05/14/19, revealed food stored in the walk-in refrigerator was not dated and food items were not covered. Review of the facility Census and Condition, dated 05/14/19, revealed one-hundred and forty-three (143) of one-hundred and fifty-five (155) residents received their meals from the kitchen. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Food Storage: Cold Foods, last revised September 2017, revealed all foods will be stored wrapped or in covered containers, labeled and dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination. Review of the facility policy titled, Food Storage: Dry Goods, last revised September 2017, revealed all dry goods will be appropriately stored in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code. Further review of the policy revealed all packaged food items will be kept clean, dry, and properly sealed. Observation of the walk-in refrigerator during initial tour, on 05/14/19 at 8:25 AM, revealed a pan of pork loins and gravy not dated. Further observation of the kitchen revealed a bin of sugar was open to air and not covered. Interview with Dietary Aide #1, on 05/15/19 at 2:55 PM, revealed all items stored in the refrigerator should be dated and labeled. Dietary Aide #1 stated staff should replace the bin lids on the sugar when not in use to avoid contamination. Interview with the Dietary Manager, on 05/14/19 at 9:16 AM, revealed she expected all food items in the refrigerator be dated by the staff member who placed the item in the refrigerator. She stated the lid on the sugar bin should have been in place to avoid contamination.
Feb 2018 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Interview with the Administrator, on 02/22/18 at 3:36 PM, revealed the Nursing Management Team, that included the Unit Managers,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Interview with the Administrator, on 02/22/18 at 3:36 PM, revealed the Nursing Management Team, that included the Unit Managers, MDS Nurses, the Registered Dietician, and the Quality Assurance Nurse/Staff Development Nurse, developed resident care plans. Resident MDS assessments were used for the collection of pertinent data for use while developing or revising a resident's care plan. The Administrator stated monitoring of care plans for accuracy with a resident's status would be part of the work of the Clinical Management Team, including the MDS Nursing Staff, the Director of the Facility's Therapy Program, and others, to ensure ongoing interdisciplinary communication about individual residents. The Administrator stated the Quality Assurance (QA) Committee had not identified issues with care planning that required any course of action by the QA Committee. Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (1) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents, Resident #119, to include the identified need for wheelchair positioning. The findings include: Review of the facility's Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Policy, revised September 2010, revealed within seven (7) days of the completion of the resident assessment, a comprehensive care plan would be developed. Information derived from the comprehensive assessment helped staff plan care that allowed the resident to reach his/her highest practicable level of functioning. Observations of Resident #119, on 02/20/18 at 9:07 AM, 02/21/18 at 7:52 AM and 3:01 PM, and on 02/22/18 at 8:02 AM, revealed the resident in a wheelchair with his/her feet pointed downward and not touching the floor. Review of Resident #119's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/22/13, with diagnoses including Anoxic Brain Damage, Hemiplegia, Hemiparesis, Muscle Weakness, and Cerebrovascular Disease. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed Resident #119 as moderately cognitively impaired and required supervision for locomotion on and off the unit in his/her wheelchair, and unable to ambulate. The MDS revealed a functional impairment in range of motion for both sides of the resident's lower extremities. Review of Resident #119's Occupational Therapist (OT) Progress and Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed the resident exhibited feet hanging with no support and internal rotation, and was at risk for plantar flexion contractures. According to the summary, Occupational Therapy adjusted and fitted leg rests for the resident's wheelchair in order to fit the resident's hips, knees, and ankles at ninety (90) degrees (to prevent contractures and prevent the risk of skin breakdown). Review of Resident #119's Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 05/22/13, revealed no focus, goals, or interventions related to the resident's assessed need for appropriate wheelchair positioning with leg rests. Interview with the OT, on 02/22/18 at 10:30 AM, revealed plantar flexion (feet and ankles point downward) while up in the wheelchair would put Resident #119 at risk for contractures. She stated she evaluated Resident #119 in 2016 for appropriate wheelchair positioning due to plantar flexion and recommended and fitted the resident's wheelchair for leg rests to help avoid the development of contractures. She further stated the resident was not always compliant with the recommendation and would remove the leg rests. She revealed it would be the responsibility of nursing staff to ensure the development of a care plan for wheelchair positioning. Interview with License Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, on 02/22/18 at 10:17 AM, revealed wheelchair positioning devices should be noted on the care plan to ensure staff was informed of the needed device. Interview with Unit Manager #2, on 02/22/18 at 11:00 AM, revealed Resident #119 did not utilize the wheelchair leg rests, per his/her preference. She stated the resident's care plan should have specified the refusal, as he/she had not utilized them for a while. She stated it would be the responsibility of nursing staff to develop the care plan. Interview with the MDS Coordinator, on 02/22/18 at 1:20 PM, revealed she was aware Resident #119 refused to utilize the wheelchair leg rests; however, nursing staff typically developed care plans for refusal of care. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 02/22/18 at 1:35 PM, revealed she expected nursing staff to develop a care plan for Resident #119 related to the identified need for appropriate wheelchair positioning with the use of leg rests, as well as the resident's non-compliance.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Interview with the Administrator, on 02/23/18 at 3:36 PM, revealed the Nursing Management Team, which included the Unit Managers...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Interview with the Administrator, on 02/23/18 at 3:36 PM, revealed the Nursing Management Team, which included the Unit Managers, MDS Nurses, the Registered Dietician, and the Quality Assurance Nurse/Staff Development Nurse was involved in the development of the resident care plans. The Clinical Management Team monitored care plans for accuracy to ensure ongoing interdisciplinary communication about individual residents. The Administrator stated the Quality Assurance (QA) Committee had not identified issues with care planning that required any course of action by the QA Committee. Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to revise the care plan to reflect the care needs for eating for one (1) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents, Resident #60. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Meals-Feeding the Resident, not dated, revealed residents were to be provided assistance with meals. Review of the facility's policy, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), revised September 2010, revealed the facility was to use the Minimum Data Set (MDS) to conduct resident assessments. The facility was to use the assessment to plan the care, which allowed the resident to reach the highest level of function. Further review revealed the purpose of the RAI assessment was to outline the residents' capability to perform tasks, and to identify impairments in the residents' ability to care for themselves. Review of Resident #60's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/10/16, with diagnoses of Dementia, Dehydration, and a History of Falls. Review of Resident #60's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident required encouragement and cueing of one (1) staff for eating. Review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident required limited assistance (staff providing guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight bearing assistance) of one (1) staff for eating. However, review of Resident #60's Care Plan, revised 03/02/17, revealed the resident had Activities of Daily Living self-care deficits with an intervention, revised 04/25/17, for staff to set up and encourage Resident #60 for meal support. Review of Resident #60's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Bedside [NAME], not dated, revealed staff was to set up and encourage the resident to eat. Observation, on 02/20/18 at 12:10 PM, revealed Resident #60 in his/her wheelchair at the dining table with his/her eyes closed. The meal was on the table in front of the resident. Observation, on 02/20/18 at 12:20 PM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 assisting a resident in the dining hall. LPN #3 reached over the table where Resident #60 was sitting, tapped the resident on the shoulder, placed a fork in his/her left hand, instructed the resident to eat, and returned to assist the resident at a different table. Resident #60 returned to having his/her eyes closed with the left hand resting in the plate of food. Observation, on 02/20/18 at 12:29 PM, revealed Resident #60 remained sitting at the dining table with his/her eyes closed and Resident #28 reached over, pulled Resident #60's meal plate to him/her, partially ate the meal, and then pushed the plate toward Resident #60 when he/she was finished eating. Staff in the dining hall had their backs toward Resident #60 and did not observe Resident #28 eat Resident #60's meal. At 12:50 PM, LPN #3 began to take Resident #60 out of the dining room and was informed the resident had not eaten his/her meal. Interview with CNA #3, on 02/20/18 at 12:52 PM, revealed Resident #60 was not under supervision and could feed himself/herself. She stated the resident was not a morning person and did not eat and would eat later in the day. She further stated she did not see Resident #28 eat Resident #60's meal. CNA #3 stated residents needed to eat to stay healthy. Observation, on 02/21/18 at 12:05 PM, revealed Resident #60 seated in the back of the dining hall at a table with his/her eyes closed. There was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on the floor, torn in three (3) pieces, and CNA #4 stated it was the resident's morning snack. Staff set up Resident #60's lunch meal in front of the resident, he/she was instructed to eat, and then staff left and Resident #60 went back to having his/her eyes closed. Observation, on 02/21/18 at 12:24 PM, revealed a nurse walked into the dining hall and called to Resident #60 so he/she would open his/her eyes, and sat next to the resident at the table. The nurse started to feed Resident #60 with constant encouragement and cueing for him/her to open his/her mouth to eat. At 12:34 PM, the nurse went to attend to another resident and did not return to Resident #60. Interview with CNA #4, on 02/22/18 at 1:39 PM, revealed staff was to set up Resident #60's meals and supervise. She stated the resident never ate breakfast because the resident slept late, but the meal was offered. She stated there was not a designated area for residents who needed supervision in the dining hall. She stated Resident #60's intake for all meals was poor because the resident was always asleep. She stated the resident was to be set up with meals, monitored, and staff would help if needed. She further stated she did not check CNA care plans because she knew her residents. Further interview with CNA #3, on 02/22/18 at 2:13 PM, revealed the CNA care plans were updated by the nurses and administration. She stated the care plans instructed staff how to care for the resident. Interview with LPN #4, on 02/22/18 at 1:51 PM, revealed she updated care plans when there was a change in the status of a resident. She stated the care plans were a guide on how to care for residents. LPN #4 stated it was the MDS Coordinator and Unit Managers' responsibility to revise care plans and to ensure the plans were up to date. She stated she rarely looked at the care plans and was verbally informed of changes by the Unit Manager and passed the information along in report. She stated the CNA care plan could be updated when the nurses' care plans were updated. According to LPN #4, if the care plans were not correct, the residents' health could suffer. Interview with LPN #2, on 02/22/18 at 2:37 PM, revealed resident care plans needed to be correct to inform staff what the resident's abilities were and how to care for them. She further stated the care plan was a picture of the resident and if not correct, the resident would not thrive, which could cause the resident not to reach their fullest potential. LPN #2 stated the nurses updated care plans for an acute change in condition, otherwise the Nurse Manager and administration updated the care plans. Interview with the MDS Coordinator, on 02/22/18 at 3:25 PM, revealed she was responsible to track the status of the resident, which included the resident needs. She stated she obtained information through record review, CNA documentation, observation, and staff interviews. She stated her assessment was an overall review of the status and needs of the resident. The MDS Coordinator stated she did not update the care plan after the MDS assessment was completed. She stated all departments were responsible to revise care plans under their departments and she would only notify departments if the resident had a decline during the MDS review. She further stated she only reviewed seven (7) days back to complete the MDS and the nurses were more knowledgeable about the resident care needs. Interview with the Unit Manager, on 02/22/18 at 3:35 PM, revealed she recently audited resident care plans to assure the information was correct. She stated she asked staff, observed meals, and made rounds when she reviewed the resident care plans and did not review the MDS information because it was old. She further stated the care plans were to be correct or it could lead to the resident not receiving the care needed, which could lead to a decline in the resident's health. Interview with the Director of Nursing, on 02/22/18 at 4:15 PM, revealed the MDS assessments were to guide the care plan needs of the residents. She stated the MDS Coordinators were to revise the care plans and the Unit Managers were to audit the plans to assure the information was accurate. She stated the Unit Managers were to revise the care plan when a change of condition occurred in the resident between the MDS assessments. She stated if a care plan was incorrect, the resident's health could decline.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0675 (Tag F0675)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Interview with the Administrator, on 02/23/18 at 3:36 PM, revealed the facility conducted daily meetings to determine the curren...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Interview with the Administrator, on 02/23/18 at 3:36 PM, revealed the facility conducted daily meetings to determine the current status of residents, including any new orders, changes in status, or any identified care needs. Daily stand up meetings occurred Monday through Friday and followed by a meeting of the Clinical Nursing Management team to ensure ongoing interdisciplinary communication that addressed the care needs and status of all residents. All staff monitored such needs under the direction and supervision of the Unit Managers for each hallway, the MDS Nurses for assessment purposes, and by the Director of Nursing. Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy the facility, it was determined the facility failed to provide necessary care and services for eating according to the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one (1) of thirty-two (32) sampled residents, Resident #60. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Meals-Feeding the Resident, not dated, revealed the facility was to provide assistance with meals. Review of the facility's policy, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), revised September 2010, revealed the facility was to use the MDS to conduct the resident assessments, and use the assessment to plan the care needed by the resident to maintain their highest level of function. Further review revealed the RAI assessment outlined the residents' capability to perform tasks, and to identify the impairments, which affected the residents' ability to care for themselves. Review of Resident #60's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/10/16, with diagnoses of Dementia, Dehydration, and a History of Falls. Review of Resident #60's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident required limited assistance (staff providing guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight bearing assistance) of one (1) staff for eating; however, review of the care plan revealed staff was to set up and encourage the resident for meal support. Review of Resident #60's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Bedside [NAME], not dated, revealed staff was to set up and encourage the resident to eat. Review of Resident #60's Dietary Note, dated 01/09/18, revealed the resident was stable for the thirty (30), and ninety (90) day reviews for weight monitoring. Observation, on 02/20/18 at 12:10 PM, revealed Resident #60 with his/her eyes closed in a wheelchair at the dining table in the memory care unit with his/her meal in front of him/her. Observation, on 02/20/18 at 12:20 PM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 was assisting another resident and leaned over to Resident #60, tapped the resident on the shoulder, placed a fork in the left hand, instructed the resident to eat, and returned to assisting the other resident. Resident #60 went back to having his/her eyes closed with his/her left hand resting in the plate of food. Observation, on 02/20/18 at 12:29 PM, revealed Resident #60 continued to have his/her eyes closed at the table and another resident reached over, took Resident #60's plate, and partially ate the meal. LPN #3 and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3's backs were to Resident #60 and did not observe or intervene when the other resident took Resident #60's meal. Observation, on 02/20/18 at 12:50 PM, revealed Resident #60 remained with his/her eyes closed and LPN #3 began to take Resident #60 out of the dining room and was informed the resident had not eaten. Interview with CNA #3, on 02/20/18 at 12:52 PM, revealed Resident #60 was not under supervision and could feed himself/herself. She stated the resident ate late in the day and was not assisted, just encouraged. She further stated she was not aware another resident ate Resident #60's meal. Observation, on 02/21/18 at 12:05 PM, revealed Resident #60 seated in the back dining hall at a table with his/her eyes closed. A peanut butter and jelly sandwich was on the floor, torn in three (3) pieces, in front of Resident #60. CNA #4 stated the sandwich was Resident #60's morning snack. Staff delivered Resident #60's meal and set it up in front of the resident, instructed the resident to eat, and then left. Resident #60 fell went back to closing his/her eyes while at the table. Observation, on 02/21/18 at 12:24 PM, revealed a nurse called from across the dining hall to Resident #60 and asked the resident to open his/her eyes, then walked over to the resident and started to assist him/her. The nurse fed the resident with constant encouragement and cueing and at 12:34 PM, the nurse went to attend to another resident and did not return to Resident #60. Interview with CNA #4, on 02/22/18 at 1:39 PM, revealed Resident #60 slept late and never ate breakfast. She stated staff was to set up the resident's meal and cue him/her to eat. She stated Resident #60 did not eat well at any meal and he/she slept a lot. CNA #4 stated there was not a table in the dining hall designated for residents who needed supervision. Continued interview with CNA #3, on 02/22/18 at 2:13 PM, revealed she attempted to feed residents who needed help eating meals. She stated Resident #60 needed cueing and encouragement in order to get him/her to eat. She stated she attempted to encourage Resident #60; however, the resident often fell asleep and she could not go back to the resident because there were many residents who needed assistance. CNA #3 further stated the memory care unit did not have enough staff during meal times to sit, assist, or feed the residents. Interview with CNA #2, on 02/22/18 at 2:30 PM, revealed Resident #60 had not eaten well since before admittance to the memory unit. She stated many residents needed to be encouraged to eat due to their memory issues and she was unable to assist multiple residents at one time with meals, which could affect the residents' intake and cause a decline in the health of the residents. Interview with LPN #4, on 02/22/18 at 1:51 PM, revealed Resident #60 had poor intake with meals and often played with the food on his/her plate. She stated there was not enough staff to supervise and assist the residents on the unit and the residents did not receive good support with meal assistance because there was not enough staff to feed the number of residents that required hands on assistance. She stated residents with memory impairment needed assistance to assure they ate their meals because residents who did not get proper nutrition could become sick. Interview with LPN #2, on 02/22/18 at 2:37 PM, stated residents who did not eat well were at risk for losing weight and not able to thrive. She stated the facility needed to assure all residents were eating and if the residents did not eat, staff needed to assist them. She stated Resident #60 had not eaten well before he/she was admitted to the unit. She stated residents with memory issues were at high risk for not eating and could lose weight. Interview with the MDS Coordinator, on 02/22/18 at 3:25 PM, revealed she was responsible to track the status of the residents, which included the resident needs. She stated she obtained information through record review, CNA documentation, observation, and interviews with staff. She stated Resident #60 needed to be assisted with meals. Interview with the Unit Manager, on 02/22/18 at 3:35 PM, revealed the facility was to assure all residents were assisted with meals and were supervised during meals. She stated the unit population had memory issues and required supervision during meals. She stated Resident #60 did not eat well most of the time and a poor intake could cause a decline in the resident. She stated residents on the unit were to be fed if staff observed them having a hard time feeding themselves. Interview with the Director of Nursing, on 02/22/18 at 4:15 PM, revealed residents were to be monitored for their ability to feed themselves and the amount of food consumed. She stated the facility was to provide care assessed by the MDS evaluation to ensure the needs were provided to the residents. She further stated nutrition was important to the wellbeing of all residents.
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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kentucky facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 19 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (21/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 21/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Louisville East Post Acute's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Louisville East Post Acute 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 Louisville East Post Acute Staffed?

CMS rates Louisville East Post Acute's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the Kentucky average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Louisville East Post Acute?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at Louisville East Post Acute during 2018 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 17 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 Louisville East Post Acute?

Louisville East Post Acute is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PACS GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 178 certified beds and approximately 166 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Louisville, Kentucky.

How Does Louisville East Post Acute Compare to Other Kentucky Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kentucky, Louisville East Post Acute's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Louisville East Post Acute?

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 Louisville East Post Acute Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Louisville East Post Acute 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 Louisville East Post Acute Stick Around?

Louisville East Post Acute has a staff turnover rate of 49%, which is about average for Kentucky nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Louisville East Post Acute Ever Fined?

Louisville East Post Acute has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Louisville East Post Acute on Any Federal Watch List?

Louisville East Post Acute 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.