Windsor Care Center

125 Sterling Way, Mount Sterling, KY 40353 (859) 498-3343
For profit - Limited Liability company 144 Beds REGENCY CARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
45/100
#203 of 266 in KY
Last Inspection: March 2025

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

Overview

Windsor Care Center has a Trust Grade of D, indicating that the facility is below average and has some concerning issues. Ranked #203 out of 266 nursing homes in Kentucky, it falls in the bottom half of facilities statewide, but it is the only option in Montgomery County. Currently, the facility is improving, as the number of reported issues has decreased from 12 in 2024 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is rated average with a 3 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 50%, which is in line with state averages, but it has lower RN coverage than 88% of Kentucky facilities, which raises concerns about oversight. While the facility has not incurred any fines, there have been serious incidents, including a resident suffering a second-degree burn from hot coffee served in an inappropriate cup, and issues with improper medication storage that could affect resident safety. Overall, while there are some positive aspects, families should weigh these serious concerns when considering Windsor Care Center for their loved ones.

Trust Score
D
45/100
In Kentucky
#203/266
Bottom 24%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
12 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
50% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kentucky facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 24 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Kentucky. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 12 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Kentucky average (2.8)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 50%

Near Kentucky avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: REGENCY CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Mar 2025 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. Review of R30's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R30 on 10/07/2021 with diagnoses of acute on chronic diastolic heart failure, chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia, and chron...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. Review of R30's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R30 on 10/07/2021 with diagnoses of acute on chronic diastolic heart failure, chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of R30's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 02/17/2025, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Further review revealed the resident was assessed as needing continuous oxygen therapy. Review of R30's Physician's Orders, dated 12/04/2024, revealed orders for oxygen at four (4) Liters (L) per minute per nasal cannula (NC) continuously. Review of R30's CCP, dated 03/18/2023, revealed R30 had oxygen therapy related to respiratory illness as a focus. The goal of the focus was that R30 would have no signs and symptoms of poor oxygen absorption through the review date of 05/18/2025. One intervention for the care plan focus area was oxygen would be administered at 4 L per minute via nasal cannula. Observation on 03/11/2025 at 9:32 AM revealed R30's oxygen concentrator was set on 5 Liters (L) per minute per nasal cannula (NC), and on 03/12/2025 at 11:59 AM, R30's oxygen concentrator was set on 4.5 L per minute per NC. During interview with Family Member (F) 5 on 03/12/2025 at 11:59 AM, he stated R30 was continuously sent out to the hospital for her oxygen due to exacerbation of her COPD and heart failure. He stated the hospital would fix R30's oxygen level overnight and send her back to the facility. He stated then, it would happen all over again. During interview on 03/12/2025 at 1:44 PM with Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) 1, she stated R30 wore her oxygen but would not wear her bipap (a device that delivered a continuous positive airway pressure for inhalation and exhalation). KMA1 stated, when R30's oxygen saturation level got low, she would wear the bipap until her carbon dioxide levels decreased, and she became more alert. She stated, however, then R30 would remove the bipap again. During interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 on 03/12/2025 at 2:35 PM, she stated R30 would wear her oxygen administered by a nasal cannula but would often pull it out of her nose. She stated R30's multiple hospitalizations stemmed from her chronic heart failure (CHF) and COPD exacerbations due to improper oxygenation. She stated she made sure the oxygen concentrator matched R30's orders each shift. She stated if it was not set at the right level (too high) this would increase R30's carbon dioxide levels, and residents like R30 often would say they were short of breath or they would become lethargic. LPN1 stated if the concentrator was set on the wrong amount, she would check the resident's oxygen saturation and change the concentrator back to correct setting. During interview with Unit Manager/RN1 on 03/12/2025 at 1:59 PM, she stated R30 would wear her oxygen provided by her nasal cannula and refused to wear her bipap. RN1 stated staff should check the oxygen concentrator settings and compare it to the order and care plan each shift. She stated if a resident was not on the appropriate administration rate for oxygen as specified in the orders and care plan, she would correct and find out why the concentrator was set higher/lower. She stated if the oxygen administration rate was set higher than ordered, R30's carbon dioxide went up, and she became lethargic and confused. She stated R30 had multiple hospitalizations due to refusing to wear her bipap and having hypercapnia (high carbon dioxide levels) and hypoxia (low oxygen levels). During interview with the DON on 03/13/2025 at 8:18 AM, she stated it was her expectation that staff checked the oxygen orders and the resident's care plan against the oxygen concentrator settings a minimum of each shift. She stated she hoped staff glanced at the concentrator each time they entered a resident's room. The DON stated administration of too much oxygen to a resident with COPD (like R30) caused carbon dioxide to build up which caused hypoxia. She stated she expected staff to follow the CCP for each resident. During interview with the Administrator on 03/13/2025 at 8:35 AM, he stated staff should check the oxygen concentrator each time they went into a resident's room or at a minimum each shift. He stated there could be a problem with too much oxygen being administered to a resident by causing hypercapnia in a resident with COPD. He stated staff should follow the CCPs. Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to develop and/or implement a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) to ensure it met the residents' medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs as identified on his/her comprehensive assessment and other assessments for 2 of 26 sampled residents, Resident (R) 30 and R31. Review of R30's Comprehensive Care Plan [CCP] revealed staff failed to follow the interventions based on the physician's orders for the administration of oxygen. Review of R31's CCP revealed the facility failed to develop a care plan for R31's dialysis catheter. The findings include: Review of the facility's Comprehensive Care Plans policy, not dated, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframe's to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs and ALL services that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment and meet professional standards of quality. Further review revealed the facility would notify qualified staff responsible for implementing the care plan when interventions were added to the care plan or when changes were made. Review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration, not dated, revealed oxygen was to be administered under orders of a physician, except in the case of an emergency. In such case, oxygen was administered and orders for oxygen were obtained as soon as practicable when the situation was under control. 1. Review of R31's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R31 on 08/02/2018 with diagnoses to include end stage renal disease (ESRD), heart failure, and diabetes. Review of R31's quarterly Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/31/2024, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of 14 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Review of R31's CCP, last reviewed 02/20/2025, revealed R31 did not have a plan on how to care for his dialysis catheter. During interview with R31 on 03/11/2025 at 10:35 AM, he stated he was on dialysis. He further stated he had a port in the right upper chest. R31 also stated it was supposed to be removed the 10th of next month. Observation at the time of the interview revealed a dialysis catheter was sutured into his upper right chest with two lines from the port. The site had approximately 1.5 inch of redness surrounding the port. There was approximately 0.25 inch of dried blood where the catheter entered the skin. During interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 on 03/11/2025 at 10:46 AM, she stated R31 had a port, and it was to be removed on 04/10/2025. She further stated staff was just monitoring for infection. She stated staff was not accessing or doing anything with the port. During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 03/13/2025 at 10:55 AM, she stated she expected staff to develop care plans for dialysis catheters. She further stated dialysis catheters needed to be monitored to make sure there was no drainage.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure residents requiring respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure residents requiring respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 out of 3 residents sampled for respiratory care, Resident (R) 30. Observation on 03/11/2025 at 9:32 AM revealed R30's oxygen concentrator was set on 5 Liters (L) per minute via nasal cannula (NC), and on 03/12/2025 at 11:59 AM, R30's oxygen concentrator was set on 4.5 L per minute via NC. However, review of R30's Physician's Orders revealed R30 had orders for oxygen to be administrated continuously at 4 L per minute via NC. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration, not dated, revealed oxygen was to be administered under orders of a physician, except in the case of an emergency. In such case, oxygen was administered and orders for oxygen were obtained as soon as practicable when the situation was under control. Review of R30's electronic medical record (EMR) admission Record revealed the facility admitted R30 on 10/07/2021 with diagnoses of acute on chronic diastolic heart failure, chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of R30's quarterly Minimum Data Set [MDS], with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/17/2025, revealed the facility assessed R30 to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Further review revealed the resident was assessed as needing continuous oxygen therapy. Review of R30's Physician's Orders, dated 12/04/2024, revealed orders for oxygen at four (4) Liters (L) per minute per nasal cannula (NC) continuously. Review of R30's Comprehensive Care Plan [CCP], dated 03/18/2023, revealed R30 had oxygen therapy related to respiratory illness as a focus. The goal of the focus was that R30 would have no signs and symptoms of poor oxygen absorption through the review date of 05/18/2025. One intervention for the care plan focus area was oxygen would be administered at 4 L per minute via NC. Observation on 03/11/2025 at 9:32 AM revealed R30's oxygen concentrator was set on 5 Liters (L) per minute via NC, and on 03/12/2025 at 11:59 AM, R30's oxygen concentrator was set on 4.5 L per minute per NC. The State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor was unable to observe R30's oxygen concentrator on 03/13/2025 because R30 was hospitalized for low oxygen saturations on the evening of 03/12/2025. In an interview with Family Member (F) 5 on 03/12/2025 at 7:47 PM, he stated R30 was continuously sent out to the hospital for her oxygen issues (exacerbation of her COPD and heart failure), and the hospital would fix her overnight and send her back to the facility. F5 stated it would then happen again. In an interview on 03/12/2025 at 1:44 PM with Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) 1, she stated R30 wore her oxygen but would not wear her bipap (a device that delivered a continuous positive airway pressure for inhalation and exhalation). KMA1 stated, when R30's oxygen saturation level got low, she would wear the bipap until her carbon dioxide levels diminished, and she became more alert. However, then she would remove the bipap. In an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 on 03/12/2025 at 2:35 PM, she stated R30 would wear her oxygen administered by a nasal cannula but would often pull it out of her nose. LPN1 stated she had even found R30 with it on her forehead. She stated she would put the oxygen back on correctly and educate R30 that her oxygen levels would drop if she continued to take off her oxygen. LPN1 stated R30 refused to wear the bipap. She stated most nights R30 would only wear the bipap for a maximum of two to three hours if at all. She stated when R30's carbon dioxide levels went up, R30 became lethargic, and staff would then be able to put on the bipap to help get rid of the increased carbon dioxide. She stated when R30 roused up, she would take the bipap back off. LPN1 stated R30's multiple hospitalizations stemmed from her chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) and COPD exacerbations due to improper oxygenation. LPN1 stated she made sure the oxygen concentrator matched R30's orders each shift. She stated if the oxygen concentrator was not set at the right level (too high) this would increase R30's carbon dioxide levels, and residents like R30 often would say they were short of breath or they would become lethargic. LPN1 stated if the concentrator was set on the wrong amount of oxygen delivered, she would check the resident's oxygen saturation and change the concentrator back to the correct setting. In an interview with Unit Manager/Registered Nurse (RN) 1 on 03/12/2025 at 1:59 PM, she stated R30 would wear her oxygen provided by her nasal cannula, but refused to wear her bipap. RN1 stated staff should check the oxygen concentrator settings and compare it to the order each shift. RN1 stated if a resident was not on the appropriate administration rate for oxygen as specified in the orders, she would correct and find out why the concentrator was set higher/lower. She stated if the oxygen administration rate was set higher than ordered, R30's carbon dioxide increased, and she became lethargic and confused. She stated R30 had multiple hospitalizations due to refusing to wear her bipap and having hypercapnia and hypoxia. RN1 stated she tried to teach and instruct R30 on the importance of wearing her bipap, but R30 still refused to wear it. In an interview with the Medical Director on 03/12/2025 at 6:46 PM, he stated it was his expectation that staff followed his orders for oxygen administration. He stated R30 should wear her oxygen continuously, delivered through her NC, while she was awake and her bipap while she was sleeping. He stated if R30's oxygen saturations fell, it was OK for the nurse to increase the oxygen up to 5 L per minute, but once R30 was stabilized, the nurse should call him and have the order changed. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 03/13/2025 at 8:18 AM, she stated it was her expectation that staff checked the oxygen orders against the oxygen concentrator settings at a minimum of each shift. She stated she hoped staff glanced at the concentrator settings each time they entered a resident's room. The DON stated administration of too much oxygen to a resident with COPD (like R30) caused carbon dioxide to build up which caused hypoxia. She stated she expected staff to follow the Physician's Orders and the CCP for each resident. In an interview with the Administrator on 03/13/2025 at 8:35 AM, he stated staff should check the oxygen concentrator each time they went into a resident's room or at a minimum each shift. He stated there could be a problem with too much oxygen being administered to a resident with COPD because the resident could experience hypercapnia. He stated staff should follow the Physician's Orders and the CCPs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's documents, and review of the facility's plan of correction (PoC), dated 05/27/2024, the facility failed to have an effective Quality Assurance...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's documents, and review of the facility's plan of correction (PoC), dated 05/27/2024, the facility failed to have an effective Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) process. The facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain an effective, comprehensive, data-driven QAPI program that focused on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life that were achieved and sustained for 1 of 50 sampled residents, Resident (R) 325. Observation on 03/12/2025 at 9:21 AM revealed State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) 8 and SRNA7 entered R325's room, who was on droplet precautions, performed resident care, then exited the room with a used, uncleaned gait belt placed in SRNA7's pant pocket. Review of the previous survey, dated 04/30/2024 to 05/03/2024, revealed a repeat issue was found with equipment not being cleaned between resident use. Refer to F880 The findings include: Review of the facility's acceptable PoC, for the Standard Recertification/Abbreviated/Extended Survey, concluded on 05/03/2024, revealed the facility was to implement the PoC to ensure the facility achieved substantial compliance by 06/12/2024. However, the facility had a repeat deficiency following the latest survey, concluded on 03/13/2025. Further review of the facility's PoC, for the survey with an exit date of 05/03/2024, revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) visually monitored two different employees per day to confirm equipment cleaning between residents. Furthermore, the PoC stated these observations would be completed three times per week for four weeks then monthly for two months. Review of the facility's Plan of Correction Monitoring Tool revealed the facility would perform weekly audits for two employees, three times per week for four weeks then weekly for two months. The review of audits performed by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed audits were completed as directed by the PoC from 06/04/2024 to 08/28/2024. Review of the facility's Staff In-Service Attendance Record discussing cleaning and disinfecting shared equipment was dated 05/09/2024, 05/10/2024, 05/17/2024, 05/24/2024, and 05/29/2024. Observation on 03/12/2025 at 9:21 AM revealed SRNA8 and SRNA7 entered R325's room, who was on droplet precautions, performed resident care, then exited the room with a used, uncleaned gait belt placed in SRNA7's pant pocket. During an interview on 03/12/2025 at 9:21 AM with SRNA8, she stated she had used the gait belt while in the resident's room and was going to clean it with sani-wipes (a disinfectant wipe) that were at the nurses' station. She stated that once the gait belt was cleaned, she placed it back into her pocket. SRNA8 stated it was important to clean and store dirty/clean shared equipment properly to stop the spread of infection. During an interview on 03/12/2025 at 9:21 AM with SRNA7, she stated she kept her gait belt around her waist, and it was important not to place a dirty shared equipment and a clean shared equipment in the same place to prevent the spread of infection. During an interview on 03/12/2025 at 10:05 AM with the Infection Prevention (IP) Nurse, she stated we've done a lot of verbal and hands on education regarding cleaning shared equipment because the facility went through this on the last survey. She stated SRNAs were expected to keep gait belts on them, and they were expected to clean them with sani-wipes after each use. She stated that was important so infections were not transmitted from one person to another. During an interview on 03/13/2025 at 10:45 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated audits related to F880, from the last survey, were performed for at least three months. She stated she no longer performed audits of cleaning shared equipment and hand hygiene. She stated it was her expectation that staff follow policies and procedures to keep infections down. She stated it was her expectation that all the appropriate people attended QAPI meetings for QAPI to be successful. During an interview on 03/13/2025 at 4:23 PM with the Administrator, he stated quality assurance meetings were held every day. He stated during those meetings, if a process was not successful, then adjustments were made to improve it. The Administrator stated he maintained oversight of QAPI. He stated shared equipment should be cleaned and disinfected to prevent infection and any kind of cross contamination.
CONCERN (E)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of R30's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/07/2021 with diagnoses of acute on chronic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of R30's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/07/2021 with diagnoses of acute on chronic diastolic heart failure, chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia, and COPD. Review of R30's Nurse's Note, dated 09/11/2024, revealed R30 had a decreased blood oxygen saturation of 78% on 5 Liters (L) per minute of oxygen and was sent to the emergency room (ER). Review of R30's Transfer to Hospital Summary, dated 10/16/2024, revealed the facility transferred the resident to the hospital on that date for a blood oxygen saturation of 75% on 4 Liters (L) per minute nasal cannula oxygen, wet lung sounds, and lethargy. Review of R30's Health Status Note, dated 12/01/2024, revealed R30's oxygen saturation dropped to 71% after getting a nebulizer treatment. The note stated R30 was sent to the hospital. Review of R30's eInteract Transfer Form, dated 02/17/2025, revealed R30 was transferred to the hospital because her oxygen saturation was 85% on 4 Liters (L) per minute nasal cannula. Review of R30's medical record revealed there was no written documented form/notice showing the facility notified the resident/family of the reason, date, and location for the transfer, as well as a statement of the resident's appeal rights and the contact information for the state Long-Term Care Ombudsman. In an interview on 03/11/2025 at 7:47 PM, R30's Representative F5 stated he was notified over the phone by the facility that they were sending R30 to the hospital but did not receive paperwork from the facility. 2. Review of R44's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/16/2023 with diagnoses including quadriplegia, uropathy, and congestive heart failure (CHF). Review of R44's Notice of Resident Transfer or Discharge, dated 06/10/2024, revealed the facility transferred R44 to the hospital for a fall with injury. Further review revealed the facility failed to provide evidence they provided F44's representative with written information related to R44's transfer. During interview with Family Member (F) 1 on 03/13/2025 at 10:27 AM, she stated she was notified of R44's transfer to the hospital, but never received written information detailing the reason for the resident's transfer. 3. Review of R62's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/01/2023 with diagnoses of neuropathy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of R62's Nurse's Note, dated 12/09/2024, revealed R62 had signs and symptoms of cough, wheezing and crackle lung sounds, and a complaint of shortness of breath. Further review revealed R62 was transferred to a local hospital emergency room for evaluation, and a family member was called and verbally informed of the situation. Review of R62's Nurse's Note, dated 12/13/2024, revealed R62 returned to the facility from the hospital admission. Review of R62's medical record revealed there was no written documented form/notice showing the facility notified the resident/family of the reason, date, and location for the transfer, as well as a statement of the resident's appeal rights and the contact information for the state Long-Term Care Ombudsman. 5. Review of R91's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/04/2024 with a diagnosis of dysphagia following a stroke. Review of the facility's document Census revealed R91 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/23/2024. However, the facility failed to provide evidence R91 and/or R91's responsible party received written information about her transfer to the hospital for both events. 6. Review of R94's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/01/2024 with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy, depression, and dementia. Review of the facility's document Census revealed R94 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and 04/04/2024. However, there was no documentation by the facility stating written information was sent to R94's responsible party. 7. Review of R66's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/22/2024 with diagnoses of depression, dementia, and congestive heart failure (CHF). Review of the facility's document Census revealed R66 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/01/2024. However, there was no documentation by the facility for either transfer which stated or revealed written information was sent to R66's responsible party. Review of R66's Progress Note, dated 10/26/2024, revealed R66 was transported by ambulance to the hospital at 12:25 PM. Per the note, R66's family was notified and updated on R66's status, but again there was no written documentation. 8. Review of R68's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R68 on 04/29/2021 with a diagnosis of quadriplegia. Review of the facility's document Census revealed R68 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and 12/25/2024. However, there was no documentation by the facility for either transfer which stated or revealed written information was sent to R68's responsible party. During interview with the Business Office Manager (BOM) on 03/12/2025 at 3:28 PM, she stated she did not send out written information to the family when a resident was transferred to the hospital. She stated she did not know this was a requirement. During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 03/13/2025 at 10:55 AM, she stated her process for assuring the staff was following the facility policy was to monitor staff periodically. During interview with the Administrator on 03/12/2025 at 5:50 PM, he stated, No copy of the notification [transfer/discharge] because they went with them [the residents]. He stated when there was a transfer/discharge, the packet was sent with the resident/emergency medical service. He stated a copy was not kept for the resident's chart, and a second packet was not made and sent to the resident's representative. He stated residents' representatives were called and updated. Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's documents and policy, the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understood as soon as practicable. The facility further failed to ensure the notice included the reason, date, and location for the transfer, as well as a statement of the resident's appeal rights and the contact information for the state Long-Term Care Ombudsman. The deficient practice was identified for 8 out of 10 residents reviewed for transfer and/or discharge, Resident (R) 30, R35, R44, R62, R66, R68, R91, and R94. The findings include: Review of the facility's Transfer and Discharge (including AMA) policy, not dated, revealed, The facility's transfer/discharge notice will be provided to the resident and resident's representative in a language and manner in which they can understand. 1. Review of R35's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R35 on 08/22/2023 with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, and chronic kidney disease, stage three. Review of R35's hospital discharge summary, located in the medical record, revealed the resident was hospitalized from [DATE] to 02/18/2025 at a local hospital. During interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5 on 03/12/2025 at 11:47 AM, she stated she only sent a bed hold form with the resident and called the family to notify them when a resident transferred to the hospital. During telephone interview with R35's son on 03/12/2025 at 2:58 PM, he stated he did not receive written information when his father was transferred to the hospital.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of R30's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/07/2021 with diagnoses of acute on chronic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of R30's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/07/2021 with diagnoses of acute on chronic diastolic heart failure, chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia, and COPD. Review of R30's Nurse's Note, dated 09/11/2024, revealed R30 had a decreased oxygen saturation of 78% on 5 Liters (L) per minute of oxygen and was sent to the emergency room (ER). Review of R30's Transfer to Hospital Summary, dated 10/16/2024, revealed the facility transferred the resident to the hospital on that date for oxygen saturation of 75% on 4 Liters (L) per minute via nasal cannula, wet lung sounds, and lethargy. Review of R30's Health Status Note, from 12/01/2024, revealed R30's oxygen saturation dropped to 71% after getting a nebulizer treatment which failed to stabilize R30's oxygen saturation. R30 was sent to the hospital. Review of R30's eInteract Transfer Form, dated 02/17/2025, revealed R30 was transferred to the hospital because her oxygen saturation was 85% on 4 Liters (L) per minute via nasal cannula. Review of R30's Bed Hold Agreement, dated 09/11/2024 and 10/16/2024, revealed an illegible signature to verify the facility obtained verbal consent to hold the resident's bed. Further review revealed no evidence the form was sent to the resident or the resident's representative. The form was not fully completed, and the basic per diem rate and the maximum number of days the State Plan paid for the resident were not filled in. Review of R30's Bed Hold Agreement, dated 12/02/2024 and 02/18/2025, revealed the Business Office Manager (BOM) signed to verify she obtained verbal consent to hold the resident's bed. Further review revealed no evidence the form was sent to the resident or the resident's representative. In an interview on 03/11/2025 at 7:47 PM, R30's Representative/Family Member (F) 5 stated he did not receive paperwork from the facility related to the facility's bed hold policy, but the facility did notify him over the phone that they were sending R30 to the hospital and verbally confirmed his wishes related to holding the resident's bed on each of the occasions that R30 was hospitalized .Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's documents and policy, the facility failed to provide written information or notice at the time of transfer to the resident or resident representative which specified the duration of the bed-hold during which the resident was permitted to return and resume residence in the nursing facility and the reserve bed payment for 8 out of 10 residents reviewed for hospitalizations, Residents (R) 30, R35, R44, R62, R66, R68, R91, and R94. The findings include: Review of the facility's Bed Hold Notice policy, not dated, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide written information to the resident and/or the resident representative regarding bed hold practices both well in advance, and at the time of, a transfer for hospitalization or therapeutic leave. 1. Review of R35's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R35 on 08/22/2023 with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, and chronic kidney disease, stage three. Review of R35's hospital discharge summary, located in the medical record, revealed the resident was hospitalized from [DATE] to 2/18/2025 at a local hospital. During interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5 on 03/12/2025 at 11:47 AM, she stated she sent a bed hold form with the resident and called the family when a resident was transferred to the hospital. During telephone interview with R35's son on 03/12/2025 at 2:58 PM, he stated he did not receive written information when his father was transferred to the hospital. 2. Review of R44's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/16/2023 with diagnoses including quadriplegia, uropathy, and congestive heart failure (CHF). Review of R44's Notice of Resident Transfer or Discharge, dated 06/10/2024, revealed the facility transferred R44 to the hospital for a fall with injury. Review of R44's Bed Hold Notice, dated 06/11/2024, revealed the Business Office Manager (BOM) signed to verify she obtained verbal consent from Family Member (F) 1 to hold the resident's bed. Further review revealed no evidence the form was sent to F1. In an interview with F1 on 03/13/2025 at 10:27 AM, she stated she was notified of the resident's transfer to the hospital via telephone, but she never received a written copy of R44's bed hold notice. 3. Review of R62's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/01/2023 with diagnoses of neuropathy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of R62's Nurse's Note, dated 12/09/2024, revealed the resident had signs and symptoms of cough, wheezing and crackle lung sounds, and a complaint of shortness of breath. Further review revealed R62 was transferred to a local hospital emergency room for evaluation, and the facility called the family member and verbally informed them of the situation. Review of R62's Nurse's Note, dated 12/13/2024, revealed R62 returned to the facility from the hospital admission. Review of the facility's document Bed Hold Notice for R62, revealed F2 was notified by phone on 12/16/2024, and the document was signed by facility staff with the notation via phone. In an interview with F2 on 03/12/2025 at 8:48 AM, she stated the facility notified her of R62 being sent to the hospital due to respiratory symptoms in 12/2024, and she was later notified of the facility's policy on the bed hold but believed that call was received after R62 had returned to the facility. F2 stated she did not recall receiving a written copy of the bed hold in the mail or in person from the facility. 5. Review of R91's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/04/2024 with a diagnosis of dysphagia following a stroke. Review of the facility's document Census revealed R91 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/23/2024. Review of R91's Bed Hold Notice, dated 11/05/2024 and 11/25/2024, revealed R91's representative was made aware of the bed hold notice by facility staff via telephone. 6. Review of R94's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/01/2024 with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy, depression, and dementia. Review of the facility's document Census revealed R94 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and 04/04/2024. The State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor requested a copy of R94's Bed Hold Notice, on 03/12/2025 at 3:30 PM, but it was not produced by the facility. Furthermore, there was no documentation by the facility stating any written information was sent to R94's responsible party related to the hospital admissions. 7. Review of R66's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/22/2024 with diagnoses of dementia, congestive heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. Review of the facility's document Census revealed R66 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/01/2024. Review of R66's Progress Note, dated 10/26/2024, revealed R66's family was notified and updated on the resident's status. Review of R66's Bed Hold Notice, dated 10/28/2024 and 11/01/2024, revealed R66's representative was made aware of the bed hold notice by the facility staff via phone. However, there was no documentation by the facility for either transfer stating written information was sent to R66's responsible party. 8. Review of R68's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R68 on 04/29/2021 with a diagnosis of quadriplegia. Review of the facility's document Census revealed R68 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and 12/25/2024. Review of R68's Bed Hold Notice, dated 08/26/2024 and 12/26/2024, revealed R68's representative was notified by facility staff and made aware of the bed hold notice via telephone. However, there was no documentation by the facility for either transfer stating written information was sent to R68's responsible party. During interview with the BOM on 03/12/2025 at 3:28 PM, she stated she did not send out written information to the family when a resident was transferred to the hospital. She stated she did not know this was a requirement. During interview with the Administrator on 03/12/2025 at 5:50 PM, he stated resident representatives were called and updated on the resident's status and informed verbally about the bed hold.
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** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to establish or maint...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to establish or maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, which was essential for providing a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment while preventing the development and spread of infectious diseases for 5 of 50 sampled residents, Resident (R) 30, R17, R74, F90, and R325. 1. Observation on 03/11/2025 and 03/12/2025 revealed R30's oxygen nasal cannula tubing was dated 02/18/2025, and the humidification water bottle was undated. 2. Observation on 03/11/2025 revealed State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) 3 and SRNA5 were seen not hand sanitizing between passing lunch trays for R17, R74, and R90. Further observation on 03/12/2025 revealed SRNA13 touched R90's food with no gloves on and hand hygiene not performed. 3. Observation on 03/12/2025 revealed SRNA8 and SRNA7 entered R325's room, who was on droplet precautions, performed resident care, then exited the room with the used, uncleaned gait belt, and SRNA7 put it in her pant pocket. 4. Observation on 03/12/2025 of R30's wound care revealed Licensed Practical Nurse ( LPN) 1 did not sanitize hands between changing gloves. 5. Observation on 03/13/2025 at 9:45 AM of laundry services revealed gowns were not worn in the laundry while staff handled dirty or soiled linens. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Hand Hygiene, not dated, revealed all staff would perform hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors. This applied to all staff working in all locations within the facility. Per the policy's attachment, hand hygiene via either with soap and water or with alcohol based hand rub should be performed before and after applying personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, before and after handling clean or soiled dressings, linens, etc., and during resident care when moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site. Additional review revealed the use of gloves did not replace hand hygiene, and if the task required gloves, perform hand hygiene prior to donning (putting on) gloves and immediately after removing gloves. Review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration, revealed staff should change tubing weekly and as needed if it became soiled or contaminated for infection prevention purposes. Review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Equipment, undated, revealed resident care equipment can be a source of indirect transmission of pathogens. The policy also stated that each user is responsible for routine cleaning and disinfection of multi resident items after each use, particularly before use for another resident. Review of the facility's policy titled, Personal Protective Equipment [PPE], undated, revealed, This facility promotes appropriate use of personal protective equipment to prevent the transmission of pathogens to residents, visitors, and other staff. The policy also stated, All staff who have contact with resident and/or their environments must wear PPE equipment as appropriate during resident care and at other times in which exposure to blood, body fluids, or potentially infectious materials is likely. Review of the facility's policy titled, Laundry, undated, revealed staff shall consider all previously worn clothing and used linens as potentially contaminated, and laundry staff will be in-serviced to handling linens and laundry on a regular basis. 1. Observation of R30 on 03/11/2025 at 9:32 AM and 03/12/2025 at 11:59 AM revealed she had on oxygen being administered via nasal cannula. Further observation of R30's oxygen concentrator revealed it was hooked to a humidification bottle that was full of water. There was no date on the bottle. The oxygen tubing was dated 02/18/2025. Observation could not be done on 03/13/2025 because R30 was hospitalized on [DATE]. Review of R30's Treatment Administration Record revealed that in January 2025 and February 2025 oxygen tubing was changed weekly on Tuesdays, except for 02/18/2025, which was not marked off. Review of the month of March had both Tuesdays marked for the changing of the tubing. In an interview on 03/12/2025 at 2:35 PM with LPN1, she stated oxygen tubing and the humidification water bottle for administration of oxygen via nasal cannula were changed weekly, on Tuesday evenings. She stated both should be dated the date they were changed. She stated they should be changed to prevent infections. In an interview on 03/13/2025 at 8:11 AM with the Infection Prevention (IP) Nurse, she stated oxygen tubing was changed weekly, and the humidification bottles should be changed when empty or when the oxygen tubing to administer oxygen via nasal cannula was changed. She stated both were to be labeled with the date they were changed. The IP Nurse stated oxygen tubing that was not changed was a source of infection because of bacterial growth. In an interview on 03/13/2025 at 8:18 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated oxygen tubing and the humidification water bottle should be changed weekly. She stated some individuals that were on continuous high levels of oxygen might need their humidification water bottle changed more frequently, as it might run dry more frequently. She stated that an issue that could result from oxygen tubing dated 2/18/2025 observed on 03/12/2025 and 03/13/2025 still in use would be the user could get a respiratory infection. In an interview on 03/13/2025 at 8:35 AM with the Administrator, he stated oxygen tubing and humidification water bottles needed to be changed weekly or if soiled. He stated both should be dated when changed. He stated an issue that could result from oxygen tubing being used longer than a week could be an infection. 2. On 03/11/2025 at 12:23 PM during observation of the lunch service, two State Registered Nurse Aides (SRNA) 3 and SRNA5, were seen not hand sanitizing between distributing trays for R17, R74, and R90. Further observation on 03/12/2025 at 12:22 PM revealed SRNA13 touched R90's food with no gloves on and hand hygiene not performed. In interviews with both SRNA3 and SRNA5 on 03/11/2025 at 12:40 PM and 12:35 PM respectively, both stated hand hygiene should be performed between each delivered tray, either using alcohol-based hand gel or washing hands with soap and water. In an interview on 03/13/2025 at 8:11 AM with the IP Nurse, she stated staff should hand sanitize between each tray with the alcohol-based hand gel and wash their hands with soap and water after every third tray delivered. She stated if a resident's food was touched, the staff member should wear gloves. In an interview on 03/13/2025 at 8:18 AM with the DON, she stated staff should hand sanitize between each resident's tray with alcohol-based hand gel and wash their hands with soap and water after every third tray delivered or when soiled. In an interview on 03/13/2025 at 8:35 AM with the Administrator, he stated his expectation was that staff should keep their hands clean and not touch the food when distributing meal trays to the residents. He stated if a staff member needed to touch a resident's food, they should wear gloves. He stated hand hygiene should be performed between each tray and when visibly soiled. 3. Observation on 03/12/2025 at 9:21 AM revealed SRNA8 and SRNA7 entered R325's room, who was on droplet precautions, performed resident care, then exited the room with the used, uncleaned gait belt placed in SRNA7's pant pocket. Review of R325's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R325 on 03/11/2025 with a diagnosis of influenza. Review of the facility's list of Residents on Isolation Precautions, provided by the facility, listed 19 residents, including R325, who was on Droplet Precautions for influenza. During an interview on 03/11/2025 at 12:13 PM with SRNA3, she stated she carried her gait belt around her waist, and each SRNA had their own. She stated she did not clean her gait belt between each resident use. During an interview on 03/11/2025 at 12:15 PM with SRNA4, she stated she had her own gait belt, and she washed it at her house after her shifts. She stated during her shift, between resident use, she used an antibacterial spray provided by the janitor. She stated gait belts were part of their uniform, and they must keep them on person while working. During an interview on 03/11/2025 at 12:17 PM with SRNA5, she stated she sanitized her gait belt with sani-wipes (a disinfectant) between each use. She stated the wipes were kept at the nurses' stations, and it was important not to spread germs. During an interview on 03/12/2025 at 9:21 AM with SRNA8, she stated she had used her gait belt on R325 while in the room and placed it in her pocket when she was finished using it, prior to cleaning it. She stated she was going to clean it with sani-wipes that were at the nurses' station. She stated once she cleaned it, she usually placed it back into her pocket. During an interview on 03/12/2025 at 9:21 AM with SRNA7, she stated she kept her gait belt around her waist, and it was important not to place a dirty shared equipment and a clean shared equipment in the same place to prevent the spread of infection. During an interview on 03/12/2025 at 10:05 AM with the IP Nurse, she stated we've done a lot of verbal and hands on education regarding cleaning shared equipment because the facility had gone through this on the last survey. She stated SRNAs were expected to keep gait belts on them, and they were expected to clean them with sani-wipes after each use. She stated this was important so infections were not transmitted from one person to another. 4. Observation on 03/12/2025 at 12:05 PM of R30's wound care performed by LPN1 revealed she hand sanitized and put on gloves prior to cleaning R30's pressure ulcer with normal saline. LPN1 then removed her gloves and placed on a new pair without performing hand hygiene. She rubbed the zinc cream onto R30's pressure ulcer with her gloved hand and then removed the gloves. Once again, she did not perform hand hygiene prior to placing on a new pair of gloves. Instead, she began to rub the zinc cream on various open sores on R30's hip, abdomen, and shoulder without changing gloves between sites and without washing her hands. In an interview with LPN1 on 03/12/2025 at 12:23 PM, she stated hand hygiene should be done prior to, during, and throughout wound care. When asked if hand hygiene should be performed between each glove change, LPN1 stated yes. LPN1 stated she should have used hand sanitizer each time she changed her gloves, but there was not any in the room, so she did not. LPN1 stated she should have changed gloves when placing zinc cream on different parts of R30's body to prevent contamination of the wounds. In an interview with Unit Manager/Registered Nurse (RN) 1 on 03/12/2025 at 1:59 PM, she stated staff should hand sanitize and change gloves before and after resident care. In an interview on 03/13/2025 at 8:11 AM with the IP Nurse, she stated it was her expectation that staff hand sanitized or washed their hands before and after putting on or taking off gloves. In an interview on 03/13/2025 at 8:18 AM with the DON, she stated her expectation was that hands should be washed or alcohol-based hand gel should be used every time a staff member changed gloves, in addition to prior to and after resident care. In an interview on 03/13/2025 at 8:35 AM with the Administrator, he stated hand hygiene should be performed between glove changes.5. Observation on 03/13/2025 at 9:45 AM of laundry services revealed gowns were not worn while handling dirty or soiled linens. During an interview on 03/12/2025 at 9:45 AM with the Environmental Supervisor, he stated exam gloves were used while handling dirty laundry, but gowns were only used for laundry from COVID rooms. He stated gowns were not worn otherwise. He stated he did not know what the facility policy stated regarding PPE and dirty linens. During an interview on 03/12/2025 at 9:45 AM with the Laundry and Housekeeping Supervisor, she stated only gloves were worn when handling soiled/dirty laundry, and gowns were only worn when linens were from a COVID positive room. She stated she was not aware of what the facility policy stated regarding PPE and dirty linens. During an interview on 03/13/2025 at 10:45 AM with the DON, she stated it was her expectation that staff follow policies and procedure to keep infections down. During an interview on 03/13/2025 at 4:23 PM with the Administrator, he stated his expectation was that staff properly cleaned shared equipment between resident use to prevent infection and any kind of cross contamination.
May 2024 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's documents and policies, the facility failed to prot...

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 documents and policies, the facility failed to protect residents from abuse for 3 of 11 sampled residents investigated for abuse (Resident (R) 87, 94, and 101). On 07/11/2023, R368 struck R94 on the side of the head. On 09/10/2023, R168 kicked R87 in the leg. On 10/26/2023, R94 kicked R101 in the right knee. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, reviewed/revised on 10/31/2022, indicated it was the policy of [the] facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. The policy defined Abuse as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish, which can include staff to resident abuse and certain resident to resident altercations .Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition, cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish. It includes verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse including abuse facilitated or enabled through the use of technology. 1. Review of R368's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/28/2022 with diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Further review revealed the resident's later diagnoses included unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder. Review of R368's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/12/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15, indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having verbal behaviors directed at others for one to three days of the look-back period, but noted the behaviors did not have a significant impact on the resident or other's safety or care activities. Review of R368's Care Plan, dated 07/12/2023, after the altercation, revealed the facility identified R368 as physically aggressive toward other residents and included interventions such as one-on-one supervision, administering medications as ordered, distracting the resident with favorite candies and conversation about his daughters, and intervening before resident agitation escalated. Review of R94's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/10/2023 with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (altered consciousness due to brain dysfunction), dementia with agitation, and anxiety disorder. Review of R94's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 06/11/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident with a BIMS score of six out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed R94 as free of aggressive behavior during the look-back period. Review of R94's Care Plan, dated 03/10/2023, revealed the facility identified R94 as having a behavior problem, including yelling at other residents. Further review revealed the interventions included intervening as necessary to protect the rights of others, redirecting the resident to an alternate location, reminiscing with the resident about fishing, and offering a snack. Continued review revealed the facility added a care plan section following an altercation with another resident (R368) on 07/12/2023, and included interventions such as 15 minute checks, intervening before agitation escalated, and offering diversional activities, such as television. Review of the facility's document Incident Note, dated 07/11/2023, revealed a Nurse Aide-State Registered ([NAME]) reported to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 10 that R368 hit another resident on the side of the head. Further review revealed staff immediately separated both residents and initiated 15 minute checks. Review of the facility's investigation file, dated 07/11/2023, revealed fax confirmation pages and one page of notes from the Social Services Director (SSD) of interviews with other residents. Further review revealed no residents interviewed were witnesses to the altercation, rather these were statements that the residents interviewed felt safe in the facility. Continued review revealed the facility failed to provide documented evidence of witness interviews, staff statements, or attempts to determine a root cause of the altercation. Review of the facility's document Health Status Note, dated 12/08/2023, revealed R368 died in the facility under hospice care. Observation on 05/03/2024 at 1:50 PM revealed R94 sitting in his wheelchair in the unit television room, quietly muttering to himself. Further observation revealed R94 did not disturb other residents nearby. Interview attempted with R94 on 05/03/2024 at 1:53 PM. However, the resident did not respond to the State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor's questions. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 1:30 PM, NASR17 stated she was working at the facility on 07/11/2023. She further stated she was coming out of another resident's room when she saw R368 and R94 in the hallway together, and R368 hit R94 on the side of the head. NASR17 stated she immediately separated the residents and took R368 back to his room and notified the nurse. Per interview, NASR17 stated she was not sure what caused the altercation. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 1:01 PM, LPN 10 stated she recalled seeing R94 in the hallway outside R368's room, yelling. LPN 10 stated R368 thought R94 was trying to come into his room, so he went out into the hallway and punched R94 in the side of the head. LPN 10 stated she was not in the hallway when the altercation occurred, but saw the red mark behind R94's right ear. Per interview, LPN 10 notified the Director of Nursing (DON) and the physician and started 15 minute neurological checks to ensure R94 was okay. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 2:28 PM, the SSD stated her role in investigating allegations of abuse was to interview residents and fax in the reports when the Administrator finished the investigation. In further interview, the SSD stated R368 was triggered by loud noises and R94 was known to yell out, so she believed this was the cause of their altercation. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 3:59 PM, the DON stated she was not the DON at the time of the altercation between R368 and R94 and was not aware of the specifics of the allegation. In further interview, the DON stated it was her expectation that staff de-escalated agitated residents, kept residents safe, and reported any altercations immediately. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 5:24 PM, the Administrator stated he did not work for the facility at the time of the altercation between R368 and R94, but he expected staff to be aware of residents who were easily agitated and protect vulnerable residents who might be in their vicinity. He further stated staff should implement resident specific interventions to meet the resident's psychosocial needs to prevent resident-to-resident altercations. 2. Review of R87's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/15/2022 with diagnoses including idiopathic (of unknown cause) hydrocephalus (excess fluid in the brain), severe protein calorie malnutrition, and anxiety disorder. Further review revealed subsequent diagnoses included unspecified dementia. Review of R87s quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 07/21/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of six out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as free from aggressive behaviors toward others during the look-back period. Review of R87's Care Plan, dated 03/20/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident as wandering throughout the facility and having impaired cognitive function. Further review revealed the facility included interventions such as supervising the resident as needed and distracting the resident from wandering by offering food and conversation. Review of the facility's document Health Status Note, dated 09/10/2023, revealed R87 was sitting by the nurse's station when another resident (R368) came out of his room, verbally abused R87, and then kicked her twice. Review of the facility's investigation file, dated 09/10/2023, revealed fax confirmation pages and a half page typed summary of resident information and a summary of the incident. Further review revealed no witness statements, no list of staff and residents present, and no evidence of evaluation of other residents. In an interview on 05/02/2024 at 10:02 AM, R87 stated she recalled a while back when a male resident got mad and kicked R87 in the leg, but she did not know why. In further interview, R87 stated staff kept the man away from her after the altercation. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 9:54 AM, Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) 2 stated, on 09/10/2023, she came out of the medication room and heard R368 call R87 a whore and kick her. KMA 2 further stated she heard R87 say Oh!, and she and another staff member separated the residents. KMA 2 stated she did not see any injuries on R87. In an interview on 05/02/2024 at 10:38 AM, [NAME] 11 stated she was behind the nurse's desk when R368 kicked R87, and she ran to separate the residents because R368 became agitated so quickly when there were loud noises. [NAME] 11 stated she did not recall any specific noises that might have triggered R368, but she knew the increased activity at the nurse's station would not help the resident calm down, so she directed him back to his room. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 2:58 PM, the SSD stated she recalled interviewing R368 after the altercation with R87, and R368 did not remember the incident and could not provide a reason for kicking R87. The SSD stated R87 stated in an interview the day after the incident that she (R87) did not recall the event either. The SSD stated neither resident displayed psychosocial changes after the incident. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 3:59 PM, the DON stated she was not the DON at the time of the altercation between R368 and R87 and was not aware of the specifics of the allegation. The DON stated it was her expectation that staff de-escalated agitated residents, kept residents safe, and reported any altercations immediately. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 5:24 PM, the Administrator stated he did not work for the facility at the time of the altercation between R368 and R87, but he expected staff to be aware of residents who were easily agitated and protect vulnerable residents who might be in their vicinity. He further stated staff should implement resident specific interventions to meet the resident's psychosocial needs to prevent resident-to-resident altercations. 3. Review of R94's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R94 on 03/10/2023 with diagnoses that included unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition; age-related physical debility; major depressive disorder, recurrent; and dementia .with agitation. Further review revealed R94 resided in the facility's Sterling Place unit. Review of R94's annual MDS, with an ARD of 03/05/2024, revealed R94 the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of six out of 15, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Review of R101's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/05/2023 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease with late onset; unspecified hearing loss, bilateral; and other abnormalities of gait and mobility. Further review revealed R101 resided in the facility's Wisteria unit. Review of R101's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 02/28/2024, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of six out of 15, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Observation on 05/02/2024 at 2:25 PM, revealed R101 ambulated from within her room at the facility to the room's door to greet the State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor. During an interview on 05/02/2024 at 2:30 PM, R101 stated she felt safe in the facility, and there was never a time when she did not feel safe. When R101 was asked about being kicked in the knee by another resident last year, R101 could not recall the event and stated she had trouble with her hearing. Observation on 05/02/2024 at 4:25 PM, revealed R94 was seated in his wheelchair near the nurse's station of the unit where R101 lived. R94 was able to self-propel himself throughout the unit and did so. During an interview on 05/02/2024 at 4:30 PM, when R94 was asked if he kicked R101 last fall, R94 stated he did not kick her, and I do not remember that. Review of the document Long Term Care Facility - Self-Reported Incident Form Part B: Description of Incident, signed by LPN14 on 10/26/2023, revealed [R94] kicked [R101] in the right knee. No injuries. Immediately seperated [sic] residents. Review of the document Long Term Care Facility - Self-Reported Incident Form Part C, signed by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 10/27/2023, revealed the summary of the investigation was, Upon investigation it was determined that [R94] rolled in w/c [wheelchair] behind [R101] and hit her in the back of the leg, facility determined physical altercation occurred. No injuries [were] noted. No redness noted. Residents were immediately separated and [R94 was] on 15 minute checks [meaning staff were to check on R94 every 15 minutes]. Review of the document Resident Abuse Report/Investigation Form, undated, indicated the date of the incident between R94 and R101 was 10/26/2023 at 5:40 PM. The location of the 10/26/2023 incident was in the facility's Wisteria hallway, which was the hallway where R101 resided. The Form indicated [NAME] 19 witnessed and reported the incident and described the incident as R94 kicked R101 [on the] back of [her] right knee. The Form indicated the immediate action taken to protect the resident by NASR19 was separation of residents. R94 [was taken] back to his unit [and] placed on 15 minute checks. During an interview on 05/03/2024 at 2:03 PM, NASR19 stated she recalled seeing R94 kick R101 one day last October. NASR19 stated, When he kicked her, he had behavior issues. [R101] walked in front of [R94], and he just kicked her. [NAME] 19 stated when R94 kicked R101 she immediately had R101 go sit down on the couch. [NAME] 19 stated the nurse came and checked her out, and there was not even a mark on her leg. During an interview on 05/03/2023 at 4:12 PM, LPN14 stated abuse prevention included supervision of residents and being aware where they are, especially those who have the potential to be involved in resident-to-resident altercations. She stated staff had to know all the time where R94 was, and when LPN14 saw R94 getting close to people he needed to be redirected because R94 could get loud and combative. LPN14 stated she did not see R94 kick R101, but R94 and R101 were immediately separated, and R94 was put on one-to-one supervision, meaning a nursing staff member would continuously supervise R94. LPN14 also stated she and another nurse did skin assessments on non-interviewable residents and had no concerns. During an interview on 05/03/2024 at 5:45 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she expected all staff to report any resident-to-resident altercations to their supervisor. Regarding R94, the DON stated, He is a wanderer and should be watched closely. During an interview on 05/03/2024 at 1:53 PM, the Administrator stated he expected a full assessment of residents after resident-to-resident incidents. He also expected staff who were working at the time, along with any witnesses, to be interviewed to try to determine pertinent background information. Further interview revealed the Administrator stated the facility then wanted to put interventions in place to ensure [resident-to-resident] abuse did not happen again.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to refer the resident for a level II...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to refer the resident for a level II pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) with a newly evident, serious mental illness for 1 of 1 residents sampled for PASARR review (Resident (R) 94). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Assessment-Coordination with PASARR Program, dated 2023, revealed the facility coordinated assessments with the PASARR program to ensure individuals with a mental disorder received care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate for their needs. Further review revealed any resident who was readmitted to the facility following an inpatient psychiatric admission would be referred promptly to the state mental health authority for a level II review. Review of R94's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/10/2023 with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (altered consciousness due to brain dysfunction), dementia with agitation, and anxiety disorder. Further review revealed, on 02/21/2024, the facility added the diagnosis unspecified psychosis to R94's diagnosis list. Review of R94's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/11/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed R94 as free of aggressive behavior during the look-back period. Review of R94's Care Plan, dated 03/10/2023, revealed the facility identified R94 as having a behavior problem, including yelling at other residents. Further review revealed the interventions included intervening as necessary to protect the rights of others, redirecting the resident to an alternate location, reminiscing with the resident about fishing, and offering a snack. Continued review revealed the facility added a care plan section following an altercation with another resident (R368) on 07/12/2023, and included interventions such as 15-minute checks, intervening before agitation escalated, and offering diversional activities, such as television (TV). Review of R94's level I PASARR, dated 03/10/2023, revealed the facility did not identify the resident as having a serious mental disorder at the time of admission. Further review revealed the facility failed to provide documented evidence of a new PASARR submission following R94's diagnosis of psychosis on 02/21/2024. Review of the facility document Social Services Note, dated 02/05/2024, revealed the Social Services Director (SSD) arranged for transportation for R94 to receive inpatient psychiatric treatment at a hospital. Review of the facility document, Health Status Note, dated 02/21/2024, revealed R94 returned to the facility on [DATE] and exhibited hallucinations and delusions. Review of the facility document, Health Status Note, dated 02/26/2024, revealed the facility held a care conference with the Unit Manager (UM), Director of Nursing (DON), and Administrator present with R94's family, to discuss the resident's behaviors. R94's behaviors included making animal noises, screaming, kicking, and refusing medication. Further review revealed R94 had recently returned from an inpatient psychiatric stay. In an interview with the SSD on 05/02/2024 at 11:05 AM, she stated she should have resubmitted PASARR information for R94 due to his psychiatric hospitalization, however, she failed to do so. She further stated, It was not on my radar. In an interview with the Administrator on 05/03/2024 at 5:24 PM, he stated it was his expectation that the facility would resubmit PASARR information when the resident had an increase in behaviors that resulted in an inpatient psychiatric stay and new diagnosis.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's documents and policies, the facility failed to deve...

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 documents and policies, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and psychosocial needs for 3 of 30 sampled residents (Residents (R) 11, 23, and 100). R100 had a care plan intervention for staff to follow physician's orders when providing care to the gastric tube insertion site. R100 developed an infection at the gastric tube insertion site; however, staff failed to implement the care plan intervention and follow the physician's orders for R100's gastric tube insertion site care. R23's care plan had interventions for the resident to wear a skin protective device and to keep fingernails trimmed; however, staff did not implement these interventions. R11 needed podiatry services; however, R11's care plan was not developed to include this intervention. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated 2023, revealed the facility developed and implemented resident-centered care plans starting by assessing each resident's strengths and needs, including services provided or arranged by the facility. Further review revealed the comprehensive care plan was developed by an interdisciplinary team to include the physician, a registered nurse with responsibility for the resident, a nurse aide with responsibility for the resident, the resident or their representative, and other team members as applicable. Continued review revealed the facility would notify qualified staff responsible for implementing the care plan when interventions were initially added to the care plan or when changes were made. Review of the facility's policy titled, Podiatry Services, no date, revealed residents requiring foot care who had complicating disease processes would be referred to qualified professionals including a Podiatrist. Continued review revealed foot disorders included nail disorders. 1. Review of R100's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/29/2023 with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke), dysphagia (impaired swallowing), and dysarthria (impaired speech). Review of R100's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/20/2024, revealed the resident was unable to complete a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). Facility staff assessed R100's mental status as severely impaired. Further review revealed R100 received greater than 51 percent of her caloric intake via her feeding tube. Review of R100's Care Plan, dated 05/19/2023, revealed R100 was totally dependent on tube feedings. Per review, the facility included interventions for staff to provide care to the gastric tube site per physician's orders and to monitor for signs and symptoms of infection. Review of the facility's document Order Summary Report for R100 revealed, on 10/31/2023, the physician ordered Wash g-tube site with soap and water daily. Allow to air dry. Apply betadine and split gauze every day and night shift for infection control. Further review revealed the physician ordered Muciprocin (an antibiotic ointment) external ointment 2%, applied topically to g-tube site every day and night shift for infection control. Continued review revealed the physician ordered amoxicillin-pot clavulanate tablet 875-175 milligrams (mg) to be administered via g-tube for g-tube site infection two times per day for seven days, beginning 04/29/2024. Review of the facility's document Health Status Note, dated 04/25/2024, revealed nursing staff identified R100's gastric tube site had thick purulent (full of pus) drainage and a foul odor. Further review revealed nursing staff collected a sample of the drainage for testing (results were a heavy bacterial growth). Observation on 05/02/2024 at 9:16 AM, revealed R100's tube feeding site was reddened and there was a small amount of tan drainage from the site. In further observation, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5 performed gastric tube site care for R100 by cleaning the site with tap water and soap. Per observation, LPN5 then rinsed the site with sterile water and dried with a clean gauze. In continued observation, LPN5 placed a spilt gauze around the site and pulled the resident's shirt down over the site to discourage the resident from picking at the site. Per observation, LPN5 failed to apply betadine and antibiotic ointment as ordered. In an immediate interview with LPN5, she stated the technique she had demonstrated was how she performed site care for all residents with gastric tubes. She further stated she would have used different materials and applied an antibiotic ointment if the physician ordered it; however, she was unaware of specific orders for R100. In an interview on 05/02/2024 at 1:01 PM, LPN10 stated when she cared for R100, she used normal saline to clean the area and dried the site with a clean gauze before applying a split gauze to the site. In further interview, LPN10 stated she would check orders and the care plan to see if a resident required specific items or technique for their gastric tube site care. LPN10 stated that following the care plan was important because care plans described the specific care needed to provide the best possible care for each individual resident. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 3:59 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she expected staff to follow the care plan and physician's orders when performing gastric tube site care. She further stated following the plan of care was important to provide appropriate, resident-specific care. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 5:24 PM, the Administrator stated he expected staff to follow the care plan and physician's orders when providing gastric tube site care. 2. Review of R23's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/10/2019. Further review revealed R23's current diagnoses as of 05/01/2024 included peripheral vascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and psychotic disorder with delusions. Review of R23's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 02/08/2024, revealed the facility assessed R23 as severely cognitively impaired and unable to complete a BIMS. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as free from skin tears during the look-back period. Review of R23's Care Plan, revised 02/05/2024, revealed the facility assessed R23 had impaired skin integrity to his left upper extremity related to itching. Further review revealed the facility included interventions such as keeping the resident's fingernails short and keeping Geri-sleeves (soft, flexible sleeves used to protect skin on the limbs from friction and shear) on R23's arms. Observation of R23 on 04/30/2024 at 2:18 PM, revealed the resident sitting in bed, picking at a spot on his collarbone with long fingernails. Further observation revealed a brownish red substance with the appearance of old blood under the resident's fingernails. Per observation, the spot on R23's collarbone was bleeding and there were multiple scabbed-over skin tears on R23's forearms. Continued observation revealed the resident was wearing a short-sleeved shirt with no protective sleeves on his arms. Additional observations on 05/02/2024 at 2:38 PM, 05/03/2024 at 9:03 AM, 1:15 PM, 1:53 PM, and 2:14 PM revealed R23's nails remained long and with bloody-appearing material under them; the resident's arms were also bare during those observations. In an interview on 05/02/2024 at 2:38 PM, Nurse Aide-State Registered ([NAME]) 9 stated R23's care plan included the intervention for the resident to wear Geri-sleeves. She further stated the resident frequently removed the sleeves, and staff reapplied them on routine care rounds, approximately every two hours. In continued interview, NASR9 stated the care plan also described the need for R23's fingernails to be kept clean and trimmed, which was done when staff gave the resident a shower. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 2:00 PM, LPN6 stated R23's care plan included interventions to protect his skin, such as application of Geri-sleeves and keeping his fingernails trimmed. She further stated following the care plan was important to give the resident the individualized care they needed. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 3:59 PM, the DON stated she expected staff to implement care planned interventions. She further stated following the plan of care was important to provide appropriate, resident-specific care. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 5:24 PM, the Administrator stated he was not familiar with R23's skin picking behavior. He further stated he expected staff to implement care planned interventions. Per interview, the Administrator stated if care planned interventions were not effective, he expected staff to let their manager know, so the interdisciplinary team (IDT) could develop new interventions. 3. Review of R11's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/07/2021 with diagnoses to include type 2 diabetes, essential hypertension (high blood pressure), and atherosclerosis (buildup of plaque in arteries causing obstruction in blood flow). Review of R11's annual MDS, with an ARD of 04/15/2024, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a score of 10 out of 15 on the BIMS, indicating intact cognition. Review of R11's active orders as of 05/02/2024 revealed no order or referral for podiatry services. Review of R11's Care Plan, last review date 04/18/2024, revealed no focus or interventions for foot health or podiatry services. Observation on 04/30/2024 at 3:50 PM, revealed R11 lying in bed with feet uncovered. Continued observation revealed R11's toenails were long, untrimmed, and thick. In an interview on 05/02/2024 at 2:30 PM, R11 stated at times pain occurred when his toes touched the footboard of the bed. R11 stated his nails probably needed to be worked on, and he could not recall the last time anyone looked at his toenails. In an interview with the child of R11 on 05/02/2024 at 2:20 PM, she stated she asked staff at the nurse's station about one month ago for podiatry to see R11. In an interview with R11's Primary Care Provider (PCP) on 05/03/2024 at 9:18 AM, he stated foot health was important to residents especially if they had a diagnosis of diabetes since that condition could make an infection more complicated. The PCP stated a podiatrist would need to evaluate any nail deformities such as long, crooked, or nails growing at an angle. In an interview with the DON on 05/03/2024 at 4:45 PM, she stated she could not locate a podiatry referral for R11. She stated, due to R11's diagnosis of diabetes, not just anyone could trim R11's toenails. She stated complications could occur if his nails were not trimmed by a professional such as podiatry, and infection would be a concern. During interview with the Administrator on 05/03/2024 at 2:45 PM, he stated his tasks included to oversee operation of the facility including daily operation of all departments, staffing, and maintenance of the facility to assure the needs of the residents were met.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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, the facility failed to provide quality care according to the resident's plan of care for 1 of 3 residents sampled for skin care, Resident (R) 23. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Skin Integrity-Skin Tears, dated 2022, revealed the facility was responsible to intervene to protect residents from self-inflicted injury. Further review revealed facility staff members were responsible to modify the resident's plan of care for resident non-compliance. Review of R23's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/10/2019. Further review revealed R23's current diagnoses as of 05/01/2024 included peripheral vascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and psychotic disorder with delusions. Review of R23's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/08/2024, revealed the facility assessed R23 as severely cognitively impaired and unable to complete a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as free from skin tears during the look-back period. Review of R23's Care Plan, revised 02/05/2024, revealed the facility assessed R23 as having impaired skin integrity to his left upper extremity related to itching. Further review revealed the care plan included interventions such as keeping the resident's fingernails short, and keeping Geri-sleeves (soft, flexible sleeves used to protect skin on the limbs from friction and shear) on R23's arms. Observation of R23 on 04/30/2024 at 2:18 PM, revealed the resident sitting in bed, picking at a spot on his collarbone with long fingernails. Further observation revealed a brownish red substance with the appearance of old blood under the resident's fingernails. Per observation, the spot on R23's collarbone was bleeding, and there were multiple scabbed-over skin tears on R23's forearms. Continued observation revealed the resident was wearing a short-sleeved shirt with no protective sleeves on his arms. Additional observation on 05/02/2024 at 2:38 PM; and on 05/03/2024 at 9:03 AM, 1:15 PM, 1:53 PM, and 2:14 PM revealed R23's nails remained long and with bloody-appearing material under them. R23's arms were also bare during those observations. In an interview on 05/02/2024 at 2:38 PM, Nurse Aide-State Registered ([NAME]) 9 stated R23 picked at his skin, and the facility care planned for the resident to wear Geri-sleeves. She further stated R23 frequently removed his Geri-sleeves, so staff reapplied them whenever they were in the room for routine care rounds. NASR9 stated R23's nails were long and appeared to have a bloody substance under them. Per interview, NASR9 stated residents' nails were cleaned and trimmed during their showers, so she would let the night shift aide know R23 needed nail care during his next shower, which [NAME] believed was due that night (05/02/2024). In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 2:00 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 6 stated she was aware of R23's skin picking behavior. She further stated she applied hydrocortisone cream and antibiotic ointment to the site on his collarbone and any smaller ones on his forearms as ordered. LPN6 stated NASRs should trim R23's fingernails on his shower days. Per interview, LPN6 stated she did not believe R23 had a history of refusing to have his fingernails trimmed. Additionally, LPN6 stated staff should reapply R23's Geri-sleeves when he took them off and attempt to distract and redirect him to prevent him from picking his skin. In an interview and observation of R23 on 05/03/2024 at 2:14 PM with NASR9 and LPN6, both staff members verbalized that R23's fingernails needed to be trimmed. NASR9 stated she failed to inform the on-coming [NAME] for night shift that R23's fingernails needed to be trimmed, but she checked the shower schedule, and R23's shower was actually due the night of 05/03/2024. In further observation, R23 was not wearing a Geri sleeve on his right arm. NASR9 and LPN6 searched for the sleeve in R23's bed but were unable to locate it and stated they would get another one. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 2:24 PM, the Unit Manager (UM) stated she had not looked at R23's nails recently, but stated her expectation was for them to be kept short due to R23's skin picking behavior. She further stated her expectation was for NASRs to trim residents' nails on shower days. Per interview, the UM stated she reviewed shower documentation to monitor for resident refusals. However, she stated she did not know of R23 refusing showers or fingernail care. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 3:59 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility's process for managing a resident who picked his/her skin was to treat the underlying cause if a rash or other medical condition was present. She further stated a common intervention was to use Geri-sleeves to protect the resident's skin, but she was not familiar with the details of R23's care plan, nor the cause of his skin-picking. The DON stated leaving a resident's nails long and dirty when the resident had a history of picking his/her skin was not acceptable practice. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 5:24 PM, the Administrator stated he was not familiar with R23's skin picking behavior. He further stated he expected staff to implement care planned interventions. Per interview, the Administrator stated if care planned interventions were not effective, he expected staff to let their manager know, so the interdisciplinary team (IDT) could develop new interventions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

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, the facility failed to provide podiatry ser...

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, the facility failed to provide podiatry services for foot care and treatment, in accordance with professional standards of practice, including to prevent complications from the resident's medical condition(s) for 1 of 5 sampled residents, Resident (R) 11. The findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Podiatry Services, undated, revealed residents received proper treatment and care within professional standards of practice to maintain mobility and good foot health. The policy stated residents requiring foot care who had complicating disease processes would be referred to qualified professionals including a Podiatrist. Continued review revealed foot disorders included nail disorders, and staff should refer any identified foot care needs to the Social Worker or designee. Further review revealed the Social Worker or designee would refer residents' services providing treatment in the facility or making and arranging transportation to obtain needed services. Review of R11's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/07/2021 with diagnoses to include type 2 diabetes, essential hypertension, and atherosclerosis. Review of R11's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/15/2024, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of R11's active Physician's Orders, as of 05/02/2024 revealed no order or referral to podiatry services. Review of R11's Care Plan, last review date 04/18/2024, revealed no focus or interventions for foot health or podiatry services. Observation on 04/30/2024 at 3:50 PM, revealed R11 lying in bed with feet uncovered. Continued observation revealed R11's toenails were long, untrimmed, and thick. In an interview with R11 on 05/02/2024 at 2:30 PM, he stated at times pain occurred when his toes touched the footboard of the bed. He stated his nails probably needed to be worked on, but he could not recall the last time anyone looked at his toenails. In an interview with R11's daughter on 05/02/2024 at 2:20 PM, she stated she asked about one month ago for podiatry to see R11, adding she could not recall who she spoke to, just someone at the nurse's station. She stated she had just received a phone call from someone at facility, and that person told her R11 was now on the schedule for podiatry. She stated she was unsure if podiatry had seen R11 since admission. In an interview with Nurse Aide-State Registered ([NAME]) 7 on 05/03/2024 at 9:50 AM, she stated R11 did have some redness to one of his left toenail areas a while ago, but it had improved. During an interview with the Social Worker on 05/02/2024 at 3:15 PM, she stated she was unable to locate a referral to for podiatry services since the facility admitted R11 on 05/07/2021. During an interview with R11's Primary Care Provider (PCP) on 05/03/2024 at 9:18 AM, he stated he was not familiar with R11's care or diagnoses without looking at records. He stated foot health was important to residents, especially if they had a diagnosis of diabetes. He stated diabetes could make an infection more complicated. The PCP stated a podiatrist would need to evaluate any nail deformities such as long, crooked, or growing at an angle. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/03/2024 at 4:45 PM, she stated she could not locate a podiatry referral for R11. She also stated with R11's diagnosis of diabetes, not just anyone could trim R11's toenails. She stated complications could occur if his toenails were not trimmed by a professional such as podiatry, and infection would be a concern. During an interview with the Administrator on 05/03/2024 at 2:45 PM, he stated his tasks included to oversee operation of the facility including daily operation of all departments, staffing, and maintenance of the facility to assure the needs of the residents were met. He stated there was an auxiliary service company to meet needs of residents at the facility, which included podiatry services. He stated if a resident had any issues concerning care needs, the Social Worker would get a referral; then, she would go through the facility process to set up any appointments the resident might need.
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, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 of 3 residents sampled for tube feeding care,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 of 3 residents sampled for tube feeding care, Resident (R) 100. Observation on 05/02/2024 revealed the nurse failed to apply a bacterial ointment to R100's infected gastric tube insertion site as ordered by the physician. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Care and Treatment of Feeding Tubes, dated 2023, revealed the facility was to implement interventions to prevent complications of enteral feedings, including cleaning of the insertion site to prevent or resolve skin irritation and local infection. Review of R100's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/29/2023 with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke), dysphagia (impaired swallowing), and dysarthria (impaired speech caused by weak muscles). Review of R100's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/20/2024, revealed the resident was unable to complete a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). Facility staff assessed R100's mental status as severely impaired. Further review revealed R100 received greater than 51 percent of her caloric intake via her feeding tube. Review of R100's Care Plan, dated 05/19/2023, revealed R100 was totally dependent on tube feedings. Per review, the facility included interventions for staff to provide care to the gastric tube site per physician's orders and to monitor for signs and symptoms of infection. Review of the facility's document Order Summary Report for R100 revealed, on 10/31/2023, the physician ordered, Wash g-tube site with soap and water daily. Allow to air dry. Apply betadine and split gauze every day and night shift for infection control. Further review revealed the physician ordered Muciprocin (an antibiotic ointment) external ointment 2%, applied topically to g-tube site every day and night shift for infection control. Continued review revealed the physician ordered amoxicillin-pot clavulanate tablet 875-175 milligrams (mg) to be administered via g-tube for g-tube site infection two times per day for seven days, beginning 04/29/2024. Review of the facility's document Health Status Note, dated 04/25/2024, revealed nursing staff identified R100's gastric tube site had thick purulent (full of pus) drainage and a foul odor. Further review revealed nursing staff collected a sample of the drainage for testing. Review of the facility's document Health Status Note, dated 04/29/2024, revealed the testing results of the drainage from R100's gastric tube site revealed heavy bacterial growth. Further review revealed the physician ordered an oral antibiotic to treat the infection. In an attempted interview on 05/02/2024 at 9:07 AM, R100 was not interviewable. Observation on 05/02/2024 at 9:16 AM, revealed R100's tube feeding site was reddened, and there was a small amount of tan drainage from the site. In further observation, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5 performed gastric tube site care for R100 by cleaning the site with tap water and soap. Per observation, LPN5 then rinsed the site with sterile water and dried with a clean gauze. In continued observation, LPN5 placed a spilt gauze around the site and pulled the resident's shirt down over the site to discourage the resident from picking at the site. Per observation, LPN5 failed to apply betadine and antibiotic ointment as ordered. In an immediate interview, LPN5 stated the technique she had demonstrated was how she performed site care for all residents with gastric tubes. She further stated she would have used different materials and applied an antibiotic ointment if the physician ordered it. However, she stated she was unaware of the specific orders for R100. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 9:33 AM, R100's primary care physician (PCP) stated he expected staff to follow facility policy and physician's orders for gastric tube site care, to include application of an antibiotic ointment as indicated. He further stated he did not recall specifics about R100's gastric tube site. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 2:24 PM, the Unit Manager (UM) stated her expectations were for staff to follow physician's orders when providing site care to a resident's gastric tube site. In further interview, the UM stated she was aware R100 had a gastric tube site infection, the facility had collected a bacterial culture, and staff was treating the infection with oral and topical antibiotics. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 3:59 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated her expectations were for staff to follow physician's orders when providing site care to a resident's gastric tube site. She further stated she had not conducted a root cause analysis (RCA) of R100's gastric tube site infection, nor had she observed staff performing site care. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 5:24 PM, the Administrator stated his expectations were for staff to follow proper infection control practices and physician's orders when providing site care to a resident's gastric tube site. He further stated he expected the interdisciplinary team (IDT) to conduct an RCA into the cause of any gastric tube site infection, but he did not see evidence of an RCA in the IDT notes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, review of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) document, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to maintain documentation of screen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, review of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) document, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to maintain documentation of screening, education, offering, and current COVID-19 vaccination status for 2 of 3 sampled staff, Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) 3, and Dietary Aide (DA) 1. This failure placed the residents and staff at increased risk for communicable diseases and healthcare-associated infections (HAI). The findings include: Review of the CMS's Center for Clinical Standards and Quality/Quality, Safety & Oversight Group's QSO-21-19-NH Memo, dated 05/01/2021, revealed Long-term Care facilities (LTC) must offer staff vaccination against COVID-19 when vaccine supplies were available to the facility. LTC's must screen staff prior to offering the vaccination for prior immunization, medical precautions, and contraindications to determine whether they were appropriate candidates for vaccination. Per the guidance, the vaccine might be offered and provided directly by the LTC facility or indirectly, such as through an arrangement with a pharmacy partner, local health department, or other appropriate health entity. Review of the facility's policy titled, Covid-19 Vaccination, (COVID-19) - Vaccination of Staff, copyright 2023, revealed the facility would educate staff about the benefits, risks, and potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine and encourage staff to obtain the COVID-19 vaccination. The facility should retain education and vaccine status in the employee's medical file. 1. Review of DA1's employee file revealed no documented evidence noting the DA had received the COVID-19 vaccination or that it was offered to the employee. Additionally, there was no documentation that education regarding the benefits, risks, and potential side effects of the vaccine was provided to the employee. Review of the facility's New Hire Checklist, dated 04/05/2024 revealed a supervisor wrote refused all vaccinations for DA1 on the line for proof of a COVID-19 vaccination card. DA1 was unavailable for interview. 2. Review of KMA3's employee file revealed no documented evidence the facility had provided the KMA with education regarding the benefits, risks, and potential side effects of the vaccine. Per the file, KMA3 requested an exemption for the COVID-19 vaccination. During an interview with KMA3 on 04/30/2024 at 3:39 PM, she stated she was not provided education related to the COVID-19 vaccine and was not offered the vaccine by the facility. She stated she declined the COVID-19 vaccination and filed a Religious Exemption request with the facility. During an interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) on 05/03/2024 at 11:05 AM, she stated the facility followed the CDC's recommendation for all immunizations and vaccines. The IP stated she did not have complete vaccination records for all employees. However, she stated the facility provided vaccine education to staff on hire. She stated she did not know why the sampled files did not have the employee's COVID-19 vaccine education documentation. However, she stated it was important for the facility to educate staff about and offer the COVID-19 vaccine. The IP also stated the facility should keep documentation of their immunization or declination of the vaccine in their files. She stated it was important to follow the CDC's recommendations for infection prevention and control to prevent the spread of diseases and infections. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/03/2024 at 11:25 AM, she stated the facility followed infection control guidelines as per the CDC to include recommendations for staff immunizations and vaccines. She stated knowing the vaccination status of residents and staff was essential for everyone's safety. She stated it was important for staff to be educated about and offered the COVID-19 vaccine. She stated the staff members' immunization or declination of the vaccine should be documented in their files, as part of a comprehensive infection control program. During an interview with the Administrator on 05/03/2024 at 2:22 PM, he stated it was important that the facility maintained the appropriate documentation to reflect that it provided the required COVID-19 vaccine education to employees to comply with CDC recommendations and adhere to the facility's infection control program. The Administrator stated the IP Nurse was responsible for infection control oversight, but everyone must follow policies. He stated it was important for the safety of residents and staff.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of the facility's investigation, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure alleged violations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for 5 of 11 sampled residents that were reviewed in 7 allegations of resident-to-resident abuse, Resident (R) 27, 168, 368, 94, and 87. The facility failed to provide documented evidence of an investigation in three facility-reported allegations of abuse. These investigations involved R27 and R168, that occurred on 06/30/2023; R368 and R94, that occurred on 07/11/2023; and R368 and R87, that occurred on 09/10/2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, revised 10/31/2022, revealed, as part of the identification process, the facility was responsible for taking all necessary actions as a result of the investigation, to include analyzing the occurrence to determine why it occurred, and the changes needed to prevent further occurrences. 1. Review of R27's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, and major depressive disorder. Review of R27's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/05/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of R27's Progress Note, dated 06/30/2023 at 6:00 AM and signed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4, revealed R27 and R168 were sitting at the nurse's station. Per the note, R27 reported R168 started yelling at R27 and grabbed R27 by her hair, so R27 grabbed R168 back. LPN4 stated there were no injuries noted. Review of R27's Progress Note, dated 06/30/2023 at 3:51 PM and signed by LPN4, revealed staff witnessed no contact between R27 and R168, with residents redirected to their rooms, 15 minute checks initiated, and the physician and responsible party contacted. Review of R168's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include unspecified dementia with other behavioral disturbance, restlessness and agitation, and anxiety disorder unspecified. Review of R168's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 05/13/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident as severely cognitively impaired, and the resident was not able to be interviewed. Review of R168's Progress Note, dated 06/30/2023 at 3:56 PM and signed by LPN4, revealed staff witnessed no contact between R27 and R168, with residents redirected to their rooms, 15 minute checks initiated, and the physician and responsible party contacted. Review of the facility's investigation into the 06/30/2023 incident between R27 and R168, revealed the State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor was provided a folder with a handful of pages. One page was the Long Term Care Facility Self-Reported Incident Form, dated 06/30/2023, comprising the facility's initial and final report. This report indicated R27 grabbed R168's hair because R168 was yelling at R27 and touched R27's arm. The other pages in the folder were fax sheets maintained as evidence all appropriate parties, to include the SSA, were notified in the required time frames. The facility's investigation listed three staff as involved in the incident, although only LPN4 could be reached during the investigation. In an interview with LPN4 on 05/02/2024 at 8:00 AM, she stated she had limited recollection of the event. LPN4 stated she remembered hearing yelling, running down the hall, and seeing R27 and R168 seated next to each other in their wheelchairs, yelling at each other, and pulling each other's hair. She stated it was their routine to sit and talk by the nurse's station, and she did not know what triggered the incident. She stated she could not tell what they were yelling about, but it did not look like they were trying to hurt each other. LPN4 stated staff separated both residents, she assessed them, and they were placed on 15 minute checks. She stated she remembered staff kept a closer eye on both of them, although they quickly resumed their routine of sitting together and talking, with no evidence either of them remembered the incident. In an interview with the Administrator on 05/02/2024 at 1:53 PM, when asked to compare this investigation with another investigation, he stated the other investigation had more information, to include statements from witnesses and staff who worked. He stated for a thorough investigation, he would expect staff to try to determine what occurred and to include skin assessments if physical contact occurred or might have occurred unwitnessed. He stated, based on information obtained in a thorough investigation, interventions would be put into place to ensure it did not reoccur. 2. Review of R368's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/28/2022 with diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Further review revealed the resident's later diagnoses included unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder. Review of R368's significant change MDS, with an ARD of 09/12/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of 12 out of 15, indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as having verbal behaviors directed at others for one to three days of the look-back period, but noted the behaviors did not have a significant impact on the resident or other's safety or care activities. Review of R94's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/10/2023 with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (altered consciousness due to brain dysfunction), dementia with agitation, and anxiety disorder. Review of R94's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 06/11/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of six out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed R94 as free of aggressive behavior during the look-back period. Review of the facility's document Incident Note, dated 07/11/2023, revealed a Nurse Aide-State Registered ([NAME]) reported to LPN 10 that R368 hit another resident on the side of the head. Further review revealed staff immediately separated both residents and initiated 15 minute checks. Review of the facility's investigation file, dated 07/11/2023, revealed fax confirmation pages and one page of notes from the Social Services Director (SSD) of interviews with other residents. Further review revealed no residents interviewed were witnesses to the altercation, rather these were statements that the residents interviewed felt safe in the facility. Continued review revealed the facility failed to provide documented evidence of witness interviews, staff statements, or attempts to determine a root cause of the altercation. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 2:58 PM, the SSD stated her role in abuse allegation investigations was to interview residents with BIMS scores of eight or higher to determine if they experienced any abuse. She further stated it was the role of nursing management to interview staff and complete other parts of the investigation. 3. Review of R87's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/15/2022 with diagnoses including idiopathic (of unknown cause) hydrocephalus (excess fluid in the brain), severe protein calorie malnutrition, and anxiety disorder. Further review revealed subsequent diagnoses included unspecified dementia. Review of R87s quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 07/21/2023, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of six out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as free from aggressive behaviors towards others during the look-back period. Review of the facility's document Health Status Note, dated 09/10/2023, revealed R87 was sitting by the nurse's station when another resident (R368) came out of his room, verbally abused R87, and then kicked her twice. Review of the facility's investigation file, dated 09/10/2023, revealed fax confirmation pages, a half page typed summary of resident information, and a summary of the incident. Further review revealed no witness statements, no list of staff and residents present, and no evidence of evaluation of other residents. In an interview on 05/02/2024 at 10:02 AM, R87 stated she recalled a while back when a male resident got mad and kicked her in the leg, but she did not know why. In further interview, R87 stated staff kept the man away from her after the altercation. In an interview on 05/03/2024 at 9:54 AM, Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) 2 stated, on 09/10/2023, she came out of the medication room and heard R368 call R87 a whore and kick her. KMA 2 further stated she heard R87 say Oh! and she and another staff member separated the residents. KMA 2 stated she did not see any injuries on R87. In another interview on 05/03/2024 at 5:24 PM, the Administrator stated the person who was the Administrator when the resident-to-resident altercations occurred was no longer with the facility. He further stated the files did not contain enough information to be considered a thorough investigation. In continued interview, the Administrator stated his expectations going forward would be for an investigation into an allegation of abuse include witness statements, a root cause analysis, resident assessments, and staff re-education as necessary.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 documents and policy, the facility failed to ensure residents with limited range of motion (ROM) received appropriate treatment and services to increase ROM for 3 of 3 residents sampled for ROM (Resident (R) 1, 37 and 79). Multiple staff interviews revealed the facility currently had no restorative nursing program (RNP). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Restorative Nursing Programs, undated, revealed it [was] the policy of [the] facility to provide maintenance and restorative services designed to maintain or improve a resident's abilities to the highest practicable level. The RNP [referred] to nursing interventions that [promoted] the resident's ability to adapt and adjust to living as independently and safely as possible. This concept actively [focused] on achieving and maintaining optimal physical, mental, and psychosocial functioning. Nursing personnel [were] trained on basic, or maintenance nursing care that [did] not require the use of a qualified therapist or licensed nurse oversight. This training may [have] included, but [was] not limited to: a. maintaining proper positioning and body alignment, b. encouraging and assisting residents, as needed, in turning and position changes, c. encouraging residents to remain active and assisting with any exercises according to the plan of care, d. promoting independence in activities of daily living (ADLs), performing tasks for residents only as needed to ensure completion of tasks, e. assisting residents in adjustment to their disabilities and use of any assistive devices, f. assisting residents with range of motion [ROM] exercises, performing passive ROM for residents who lack active ROM ability, and g. promoting continence with various toileting and/or bowel and bladder training activities. Further review of the facility's policy titled, Restorative Nursing Programs, undated, revealed all residents [would] receive maintenance nursing services as described above, as needed, by certified nursing assistants. The Restorative Nurse and restorative aides (RA) [would] receive additional training on restorative nursing program activities upon hire and as needed. The Restorative Nurse [was] responsible for maintaining a current list of residents who [required] restorative nursing services, and for ensuring that all elements of each resident's program [were] implemented. A resident's Restorative Nursing plan [would] include: a. the problem, need, or strength the restorative tasks are to addressed, b. the type of activities to be performed, c. frequency of activities, d. duration of activities, and e. measurable goal[s] and target date. The discharging therapist, Restorative Nurse, or designated licensed nurse [would] communicate to the appropriate RA, the provisions of the resident's restorative nursing plan, providing any necessary training to carry out the plan. RAs [would] implement the plan for a designated length of time, performing the activities, and documenting on the Restorative Aide Documentation Form. The Restorative Nurse, or designated licensed nurse, [would] provide oversight of the restorative aide activities, review the documentation at least weekly, and evaluate the effectiveness of the plan monthly. Review of the facility's document Daily Staffing, dated 05/03/2024, revealed the facility staffed its' four residential units with 13 nurses, and 22 nurse aides ([NAME]) and certified medication aides (KMA). Additionally, the Daily Staffing document indicated two places for Restorative staff names to be added, indicating they were working that day in the facility. However, no names were written on the two blank lines for two Restorative staff members' names. 1. Review of R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/05/2024, revealed the facility assessed R1 to have functional limitation in ROM impairment on both sides of her upper extremities (shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands). Observation on 05/02/2024 at 8:35 AM, revealed R1 was in her bed in her room at the facility. R1's room was dark. Nurse Aide-State Registered ([NAME]) 13 knocked on R1's door, entered the room, and said good morning to R1. During an interview with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) on 05/02/2024 at 9:27 AM, she stated R1 was not currently in therapy and was at baseline, with no therapy goals to achieve. 2. Review of R37's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 02/06/2024, indicated R37 had functional limitation in ROM impairment on one side of her lower extremity (hip, knee, ankle, foot). Observation on 05/02/2024 at 9:31 AM, revealed R37 was in her bed in her room at the facility eating breakfast. During an interview with R37 on 05/01/2024 at 9:57 AM, she stated she did not know what staff was doing to help her with her limited ROM. During continued interview with the DOR on 05/02/2024 at 9:27 AM, she stated R37 was not in therapy, and R37 was last on the therapy caseload in February 2024. The DOR stated therapy worked with R37 on getting out of bed, changing from sitting to standing, lower body dressing, and wheelchair propulsion. The DOR stated when residents were discharged from therapy, nursing was notified. 3. Review of R79's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 04/16/2024, revealed the facility assessed R79 to have functional limitation in ROM impairment on both sides of her upper extremities (shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands) and in her hips, knees, ankles, and feet. Observation on 05/03/2024 at 9:05 AM, revealed R79 lying on her back in bed in her room at the facility. R79's head was tilted toward her left side. During an interview with NASR11 on 05/02/2024 at 10:32 AM, she stated, We do ROM with ADLs. [The residents] get ROM when we dress them. NASR11 stated, It hurts [R79] to sit up for a long time, and she wants to go back to bed. During an interview with NASR13 on 05/02/2024 at 4:20 PM, she stated she repositioned R79's leg that was contracted with a pillow. NASR13 stated she had tried to use a neck pillow for R79, but when she did, R79 let her know the neck pillow was uncomfortable. During continued interview with the DOR on 05/02/2024 at 9:27 AM, she stated R79 was not in therapy. The DOR stated she had tried multiple times to get R79's insurance to cover therapy, but they kept denying her coverage because she was at baseline. During an interview with NASR9 on 05/03/2024 at 9:55 AM, she stated she did ROM with residents every time she changed [their brief]. NASR9 stated she would like to have some direction, and it would be helpful to have some guidance on what specific ROM activities to do for each resident. During an interview with NASR3 on 05/03/2024 at 10:30 AM, she stated she recalled at one time the facility had restorative aides (RAs), and those RAs had a list of residents the physical therapy department had referred [to the RNP]. She stated the RAs would do ROM activities and put residents' braces on them. NASR3 stated, We had one aide who would do restorative all the time, and I missed them. NASR3 stated she did not know what had happened to the RA, and the program kind of disappeared. NASR3 stated the facility did not really tell us we had to do restorative, but [the residents] need it, so we do it. NASR3 stated she had not received any specific training on restorative, but I just know [how to do restorative care with residents], and we do what we think we need to do for certain residents. NASR3 stated if she were new to the facility, she would not know how to do restorative care for each resident and she would like to have pictures or diagrams that showed what we should be doing for each resident. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing on 05/02/2024 at 3:24 PM, she stated, At this time restorative is only done with ADLs, and we are hoping to get our restorative program back. During an interview with the Regional Nurse Consultant on 05/02/2024 at 10:45 AM, she stated the facility, since COVID, had not been able to start the RNP again, and ROM was done with donning (putting on) and doffing (taking off) of residents' clothing and other ADLs. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/03/2024 at 5:45 PM, she stated the facility had a RNP at the facility before she became DON, and she RNP being at the facility was dependent on whether they could get the needed staff. The DON stated the RNP was important to prevent residents from getting contractures and to prevent a decline in residents' ROM abilities. During an interview with the Administrator on 05/03/2024 at 2:14 PM, he stated they have the FTE [full-time equivalent] for a restorative aide. He stated a wage increase had been put through, but the facility currently did not have the staff for an RNP.
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** Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, review of the manufacturers' directions for use for the glucometer (blood glucose monitoring device) and disinfectant wipes, and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to identify and correct problems related to infection prevention practices for 5 out of 57 sampled residents, Resident (R) 31, R37, R43, R49, and R318. Three additional observations of the Bluegrass Unit (BGU) revealed violations of infection control standards. 1. Observation of R37 and R43 revealed staff failed to clean the glucometer (shared equipment) before and after use according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered disinfectant manufacturer's instructions. In addition, for both residents, appropriate hand hygiene was not performed. 2. Observation of R318 and R31 revealed staff failed to clean and disinfect a mechanical lift (shared equipment) after use on the residents. 3. Observation on R49 during medication administration revealed the resident was given a medication that had contact with the medication cart surface and the staff's bare hands. 4. Observation of the BGU's portable vital sign machine (shared equipment) revealed it was visibly dirty on the base and the screen. 5. Observation of the BGU's clean linen storage room revealed the facility did not properly store residents' briefs and supplies off the floor in a sanitary manner. 6. Observation of the BGU's medication cart revealed staff did not dispose of disinfecting wipes when they expired. The findings include: Review of the CDC's Guidelines, provided by the facility, titled, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, updated [DATE], revealed that reusable or shared medical equipment should be cleaned and disinfected according to manufacturer's instructions or the facility's policies before use on another patient. The guidelines stated facilities were to adhere to the manufacturer's instructions for reprocessing. The guidelines stated facilities should maintain separation between clean and soiled equipment to prevent cross-contamination. Further review of the guidelines revealed staff should be trained in the correct steps for cleaning and disinfection of shared equipment. Review of the facility's policy titled, Routine Cleaning and Disinfection, dated 2023, revealed the purpose of the policy was to ensure routine cleaning and disinfection to provide a safe environment to prevent the development and transmission of infections. Per the policy, routine surface cleaning and disinfection according to manufacturer's recommendations would be conducted with a detailed focus on visibly soiled surfaces. Additionally, staff should adhere to standard precautions when cleaning any soiled material that had the potential to contain a contaminated substance, to include hand hygiene. Review of the facility's policy titled, Glucometer Disinfection, dated 2023, revealed the purpose of the procedure was to provide guidelines for the disinfection of blood glucose sampling devices to prevent transmission of bloodborne diseases to residents and employees. Per the policy, the facility would ensure blood glucometers would be cleaned and disinfected after each use and according to manufacturer's instructions for multi-resident use. The policy stated the glucometer would be disinfected with a wipe pre-saturated with an EPA registered healthcare disinfectant that was effective against HIV Hepatitis C and Hepatitis B virus. Review of the cleaning and disinfecting instructions for the Assure Prism Blood Glucose Monitoring System, no date, revealed to minimize the risk of transmitting bloodborne pathogens, the exterior of the glucometer should be cleaned of all dirt, blood, and bodily fluids before performing the disinfection procedure, which would prevent the transmission of bloodborne pathogens. Per the instructions, the exterior of the glucometer should remain wet for the appropriate contact time according to the disinfectant's instructions. Review of the cleaning and disinfecting instructions for the MicroDot Bleach Wipes, undated, revealed to preclean prior to disinfecting the surface. Further review revealed the user was to unfold a clean wipe to thoroughly wet the surface and allow the treated surface to remain wet for a full three minutes to ensure complete disinfection of all pathogens, and then allow the treated surface to air dry. Review of the cleaning and disinfecting instructions for the Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable Wipe, undated, revealed to clean and disinfect non-porous surfaces, the user would use one or more wipes as necessary to wet surfaces sufficiently and clean the surface. Further review revealed the user was to unfold a clean wipe to thoroughly wet the surface and allow the treated surface to remain wet for a full two minutes to ensure complete disinfection of all pathogens, and then allow the treated surface to air dry. Review of the cleaning and disinfecting instructions for the One Step Cleaner and Disinfecting Wipe, undated, revealed the item must stay wet for the required one minute dwell time and then air dry to achieve disinfection. 1. a. Observation of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 on [DATE] at 8:35 AM, revealed LPN3 performed blood glucose monitoring on R37. The glucometer was stored in a plastic container with other residents' glucose injector pens (not inside the original packaging from the pharmacy), lancets, and test strips. LPN3 did not disinfect the glucometer prior to use and placed it on the treatment cart without a barrier. She took her supplies into R37's room, placing the glucometer and supplies on the bedside table without a barrier. After performing the fingerstick, she put the contaminated glucometer back on the bedside table. LPN3 did not perform hand hygiene (HH) upon leaving the room. She then placed the contaminated glucometer on top of paperwork on the cart and without performing HH, she donned (put on) a new pair of gloves. Using a MicroDot bleach wipe, LPN3 wiped the glucometer, placed it again on the paperwork to dry. She did not wrap the glucometer to stay wet for the required 3 minute dwell time. During an interview with LPN3 on [DATE] at 8:55 AM, she stated she received infection control training upon hire to include hand hygiene (HH), use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and transmission-based precautions (TBP). She stated the facility educated staff regarding infection prevention and control practices (IPCP) annually and during frequent in-service trainings. LPN3 stated staff should use HH before and after resident care and after removing PPE, including gloves. She stated staff should wash hands with soap and water if they came in contact with bodily fluid. Furthermore, LPN3 stated staff should remind each other of IPCP if they saw another co-worker breach protocols or fail to perform hand hygiene. In continued interview with LPN3 on [DATE] at 8:55 AM, LPN3 stated she did not know the dwell time for the MicroDot Bleach Wipes. She stated she thought the dwell time was the same as the dry time. She stated she used two glucometers so that one could dry while the other glucometer was being used. She stated she cleaned the glucometer before and after each use using one wipe and allowed it to dry thoroughly. LPN3 stated all nurses who performed blood glucose monitoring (BGM) received training and had to pass a return demonstration competency given by the Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Preventionist (ADON/IP). b. Observation of LPN5 on [DATE] at 4:15 PM, revealed LPN5 performed blood glucose monitoring on R43. LPN5 took R43's supplies into her room, placing the glucometer and supplies directly on top of R43's bedside table. After performing the fingerstick, LPN5 put the contaminated glucometer back on R43's bedside table. She doffed (took off) her gloves but did not perform HH upon leaving the room. She placed the contaminated glucometer on a tissue barrier on the treatment cart. She performed HH and donned gloves. Using a One Step Cleaner and Disinfecting Wipe, LPN5 wiped the glucometer and placed it on the same tissue to dry. During an interview with LPN5 on [DATE] at 4:28 PM, she stated the facility educated staff regarding IPCP upon hire and annually. LPN5 stated that staff should perform HH before and after resident care and after removing PPE. She stated HH should be performed after removing gloves. Continued interview revealed LPN5 stated the dwell time for One Step Cleaner and Disinfecting Wipes was round about two minutes. She stated she thought the dwell time was the time it took for the glucometer to dry. LPN5 stated she received blood glucose monitoring (BGM) training from the ADON/IP. 2. a. Observation of Nurse Aide-State Registered ([NAME]) 1 on [DATE] at 9:15 AM, revealed the [NAME] removed a mechanical lift out of R318's room. She took it down the hall and stored it in the Library at the end of the BGU. NASR1 did not clean and disinfect the lift after use on R318. During an interview with NASR1 on [DATE] at 9:24 AM, she stated that the mechanical lift should be cleaned and disinfected after each use and before being stored. She stated the lift was cleaned prior to using it on R318. She stated she was going to clean the lift before using it on the next resident. However, she stated she should have cleaned it immediately before storing it in a public area. NASR1 stated it was important to clean and disinfect shared equipment to prevent the spread of disease. During an interview with NASR4 on [DATE] at 10:01 AM, she stated she received IPCP training upon hire and during monthly in-services. She stated all shared equipment was cleaned after each use. She stated staff cleaned mechanical lifts and portable vital sign equipment between residents to prevent cross-contamination. b. Observation on [DATE] at 4:30 PM revealed NASR9 failed to disinfect the mechanical lift after use with R31, placing the lift in the hallway and entering another resident's room. In an interview with NASR9 on [DATE] at 4:39 PM, she stated she should have disinfected the lift before beginning another resident's care task because another staff member could have used the lift, not realizing it was not clean. She further stated this would have created a risk for cross contamination. 3. a. Observation on the BGU of the Clean Linen storage room on [DATE] at 9:30 AM, revealed residents' supplies including shampoo, lotions, and two briefs, were on the floor and not stored on the shelves. There was also one large bottle of perineal-care wash and one large bottle of body wash stored directly on the floor with visible dust and dirt on it. b. Observation on the BGU on [DATE] at 9:40 AM, revealed the portable vital sign machine in the nurses' station had visible dust and dirt on the base. The screen was covered with multiple fingerprints. During an interview with LPN1 on [DATE] at 9:48 AM, she stated shared equipment should be cleaned between residents. She stated this included lifts and vital sign equipment. She stated she received infection control training upon hire to include HH and the use of PPE. She stated all staff was trained in IPCP upon hire and periodically throughout the year. LPN1 stated all supplies should be kept off the floor and placed on shelves to prevent cross contamination. During an interview with LPN10 on [DATE] at 11:25 AM, she stated shared equipment should be cleaned and disinfected after each use. She stated staff should store all supplies off the floor to prevent contamination. During an interview with the ADON/IP on [DATE] at 9:00 AM, she stated nursing staff ensured supplies and equipment were cleaned and stored correctly according to the facility's policy. The ADON/IP stated staff cleaned mechanical lifts and portable vital sign machines with disinfecting wipes between residents. She stated nursing leadership did daily rounds and looked for any infection control issues. She stated, if an issue was identified, it was brought to the attention of staff, and if necessary, in-service training was provided. 4. Observation of the BGU Medication Storage room on [DATE] at 9:38 AM, revealed a container of Jantex Disinfecting Alcohol Wipes (75%) on top of the medication cart, which had an expiration date of 08/2023. During an interview with LPN1 on [DATE] at 9:48 AM, she stated she used the wipes to clean the glucometers. She was unsure if the 75% alcohol solution was the appropriate product to use for cleaning and disinfecting of glucometers. She stated further that expired products should be discarded to ensure the effectiveness of the product. During an interview with the ADON/IP on [DATE] at 10:55 AM, she stated expired products should be discarded when expired. She stated nursing staff was responsible for checking the medication carts daily to ensure there were no expired supplies. She also stated it was important to check the expiration dates to ensure the product's efficacy to prevent the spread of infection and disease. 5. Observation of Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) 2 on [DATE] at 11:35 AM, revealed she was preparing to give a medication to R49. The medication was Gabapentin (given for nerve pain) 100 milligrams oral, to be given whole with a glass of water. Per the observation, KMA2 placed the capsule in a medication cup, which turned the medication cup over, and the capsule landed on the surface of the medication cart. KMA2 picked up the capsule with bare hands and placed it back in the medication cup prior to administering it. During an interview with with KMA 2 on [DATE] at 11:40 AM, after medication administration, she stated she should not have touched the medication with bare hands, adding it could cause contamination, and she knew better. During an interview with the ADON/IP on [DATE] at 11:05 AM, she stated the facility followed CDC guidelines and recommendations related to infection control. She stated, in addition to having the role of IP, she was also the ADON. She stated while she did not keep documentation, she, and nursing leadership (Unit Managers (UM)) monitored staff nurses to ensure they were following the facility's policy and at a minimum, standard precautions. She stated alcohol wipes were not used to clean and disinfect glucometers. She stated nurses should use the MicroDot Bleach Wipes or Sani Wipes according to the manufacturer's instructions. She stated it was her expectation that all staff followed the facility's infection control policies and procedures. The IP/ADON stated it was important to prevent the spread of infection. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 11:25 AM, she stated the facility followed IPCP guidelines as per the CDC. She stated she reviewed infection surveillance reports and assisted the ADON/IP and UMs in maintaining a safe environment for the staff and residents. Furthermore, the DON stated she expected all staff members to be responsible for infection control and follow the facility's infection control policies and procedures. She stated having an infection control and prevention program was essential to prevent the spread of infectious and communicable diseases. During an interview with the Administrator on [DATE] at approximately 4:00 PM, he stated infection prevention and control education was provided upon hire for all staff, and it was based on job duties. He stated the facility followed the CDC's recommendations and guidelines related to IPCP, HH, and TBPs. The Administrator stated it was his expectation that all staff followed the CDC guidelines and facility policies. Additionally, the Administrator stated everyone was responsible for infection control and providing a safe environment for the residents and staff. During an interview with the Medical Director on [DATE] at 11:29 AM, she stated it was her expectation that the facility followed infection control guidelines and policies to prevent the spread of infection and to ensure the safety of residents and staff.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) document, review of medication...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) document, review of medication package inserts, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs, biologicals, and vaccines were stored per currently accepted professional principles and failed to ensure appropriate environmental controls were used to preserve their integrity. This deficient practice was found in three of four medication storage rooms. Observations of the facility's treatment carts revealed improper storage of medications was found in three of four treatment carts affecting nine residents, Resident (R) 30, R31, R34, R37, R43, R46, R58, R68, and R94. Observation of the Lakeview and Sterling Units' medication refrigerators revealed one influenza vaccine was improperly stored in the door of the medication refrigerators. Observation of the Sterling Unit's medication refrigerator revealed the medication refrigerator's temperature was not maintained between 36 and 46 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The temperature of the refrigerator was at 50 degrees F. Observation of the Lakeview Unit's medication cart revealed multiple boxes of medication for R43 were remained in the cart after the resident was discharged . Observation of the Bluegrass Unit's medication storage room revealed the medication cart was unlocked and the room was unattended. Observation of the Lakeview Unit revealed nursing staff kept the keys to the Medication Room and the refrigerator, which held the controlled substance lock box, in a drawer at the nurse's station. The nursing station was unattended. Observation of the Sterling Unit's Verification of Controlled Substances Count sheets revealed the medication nurse did not sign the sheet at the beginning of the 7:00 AM shift. Observation of the Lakeview, Sterling, and Wisteria Units' treatment carts revealed staff failed to date, discard, and store medications and insulin according to professional standards and in a sanitary manner. The findings include: Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) document, Vaccine Storage and Handling, updated 09/29/2021, revealed vaccines exposed to storage temperatures outside the recommended ranges might have decreased efficacy (result), creating limited protection. Per the document, vaccine temperatures should be monitored and documented at least twice daily if the refrigerator did not have a temperature monitoring device, which read minimum and maximum temperatures. Further review revealed best practices for storage of vaccines was to ensure that vaccines were not stored on the top shelf, floor, or door of the refrigerator as the temperature in these areas might differ significantly from the temperature in the body of the unit. Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medications, no date, revealed drugs and biologicals were stored safely, following manufacturer's recommendations. Further review revealed the medication supply was accessible only to licensed nursing personal and staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications. Medications requiring refrigeration would be stored in a refrigerator in the medication room. Per the policy, outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated (cracked, soiled, or without closers) medications were removed from stock. Furthermore, nursing staff was responsible for maintaining medication storage. In addition, the policy stated compartments (including, but not limited to drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes) containing drugs and biologicals were locked when not in use. Per the policy, medication storage conditions were monitored monthly. Review of the facility's policy titled, LTC Facility's Pharmacy Services and Procedures Manual, revised 01/01/2022, revealed the facility should maintain separate individual controlled substance records on all Schedule II medications and any medication with the potential for abuse or diversion. The policy stated the full form of declining inventory, using the controlled substance declining inventory record, should include the resident name, prescription number, medication name, strength, dosage form, dosage with total quantity received, the date and time of administration, the quantity remaining, and the name/signature of the person administering the medication. Per the policy, the facility should ensure the incoming and outgoing nurses counted all Schedule II controlled substances and any other medications with the risk of abuse or diversion at the change of each shift or at least once daily. The policy stated, after the count, the nurses should document the results on the controlled substance account verification sheet. Review of Drugs.com product insert (https://www.drugs.com/) for insulin glargine and insulin lispro, revealed opened (in-use) vials and injection pens, stored at room temperature, should be discarded after 28 days. Review of Drugs.com product insert (https://www.drugs.com/) for Levemir revealed opened (in-use) vials and injection pens, stored at room temperature, should be discarded after 42 days. 1. a. Observation of the Lakeview Unit's medication refrigerator on 04/30/2024 at 9:48 AM, revealed one vial of unopened influenza vaccine was stored improperly in the door of the medication refrigerator. During an interview with Kentucky Medication Aide (KMA) 1 on 04/30/2024 at 9:48 AM, she stated she was unaware staff should not store medications and vaccines in the refrigerator door. She stated the facility provided education on medication storage upon hire, which included checking for expiration dates, dating medications when opened, and discarding any expired medication. She stated the nurse or KMA on the medication cart was responsible to check for expired medications and discard. She stated nursing staff should check the refrigerator to ensure medications were stored properly. KMA1 stated it was important to store medication according to the insert to ensure they remained effective and for the safety of the resident. b. Observation of the Sterling Unit's medication refrigerator on 05/02/2024 at 8:20 AM and 05/02/2024 at 3:15 PM, revealed one vial of unopened influenza vaccine was stored improperly in the door of the medication refrigerator. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5 on 05/02/2024 at 8:25 AM, she stated she was unaware staff should not store medications and vaccines in the refrigerator door. She stated the facility provided education on medication storage upon hire, which included checking for expiration dates, dating medications when opened, and discarding any expired medication. LPN5 stated, if medications were not stored properly, they might not work. 2. Observation of the Sterling Unit's medication refrigerator on 05/02/2024 at 3:15 PM, revealed the temperature inside the refrigerator was 50 degrees F. During an interview with LPN2 on 04/30/2024 at 3:30 PM, she stated the freezer compartment had accumulated ice, and she had turned the temperature up to a higher degree to defrost the freezer. She stated she did not think to move the medications to another refrigerator. LPN2 stated the night shift maintained the temperature log for the refrigerator. She stated that temperatures needed to be checked once daily and should be around 40 degrees F. LPN2 stated the nurse or KMA assigned to the medication carts was responsible for maintaining the cart and the refrigerator. She stated she was not aware of routine medication cart or refrigerator audits. She stated monitoring refrigerators was important to ensure residents' safety. During an interview with LPN1 on 04/30/2024 at 9:38 AM, she stated there was no set time for checking the refrigerator temperatures, but it needed to be done every day on night shift. She stated the temperature should be around 40 degrees F. During continued interview with KMA1 on 04/30/2024 at 9:48 AM, she stated medication refrigerators were checked once daily on night shift. She stated she was unsure of the appropriate temperature range for medication and vaccine storage. She stated it was important to store medications and vaccines at the correct temperature range to maintain their effectiveness. During continued interview with LPN5 on 05/02/2024 at 8:25 AM, she revealed medication refrigerator temperatures were monitored twice daily by the nurse or KMA responsible for the medication cart. LPN5 stated medications must be stored at the proper temperature to ensure their effectiveness. 3. Observation of the Lakeview Unit's medication cart on 04/30/2024 at 8:20 AM, revealed multiple boxes of medication for R43 remained in the cart after the resident had been discharged . The discontinued medications included one box of Vitamin C 500 milligrams (mg), one box of Vitamin D 5000 units (u), one box of loratadine (an antihistamine) 10 mg, one box of omeprazole (a proton pump inhibitor given for heartburn) 40 mg, one box of magnesium 400 mg, one box of potassium 10 milliequivalents, one box of baclofen (a muscle relaxant) 5 mg, one box of Jardiance (a hypoglycemic) 10 mg, and one box of senna (a laxative) 8.6 mg. During an interview with KMA1 on 04/30/2024 at 8:20 AM, she stated R43 was discharged from the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE] with new medication orders. She stated the facility's policy stated medication for a resident discharged to a hospital should be held for 48 hours. KMA1 stated according to the facility policy, R43's medication should have been taken from the medication cart on 04/29/2024 and sent back to the pharmacy when R43 did not return to the facility within 48 hours. 4. a. Observation of the Bluegrass Unit's medication storage room on 04/30/2024 at 9:40 AM, revealed the medication cart was unlocked, and the room was unattended. During an interview with LPN1 on 04/30/2024 at 9:40 AM, she stated she forgot to lock the cart when she left the medication storage room. She stated medication carts were to be locked when not attended. b. Observation of the Lakeview Unit's medication storage room on 05/02/2024 at 2:30 PM, revealed when KMA4 was searching for the key to the medication refrigerator, which stored the refrigerated narcotic lock box, KMA4 found the keys stored in the top drawer of the desk at the nurse's station. The nurse's station was unattended at the time. Further observation revealed the key to the medication storage room and the key to the refrigerator were on the keychain, allowing anyone possessing the keys to enter the medication storage room, unlock the refrigerator, and access the narcotic box. During an interview with KMA4 on 05/02/2024 at 2:30 PM, she stated the medication cart should be locked inside the medication room, and the nurse or KMA in charge of the medication cart should have access to the keys. She stated this was important to prevent unauthorized staff in the medication rooms. During an interview with LPN5 on 05/02/2024 at 8:20 AM, she stated the medication cart should be locked inside the medication room, and the nurse or KMA in charge of the medication cart should be responsible for the keys to prevent access to medication storage. During an interview with LPN10 on 05/03/2024 at 1:15 PM, she stated the nurse in charge of the medication cart should lock it when it was unattended or while it was stored inside the medication room. She further stated the nurse or KMA in charge of the medication cart should be responsible for the keys to prevent unauthorized access to medication storage. 5. Observation of the narcotic count sheets for both Sterling Unit's medication carts on 05/03/2024 at 9:45 AM, revealed the medication day shift nurse did not sign the Verification of Controlled Substances Count sheet at the beginning of the 7:00 AM shift. Further review revealed there was no verification of the number of controlled substance cards on either cart. Observation of the narcotic count revealed the count was correct. During an interview with LPN11 on 05/03/2024 at 9:45 AM, she stated that it was the facility's policy to sign the controlled drug count record at every shift change to verify that all controlled drugs had been counted and reconciled with the quantity on hand. She stated she did the count with the night shift nurse at shift change but failed to document it on the control sheets. She emphasized the importance of following the facility's policy to ensure the proper reconciliation of controlled narcotics. 6. a. Observation of the Lakeview Unit's treatment cart on 05/03/2024 at 2:40 PM, revealed R43's insulin was not stored in the original packaging received from the pharmacy or in a manner to prevent cross contamination from contact with other pens, medications, or supplies. Furthermore, nursing staff failed to date opened insulin and discard according to product instructions. One vial of R43's Novolog 100 units/milliliter was observed with no opened date. The top of the original packaging was torn off exposing the insulin to light. During an interview with LPN2 on 05/03/2024 at 2:55 PM, she stated all medications should be dated when opened. She stated insulin should be placed in its original packaging to protect the solution from light, and medication that had expired should be discarded appropriately. She stated she was not sure when insulin pens should be discarded after opening. She stated medications should be stored in a manner to prevent cross contamination. b. Observations of the Wisteria Unit's treatment cart on 05/03/2024 at 3:05 PM, revealed multiple residents' insulin pens were not stored in the original packaging received from the pharmacy or in a manner to prevent cross contamination from contact with other pens, medications, or supplies. Furthermore, nursing staff failed to date insulin pens and discard according to product instructions. Observations included: 1) R34's Basaglar (insulin glargine) kwik pen was not stored in its original packaging and was undated; 2) two of R46's Humalog 100 unit insulin pens were not in their original packaging and had opened dates of 04/12 and 04/27 without the year; 3) R58's Humalog 100 unit insulin, dated 04/15, and insulin glargine, dated 04/12, were not in their original packaging; 4) R37's Levemir insulin 100 unit flex pen was not in its original packaging and not dated; 5) R30's Lispro insulin 100 unit pen was not in its original packaging; and 6) R68's Lispro insulin 100 unit pen was not in its original packaging. During an interview with LPN9 on 05/03/2024 at 3:05 PM, she stated all medication should be dated when opened. She stated insulin should be placed in its original packaging to protect the solution from light, and medication that had expired should be discarded appropriately. She stated she was not sure when insulin pens or vials should be discarded after opening but thought it was around 28 days. She stated medications should be stored in a manner to prevent cross contamination. LPN9 stated proper medication storage was important for the safety of the residents and staff. c. Observations of the Sterling Unit's treatment cart on 05/03/2024 at 3:45 PM, revealed: 1) one bag of albuterol inhaler was opened without a date. The remaining 10 vials were unprotected from light, and there was no resident's name on the packaging; 2) one opened bottle of hydrogen peroxide with no opened date; 3) one opened bottle of hydrogen peroxide with an opened date of 12/20; 4) R94's insulin Lispro 100 unit pen was not in the original packaging, and two vials of R94's insulin glargine were opened. One had an opened date of 03/20, and the other was dated 04/27. Both were outside their packaging, which protected them from light; and 5) one package of R31's ipratropium albuterol 3 milliliter vials was opened, with no date, exposing the vials to light. During an interview with LPN5 on 05/03/2024 at 3:45 PM, she stated, per the facility's policy, medication should be stored in its original packaging, and all medication should be dated when opened. If the medication had expired or was past its opened date, she stated, it should be discarded. She stated she was not sure when insulin pens should be discarded after opening. She stated medications should be stored in a manner to prevent cross contamination. She stated following policy was important for the safety of the residents. During an interview with the facility's Pharmacist on 05/03/2024 at 4:53 PM, she stated controlled substances sheets were audited by the Pharmacy to ensure staff was reconciling controlled medication. She stated she had experienced no issues with the facility's audits. She further stated medication and vaccines should be stored according to manufacturer's instructions to protect the safety of the residents. She stated most insulin pens were good for 28 days after opening. She stated most pens and vials should be discarded 28 days after opening. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Preventionist (ADON/IP) on 05/03/2024 at 11:00 AM, she stated vaccines were stored in one refrigerator in the Lakeview Unit's medication storage room. She stated she was unaware there was influenza vaccine in the refrigerator in the Sterling Unit's medication room. She stated all medication should be stored according to accepted standards, and expired medication should be discarded appropriately. The ADON/IP stated Unit Managers (UM) were responsible for auditing medication storage. She stated it was done routinely, but she did not have documentation of any audits. She stated it was important for the safety of the residents. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/03/2024 at 11:25 AM, she stated she expected the nurses to discard expired medications. She stated nursing staff was educated on medication administration and storage during their orientation upon hire. She stated it was her expectation that medications and vaccines were stored according to currently accepted professional standards and under the appropriate environmental controls to protect the efficacy of the medication and vaccines for the safety of the residents. Furthermore, the DON stated it was her expectation the nursing staff and KMAs followed the facility's policy regarding documentation of controlled medication counts. She stated medication carts should be locked when unattended to prevent unauthorized access to medications. During an interview with the Administrator on 05/03/2024 at 2:22 PM, he stated everyone must follow the facility's policies. He stated it was important for the safety of residents.
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 policy, the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions for three of four nourishment unit refrigerators as determined by obse...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions for three of four nourishment unit refrigerators as determined by observations during survey of ice packs stored in two unit nourishment freezers, and one unit nourishment refrigerator with no thermometer, and no temperature log for April 2024. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Monitoring of Cooler/Freezer Temperature, dated 2024, revealed logs for recording temperatures for each refrigerator or freezer would be posted in a visible location outside the freezer or refrigerator unit. Further review revealed temperatures would be checked and logged at least twice per day by designated personnel, and thermometers shall be placed inside each cooler/freezer and calibrated at least once per week. Continued review revealed all refrigerator storage must be maintained at or below 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F), and all frozen storage must be maintained at or below -4 degrees F. Observation of the Sterling Unit nourishment refrigerator on 04/30/2024 at 11:46 AM, revealed six ice packs located in the freezer door. Observation of the Lakeview Unit nourishment refrigerator on 04/30/2024 at 11:56 AM, revealed no temperature log and no thermometer for the month of April 2024. Observation of the Bluegrass Unit nourishment refrigerator on 04/30/2024 at 12:56 PM, revealed five ice packs located in the freezer door. In an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 10 on 05/03/2024 at 1:13 PM, she stated it was important to check the refrigerator temperatures to know if the food was stored at an appropriate temperature. She further stated the ice packs stored in the freezer presented a potential for cross contamination, and the ice packs should be stored in the medication storage room. In an interview with LPN8 on 05/03/2024 at 1:37 PM, she stated the AM or PM nurse checked the nourishment refrigerator. She further stated the therapy department stored ice packs in the nourishment freezer to use with residents in rehabilitation. In an interview with the Director of Rehabilitation on 05/03/2024 at 1:44 PM, she stated nursing used ice packs for residents, and therapy had not used ice packs in about two years. She further stated there was potential for cross contamination when stored in the nourishment refrigerator. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/03/2024 at 3:55 PM, she stated there should be a thermometer and a temperature log to record temperatures. She further stated the ice packs should not be stored in the nourishment freezer with food items due to cross contamination. In an interview with the Administrator on 05/03/2024 at 4:41 PM, he stated his expectation was for the nourishment refrigerators to be used to keep food cold. He further stated the ice packs should not be stored in the unit nourishment refrigerator.
Aug 2019 7 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents. The f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents. The facility failed to ensure hot liquids were at a safe temperature and were served in an appropriate container for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents reviewed for accident hazards out of a total of twenty-seven (27) sampled residents (Resident #1). Resident #1, who the facility assessed as requiring supervision (oversight, encouragement, or cueing) and support from staff for set up help only with eating, was served a cup of coffee in a Styrofoam cup with a lid on 08/24/19; instead of the correct hot beverage plastic drinking cup. Subsequently, Resident #1 spilled hot coffee resulting in a second degree burn to the right thigh. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy titled, Accidents and Supervision dated 11/01/18, revealed the resident environment should remain as free of accident hazards as possible and each resident should receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents. This includes identifying hazards and risks; evaluating and analyzing hazards and risks; implementing interventions to reduce hazards and risks and communicating the interventions to all relevant staff; and monitoring for effectiveness and modifying interventions when necessary. Accident refers to an unexpected or unintentional incident which results in injury or illness to a resident. A Policy related to food/fluid temperatures at point of service was requested; however, not submitted for review. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 08/29/19 at 3:00 PM, revealed the facility did not have a policy related to resident safety with hot beverages, nor did the facility complete assessments/evaluations on residents related to resident safety with hot liquids prior to 08/24/19. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/29/17 with diagnoses including Dementia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Congestive Heart Failure. Review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), revised 07/26/19, revealed the resident had a self-care deficit problem due to limited physical mobility related to general weakness. The goal stated the resident would maintain level of mobility. There were several interventions including extensive assist of one (1) staff for bed mobility, transfers, locomotion in wheelchair, toileting and personal hygiene. Further review revealed the resident fed self after tray prep with supervision as needed. Review of the Nutritional Assessment, dated 08/05/19, completed by the Registered Dietician, revealed the resident received a regular diet with thin liquids and had no problems with chewing or swallowing. Further review revealed the resident fed self after set up help. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 08/07/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of a six (6) out of fifteen (15) indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring supervision (oversight, encouragement, or cueing) and support from staff for set up help only with eating. Review of the Incident Report, completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, revealed on 08/24/19 at 10:30 AM, Resident #1 was served coffee in his/her room and spilled the coffee, sustaining a right thigh burn. Per the Report, there were no witnesses to the event. Further review of the Report, revealed the Physician was immediately notified and orders were received for Silvadene Cream. The family was notified on 08/24/19 at 3:36 PM. Review of the CCP initiated 08/24/19, revealed the resident sustained a burn to the right leg and was at risk for pain and infection with a goal stating the area to the right leg would heal without infection. There were several interventions including administer medications and treatments as ordered; air mattress; assess right leg for infection; and monitor nutritional status. Review of the Physician's Order dated 08/24/19 at 10:30 AM, revealed orders for Silvadene Cream 1% (sliver sulfadiazine) apply to right lateral thigh topically two (2) times a day to burn. Review of the Nurse's Note, dated 08/24/19 at 11:10 AM, written by the DON, revealed she spoke with Resident #1's Daughter and explained treatment was in place related to the burn and informed her the resident could be sent to the emergency room (ER) if she desired. Per the Note, the Daughter declined sending the resident to the ER. Review of the Nurse's Note, dated 08/24/19 at 3:47 PM, written by LPN #1, revealed the resident was served coffee from the kitchen, spilled coffee on his/her right thigh and sustained a burn. Per the Note, the DON and Administrator were notified. Additional review of the Note, revealed the Physician was notified and orders were received for Silvadene Cream to areas. The subsequent Nurse's Note dated 08/24/19 at 8:56 PM, revealed treatment was completed to the burn on the resident's right upper side of the leg and clear fluid was draining from large blisters. Per the Note, the resident denied pain. Review of the Doctor's Progress Notes, dated 08/26/19 at 4:00 PM, revealed Resident #1 sustained an accidental burn to the right thigh and had a large bullous blister and excoriation. Review of the Resident Investigation Form, signed by the Administrator on 08/26/19, revealed on 08/24/19 at 10:30 AM, Resident #1 received coffee from the kitchen and sustained a burn to the left thigh. The Physician was notified and an order was received for Silvadene twice a day. Per the Investigation Form, staff was educated on not serving hot beverages in Styrofoam cups and the need to serve hot beverage in regular coffee cups with lids. Further review of the Investigation Form, revealed temperatures were lowered on the coffee pot in the kitchen; and each unit would have a thermometer to test the temperatures of hot liquids. Review of the Long Term Care Facility-Self Reported Form Five (5) Day Follow Up/Final Report, signed by the DON, on 08/28/19, revealed per employee interviews, Resident #1 was served coffee from a Styrofoam cup with a lid. The employee placed the cup on the resident's tray and exited the room. The employee heard the resident yell out and entered the room at which time the resident stated, my pants are wet. Per the Report, the employee stated she removed the resident's pants and noted the resident spilled coffee, at which time she went to get the nurse. Additional review of the Report, revealed education was started on 08/24/19 regarding serving hot beverages; the facility devised the Hot Liquid Safety Policy and began education on Policy on 08/27/19; hot beverage audits on temperatures began on 08/24/19 and would continue in dietary department; and two (2) employees were terminated who were directly involved with the incident (State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #1 and SRNA #2). Review of the Attached written Statement by SRNA #2, undated, revealed Resident #1 asked for a cup of coffee and she went to the kitchen to get the coffee. Per the Statement, a brand new girl handed her a cup of coffee in a Styrofoam cup with a plastic lid and the lid on the cup was sealed. Review of the Wound Physician's Note, dated 08/27/29, revealed the resident was seen at bedside at the facility for a burn to the right lateral thigh which measured 22 centimeters (cm) length x 5.5 cm width x not measurable depth with light serous exudate, 100 % percent dermis, and fluid filled blister. The Note stated the resident sustained a burn wound of the right lateral thigh from hot coffee which occurred three (3) days ago. and appeared to be at least a second degree burn. Per the Note, treatment options were discussed with resident and Daughter. According to the Note, the Wound Physician recommended sending the resident to the burn unit at the University Hospital for further evaluation, but the resident was palliative care and the resident and Daughter did not want this. Per the Note, the resident's and Daughter's wishes would be respected. Recommendations were to off load the wound, vitamin C 500 milligrams (mg) twice daily, multivitamin once daily, zinc sulfate 220 mg once daily, and silver sulfadiazine apply twice daily with Gauze Island for fourteen (14) days. Observation of meal service on 08/27/19 at 12:45 PM, revealed all residents were served in dining area with plastic cups with safety lids applied. There was no visual confirmation of Styrofoam cups being dispensed by the kitchen for hot soups or beverages. Observation of the Breakfast meal on the Wisteria Unit where Resident #1 resided, on 08/29/19 at 8:45 AM, revealed all resident trays were delivered with no presence of Styrofoam cups. Resident #1 was observed to have the meal tray set up by staff and his/her coffee was dispensed in a plastic cup with a lid. LPN #1 cued the resident to eat and supervised the resident while he/she was drinking coffee. Observation on 08/29/19 at 1:30 PM, of Resident #1's burn wound, and dressing change performed by LPN #2, revealed the wound to the resident's right thigh appeared as skin excoriation and decompressed blisters with redness of the entire area, with signs of new dermal formations present. The nurse cleansed the wound with Normal Saline and 4 x 4 gauze, and applied Silvadine cream to the entire burn area, and applied the dressing as per the Physician's Orders. Resident #1 denied any pain during the procedure. Interview was attempted with Resident #1, on 08/27/19 at 10:30 AM, and the resident stated he/she could not recall how he/she acquired the wound to his/her hip and upper thigh. He/she denied having any pain from the wound. Interview with Resident #1's Daughter, on 08/27/19 at 11:00 AM, revealed she received a telephone call on 08/24/19 from the facility explaining Resident #1 sustained a burn to his/her right leg from spilling a cup of coffee which had been given to the resident in a Syrofoam cup. Continued interview revealed she requested Resident #1 not be transferred to the ER and that all treatment be carried out at the facility as the family wanted to keep the resident comfortable and an extensive hospitalization may cause the resident to decline. Continued interview revealed Resident #1 did not remember the exact details of how the burn occurred when family inquired as to how the incident happened. Interview with SRNA #1, on 08/28/19 at 8:16 AM, revealed on 08/24/19 after breakfast between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM, she witnessed Resident #1 ring the call bell and ask for coffee. SRNA #1 stated she walked to to the Kitchen with SRNA #2 who was new and on orientation. SRNA #1 stated SRNA #2 came out of the kitchen carrying a Styrofoam cup with a lid on the cup. Per interview, the temperature of the coffee was not checked at the time by the SRNAs because dietary staff checked coffee temperatures. Continued interview revealed she witnessed SRNA #2 set the coffee on the resident's table beside the chair where the resident was sitting, and then SRNA #1 and SRNA #2 continued resident care with other residents on the unit. Per interview, shortly thereafter, Resident #1 began to scream, and when she entered the resident's room, the resident had spilled the coffee and LPN #1 was notified. SRNA #1 could not recall if the coffee cup had lost its integrity or if the lid was still on the cup upon finding the resident had spilled his/her coffee. Further interview revealed after the incident she was informed by kitchen staff that coffee had to be delivered in plastic cups and not Styrofoam cups, but she had never been educated related to this prior to the incident with Resident #1. Per interview, SRNA #1 had seen residents being served hot drinks in Styrofoam cups in the past. Interview with SRNA #2, on 08/28/19 at 8:30 AM, revealed she was in the orientation period as she was a new hire and was assigned to Resident #1 on 08/24/19. SRNA #2 stated she was orienting with SRNA #1 when Resident #1 asked her for a cup of coffee. Per interview, she went to the dining room and informed kitchen staff and SRNA #3 handed her the cup of coffee in a Styrofoam cup with the lid from the kitchen door. She stated she took the coffee to the resident's room and placed the cup on the table by the chair where the resident was sitting. Continued interview revealed a short time later, while conducting rounds, Resident #1 was heard screaming out, and upon entering the resident's room Resident #1's pants were wet and the resident complained his/her leg was hurting. SRNA #2 stated the coffee had spilled on the resident's leg, but she could not recall if the cup had lost its integrity causing the coffee to spill out or if the lid was still on the cup. SRNA #2 stated at this point Resident #1's nurse, LPN #1 was called into the room along with the weekend Supervisor/Registered Nurse #1. Further interview revealed she had not been educated related to the need to use plastic cups and not Styrofoam cups for hot beverages, prior to the incident on 08/24/19. Interview with SRNA #3, on 08/28/19 at 9:45 AM, revealed SRNAs were not allowed to go into the kitchen and she did not recall going into the kitchen on 08/24/19 and obtaining a cup of coffee to hand SRNA #2. Per interview, she had been trained in the past that Styrofoam cups were not to be used to serve hot liquids. Interview with LPN #1, on 08/29/19 at 1:30 PM, revealed on 08/24/19 she was working on the Wisteria unit and was assigned to Resident #1. Per interview, on that date during midmorning she was called to Resident #1's room by SRNA #1 and SRNA #2 who stated the resident spilled coffee on himself/herself. She stated when she entered the room, she noted the Styrofoam cup was upright on the table by the chair and the cup had a safety lid in place, but the lid was loose. Further interview revealed she assessed the resident and noticed there was a red area on the resident's right thigh, and she immediately notified the Physician who ordered Silvadene treatment. LPN #1 stated she then notified the resident's Daughter of what happened, and the Daughter stated she did not want the resident sent to the Hospital ER as the resident had a recent referral for a palliative care consult. Further interview with LPN #1, revealed the weekend Supervisor/RN #1 went to the kitchen to investigate as to why the resident had been served coffee from the kitchen in a Styrofoam cup. Additional interview revealed Resident #1 was independent with eating and could drink hot beverages independently in plastic lids with cups. LPN #1 stated she felt the burn could have been prevented if staff had not served the resident coffee in a Styrofoam cup as the hot liquid plastic cups were better designed to be safe. LPN #1 stated she had been informed not to put hot liquids in Styrofoam prior to the incident, but did not know if it was a formal inservice. Interview with the Weekend Supervisor/RN #1, on 08/29/19 at 2:15 PM, revealed on 08/24/19, she responded to an incident where Resident #1 spilled hot coffee on himself/herself from a Styrofoam cup. She stated she and the DON immediately initiated an investigation and concluded Resident #1 was given a Styrofoam cup of coffee with a lid, and shortly afterward spilled coffee on his/her right leg. Per interview, the investigation revealed SRNA #2 gave the cup of coffee to the resident; however, it was not clear as to who prepared the coffee in the kitchen for the resident and handed the cup of coffee to SRNA #2. Continued Interview revealed Resident #1's family did not want the resident sent to the ER and the burn was treated in the facility with Silvadene. RN #1 stated education was provided to all staff after the incident related to hot coffee was not to be served in Styrofoam cups, and she further stated she had received education related to this prior to the incident. Interview with Dietary Aide # 1, on 08/29/19 at 10:30 AM, revealed even though only dietary staff was to be in the kitchen, certain SRNAs did not abide by that policy. Per interview, SRNA #3 was in the kitchen on 08/24/19 midmorning while kitchen staff was in the process of preparing lunch; however, she did not notice if SRNA #3 poured a cup of coffee during that time. She further stated she did not recall anyone asking dietary staff for a cup of coffee for Resident #1 on 08/24/19 during midmorning. Further interview revealed the Coffee temperature was 150 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in the pot on the morning of 08/24/19 when it was tested earlier at breakfast. Additional interview revealed dietary staff knew not to serve hot beverages in Styrofoam cups. Per interview, hot coffee was to be served in plastic cups with a lid and there was no shortage of plastic cups on 08/24/19. Review of the facility's Temperature Log, dated 08/24/19 at breakfast, revealed the coffee temperature was one hundred fifty (150) degrees Fahrenheit (F) for the morning serving. Interview with the Dietary Manager on 08/28/19 at 10:45, revealed 150 degrees F was an acceptable temperature for coffee in the pot and it would cool once poured into a cup. Further interview revealed hot coffee had to be served in plastic cups with a lid. She stated this was because the plastic hot liquid cups could not be eroded, warped, or broken. Further interview revealed the kitchen never ran out of the plastic hot liquid cups. Continued interview revealed all nursing and dietary staff was specifically trained on this facility practice. Further interview revealed she had witnessed SRNAs to come into the kitchen and help themselves; however, only dietary staff should be in the kitchen. Continued interview revealed accurate coffee temperatures were obtained and recorded on the morning of 08/24/19 with coffee temperatures consistent with normal preparation. Interview with SRNA #4, on 08/28/19 at 11:45 AM, revealed she was not working on 08/24/19; however, was frequently assigned to Resident #1. Per interview, Resident # 1 required meals to be set up, and some verbal cueing, but was capable of feeding self and capable of handling glasses and cups and drinking independently. Per interview, Resident #1 frequently drank coffee independently in his/her room. Further interview revealed she learned upon hire that in no circumstance was a resident to receive a hot liquid drink in a Styrofoam cup. Interview with LPN #2, on 08/29/19 at 2:00 PM, revealed she was frequently assigned to Resident #1 and the resident could feed himself/herself and often drank coffee independently in his/her room. LPN #2 stated all hot drinks were to be covered with safety lids. Further, she had been informed prior to and after 08/24/19, to not put hot drinks in Styrofoam cups as the plastic hot beverage cups were safer. Interview on 08/29/19 at 1:45 PM, with Unit Supervisor/RN #2, who was the Supervisor of the Wisteria Unit where Resident #1 resided, revealed Resident #1 required meal setup and cues to eat. Per interview, the resident liked to drink coffee independently and had never had an incident in the past to her knowledge until the incident on 08/24/19 when he/she spilled the coffee. Unit Supervisor/RN #2 stated under no circumstances was staff permitted to give hot liquids in Styrofoam cups as they were not as safe as the plastic cups that were to be used for hot beverages. Interview with the Staff Development Coordinator, on 08/29/19 at 2:30 PM, revealed she was new to the position and had been in her current role only a few months. She stated to her knowledge there had been no formal staff education in the past related to the need to use hot beverage plastic cups instead of Styrofoam cups for hot beverages. However, she stated after the incident on 08/24/19, with Resident #1 sustaining the burn from the hot coffee, education was being provided for all staff. The State Agency Representative phoned Resident #1's Attending Physician on 08/29/19 at 2:45 PM, and a message was left with no return phone call. Interview with the DON, on 08/29/19 at 3:00 PM, revealed on 08/24/19 she received a phone call related to the incident where Resident #1 spilled hot coffee and sustained a burn. Per interview, the Physician was immediately notified of the burn and orders were received for Silvadene treatment which the facility immediately retrieved from a nearby pharmacy. The DON stated the resident's family was asked several times if hospitalization was desired; however, the family was adamant they did not want the resident sent to the Hospital ER. Additional interview with the DON, revealed she initiated an investigation on 08/24/19 and started interviewing staff as to how the resident received a Styrofoam cup. Per interview, SRNA # 2 admitted to giving the resident the hot coffee in the Styrofoam cup; however, no staff member admitted to dispensing the coffee from the kitchen or giving SRNA #2 the cup of coffee for Resident #1 on the morning of 08/24/19. Continued interview revealed, it had always been a rule to not serve hot beverages in Styrofoam cups. She stated hot liquids were to be served in plastic hot liquid cups with a safety lid; however, she was unaware if staff had been educated during inservices related to this rule. Further, the DON stated new policies and education were being instituted in an attempt to prevent further accidents from hot beverages. Post survey phone interview with the Administrator, on 09/11/19 at 3:05 PM, revealed there was no written policy in effect related to serving hot beverages nor was there an assessment tool in place for screening residents at risk for burns related to hot beverages prior to 8/24/19 when Resident #1 sustained the burn. Per interview, staff had been informed in the past they needed to be sure to use the hot beverage plastic cups for hot liquids such as coffee instead of the Syrofoam cups because the safety lids worked better on the plastic cups. However, further interview revealed there was no documented evidence of formal education presented to staff related to this prior to 08/24/19. She stated this information was just passed along from staff members to other staff members in the past, but after the accident occurred related to Resident #1 sustaining a burn, formal education began in an attempt to prevent recurrence. The Administrator stated, Honestly, it feels like it was unfortunate accident, as the wrong style of cup was used.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of needs for one (1) of twenty-seven (27) sampled residents (Resident #105). Observation on 08/27/19, revealed Resident #105 was repeatedly calling out Help from his/her resident room and upon entering the room, the resident's call light was wrapped around the bed rail and out of reach of the resident. The findings include: Review of the facility Call Lights: Accessibility and Timely Response Policy, dated 06/01/17, revealed the purpose of the policy is to assure residents the ability to call for assistance and ensure an appropriate response. All staff are to be educated on proper use of the system and ensuring residents access to the call light. Review of Resident #105's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/28/18 with diagnoses to include Heart Failure, Fracture of Sacrum, and Repeated falls. Review of Resident #105's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 07/31/19, revealed the resident had an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Self Care Performance Deficit with a goal stating the resident would be able to make needs known. There were several interventions including encourage resident to participate to the fullest extent possible with each interaction; praise all efforts at self care; and Encourage me to use call bell for assistance. The facility assessed Resident #105, in a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of a six (6) out of fifteen (15) indicating significant cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring extensive assist of two (2) staff for bed mobility, transfers, locomotion, and toileting; and as ambulation did not occur. Observation on 08/27/19 at 9:43 AM, revealed Resident #105 was repeatedly calling out Help from his/her resident room. Upon entering the room, the resident's call light was wrapped around the bed rail and out of reach of the resident who was seated back in the recliner chair near the bed. Resident #105 told the State Agency (SA) Representative he/she wanted to lie down. The State Agency (SA) Representative then turned the call light on. A staff member was observed to be exiting the room of another resident at approximately 9:45 AM, and called out to Resident #105 from the doorway, that she would be right back to help, and then returned after one (1) minute to assist the resident. Interview with State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #1, on 08/29/19 at 10:33 AM, revealed she was assigned to Resident #105 on 08/27/19, and the resident was able to use his/her call light. She stated she did not transfer Resident #105 to his/her chair that morning, but whoever did should have put his/her call light in reach. Per interview, if she were to go in and see a resident's call light out of reach, she would hand it to the resident. She stated Resident #105 usually held the call light in his/her hand. Interview on 08/29/19 at 3:20 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed it was her expectation call lights be within reach of the residents and all staff respond to call lights. Per interview, staff was trained on hire related to this expectation. She further stated there could be negative consequences if call lights were not in reach as residents may attempt to do more for themselves than they were able, possibly resulting in a fall. Interview on 08/29/19 at 5:47 PM, with the Administrator, revealed it was her expectation call lights be in reach of residents at all times, in order for their needs to be communicated to staff. She stated there could be adverse consequences if residents did not have call lights in reach which could affect their well being. She further stated it was important to meet residents' needs, but their needs could not be met if the call bell was out of reach for residents who could use their call bells such as Resident #105.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical restraints/or position change alarms imposed for purposes of discip...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical restraints/or position change alarms imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience, and that are not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms for two (2) of two (2) sampled residents reviewed for restraints/position change alarms out of a total of twenty-seven (27) sampled residents (Resident #67 and Resident #77). The facility initiated a self-releasing alarming seatbelt to Resident #77's wheelchair as a fall intervention, status post fall, on 05/28/19, and staff interviews revealed the resident could release the seatbelt upon request on initiation of the seatbelt. However, there was no documented evidence of an initial evaluation or ongoing evaluations of the self-releasing alarming seatbelt to determine if it was the least restrictive device or to determine if the device was appropriate or effective for this resident to prevent further falls of the same nature. Observation on 08/29/19, revealed the resident was unable to release the alarming seatbelt upon request; however, the facility had failed to identify this device was a restraint for this resident. In addition, an alarm to Resident # 67's bed, and wheelchair was initiated on 06/24/19, and this was at the request of the Resident's Representative per staff interview. However, there was no documented evidence the Resident's Representative requested the alarms. In addition, there was no documented evidence of an initial evaluation or ongoing evaluations of the alarms to ensure the alarms were the least restrictive devices or were appropriate or effective for this resident to prevent accidents/incidents. (Refer to F-657) The findings include: Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 08/29/19 at 8:45 AM, revealed the facility did not have a policy related to Alarms or Least Restrictive Devices, nor did the facility have a policy related to Physical Restraints. 1. Review of Resident #77's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/04/18 with diagnoses to include, but not limited to Alzheimer's Disease, Heart Disease, Seizures, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Recurrent Depressive Disorder, Repeated falls, Abnormal Posture, Arthropathy, Muscle Weakness, Lack of Coordination, and Difficulty Walking. Review of Resident #77'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) score of six (6) out of fifteen (15), indicating the resident to be severely cognitively impaired. Continued review revealed the facility assessed Resident #77 as requiring extensive physical assistance of two (2) staff members for bed mobility; transfers; dressing; toileting and personal hygiene; as requiring extensive assistance of one (1) staff for locomotion in the wheelchair; and as requiring limited assistance of one (1) staff for ambulation. Further review revealed Resident #77 was assessed as having no Limitations in Functional Range of Motion (ROM) to the upper or lower extremities, and as having no restraints, or alarms. Review of Resident #77's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), initiated 05/04/18, revealed the resident was at risk for falls due to generalized muscle weakness, Alzheimer's Disease, and generalized anxiety,. The goal stated the resident would be free from falls. Interventions included: anticipate and meet the needs of the resident; call light in reach and encourage use; therapy to evaluate and treat as ordered; rehab services to increase strength and endurance dated 05/04/18; dye to wheelchair dated 5/11/18; bedside mats, dated 08/27/18; Hip Protectors, dated 12/05/18; Therapy referral, dated 01/04/19; ambulate to dinning room and assist to sit in chair, dated 01/07/19; and fold blankets and place at foot of bed, dated 01/16/19. Review of Resident #77's Fall Investigation, dated 05/28/19 3:45 PM, revealed the resident sustained a fall in the hallway from his/her wheelchair. Per the Investigation, conditions that affected the fall included: unaware of safety hazards; history of falls; unsteady gait; incontinence; and poor/impaired coordination. Continued review revealed the resident received an injury, skin tear from the fall. Further review revealed the resident stated he/she did not know he/she was going to fall and he/she was trying to go for a walk. Additional review of the Investigation, revealed the immediate intervention was frequent checks. Further review of Resident #77's Falls CCP, initiated on 05/04/18, revised 08/15/19, revealed an intervention was added for a self-releasing alarming seat belt to the wheelchair, on 05/28/19. However, the CCP did not address the need to complete ongoing evaluations related to the self-releasing alarming seat belt to ensure this was an effective intervention for this resident, or to ensure the device was not a restraint. (Refer to F-657) Review of Resident #77's August 2019 Physician's Order, revealed orders with a start date of 05/29/19, for a self-releasing alarming seatbelt to wheelchair; and nurse to check function every shift. There was no documented evidence the orders included the presence of a medical symptom and how the alarming seat belt would treat the medical symptom and protect the safety of the resident. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated August 2019, revealed each day and night shift, nurses checked the function of the alarming seatbelt. Additional review of the medical record revealed no documented evidence of an initial restraint evaluation for the self-releasing alarming seatbelt to Resident #77's wheelchair in order to assess if the alarming seatbelt was the least restrictive device, nor was there documented evidence of the reasons the device was appropriate or effective for this resident to prevent further fall accidents/incidents. Furthermore, there was no documented evidence of ongoing evaluations of the alarming seatbelt in order to assess the effectiveness of this intervention, to assess if this was the least restrictive device, or to ensure the device was not a restraint. In addition, there was no documented evidence of risks verses benefits explained to the resident/Responsible Party nor was there a consent signed for the self-releasing alarming seatbelt. Observation of Resident #77, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, on 08/29/19 at 3:20 PM, revealed Resident #77 was awake and alert sitting in his/her wheelchair in a common area. Resident #77's buttock was forward in the wheelchair seat (resident was not sitting at ninety (90) degrees) and the alarming seatbelt was fastened snug around the resident's upper abdomen/lower breast line LPN #1 asked Resident #77 to remove the alarming seatbelt from his/her waist; however, the resident was not able to comprehend the request and/or unfasten the alarming seatbelt. Resident #77's bilateral hands remained closed at rest and lying on his/her upper chest, and he/she did not touch the seatbelt. LPN #1 continued to request Resident #77 to remove the alarming seatbelt multiple times over a ten (10) minute timeframe; however, the resident was unable to follow the directions to remove the alarming seatbelt. Review of Resident #77's Occupational Therapy (OT) Summary, dated 08/14/19 revealed discharge recommendations to establish a Restorative Nursing Program related to Range of Motion (ROM) and splinting. There was no indication of an evaluation of the need for the alarming seatbelt by OT. Review of Resident #77's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 08/14/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #77 as having a BIMS of six (6) out of fifteen (15), indicating the resident to be severely cognitively impaired. Continued review revealed the facility assessed Resident #77 to require extensive physical assistance with two (2) staff member for bed mobility; transfers; locomotion in wheelchair and ambulation. Thus, revealing the resident had a decline in ability to ambulate since the previous MDS Assessment. Further review revealed Resident #77 had no Limitations in Functional Range of Motion (ROM) to upper or lower extremities (Refer to F- 641). Additional review revealed the facility assessed the resident as receiving Occupational Therapy ending on 08/14/19, and assessed the resident as having a chair alarm used daily, and as having no restraints. Interview with State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #2, on 08/29/19 at 2:51 PM, revealed she was frequently assigned to Resident #77. Per interview, the resident had an alarming seatbelt to his/her wheelchair because of falls he/she had sustained in the past, but she was not sure why the resident still had the seatbelt. Per interview, he/she never tried to get up anymore since his/her last fall in May 2019. SRNA #2 stated she had not seen the resident remove the seatbelt in months. Continued interview revealed Resident #77 had a decline over the last few months related to mobility and ability to use his/her hands and was working with the Restorative Nursing Program. Interview with SRNA #1, on 08/29/19 at 3:04 PM, revealed she worked with Resident #77 five (5) to seven (7) days a week in the Restorative Nursing Program. She stated the resident recently had a decline and now had contractions to his/her bilateral hands and could not remove the alarming seatbelt from the wheelchair. Per interview, the seatbelt was a restraint since the resident could not remove the device. Interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, on 08/29/19 at 4:51 PM revealed Resident #77's alarming seatbelt would be a restraint because he/she could not release it. Additional interview revealed the alarming seatbelt should be discontinued because the resident had declined related to ambulation and use of hands and no longer attempted to get out of his/her wheelchair. Interview with the DON, on 08/29/19 at 5:16 PM, revealed each morning the interdisciplinary team, including department heads, nursing leadership, therapy and administration, held clinical meeting and reviewed fall events and immediate fall interventions. Additionally, during the morning meetings, long term interventions were added in addition to immediate interventions as necessary to reduce risks for further falls of the same nature. Further, Resident #77's self releasing alarming seat belt was a long term intervention the Interdisciplinary Team determined would reduce the resident's risk for falls, status post his/her fall on 05/28/19. Continued interview revealed Resident #77's alarming seat belt would now be considered a restraint since the resident could not release the seatbelt. Further, it was important to have a system in place to ensure an initial evaluation was completed to assess if a device such as an alarming seatbelt was a restraint and was the least restrictive device and also to complete ongoing evaluations of devices such as seatbelts or physical restraints and modify interventions as necessary. Additional interview with the DON, revealed the facility was unaware until today that the alarming seatbelt was a restraint for Resident #77, because in the past the resident could release the seatbelt himself/herself. She stated the facility had not identified the alarming seatbelt as a restraint for Resident #77, prior to surveyor intervention, and therefore there was no medical symptom noted in the Physician's Orders for the seatbelt and no interventions modified related to checking and releasing the seatbelt as required for a restraint. Continued interview revealed there had been risks verses benefits explained to the resident/Responsible Party (RP), and a consent signed for the alarming seatbelt by the RP; however, there was no documented evidence of this. Per interview, the facility would need to re-evaluate the alarming seatbelt for Resident #77 to determine if it was still needed. 2. Review of Resident #67's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 06/20/19 with diagnoses to include, but not limited to Parkinson's Disease, Mild Protein Malnutrition, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Visual Hallucinations, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Lack of coordination. Review of Resident #67's Behavior Notes, dated 06/24/19 at 5:09 PM, revealed the resident was combative with staff, refusing care. Additional review revealed the resident was swinging at his/her roommate to get back, but did not hit the roommate. Per the Note, the non-pharmacological intervention of redirection was ineffective and the resident was not consolable. The resident told staff to get back before they got hurt. Further, placing bed/chair alarm under resident and PRN (as needed) medication was effective. Continued review revealed the resident continued to be combative but was currently resting in the bed. Review of Resident #67 Physician's Orders, dated August 2019, revealed orders for bed/chair alarm; check every shift for prevention, with a start date of 06/24/19. Review of the Progress Notes, dated 06/25/19 at 7:38 PM, revealed a Health Status Note, stating the resident continued to pull the chair alarm out and sling it down. Additionally, the resident refused to let staff put the alarm back under him/her. Further, the resident had been combative with staff that evening and staff was unable to redirect. Continued review revealed the resident's representative was currently at the facility and was also having trouble redirecting the resident. Review of Resident #67's CCP, undated, revealed a focus of behavior; yells loudly, hits and kicks staff, throws items in reach, and curses. The goal stated the resident would have fewer episodes. The interventions included anticipate and meet the resident's needs; and keep the resident's environment non-stimulating. Additional review of Resident #67's CCP, revised 07/02/19, revealed a focus of at risk for falls related to confusion, gait/imbalance problems, and unaware of safety needs. The goal stated the resident would not sustain serious injury. Interventions included: bed bolsters; anticipate and meet the needs of the resident; ensure call light in reach and encourage use; and ensure a safe environment. However, the CCP was not revised to include the bed/chair alarms, nor was it revised to include ongoing evaluations for the alarms to ensure the alarms were the least restrictive devices or were appropriate or effective. (Refer to F-657) Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/17/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #77 as having a BIMS score of six (6) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Per the MDS Assessment, the resident exhibited behavior symptoms one (1) to three (3) days during the assessment period. Continued review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed Resident #77 to require extensive physical assistance of two (2) staff members for bed mobility; transfers; locomotion in wheelchair; dressing; toileting and personal hygiene. Additionally, Resident #77 was assessed as having impaired balance during transitions between surfaces and with ambulation. Continued review revealed Resident #77 was assessed as having no restraints, and as having a chair, and bed alarm used daily. Review of Resident #67's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated August 2019, revealed each day and night shift, nurses checked the alarms to the bed/chair. However, further review of the medical record revealed no documented evidence of an initial evaluation of the bed/chair alarms to ensure these were the least restrictive devices and there was no documented evidence of the reasons these devices were appropriate or effective for this resident to prevent accidents/incidents. In addition, there was no documented evidence of ongoing evaluations for the continued need for the chair/bed alarms or an evaluation to determine if the alarm/device was effective or if there needed to be a modified intervention. Interview with SRNA #2, on 08/29/19 at 2:51 PM, revealed she was frequently assigned to Resident #67, and the resident had alarms to his/her bed and wheelchair in order to alert staff when the resident was rising and needed assistance. Per interview, the resident tried to get up and the alarms would go off and alert staff. Interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, on 08/29/19 at 4:51 PM, revealed she was familiar with the facility's least restrictive device protocol which was to always try to implement the least restrictive devices before initiating alarms or devices. However, she stated she was not aware of an evaluation used to determine if an alarm was the least restrictive device for a resident or an evaluation to determine if the alarm/device was effective or needed modification. Interview with the DON, on 08/29/19 at 5:16 PM, revealed she expected nursing staff to assess the need for alarms before implementation to determine if they were the least restrictive device for a resident. Additionally, she expected an ongoing evaluation of alarms to ensure they were effective and necessary modification was made to ensure a resident's quality of care/life and safety. However, she stated the facility did not have a policy, protocol, or evaluation for alarms in order to assess if alarms were the least restrictive devices. Per interview, there was no documented evidence of any type of evaluation completed related to Resident #67's bed and chair alarms. Continued interview revealed there was no documented evidence of risks verses benefits explained to the resident/Responsible Party (RP), or a consent signed for the bed/chair alarms by the RP, even though the RP had requested the alarms. Interview with the Administrator, on 08/29/19 at 5:52 PM, revealed the Interdisciplinary Team discussed restraints, devices or alarms for specific residents before implementation. Per interview, nursing staff was responsible to ensure alarms and devices such as seatbelts were evaluated initially before implementation as well as evaluated ongoing with modification as necessary. Continued interview revealed this was important to determine and assure the least restrictive device was utilized in order to provide the best care for residents without restraining them. Further interview with the Administer, revealed Resident #67's Resident Representative requested the bed and chair alarms and was very particular with how she wanted care to be provided to the resident; however, she stated there should have been documented evidence of the discussions with the Resident #67's Representative related to risk versus benefits and consent for the alarms. Further, there should have been an initial evaluation as well as ongoing evaluations of Resident #67's alarms to ensure the devices were appropriate and effective for the resident. Additional interview with the Administrator, revealed Resident #77's self-releasing seatbelt to his/her wheelchair would be considered a restraint since the resident could not release the seatbelt at request, and she acknowledged regulations related to restraints including Physician's Orders to include medical symptoms, initial evaluation, ongoing restraint evaluation for the seatbelt, and appropriate care planning of the restraint was not completed for Resident #77. Further, she acknowledged there was no documented evidence of risks verses benefits or consent from the responsible party for Resident #77's seatbelt.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to assure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment accurately reflects the resident's status for two (2) of twenty-seven (27) sampled residents (Resident #28 and Resident #77) Resident #28's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 06/18/19, revealed the resident received no scheduled pain medication regimen, and no as needed (PRN) pain medications; however, review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 06/01/19 through 06/30/19, and the Monthly Physician's Orders dated June 2019, revealed the resident was receiving scheduled and PRN pain medication. In addition, Resident #77's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 08/14/19, revealed the resident had no Functional Limitations in Range of Motion (ROM) to bilateral upper extremities. However, review of the Occupational Therapy Evaluation and Plan, dated 07/16/19 through 08/14/19, revealed the resident exhibited functional limitations due to contractures of the right fingers. The findings include: Interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, on 08/29/19 at 4:51 PM, revealed the facility utilized the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, as a guideline for accuracy of assessments. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, dated October 2017, revealed the primary purpose of the MDS Assessment was to identify resident care problems, address resident problems in individualized care plans, and monitor the quality of care provided to residents. Additional review revealed the Assessment should be an accurate reflection of the resident's status. 1. Review of Resident # 77's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/04/18 with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's Disease, Heart Disease, Seizures, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Recurrent Depressive Disorder, Repeated falls, Arthropathy, Abnormal Posture, and Difficulty Walking. Review of Resident #77's Physician's Orders dated 07/16/19, revealed orders for Occupational Therapy to evaluate and treat five (5) times a week for twelve (12) weeks due to Alzheimer's Disease, Arthropathy, and Abnormal Posture for decline in coordination; to include therapeutic exercise, therapeutic activity, Activities of Daily Living, manual techniques and orthotic management. Review of Resident #77's Occupational Therapy (OT) Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 07/16/19 through 08/14/19, revealed the resident was referred to therapy services secondary to an increasing contracture risk and decrease use of the right upper extremity. Per the evaluation, the resident's dominate hand was his/her right. Additionally, the musculoskeletal system assessment revealed functional limitations present due to contractures of the right upper extremity fingers. Review of Physician's Orders, dated 08/14/19, revealed orders to discontinue skilled Occupational Therapy in twenty-four (24) hours and to start the Restorative Nursing Program to complete Bilateral Upper Extremity Passive Range of Motion/Stretching program and splinting five (5) to seven (7) days a week. Patient to wear right resting hand splint four (4) hours, five (5) to seven (7) days a week. Review of Resident #77's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 08/14/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six (6) out of fifteen (15), indicating the resident to be severely cognitively impaired. Review of Section G of the Assessment, revealed Resident #77 was assessed as having no Limitations in Functional Range of Motion (ROM) that interfered with daily functions or placed the resident at risk for injury. Further, per the MDS Assessment, the resident received Occupational Therapy ending on 08/14/19. 2. Review of Resident # 28's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/11/19 with diagnoses including Cerebral infarction, Alzheimer's Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, Idiopathic Neuropathy, Pain in ankle and joints of unspecified foot, and Osteoarthritis. Review of Resident #69's Monthly August 2019 Physician's Orders, revealed the following orders: Acetaminophen 500 milligrams (mg) every four (4) hours as needed for pain and Gabapentin 100 mg three (3) times a day for pain initiated 03/15/18. Further review revealed orders for Ibuprofen 600 mg every eight (8) hours as needed for pain and give one (1) tablet at bedtime for pain initiated 07/27/18. Continued review revealed orders for Tylenol 650 mg every six (6) hours as needed for pain initiated 06/11/19. Review of Resident #28's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 06/18/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight (8) out of fifteen (15), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Section J of the Assessment, revealed the facility assessed the resident as received no scheduled pain medication regimen, no as needed (PRN) pain medications, and no non-medication interventions for pain. However, the resident's pain interview per the MDS Assessment, revealed the resident had frequent pain three (3) out of ten (10) that affected sleep and day-to-day activities. However, review of Resident #28's June 2019 Medication Administration Record (MAR), revealed the resident received scheduled and PRN pain medication during the MDS Assessment look back period prior to the Assessment Reference Date. This included Acetaminophen 500 mg PRN on 06/16/19 at 3:01 PM; Gabapentin 100 mg three (3) times a day 06/12/19 through 06/18/19; Ibuprofen 600 mg daily at 9:00 PM, 06/12/19 through 06/18/19; and Tylenol 650 mg on 06/16/19 at 9:20 PM, on 06/17/19 at 5:26 PM, and on 06/18/19 at 9:53 PM. Interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, on 08/29/19 at 4:51 PM, revealed she was responsible for completing Section G and J of the MDS Assessment related to Functional Limitations in ROM and Pain Management. Additional interview revealed Resident #28 and Resident #77's medical record, including therapy notes, Physician's Orders, and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) should have been reviewed during the seven (7) day look back period, to accurately complete their MDS Assessments. Continued interview revealed Resident #77's Functional Limitations in ROM and Resident #28's Pain management to include pain medications should have been captured in their MDS Assessments. Further, it was important to ensure the MDS Assessment was completed accurately because information on the Assessment drove the development and revision of the Comprehensive Care Plan and ensured care was provided to meet the residents' needs. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 08/29/19 at 5:16 PM, revealed the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual was the guideline used by the facility to ensure accurate assessments were completed. Per interview, the MDS Assessments guided the development of the Comprehensive Care Plans and therefore the MDS Assessment was to be an accurate reflection of the resident's status to ensure residents received appropriate services and individualized care. Continued interview revealed the MDS Assessments for Resident #28 and Resident #77 should have identified Limitations in Functional ROM and pain management because this information was documented in the medical record during the Assessment look back period. Additionally, the DON stated the facility had no audit process in place to ensure MDS Assessments were completed accurately per RAI Guidelines other than a computer program which the MDS coordinator reviewed after completion of each assessment. Interview with the Administrator, on 08/29/19 at 5:52 PM, revealed the facility was to utilize the RAI Manual as a resource to ensure accuracy of the MDS Assessments. Per interview, it was important for residents with Limitations in Functional ROM and resident's on a pain regimen to have their status accurately reflected on the MDS Assessment. Per interview, this was to ensure the Care Plan was developed or revised to address each resident's individual needs and to ensure resources were provided as necessary.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of facility Policy, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, it was determined the facility failed to implement the Comprehensive Care Plan for one (1) of twenty-seven (27) sampled residents (Resident #105). Observation on 08/27/19, revealed Resident #105 was repeatedly calling out Help from his/her resident room and upon entering the room, the resident's call light was wrapped around the bed rail and out of reach of the resident. The findings include: Review of the facility Care Plan Policy, revised 07/25/18, revealed the facility must develop a comprehensive Care Plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessments. All staff must be familiar with each resident's Care Plan and all approaches must be implemented. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, dated October 2016, revealed the Comprehensive Care Plan is an interdisciplinary communication tool and must include measurable objectives and time frames and must describe the services to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Further review revealed the services provided or arranged must be consistent with each resident's written Plan of Care. Review of Resident #105's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/28/18 with diagnoses to include Heart Failure, Fracture of Sacrum, and Repeated falls. Review of Resident #105's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 07/31/19, revealed a focus of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Self Care Performance Deficit with a goal stating the resident would be able to make needs known. There were several interventions which included: encourage resident to participate to the fullest extent possible with each interaction; praise all efforts at self care; and Encourage me to use call bell for assistance. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 08/15/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of a six (6) out of fifteen (15) indicating significant cognitive impairment. Additional review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring extensive assist of two (2) staff for bed mobility, transfers, locomotion, and toileting; and as ambulation did not occur. Observation on 08/27/19 at 9:43 AM, revealed Resident #105 was repeatedly calling out Help from his/her room. The State Agency (SA) Representative entered the room, and noted the resident's call light was wrapped around the bed rail and out of reach of the resident who was seated in the recliner chair near the bed. Resident #105 informed the SA Representative he/she wanted to lie down. The SA Representative then rang the call bell for the resident. A staff member who was observed to be exiting the room of another resident at approximately 9:45 AM, called out to Resident #105 from the doorway, stating she would be right back to help, and then returned after one (1) minute to assist the resident. Interview with State Registered Nurse Aide (SRNA) #1, on 08/29/19 at 10:33 AM, revealed she was assigned to Resident #105 on 08/27/19, and the resident was capable of using his/her call light. She further stated she did not transfer Resident #105 to his/her chair that morning, but whoever did should have ensured his/her call light was in reach. Per interview, Resident #105 usually held the call light in his/her hand. Interview on 08/29/19 at 3:20 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed it was her expectation call lights be within reach of the residents and all staff respond to call lights to prevent negative consequences such as residents attempting to do more for themselves than they were able, possibly resulting in a fall. Further interview revealed it was important Care Plan interventions were implemented to ensure residents' needs were met and Resident #105's Care Plan should have been implemented related to the call bell. Interview on 08/29/19 at 5:47 PM, with the Administrator, revealed it was her expectation call lights be in reach of residents at all times, in order for their needs to be communicated to staff and ensure residents' needs were met. Per interview, Resident #105's call bell should have been in reach as per the Care Plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the facility Care Planning - Resident Participation Policy, dated 07/31/19, revealed the facility supports the resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the facility Care Planning - Resident Participation Policy, dated 07/31/19, revealed the facility supports the resident's right to be informed of, and participate in his or her care planning and treatment (implementation of care). Further review revealed the facility would discuss the plan of care with the resident and/or representative, initially, and at routine intervals. Continued review of the Policy, revealed the facility would obtain a signature from the resident and/or resident after discussion of the care plan. Review of Resident #68's Medical Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/15/19 with diagnoses to include Spinal Stenosis, Cerebral Infarction, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Atrial Fibrillation, and Type 2 Diabetes. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/17/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a Brief interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of a ten (10) out of fifteen (15) indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as requiring limited assist of one (1) person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene; extensive assist of one (1) person for locomotion in the room; total dependence on one (1) person for bathing; and as requiring supervision and set up for eating. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), initiated 04/15/19, with a revised date of 04/26/19, revealed focuses related to Activities of Daily Living Deficit; Impaired Cognition; at risk for Falls, Nursing Home Placement; and Dependent for meeting Emotional, Intellectual, Physical and Social Needs related to Cerebrovascular Accident, with stated goals and interventions. However, there was no documented evidence the CCP was reviewed after 04/26/19. Additional review of the Medical Record revealed no documented evidence of a Care Plan meeting with the interdisciplinary team, nor was there documented evidence the resident/resident's representative was invited to a Care Plan meeting. Interview on 08/29/19 at 4:30 PM, with Resident #68's Daughter, revealed she was the Power Of Attorney (POA) for the resident, and the resident had been at the facility since April 2019. However, she stated she had not been invited to attend a care plan meeting. Interview on 08/29/19 4:58 PM, with the MDS Nurse, revealed she tried to meet with the resident representatives within the first seven (7) to ten (10) days of a resident's admission. Further, she scheduled the first Care Plan meetings within twenty-one (21) days of a new admission and the meetings included the MDS Nurse, Social Services, Dietary, Unit Managers, the Director of Nursing (DON) and Therapy. Further interview revealed meetings were scheduled after each MDS Assessment thereafter. Continued interview revealed she had completed the Comprehensive Care Plan for Resident #68; however, failed to schedule the initial or quarterly Care Plan meetings for the resident. Further, she failed to ensure the CCP was reviewed and revised with the Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/17/19. She stated Resident #68 just, fell through the cracks. Interview on 08/29/19 at 5:55 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed it was her expectation residents have documented Care Plan meetings scheduled after each MDS Assessment with the interdisciplinary team. Per interview, the resident and resident's representatives needed to be invited to these meetings. The DON stated Care Plan meetings were important in order for the resident's needs to be discussed with the resident, the resident's representatives and the interdisciplinary team. Per interview, it was also important the CCP be reviewed and revised with each MDS Assessment by the interdisciplinary team. Interview on 08/29/19 at 06:10 PM, with the Administrator, revealed it was her expectation Care Plan meetings were held and the residents and resident representatives were invited to these meetings. Further, the meetings were important in order to gain additional information from the resident, resident's representative and the interdisciplinary team in developing and revising the Care Plan. Per interview, the Care Plan served as a guideline for staff in caring for the residents. Additional interview revealed it was important the CCP was reviewed and revised as per regulation. Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan is reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team composed of individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs, and that each resident and resident representative, if applicable, is involved in developing the care plan and making decisions about his or her care for three (3) of twenty-seven (27) sampled residents (Resident #67, Resident #68, and Resident #77). Resident #77's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was revised to include a self-releasing alarming seatbelt when in the wheelchair as a fall intervention, status post fall, on 05/28/19. However, the CCP was not revised with interventions for ongoing evaluations of the self-releasing alarming seatbelt to determine if the device was appropriate, effective or if the resident was able to continue to self release the seat belt. Observation on 08/29/19, revealed the resident was unable to release the alarming seatbelt upon request; and the facility had not identified the device was a restraint for this resident. (Refer to F-604). Furthermore, an alarm to Resident # 67's bed and wheelchair was implemented on 06/24/19. However, there was no documented evidence the CCP was revised with an intervention for the bed and chair alarm or revised related to an intervention for ongoing evaluations of the alarms to ensure the alarms were the least restrictive devices or were appropriate or effective for this resident to prevent accidents/incidents. (Refer to F-604) Furthermore, There was no documented evidence a Care Plan Meeting was held for Resident #68 who was admitted on [DATE], to include the interdisciplinary team (IDT) and the resident and/or the resident's representative in order to review and revise the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP). In addition, although the CCP was initiated on 04/15/19 and revised on 04/26/19, there was no documented evidence of a further review by the IDT. The findings include: Review of the Care Plan Policy, revised 07/25/19, revealed the Comprehensive Care Plan is reviewed and updated at least every ninety (90) days by the Interdisciplinary Team. Further review revealed the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator is to review the Twenty-four Hour Report daily for significant changes or changes in a resident's status. The Care Planning Coordinator will add minor changes in resident's status to the existing Care Plans on a daily basis. 1. Review of Resident #77's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/04/18 with diagnoses to include, but not limited to Alzheimer's Disease, Heart Disease, Seizures, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Recurrent Depressive Disorder, Repeated falls, Abnormal Posture, Arthropathy, Muscle Weakness, Lack of Coordination, and Difficulty Walking. Review of Resident #77's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 03/27/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #77 as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six (6) out of fifteen (15), revealing the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Additional review revealed the facility assessed Resident #77 as requiring one (1) staff for locomotion in the wheelchair; and as requiring limited assistance of one (1) staff for ambulation. Further review revealed Resident #77 was assessed as having no restraints, or alarms. Review of Resident #77's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), initiated 05/04/18, revealed he/she was at risk for falls due to generalized muscle weakness, Alzheimer's Disease, and generalized anxiety,. The goal revealed the resident would be free from falls. The interventions included: anticipate and meet the needs of the resident; call light in reach and encourage use; therapy to evaluate and treat as ordered; rehab services to increase strength and endurance dated 05/04/18; dye to wheelchair dated 5/11/18; bedside mats, dated 08/27/18; Hip Protectors, dated 12/05/18; Therapy referral, dated 01/04/19; ambulate to dinning room and assist to sit in chair, dated 01/07/19; and fold blankets and place at foot of bed, dated 01/16/19. Review of the Fall Investigation, dated 05/28/19 3:45 PM, revealed Resident #77 sustained a fall in the hallway from his/her wheelchair. According to the Investigation, conditions that affected the fall included: unaware of safety hazards; history of falls; unsteady gait; incontinence; and poor/impaired coordination. Further, the resident received an injury, skin tear from the fall. Continued review revealed the resident stated he/she did not know he/she was going to fall and he/she was trying to go for a walk. Per the Investigation, the immediate intervention was frequent checks. Additional review of Resident #77's Falls CCP, initiated on 05/04/18, revised 08/15/19, revealed an intervention was added for a self-releasing alarming seat belt to the wheelchair, on 05/28/19. However, the CCP was not revised to include an intervention for ongoing evaluations related to the self-releasing alarming seat belt to ensure this was an effective intervention, and to ensure the resident continued to be able to self release the seat belt. Review of Resident #77's August 2019 Physician's Order, revealed orders with a start date of 05/29/19, for a self-releasing alarming seatbelt to the wheelchair; and nurse to check function every shift. Further review of the medical record revealed no documented evidence of ongoing evaluations of the alarming seatbelt in order to assess the effectiveness of this intervention, to assess if this was the least restrictive device, or to ensure the device was not a restraint. Observation of Resident #77, on 08/29/19 at 3:20 PM, revealed the resident was awake and alert sitting in his/her wheelchair and the alarming seatbelt was fastened snug around the resident's upper abdomen/lower breast line. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 asked Resident #77 to remove the alarming seatbelt from his/her waist; however, the resident did not touch the seatbelt. LPN #1 continued to ask Resident #77 to remove the alarming seatbelt multiple times over a ten (10) minute timeframe; however, the resident was unable to follow the directions to remove the alarming seatbelt. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 08/14/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #77 as having a BIMS of six (6) out of fifteen (15), indicating the resident to be severely cognitively impaired. Continued review revealed the facility assessed the resident to require extensive physical assistance with two (2) staff member for locomotion in wheelchair and ambulation, revealing the resident had a decline in ability to ambulate since the previous MDS Assessment. Further review revealed the facility assessed the resident as receiving Occupational Therapy ending on 08/14/19, and assessed the resident as having a chair alarm used daily, and as having no restraints. Interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, on 08/29/19 at 4:51 PM revealed Resident #77's alarming seatbelt was now a restraint because he/she could not release the device. Additional interview revealed the alarming seatbelt should have been discontinued because the resident had declined related to ambulation and use of hands and no longer attempted to get out of his/her wheelchair. Per interview, it was important to ensure ongoing evaluations were completed related to devices such as seatbelts and the resident's CCP should have been revised related to the need for the evaluations. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 08/29/19 at 5:16 PM, revealed Resident #77's self releasing alarming seat belt was a long term intervention the Interdisciplinary Team determined would reduce the resident's risk for falls, status post his/her fall on 05/28/19. Further interview revealed Resident #77's alarming seat belt would now be considered a restraint since the resident could not release the seatbelt. Continued interview revealed the facility was unaware until today that the alarming seatbelt was a restraint for Resident #77, because in the past the resident could release the seatbelt himself/herself. Additional interview revealed Resident #77's CCP should have been revised with interventions to complete ongoing evaluations of the resident's alarming seatbelt in order to identify if the seatbelt was still needed, to identify if the resident was still able to self release the seatbelt or to modify interventions as necessary. 2. Review of Resident #67's clinical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 06/20/19 with diagnoses to include, but not limited to Parkinson's Disease, Mild Protein Malnutrition, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Visual Hallucinations, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Lack of coordination. Review of Resident #67's Behavior Notes, dated 06/24/19 at 5:09 PM, revealed the resident was combative with staff, refusing care. Per the Note, the resident was swinging at his/her roommate to get back, but did not hit the roommate. According to the Note, the non-pharmacological intervention of redirection was ineffective and the resident was not consolable. The resident told staff to get back before they got hurt. Further review revealed, placing bed/chair alarm under resident and PRN (as needed) medication was effective. Review of Resident #67 Physician's Orders, dated August 2019, revealed orders for bed/chair alarm; check every shift for prevention, with a start date of 06/24/19. Review of Resident #67's CCP, undated, revealed a focus of behavior problem, related to the resident yells loudly, hits and kicks staff, throws items in reach, and curses. The goal revealed the resident would have fewer episodes. There were several interventions including anticipate and meet the resident's needs; and keep the resident's environment non-stimulating. Additional review of Resident #67's CCP, revised 07/02/19, revealed a focus of at risk for falls due to confusion, gait/imbalance problems, and unaware of safety needs. The goal revealed the resident would not sustain serious injury. Interventions included: bed bolsters; anticipate and meet the needs of the resident; ensure call light in reach and encourage use; and ensure a safe environment. However, the CCP was not revised to include the bed/chair alarms, nor was it revised to include ongoing evaluations for the alarms to ensure the alarms were the least restrictive devices and appropriate or effective. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/17/19, revealed the facility assessed the resident as having a BIMS score of six (6) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Per the MDS Assessment, the Resident #67 exhibited behavior symptoms one (1) to three (3) days during the assessment period. Further, the facility assessed Resident #77 to require extensive physical assistance of two (2) staff members for bed mobility; transfers; locomotion in wheelchair; dressing; toileting and personal hygiene. Additional review revealed Resident #77 was assessed as having impaired balance during transitions between surfaces and with ambulation. Per the MDS Assessment, Resident #77 had no restraints, but had a bed and chair alarm. Further review of the medical record revealed no documented evidence of ongoing evaluations for the continued need for the chair/bed alarms or an evaluation to determine if the alarm/device was effective or if there needed to be a modified intervention. Interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, on 08/29/19 at 4:51 PM, revealed the RAI guidelines were followed for care plan revisions. Additionally, each morning during clinical morning meeting (Administration, nursing leadership, MDS Nurse, department heads) reviewed the last twenty-four (24) hours of Progress Notes, Physician's Orders, Census/Admissions, Discharge Summaries, Incidents, and Assessments to ensure everything was completed and follow up was assigned to be completed. Per interview, Resident #67's Progress Notes and Physician's Orders related to alarms should have been reviewed in morning meeting and the Care Plan should have been revised to indicate the resident had a bed and chair alarm. Further interview revealed she was not aware of an evaluation used to determine if an alarm was the least restrictive device for a resident or an evaluation to determine if the alarm/device was effective or needed modification. However, she stated it was important to revise care plans as necessary to ensure the interdisciplinary team has needed information to provide the best care to residents and keep them safe. Further interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 08/29/19 at 5:16 PM, revealed she expected the RAI Guidelines to be followed related to care plan revisions. Additionally, Resident #67's CCP should have been revised related to the bed and chair alarms and the need for ongoing evaluations related to the alarms. She stated a current revised care plan that was an accurate reflection of the resident was important to ensure a resident's needs were met and quality care was provided. Interview with the Administrator, on 08/29/19 at 5:52 PM, revealed the RAI Guidelines and facility policy should be maintained related to CCP revisions. Per interview, the facility Quality Assurance audited Care plans related to Physician's Orders, changes in residents' status and all Incidents in the daily morning meeting review; however, Resident #67's CCP revision related to the alarms was overlooked. Further, Resident #77's CCP was not revised related to the need for ongoing evaluations of the alarming seat belt. Per interview, it was important for the Care Plan to be accurately revised to ensure proper care for residents and to ensure caregivers know how to care for residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a man...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility Policy, it was determined the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. This affected Resident #13, Resident #21, Resident #27, Resident #67, Resident #83, and Resident #128. Observation during lunch meal, on 08/27/19, revealed staff was standing to assist Resident #13, Resident #21, Resident #27, Resident #67, Resident #83, and Resident #128 with dining. The findings include: Review of the facility Rights for Patients and Residents, Policy, undated, revealed every resident has the right to a dignified existence with services within the facility. Further, residents have the right to receive treatment, care and services that are adequate, appropriate, and in compliance with state and federal regulation. 1. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 06/12/15 with diagnoses to include, but not limited to Hemiplegia affecting left non-dominate side, Major Depressive Disorder Dementia without Behavior Disturbance, Age-related Cataracts, Contractures, and Dysphagia. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 06/03/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #13 to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six (6) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Continued review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed Resident #13 to require extensive physical assistance with one (1) staff member for eating. 2. Resident #21's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/17/18 with diagnoses to include, but not limited to Type I Diabetes, Dementia without Behavior Disturbance, Dysphagia, and Lack of Coordination. Review of the Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 06/14/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #21 to have a BIMS score of six (6) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Continued review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed Resident #21 to require limited physical assistance with one (1) staff member for eating. 3. Resident #67's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 06/20/19 with diagnoses to include, but not limited to Parkinson's Disease, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Lack of coordination. Review of the Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 06/03/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #67 to have a BIMS score of six (6) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Continued review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed Resident #67 to require extensive physical assistance of one (1) staff member for eating. 4. Resident #128's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 06/24/14, with diagnoses to include, but not limited to Dementia without Behavior Disturbance, Dysphagia, Lack of Coordination, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Wrist Drop (left), Feeding difficulties, and Legal Blindness. Review of the Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 08/02/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #128 to have a BIMS score of zero (00) out of fifteen (15), indicating the resident was unable to complete the interview. Continued review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed Resident #128 to require extensive physical assistance with one (1) staff member for eating. Observation of the noon meal, on 08/27/19 at 12:00 PM, revealed SRNA #1 was assisting Resident #13, #21, #67, and #128 with their meals at the Restorative tables by standing and walking around the tables in order to assist all four (4) residents. 5. Resident #27's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/20/15 with diagnoses to include, but not limited to Dementia, Type II Diabetes, Dysphagia, and Lack of Coordination. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 06/16/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #27 to have a BIMS score of six (6) out of fifteen (15), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Continued review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed the resident to require total physical assistance with one (1) staff member for eating. 6. Resident #83's medical record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/18/19 with diagnoses to include, but not limited to Dementia. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/23/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #83 as having both short and long-term memory problems and as unable to recall current season; location of own room; staff names and faces; or that he/she was in a nursing home. Continued review of the MDS Assessment, revealed the facility assessed Resident #83 to require extensive physical assistance of one (1) staff member for eating. Observation of the noon meal, on 08/27/19 starting at 12:00 PM, revealed Resident #27 and Resident #83 were sitting in the dining room at the assist table. Continued observation revealed SRNA #2 was standing between Resident #27 and Resident #83 while assisting them with their meals. Interview with SRNA #2, on 08/29/19 at 2:51 PM, revealed the facility provided Resident Rights training a few times a year. Per interview, she ensured Resident Rights during meal services by interacting with the residents and talking to them at eye level. She further stated she ensured the residents were clean, had choices and provided the level of assistance required per their Care Plan. Additional interview, revealed on Tuesday 08/27/19, lunch meal service in the dining room was crowded and busy and there were no seats for staff to sit while assisting with meals. However, she stated she should have found a seat and sat between Resident #83 and Resident # 27, when assisting them because it would have been more resident centered and respectful than standing between them. Further, it was her responsibility to protect and promote each resident's rights to ensure quality of life. Interview with State Registered Nurses Assistant (SRNA) #1, on 08/29/19 at 3:04 PM, revealed the facility had provided her training on Resident Rights last month which included a review of Rights such as residents having the right to dignity, privacy, and respect. Per interview, staff was responsible to protect and promote Resident Rights for each resident. Additional interview revealed on Tuesday 08/27/19 lunch meal services was the normal seating arrangement with residents in Restorative Dining. However, she stated this seating arrangement was not ideal for providing resident centered care and made it difficult to maintain dignity for residents who required assistance with their meals. Per interview, the best approach was to sit beside a resident and assist them with meals, but the current seating arrangement made it difficult to provide seated assistance because she had to walk between three (3) tables to assist four (4) residents. Continued interview revealed it was important to maintain a resident's dignity during meals to promote self-worth and maintain their rights. Per interview, Residents # 13, Resident #21, Resident #67, and Resident #128 should have been assisted with their meal by staff seated at their side. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 08/29/19 at 5:16 PM, revealed she expected staff to maintain each resident's dignity while providing all care. Additionally, she expected staff to sit beside residents to assist them during meals. Per interview, it was important to sit and not to stand over a resident when assisting with meals because staff should be at eye level, so they could speak to the residents as well as monitor them. Further, SRNA #1 and SRNA #2 should have found seats before assisting residents with their meal on 08/27/19 during the lunch meal. Interview with the Administrator, on 08/29/19 at 5:52 PM, revealed staff should be seated at all times when assisting a dependent resident with meals. Additionally, all staff was responsible to ensure Resident Rights were maintained for all residents during meals. Per interview, she expected supervisory staff to ensure Resident Rights were maintained during meal service and identify concerns to be immediately addressed. Per interview, although the residents resided in the facility, this did not mean the residents lost their human rights. Continued interview revealed it was not acceptable to stand while assisting residents during meals, and SRNA #1 and SRNA #2 should have been seated while assisting the residents with their meals.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Kentucky facilities.
Concerns
  • • 25 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 45/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Windsor Care Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Windsor Care Center an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Windsor Care Center Staffed?

CMS rates Windsor Care Center's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 50%, compared to the Kentucky average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Windsor Care Center?

State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at Windsor Care Center during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 24 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Windsor Care Center?

Windsor Care Center 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 REGENCY CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 144 certified beds and approximately 114 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Mount Sterling, Kentucky.

How Does Windsor Care Center Compare to Other Kentucky Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kentucky, Windsor Care Center's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (50%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Windsor Care Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Windsor Care Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Windsor Care Center has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Kentucky. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Windsor Care Center Stick Around?

Windsor Care Center has a staff turnover rate of 50%, 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 Windsor Care Center Ever Fined?

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

Is Windsor Care Center on Any Federal Watch List?

Windsor Care Center 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.