Life Care Center of Morehead

933 North Tolliver Road, Morehead, KY 40351 (606) 784-7518
For profit - Limited Liability company 97 Beds LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
31/100
#236 of 266 in KY
Last Inspection: May 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Life Care Center of Morehead has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #236 out of 266 facilities in Kentucky places it firmly in the bottom half of the state, and it is the only option in Rowan County. The facility's performance is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 4 in 2021 to 7 in 2025. On a positive note, staffing is a strength, reflected in a 4/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 32%, which is lower than the state average. However, there are serious concerns, including a critical finding related to infection control practices that could potentially impact all residents, and issues with food safety that might affect nearly all residents who consume food from the kitchen.

Trust Score
F
31/100
In Kentucky
#236/266
Bottom 12%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
4 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
32% turnover. Near Kentucky's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$23,590 in fines. Lower than most Kentucky facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 44 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Kentucky. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2021: 4 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (32%)

    16 points below Kentucky average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Kentucky average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 32%

14pts below Kentucky avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $23,590

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
May 2025 7 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the glucometer's (device used to calculate a finger-stick blood glucos...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the glucometer's (device used to calculate a finger-stick blood glucose level) manufacturer's instructions, review of disinfectant wipe instructions, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) document, and review of the facility's policies, 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 and control the development and transmission of communicable diseases and to implement interventions to protect the residents. The deficient practice had the potential to affect 34 of 34 residents, to who received fingersticks for blood glucose testing, with observations to include (Resident (R)7, R45, R37, and R244 ). Additional observations of deficient practice revealed they affected 4 of 27 sampled residents (R13, R27, R70, and R72). Observations revealed Registered Nurse (RN)1, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1, and LPN3 failed to properly clean and disinfect shared glucometers after obtaining blood glucose measurements. Review of the manufacturer's recommendations revealed the staff was to use specific wipes validated by the manufacturer. Further review revealed staff was to use two wipes, one for cleaning and one for disinfecting, leaving the surface wet for a specific amount of time for the wipe, which the staff failed to do. Review of the product information for Sani-Cloth Bleach wipes, which the facility used to clean and disinfect glucometers, revealed its Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) number was not listed by the manufacturer as approved for the glucometer. Further review revealed the incorrect wipe had a dwell time of four minutes. Review of the facility's list of residents with bloodborne illnesses revealed one resident, Resident (R) 45, with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and the resident received blood glucose checks using the facility's shared glucometers. Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 05/22/2025 and was determined to exist on 05/21/2025, in the area of 42 CFR 483.80 Infection Control, F880, at a Scope and Severity (S/S) of an K. The facility's Executive Director was notified of the IJ on 05/22/2025. The facility provided an acceptable Immediate Jeopardy Removal Plan, on 05/23/2025, alleging removal of the IJ on 05/23/2025. The State Survey Agency (SSA) determined the IJ was removed on 05/23/2025, prior to exit on 05/23/2025, with remaining non-compliance at an S/S of an E while the facility develops and implements a Plan of Correction (POC) and the facility's Quality Assurance (QA) monitors to ensure compliance with systemic changes. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Control, revision date 03/21/2024, revealed the facility was to provide a comprehensive infection control program involving all departments to prevent and control infections acquired or brought into the facility. Review of the facility's policy titled, Standard Precautions, revision date 07/05/2022, revealed standard precautions were used as the first line of defense against preventing transmission of microorganisms. The policy stated the procedure included to utilize personal protective equipment (PPE), and resident care items for multiple residents were disinfected between uses with the approved disinfectant. Review of the CDC's document Standard Precautions for All Patient Care, Infection Control Basics, Health Care Providers, dated 04/03/2024, revealed hand hygiene meant cleaning hands with water and soap (e.g., plain soap or with an antiseptic) or antiseptic hand rub (alcohol-based foam or gel hand sanitizer); immediately before touching a patient [resident]; before performing an aseptic task such as placing an indwelling device or handling invasive medical devices; before moving from work on a soiled body site to a clean body site on the same patient [resident]; after touching a patient [resident] or patient's [resident's] surroundings; after contact with blood, body fluids, or contaminated surfaces; and immediately after glove removal. It also stated gloves were not a substitute for hand hygiene, and if the task required gloves, perform hand hygiene before donning (putting on) gloves and touching the patient [resident] or the patient's [resident's] surroundings. Further review of the CDC's document, dated 04/03/2024, revealed staff should always clean hands after removing gloves. Per the document, it stated to wear gloves when coming in contact with blood or other infectious materials, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, potentially contaminated skin, or contaminated equipment. Additionally, the document stated to change gloves and clean hands if gloves became damaged or soiled with blood or body fluids after a task; if moving from work on a soiled body site to a clean body site on the same patient [resident]; if moving from care on one patient [resident] to another patient [resident]; if they looked dirty or had blood or body fluids on them after completing a task; and before exiting a patient's [resident's] room. Review of the facility's glucometer manufacturer's instructions for cleansing the machine to reduce the risk of transmission of blood-borne pathogens, revised 04/2021, revealed it was to be cleaned and disinfected after each use on each patient [resident] using standard precautions and the manufacturer's disinfection procedures. Per the policy, the procedure included to clean the glucometer with the approved wipe (Super Sani-Cloth, EPA number 9480-4, purple top) with a contact time of two minutes before its next use. The instructions stated to use two wipes, one for cleaning and one for disinfecting, wiping the surface of the meter three times vertically and three times horizontally. Review of Super Sani-Cloth (EPA number 9480-4), the approved wipe for the glucometer utilized by the facility, revealed the instructions for cleaning and disinfecting was to clean with one wipe and disinfect with the second wipe allowing the surface to remain wet for two (2) minutes and allowing to air dry. Review of the facility's list for residents with Blood Borne Illnesses, dated 05/19/2025, revealed one resident, R45, diagnosed with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Disease. Review of the facility's Midnight Census Report, dated 05/19/2025, listed the census with 34 residents receiving fingersticks for blood glucose testing, including R45. 1 a. Review of R45's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R45 on 01/19/2019 with diagnoses to include diabetes, encephalopathy,high blood pressure, and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Review of R45's quarterly Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/20/2025 revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of two out of 15, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Review of R45's Physician's Orders, revealed an active order set, dated 03/20/2024, for a fingerstick to be obtained one time a day to check for blood glucose level. b. Review of R7's admission Record revealed the facility initially admitted the resident on 02/22/2021 with diagnoses including diabetes, cerebral vascular accident, and pneumonia. Review of R7's annual MDS, with an ARD of 04/25/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Further review revealed the resident received five insulin injections during the last seven days. c. Review of R58's admission Record revealed the facility initially admitted the resident on 05/26/2020 with diagnoses including stroke, dementia, and atrial fibrillation. Review of R58's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 03/24/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS of 12 out of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Observation on 05/21/2025 at 10:00 AM on the [NAME] Hall revealed RN1 checked R7's glucose. RN1 removed the glucometer from Medication Cart 2. The glucometer was in the top drawer, it was not in a container or a bag, and there was another glucometer in the same spot touching the other glucometer. RN1 put on gloves without sanitizing her hands and performed the glucometer check on R7. She then went to R7's roommate's bed (R58) and placed the glucometer on his bedside table. She talked with R58, picked up the glucometer, and placed it on the top of the medication cart. She removed her gloves and did not sanitize her hands. She opened the bottom right drawer of the medication cart and wiped the glucometer from 10:07:01 AM to 10:07:010 AM, nine seconds. After wiping the glucometer, she placed the glucometer back on the top of the medication cart, without using a barrier. RN1 left the glucometer on the top of the cart and went to give medications. Observation of the Sani-Cloth Bleach Germicidal Disposable Wipes RN1 used for R7's glucometer disinfection revealed its EPA number was 9480-8 (unapproved, orange top), and it was to remain visibly wet with the disinfectant for four minutes. During interview with RN1 on 05/21/2025 at 10:26 AM, she stated the facility's policy instructed to wipe all sides of the glucometer. She stated she always did three swipes on each side with a Sani-cloth wipe. She stated she thought she should wipe the glucometer and let it dry. She stated she did not think there could be any contamination because she wiped all sides of the glucometer. She said it was just an oversight that she did not let the glucometer stay wet for four minutes. She stated she had two glucometers, and she switched them for use. Per the interview, the RN revealed she was not aware the glucometers needed to be wet for four minutes. d. Review of R244's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/16/2025 with diagnoses to include dysphagia, diabetes mellitus, adult failure to thrive, and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of R244's admission Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/20/2025, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of 10 out of fifteen 15, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the resident received four insulin injections during the last seven days. Review of R244's Physician's Orders, dated 05/16/2025 revealed a verbal order was given for fingerstick blood sugars four times a day for diabetes mellitus. Observation on 05/21/2025 at 11:50 AM revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3, prior to performing a fingerstick on R244, removed the glucometer which was lying on top of the South Hall Medication Cart without a barrier underneath. LPN3 entered R244's room, placed the glucometer on the overbed table, and donned PPE. After cleansing R244's right middle finger with an alcohol pad, LPN3 lanced R244's finger and obtained blood for checking the glucose level. After administering medications and insulin, LPN3 removed PPE and put on different gloves, picked up the glucometer, and placed it on top of the medication cart without a barrier underneath. LPN3 wore the same gloves, opened the bottom drawer of the medication cart, and removed a container of Sani-Cloth Bleach wipes, which was not the acceptable wipe. She removed one cloth and wiped the front and back of the glucometer for approximately four to five seconds with the one cloth and placed the glucometer on top of the medication cart without a barrier underneath. During interview with LPN3 at the time of the observation, on 05/21/2025 at 11:52 AM, she stated she did not have another resident to check for a glucometer check at that time. When asked about the dwell time for the disinfectant wipe for the glucometer, she stated, I don't know, probably two to three minutes. LPN3 further stated she did not know if the glucometer was clean when she used it, but she guessed it was. She stated it was important to clean and disinfect equipment properly to prevent spreading germs from resident to resident. e. Review of R37's admission Record revealed the facility initially admitted the resident on 10/21/2016 with diagnoses of diabetes, anemia, and coronary artery disease. Review of R37's annual MDS, with an ARD of 04/24/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Further review revealed the resident received seven insulin injections during the last seven days. Observation on 05/21/2025 at 3:42 PM revealed LPN1 prepared to check R37's glucose. She opened the top drawer of Medication Cart 2 on the North Hall. She took one of two glucometers that were not in containers and lying next to each other. She did not sanitize her hands, and she put on gloves. She performed the glucose check on R37 and placed the glucometer without a barrier underneath on the top of the medication cart. She removed her gloves and did not sanitize her hands. She took out her keys and opened the bottom right drawer of the medication cart. She took out the Sani-Cloth Bleach Germicidal Disposable Wipes container. She removed a wipe and wiped the glucometer from 3:44:40 to 3:44:50 (10 seconds). She then put the glucometer in a cup and set it on top of the medication cart, started the timer for five minutes, and left. During interview with LPN1 at the time of the observation, on 05/21/2025 at 3:50 PM, she stated she was taught to wipe the glucometer three times each way and then let it dry for five minutes with the orange top sani-wipes. She stated she did not know to use the purple top sani-wipes. Further, she stated she had received training from the staff development coordinator in cleaning the glucometer a few months ago. During interview with the Infection Preventionist on 05/21/2025 at 3:20 PM, she stated each medication cart had two glucometers, and the process was for staff to wipe down the glucometer, using the proper wipe, set to the side, and use the other glucometer while the first was drying. Observation revealed two medication carts on the South Hall, and each had two glucometers which were lying in the top drawer of each medication cart side-by-side. When asked if there was a concern if staff did not follow the proper cleaning procedure, she stated it would cause cross contamination, and she would be concerned for the spread of bloodborne pathogens. During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/22/2025 at 4:00 PM, she stated her expectation was for staff to follow guidelines to properly clean glucometers with the orange top wipes. She stated her concern would be if they did not follow the process, infection could be spread throughout the residents. Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, revision date 04/22/2025, revealed staff providing high-contact care activities for residents in EBP isolation included dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, providing hygiene, linen or brief change, medical care device use, wound care, and assisting with toileting. It stated, during these high-contact care activities, staff was to wear PPE and follow EBP signage. Review of the facility's EBP signage (procedure to be used), posted on residents' doors in EBP, revealed everyone was to clean hands before entering and leaving the room. The signage revealed providers and staff must also wear gloves and a gown for high-contact resident care activities. Review of the facility's list of residents on EBP, dated 05/19/2025, revealed there were 24 residents listed, including R13, R27, R70, and R72. 2. a. Review of R27's admission Record revealed the facility initially admitted the resident on 06/08/2024 with diagnoses including respiratory failure, protein-calorie malnutrition, and diabetes. Review of R27's significant change in status assessment MDS, with an ARD of 03/25/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of four out of 15, indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the resident had one stage 2 pressure ulcer and one stage 3 pressure ulcer. Observation on 05/19/2025 at 4:08 PM revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)2 placed herself partially in Resident (R)27's bed and hugged the resident while she was in the bed without wearing a gown or gloves. Additional observation revealed R27's room door had signage placed for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) hanging on the back of the door. Further observation revealed R27 had an indwelling urinary catheter to bedside drainage. During interview with CNA2 on 05/20/2025 at approximately 12:00 PM, she stated she had received training on infection control and isolation procedures. When asked when staff should put on PPE if a resident was in EBP isolation, she stated anytime there was direct resident care or touching a resident to prevent germs from spreading. During continued interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) on 05/21/2025 at 3:20 PM, she stated R27 was in EBP for a urinary catheter and wounds. b. Review of R13's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/28/2025 with diagnoses to include zoster encephalitis, malignant neoplasm of the brain, and infection with multidrug resistant organisms (MDRO). Review of R13's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 03/24/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of 12 out of 15, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Observation on 05/19/2025 at 5:20 PM revealed RN1 went into R13's room to give an injection. R13 was in EBP due to infection with Multi Drug Resistant Organisms (MDRO). RN1 was only wearing gloves. She opened the left side of the brief and gave the injection. RN1 then left the room and went to the medication cart still wearing the same gloves. She took the keys out of her pocket and opened the drawer and removed an alcohol pad. RN1 returned to R13's room and went to the right side of the bed. She opened the right side of the resident's brief and gave the injection in the right hip, exited the room with her contaminated gloves on, and obtained ice without taking her gloves off. She removed her gloves and put them in the trash can, moving the can with ungloved hands. She did not sanitize or wash her hands. During immediate interview with RN1 after the observation, on 05/19/2025 at 5:30 PM, she stated she could not remember when she was trained in infection control. She stated she had received so much training she could not remember if she had infection control training. She stated she should have sanitized her hands before putting on her gloves and after removing the gloves, she just forgot. c. Review of R72's admission Record revealed facility admitted the resident on 03/01/2025 with diagnoses to include diabetes, stroke, and heart disease. Review of R72's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 04/10/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of nine out of 15, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of R72's Progress Note, dated 05/12/2025 and untimed, revealed the resident had a stage 3 pressure wound to her lower sacrum. During interview with R72 on 05/19/2025 at 3:50 PM, she stated she had a sore on her butt, which was getting better, and the nurses were putting something on it to take care of it. Observation on 05/21/2025 at 8:05 AM revealed CNA5 entered R72's room without wearing a gown or gloves after the resident requested help to reposition. Additional observation revealed R72's door had signage for EBP. During immediate interview with CNA5 after exiting R72's room at 8:10 AM, she stated she had helped the resident to reposition and had not donned Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), but she should have to prevent the spread of germs. d. Review of R70's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/02/2022 with diagnoses which included unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, unspecified dementia, and acute ischemic heart disease. Review of R70's significant change in status assessment MDS, with an ARD of 03/20/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of five out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of R70's Wound Assessment, dated 04/17/2025 revealed the resident had an acute Unstageable Pressure Injury Obscured full-thickness skin and tissue loss Pressure Ulcer acquired on 02/10/2025 and has received a status of Not Healed. Initial wound encounter measurements were 1cm [centimeter] length x 1.5cm width with no measurable depth, with an area of 1.5 sq cm [square centimeter]. There was a Moderate amount of purulent drainage noted. Observation on 05/22/2025 at 1:15 PM revealed there was EBP signage on R70's door. Continued observation of R70's dressing change by LPN7 revealed LPN7 did not follow EBP. The LPN did not wear a gown during this high-contact activity, and the wound cleaner container was hung on the scrub pocket with the spray tip touching the scrubs. During interview with LPN7 on 05/20/2025 at 8:50 AM, she stated it was important to wear proper PPE each and every time direct care was provided to a resident in EBP to prevent the spread of infection and germs. During interview with RN2 on 05/19/2025 at 5:25 PM, she stated if a resident was on EBP, staff should put on PPE prior to touching the resident for prevention of spreading germs. During continued interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) on 05/21/2025 at 3:20 PM, she stated anytime there was high-contact care given that involved touching a resident, PPE should be put on correctly. She stated hand hygiene audits were performed randomly with yearly training. She stated staff was trained to use soap and water after providing care to a resident with diagnoses of C-difficile or Noravirus (gastrointestioanl infection characterized by diarrhea, vomiting, and stomach pain) but was allowed to use hand sanitizer other times. Review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning and Disinfection of Non-Critical Patient [Resident] Care Equipment, revision date 08/22/2022, revealed non-critical reusable patient [resident] care equipment was cleaned daily and before and after reuse with an approved disinfectant based on manufacturer guidelines or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered hospital disinfectant. 3. Observation on 05/19/2025 at 4:10 PM, 05/20/2025 at 11:20 AM, and 05/22/2025 at 12:18 PM, revealed the Hoyer lift (mechanical lift used to transfer residents from one surface to another) on the South 2 Hall had drops of a brown-colored substance on the base of the lift. During interview with CNA5 on 05/21/2025 at 8:10 AM, she stated the entire Hoyer lift should be cleaned after each use. During continued interview with the DON on 05/22/2025 at 4:00 PM, when asked how often the Hoyer lifts should be cleaned, she stated after each use, including the base of the lift. During interview with the Executive Director on 05/22/2025 at 4:20 PM, he stated his tasks included oversight of the building and assuring the needs and safety of the residents and staff were met. The Executive Director revealed he expected staff to follow the infection control policies and procedures for the prevention of spreading infection throughout the facility. The facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan on 05/23/2025 verbatim: 1. How corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice? On 5/22/25, the Director of Nursing (DON) removed the Orange topped Sani-Cloth Bleach wipes from the North Unit medication carts #1 and #2 and replaced with the Purple topped Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable wipes which Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) number is listed by the manufacturer as approved for the glucometer. On 5/22/25, the Director of Nursing (DON) removed the Orange topped Sani-Cloth Bleach wipes from the South Unit medication carts #1 and #2 and replaced with the Purple topped Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable wipes which Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) number is listed by the manufacturer as approved for the glucometer. On 5/22/25, the Director of Nursing (DON) removed the Orange topped Sani-Cloth Bleach wipes from the [NAME] Unit medication carts #1 and #2 and replaced with the Purple topped Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable wipes which Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) number is listed by the manufacturer as approved for the glucometer. On 5/22/25, the Director of Nursing (DON) provided Resident (R) 45 with his own personal glucometer device to be kept in his room to ensure his glucometer device is to be used for his own personal use and not shared with other residents. The Executive Director, Director of Nursing and Interdisciplinary Team completed a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) on 5/23/2025. 2. How facility will identify other residents having the potentlal [sic] to be affected by the same deficient cract1ce [sic]? All residents receiving finger stick blood glucose checks have the potential to be affected. 3. What measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not recur? On 5/22/2025, the Regional Director of Clinical Services provided education to the Director of Nursing (DON), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Staff Development Coordinator and Infection Preventionist Nurse on the following: o Blood Glucose Monitoring Policy o Assur Prism multi® Blood Glucose Monitoring System Reference Manual o Omnicare Glucometer Cleaning Poster o [NAME] Blood glucose monitoring, long-term care procedure o [NAME] Blood glucose monitoring, long-term care skills checklist o Glucometer Cleaning and Disinfecting-Quick Reference Guide o [NAME] Glucometer Assure Quality Control Checks and Cleaning Procedures o [NAME] Skills Checklist-Cleaning and Disinfecting the Meter Starting on 5/22/2025, the Director of Nursing (DON), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), Infection Prevention Nurse and/or Regional Director of Clinical Services will provide education to fill licensed nurses (Registered Nurses and Licensed Nurses) on the following: o Blood Glucose Monitoring Policy o Assur Prism multi® Blood Glucose Monitoring System Reference Manual o Omnicare Glucometer Cleaning Poster o [NAME] Blood glucose monitoring, long-term care procedure o [NAME] Blood glucose monitoring, long-term care skills checklist o Glucometer Cleaning and Disinfecting-Quick Reference Guide o [NAME] Glucometer Assure Quality Control Checks and Cleaning Procedures o [NAME] Skills Checklist-Cleaning and Disinfecting the Meter Any associate who has not completed training by 5/23/2025 will not be allowed to provide direct resident care until training is completed. The Director of Nursing (DON), Staff Development Coordinator (SOC), Infection Prevention Nurse and/or Regional Nurse will provide education to all new associates upon hire during orientation. [The facility's name] does not utilize agency staffing. As of 5/23/25, the facility has educated 23 out of 26 licensed nurses. On 5/23/25, the Director of Nursing (DON) placed a copy of the Omnicare Glucometer Cleaning poster and the Quick Reference Guide for glucometer cleaning on each medication cart as a guide to ensure the facility follows standard precautions during the performance of routine testing of blood glucose and ensure proper cleaning and disinfecting of the shared glucometer monitors that are used for more than one resident. The Medical Director reviewed and agreed with this plan of removal on 5/22/2025 with a copy provided to him on 5/23/25. AD Hoc QAPI meeting was held on 5/23/2025 regarding this plan of removal. Attendees were Executive Director, Medical Director, Director of Nursing, Staff Development Director, Infection Preventionist, Activity Director, Social Service Director, Health Information Manager, MOS Coordinator, Director of Rehabilitation, and Dietary Manager. A second AD Hoc OAPI [sic] meeting will be conducted on 5/23/25 to review audit tools that were completed to identify any deficient practice and provide re-education as indicated. 4. How the facilitv [sic] clans [sic] to monitor its oerformance [sic] to make sure that solutions are sustained. The Director of Nursing (DON), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Staff Development Coordinator (SOC), Infection Prevention Nurse and or Regional Nurse will conduct [NAME] Skills Checklist-Cleaning and Disinfecting the Meter for one nurse per unit per shift (dayshift & nightshift), seven (7) days a week until IJ removal and then five (5) times a week for four (4) weeks, then three (3) times a week for four (4) weeks, then one (1) time a week for four (4) weeks. The Director of Nursing and/or Regional Director of Clinical Services will Audit (Audit #4 A Skills Checklist- Cleaning and Disinfecting the Meter) the skills checklists to ensure the facility follows proper cleaning and disinfecting of the shared glucometer monitors that are used for more than one resident. If any non compliance is identified, a licensed nurse will provide re-education. The Director of Nursing (DON), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Staff Development Coordinator (SOC), Infection Prevention Nurse and or Regional Nurse will conduct a visual observation and complete [NAME] Blood glucose monitoring, long-term care skills checklist for one nurse per unit, seven (7) days a week until IJ removal, then five (5) times a week for four (4) weeks, then three (3) times a week for four (4) weeks, then one (1) time a week for four (4) weeks. The Director of Nursing and/or Regional Director of Clinical Services will Audit (Audit #4 B Skills Checklist- Blood Glucose Monitoring) the skills checklists to ensure the facility follows standard precautions during the performance of routine testing of blood glucose. If any non-compliance is identified, a licensed nurse will provide re-education.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to provide the necessary activity of daily living, bathing, to maintain good personal hygiene for 1 of 27 sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to provide the necessary activity of daily living, bathing, to maintain good personal hygiene for 1 of 27 sampled residents, Resident (R) 51. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Activities of Daily Living, last reviewed 09/10/2024, revealed the resident would receive assistance as needed to complete activities of daily living (ADL), and any change in the ability to perform ADLs would be reported to the nurse. Further review revealed ADLs included hygiene activities such as bathing, dressing, grooming and oral care. Review of R51's admission Record revealed the facility admitted her on 04/15/2025 with diagnoses including displaced trimalleolar fracture of right lower leg, difficulty in walking, and dysphagia. Review of R51's admission Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/18/2025, revealed her Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score was 13 of 15, indicating her cognitive status was intact. The admission MDS also indicated the resident was dependent for showering and bathing. Review of R51's Point of Care charting since admission revealed she received bed baths on 04/24/2025, 05/06/2025, 05/09/2025, and 05/22/2025. In an interview on 05/20/2025 at 10:47 AM, R51 stated staff was always rushing through her care because there were not enough of them. She further stated she mostly received partial bed baths instead of full showers or full bed baths because the aides did not have enough time for a full shower. In additional interview with R51 on 05/22/2025 at 2:53 PM, she stated she had only been given one full bath and hair wash since admission, and that happened at 3:00 AM. She further stated she had received partial baths perhaps five times. She stated on those occasions, she was given a washcloth to wash her face, and the aide washed her arm pits, applied deodorant, and put a little lotion on her legs. She stated she felt embarrassed and that everybody was looking at her because she was not clean. In an interview on 05/21/2025 at 5:09 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 6 and CNA7 stated they often worked with just the two of them as aides for [NAME] Hall, which had 34 residents. They stated those residents had a lot of care needs. Per interview, they stated 18 of the 34 residents were a two-person assist, so CNA6 and CNA7 worked as a team to provide care to these residents. They stated when there were only two aides for that hall, residents typically did not get full showers, only partial bed baths, and other aspects of their care were rushed. During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/23/2025 at 2:44 PM, she stated aides would come to her if they could not give a shower, and she directed them to ask night shift to shower/bath the resident, but sometimes that did not get charted. She stated a bed bath included washing head to toe and nails trimmed, and the residents should be offered a wash-up with face, armpits, and skin folds every day. During interview with the Executive Director on 05/23/2025 at 3:27 PM, he stated his expectation was that staff got their tasks done, and if having issues, to let leaders know so they could help. He stated a resident should get their shower on their day, and they should get a bath and linen changed on their day.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the manufacturer's guidelines, review of a journal article, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to provide the services t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the manufacturer's guidelines, review of a journal article, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to provide the services to prevent possible complications of enteral feeding including but not limited to diarrhea, vomiting, and dehydration for 1 of 2 residents sampled for tube feeding care, Resident (R) 244. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Enteral Nutrition Therapy (Continuous), revision date 09/10/2024, revealed the facility would provide continuous enteral nutrition therapy in accordance with Physician's Orders and professional standards of practice. The policy stated the [enteral feeding pump] proximal spike sets should be replaced once every 24 hours unless otherwise ordered. Per the policy, a resident who was fed by enteral means should receive appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feedings including but not limited to aspiration (inhaling food or drink into airway), diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, and metabolic abnormalities (ability of the body to convert food and drink into energy). Review of the formula company's recommendation, dated 12/14/2024, revealed precautions included: unless a shorter hang time was specified by the set manufacturer, hang product up to 48 hours, otherwise hang for no more than 24 hours. Review of R244's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/16/2025 with diagnoses to include dysphagia, diabetes, adult failure to thrive, and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of R244's admission Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/20/2025, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of 10 out of fifteen 15, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of R244's Physician's Orders, dated 05/19/2025, revealed an active order for Nepro with Carb Steady (enteral formula) at 50 milliliters (ml) an hour with water flushes of 125 ml every four hours of purified water. Review of R244's Care Plan, dated 05/19/2025, revealed the resident required tube feeding related to a swallowing problem and not eating well. Further review revealed no interventions listed for how often to change the tube feeding closed set. Review of R244's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed, beginning the night shift on 05/16/2025 and through the day shift on 05/22/2025, it was initialed as tube feed being administered. Observation on 05/19/2025 at 4:56 PM revealed R244 had a tube feeding solution of Nepro 1.8 cal and water flush hanging on the pole with the tube feed pump and line primed, and both were dated for 05/16/2025. Further observation revealed neither the feeding solution or the water was hooked to the resident or infusing. During interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 2 on 05/19/2025 at 5:25 PM, she stated the tube feeding solution should be discarded after 24 hours. She stated if a resident was administered a solution that had been hanging for longer, the resident could possibly get sick. When asked if she was taking care of R244 today, she stated yes, but was not sure why the solution and water flush were dated for 05/16/2025. During interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 on 05/19/2025 at 6:39 PM, she stated she had been the admitting nurse for R244 on 05/16/2025. When asked what the process was for continuation of orders, she stated the nurse got in touch with the provider to verify the orders, and she called the provider. When asked what the provider had ordered for R244's tube feedings, she stated he said to continue them. She stated that meant the feeding was to continue, but she was unsure of the rate. She stated she thought she remembered changing the solution over the weekend but could not recall if it was dated. She stated she thought the feeding solution was sent from the hospital but could not say for sure when asked why the solution and water flush were dated for 05/16/2025. The State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor attempted to reach the night shift nurse for 05/16/2025 by telephone on 05/19/2025 at 7:04 PM. However, there was no answer, and a voice message was left without response. During interview with LPN5 on 05/20/2025 at 8:50 AM, she stated the tubing feeding solution and the tubing should be changed every 24 hours. She stated it was important because there was a chance the solution could go bad, and the resident could possibly get food poisoning. During interview with RN8 on 05/22/2025 at 10:35 AM, she stated tube feedings should be discarded after 24 hours to prevent bacterial growth in the tubing and feeding solution. She stated if she found a feeding solution outdated and hanging, she would discard immediately and fill out an incident report. During interview with the Infection Preventionist Nurse on 05/23/2025 at 12:13 PM, she stated tube feeding solutions should be discarded after 24 hours. She stated it was important because if the feeding solution and set were left over the 24 hour limit, there was a chance of bacterial growth and that could increase the resident's risk of infection. She stated if staff found a feeding solution and set hanging and it was past the 24 hour limit, they should discard it, assess the resident, and immediately notify the provider. She stated an incident report (IR) should be made, but she was not aware of R244's outdated solution. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/22/2025 at 3:25 PM, she stated if feeding solutions were hanging longer than 24 hours, the solution could clabber and make a resident sick. She stated the tubing and solution were supposed to be changed every 24 hours. She stated she had not been made aware R244's feeding solution was outdated and still hanging in the resident's room. During an interview with the Executive Director on 05/22/2025 at 4:20 PM, he stated his tasks were to offer oversight for the building to assure safety of the residents. Further, the Executive Director stated it was his expectation that staff would follow the facility's policies and procedures.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide effective pain management for 2 of 5 residents investigated for pain management, Resident (R) 5 and R59. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Nursing Documentation, dated [DATE], revealed the facility implemented interventions to prevent or manage each individual resident's pain, beginning at admission. Review of the facility's policy, Administration of Medications, dated [DATE], revealed the facility would ensure medications were administered safely and appropriately per physician order to address residents' diagnoses and signs and symptoms. 1. Review of the Closed Record revealed the facility admitted R59 on [DATE] at approximately 5:30 PM from the hospital to recover from a fall at home that resulted in a right hip fracture. Further review of the Closed Record revealed diagnoses to include peripheral vascular disease and diabetes. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set Assessment with an ARD date of [DATE] revealed the facility assessed R59 as having a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the physician orders dated [DATE] revealed an order for Oxycodone 30 mg to be given every 6 hours as needed for pain. Review of progress note effective date [DATE] at 1:15 AM written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 6 revealed R59 was complaining of pain in the right hip. LPN6 wrote R59 was aware they were waiting on the pain medication to be delivered from the pharmacy. Further review revealed LPN6 administered acetaminophen 650 mg at 1:15 AM. Review of progress note effective date [DATE] at 02:08 AM written by LPN6 revealed R59 requested pain medication. LPN6 informed R59 that she would notify pharmacy and have the medication sent stat. LPN6's next sentence stated she notified the pharmacy of urgent need for medications to be delivered and the pharmacy stated they would have the medications sent by 6:00 AM or 6:30 AM. LPN 6 documented at 3:08 AM spoke with Director of Nursing (DON), informed her of what was going on. Review of progress note effective date [DATE] at 3:50 AM written by LPN6 revealed R59 was yelling out requesting pain medications. R59 was informed that the medications still had not arrived. LPN6 offered to send R59 to the emergency room (ER) for pain evaluation. R59 requested to be sent to the ER. During interview with LPN6 on [DATE] at 7:55 AM, she stated the facility admitted R59 and she could not get his pain medication because there was not another nurse in the facility with a code to access the facility's emergency medication system, so she sent him to the emergency room (ER). She further stated the Oxyconde 30 mg was available in the emergency medication system but there was not another nurse in the facility that had the code to obtain the medication and it took two nurses to enter the codes to get in the secured system. During a post-survey interview with the contracted pharmacy, on [DATE] at 2:55 PM, the pharmacist stated Oxycodone was available in the emergency medication system. During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 10:32 AM, she stated the emergency medication system required two nurses to enter a code in order to remove medications from the system and she said the process for giving the nurses codes to access the emergency medication system was to contact the pharmacy by way of electronic mail (e-mail). She stated the pharmacy issued the codes, and any new nurse or any nurse who had an expired code was given a new code. She stated she tried to look at the list of nurses' codes and their expiration date monthly, but she was not always able to review it. She stated the importance of the codes was so nurses could access medications that were not in the medication cart. She stated, to her knowledge, there had always been two nurses in the facility who had codes to the emergency medication system. She stated, if there were not two nurses in the facility who had a code, the nurses should contact her, and she would come to the facility. 2. Review of R5's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses to include acquired absence of left great toe, chronic kidney disease, and type two diabetes with polyneuropathy (disorder of the peripheral nerves). Review of R5's CCP, dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident as at risk for pain in her wrist and leg related to diabetes complications. Further review revealed the facility included interventions such as administering controlled medications as ordered and providing nonpharmacologic treatments for pain. Further review of the CCP, dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident as at risk for needing more medications to achieve adequate pain relief and included interventions such as administering analgesic (pain relief) medicine as ordered and reviewing when the medication regimen was not followed as ordered. Review of R5's significant change MDS, with an ARD of [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Further review revealed the facility noted R5 received scheduled and as needed pain medications. Review of R5's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 01/2025, revealed the physician ordered 300 mg of gabapentin (a medication for nerve pain) to be administered three times per day for leg pain. Further review revealed the facility failed to administer 14 doses of gabapentin from [DATE] to [DATE], and R5 did not receive any additional pain medication during this time. Review of R5's Progress Notes, dated [DATE] at 1:54 PM, revealed Registered Nurse (RN) 5 documented sending a request for a refill for R5's gabapentin because it was running low. Per review, RN5 called the physician and the pharmacy, and the pharmacy told her the prescription was not sent in. She did not remember specifically if she followed-up after the calls because this had happened so many times. Review of R5's Progress Note dated [DATE] at 7:32 AM, revealed RN5 documented R5 was out of gabapentin, even though the prescription was requested on [DATE]. In an interview on [DATE] at 3:48 PM, R5 stated she recalled the facility running out of her gabapentin in 01/2025. She stated staff told her the pharmacy had not refilled her medicine, and it took days to get it fixed. R5 stated she was in pain, and she felt a shooting sensation down her leg. Per the interview, R5 did not want to complain to the nurses because she knew they were trying, but her pain was increased while she was not receiving her gabapentin. Additionally, R5 stated no staff member had suggested heat, ice, or different positions to relieve her pain. In an interview on [DATE] at 6:37 PM, RN5 stated she recalled R5 running out of gabapentin on more than one occasion, including in 01/2025. She further stated she had notified the pharmacy a week prior, when she noticed the resident's medication supply was low. Per the interview, R5's dose of gabapentin was not available in the emergency medication system. RN5 stated she did not recall R5 complaining of additional pain during that time, but the resident had received other pain medications, which helped prevent the resident's pain from getting out of control. Additionally, she stated it was important to manage the resident's pain because no one wanted to be in pain. During a post-survey interview with the contracted pharmacy, on [DATE] at 2:55 PM, the pharmacist stated gabapentin was available in the emeregency medication system. In an interview on [DATE] at 10:25 AM, the DON stated the facility's process for obtaining medication refills included faxing a refill reminder sticker to the pharmacy, submitting a request on the electronic health record, and having cycle fills of routine medications that were refilled automatically. She stated the facility had issues with getting routine medications and narcotics from the pharmacy in a timely manner. Per interview, the pharmacy the facility was currently using was new to them and they had problems with miscommunication with them. Additionally, the DON stated the facility did not have a 24-hour pharmacy in town to use as a back-up if the main pharmacy failed to deliver a medication. In an interview on [DATE] at 3:46 PM, the Executive Director (ED) stated he expected the facility to have medications available for residents as much as possible. He further stated if something happened that resulted in the medication not being available, he expected staff to call the physician and the pharmacy and get either a rush delivery or a code to obtain the medication out of the emergency medication system. He stated staff should also let the DON and himself know about the situation. The ED stated he expected residents to receive their pain medication as ordered so that their pain did not rise to uncontrollable and intolerable levels. Per the interview, the ED was not aware of R5 missing 14 doses of gabapentin in late 01/2025 and could not explain how the process failed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to provide pre-and post-dialysis communication documentation for 1 of 6 dialysis residents, Resident (R) 42....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to provide pre-and post-dialysis communication documentation for 1 of 6 dialysis residents, Resident (R) 42. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Area of Focus: Dialysis, revision date 11/19/2024, revealed instructions for day of dialysis included to check medications especially blood pressure and cardiac medications and to initiate the Pre/Post Dialysis Communication Form to be sent to the dialysis clinic with the resident, ensure transportation was scheduled, and send snack/lunch with the resident. Further review revealed the treatment, upon the resident's return to the facility, included to obtain vital signs and monitor vascular access site. Per the policy, staff was to complete the Pre/Post Dialysis Communication Form, transcribe any orders sent from the dialysis clinic, and maintain the dialysis transfer form in the resident's medical chart. Review of R42's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 02/27/2025 with diagnoses to include diabetes, chronic kidney disease stage five (5), and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of R42's quarterly Minimum Data Set [MDS] with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/02/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of 15 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of R42's Physician's Orders dated 11/07/2024, revealed an active order for the resident to receive dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday related to chronic renal failure. Review of R42's Care Plan, initiated on 11/11/2024, revealed a focus included hemodialysis related to renal failure. Goals included the resident would have no signs and symptoms of complications from dialysis. However, interventions did not include initiation, completion, and documentation of the Pre/Post Dialysis Communication Form. Review of the facility's blank document Pre/Post Dialysis Communication Form revealed sections titled Pre-Dialysis and Post-Dialysis, including if a meal was given to the resident to take to the dialysis center, were to be completed by the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF). Further review included a section for the dialysis center to complete prior to the resident's return to the facility. Review of R42's hemodialysis treatment records received from the dialysis center revealed R42 received eight hemodialysis in-center treatments from 05/02/2025 through 05/19/2025. Review of R42's hard copy medical chart revealed the Pre/Post Dialysis Communication Form was not located for the 05/02/2025 through 05/19/2025 dialysis treatments. Review of R42's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed no Pre/Post Dialysis Communication Form was located or assessments charted as performed for the 05/02/2025 through 05/19/2025 dialysis treatments. During interview with R42 on 05/19/2025 at 5:50 PM, he stated he had just returned from dialysis and was doing well. When asked if he took any papers with him to the center earlier today or brought any back, he stated he really could not remember. During interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 8 on 05/22/2025 at 10:35 AM, she stated dialysis residents were supposed to be assessed pre- and post-dialysis treatment, findings placed on the communication form, the form given to the resident to take to the dialysis center, and the form completed by the dialysis center and returned to the facility with the resident. However, she stated there were times this process was not followed. When asked if the information was charted elsewhere, RN8 stated staff was supposed to chart the pre- and post-dialysis assessments in the progress notes. She stated the form, when and if returned from the dialysis center, was placed on a clip board at the nurse's station, but the dialysis center seldom sent it back to the facility. When RN8 was asked what process was followed if the form was not returned, she stated staff called the dialysis center and requested the form be faxed. She stated completion of the form was important to know the pre- and post-baseline of the resident to detect any change in condition. Review of the clip board documents during interview revealed no dialysis forms. During continued interview with RN8, she stated medical records staff picked up the forms that were placed on the clip board. During interview with Medical Records (MR) staff on 05/22/2025 at 10:55 AM, she stated she did pick up the dialysis forms and scanned them into the EMR, but they were not always on the clip board. During interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 on 05/22/2025 at 1:47 PM, she stated she thought vital signs and a weight were to be taken on a resident prior to them going to dialysis, and a weight was supposed to be obtained upon return, but she did not send that many residents to dialysis. When asked why it would be important for pre- and post-dialysis assessments to be completed and charted, she stated to know the baseline so the resident could get the best care. During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/22/2025 at 3:25 PM, she stated the dialysis forms should be completed and returned to the facility so staff could monitor the resident pre- and post-dialysis for any changes. During interview with the Executive Director on 05/23/2025 at 4:46 PM, he stated staff completing the Pre/Post Dialysis Communication Form was important because it determined the status of the resident pre- and post-dialysis to assure the safety of the resident.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 1. Review of R50's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R50 on 07/08/2024 with diagnoses including [NAME]-[NAME] synd...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 1. Review of R50's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R50 on 07/08/2024 with diagnoses including [NAME]-[NAME] syndrome (a rare, autoimmune disorder in which the immune system attacked the neuromuscular junctions), type 2 diabetes, and carcinoma-in-situ of the lung. Review of R50's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/13/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating her cognitive status was intact. Review of R50's Physician Orders, initiated on 12/13/2022, revealed an order for Pyridostigmine Bromide ER(used to improve muscle strength in patients with certain muscle diseases), 180 milligrams (mg) daily by mouth. Further review revealed it was ordered to manage the effects of [NAME]-[NAME] syndrome. Review of R50's Medication Administration Record [MAR] for April 2025 revealed she missed the dose of Pyridostigmine Bromide ER on [DATE]. Review of R50's Administration Note, dated 04/03/2025, revealed pharmacy cancelled the order for Pyridostigmine Bromide ER the previous night after Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 had reordered it. Further review of the note revealed LPN1 had requested the medication be sent that day. Review of R50's MAR for May 2025 revealed she missed the doses of Pyridostigmine Bromide ER on [DATE] and 05/19/2025. Review of R50's Administration Note, dated 05/18/2025, revealed the medication was out of stock in the cart and had been reordered from pharmacy. Review of R50's Administration Note, dated 05/19/2025, revealed the medication was on order. Review of the facility's Pharmacy Calls/Notifications log revealed a call on 04/02/2025 at 9:36 AM regarding R50's missing Pyridostigmine Bromide, and the result was that the medication required Prior Authorization (PA) from the insurance company. Further review revealed a call on 05/19/2025 at 10:00 AM, with indicated response that the missing medication would be sent that evening. Continued review revealed a call on 05/20/2025 at 9:15 AM regarding the Pyridostigmine Bromide, with indicated response that it would be sent on the first run that date. Observation on 05/20/2025 at 1:58 PM, revealed R50 in bed and looking weak with a flat affect. During interview with R50 on 05/20/2025 at 1:58 PM, she stated she was very concerned about a needed medication she had not received for three days. She stated she understood the problem, and it had something to do with insurance and that it had happened before. She stated the medication was for an autoimmune condition that left her weak and unable to stand without it. Observation on 05/23/2025 at 11:46 AM revealed R50 with a much brighter affect and feeling better after the Pyridostigmine Bromide ER had been restarted. During interview with R50 on 05/23/2025 at 11:46 AM, she stated she felt much better today. She stated the medicine was for [NAME] syndrome, and it affected her muscles and made her not be able to stand up. She stated with the medicine her muscles worked better, and without the medicine, she was so weak she could not get up and get around. She stated she typically could get up and move with a walker but could not if she was without her medicine. She stated she had a harder time talking when she was without the medicine. She stated she felt much better today. During interview with LPN1 on 05/21/2025 at 5:22 PM, she stated the problem was the medication required a Prior Authorization (PA). She stated the facility received nine of 30 ordered pills the previous afternoon, 05/20/2025. She stated when she returned from vacation on 05/19/2025, R50 was out of the medication, so she called the pharmacy and requested a stat (immediate) delivery, but they did not send it. She also stated a PA was supposed to go to the doctor's office for them to send to the pharmacy for refilling the medication. She stated when she spoke to the pharmacy, they would tell her they needed a PA and sent the request to the physician and to the facility. In the meantime, she stated, staff had requested from the Administrator or Director of Nursing (DON) to pay for the short-term refill pending the authorization being approved. LPN1 stated they normally ordered refills directly through the electronic heath record (EHR). But for this medication, she stated the pharmacy notified the provider but would call the facility if the PA was not received. She stated sometimes pharmacy sent that to the facility as well, and those would be taken to the DON. During interview with LPN6 on 05/22/2025 at 8:24 AM, she stated if a medication was not stocked in the cart, she ordered it right then through point-click-care (PCC), a software the facility used. However, she stated when she ordered at night, then it still might not be in when she returned to work, and she had to call again. She stated the facility had a telephone log for pharmacy calls so anybody who followed the nurse who ordered a given medication could see it on the computer, and it should have been on the log. During interview with LPN2 on 05/22/2025 at 1:21 PM, she stated when R50's Pyridostigmine Bromide ER was received, the manifest indicated the pharmacy sent nine pills, and owed 21. She stated she ordered medicines directly through PCC, and also took the sticker off the medication box and added that to a list of stickers on a paper form, and then faxed it to the pharmacy. She stated she usually ordered refills three to four days out from being out of the medication. LPN2 stated, if knowing from the past that a medication was difficult to get, she would order earlier. She stated if a medication required a PA, she might not be aware of that as those were managed on day shift, but if alerted for such, the day nurse called the doctor for that. She stated when putting in orders, the only alert from the screen were possible interactions. She stated there was not an alert if the medication required a PA, and that information would come from a pharmacist. LPN2 also stated she knew at least two other nurses who used the added step of faxing the stickers. During additional interview with LPN1 on 05/22/2025 at 5:26 PM, she stated the facility had received the remainder of ordered pills for R50. She stated PAs were previously not a problem, and a PA was in effect for a year. However, she stated after 01/01/2025, that had changed, and now a PA was required every month. She stated the pharmacy had reported they had sent the PA to the physician, but the facility had not received a response. She also stated she started having more problems with this in April 2025, and the facility had paid for the medicine since then. During interview with the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) on 05/22/2025 at 2:39 PM, she stated the facility provided education on medication management if there was a complaint. For example, she stated if there was a complaint that came up at the morning staff meeting, the DON asked for education for that issue, then she would develop a review with the policy for the staff. She stated staff nurses kept up with medication management. She stated she did not do specific education on reordering, that came with assistance from their preceptor. During interview with the contracted Pharmacist on 05/22/2025 at 10:08 AM, he stated Pyridostigmine Bromide orders required a PA. He also stated there was an attempt to refill on 05/18/2025, and the non-covered authorization form was completed. He stated this form was necessary because insurance would not pay, so either the facility could pay or work to get an alternate medication. He stated the medication was not covered, but he did not know why and could not say if this was a permanent issue. He stated all he could say was a PA was required as evidenced by a PA documented as requested on 05/13/2025. He stated the methods to pursue included using an interface from another pharmacy for review of issues. He stated he had been working on the communication process. He stated the pharmacy's Clinical Intervention Center generated the PA, which then went to the physician or facility per the facility's preference. He stated for this facility, he could not say the process but agreed to reach out to the Clinical Intervention Center and request they call. During additional interview with the Pharmacist on 05/23/2025 at 9:01 AM, he stated for this facility, PA notifications went to an interface from another pharmacy, and also generated a fax to the facility. He further stated the PA could go to the provider if a facility chose. For this facility, he stated, a PA went to a fax number in the facility but was changed to a different fax number last week per request of the DON. The Pharmacist stated R50's medication was ordered on 05/13/2025, kicked to the Clinical Intervention Center due to the PA and nonpayment without it. In turn, he stated it generated a notice of the needed PA to OCC, which the facility could have access to, and generated a fax to the selected number. He stated the facility could see OCC with their own login, so a nurse or manager would have to do that manually on that website. He stated the website could have alerts sent via email, but the alerts could not be seen in PCC. During interview with the DON on 05/23/2025 at 10:19 AM, she stated when she talked to the pharmacist last week, she learned when a medication required a PA, if the pharmacy would notify the facility, the facility would pay for a short supply pending the PA approval. She stated the current strategy was for the pharmacy to notify the facility of a PA by fax. In the past, she stated the pharmacy had a staff member who included PA notices on paper on the midnight delivery, so the facility would have it in hand the following morning. She stated the paper PA notices stopped maybe six months ago, but she was not sure of the exact timeframe. She stated she had an in-person meeting with the Pharmacist, when they went over the interface from another pharmacy together, but the links did not take them to relevant information or the system crashed. Since then, she stated the pharmacy had been sending the notices by fax. She also stated the facility had only a few residents who were taking medications which required a PA, such as something insurance would not cover, so the facility paid for those. She further stated the pharmacy sent the PA, and the DON completed the form. She stated, then Medical Records staff took the PA to the provider or they obtained the signature when the provider was in the building. Then, she stated the facility sent the PA back to the pharmacy. During additional interview with the DON on 05/23/2025 at 2:44 PM, she stated she called the pharmacy when she was no longer receiving PA notices on paper. She stated the pharmacy told her those staff members were no longer there, and they did not offer an explanation or how they were to transmit those. After that, she stated a notice would show up on a random basis, and she assumed there was nobody on a medication that required a PA. She stated she and another nurse manager were the only ones who had access to the interface from another pharmacy, but the floor nurses did not and would not have received the notices. During interview with the Executive Director on 05/23/2025 at 3:11 PM, he stated if there were problems with getting residents' medications, he expected staff to alert the provider and work with pharmacy. He stated, if the issue was still not resolved, he expected staff to contact him or the DON, and they could contact the Regional Pharmacist directly. He stated he expected if those actions did not resolve the problem, then the facility could source the medication from a retail pharmacy.2. Review of R5's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/25/2023 with diagnoses at time of survey including acquired absence of left great toe, chronic kidney disease, and type two diabetes with polyneuropathy (disorder of the peripheral nerves). Review of R5's significant change MDS, with an ARD of 04/16/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Further review revealed the facility noted R5 received scheduled and as needed pain medications. Review of R5's MAR, dated 01/2025, revealed the physician ordered 300 mg of gabapentin (a medication for nerve pain) to be administered three times per day for leg pain. Further review revealed the facility failed to administer 14 doses of gabapentin from 01/12/2025 to 01/30/2025. Review of R5's Progress Note, dated 01/10/2025, revealed Registered Nurse (RN) 5 documented sending a request for a refill for R5's gabapentin because it was running low. Per review, RN5 called the physician and the pharmacy, and the pharmacy told her the prescription was not sent in. Review of R5's Progress Note, dated 01/17/2025, revealed RN5 documented R5 was out of gabapentin, even though the prescription was requested on 01/10/2025. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 3:48 PM, R5 stated she recalled the facility running out of her gabapentin in 01/2025. She stated staff told her the pharmacy had not refilled her medicine, and it took days to get it fixed. R5 stated she was in pain and felt a shooting sensation down her leg. Per interview, R5 did not want to complain to the nurses because she knew they were trying, but her pain was increased while she was not receiving her gabapentin. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 6:37 PM, RN5 stated she recalled R5 running out of gabapentin on more than one occasion, including in 01/2025. She further stated she had notified the pharmacy a week prior, when she noticed the medication supply was low. Per interview, R5's dose of gabapentin was not available in the facility's emergency medication system. In continued interview, RN5 stated on multiple occasions, she had notified the physician of the need for a refill prescription and would call the pharmacy to follow up on a refill. She stated the pharmacy would tell her they did not have it, even though the physician told her they sent it in. Additionally, RN5 stated a delivery requested as STAT (as quickly as possible; high priority) would often not arrive for 10 hours from the pharmacy. During a post survey interview with the contracted pharmacy, on 06/10/2025 at 2:55 PM, the pharmisist stated that gabapentin was available in the emergency medication system at the facility. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 10:25 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility's process for obtaining medication refills included faxing a refill reminder sticker to the pharmacy, submitting a request on the electronic health record, and having cycle fills of routine medications that were refilled automatically. She further stated staff could request a rush delivery from the pharmacy or pull the medication from the emergency medication system with an access code from pharmacy. In continued interview, the DON stated the facility had issues with getting routine medications and narcotics from the pharmacy in a timely manner. Per interview, the pharmacy the facility was currently using was new to them, and they had problems with miscommunication with them. Additionally, the DON stated the facility did not have a 24-hour pharmacy in town to use as a back-up if the main pharmacy failed to deliver a medication. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 3:46 PM, the Executive Director stated he expected the facility to have medications available for residents as much as possible. He further stated if something happened that resulted in the medication not being available, he expected staff to call the physician and the pharmacy and get either a rush delivery or a code to obtain the medication out of the emergency medication system. In continued interview, he stated the facility noted the communication barriers with pharmacy on 05/12/2025 around admission and readmission, as well as not receiving refills. Per interview, he stated he was not aware of R5 missing 14 doses of gabapentin in late 01/2025. Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to provide routine and emergency drugs and biologicals to its residents, or obtain them under an agreement. The facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 2 of 5 residents investigated for pharmacy services, Resident (R) 5 and R50. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Reordering, Changing, and Discontinuing Medication Orders, revision date 7/01/2024, revealed facilities are encouraged to reorder medications electronically or by fax whenever possible staff may use electronic orders. Facility staff [the pharmacy's software program, secure web portal for pharmacy management, communication, and reporting] log in [the pharmacy's software program] to access medication, order status, payment and more. [The pharmacy's software program] should be restricted by assigned user identification and password and should be controlled by the Director of Nursing or designee. Further review revealed facilities were encouraged to reorder medications electronically or by fax whenever possible, and the reorders would be written and submitted on the pharmacy's Refill Order Form and would be faxed to the pharmacy, if permitted by applicable law. Continued review revealed authorized facility staff would use the software to electronically reorder resident medications, and staff should review the transmitted reorders for status and potential issues and pharmacy response. Review of the facility's policy titled, Nursing Documentation, reviewed 09/05/2024, revealed the facility implemented interventions to prevent or manage each individual resident's pain, beginning at admission. Review of the facility's policy titled, Administration of Medications, reviewed 09/16/2024, revealed the facility will ensure medications are administered safely and appropriately per physician order to address residents' diagnoses and signs and symptoms.
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 review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This had the potential to a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This had the potential to affect 87 of 90 residents who consumed food from the kitchen and snacks from the North and South Units. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Safe Food Handling, revised 04/20/2025, revealed thawing some foods at room temperature might not be acceptable because it might be within the danger zone for rapid bacterial proliferation. Further review revealed the recommended methods to safely thaw frozen foods included thawing in the refrigerator in a drip proof container and in a manner that prevented cross contamination, thawing the item in a microwave oven, or thawing as part of a continuous cooking process. Continued review revealed frozen food must be thawed under refrigeration or in the cooking process. Additional review revealed snacks and other food items sent from the food service department were handled safely related to temperature, labeling, and storage. Review of the facility's policy titled, Nourishment and Snacks, revised 05/08/2025, revealed nourishment and snacks would be prepared and stored using food safety guidelines. Further review revealed resident nourishments and snacks could be prepared in advance and stored in the nourishment room refrigerator/freezer outside of the food service department to be served by nursing staff. Continued review revealed the nourishment/snack refrigerators should be clean and free of non-resident food items, and items stored in the units should adhere to safe food handling and food safety, specifically labeling and dating. Observation of the kitchen on 05/19/2025 at 2:45 PM revealed five rolls of frozen ground beef thawing at room temperature in a bin resting on a rolling cart . Further observation revealed a commercially prepared container of sliced meat in the reach-in refrigerator that was unlabeled and undated. Continued observation revealed a 12-ounce can of soda that was unlabeled and undated. Observation on 05/21/2025 at 6:15 PM revealed snacks in a bin, already placed on top of the North Unit nurse's station counter, ahead of the 8:00 PM snack distribution time, including meat sandwiches and milk, which were not in the refrigerator. Observation of the North Unit nourishment refrigerator on 05/22/2025 at 4:26 PM revealed one box from a fast food restaurant with no label for the intended resident or date. The observation further revealed a lunch box containing two energy drinks and without a label or date. Observation of the South Unit nourishment refrigerator on 05/22/2025 at 5:03 PM revealed a shopping bag containing fruit and crackers belonging to Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 15, who retrieved it and stated there was a staff refrigerator in their break room where staff was expected to place their own food items. Observation also revealed a shopping bag containing apples and a carton of chocolate milk, unlabeled and undated. During interview with Cook/Dietary Aide (DA) 1 on 05/19/2025 at 2:45 PM, she stated she believed the commercially prepared meat in the reach-in refrigerator was leftover from a prior activity. She further stated she thought the soda might belong to a staff member, and prepared snacks were taken to the units at about 2:30 PM and about 7:00 PM each day. She stated the ground beef was thawing and would go into the walk-in refrigerator later in the afternoon to finish thawing to be used the following day. During interview with Cook/DA2 on 05/21/2025 at 8:16 AM, she stated when thawing meats, they removed the meats from the walk-in freezer, placed a label with the pull date and use by date on the packaging, placed the meat in a pan and allowed it to begin thawing, and then later placed the pan in the bottom shelf of the walk-in refrigerator. During interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 6 on 05/21/2025 at 6:15 PM, she stated nighttime snacks were often delivered directly to the nurse's station, not to the nourishment refrigerator, around shift change. During telephone interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 5 on 05/21/2025 at 8:02 PM, she stated the nighttime snacks arrived about the time night shift arrived around 6:00 PM or 6:30 PM. She stated snacks were placed on the nurse's station counter and not in the refrigerator. She stated the aides started night shift by feeding those residents who might still need assistance, collect trays, round, and then pass snacks with their ice pass. During interview with LPN2 on 05/22/2025 at 1:39 PM, she stated the kitchen delivered a box of snacks to the nurse's station while shift change staff was in report. She stated sometimes she put the box in the refrigerator later, after shift report, or the aides would distribute after they passed the resident's ice. During interview with the Registered Dietician (RD) on 05/22/2025 at 2:18 PM, she stated best practice was to put frozen meats from the freezer to the refrigerator at least 24 hours in advance of preparing the meal. Further, she stated it was best practice to avoid putting meat on the counter to thaw at room temperature. During interview with the admission Coordinator on 05/22/2025 at 4:26 PM, she stated the reason it was important to label and date stored items in the Nourishment Room was so residents did not get food that was spoiled. She stated food should be labeled if it was something brought in for a specific resident. During interview with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) on 05/23/2025 at 1:37 PM, she stated to thaw meat, the expectation and policy was to take the meat straight from the freezer, place it in a pan, and label and date the item. She further stated all meat and poultry would go to the bottom shelf of the walk-in refrigerator. She stated the sliced ham in the refrigerator was left from a prior activity and kept for resident snacks. She stated it should have been labeled and dated. She stated the nourishment refrigerators on the units should only hold resident items, and those should be labeled and dated. She stated staff snacks or lunches should not be in the nourishment refrigerators. She stated she had educated dietary staff to remove unlabeled items from the refrigerators. The CDM stated the kitchen staff delivered snacks at around 10:00 AM, 3:00 PM, and 8:00 PM. She stated staff should not have delivered at 6:00 PM because that was too early for nighttime snacks. She stated they typically delivered to the nurse's stations. During interview with the Director of Nursing on 05/23/2025 at 2:44 PM, she stated staff drinks or snacks should be stored in the break room, and putting those in a nourishment refrigerator for residents was not acceptable. During interview with the Executive Director on 05/22/2025 at 4:32 PM, after he observed the lunch bag found in a nourishment refrigerator, he stated he had not identified the owner of the lunch bag. He further stated it was important to label and date items in the refrigerator so that the right resident received them and so they did not distribute food that might be spoiled. During another interview with the Executive Director on 05/23/2025 at 3:11 PM, he stated his expectation was that all the food was stored correctly, and he relied on the CDM and the RD to assure staff followed the prescribed policies. He further stated if they had problems, they notified him. He stated if snacks were not passed in a timely fashion, they should be stored in the refrigerator. He stated all items in the nourishment refrigerator must be labeled and dated, and it was not acceptable for staff to keep personal items in a nourishment refrigerator.
Mar 2021 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, review of [NAME] Nutrition manufacturer's instructions, and review of the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, review of [NAME] Nutrition manufacturer's instructions, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for a subset of one (1) of one (1) sampled residents with an enteral feeding, Resident #21. Total number of sampled residents was eighteen (18). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Enteral Nutritional Therapy (Tube Feeding), undated, revealed, when providing enteral nutritional therapy, (tube feeding), the licensed nurse was to make sure the enteral formula container was labeled with the patient's identifiers; formula name, strength, date and time of formula preparation; date and time the formula was hung; rate of administration; initials of the person who prepared, hung and checked the enteral formula against the order; and expiration date and time. Also, per policy, the enteral administration set would be labeled with the date and time it was first hung. In addition, the policy stated to change the closed system and the enteral administration set according to the manufacturer's instructions. Review of the [NAME] Nutrition manufacturer's instructions, dated 02/04/2013, revealed, for Jevity 1.2 Cal for use with [NAME] Safety Screw Connector set (closed system), the product could hang for up to forty-eight (48) hours when clean technique and only one screw cap feeding set was used. Per the instructions, if these conditions were not met, the product could hang for no longer than twenty-four (24) hours. Review of Resident #21's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/18/2015, with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Barrette's Esophagus, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, and Dysphagia, Oropharyngeal Phase. Review of Resident #21's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 01/06/2021, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three (3) out of fifteen (15), which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Observation of Resident #21, on 03/17/2021 at 10:26 AM, revealed, beside his/her bed, a tube feeding closed system with a spiked bottle, which was not labeled with a name, room number, date, time, rate, and type of feeding. In addition, the intravenous (IV) fluid bag was not labeled. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, on 03/17/2021 at 10:28 AM, revealed the tube feeding should be hung with name, date, time, formula, and rate. She further stated the tube feeding hung yesterday, for Resident #21, was labeled, and she had not seen that the current tube feeding was not labeled with the required information. LPN #3 stated the evening shift mostly changed the tube feeding, and evening shift staff did not complete the information on the label. Interview with LPN #1, on 03/18/2021 at 9:20 AM, revealed tube feedings needed to be labeled with the time, date, name, formula, rate and initials. LPN #1 also stated a tube feeding should be changed immediately if it was not labeled with the needed information. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #2, on 03/18/2021 at 9:30 AM, revealed she worked the evening shift and checked the tube feeding order with the tube feedings in supply. RN #2 stated tube feedings should be labeled with the date, initials, resident name, formula, and rate. She stated she had hung the tube feeding bottle for Resident #21 with the appropriate information on the label, the evening of 03/16/2021. However, the observation of this tube feeding bottle, on 03/17/2021 at 10:26 AM, revealed it was not labeled. Interview with Director of Nursing (DON), on 03/19/2021 at 2:45 PM, revealed it was important to label the tube feeding with the identifiers of name, date, rate, time, formula, and initials and to ensure the resident was receiving the tube feeding according to Physician's Orders. Interview with the Administrator, on 03/19/2021 at 2:53 PM, revealed his expectation was for staff to label and date tube feedings according to the facility's policy.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals stored in the facility were not expired; were labeled and st...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals stored in the facility were not expired; were labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and, included the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions and the expiration date, when applicable, for three (3) of six (6) observed medication carts. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, LTC Facility's Pharmacy Services and Procedure Manual, dated October 2016, revealed that once any medication or biological package was opened, the facility would follow manufacturer/supplier guidelines with respect to expiration dates for opened medications. Further review revealed facility staff would record the date opened on the medication container when the medication had a shortened expiration date once opened. Furthermore, the facility should ensure that medications and biologicals were stored at their appropriate temperatures according to the United States Pharmacopoeia guidelines. Continued review revealed the facility should ensure that medications and biologicals that have an expired date on the label and/or had been retained longer than the manufacturer or supplier guidelines were stored separate from other medications until destroyed or returned to the pharmacy or supplier. Furthermore, the policy stated the facility should: (1) store all medications and biologicals requiring special containers for stability in accordance with manufacturer/supplier specifications; and (2) destroy or return all discontinued and outdated/expired medications or biologicals in accordance with the Pharmacy return/destruction guidelines; and (3) ensure that all medications and biologicals for expired, discharged , or hospitalized residents were stored separately, away from use, until destroyed or returned to the Pharmacy. 1. Observation of the North Wing Medication Cart #2, on 03/19/2021 at 9:40 AM, revealed: one (1) opened bottle of eye drops with no opened date on the label, not in its original packaging, and without resident identification; one (1) opened bottle of Fluticasone (corticosteroid for nasal inhalation) with no opened date on packaging or container and no accessory and cautionary instructions; one (1) bottle of Lantanoprost (eye drops used to treat Glaucoma) 0.005% improperly stored in the medication cart and not in the refrigerator as required; and one (1) bottle of ProSource, a nutritional supplement, (manufacturer's expiration date (MED) of 2/2022) with an opened date of 12/03/2020. Facility guidelines stated to discard the bottle three (3) months after opening. Further observation revealed one (1) bottle of Nitroglycerin (vasodilator used to treat angina) with an expiration date of 09/2020; and one (1) Breo Inhaler (used to treat some lung diseases), removed from its foil pouch with no opened date on the container or package and with no accessory and cautionary instructions. Facility guidelines stated to discard six (6) weeks after opening or at 0, whichever came first. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, on 03/19/2021 at 9:50 AM, revealed she had worked at the facility for ten (10) years and had been assigned to the North Wing. LPN #3 stated the bottle of Nitroglycerin, with an expired date of 09/2020, should have been returned to the Pharmacy. LPN #3 further stated nursing staff was responsible for ensuring medications were labeled according to the facility's process, which was to record the date opened on the medication package when the medication had been opened. Furthermore, LPN #3 stated if an item was found to be expired, labeled, and or stored improperly, nursing staff was responsible to discard the medication according to policy. Continued interview with LPN #3 revealed all medication and food supplements should be stored according to the manufacture's guidelines. In addition, she stated refrigerated items needed to be retrieved from the refrigerator, prior to administration, and then placed back in the refrigerator for proper storage. 2. Observation of the South Wing Medication Cart #1, on 03/19/2021 at 9:15 AM, revealed one (1) box of Albuterol DuoNeb (used to treat Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) per nebulizer) ampules stored in an opened foil pouch and in the bottom of the package with no opened date on the foil pouch, and one (1) box of Albuterol DuoNeb ampules stored in an opened foil pouch with an opened date of 01/17/2021. Guideline instructions stated to discard ampules fourteen (14) days after opening the foil pouch, and unused ampules must be stored in the closed foil pouch to protect from light. Additional observation revealed one (1) large clear bag holding individual Perforomist (bronchodilator used to treat some lung diseases) packages stored in the medication cart, but package instructions stated to store in a refrigerator. Further observation revealed one (1) opened bottle of ProSource (MED of 2/2022) with no opened date on the bottle; and the resident that used it was discharged from the facility on 12/08/2020. Additional observation revealed two (2) bottles of liquid allergy medication (MED of 2/2022) opened with no opened date; one (1) unopened bottle of liquid allergy medication with the manufactured and expiration dates torn off the bottom of the packaging; and four (4) vials of Haldol (an antipsychotic) five (5) milligrams (mg)/vial located in the top drawer of the medication. This medication was discontinued on 02/04/2021. Observation of the South Wing Medication Cart #2, on 03/19/2021 at 10:55 AM, revealed one (1) Breo inhaler not in the foil pouch and with no opened date on the container. Additional observation revealed two (2) unopened boxes of Brovana (a bronchodilator used to treat COPD) Inhalation Solution, with no dates on either boxes. Medication Guidelines for Brovana Inhalation Solution stated to refrigerate or store pouches at room temperature for no longer than six (6) weeks. Further observation revealed two (2) unopened Lantus insulin pens. The instructions stated to refrigerate the pens until opened. Additional observation revealed Budesonide (a corticosteroid used to treat asthma) 0.25 mg/2 milliliter ampules (MED of 10/2021) in an opened, not closed, foil pouch with an opened date of 03/01/2021. Their instructions stated to discard ampules two (2) weeks after opening foil pouch, and any unused ampules should be stored in a closed foil pouch to protect from light. Further observation revealed one (1) unopened Levemir insulin pen with instructions to refrigerate until opened. Interview with LPN #2, on 03/19/2021 at 12:05 PM, revealed she had worked at the facility for two (2) years, and had been assigned to the South Wing. LPN #2 stated the Perforomist, stored in the medication cart, should have been refrigerated. She stated the four (4) vials of Haldol 5 mg/vial, located in the top drawer of Medication Cart #1 and discontinued on 02/04/2021, should have been returned to the Pharmacy. Further, she stated the two (2) unopened Lantus insulin pens and the one (1) unopened Levemir insulin pen should have been refrigerated until opened and kept in the original packaging. In addition, LPN #2 stated insulin pens should be stored in a sanitary manner, inside the original plastic bag packaging to prevent cross-contamination. Per interview, LPN #2 stated the one (1) bottle of ProSource (MED of 2/2022) for the resident that was discharged on 12/08/2020, should have been discarded at the time of discharge. Continued interview with LPN #2, on 03/19/2021 at 12:05 PM, revealed nursing staff was responsible for ensuring medications were labeled according to facility policy, which was to record the date opened on the medication package. In addition, she stated if an expired or improperly stored or labeled item was discovered, nursing staff was responsible to discard the medication according to policy. Furthermore, LPN #2 stated that all medication and food supplements should be stored according to the manufacturer's guidelines. Per interview, refrigerated items needed to be retrieved from the refrigerator prior to administration and then placed back in the refrigerator for proper storage. LPN #2 further stated following medication guidelines and facility policy was important to ensure the safety of all residents. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 03/19/2021 at 1:10 PM, revealed she had been employed at the facility for four (4) years. The DON stated, when medications arrived in the facility from the Pharmacy, they were delivered to the appropriate wing where nursing staff was expected to verify receipt of each medication by using a check-off sheet. She stated nurses were responsible for stocking the medication carts and the appropriate storage of medications. Per interview, all medications were to be left in their original packaging and dated when open. Additionally, she stated solutions were to have an opened date and an expiration date; and insulin pens were to be stored inside the individual original plastic bag packaging to prevent cross-contamination. The DON stated if an item was found to be labeled or stored improperly or expired, she expected nursing staff to discard the medication. She further stated nursing staff was expected to follow facility medication storage and labeling guidelines. According to the DON, each medication cart was equipped with several Medication Guidelines, located at the back of the Medication Administration Record (MAR), regarding the proper storage of inhaled medications, nutrition supplements, and nebulizer treatments. Further interview revealed nursing staff was responsible for ensuring medications were labeled according to facility policy, which was to record the date opened on the medication container. Additional interview with the DON, on 3/19/2021 at 2:40 PM, revealed routine audits of medication carts were conducted by the DON, the LPN trainer, and the RN Weekend Supervisor. The DON stated there was no documentation for these audits. Further interview with the DON revealed it was her expectation that all medication and food supplements were stored according to the manufacturer's guidelines. The DON stated following the facility's policies and manufacturer's guidelines was important to ensure the safety of all residents. Interview with the Administrator, on 03/19/2021 at 2:50 PM, revealed it was his expectation for medications to be stored and labeled appropriately per the directives from manufacturer's guidelines and the facility's policies. He further stated the residents' safety relied on staff following these important guidelines and policies.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to prepare, store, and serve food under sanitary conditions. Observations, on 03/16/2021 a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to prepare, store, and serve food under sanitary conditions. Observations, on 03/16/2021 and 03/17/2021, revealed food not labeled and dated, cleaning cloths not in sanitizer buckets, and an incomplete dish machine temperature log. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Safety, dated 11/28/2017, revealed food was stored and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner following federal, state, and local guidelines to minimize contamination and bacterial growth. Per policy, food was labeled and dated with the received date, and leftovers were dated properly and discarded within seventy-two (72) hours unless otherwise indicated. Per policy, opened dry storage foods were removed from the original packaging before being placed in an ingredient bin or storage container. Per policy, opened packages of food were resealed tightly to prevent contamination of the food item, and the use by date would be used. Review of the facility's policy titled, Safe Use of Chemicals, dated 01/11/2019, revealed sanitizer buckets were used for dishtowels. Review of the facility's form Dish Machine Temperature Log, March revealed the documentation for temperature and sanitizer were not recorded from 03/13/2021 to 03/15/2021. Review of the facility's menu titled Dinner, Monday, March 15, 2021, a daily dinner menu, for 03/15/2021, which was updated each day with the new date and new menu offerings, revealed the chocolate cream pie was on the menu for 03/15/2021. Observation of the kitchen, during the initial tour, on 03/16/2021 at 11:23 AM, revealed a soiled dish machine temperature log not completed, from 03/13/2021 through 03/15/2021. Documentation of temperatures was incomplete for each meal listed under the wash and rinse cycles, including recording the strength of the sanitizer. In addition, observation of two (2) wrapped chocolate cream pies in the refrigerator near the tray line revealed neither was labeled or dated. Additional observations of the kitchen, on 03/17/2021 at 9:30 AM, revealed cleaning cloths lying on the counters throughout the production area not kept in the sanitizer bucket and soiled linens in the bucket in the mop closet area. Further observations revealed three (3) ingredient bins with dried powder on the tops not labeled or dated. Of the three (3), two (2) were round and opaque with lids, and one (1) was clear, square, and had a blue lid with the appearance of a white powder like substance on it. Further observation revealed one (1) wrapped chocolate cream pie remained in the refrigerator near the tray line not labeled or dated. Interview with the Diet Aide/Cook #1, on 03/19/2021 at 1:01 PM, revealed the dish washer temperatures should be recorded on the temperature log because the dish machine might not reach proper temperatures to sanitize the dishware. Per interview, cleaning cloths should be placed in the sanitizer bucket when not in use. In addition, [NAME] #1 stated all food should be labeled and dated with opened and end dates. Then, per interview, foods at the end date and/or foods not labeled or dated were thrown out. [NAME] #1 stated dry ingredient bins should be labeled and dated for identification of ingredients and with the date of expiration. Interview with [NAME] #2, on 03/19/2021 at 1:09 PM, revealed cleaning cloths were kept in the sanitizer bucket to prevent cross-contamination of kitchen areas. [NAME] #2 stated foods that were labeled and dated were kept on a tray in the refrigerator by the serving line. Per interview, the pie on the shelf of the refrigerator that was not labeled or dated should have been discarded, and the dry ingredient bins should have been labeled and dated for three (3) months. Interview with Dietary Aide #2, on 03/19/2021 at 1:17 PM, revealed it was important to record dish washer temperatures to ensure proper sanitizing of dishware. Per interview, cleaning cloths were kept in the sanitizer bucket to sanitize the cloth not in use. The Aide stated desserts used the night before needed to be labeled and dated with the day opened and the day of expiration, which was within three (3) days. In addition, Dietary Aide #2 stated the dry ingredient containers should be labeled and dated to prevent a mix-up of the ingredients used in residents' foods. Interview with the Dietary Manager, on 03/19/2021 at 1:23 PM, revealed the dish washer temperatures were not recorded and should have been because it was important to document the dish machine temperatures to know that dishware had been sanitized. Per interview, it was important to place the cleaning cloths in the sanitizer bucket in order to not spread germs and bacteria around the kitchen and prevent cross-contamination. The Manager stated foods not labeled or dated were thrown out because they could cause bacterial spread to other foods causing cross-contamination. In addition, the Manager stated any desserts placed in the refrigerator on a tray should be labeled or dated; therefore, the pies that were not labeled or dated should have been thrown out. Interview with the Administrator, on 03/19/2021 at 2:50 PM, revealed he expected dietary staff to complete the temperature dish washer log, put cleaning cloths in the sanitizer bucket, and label and date all food.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, 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 and control the development and transmission of communicable diseases and to implement interventions per the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Kentucky Department for Public Health (Health Department) state guidelines for COVID-19. Observations, on 03/17/2021 at 9:45 AM, revealed State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #1, on the North Wing Unit, failed to properly change Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), dispose of PPE, and perform hand hygiene. Additional observations, on 03/17/2021 at 2:40 PM, revealed SRNA #2, on the South Wing Unit, failed to change PPE and properly perform hand hygiene after providing care for a resident. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Standard and Transmission Based Precautions, Chapter Four, revealed the purpose of the policy was to ensure the facility took appropriate precautions to decrease the risk of transmission of infection. Further review of Subheading Universal Source Control Measures (Use of Face Masks and Face Coverings); undated, revealed staff was instructed that if they touched or adjusted their facemask, they should perform hand hygiene immediately. In addition, the policy stated staff would receive job-specific training on PPE and must demonstrate competency with selection and proper use of putting on and removing PPE without self-contamination. Review of the Subheading Hand Hygiene, dated 05/07/2020 and revised 12/04/2020, revealed the facility educated staff on hand hygiene, and the education included using alcohol based hand rub (ABHR) before and after all resident contact; before putting on and after removing gloves; prior to removing face mask/shields; after touching face mask/shields; and before putting on and after removing PPE. Review of the Subheading Coronavirus (COVID-19) (SARS-CoV-2), revised 02/11/2021, revealed the facility would follow the core principles of COVID-19 Infection Prevention as defined by CMS and the CDC. Review of the CDC Infection Control Guidelines, updated 08/19/2020, revealed removal of PPE, specifically the gown, was to be performed prior to exiting the resident's room, followed by hand hygiene. 1. Observation of SRNA #1, on 03/17/2021 at 9:40 AM, on the North Wing 200 Hall, revealed she exited a resident's room without doffing (removing) and disposing of her gown or using ABHR. Per observation, SRNA #1 went down the hallway, where she doffed her gown, rolled the gown up, and placed it on the hallway floor. Then, SRNA #1 obtained a new gown from the PPE container located on the floor, outside the residents' rooms. Per observation, without using ABHR, SRNA #1 donned (put on) a new gown, picked up the contaminated gown, and disposed of it in another resident's trash receptacle. SRNA #1 continually touched her facemask with an ungloved hand without using ABHR. These actions by SRNA #1 were all in violation of the facility's policy. SRNA #1 was about to enter another resident's room in the contaminated PPE and without sanitizing her hands properly, when the State Survey Agency Surveyor intervened. Interview with SRNA #1, on 03/17/2021 at 9:45 AM, revealed she had been employed at the facility for one (1) month. She stated she had received education and training upon hire, and continued to receive Infection Control and Prevention (ICP) education and training on how to doff and don PPE properly. SRNA #1 stated the correct procedure was to doff PPE while still inside the resident's room, put it in a red biohazard lined trash receptacle, and then use ABHR prior to leaving the room. Further interview revealed the purpose of proper hand hygiene and proper doffing of PPE was to decrease the risk of transmission of infection. 2. Observation of SRNA #2, on 03/17/2021 at 2:40 PM, on the South Wing 300 Hall, revealed she entered Resident #66's room. Per observation, SRNA #2 touched surfaces and leaned up against the bed. SRNA #2 then came out of Resident #66's room without doffing PPE or using ABHR before exiting the room and entering Resident #32's room. Interview with SRNA #2, on 03/17/2021 at 2:40 PM, revealed she had received education on ICP practices and training on how to doff and don PPE properly. According to SRNA #2, all residents were on Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) due to a Covid-19 outbreak within the facility. Continued interview revealed the facility's policy stated gloves and gowns must be changed prior to exiting a resident's room; and, ABHR must be used before and after resident care and before and after donning and doffing PPE. Additionally, SRNA #2 stated when no resident care was given, staff did not need to change gowns between residents. However, the facility's policy stated removal of PPE, specifically the gown, was to be performed prior to exiting the resident's room, followed by hand hygiene. SRNA #2 stated, I didn't use sanitizer when I came out of the room, but I should have. Further interview revealed the purpose of proper hand hygiene and doffing of PPE was to decrease the risk of transmission of infection. Interview with LPN #2, on 03/19/2021 at 12:05 PM, revealed she had worked at the facility for two (2) years and had been assigned to South Wing. Additionally, she had received ICP training on the use of PPE and hand hygiene. Continued interview revealed LPN #2 monitored staff to ensure they followed proper ICP practices. She stated if she observed a failure in technique, she would educate on the spot. LPN #2 stated correctly wearing and disposing of PPE and proper hand hygiene was important to prevent the spread of infection. Interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP), a Registered Nurse (RN), on 03/19/2021 at 1:20 PM, revealed the facility was on TBP due to positive Covid-19 testing in the facility. Therefore, she stated staff and visitors were required to wear PPE at all times, which included: (1) N-95 mask; (2) face shield; (3) gown; and (4) gloves, if providing direct care. The IP stated it was his expectation that staff followed the facility's policy and procedure regarding Infection Control and Prevention (ICP); and staff should change PPE before and after providing care to a resident. He stated he expected staff to use proper technique for donning and doffing PPE. Furthermore, staff was to follow facility policy and the education they had received regarding hand hygiene and PPE. Continued interview revealed all staff was provided with an individual bottle of ABHR, and all rooms were equipped with ABHR dispensers. However, some had not been refilled due to the lack of supply. The IP stated all staff had been trained in Infection Control policy and procedures, and he performed ongoing audits of staff for adherence to guidelines. Additionally, the IP stated if a failure in ICP was observed, he would provide immediate feedback and education. Further interview revealed the purpose of proper hand hygiene and doffing of PPE was to decrease the risk of transmission of infection; and he expected Infection Control guidelines to be maintained at all times to decrease the potential spread of infection. The IP stated the SRNA's did not follow correct procedures per the facility's policies and training by not doffing their gowns and performing hand hygiene before exiting the residents' rooms. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 03/19/2021 at 1:10 PM, revealed she had been employed at the facility for four (4) years. The DON stated staff was given training on infection control upon hire and routinely due to the Covid-19 outbreak within the facility, and the IP audited staff for ICP compliance. Further interview revealed the purpose of proper hand hygiene and doffing of PPE was to decrease the risk of transmission of infection. Continued interview revealed the DON monitored staff to ensure they followed proper ICP practices. She stated if she observed a failure in technique, she would educate the person immediately. The DON stated it was her expectation that all staff followed the facility's policies and procedures related to ICP, and the SRNA's should have done so. Interview with the Administrator, on 03/19/2021 at 2:50 PM, revealed he expected Infection Control guidelines to be maintained at all times to decrease the potential spread of infection.
Jun 2019 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to revise the Comprehensive Plan of Care for two (2) of twenty-two (22) residents (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to revise the Comprehensive Plan of Care for two (2) of twenty-two (22) residents (Resident #41 and Resident #20). Resident #20's Nutrition Comprehensive Care Plan dated 12/01/18, revealed the resident was at nutritional risk. Per record review, the resident had a severe weight loss of 17.6 percent in one (1) month, from 05/07/19 until 06/10/19 and the Registered Dietician (RD) made dietary recommendations on 06/10/19, related to the weight loss. However, the Comprehensive Care Plan was not revised related to the actual weight loss, nor was the Care Plan revised related to ensuring dietary recommendations were followed with approval from the Physician. There was no documented evidence the facility acted on the RD's dietary recommendations dated 06/10/19 for Resident #20, and the resident continued to lose weight. Additionally, Resident #41's Nutrition Comprehensive Care Plan dated 12/10/18, revealed the resident was at nutritional risk. Per record review, the resident had a significant weight loss of 5.9 percent in one (1) month from 05/09/19 until 06/10/19, and the RD made dietary recommendations on 06/10/19, related to the weight loss. However, the Comprehensive Care Plan was not revised related to the actual weight loss, nor was the Care Plan revised related to ensuring dietary recommendations were followed with approval from the Physician. There was no documented evidence the facility acted on the RD's dietary recommendations dated 06/10/19 for Resident #41, and the resident continued to lose weight. The Findings Include: Review of the Policy titled Care Planning and Interventions, revised 07/23/09, revealed the Interdisciplinary team meets on a scheduled basis and develops an individualized care plan. Interdisciplinary means that professional disciplines, as appropriate, work together to provide the greatest benefit to the resident. The care plan addresses the identified cause of impaired nutritional status, treatment objectives with measurable outcomes. Further review of the Policy, revealed the care plan is updated as needed, but no less than quarterly as conditions change, goals are met, interventions are determined to be ineffective or need to be revised, specific treatable causes of nutrition-related problems (anorexia, impaired chewing, ect.) are identified. If nutritional goals are not achieved, different or additional pertinent approaches are considered and implemented as indicated. Additional review of the Policy, revealed the care plan includes nutritional interventions that address underlying risks and causes of weight loss such as the need for eating assistance, reduction of medication side effects, and/or additional food the resident may prefer or need. Further review of the Policy, revealed the care plan addresses insidious, abrupt, or sudden decline in intake or insidious weight loss. 1. Review of Resident #20's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/19/18 and readmitted the resident on 03/27/19 with diagnoses, including Atrial Fibrillation, Dementia, Parkinson's Disease, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Unspecified, Edema, Dysphagia, and Deficiency of Vitamins. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 12/01/18, revealed Resident #20 was at nutritional risk. The goal with a target date of 07/17/19, revealed the resident would sustain no significant weight loss through next review date. There were several interventions including provide diet as ordered; nursing staff to observe and report to the physician significant weight loss; food substitutes offered as needed and provide dining room/meal accommodations; allow adequate time to eat, provide a quiet, calm setting; referral to the RD as needed; weight results observed; notify Physician of any complications; encourage resident to go to the dining room for all meals; vitamins as ordered; suction resident as needed; encourage to be up for meals; liquids honey thickened; use weighed utensils, ergo cup, and divided plate. Review of Resident #20's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 03/27/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of zero zero (0) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Continued review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed Resident #20 as coughing or choking during meals or when swallowing medications. Per the MDS Assessment, the facility assessed Resident #20 as 68 inches tall with a weight of 175 pounds. Continued review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a weight loss of five (5) percent or more in the last month or loss of ten (10) percent or more in the last six (6) months without being on a physician prescribed weight loss program. Review of the Weights and Vitals Summary, revealed in March 2019 the resident received weekly weights and the resident's weight on 03/25/19 was 174 pounds. Resident #20 continued to receive weekly weights in April 2019, and on 04/27/19, the residents weight was 170 pounds. Review of the Physician's Orders dated 05/03/19, revealed orders for Regular diet, Pureed texture with Honey consistency; Biotin 1 milligram (mg) tablet, give two and a half (2.5) tablets by mouth twice a day; Vitamin B-12 1000 micrograms (mcg) give one (1) tablet by mouth one (1) time a day; Vitamin-C 500 mg tablet give one (1) by mouth one (1) time a day; and Vitamin D 5,000 unit capsule give one (1) by mouth one (1) time a day. Further review of the Weights and Vitals SummaryWeights and Vitals Summary, revealed in May 2019, the resident received weekly weights and on 05/07/19, the resident's weight was 169.8 pounds. However, on 05/14/19, Resident #20's weight decreased to 145.3 pounds, which was a severe weight loss of 14 percent in one (1) week. Review of Resident #20's RD Note, dated 05/16/19, revealed the resident's current weight was 145.3 pounds, indicating a significant weight loss of 14 percent in seven (7) days. Additional review revealed the weight loss was undesirable and the resident's medications included Mirtazapine as appetite stimulant and lasix (diuretic). According to the Note, the resident received puree diet with Honey Thick Liquids, fortified cereal at breakfast, two (2) eggs for lunch, fortified potatoes at lunch, fortified soup at dinner and whole milk three (3) times a day. Further review of the Note, revealed the resident's PO (by mouth) intake was declining at 30% (percent) average intake. Per the Note, the resident was hallucinating and would eat only when he/she wanted to eat, the resident was known to refuse supplements, and the family refused tube feeding. Continued review of the Note, revealed continue with current plan of care. Additional review of Resident #20's Weights and Vitals Summary, revealed weekly weights continued in May 2019 and June 2019, and on 06/10/19, the resident weighed 140 pounds, which was a further weight loss of 5.3 pounds since 05/14/19. Resident #20 had a severe weight loss of 17.6 percent from 05/07/19 until 06/10/19, in one (1) month. Review of the RD Note dated 06/10/19, revealed Resident #20 had lost an undesirable amount of weight of 17.6 percent in one (1) month and per the nursing notes, some of the discrepancy could be related to the method of obtaining weights. Pertinent medical information included: receiving a diuretic; Biotin; B 12; potassium chloride; Vitamin D; Vitamin C; and receiving Mirtazapine 15 mg (appetite stimulant). Current Diet: Regular/Home Thick Liquids. Current interventions include the following: fortified cereal at breakfast, two (2) eggs at lunch, fortified potatoes at lunch, fortified soup at dinner, whole milk three (3) times a day, divided plate, weighted utensils, and ergo cup with all meals. Intake at meals was less than 22 percent, which indicated a decline since last review on 04/25/19 by usual facility RD. Per the Note, Resident #20 was currently on Restorative Dining. Additional review of the Note, revealed Resident #20's current intake was providing less than 697 Kilocalories and less than 30 grams of protein a daily. RD recommendations included the following: discontinue fortified soup at dinner, whole milk three (3) times a day (honey thickened liquids). Further recommendations included: start on fortified potatoes at dinner; send honey thickened milk and juice with all meals; and start frozen house supplements twice a day with lunch and dinner. According to the Note, the Goal was weight maintenance and adequate oral intake through next review. However, the resident's Nutrition Care Plan was not revised related to the resident's actual weight loss. In addition, the Care Plan was not revised to ensure dietary recommendations were followed with approval from Physician. There was no documented evidence the the facility acted on the RD's dietary recommendations dated 06/10/19 for Resident #20. Additional review of Resident #20's record, revealed the resident was weighed on 06/17/19 after the dietician's recommendations, and at that time the resident had a further weight loss of 1.4 pounds, as indicated by a weight of 138.6 pounds. Observation on 06/20/19 at 4:50 PM, revealed State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA #4) and SRNA #5 weighed Resident #20 using a Hoyer Lift and Sling. The Hoyer Lift and Sling were calculated to zero prior to assisting the resident into the sling to lift the resident clear of the bed. The resident's weight was observed to be 134.6 pounds, revealing the resident lost an additional four (4) pounds since the previous weight, on 06/17/19. Post Survey phone interview with the RD, on 07/02/19 at 3:09 PM, revealed she made dietary recommendations on 06/10/19 after she assessed and evaluated Resident #20. Per interview, on 06/10/19, she was covering for the facility consulting RD. Further interview revealed after writing up her recommendations on the Nutrition Recommendations Form, she presented a copy to the nursing supervisors on each wing, the Dietary Manager, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), and the Director of Nursing (DON). Per interview, a copy was also provided to the Health Information Manager in order for the recommendations to be given to the Physician to review. Additional interview revealed the RD's last day was 06/10/19 and she had no way to follow-up to make sure the Physician received the recommendations; however, she stated the DON was aware of Resident #20's weight loss. 2. Review of Resident #41's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/03/18 with diagnoses including Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Dysphagia, and Hypothyroidism. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 12/10/18, revealed Resident #41 was at nutritional risk. The goal with a target date of 06/26/19, revealed the resident would sustain no significant weight loss through the next review. There were several Interventions including provide therapeutic diet as ordered; report significant weight loss to the Physician; provide dining room/meal accommodations and allow adequate time to eat; refer to SLP (speech language Pathologist) and RD for screening as needed; and restorative dining. Review of the Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 04/06/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a BIMS of zero (0) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a height of 62 inches, and weight of 188 pounds; as receiving a therapeutic diet; and as having no significant weight loss or gain. Review of Resident #41's Weights and Vitals Summary, revealed on 04/06/19 the resident weighed 188 pounds. Review of Physician's Orders, dated 04/30/19, revealed orders for NAS (No Added Salt) with Diet Condiments/Regular Texture/ Thin Consistency. Further review of Resident #41's Weights and Vitals Summary, revealed on 05/09/19, the resident weighed 186.7 pounds, indicating a 1.3 pound weight loss since 04/06/19. Review of Physician's Orders dated 06/03/19 with a start date of 06/04/19, revealed orders for Restorative dining six (6) days a week for four (4) weeks to increase ability to feed self every day shift. Additional review of Resident #41's Weights and Vitals Summary, revealed on 06/10/19, the resident weighed 175.7 pounds, which was a 5.9 percent weight loss since 05/09/19. This was a significant weight loss in one (1) month. Review of Resident #41's Nutrition/Dietary Note, dated 06/10/19, completed by the RD, revealed the resident's current weight on 06/10/19 was 175.7 pounds for a 5.9 percent weight loss in less than thirty (30) days, with usual body weight 186 pounds, on 12/03/18. Per the Note, Resident #41's current interventions included: NAS (No Added Salt) Regular/Thin liquid diet; and restorative dining for self-feeding; Pertinent medical information: positive for diuretic; positive for DM (Diabetes Mellitus); positive for dementia; positive for dysphagia; and skin intact. Per the Note, the resident was consuming fifty-five percent (55%) intake of meals per the recorded documentation, which was providing about 1238 kilocalories (kcal) and about 53 grams protein. Continued review of the Nutrition/Dietary Note, revealed the resident was referred to ST (speech therapy) on 06/06/19 and supervision and cueing was required at meals. Further review of the Note, revealed the resident's estimated needs were 2000 kcal, 25 kcal/kg (kilocalorie/kilogram), 80 grams protein (one (1) g/kg (gram/kilogram), 2000 milliliters fluid (one (1) ml/kcal (milliliter/kilocalorie). Additional review of the Note, revealed the resident's intake was insufficient to meet estimated needs at this time and the RD made the following recommendations: liberalize diet to Regular/Thin; start fortified cereal at breakfast, 313 kilocalories/ 11 grams protein, start House Supplement 120 ml BID (twice a day). However, the resident's Nutrition Care Plan was not revised related to the resident's actual weight loss. In addition, the Care Plan was not revised related to ensuring dietary recommendations were followed after Physician approval. There was no documented evidence the facility acted on the RD recommendations from 06/10/19 to liberalize diet to Regular/Thin; start fortified cereal at breakfast; and start House Supplement at 120 mls twice a day. Observation on 06/20/19 at 11:55 AM, revealed Resident #41 was in restorative dining, and the resident's meal ticket stated Regular NAS (No Added Salt), Regular texture. Interview with State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #8, the staff assisting at restorative dining, revealed there was pepper only on the resident's tray. Therefore, the resident had not received the diet as per the recommendations of the RD on 06/10/19, for Regular Diet. Observation on 06/20/19 at 4:40 PM, revealed SRNA #4 and SRNA #5 weighed Resident #41 and the resident's weight was observed to be 172 pounds, revealing a further weight loss of 3.7 pounds since 06/10/19. Interview with the RD, on 06/20/19 at 11:02 AM, revealed she had been covering as the dietitian for three (3) weeks. Per interview, she saw Resident #41 on 06/10/19 related to weight loss. She stated on 06/10/19, her recommendations for Resident #41 were to liberalize diet to regular thin, added fortified cereal at breakfast, and house supplement 120 mls twice a day, to be given with medications. She further stated when she made a recommendation related to weight loss, she would complete a Nutrition Recommendations sheet to give to to the Dietary Manager, but she was unaware of the process in which the Physician was notified of her dietary recommendations. Per interview, she did not know if her recommendations were implemented for Resident #41, as she no longer worked at the facility. Interview with the Dietary Manager, on 06/20/19 at 4:16 PM, revealed the RD transcribed her dietary recommendations to a Nutrition Recommendations Form and these Forms came to him from the RD. Per interview, he made copies and distributed them to the Director of Nursing (DON); the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Trainer; the Health Information Manager, and kept a copy for Dietary. Per interview, the Health Information Manager had the Physicians to sign the dietary recommendations as agree or disagree and then brought the signed copies back to him. Further interview with the Dietary Manager, revealed the RD was at the facility on 06/10/19 and gave him copies of the Nutrition Recommendations Forms completed by the RD on that date. Per interview, the Dietary Manager distributed the Forms to the Health Information Manager on 06/11/19; however, he had not received the Forms back as of this date, regarding Resident #20 and Resident #41. Continued interview revealed sometimes the Nutrition Recommendation Forms were returned to him with the Physician's decision documented related to the recommendations in two (2) to three (3) days; or sometimes it took as long as five (5) days. Interview with the Health Information Manager, on 06/20/19 at 2:10 PM, revealed when she received the copy of the Nutrition Recommendations Forms from the Dietary Manager, she took them to the Medical Director, and then to the other Physicians on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Continued interview revealed she then brought back the Nutrition Recommendations Forms after the Physician reviewed them, and gave them to the LPN Trainer. Per interview, she could not recall if she had received information back from the Physician related to RD recommendations written on 06/10/19 for Resident #20 and Resident #41. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 06/20/19 at 1:45 PM and at 5:02 PM, revealed the process after a dietary recommendation was made, was for a copy of the Nutrition Recommendations (dietary recommendation) to be sent to the Dietary Manager, and then he provided a copy to the Health Information Manager, who had the Physicians to sign as agreeing or disagreeing with the recommendations. She stated the LPN Trainer then entered the approved recommendations into the medical record as Physician's Orders. The DON stated after this, the Comprehensive Care Plan was updated by MDS coordinators, after the dietary recommendations were documented in the record as Physician's Orders. However, per interview, the facility was still awaiting approval of dietary recommendations made on 06/10/19, for Resident #20 and Resident #41. Additional interview, revealed she acknowledged Care Plans should be revised as needed to remain current with problem/concern, and necessary interventions. Interview with the Administrator, on 06/20/19 at 5:37 PM, revealed he was not aware the Nutrition Recommendations from 06/10/19 for Resident #20 and Resident #41 had not been returned to the facility and documented/implemented as Physician's Orders. Further, he did not know what happened to the Nutrition Recommendations dated 06/10/19, and neither did the Health Information Manager/Medical Records staff. Continued interview revealed he acknowledged Nutrition Care Plans should be revised as per policy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status for two ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status for two (2) of six (6) sampled residents reviewed for Nutrition out of a total sample of of twenty-two (22) residents (Resident #20 and Resident #41). Resident #20 had a severe weight loss of 17.6 percent in one (1) month, from 05/07/19 until 06/10/19. Although the Registered Dietician (RD) was aware of the weight loss and made dietary recommendations on 06/10/19, there was no documented evidence the facility acted on the dietary recommendations even though the resident continued to lose weight. Additionally, Resident #41 had a significant weight loss of 5.9 percent in one (1) month from 05/09/19 until 06/10/19. Although the RD was aware of the weight loss and made dietary recommendations on 06/10/19, there was no documented evidence the facility acted on the dietary recommendations in an attempt to prevent further weight loss. The findings include: Review of the facility Nutrition Assessment Process, Policy, revised 07/23/09, revealed the Interdisciplinary Team ensures acceptable nutritional status, as defined by parameters of body weight, hydration, and protein levels, is maintained, unless a resident's clinical condition demonstrates this is not possible. The emphasis is on the prevention and/or early detection of the development of any nutritional concerns. Further review of the Policy, revealed upon admission, annually, and when there is a Comprehensive Assessment (Minimum Data Set Assessment) completed, the Director of Food and Nutrition Services or the designee and/or a RD (Registered Dietitian) completes the Nutrition Data Collection/Assessment, which includes personal and cultural food preferences, along with snack patterns and dislikes, and usual body weight is obtained if possible. In addition, the RD completes the nutrition assessment and visits the resident before completing the assessment. Medications and nutritional supplements may affect or be affected by the intake or utilization of nutrients. To the extent possible, consideration of these interactions is individualized. Additional review of the Policy, revealed if follow up is required after the RD completes the assessment, he or she uses the Nutrition Assessment Recommendations form, and includes the resident's name and room number, and includes the recommendation and rationale for the recommendation where indicated. In the responsibility column, the RD marks the department (Nursing or Food and Nutrition Services) that is responsible for the follow up. Per Policy, the completed form is given to Nursing or the Director of Food and Nutrition Services and recommendations are addressed in a timely manner (within seventy-two (72) hours). 1. Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/19/18 and readmitted the resident on 03/27/19 with diagnoses, including Atrial Fibrillation, Dementia, Parkinson's Disease, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Unspecified, Edema, Dysphagia, and Deficiency of Vitamins. Review of Resident #20's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 12/01/18, revealed the resident was at nutritional risk. The goal with a target date of 07/17/19, revealed the resident would sustain no significant weight loss through the next review date. Interventions included: provide diet as ordered; nursing staff to observe and report to the physician significant weight loss; food substitutes offered as needed and provide dining room/meal accommodations; allow adequate time to eat, provide a quiet, calm setting; referral to the RD as needed; weight results observed; notify Physician of any complications; encourage resident to go to the dining room for all meals; vitamins as ordered; suction resident as needed; encourage to be up for meals; liquids honey thickened; use weighed utensils, ergo cup, and divided plate. Resident #20 was assessed by the facility, per the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 03/27/19, as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of zero zero (0) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed Resident #20 as coughing or choking during meals or when swallowing medications. Per the MDS Assessment, the facility assessed the resident as 68 inches tall with a weight of 175 pounds. Further review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a weight loss of five (5) percent or more in the last month or loss of ten (10) percent or more in the last six (6) months without being on a physician prescribed weight loss program. Review of Resident #20's Weights and Vitals Summary, revealed in March 2019 the resident received weekly weights and the resident's weight on 03/25/19 was 174 pounds. The resident continued to receive weekly weights in April 2019, and on 04/27/19, the residents weight was 170 pounds. Review of Resident #20's Physician's Orders dated 05/03/19, revealed orders for Regular diet, Pureed texture with Honey consistency; Biotin 1 milligram (mg) tablet, give two and a half (2.5) tablets by mouth twice a day; Vitamin B-12 1000 micrograms (mcg) give one (1) tablet by mouth one (1) time a day; Vitamin-C 500 mg tablet give one (1) by mouth one (1) time a day; and Vitamin D 5,000 unit capsule give one (1) by mouth one (1) time a day. Continued review of the Weights and Vitals SummaryWeights and Vitals Summary, revealed in May 2019, the resident received weekly weights and on 05/07/19, the resident's weight was 169.8 pounds. However, on 05/14/19, the resident's weight decreased to 145.3 pounds, which was a severe weight loss of 14 percent in one (1) week. Review of Resident #20's RD Note, dated 05/16/19, revealed the resident's current weight was 145.3 pounds, showing a significant weight loss of 14 percent in seven (7) days. Further review revealed the weight loss was undesirable and the resident's medications included Mirtazapine as appetite stimulant and lasix (diuretic). Per the Note, the resident received puree diet with Honey Thick Liquids, fortified cereal at breakfast, two (2) eggs for lunch, fortified potatoes at lunch, fortified soup at dinner and whole milk three (3) times a day. Per the Note, the resident's PO (by mouth) intake was declining at 30 percent average intake. Further review of the Note, revealed the resident was hallucinating and would eat only when he/she wanted to eat, and the resident was known to refuse supplements. The family refuses tube feeding. Additional review of the Note, revealed continue with current plan of care. Additional review of the Weights and Vitals Summary, revealed weekly weights continued in May 2019 and June 2019, and on 06/10/19, the resident weighed 140 pounds, which was a further weight loss of 5.3 pounds since 05/14/19. The resident had a severe weight loss of 17.6 percent from 05/07/19 until 06/10/19, in one (1) month. Review of Resident #20's RD Note dated 06/10/19, revealed the resident had lost an undesirable amount of weight of 17.6 percent in one (1) month and per the nursing notes, some of the discrepancy could be related to the method of obtaining weights. Pertinent medical information: receiving a diuretic; Biotin; B 12; potassium chloride; Vitamin D; Vitamin C; and receiving Mirtazapine 15 mg (appetite stimulant). Diet presently: Regular/Home Thick Liquids. Current interventions include fortified cereal at breakfast, two (2) eggs at lunch, fortified potatoes at lunch, fortified soup at dinner, whole milk three (3) times a day, divided plate, weighted utensils, and ergo cup with all meals. Intake at meals was less than 22 percent, which showed a decline since last review on 04/25/19 by usual facility RD. The resident is currently on Restorative Dining. Further review of the Note, revealed Resident #20's current intake was providing less than 697 Kilocalories and less than 30 grams of protein a daily. RD Recommendations included: discontinue fortified soup at dinner, whole milk three (3) times a day (honey thickened liquids). Start on fortified potatoes at dinner; send honey thickened milk and juice with all meals; and start frozen house supplements twice a day with lunch and dinner. Per the Note, the Goal was weight maintenance and adequate oral intake through next review. However, there was no documented evidence the the facility acted on the RD's dietary recommendations dated 06/10/19. Additional review of the record, revealed Resident #20 was weighed on 06/17/19 after the dietician's recommendations, and at that time Resident #20 had a further weight loss of 1.4 pounds, as indicated by a weight of 138.6#. Observation on 06/20/19 at 4:50 PM, revealed SRNA #4 and SRNA #5 weighed Resident #20 using a Hoyer Lift and Sling. The Hoyer Lift and Sling were calculated to zero prior to placing the resident in the sling to lift the resident clear of the bed. The weight was observed at 134.6 pounds, revealing the resident lost an additional four (4) pounds since the previous weight, on 06/17/19. Post Survey phone interview with the RD, on 07/02/19 at 3:09 PM, revealed she made recommendations on 06/10/19 after she assessed and evaluated Resident #20. Per interview, on 06/10/19, she was filling in for the facility consulting RD. Continued interview revealed after writing up her recommendations on the Nutrition Recommendations Form, she presented a copy to the nursing supervisors on each wing, the Dietary Manager, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Trainer and the Director of Nursing (DON). Per interview, a copy was also provided to the Health Information Manager in order for the recommendations to be given to the Physician for review. Further interview revealed the RD's last day was 06/10/19 and she had no way to follow-up to make sure the Physician received the recommendations. Continued interview revealed the DON was aware of Resident #20's weight loss. Post Survey phone interview with the Physician, on 07/02/19 at 10:12 AM, revealed he could not recall if he had signed as approving recommendations made by the RD on 06/10/19 related to Resident #20. Further interview revealed he did speak with nursing staff after 06/10/19 concerning Resident #20's weight loss. 2. Review of Resident #41's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/03/18 with diagnoses including Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Dysphagia, Unspecified, and Hypothyroidism. Review of Resident #41 Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 12/10/18, revealed the resident was at nutritional risk. The goal with a target date of 06/26/19, revealed the resident would sustain no significant weight loss through next review. Interventions included: provide therapeutic diet as ordered; report significant weight loss to the Physician; provide dining room/meal accommodations and allow adequate time to eat; refer to SLP (speech language Pathologist) and RD for screening as needed; and restorative dining. The facility assessed Resident #41 per the Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 04/06/19, as having a BIMS of zero (0) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Continued review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a height of 62 inches, and weight of 188 pounds; as receiving a therapeutic diet; and as having no significant weight loss or gain. Review of the Weights and Vitals Summary, revealed on 04/06/19 Resident #41 weighed 188 pounds. Review of Resident #41's Physician's Orders, dated 04/30/19, revealed orders for NAS (No Added Salt) with Diet Condiments/Regular Texture/ Thin Consistency. Further review of the Weights and Vitals Summary, revealed on 05/09/19, the resident weighed 186.7 pounds, indicating a 1.3 pound weight loss since 04/06/19. Review of Resident #41's Physician's Orders dated 06/03/19 with a start date of 06/04/19, revealed orders for Restorative dining six (6) days a week for four (4) weeks to increase ability to feed self every day shift. Additional review of the Weights and Vitals Summary, revealed on 06/10/19, the resident weighed 175.7 pounds, which was a 5.9 percent weight loss since 05/09/19. This was a significant weight loss in one (1) month for Resident #41. Review of the Nutrition/Dietary Note, dated 06/10/19, completed by the RD, revealed Resident #41's current weight on 06/10/19 was 175.7 pounds for a 5.9 percent weight loss in less than thirty (30) days, with usual body weight 186 pounds, on 12/03/18. According to the Note, Resident #41's current interventions included: NAS (No Added Salt) Regular/Thin liquid diet; and restorative dining for self-feeding; Pertinent medical information: positive for diuretic; positive for DM (Diabetes Mellitus); positive for dementia; positive for dysphagia; and skin intact. Per the Note, Resident #41 was consuming fifty-five percent (55%) intake of meals per the recorded documentation, which was providing about 1238 kilocalories (kcal) and about 53 grams protein. Continued review of the Nutrition/Dietary Note, revealed Resident #41 was referred to ST (speech therapy) on 06/06/19 and supervision and cueing was required at meals. Additional review of the Note, revealed the resident's estimated needs were 2000 kcal, 25 kcal/kg (kilocalorie/kilogram), 80 grams protein (one (1) g/kg (gram/kilogram), 2000 milliliters fluid (one (1) ml/kcal (milliliter/kilocalorie). Per the Note, the resident's intake was insufficient to meet estimated needs at this time and the RD made the following recommendations: liberalize diet to Regular/Thin; start fortified cereal at breakfast, 313 kilocalories/ 11 grams protein, start House Supplement 120 ml BID (twice a day). There was no documented evidence the facility acted on the RD recommendations from 06/10/19 to liberalize diet to Regular/Thin; start fortified cereal at breakfast; and start House Supplement at 120 mls twice a day. Observation on 06/20/19 at 11:55 AM, revealed Resident #41 was in restorative dining, and the resident's meal ticket stated Regular NAS (No Added Salt), Regular texture. Therefore, the resident did not receive the diet as per the recommendations of the RD on 06/10/19, for Regular Diet. Observation on 06/20/19 at 4:40 PM, revealed SRNA #4 and SRNA #5 weighed Resident #41 and the resident's weight was 172 pounds, revealing a further weight loss of 3.7 pounds since 06/10/19. Interview with the RD, on 06/20/19 at 11:02 AM, revealed she had been covering as the dietitian the last three (3) weeks. Per interview, she saw Resident #41 on 06/10/19 related to his/her weight loss. Per interview, on 06/10/19, she made recommendations to liberalize the resident's diet to regular thin, added fortified cereal at breakfast, and house supplement 120 mls twice a day, to be given with medications. She further stated when she made a recommendation related to weight loss, she would complete a Nutrition Recommendations sheet to give to to the Dietary Manager; however, she was unaware of the process in which the Physician was notified of her dietary recommendations. Per interview, she did not know if her recommendations were implemented for Resident #41, as she no longer worked at the facility. Interview with the Dietary Manager, on 06/20/19 at 4:16 PM, revealed the RD transcribed her dietary recommendations to a Nutrition Recommendations Form, and then gave him the Forms. Per interview, he then made copies and distributed them to the Director of Nursing (DON); the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Trainer; the Health Information Manager, and kept a copy for Dietary. Further, the Health Information Manager then had the Physicians to sign the dietary recommendations as agree or disagree and then brought the signed copies back to him. Continued interview with the Dietary Manager, revealed the RD was at the facility on 06/10/19 and gave him copies of the Nutrition Recommendations Forms completed on that date. Per interview, the Dietary Manager then distributed the Forms to the Health Information Manager on 06/11/19; however, he had not received the Forms back as of this date, regarding Resident #20 and Resident #41. Continued interview revealed it was important for the RD recommendations to be acted on timely in order to ensure proper nutritional interventions were implemented, but sometimes the turn around time from the date the RD made the recommendations to the date the recommendations were approved and sent back to him took as long as five (5) days. Interview with the Health Information Manager, on 06/20/19 at 2:10 PM, revealed after she received the copy of the Nutrition Recommendations Forms from the Dietary Manager, she took them to the Medical Director, and then to the other Physicians on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Addtional interview revealed she then brought back the Nutrition Recommendations Forms after the Physician reviewed them, and gave them to the LPN Trainer. Per interview, she could not remember if she had received information back from the Physician related to RD recommendations written on 06/10/19 for Resident #20 and Resident #41. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 06/20/19 at 1:45 PM and at 5:02 PM, revealed after a dietary recommendation was made, a copy of the Nutrition Recommendations (dietary recommendation) was to be sent to the Dietary Manager, and then he provided a copy to the Health Information Manager, who had the Physicians to sign as agreeing or disagreeing with the recommendations. She stated the LPN Trainer who was on leave at this time, then entered the approved recommendations into the medical record as a Physician's Order. Per interview, once the orders were entered into the system, the Nutrition Recommendations were given to dietary to input into their system. However, she stated the Nutrition Recommendations from the 06/10/19 RD visit for Resident #20 and Resident #41 were still awaiting approval from the Physician. Further interview revealed it was her expectation the Nutrition Recommendations have a seventy two (72) hour turn around time from the time the RD made the dietary recommendations until the Physician's Orders were obtained for the recommendations. Interview with the Administrator, on 06/20/19 at 5:37 PM, revealed he was not aware the Nutrition Recommendations from 06/10/19 for Resident #20 and Resident #41 had not been returned to the facility and implemented as Physician's Orders. Per interview, he did not know what happened to the Nutrition Recommendations dated 06/10/19, and neither did the Health Information Manager/Medical Records staff. Further interview revealed if the RD made a dietary recommendation, it was for a reason. Per interview, if dietary recommendations were not implemented, this could lead to potentially negative outcomes for the residents. Continued interview revealed someone should have noticed the Nutrition Recommendations dated 06/10/19 had not been completed and turned over to the Dietary Manager or HIM/Medical Records staff.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper storage o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper storage of drugs and biologicals. Observation of the Medication Storage Room on the [NAME] Unit, on [DATE], revealed there was an expired vial of Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative (PPD), with an open date of [DATE], which was accessible for use. The findings include: Review of the facility's Medication Storage & Security in the Facility Policy, revised 06/2006, revealed medications and biologicals were to be properly stored following manufacturer's recommendations. Review of the Manufacturer's Recommendations, revealed a vial of Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative should be discarded thirty (30) days after opening. (Tuberculin PPD is used to perform Tuberculosis Skin Tests to determine if a person is infected with Mycobacterium Tuberculosis). Observation on [DATE] at 8:43 AM, of the Medication Storage Room on the [NAME] Unit, revealed an expired vial of Tuberculin PPD with an open date of [DATE]. (An open date of [DATE] would give the vial an expiration date of [DATE]). Interview on [DATE] at 9:21 AM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, revealed the expired vial of Tuberculin PPD should have been discarded thirty (30) days after the vial was opened. She stated use of expired Tuberculin PPD could result in inaccurate test results. Interview on [DATE] at 1:55 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed a vial of TB testing solution expired thirty (30) days after opening. She stated the nurses should be checking the open date and expiration date of medications prior to use, and should discard any out of date medications. She further stated using outdated TB test solution could result in false positive or false negative TB skin tests. Interview on [DATE] at 2:10 PM, with the Executive Director (ED), revealed any medication that was expired should be discarded. He stated it was his expectation nursing staff check expiration dates of any medication in the medication carts and medication rooms.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the facility'sCleaning and Disinfection of the Glucometer Policy, revised 03/2010, revealed the Equipment used for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the facility'sCleaning and Disinfection of the Glucometer Policy, revised 03/2010, revealed the Equipment used for cleaning and disinfecting the glucometer included a Super Sani-Cloth or Sani-Cloth Plus. Observation on [DATE] at 8:27 AM, of the [NAME] Unit medication cart used for rooms 307-315, revealed one (1) box, that contained 40 PDI Sani-Cloth bleach germicidal disposable wipes. Observation on [DATE] at 8:40 AM, of the [NAME] Unit medication cart used for rooms 316-325, revealed seven (7) PDI Sani-Cloth bleach germicidal disposable wipes with an expiration date of 12/2018 and two (2) PDI Sani-Cloth bleach germicidal disposable wipes with an expiration date of 5/2018. Observation on [DATE] at 9:13 AM, of the [NAME] Unit medication storage room, revealed two (2) boxes of PDI Sani-Cloth bleach germicidal disposable wipes with an expiration date of 12/2018. Box #1 contained seventeen (17) expired wipes and box #2 contained forty (40) expired wipes. Review of the medical records on the [NAME] Unit revealed there were fourteen (14) residents with orders for Finger Stick Blood Sugars (FSBS) related to diagnoses of Diabetes Mellitus. Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including DM. Review of Resident #5's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS twice a day. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 DM. Review of Resident #12's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS four (4) times a day. Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 DM. Review of Resident #18's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS two (2) times a day. Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 DM. Review of Resident #19's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS two (2) times a day. Review of Resident #21's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 DM. Review of Resident #21's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS two (2) times a day. Review of Resident #30's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM). Review of Resident #30's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS twice a day. Review of Resident #36's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 DM. Review of Resident #36's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS four (4) times a day. Review of Resident #44's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 DM. Review of Resident #44's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS four (4) times a day. Review of Resident #48's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 DM. Review of Resident #48's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS two (2) times a day. Review of Resident #49's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus (DM). Review of Resident #49's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS twice a day. Review of Resident #57's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including DM. Review of Resident #57's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS four (4) times a day. Review of Resident #66's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 DM. Review of Resident #66's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS one (1) time a day. Review of Resident #88's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 DM. Review of Resident #88's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS four (4) times a day. Review of Resident #140's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 DM. Review of Resident #140's [DATE] Physician's Orders revealed an order for FSBS three (3) times a day. Interview on [DATE] at 9:21 AM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, revealed the expired wipes on the [NAME] Unit should have been discarded when expired. She stated the supplies in the medication storage room were checked weekly by nursing staff to ensure supplies were not expired. She stated she was unsure why the expired wipes were not noticed and removed. Interview on [DATE] at 1:55 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed it was her expectation nursing staff examine the supplies in the medication storage rooms and medication carts at least weekly and check the expiration dates prior to using the supplies. Per interview, the nursing staff should have disposed of the expired PDI Sani-Cloth bleach germicidal disposable wipes on the [NAME] Unit and ordered new wipes. Further interview revealed the wipes were used to clean the glucometers and if expired wipes were used, this could result in the glucometers not being sanitized properly. (A glucometer is a device used to measure blood sugar). Interview on [DATE] at 2:20 PM, with the Executive Director (ED), revealed it was his expectation the nursing staff remove any expired supplies. He stated nursing staff was to check medication carts and storage rooms at least weekly to ensure supplies were not expired. He stated expired Sani-Cloth disposable wipes should not be accessible for use because using expired wipes could result in the glucometers not being sanitized properly. Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for sixteen (16) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Residents #5 #12, #13, #18, #19 #21, #30, #36, #44, #48, #49, #57, #66, #74, #88, and #140). Record review revealed there was no documented evidence the annual Purified Protein Derivative (PPD) skin test (Tuberculin Skin Test) results for Resident #13 and Resident #74 were documented in the medical record. In addition, observation on [DATE] of the [NAME] Unit medication cart used for rooms 307-315, revealed the cart contained expired PDI Sani-Cloth bleach germicidal disposable wipes accessible for use; the [NAME] Unit medication cart used for rooms 316-325, contained expired PDI Sani-Cloth bleach germicidal disposable wipes accessible for use; and the [NAME] Unit medication storage room, contained two (2) boxes of PD Sani-Cloth bleach germicidal disposable wipes accessible for use. There were fourteen (14) residents on the [NAME] Unit with orders for Finger Stick Blood Sugars (FSBS) related to diagnoses of Diabetes Mellitus including Residents #5 #12, #18, #19 #21, #30, #36, #44, #48, #49, #57, #66, #88, and #140). The findings Include: Review of the facility admission of Residents and Follow-Up, Policy, last revised [DATE], revealed Screening for tubercle bacilli infection annually will consist of Purified Protein Derivative (PPD) skin tests using five (5) units of PPD injected intradermally. A skin test reaction of greater than ten (10) mm (millimeters) induration is generally considered positive. Further review of the Policy, revealed the results of all skin tests will be documented on a Tuberculosis Summary Record maintained for each resident. 1. Review of Resident #74's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Atrial Fibrillation, Dysphagia, and Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance. Review of the Immunization/PPD/Chest X-Ray document, revealed Resident #74 was administered an annual PPD skin test on [DATE]; however, there was no documented evidence the PPD skin test was read with results documented in the medical record. 2. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE] with diagnoses including Brief Psychotic Disorder, and Parkinson's disease. Review of the Resident TB Screening And Immunization Record revealed Resident #13 was administered an annual PPD skin test on [DATE]; however, there was no documented evidence the PPD skin test results were read with results documented in the medical record. Interview with the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC)/Infection Control Nurse (ICN), [DATE] at 05:28 PM, revealed she started in this position on [DATE]. She stated residents were to receive two (2) step PPD skin tests on admission. Per interview, thereafter, an annual PPD skin test was to be administered as per regulation. Continued interview revealed it was her expectation PPD skin tests be administered and results documented in the medical record in millimeters (mm) of induration. Further interview with the SDC/ICN, revealed if PPD skin test results were not read and documented in the medical record, the facility would not know if a resident had been exposed to Tuberculosis. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 5:15 PM, revealed two (2) step PPD skin testing was done on admission unless the resident had a prior reaction to the testing, and then a chest X-Ray would be completed. Continued interview revealed the expectation was that the PPD skin test or Chest X-Ray be performed annually thereafter. Per the DON, PPD skin test were to be administered and the results were to be documented in the electronic medical record in millimeters (mm) of induration. The DON further stated Resident #74 and Resident #13 were administered annual PPD skin tests; however, the PPD skin test results were not read or documented. Continued interview revealed it was important to read PPD skin test results and document the results appropriately, and if this was not done, there could be a tuberculosis outbreak in the facility. Interview with the Administrator, on [DATE] at 5:57 PM, revealed PPD's were administered on admission and annually. Per interview, there was the potential for a negative outcome if the PPDs were not administered and results read and documented if a resident was positive for Tuberculosis. Continued interview revealed it was his expectation staff follow facility Policies and regulations, related to reading the PPD skin test results timely, and documenting results on the Immunization Tab in the electronic charting system utilized by the facility.
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
  • • 32% turnover. Below Kentucky's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 15 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $23,590 in fines. Higher than 94% of Kentucky facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (31/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 31/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Life Care Center Of Morehead's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Life Care Center of Morehead 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 Life Care Center Of Morehead Staffed?

CMS rates Life Care Center of Morehead's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 32%, compared to the Kentucky average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Life Care Center Of Morehead?

State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at Life Care Center of Morehead during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 14 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 Life Care Center Of Morehead?

Life Care Center of Morehead 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 LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 97 certified beds and approximately 87 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Morehead, Kentucky.

How Does Life Care Center Of Morehead Compare to Other Kentucky Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kentucky, Life Care Center of Morehead's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (32%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Life Care Center Of Morehead?

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

Is Life Care Center Of Morehead Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Life Care Center of Morehead has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (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 Life Care Center Of Morehead Stick Around?

Life Care Center of Morehead has a staff turnover rate of 32%, 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 Life Care Center Of Morehead Ever Fined?

Life Care Center of Morehead has been fined $23,590 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Kentucky average of $33,315. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Life Care Center Of Morehead on Any Federal Watch List?

Life Care Center of Morehead 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.