RIVER HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER

867 MCGUIRE AVENUE, PADUCAH, KY 42001 (270) 442-6168
For profit - Corporation 103 Beds BENJAMIN LANDA Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#251 of 266 in KY
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

River Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and poor performance compared to other facilities. They rank #251 out of 266 nursing homes in Kentucky, placing them in the bottom half of statewide options and last in McCracken County. While the facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 8 in 2024 to 3 in 2025, they still face serious challenges. Staffing ratings are below average at 2 out of 5 stars, with a concerning turnover rate of 63%, which is higher than the state average. Notably, the facility has had critical incidents, including a failure to provide necessary supervision for a resident at risk of choking, which resulted in a choking incident when the resident accessed food not on their diet. This highlights both the staffing issues and the need for better adherence to care plans, though there is some positive movement in reducing overall deficiencies.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Kentucky
#251/266
Bottom 6%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
63% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$1,398 in fines. Lower than most Kentucky facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 40 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Kentucky. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
29 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 8 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Kentucky average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 63%

17pts above Kentucky avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $1,398

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: BENJAMIN LANDA

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (63%)

15 points above Kentucky average of 48%

The Ugly 29 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening
Aug 2025 3 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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had a right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment which had the po...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had a right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment which had the potential to affect all of the facility's 81 residents.The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Homelike Environment Standard of Practice, reviewed 04/2025, revealed the facility was to provide residents with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. In addition, policy review revealed the facility was to encourage residents to use their personal belongings to the extent possible. Further review revealed the facility's protocol included cleanliness and order. Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights Standard of Practice, reviewed 04/2025, revealed the facility was to ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity, and cared for in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his/her quality of life. Further review revealed the facility's residents had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Observation on 08/19/2025 at 9:30 AM, of the 100 Hall shower room, revealed a dirty adult brief lying in a shower chair and a pile of dirty linens lying on the floor. Continued observation of the shower room revealed the toilet was full of feces, and a mold-like substance on the ceiling and wall tiles in the shower. During interview with Housekeeper (HK) 1 on 08/19/2025 at 9:55 AM, she stated she had worked at the facility for three months, and mold was all over the facility. She said the mold was there when she started working at the facility; however, she had not reported it to anyone. HK 1 said the residents deserved a clean and safe place to live. She further stated she was responsible for cleaning the shower rooms daily, but they were short staffed and only had six hours a day to get their jobs done. During interview with the HK Supervisor on 08/19/2025 at 3:10 PM, she stated the facility was aware of the mold issue, but had failed to do anything about it. She said she and her staff worked for a contract company. The HK Supervisor reported she expected the showers to be cleaned daily and deep cleaned once a week. She further stated they were short staffed and were only allotted six hours to clean the whole facility. During interview with Resident (R)2 on 08/20/2025 at 1:15 PM, she stated she had seen mold in the shower room. She reported the mold was all over. R2 further stated she had not said anything to anyone about it because she thought they already knew. During interview with R26 on 08/20/2025 at 2:20 PM, he stated mold was all over the showers, including the walls, ceiling and floors. He further stated he did not said anything about it though because the facility would not have done anything about it. During interview with the Maintenance Director on 08/20/2025 at 4:00 PM, he stated the black substance on the shower floors was most likely the grout he just replaced. He reported however, the ceiling and wall tiles were probably molded. The Maintenance Director said he had noticed the mold on 08/18/2025, and had one of the assistants put some sealer on the ceiling earlier today. He stated nobody had reported the mold to him though. The Maintenance Director further explained the facility did have a system in place to report things that needed to be repaired or replaced and he was trying to educate staff to use it. He said there had been a lot of staff turnover in the last few months since he started working at the facility. The Maintenance Director further stated he was unsure of the cause of the mold because he had not had time to crawl into the attic to investigate it. During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/26/2025 at 11:30 AM, she stated she was unaware of mold being in the shower rooms. She further stated mold could cause respiratory problems and skin rashes for residents or staff. During interview with the Administrator on 08/26/2025 at 11:45 AM, she stated maintenance was responsible for checking for (water) leaks. She stated she expected mold issues in shower rooms to be identified and treated. The Administrator reported she expected staff to follow facility policy as well as state and federal guidelines. She further stated going forward, shower rooms would be inspected periodically to identify issues before they became problems.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an alleged violation of abuse related to an allegation that occurred on or around 03/10/2025 for 1 of 5 res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an alleged violation of abuse related to an allegation that occurred on or around 03/10/2025 for 1 of 5 residents sampled for abuse out of the total 26 sampled residents, (Resident (R)8). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prohibition Standard of Practice reviewed 04/2025, revealed sexual abuse was defined as nonconsensual sexual contact of any type with a resident/patient. Continued review revealed it was the policy of the facility to report allegations of sexual abuse to the State Survey Agency (SSA), Adult Protective Services (APS), and all other required agencies within the specified time frames. Further policy review revealed the results of all investigations were to be reported to the appropriate state agency within 5 working days of the alleged violation's initial report. Review of the admission Facesheet for R8 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/17/2025, with diagnoses that included acute upper respiratory infection, alcohol abuse, bipolar disorder, and cellulitis of unspecified part of limb. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/22/2025, revealed the facility assessed R8 as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15, indicating the resident had intact cognitive function. Review of a facility document titled, Assessment, dated 04/22/2025, provided by APS, revealed R8 called APS on 04/22/2025 to report on an unspecified date in March of 2025, he woke up to Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 6 touching him inappropriately in a sexual nature, in his private region. Continued review of the document revealed R8 told APS he reported that information to the facility and was told not to go around CNA 6 anymore. Further review revealed in was noted the facility told CNA 6 he could not work with R8 anymore and to not go into the area where R8's room was. Review of Rehab (self care) care plans, dated 01/17/2025 through 04/16/2025, for R8 revealed a care plan started on 03/10/2025, with a description/intervention of Resident prefers no male caregivers. During interview with Department for Community Based Services (DCBS) 2 on 08/19/2025 at 2:49 PM, he stated he could not figure out why R8 had been in the nursing home to begin with because he was so independent. He stated R8 told him that he overheard a staff member talking to his boyfriend on the phone which triggered a discussion about homosexuality. DCBS 2 reported R8 told him he did not have anything against gay people, but he did not swing that way. He said R8 reported he had been lying on his stomach in his bed and felt the staff member touch the back of his right leg and thigh. DCBS 2 explained R8 told him the staff member also knelt down beside him like he was going to give him oral sex. He stated R8 told him that had made him really uncomfortable, and he talked about it all the time like he was going to pursue legal action. DCBS 2 reported he had spoken to the Administrator about the incident involving R8, and the Administrator was very dismissive of the allegation and at first denied knowing about the incident. He said he (DCBS 2) had to drag it out of him (the Administrator). DCBS 2 stated R8 told him he told the Social Worker (SW) about what happened, and SW denied being told about the incident by R8. He further stated he unsubstantiated his investigation against CNA 6 because it had basically been one person's word against the other. During interview with the facility's Administrator on 08/20/2025 at 11:00 AM, she stated the facility had no investigation file related to the alleged sexual abuse incident that occurred on or around 03/10/2025, involving R8 and CNA 6. During interview with CNA 5 on 08/20/2025 at 4:00 PM, she stated she remembered R8 used to talk her head off about somebody trying to hit on him. She said R8 had already told everyone, including the Administrator about the incident. CNA 5 explained she told the nurse about what R8 was saying, but did not remember who the nurse was. She further stated R8 told her that it was a male staff member that was gay, but they had like four gay male staff members, so she never knew who it was. During interview with the facility's former Administrator on 08/20/2025 at 4:46 PM, he stated he remembered R8, and said the incident in question had been reported to APS by the resident. He reported he had been aware R8 made allegations of a staff member touching him inappropriately, but come to find out he just was not used to people waking him up in the middle of the night because he had been in prison. The Administrator explained he did not report the allegations/incident to OIG (Office of Inspector General) or perform an investigation, because nothing happened. He further stated the facility had a soft file on the incident, and he did not know where the file was located as he was not the Administrator anymore. Review of a soft file (requested after the interview with the former Administrator) provided by the facility's current Administrator, for the incident involving R8, revealed it contained no documentation related to the incident involving R8 and CNA 6. Continued review of the soft file revealed it contained only a grievance form dated 01/29/2025, and abuse questionnaires with interviewable residents dated 04/29/2025, which were conducted 13 days after the facility discharged R8 on 04/16/2025. During interview with CNA 6 on 08/21/2025 at 8:19 AM, he stated he remembered the incident with R8, and had already gotten cleared by APS. He said the night of the incident he had been doing his rounds, and went to check on R8, who was independent. The CNA explained he knocked on R8's door, and told the resident he was coming into his room to clean up and take the trash out. CNA 6 said he noticed R8 had a suitcase on his bed, and all of his clothes were pulled out of the suitcase. He reported he grabbed the suitcase to make room on R8's bed and got the resident some ice water. The CNA stated he leaned down and asked if R8 if he needed anything else and then helped the resident's girlfriend, who was another resident, into his room. He reported R8 had not said anything to him at that time about any allegations, and he only heard about it from his coworkers about five days after the incident. CNA 6 said none of his superiors talked to him about anything, but R8 had been talking badly about him to everyone the whole time. He stated the solution the DON and Administrator came up with was not to allow any male caregivers in R8's room; however, at times, he was still assigned to the resident's hall just not allowed to go into his room. The CNA explained he never had a conversation with or had been questioned by anyone that worked at the facility, including the Administrator. He further stated he had only been questioned/interviewed by APS. During interview with the Social Services Director (SSD) on 08/21/2025 at 8:55 AM, she stated she did not recall R8 reporting a male staff member touching him inappropriately. She said the only incident she could remember concerning R8, was when he reported a male staff member touching him on his shoulder. The SSD stated R8 told them he did not want fags in his room. She explained she had not reported it (the incident she was aware of) to anyone because the Administrator knew about it and had told her about it. She reported she was not sure why the incident would not have been reported or investigated. The SSD stated when a resident made an allegation of sexual abuse, staff should tell the Administrator about it so they could take it from there. She further stated she did not know of a negative outcome that could happen if suspected abuse was not reported, as she reported everything as required. During interview with R17 on 08/21/2025 at 4:00 PM, she stated that she remembered R8, as she had been his girlfriend at one point in time when he resided at the facility. She stated she remembered the incident when R8 accused a male staff member of touching him inappropriately and making gestures towards him. She explained R8 had also accused another male staff member of touching him inappropriately, but that staff member did not work at the facility anymore, and she could not remember his name. R17 further stated R8 told the ombudsman, the Administrator, and everyone who would listen to him. She additionally stated she did not know if anything had been done about the incident except for the facility barring male staff members from going in his (R8's) room. Telephonic (Phone) attempts were made from 08/19/2025 through 08/26/2025, to interview R8; however, were unsuccessful as the phone calls went straight to voicemail and no return calls were received. During interview with the DON on 08/26/2025 at 11:30 AM, she stated that she expected all staff to report abuse allegations to her or the abuse coordinator. She said if an abuse allegation was brought to her, she would investigate and report it to OIG (Office of Inspector General) within 2 hours and continue the investigation. The DON explained physical abuse, mental abuse, psychosocial, misappropriation of property, and sexual abuse all fell under the category of abuse. She reported even if the resident who made the allegation had a history of making false accusations, the allegation still needed to be investigated as abuse and needed to be reported within 2 hours with a 5-day follow up performed. During additional interview with the facility's Administrator on 08/26/2025 at 11:45 AM, she stated she expected staff to follow the facility's policy, and state and federal guidelines regarding reporting abuse.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an alleged abuse violation related to an allegation that occurred on or around 03/10/2025 f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an alleged abuse violation related to an allegation that occurred on or around 03/10/2025 for 1 of 5 residents sampled for abuse out of the total sample of 26, (Resident (R)8). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prohibition Standard of Practice reviewed 04/2025, revealed sexual abuse was defined as nonconsensual sexual contact of any type with a resident/patient. Per review, the facility's Administrator or designee was to oversee the center in conducting an internal investigation of any violation/alleged violation of abuse. Continued review revealed a report of the results of the investigation to the enforcement agency was to occur in accordance with state law, including the State Survey Agency (SSA) within five working days of the incident. Policy review revealed the (facility's) investigations were to be prompt, comprehensive, and responsive to the situation. Review of the policy revealed the facility's investigation was to include: notification of physician and resident/resident representative; identification and removal of the alleged person or persons; type of alleged abuse and where and when the incident occurred. Further review revealed the investigation was to also include: interviews of all involved persons including the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses, and others who might have knowledge of the allegations to obtain factual information; and follow-up resolution and measures to prevent repeat incidents. In addition, review revealed all material and documentation of the pertinent data to the investigation was to be collected, maintained, and safeguarded by the center (facility). Review of R8's Facesheet revealed the facility admitted him on 01/17/2025, with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder, cellulitis of unspecified part of limb, acute upper respiratory infection, and alcohol abuse. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/22/2025, revealed the facility assessed R8 to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15, indicating he was cognitively intact. Review of a document, provided by the State Adult Protective Services (APS) agency, titled, Assessment, dated 04/22/2025, revealed R8 called APS on 04/22/2025, to report on an unspecified date in March of 2025, he woke up to Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 6 touching him inappropriately in a sexual nature, in his private area. Per review, R8 reported that information to the facility and he was told not to go around CNA 6 anymore. Review further revealed R8 also reported the facility told CNA 6 he could not work with the resident anymore and was not to go into the area where R8's room was located. Review of the facility's Rehab (self care) care plans, dated 01/17/2025 through 04/16/2025, revealed a care plan for R8 initiated on 03/10/2025, with an intervention noting, Resident prefers no male caregivers. In interview on 08/19/2025 at 2:49 PM, Department for Community Based Services (DCBS) 2 (an APS worker) stated R8 was independent and he could not figure out why the resident was in the nursing home. DCBS 2 said R8 told him he (R8) overheard a male staff member talking to his boyfriend on the phone that triggered a discussion with the resident about homosexuality. He explained R8 said he did not have anything against gay people; however, he did not swing that way. DCBS 2 informed him he (R8) had been lying on his stomach on his bed when he felt the (male) staff member touch the back of his right leg and thigh. He reported R8 told him the staff member also had knelt down beside him like he was going to give him oral sex, which made him really uncomfortable. DCBS 2 said he spoke to the Administrator about it and the Administrator had been very dismissive of the allegation and at first denied knowing about the incident involving R8. He stated he had to drag it out of him (the Administrator). DCBS 2 said R8 told him he told the Social Worker (SW) about it and the SW had denied being told about the incident by the resident. DCBS 2 further stated that he unsubstantiated his investigation against CNA 6 because it had basically been one person's word against the other. In interview on 08/20/2025 at 11:00 AM, the (current) Administrator stated there was no investigation file regarding the alleged sexual abuse incident that occurred on or around 03/10/2025 involving R8 and CNA 6. In interview on 08/20/2025 at 4:00 PM, CNA 5 stated she recalled R8 used to talk her (the aide's) head off about somebody trying to hit on him. She said R8 had already told everyone including the Administrator about the incident. The CNA further stated R8 told her it was a male staff member that was gay, but they had like 4 gay male staff members, so she never knew who it was. In interview on 08/20/2025 at 4:46 PM, the facility's former Administrator stated he was familiar with R8, and said the incident in question had been reported to APS by the resident. He reported he had been aware R8 made allegations about a staff member touching him inappropriately; however, had not performed an investigation. The former Administrator said the facility had a soft file (unofficial file) on the incident, but he did not know where the soft file was because he was no longer the Administrator. Review of soft file documentation (requested after the interview with the former Administrator), provided by the facility's current Administrator, revealed it contained no documented evidence of information related to the alleged incident that happened around 03/10/2025, involving R8. In interview on 08/21/2025 at 8:19 AM, CNA 6 stated that he remembered the incident with R8, and had gone into the resident's room on the incident to check on him. He said R8 had a suitcase on his bed and all of the resident's clothes were pulled out of the suitcase leaving no room on the bed. CNA 6 explained he moved the suitcase to make room on R8's bed and got the resident some ice water. He reported after doing that, he leaned down and asked R8 if he needed anything else and then assisted the resident's girlfriend, who was another resident, into his room. The CNA stated R8 had said anything to him at that time about any allegations, and had only heard about it from his coworkers about five days after the incident. He said the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator came up with a solution of not allowing any male caregivers in R8's room. CNA 6 further stated the Administrator never questioned him about the incident, and the only person who had questioned or interviewed him was an APS worker. In interview on 08/21/2025 at 8:55 AM, the Social Services Director (SSD) stated the only incident she recalled was concerning R8 was when the resident reported a male staff member touching him on his shoulder. The SSD said R8 told them he did not want fags in his room. She stated she did not report that incident to anyone because the Administrator knew about it and had told her about it. The SSD reported when a resident made an allegation of sexual abuse, staff should tell the Administrator about it so they could take it from there. In interview on 08/26/2025 at 11:30 AM, the DON stated if an abuse allegation was brought to her, she would begin to investigate it and report it to OIG (Office of Inspector General) within two hours and then continue her investigation. She further stated even if a resident, with a history of making false accusations, was the person making an allegation, the allegation still needed to be investigated as abuse; reported; and have a 5-day follow up performed. In interview on 08/26/2025 at 11:45 AM, the facility's current Administrator stated she was the person responsible for investigating abuse allegations now; however, had not been Administrator at the time of the incident involving R8. She further stated investigations should be conducted as per facility policy.
Oct 2024 8 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

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, that included meas...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs as identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 of 21 sampled residents (Resident (R)39 and R42). 1. R39 developed a facility acquired stage 4 pressure ulcer in 05/2024. However, there was no documented evidence the facility reviewed and further developed R39's care plan with additional interventions. Further, R39's comprehensive care plan (CCP) did not include measurable data elements to monitor progress towards the expected outcomes and goals. 2. R42 received tube feeding and was care planned to have the head of bed (HOB) elevated. However, observations on 10/21/2024 at 1:15 PM and 3:18 PM, revealed R42's HOB was flat. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Comprehensive Care Plans Standard of Practice, dated 10/2020, revealed an individualized comprehensive care plan (CCP) that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs was to be developed for each resident. Continued review revealed each residents' CCP was to be designed to identify problem areas and incorporate risk factors associated with the identified problems. Per review, the CCP was to reflect treatment goals, timetables, and objectives in measurable outcomes to aid in preventing or reducing declines in a resident's functional status and or functional levels. Further review revealed areas of concerns that were triggered during the resident assessment were to be evaluated using specific assessment tools before interventions were added to the care plan. Additionally, review revealed assessments of residents was ongoing and care plans were revised as information about the resident and condition changes. 1. Review of the facility's, admission Record for R39 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/10/2024, with diagnoses including paraplegia, unspecified; chronic pain syndrome; and multiple (6) pressure ulcers. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/13/2024, revealed the facility assessed R39 to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 of 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the Wound Care Provider's initial, Wound Evaluation and Management Summary, for R39's left heel wound dated 05/02/2024, revealed the Physician had made recommendations that included: offloading the wound; turning the resident side to side and front to back in bed every one to two hours if able. Review of the Wound Evaluation and Management Summary dated 10/17/2024, revealed the Wound Physician's recommendations included: turning the resident side to side in bed every one to two hours, if able, and offload the wound. Review of the facility's CCP for R39 revealed a focus problem for impaired skin integrity, dated 01/04/2424, that noted the resident had pressure sores with presence of skin breakdown or was at high risk for skin breakdown. Continued review revealed interventions dated 01/11/2024, that included: cushion pressure reduction; mattress pressure reduction; providing gentle support when turning, positioning, or transferring; and providing wound care as ordered by the Physician. In addition, review revealed the goal for R42 stated, improve nutritional status and avoid prolonged pressure to skin. However, review of the CCP further revealed no documented evidence the facility developed and implemented additional interventions for R39's actual pressure ulcer, such as use of the wedge cushion or heel boots. Additionally, there was no documented evidence the facility developed R39's CCP to include the Wound Physician's recommendations to turn the resident side to side in the bed every one to two hours if able and offload the wound. Additional review of the CCP for R39 revealed a focus problem for pressure ulcer, actual, dated 01/11/2024, which noted pressure ulcers. Continued review revealed on 05/02/2024, documentation noting R39 developed a new stage 4 pressure wound of the left heel. Per review, the interventions were dated 01/19/2024, and included: pressure relieving device chair cushion; pressure relieving device mattress; applying skin treatments as ordered; and weekly skin rounds to monitor progress of pressure ulcers. Further review revealed the goal dated 01/19/2024, noted R39 would have a decrease in stage of pressure ulcer through the next review date of 01/06/2025. Additionally, review of the CCP documentation revealed R39's care plan was reviewed on: 04/10/2024, 04/29/2024, 07/08/2024, 07/11/2024, 07/29/2024, 08/20/2024, and 10/16/2024. Review revealed however, the care plan was not reviewed or updated with R39's new pressure ulcer noted on 05/02/2024. Review of the CCP further revealed no documented evidence the facility developed and implemented care plan interventions on 5/02/2024 when R39 developed the new pressure ulcer, such as use of a wedge cushion or heel boots. In addition CCP revealed there was no documented evidence the facility developed R39's CCP to include the Wound Physician's recommendations to turn the resident side to side in the bed every one to two hours if able and offload the wound. Further review of the CCP for R39 revealed a focus problem for pain dated 01/11/2024, related to wounds and malnutrition. Per review, the interventions included adjusting daily routine as necessary to aid in pain relief; identifying location and rating pain prior to and after any interventions; medications as ordered; pain assessment as ordered and as needed; and reporting unrelieved or unacceptable levels of pain to the Physician as needed. In interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 on 10/25/2024 at 9:13 AM, she stated the CNA's received a report from other CNA's at the beginning of their shift. She stated the CNA's also reviewed the facility's resident care guide (RCG) for residents which let them know what care to provide. CNA 3 stated she was not aware of any interventions that were in place for R39. In interview with CNA 8 on 10/25/2024 at 9:22 AM, she stated she was aware that R39 had wounds. CNA 8 stated that R39 had a pillow they placed between her knees, but she was not aware of any wedge cushions or heel boots that were to be used. She further stated she reviewed the RCG on the computer and could not recall seeing any heel boots or wedge cushions to be used for R39. In interview on 10/25/2024 at 2:42 PM, UM 1 on the 100 unit, stated staff positioned R39 as the resident would allow. She stated she had not looked at R39's care plan and was not aware of interventions for the resident. The UM stated if pain medication was needed or was ineffective the NP or Physician was to be made aware. She stated she was unaware of recommendations from the Wound Physician for R39 to be turned side to side and stated recommendations were given to the NP. UM 1 further stated she did not know if a resident requiring side to side positioning, would have that information on their care plan. In a post exit interview with the Wound Physician on 10/29/2024 at 3:18 PM, she stated she saw R39 weekly at the facility. She stated if she had given recommendations for R39 to be turned side to side, she would expect the facility to follow that recommendation, as the resident would allow. 2. Review of the facility's admission Record for R42 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/29/2021, with diagnoses to include gastrostomy status, cerebral palsy, and epilepsy unspecified. Review of the Quarterly MDS Assessment with an ARD of 09/05/2024, revealed the facility assessed R42 as rarely or never understood. Further MDS review revealed R42 received total nutrition by artificial means. Review of the Physician's order undated for R42, revealed an order for Jevity (tube feeding formula) 1.5 to infuse at 65 milliliters (ml) an hour for protein-calorie malnutrition. Review of another undated Physician's order revealed the head of R42's bed was to be elevated 30 to 45° at all times except during care. Review of the CCP for R42 revealed a nutritional services care plan dated 01/29/2021, related to the resident having a feeding tube due to diagnoses of cerebral palsy and dysphagia. Continued review revealed interventions that included tube feeding as ordered to meet nutritional needs; and head of bed elevated at least 30 degrees while delivering the tube feeds. In additional interview with CNA 3 on 10/25/2024 at 9:13 AM, she stated she was aware that R42's HOB was to be elevated because of tube feeding and that information was on the resident's RCG. In interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse on 10/25/2024 at 10:24 AM, she stated she was responsible for residents' care plans. She stated the baseline care plan was initiated on admission and completed within 48 hours. The MDS Nurse said the comprehensive admission MDS assessment built the comprehensive care plan. She stated the purpose of the care plan was to guide residents' care, so that staff would know what kind of care to provide. The MDS Nurse stated all nurses could and knew how to update and revise residents' care plans. She stated if residents needed to be turned and repositioned that information should be on their care plan and on the RCG. Per the MDS Nurse in interview, the Unit Managers (UM) were responsible for updating the RCG for the floor staff (CNA's). She further stated if the care plan was not updated to reflect the resident's current condition, then staff, the CNA's specifically, might not get the information they needed to provide the correct care for residents. During an interview with the DON on 10/25/2024 at 3:11 PM, she stated care plans were updated with new orders during the facility's clinical meetings. She stated the MDS Nurse was responsible for updating resident's care plans and that floor nurses did not update residents' care plans. The DON further stated she would expect specific interventions to be on residents' care plans so staff were aware of those interventions. In interview with the Administrator on 10/25/2024 at 5:03 PM, he stated he expected staff to follow residents' care plan. He further stated care plans were to be reviewed and updated if needed when a resident had a change in condition.
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** 2. Review of the facility's Pharmacy Policy titled, Consultant Pharmacist Provider Requirements, undated revealed, the consultan...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the facility's Pharmacy Policy titled, Consultant Pharmacist Provider Requirements, undated revealed, the consultant pharmacist would establish a system whereby the consultant pharmacist's observations and recommendations regarding customers' drug therapy are communicated to those with authority and or responsibility to implement and or respond to the recommendation in an appropriate and timely fashion. Review of R54's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/05/2022, with diagnoses of major depressive disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus without complication, excoriation, and skin picking disorder. Review of the Physician's orders dated 09/2024 for R54, revealed an order for Alprazolam (Xanax, an antianxiety medication) 0.25 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet two times a day. Review of the Pharmacist Recommendation to Prescriber documentation dated 09/15/2024, revealed a Pharmacist's recommendation to decrease R54's Alprazolam to 0.125 mg two times a day. Further review revealed the recommendation was agreed to and signed by the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 09/17/2024. However, further review of R54's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed no documented evidence of an order to decrease R54's Alprazolam, until an order was transcribed on 10/18/2024, 33 days after the recommendation was made. Review of the progress note dated 09/16/2024 for R54, documented by the consulting Pharmacist revealed the medication regimen review had been completed and recommendations made. Review of the Physician's order dated 10/18/2024 for R54, revealed an order for Xanax oral tablet 0.25 milligrams give 1/2 tab by mouth twice daily, which had been entered by the UM. In an interview with the facility's NP on 10/24/2024 at 9:07 AM, she stated she had been the NP for the facility since August 2024. She stated she received the pharmacy's recommendations from the DON; reviewed and agreed with them or not; and then returned them to the DON. She stated she expected any recommendations or orders to be entered into a resident's EMR within 24 hours. The NP further stated she was unaware that R54's Alprazolam order had not been entered until the SSA Surveyor made her aware of that issue. In interview with the Consultant Pharmacist on 10/24/2024 at 8:55 AM, she stated she performed monthly reviews of medications on all residents. She stated she emailed her recommendations to the DON and ADON. The Consultant Pharmacist stated she noticed R54's recommended Alprazolam reduction had been signed and returned to her; however, the order had not been entered and she made the DON aware of that issue. During interview with UM 1 on 10/25/2024 at 2:00 PM, she stated she thought the facility's NP received the pharmacy recommendations from the DON and returned them to the DON after reviewing them. She stated she had not received R54's recommendation from the DON until 10/18/2024 when she entered the order. During interview with the DON on 10/25/2024 at 8:23 AM, she stated she received pharmacy recommendations via email. She stated she printed those recommendations and gave them to the NP for review. The DON said the NP returned the recommendations back to her after review and she emailed them back to the Pharmacist and gave them to the UM. The DON further stated she had given R54's signed recommendation to UM 1 and did not know why the order had not been entered as required. In interview with the Administrator on 10/25/2024 at 5:03 PM, he stated he expected the DON to follow up timely when the Consultant Pharmacist completed the monthly Medication Regimen Reviews and made any recommendations. He stated the DON was to give the recommendations to the UM's when she received them so they could be addressed timely. Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 2 of 21 sampled residents (Resident (R)43, and R54). 1. R43 was tested for symptoms of a urinary tract infection (UTI) on 10/13/2024 and the laboratory (lab) results were finalized on 10/16/2024. However, the facility failed to ensure the lab results were received resulting in R43 not receiving the necessary treatment for a UTI until 10/23/2024, seven days later. 2. R54 received a recommendation for a gradual dose reduction on 09/15/2024. The recommendation was approved and signed by the facility Nurse Practitioner on 09/17/2024. However, the facility failed to initiate the recommendation until 10/18/2024, 33 days after the recommendation was made. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Lab and Diagnostics Standard of Practice, reviewed 05/2021, revealed the facility was to provide or obtain laboratory services when ordered by a physician, physician assistant (PA), nurse practitioner (NP), or clinical nurse specialist (CNS). Continued review revealed the facility was to promptly notify the ordering physician, PA, NP, or CNS of results that were outside the clinical reference ranges or in accordance with the notification parameters per the ordering physician's orders. Review of the admission Face Sheet for R43 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/02/2020, with diagnoses to include: hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, neurologic neglect syndrome, and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/04/2024, revealed the facility assessed R43 to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of a 13 out of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the progress note dated 10/13/2024 at 5:54 PM, revealed the facility sent R43 to the emergency room (ER) after sustaining a fall while working with physical therapy (PT). Per review, R43 bent over too far while pulling up her pants and PT reported she fell onto her left side onto the wheelchair foot rest. Continued review revealed R43 complained of left sided rib pain, shortness of air, and left arm and hand pain. Further review revealed R43 also had three skin tears that were bandaged prior to EMS arrival. Review of the Emergency Department (ED) Encounter for R43, dated 10/13/2024, revealed the resident reported concerns of having a UTI. Continued review revealed a urinalysis (U/A) was completed with abnormal findings of dark yellow urine, small blood, small leukocyte esterase (white blood cells). Per review, microscopic urinalysis showed the following abnormal findings: white blood cells of 15 and red blood cells of 12. Further review revealed the ER Physician documented a urine culture was sent to the lab. In addition, the ER Physician noted no antibiotics were started at that time for the UTI due to R43 reporting a history of Clostridium difficile (c-diff) on two (2) occasions. Review of the progress note dated 10/13/2024 at 5:54 PM for R43, documented by Unit Manager (UM) 1, revealed the resident returned to the facility and had a UTI. Continued review revealed however, the ER doctor was waiting for the preliminary culture to decide if an antibiotic was needed. Review of the urine culture lab results dated 10/16/2024, revealed a heavy growth of Escherichia coli (e-coli). Review of the Result Care Coordination note, dated 10/16/2024 at 3:08 PM, completed by the Physician Assistant (PA), revealed the PA documented he attempted to call the results to the telephone (phone) number on file; however, that phone number was not a working number. Continued review of the electronic medical record (EMR) for R43 revealed no documented evidence the urine culture results were obtained until 10/23/2024. Review of the progress note dated 10/23/2024 at 6:59 PM for R43 revealed a new Physician's order for Macrobid (an antibiotic) 100 milligram (mg) twice a day for seven days to treat a UTI. Review of the facility's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated October 2024 for R43, on 10/23/2024, revealed an order for Nitrofurantoin (generic for Macrobid) 100 mg one capsule by mouth twice a day for 14 doses. During interview with R43 on 10/22/2024 at 2:19 PM, she stated she had lower back pain and an odor to her urine for months, which she had reported to the floor nurses. R43 stated she was told to drink more water. The resident stated she sustained a fall on 10/13/2024, and was sent to the hospital. She further stated she had been she had blood and white blood cells in her urine and had a UTI, but she had not received any medication for it. During interview with UM 1 on 10/24/2024 at 9:15 AM, she stated the UM or floor nurse was responsible to follow up on all lab results. UM 1 stated pending results were discussed during morning clinical meetings and added to the tracking board to ensure the results did not get overlooked. She stated R43's pending lab results were not added to the tracking board; however, should have been followed up on. UM 1 said the facility did not receive R43's urine culture results until 10/23/2024, which showed the resident had a UTI. She further stated she then notified the on call NP and was given an order for R43 to begin an antibiotic. The UM additionally stated R43 received the first dose of the antibiotic on 10/23/2024 on night shift. During interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 10/25/2024 at 9:12 AM, she stated typically the facility would have to call the hospital for lab results done in the ER, and the UM's were responsible for that task. The ADON stated the UM had called the hospital on [DATE], (after the State Survey Agency [SSA] Surveyor had questioned staff about R43's complaints on that date) and the results were then faxed to the facility. She stated she expected the UM's to follow up on any pending lab results within three (3) days. The ADON further stated she also expected the UM's to reach out to the Physician or NP for orders to treat the resident if it was necessary. During interview with the DON on 10/24/2024 at 10:15 AM, she stated the UM's were responsible for tracking pending results on their assigned hall. She stated UM 1 failed to follow up on R43's pending urine culture. She stated the facility realized they had not received R43's results on 10/23/2024 and called last night to obtain them. The DON stated the NP on call was notified once the results were obtained and she gave an order for R43 to begin an antibiotic to treat the UTI. She stated she expected results to be followed up on as they should to ensure residents received the proper treatment in a timely manner. During an interview with the Administrator on 10/25/2024 at 4:15 PM, he stated pending results should be taken to clinical meetings every morning and placed on the white board in the DON's office. He stated he expected any orders to be on the resident's medication administration record and administered as prescribed and all pending results should be followed up on by the Unit Managers. The Administrator further stated the Unit Managers should continue to follow up on the results until they had been received to prevent the resident from going untreated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents received care consistent with professional standards for 1 of 3 residents sampled...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents received care consistent with professional standards for 1 of 3 residents sampled as at risk for developing pressure ulcers out of the total sample of 21 (Resident (R)39). In interview on 10/22/2024 at 9:48 AM, R39 stated she had been at the facility since January and had a wound on her foot. Observation, at the time of interview, revealed R39 lying on her back on an alternating pressure mattress (APM), with two wedge cushions and a heel boot stored on a shelf in the corner of the room. R39 stated she received the heel boot for her left heel at the hospital; however, staff removed it when she returned to the facility. She stated the left heel boot had not been placed back on her since. R39 stated staff did not utilize wedge cushions or pillows for positioning her. Additional observations on that date at 11:08 AM, 1:50 PM, 4:18 PM, and 8:15 PM, revealed R39 remained lying on her back on the pressure reducing mattress. In addition, review of R39's EMR revealed R39 documentation noting the resident had developed a new stage 4 pressure ulcer. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Skin Care Standard of Practice dated 07/2020, revealed, the facility would ensure a resident received care consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers. Per review, the facility was also to ensure residents did not develop pressure ulcers unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrated they were unavoidable. Continued review revealed a resident with pressure ulcers was to receive necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing. In interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/22/024 at 1:30 PM, she stated the facility did not have a policy on Pressure Ulcer Prevention. Review of the facility's, admission Record for R39 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/10/2024, with diagnoses including multiple (6) pressure ulcers; paraplegia, unspecified; and chronic pain syndrome. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/13/2024, revealed the facility assessed R39 to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Continued review revealed the facility assessed the resident as dependent on staff to roll from side to side and to a supine (laying on the back) position while in bed. Additionally, the facility assessed the resident as having pressure ulcers and as at risk for the development of pressure ulcers. Review of the facility's, Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for R39 revealed a focus problem for impaired skin integrity, dated 01/04/2424, related to pressure sores with presence of skin breakdown or as at high risk for skin breakdown. Per review, the interventions dated 01/11/2024 included: pressure reduction cushion; mattress pressure reduction; and providing gentle support when turning, positioning, or transferring. Continued review revealed the interventions also included: providing protein supplements; providing wound care as ordered by the Physician; and providing skin care regularly. Review revealed the goals read: improve nutritional status and avoid prolonged pressure to skin. Further review revealed however, no documented evidence the facility developed and implemented additional interventions for R39's risk for pressure sores or skin breakdown, such as use of the wedge cushion or heel boots. Continued review of the CCP for R39 revealed a focus problem for pressure ulcer, actual, dated 01/11/2024, noting the resident had pressure ulcers. Per review, on 05/02/2024, R39 developed a new stage 4 pressure wound of the left heel. CCP review revealed the interventions dated 01/19/2024, included pressure relieving device chair cushion; pressure relieving device mattress; and weekly skin rounds to monitor progress of pressure ulcers. Further review of the CCP revealed however, no documented evidence the facility developed and implemented additional interventions for R39's actual pressure ulcer, such as use of the wedge cushion or heel boots. Review of the Wound Evaluation and Management Summary, for R39 dated 05/02/2024, revealed the resident had developed a non-pressure wound to the left heel documented as moisture associated skin damage (MASD). Further review revealed the wound measured 2 centimeters (cm) x 3 cm x 0.1 cm. Review of the Wound Evaluation and Management Summary, for R39 dated 10/17/2024, revealed the area to the left heel was documented as a stage 4 pressure wound which measured 6.5 cm by 4.0 cm by 0.3 cm. Observation on 10/22/2024 at 9:48 AM, revealed R39 lying on an alternating pressure mattress on the bed. In interview, at the time of observation, R39 stated she had a wound on her foot. Continued observation revealed R39 was lying supine (on her back) on the bed with no devices (such as heel boots or wedge cushions) in use. Observation revealed however, two wedge cushions and a heel boot stored on a shelf in the corner of the resident's room. Additional observations on 10/22/2024 at 11:08 AM, 1:50 PM, 4:18 PM, and 8:15 PM, revealed R39 remained lying supine on the bed with no devices in use. Observation on 10/24/2024 at 11:20 AM, revealed Unit Manager (UM) 1 completed a dressing change for R39's pressure wound. Observation revealed the wound had tissue loss, and the appearance of a stage 4 pressure ulcer to the left heel. Continued observation revealed the UM measured the wound as 6 cm by 4.5 cm; however, the UM failed to measure the depth of the wound. In interview, at the time of observation, the UM stated she thought R39's heel wound was a stage 3 pressure ulcer. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 on 10/25/2024 at 9:13 AM, she stated she was aware R39 had wounds and used to have boots on her feet when she was in bed. CNA 3 stated she could not recall any other devices for R39 (to assist with pressure relief). She stated R39 did not like to turn as it caused her pain. The CNA further stated CNA's had the resident care profiles (RCP) to look at for residents' care needs. She additionally stated however, she was not aware of what interventions were on the RCP for R39. During an interview with CNA 8 on 10/25/2024 at 9:22 AM, she stated she was aware R39 had wounds, as she had assisted the nurses with dressing changes. CNA 8 stated R39 had a pillow placed between her knees, but she was not aware of any wedge cushions or heel boots that should be used for the resident. In interview with UM 1 on 10/25/2024 at 2:00 PM, she stated R39 had an air mattress in place for pressure prevention. She stated she did not know if the facility had a policy on prevention of pressure ulcers. The UM stated she had not looked at R39's care plan to see what interventions were in place for the resident. She stated staff repositioned R39 as she would allow; however, the resident preferred to lie on her back. UM 1 further stated she was unaware of any wound physician's recommendations for R39 to be turned side to side. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/25/2024 at 3:11 PM, she stated all residents had a pressure-reducing mattress on their beds and R39 had an air mattress for pressure relief on her bed. She stated R39 had been admitted with multiple wounds and was followed by the wound care physician weekly. The DON stated R39 often refused care; however, she was unsure if the refusals were care planned. She further stated wedge cushions or pillows, as well as turning and repositioning were interventions and should be on the resident's care plan and the RCP. The DON additionally stated wounds had the potential to not heal if interventions were not in place. In interview with the Medical Director on 10/25/2024 at 4:39 PM, he stated R39 had wounds, but she was in much better shape than when she was first admitted to the facility. He further stated the facility should have policies in place for pressure ulcer prevention. In interview with the Administrator on 10/25/2024 at 5:03 PM, he stated he expected staff to follow the Physician's orders and to contact the Physician if clarification of orders were needed. He stated he expected residents to have interventions for pressure ulcers in place. The Administrator further stated possible (negative) outcomes for residents with pressure ulcers would be worsening of the wound and/or development of new wounds.
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, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident fed by enteral means (feeding tube) received the appropriate treatment and services to pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident fed by enteral means (feeding tube) received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding including but not limited to aspiration pneumonia for 2 of 7 residents receiving enteral feeding (Resident (R)39, R42). In interview the Director of Nursing (DON) stated it was a standard of practice for a resident's head of bed (HOB) to be elevated during (tube) feedings and for the tube feeding to be changed every 24 hours. 1. However, observation on 10/21/2024 at 1:15 PM, revealed R42's HOB was flat when the resident was receiving enteral feeding. Additionally, the enteral feeding R42 was receiving was dated 10/20/2024 at 10:08 AM (over 24 hours). Observation revealed R42 continued lying flat two hours later at 3:18 PM. Observation on 10/22/2024 at 9:58 AM, revealed R42's feeding pump was turned off and was not attached to the resident. In addition, R42's feeding bottle remained unchanged (as it was still dated 10/20/2024 at 10:08 AM). Observation at 10:08 AM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 7 entered R42's room with new feeding to hang. 2. Observation of R39's room on 10/21/2024 at 1:35 PM, 4:37 PM, and on 10/22/2024 at 9:46 AM, revealed a feeding pump with a dried wash cloth over it and a piston syringe present dated 10/15/2024. The findings include: In interview with the DON on 10/22/2024 at 1:30 PM, she stated the facility did not have a policy on gastrostomy tubes or enteral feeds. She stated it was a standard of practice for (tube) feedings to be changed every 24 hours and for the HOB to be elevated. When asked by the State Survey Agency (SSA) Survey what told her that, she stated she just knew it. 1. Review of the facility's, admission Record for R42 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/29/2021, with diagnoses to include gastrostomy status, cerebral palsy, gastrostomy status, and epilepsy unspecified. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/05/2024, revealed the facility assessed R42 as rarely or never understood. Further MDS review revealed R42 received total nutrition by artificial means. Review of the physician's order, undated for R42, revealed an order for Jevity (tube feeding formula) 1.5 to infuse at 65 milliliters (ml) an hour for protein-calorie malnutrition. Review of another undated physician's order, revealed the head of bed was to be elevated 30 to 45° at all times except during care. Review of R42's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) revealed a Nutritional Services care plan dated 01/29/2021, related to R42 having a feeding tube due to diagnoses of cerebral palsy and dysphagia. Continued review revealed interventions that included tube feeding as ordered to meet nutritional needs; and head of bed elevated at least 30 degrees while delivering the tube feeds. Review of the facility's Resident Care Profile (RCP), the care guide for Certified Nursing Assistants, dated 03/19/2024, revealed under special instructions, (R42's) HOB was to be elevated at 45 degrees. However, observation on 10/21/2024 at 1:15 PM, revealed R42 receiving enteral feeding with the head of bed (HOB) flat. Continued observation revealed a piston syringe and feeding bottle dated 10/20/2024 at 5:00 AM, which indicated the tube feeding had been hanging for 32 hours. Observation at 3:18 PM, revealed R42's HOB remained flat. Observation on 10/22/2024 at 9:58 AM, revealed the (tube) feeding pump was turned off and was not attached to R42. Per observation, the tube feeding bottle remained unchanged, as it was still dated 10/20/2024 at 5:00 AM. Additional observation at 10:08 AM, revealed LPN 7 entered R42's room with new tube feeding and piston syringe. In interview with LPN 7 on 10/22/2024 at 11:33 PM, she stated she provided care for R42 and worked one day a week. She stated R42 received medication and the resident's tube feedings were to be held (stopped) one hour before and one hour after administration. The LPN stated she had elevated R42 s bed that morning when she went in and saw that it was not elevated. 2. Review of the facility's admission Record for R39 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/10/2024, with diagnoses including paraplegia; chronic pain syndrome; and reduced mobility. Review of R39's Quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 09/13/2024, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a BIMS score of 12 of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the physicians' order for R39, undated, revealed an order for Glucerna 1.2 to infuse at 60 milliliters (ml) per hour from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM. Additionally, review revealed an undated order to flush R39's gastrostomy tube (G-tube) with 30 ml water before and after medication pass at 6:00 AM, 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Observation of R39's room on 10/21/2024 at 1:35 PM, and at 4:37 PM; and on 10/22/2024 at 9:46 AM, revealed a tube feeding pump present with a dried wash cloth over it and a piston syringe that was dated 10/15/2024. In interview with CNA 5 on 10/22/2024 at 8:42 PM, she stated R42 and R39 had feeding tubes and the heads of their beds were to be elevated. She stated that information was on the residents' RCP. In interview with CNA 9 on 10/23/2024 at 8:54 AM, she stated R42 had a feeding tube and when the tube feeding was turned on the HOB was to be elevated. She stated if R42 was having a seizure the HOB might not be elevated. CNA 9 stated R39 received tube feeding at night; however, the HOB was usually elevated during the day. She further stated she never paid attention to the syringes present with the tube feedings, as the nurses took care of those. In continued interview with LPN 7 on 10/22/2024 at 11:33 PM, she stated she also provided care for R39. She stated R39 did not receive tube feeding on day shift and she had not noticed the syringe dated 10/15/2024 present in the resident's room. The LPN further stated she would change the syringe immediately. In interview with LPN 3 on 10/22/2024 at 8:15 PM, she stated she worked the 100 hall three nights a week and provided care for both, R39 and R42. She stated she was sure there was a policy on feeding tubes but she was not certain. LPN 3 stated it was standard procedure to change feedings and syringes every 24 hours. She said she learned that a long time ago. The LPN further stated the heads of R39's and R42's beds should have been elevated when their tube feeds were infusing. She additionally stated that information was on the residents' treatment administration records (TARs). In interview with Unit Manager (UM) 1 on 10/22/2022 AT 8:30 PM, she stated the syringe for enteral feeds was to be changed daily. The UM said tube feeding could hang for 48 hours; however, she would have to look at the manufacturers' recommendations. She stated she did not know if the facility had a policy on enteral feeds or G-tubes, but she would ask the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) or the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and would follow what they told her. She further stated she did not know what reference the facility used for standards of practice. In additional interview with UM 1 on 10/25/2024 at 2:00 PM, she stated new hires were trained by the facility nurses. She stated she had not been aware the facility did not have a policy regarding tube feedings. UM 1 stated tube feeding included the tubing and piston syringes which were to be changed daily. In interview with the SDC on 10/23/2024 at 10:01 AM, she stated the facility did not have a policy on enteral feedings or G-tubes. The SDC stated the facility followed the physician's orders. She stated the orders should include changing of the tube feeding bottles and syringes every 24 hours. The SDC stated for residents receiving tube feeding, their HOB was to be elevated. Per the SDC in interview, there was to be an order for their tube feedings and that information was to be reflected on the residents' care plan. She further stated the nurses did competency checks on hire and all facility nurses had been checked off on tube feedings. During the interview the SSA Surveyor requested to review the facility's competency checks for nurses. The SSA Surveyor received the competency checks from the SDC, on 10/23/2024 at 2:15 PM. The SDC stated at that time that feeding tubes and enteral feeds were not part of the facility's competency check list. In interview with the facility's Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 10/24/2024 at 9:07 AM, she stated she had been the facility's NP since August 2024. She stated she did not have long-term care experience and was learning. The NP stated she had no expectations of staff at the facility, as that was not part of her job. She stated the DON and ADON handled the staff at the facility. The NP further stated for residents receiving enteral feedings, their HOB was to be elevated; however, she was unaware of how often the piston syringes or feeding formulas should be hung. In interview with the DON on 10/25/2024 at 3:11 PM, she stated she had been the DON for a year. She stated she expected the nurses to follow what they learned in nursing school when caring for residents' G-tubes. The DON said the facility used an online training portal for staff education. She stated she expected staff to ensure the HOB of residents receiving tube feeding was elevated during the tube feeding. The DON further stated a potential (negative) outcome if the HOB of a resident receiving tube feeding was not elevated was aspiration of the feeding. In interview with the Administrator on 10/25/2024 at 5:03 PM, he stated he expected staff to follow the physician's orders and to contact the physician if clarification was needed. He stated he expected the HOB of residents receiving tube feeding to be elevated. The Administrator further stated possible (negative) outcomes for a resident whose HOB was not elevated, was potential aspiration.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and review of the facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided to residents who required such services, consistent with...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and review of the facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided to residents who required such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 21 sampled residents (Resident (R)39). Observation on 10/24/2024 at 11:20 AM, during the left heel dressing change for R39 revealed the resident had a grimace on her face prior to being turned by staff. R39 was observed placing the neckline of her gown in her mouth and biting down to keep from yelling out. R39 had tense facial expressions, facial grimacing and verbalizations of oh, oh, oh me during the dressing change. The State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor requested the wound care halted and R39 be assessed for pain. The Unit Manager (UM) stated R39 had received pain medication prior to the dressing change. However, review of R39's narcotic sign out sheet with the Regional Nurse revealed R39 had not received the pain medication since 10/22/2024. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Pain Management Standard of Practice, dated 07/2020 revealed, the facility worked to ensure compliance with the regulatory intent of F697. Per policy review, the facility worked to ensure compliance by ensuring pain management was provided to residents consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive care plan, and the resident goals and preferences. Continued review revealed in conjunction with the resident's physician, the facility was to work to prevent or manage pain, consistent with the care plan and the resident's goals and preferences, and to address/treat the underlying cause(s) of pain to the extent possible. Further review revealed the facility was to consider both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions/approaches, modify approaches to pain management as necessary and recognize expressions of pain might be verbal or nonverbal and were subjective. Review of the facility's, admission Record revealed the facility admitted R39 on 01/10/2024 with diagnoses including chronic pain syndrome, paraplegia, unspecified, and reduced mobility. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/13/2024, revealed the facility assessed R39 as having a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 of 15, which indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for R39 revealed a focus problem for pain, risk for alteration on comfort related to wounds and malnutrition, dated 01/11/2024. Continued review revealed the interventions included adjusting daily routine as necessary to aid in pain relief; identify location and rate pain prior to and after any interventions, and medications as ordered. Per review, additional interventions included: notifying family/responsible party of any changes; pain assessment as ordered and as needed; reporting unrelieved or unacceptable levels of pain to the Physician as needed. Further review revealed R39 s goal noted to maintain tolerable level of pain through the next review, and for the resident to be free from constipation related to narcotic analgesic for 90 days. Review of the Physician's orders dated 10/12/2024, revealed an order for R39 to receive Oxycodone/Acetaminophen (Percocet) oral tablet 5/325 milligrams (mg) one tablet every six hours as needed for chronic pain syndrome. Observation on 10/24/2024 at 11:20 AM, of the pressure ulcer dressing change for R39, revealed the resident was observed with non-verbal signs of pain that included, tense facial expressions with facial grimacing, placing her gown in her mouth and biting down on it. Per observation, R39's verbalizations of pain included, oh, oh, oh me. The Unit Manager (UM)stated R39 received pain medication prior to dressing changes. The SSA Surveyor left R39's room to inquire when R39 had received the pain medication. Review of R39's narcotic sign out sheet with the Regional Nurse, revealed no documented evidence the resident had received pain medication since 10/22/2024. The SSA Surveyor requested R39's wound care be stopped and the resident assessed for pain and for the wound care to be completed after lunch. The SSA Surveyor reviewed R39's Medication Administration Record (MAR) on 10/24/2024 at 2:20 PM, to ensure the resident had been administered pain medication; however, there was no documented evidence R39 had received pain medication. In interview with R39 at 2:25 PM, she stated she had not received any pain medication. In interview on 10/24/2024 at 2:28 PM, the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), who was working as a floor nurse, stated she could not recall UM 1 telling her to administer pain medication to R39. The SDC then administered Oxycodone/Acetaminophen oral tablet 5/325 milligrams to R39 at 2:38 PM. UM 1 informed the SSA Surveyor on 10/24/2024 at 4:00 PM, she was ready to continue with R39's dressing change. In interview at that time, R39 stated she was okay to proceed with the dressing change. Per observation, R39 continued to have facial grimacing during the dressing change; however, stated she was okay. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 on 10/25/2024 at 9:13 AM, she stated she provided care for R39 and said the resident always had pain with any movement. She stated R39's pain was better now than it was when the resident was first admitted . CNA 3 further stated R39 seldom voiced pain, but would bite her gown and have a pained expression on her face when being moved. During an interview with CNA 8 on 10/25/2024 at 9:22 AM, she stated she was aware that R39 had wounds. She stated R39 often had facial grimacing and chewed on her gown to keep from crying out. The CNA stated R39 had facial grimacing with movement to her legs due to contractures, but never verbally complained of pain. In interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 8 on 10/25/2024 at 9:38 AM, she stated a resident's pain was assessed and documented on their MAR. She started R39 was able to voice pain but seldom did that. The RN stated she had observed nonverbal signs of pain in R39, such as facial grimacing and biting down on her gown. She stated she had administered pain medication to R39 before, but was unable to recall if it was before wound care was provided. She stated R39 had an air mattress for wound prevention and a pillow placed between her knees. RN 8 stated she was not aware of any non-pharmacological interventions to use for pain relief. She stated all residents were turned and repositioned and that should be on the residents' care plan. RN 8 stated the CNAs usually reported when residents had pain and they (CNAs) were made aware of new interventions for residents by open communication to the staff. In interview on 10/25/2024 at 2:42 PM, UM 1, on the 100 unit, stated she had asked the nurse on the hall to administer pain medication to R39 at 8:30 AM, after the resident complained of pain with the dressing change to the G-tube site. She stated she found out it had not been administered after she completed the dressing change to the left heel. UM 1 stated we stopped the wound care at approximately 11:30 AM; however, said R39 did not receive pain medication until 2:30 PM. She further stated she did not know why it took so long for the pain medication to be administered to R39. During an interview with the DON on 10/25/2024 at 3:11 PM, she stated residents' pain was assessed and documented on their MAR each shift. She stated she expected nurses to assess residents' pain and administer pain medication if the residents had pressure ulcers, before completing wound care so it lessened the residents' pain. In interview with the Administrator on 10/25/2024 at 5:03 PM, he stated pain management was different with each resident. He stated if pain was identified he would expect the nurse to administer any ordered pain medication. The Administrator further stated a resident's pain should be reassessed as needed and staff should consult with the NP on how to treat pain if current regimen was not working.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were safely stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable. Observation on [DATE] of the 300 hall medication storage room revealed multiple expired medical supplies. Observation further revealed a small refrigerator utilized for storage of milk and beer with the temperature reading out of the acceptable range according to the internal thermometer of the device. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy entitled, Medication administration standard of practice, dated 10/2020, revealed medications were to be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. Observation of the 300 hall medication room on [DATE] at 2:30 PM, with the Unit Manager (UM), revealed the following expired medical supplies: three individual boxes of glucose test strips with an expiration date of 09/2024; four individual bottles of wound cleanser with an expiration date of 03/2024; suction tubing product DYND50216 with an expiration date of 04/2024; and two individual boxes of tracheostomy (trach) tubes with an expiration date of 09/2024. Continued observation of the 300 hall medication room on [DATE] at 2:30 PM, revealed a small refrigerator utilized for storing milk and beer had a temperature reading of 50 degrees Fahrenheit (F), which the UM indicated during that observation, the temperature was out of the acceptable temperature parameters. Observation also revealed upon entering the medication room the State Survey Agency (SSA) Surveyor observed water on the floor which was leaking from the refrigerator. The UM stated, at the time of observation, the problem with the refrigerator temperature was because a staff member told her that day a resident complained of the milk being too cold, so the staff member turned up the temperature. She stated she would discard the observed supplies from the refrigerator which included milk and beer. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 10:00 AM, she stated, If the care plan had a diabetes care plan for sugar checks and the supplies were expired, they could get a false blood sugar reading. The DON stated it was part of the UM's monthly routine to check for expired supplies, and Pharmacy staff came in as well to look through things for us. She stated the expectation was for management to look through medication rooms and medication carts as well, looking for expired items, throw the expired items away, and if supplies were missing, they needed to restock them. The DON said if any packaging had damage we get rid of it. She stated night shift nurses were in charge of checking (refrigerator) temperatures. The DON stated They fill out a paper log for the temperature and leave it in the room. She further stated nursing staff should report an unacceptable refrigerator temperature reading to leadership and management.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Observations of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 10 on 10/22/2024 at 11:40 AM, revealed she pulled gloves from a box sitting on top of a medication cart and placed them in her pants pocket prior to entering Resident 7 ' s room to provide care. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Infection Control revised 10/01/2018, revealed the facility's infection control policies and practices are intended to facilitate maintaining a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and manage the transmission of diseases. Review of facility policy titled, Infection Control Program Standard of Practice, revised 11/01/2016, revealed the facility's standard of practice was for all isolation precautions and hand washing techniques to be followed per the www.cdc.gov/longtermcare/guidelines. Observation on 10/22/2024 at 11:40 AM, this State Surveyor Agency (SSA) revealed Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Bin 1 did not contain disposable gloves or gowns for staff's use, and only contained face masks. Per observation, Bin 1 was located in front of two (2) residents' rooms which were noted to be on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). Continued observation revealed staff were pulling gloves from a box stored on top of a medication cart and stuffing the gloves in their pants pockets before going into residents' rooms to provide care. In interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 10 on 10/22/2024 at 11:49 AM, she stated PPE was kept in a cabinet outside of the residents' rooms in the hall. She stated before staff went into a resident's room to provide care they put gloves in their pockets; performed hand hygiene; donned a gown if needed; and then went into a resident's room to perform care. CNA 10 stated she thought it would be more convenient if the supplies were left in the resident's room and readily available for staff. She further stated there could be a possible infection control issue by for residents with staff carrying gloves around in their pockets. In interview with Unit Manager (UM) 1 on 10/25/24 at 1:31 PM, she stated before 10/01/2024 the facility had two (2) central supply employees who had been responsible for making sure the PPE bins were stocked. UM 1 stated however, one of the central supply employees got promoted to another position after that date and she was unsure who was responsible now. She stated she tried her best to make sure the PPE bins on her hall stayed stocked and if she was made aware she would go track down the necessary supplies. The UM stated it was okay not having the bins stocked in the rooms it just made the day a little bit longer. She stated she just started in her position eight months ago and at that time the facility was not keeping gloves stored in the residents' rooms. UM 1 stated she was always used to grabbing gloves before she went in a room and that did not bother her. She further stated she had not seen any CNAs grab gloves and put them in their pockets. In interview with the Infection Preventionist/Assistant Director of Nursing (IP/ADON) on 10/25/24 at 9:30 AM, she stated staff putting gloves in their pockets was an infection control issue. She stated staff had been educated on not doing that and gloves had been placed back in residents' rooms for accessibility. The IP/ADON further stated the nursing staff had pocket sized hand sanitizer containers they kept on their person to help with hand hygiene. In interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/25/24 at 3:11 PM, she stated staff placing gloves in their pockets was a cause for concern regarding infection control, as she did not know what they kept in their pockets. She stated the facility in general was responsible for making sure nursing staff had the necessary PPE supplies they needed to perform their job duties. The DON said this responsibility mainly fell on the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) and Central Supply Department. She stated as far as she knew there was always someone in the Central Supply Department ordering supplies and putting the supplies away. Per the DON in interview, if staff just let her know they did not have what they needed she would get it for them. She further stated it was her expectation of staff to inform her if they were needing supplies to perform their job duties, in order for her to obtain the necessary items. In interview with the Administrator on 10/24/2024 at 4:52 PM, he stated he had not been made aware of the facility being out of some of their supplies. He stated he usually went out and purchased what was needed if staff happened to run out before the next shipment arrived. The Administrator said sometimes things like that just happened, but his expectation was for staff to let him know what was needed. He said if they were out supplies and having trouble obtaining them from the vendors staff needed to let him know. The Administrator stated he was opposed to not having gloves stored in residents' rooms and had expressed his concerns to his superiors. He further stated however, he was not given instructions on returning the gloves to residents' rooms until that week. In addition, the Administrator stated it was an infection control issue with staff placing gloves in their pockets.
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 facility policies, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. These failures had the potential to affect eighty-two (82) of eighty-eight (88) residents in the facility who consumed food from the kitchen. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Storage: Cold Foods, dated 04/2018, revealed All Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) foods, frozen and refrigerated, were to be appropriately stored in accordance with guidelines of the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Food Code .All foods will be stored wrapped or in covered containers, labeled and dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination. Observation during the initial kitchen tour on 10/22/2024 at 9:10 AM, with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), revealed the walk in cooler contained a larger plastic container half full of cut up raw potatoes in water that were not labeled or dated; a larger plastic container half full of prepared apple crisp that was dated 10/17/2024 - 10/23/2024; and a small container of red peppers that were not labeled or dated. Observation revealed the CDM removed the items from the cooler. In an interview with the CDM on 10/25/2024 at 2:19 PM, she stated she expected staff to follow the guidelines as stated and to use items that were opened first. She stated day one starts the day that you open a container and depending on what the food item was, items could be stored up to seven days. The CDM stated leftovers (such as the apple crisp) could only be stored for three to four days. She further stated everything stored was to be dated and labeled properly and if items were found stored past the dates they should be discarded immediately. In an interview with the Administrator on 10/25/2024 at 5:03 PM, he stated the kitchen staff were contracted and he expected them to label and date items prior to storing them.
Sept 2020 14 deficiencies 3 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, hospital record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the person centered comprehensive care plan was implemented for o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, hospital record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the person centered comprehensive care plan was implemented for one (1) of four (4) sampled residents (Resident #1). The facility care planned Resident #1 as a choking risk due to behaviors of reaching and grabbing food not on his/her diet, The resident required a pureed diet. In addition, one to one (1:1) supervision, when out of bed. The facility failed to implement the nursing care plan interventions to prevent Resident #1 from getting food not on his/her diet, nor the 1:1 supervision when out of bed. On 08/07/2020, Resident #1 obtained a peanut butter sandwich from the snack tray on the medication cart. Resident #1 grabbed and consumed half of the half of peanut butter sandwich before staff intervention and choked. Staff performed the Heimlich maneuver (abdominal thrusts to remove object causing to choke) and Resident #1 coded with staff initiating Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) (chest compressions often with artificial ventilation). Resident #1 was transferred to an acute care facility where he/she was intubated, placed on a ventilator (machine that provides mechanical ventilation {air/breaths}), and a (Nasogastric tube) feeding tube was placed. The facility's failure to implement the care plan has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident. Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 09/04/2020 and determined to exist on 08/07/2020. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 09/04/2020. An acceptable Credible Allegation of Compliance (AoC), related to the Immediate Jeopardy was received on 09/10/2020 alleging the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 09/10/2020. The State Survey Agency validated the AoC and determined the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 09/10/2020. The Scope and Severity was lowered to a D while the facility develops and implements the Plan of Correction (PoC); and, the facility's Quality Assurance (QA) monitors the effectiveness of the systemic changes. The findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plan, revealed the Comprehensive Care Plan was developed to promote communication of the resident's needs, goal, and interventions to promote successful goal attainment. Each residents care plan was designed to incorporate identified problem areas, and identify the professional services that were responsible for each element of care. Record review revealed the facility readmitted Resident #1, on 03/04/2020 with diagnoses which included Dementia, Encephalopathy, Unspecified Psychosis, Anoxic Brain Damage, Altered Mental Status (AMS), Aphasia, and Dysphagia. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/19/2020, revealed the facility assessed Resident #1's cognition as severely impaired with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of three (3), which indicated the resident was not interviewable. Further review revealed the resident required supervision with meal setup. Review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 11/18/19, revealed the resident was at risk for Nutritional Decline. The Care Plan stated the resident exhibited alterations in mood/behavior of attempting to bite, grab, and scratch staff and other residents. The interventions directed staff to provide 1:1 supervision until further notice, when out of bed (dated 11/26/19), and to supervise meals as indicated for reaching in and getting food not on his/her diet. However, interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, on 08/20/2020 at 9:46 AM and 11:45 AM; and on 09/03/2020 at 2:25 PM, revealed Resident #1 was supposed to be on 1:1 supervision and she tried to call a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) into work to provide the 1:1 supervision, but was unsuccessful. LPN #1 stated she did not have enough staff to assign a 1:1, so she tried to keep the resident by the medication cart while she administered medications and handed out snacks. She stated she had the tray of snacks on top of the medication cart. She revealed while she was pouring water to administer a resident's medications, Resident #1 grabbed a half peanut butter sandwich off the snack tray and ate half of it before she could get it away from the resident. She stated the resident choked and she provided the Heimlich maneuver unsuccessfully and Resident #1 coded requiring CPR. She stated Emergency Medical System was called and Resident #1 was transferred to hospital. Further interview with LPN #1 revealed she was aware Resident #1 was care planned for 1:1 supervision and was on the list of residents who grab food in the nurses book at the nursing station. LPN #1 stated it was the nurse who determined staff assignment of the 1:1, but when doing 1:1 staff still had other duties. She stated she did not think the resident could reach the top of the med cart to grab the sandwich off the snack tray. Review of hospital records dated 08/07/2020, revealed Resident #1 was admitted to hospital via the emergency room (ER) after choking on a peanut butter sandwich. Resident #1 was intubated at 10:07 PM on 08/07/2020. Interview with Administrator, on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM revealed the resident was still in the hospital and remained intubated with a tracheotomy, on a ventilator, and a nasogastric tube for feeding. Interviews with CNA #1, on 08/20/2020 at 7:41 AM; and, CNA #2 on 08/21/2020 at 9:27 AM, and 08/31/2020 at 3:31 PM, revealed they were attending to other duties and not really paying any attention to Resident #1 sitting on the hallway. The CNA's stated they were aware that Resident #1 was care planned to be on 1:1 when out of bed and someone was to be with him/her at all times and within touching distance, but there was not enough staff to provide the required 1:1 supervision. The CNA's revealed there was not enough staff to sit with the resident 1:1, so no one does 1:1, we just watch resident while doing care on the hall and sometimes the nurse watched the resident. The CNA's stated Resident #1 would grab anything in reach. Interview with Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, revealed care plans were to be followed related to dietary needs and supervision. Interview with Administrator, on 09/01/2020 at 4:12 PM, and 09/03/2020 at 4:42 PM, revealed 1:1 supervision was provided depending on why the resident was placed on 1:1. She stated Resident #1 was care planned for 1:1 supervision due to grabbing and scratching other residents; so the staff only had to keep the resident in line of sight to ensure the resident was not within reaching distance of another resident. She further revealed she was not aware Resident #1 would grab at everything and was care planned for reaching in and getting food not on his/her diet. The facility implemented the following to remove the Immediate Jeopardy: 1. Resident #1 was transferred from the facility on 08/07/2020 and has not returned to the facility. 2. The Dietary Manager provided a list of all current residents on mechanical altered diets (17 residents) on 09/08/2020. The Administrator completed a review of the care plans of residents with mechanical soft and pureed diets in regard for the potential for reaching for food not on their meal tray. 3. The Administrator, Social Service Director, and/or licensed nurse completed a review of psychosocial/behavior care plans for any resident currently identified as requiring 1:1 supervision, on 09/08/2020. There were no additional residents at this time requiring 1:1 supervision. This was completed on 09/08/2020. 4. The Regional Director of Operations provided education to the Administrator on 09/04/2020 regarding: One-to-one supervision regarding one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during the time. 5. The Regional Quality Manager (RQM) provided education to the Director of Nursing (DON) on 09/04/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 6. The DON provided education to assigned licensed nurses (4) and director of medical records/medication technician (a train the trainer education) on 09/04/2020 through 09/06/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. To notify the Administrator and/or the Director of Nursing when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 7. Education was provided to the facility nursing staff, (licensed nurses and nursing assistants), and facility dietary staff by the DON, Administrator, and Regional Quality Manager beginning 09/04/2020 through 09/09/2020, regarding: Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 8. Verbal acknowledgement of understanding along with signed education was obtained after the inservice. The facility employs no agency staff. Employed nursing or contracted dietary staff currently on leave or newly hired to the facility will receive this education from the DON or assigned facility manager before assuming duties. 9. The Regional Quality Manager provided education to the DON on 09/08/2020 regarding: To notify the Administrator and/or the DON when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. 10. The DON provided education (train the trainer) to the staff development Coordinator on 09/08/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. To notify the Administrator and/or the DON when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 11. The Regional Quality Manager, the DON and or Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) provided education to the licensed nursing staff on 09/08/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. To notify the Administrator and/or the DON when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. 12. Verbal acknowledgement of understanding along with signed education was obtained after the inservices. The facility employs no agency staff. Employed nursing or contracted dietary staff currently on leave or newly hired to the facility will receive this education from the DON or assigned facility manager before assuming duties. 13. An ad-hoc meeting was held on 09/04/2020 to review the summary of Immediate Jeopardy findings and discuss the development of the action items to be completed. This meeting included the Administrator, DON, Social Services, Activities, Dietary, Therapy, and MDS. This information was reviewed with the facility Medical Director by the Administrator via the phone on 09/04/2020. 14. The Administrator, Assistant Administrator, DON, and/or Weekend Department Manager Supervisor would observe five (5) times (X) a week on various shifts to include weekends for two (2) weeks, then three (3) X week for two (2) weeks, then two (2) X week for four (4) weeks for the following: All snacks would be placed in a covered container by dietary staff. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. The nursing staff member would place the container on the ice chest cart and begin snack pass to the residents. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. Any identified concern will be addressed at the time of discovery by the monitor. The audit began on 09/04/2020. 15. In the morning clinical meeting beginning 09/08/2020, the Administrator, the DON, and/or assigned licensed nursing staff would review the plan of care for all residents requiring 1:1 supervision. 16. The Administrator or the DON would review and sign off on the staffing assignments sheets daily in regards to potential need for any 1:1 supervision. A review of the weekend staffing sheet would be completed on Fridays. The Administrator, the DON was to be notified at any time a resident required a 1:1 supervision. 17. Beginning 09/08/2020, the DON and/or assigned licensed staff would audit five (5) residents requiring 1:1 supervision, risk for diet non-compliance, and/or (if no 1:1 supervision) with mechanically altered diets weekly times four (4) weeks for: Care plans interventions in place and observe the resident for care plan implementation as written in the plan of care 18. The results of the monitoring would be reviewed at a minimum of weekly in the QAPI meetings being held to track the facility's progress toward regulatory compliance. 19. A second ad hoc QAPI meeting was held on 09/08/2020, to review the initial audit findings of the list of residents with mechanically altered diets and subsequent care plan review. This meeting included the Administrator, DON, Social Services, Dietary, Activities, and MDS. This information was reviewed with the facility Medical Director by the Administrator via the phone, on 09/08/2020. The State Survey Agency validated the corrective actions taken by the facility as follows: 1. Review of Notice of Emergency Transfer and Nurses Progress, dated 08/07/2020 at 8:20 PM, revealed Resident #1 was sent to hospital via EMS (emergency management services) related to choking incident. Interview with Administrator, on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, revealed Resident #1 had not returned from the hospital. 2. Interview with Dietary Manager on 09/15/2020 at 11:40 AM revealed she provided a list of residents who were on a mechanically altered diet to the Administrator. Review of care plans of residents that were identified as on mechanically altered diets revealed the Administrator reviewed the care plans, on 09/08/2020 to ensure if resident was known to grab food; it was addressed on the resident's care plan. Interview on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, with Administrator revealed she had reviewed dietary needs of residents with mechanical soft and pureed diets in regard for the potential for reaching for food not on their meal tray. 3. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with Administrator at 3:45 PM, Social Service Director at 10:15 AM, and Director of Nursing (DON) at 12:00 PM revealed there were no additional residents at this time requiring 1:1 supervision. 4. Interview on 09/15/2020 at 3:05 PM, with Regional Quality Manager, revealed the Regional Director of Operations provided education to the Administrator, on 09/04/2020. Interview with Administrator, on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, revealed she was educated by the Regional Director of Operations to ensure staffing would be provided for 1:1 supervised residents with no other duties assigned to that staff member. Review of education documentation revealed the Administrator signed the form indicating she had received education related to one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during the time provided on 09/04/2020 5. Interview with the Regional Quality Manager (RQM) revealed she provided education to the Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/04/2020. Interview with DON, on 09/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, revealed she was educated by RQM to ensure if there was 1:1 supervision of a resident, then a staff member would be assigned and have no other duties. She stated in addition she was educated on the new process of dietary delivering, and nursing storing and delivering dietary snacks. 6. Interview with DON, on 09/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, revealed she provided education to SDC, LPN #4 and weekend staff, on 09/04/2020 through 09/06/2020, to ensure they knew the requirements for the 1:1 supervision and snack pass process. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with LPN #1 at 11:20 AM, LPN #2 at 3:11 PM, CNA #1 at 2:25 PM, and CNA #2 at 3:28 PM, revealed they were educated on 1:1 supervision, the new snack pass process and snack requirement, and care plan implementation. They also stated they were educated to call DON and/or Administrator when a resident was placed on 1:1. 7. Interviews on 09/14/2020 with LPN #5 at 4:20 PM, LPN #7 at 4:27 PM, and LPN #3 at 4:30 PM; on 09/15/2020 with Dietary Manager at 11:40 AM, Dietary Aide #1 at 2:30 PM, Dietary Aide #2 at 2:50 PM, SDC at 10:15 AM, SSD at 10:15 AM, KMA#1/Director of Medical Records/Central Supply at 11:00 AM, LPN #1 at 11:20 AM, DON at 12:00 PM, UM #2 at 2:50 PM, RQM at 3:05 PM, LPN #2 at 3:11 PM, CNA #1 at 2:25 PM, CNA #2 at 3:28 PM, and CNA #4 at 1:58 PM revealed they were educated on the new process for resident snack delivery and storage. Observation on 09/14/2020 at 2:10 PM, revealed staff followed the new snack pass guidelines. 8. Review of education documentation revealed all nursing staff and dietary staff signed the education to acknowledge understanding of education. Additionally, interview with LPN #7 (new hire), on 09/14/2020 at 4:27 PM, revealed she was educated on the new process for snacks, 1:1 resident supervision and care plan implementation. 9. Interview on 09/15/2020 at 3:05 PM, with Regional Quality Manager, revealed she provided education to the DON, on 09/08/2020, to ensure she was aware she and/or the Administrator should be notified when a resident was placed on 1:1, and the care plan was to be implemented, as indicated for 1:1 supervision. Interview with DON, on 09/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, revealed she was educated on being notified if a resident was placed on 1:1, and care plan implementation of 1:1 by RQM. Review of education documentation dated 09/08/2020, revealed the DON signed the form indicating she understood the education provided by the RQM. 10. Review of education documentation (train the trainer) provided by DON to the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), on 09/08/2020, revealed the DON educated the SDC and the SDC signed the form indicating she understood the education. Interview with SDC, on 09/15/2020 at 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM, revealed she was educated by the DON on the new snack process, that the DON and the Administrator must be notified if a resident was placed on 1:1 supervision, and that staff assigned to that resident would have no other duties but the 1:1. 11. Interviews on 09/14/2020 with LPN #7 at 4:27 PM; on 09/15/2020 with LPN #1 at 11:20 AM, LPN #2 at 3:11 PM, LPN #3 at 4:30 PM, and LPN #5 at 4:20 PM, revealed they were educated that staff assigned 1:1 supervision of a resident would not be assigned any other duties, nursing staff were to notify DON and/or the Administrator if a resident was placed on 1:1, and care plan implementation of the 1:1 supervision. Review of education documentation revealed all licensed nursing staff signed they understood the education provided on 09/08/2020 12. Interviews on 09/15/2020 LPN #1 at 11:20 AM, LPN #2 at 3:11 PM, CNA #1 at 2:25 PM, and CNA #2 at 3:28 PM, revealed verbal acknowledgement of provision of education and signing of signature page for verification of education. 13. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with Administrator at 3:45 PM, DON at 12:00 PM, SSD at 10:15 AM, Dietary at 11:40 PM; and Therapy at 2:15 PM revealed an ad-hoc meeting was held on 09/04/2020 to review the summary of Immediate Jeopardy findings with discussion of action plan to address findings of Immediate Jeopardy. Interview with Administrator on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, and with Medical Director on 09/15/2020 at 4:14 PM, revealed the Administrator made the Medical Director aware of the action plan and obtained his input. 14. Review of the Monitoring Tools for Snack Pass, revealed monitoring was conducted five times during the week of 09/04-09/11/20 and continued to be completed with no concerns identified. The monitors were signed by the DON/or weekend supervisor. 15. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with Administrator at 3:45 PM, Administrator in Training (AIT) at 9:37 AM and at 3:45 PM, the DON at 12:00 PM, UM #2 at 2:50 PM, and MDS #1 at 4:06 PM revealed there were no residents on 1:1 at this time but were aware they would review care plans for all residents requiring 1:1 supervision. Review of a facility form that was developed to use to review the plans of care revealed a place to document Resident Name, Follow-up needed, Initials, Assigned to, and date. 16. Interview on 09/15/2020 with the DON at 3:45 PM, the AIT at 9:37 AM and 3:45 PM, and the Administrator at 3:45 PM, revealed they were to be notified at any time a resident required a 1:1 supervision, and that the staffing sheets were being reviewed daily and weekend staffing sheets reviewed on Friday, but at this time there were no residents on 1:1 supervision. A list of reviewed staffing sheets was present in the AOC binder for review 17. Interview on 09/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, with DON, revealed she was auditing accuracy of care plans related to supervision of 1:1, dietary needs, and watched a meal of audited resident that day. 18. Review of documented QAPI meetings revealed a review of facility progress with discussion of any issues dealt with immediately upon point of discovery. Interview on 09/15/2020 with DON at 12:00 PM, Administrator at 3:45 PM, AIT at approximately 9:37 AM and 3:45 PM, revealed they were meeting weekly to discuss any issues identified with during monitoring. 19. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with SSD at 10:15 AM, Dietary Manager at 11:40 AM, DON at 12:00 PM, Administrator at 3:45 PM, AIT at 9:37 AM and 3:45 PM, MDS at 4:06 PM and Medical Director at 4:14 PM revealed there were ongoing reviews of facility's progress toward compliance.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, hospital record review, review of Nurse's book, Staff Assignment Sheet, and facility education review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, hospital record review, review of Nurse's book, Staff Assignment Sheet, and facility education review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of four (4) sampled residents (Resident #1) received adequate supervision to prevent accidents. The facility assessed Resident #1 required one to one (1:1) supervision when out of bed; however, the facility did not ensure this assessed need was met. Interviews and record review revealed, on 08/07/2020, there was no staff to provide 1:1 supervision. One Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) was outside providing supervision during the residents' smoke break, one CNA was providing resident care in a resident room, and the nurse was administering medication. Resident #1 was sitting beside the medication cart while the nurse prepared medication to administer to a resident. There was a snack tray on the medication cart. Resident #1 grabbed a half of a peanut butter sandwich off the tray and ate half of the sandwich before the nurse could stop him/her. Resident #1 choked and staff provided Heimlich maneuver (abdominal thrusts to remove object causing to choke). Resident #1 coded and staff initiated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) (chest compressions often with artificial ventilation). Resident #1 was transferred to an acute care facility where he/she was intubated (insertion of a tube into the patient's body) and placed on a ventilator (machine that provides mechanical ventilation (air/breaths) and a feeding tube was placed. The facility's failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident, Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 09/04/2020 and determined to exist on 08/07/2020. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 09/04/2020. An acceptable Credible Allegation of Compliance (AoC), related to the Immediate Jeopardy was received on 09/10/2020 alleging the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 09/10/2020. The State Survey Agency validated the AoC and determined the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 09/10/2020. The Scope and Severity was lowered to a D while the facility develops and implements the Plan of Correction (PoC); and, the facility's Quality Assurance (QA) monitors the effectiveness of the systemic changes. The findings include: Interview with Regional Quality Manager #2 (RQM), Administrator, Administrator in Training (AIT), and Director of Nursing (DON), on 08/19/2020 at approximately 4:25 PM, revealed there was no facility policy that addressed 1:1 supervision. However, review of facility education documentation provided to staff on 06/13/19, 06/14/19, and 06/20/19 titled, Following Care Plans and Resident to Resident Procedure revealed when a resident was on 1:1 staffing, it was because the resident was evaluated as needing continuous supervision. This meant that the resident must always be in the line of sight of the staff member assigned to them and was a care-planned intervention. Further review of the education revealed not to leave the resident sitting, to attend to another resident or any other task unless someone else was watching them. Record review revealed the facility readmitted Resident #1 on 03/04/2020 with diagnoses, which included Dementia, Encephalopathy, Unspecified Psychosis, Anoxic Brain Damage, Altered Mental Status (AMS), Aphasia, and Dysphagia. Review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan for at risk for nutritional decline dated 11/18/19, revealed the resident was at risk due to Dementia, Behavior Disturbances, Psychosis, Depression, Anxiety, Pseudobulbar Affect, Anoxic Brain Damage, Encephalopathy, Cerebrovascular Disease, Muscle Weakness, Lack of Coordination, Altered Mental Status (AMS), Aphasia, Pain, Convulsions, Adult Failure to Thrive (AFTT), Bipolar, Risk for Malnutrition, Difficulty Chewing/Swallowing, and Edentulous. Further review of the care plan revealed a goal to tolerate diet without chewing or swallowing problems thru next review and an interventions for continual feeding assist at mealtimes, diet as ordered, and supervised meals as indicated for reaching in and getting food not on his/her diet. Review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan for alterations in mood/behavior and known for attempting to bite, grab, and scratch staff and other residents revealed an intervention dated 11/26/2019 to provide 1:1 until further notice when out of bed. Review of 100 Hall Nurses Book revealed a list of residents that were identified as at risk of taking food. Resident #1 was on this list. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 05/19/2020, revealed the facility assessed Resident #1's cognition as as severely impaired with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of three (3) which indicated the resident was not interviewable. Further review of the MDS assessment, revealed the resident required supervision and meal setup, and had behaviors of scratching, hitting, screaming, and disruptive sounds toward others. Review of Speech Therapy Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 07/13/2020, revealed Resident #1 was downgraded to a puree diet in September 2017, secondary to decreased toleration of mechanical soft diet. The evaluation revealed the resident's history included effects of anoxia with aphasia, mental impairments and decreased safety awareness; with background medical assessment to include combative and impulsive behaviors and resident has a habit of reaching out, and grabbing. Further review of the assessment revealed Resident #1 was at risk for aspiration, with recommendations of intake, puree consistencies; and close supervision. Review of 08/07/2020 Physician Orders, revealed Resident #1 was to receive a Dysphagia Pureed Consistency diet, and to provide 1:1 supervision when out of bed. Review of the Staff Assignment Sheet, for 08/07/2020 for 2:30 PM - 10:30 PM shift, revealed there was one nurse and two CNA's assigned to Resident #1's Unit. Review of a 1:1 documentation form, dated 08/07/2020, revealed LPN #1 had initialed she provided 1:1 supervision to Resident #1 from 6:00 PM-8:00 PM. Review of Nursing Progress Note, dated 08/07/2020 at 8:02 PM written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, revealed Resident #1 was in broda chair and was 1:1 with LPN #1, when LPN #1 witnessed resident taking a peanut butter sandwich from snack tray on cart in hallway. Resident #1 would not release sandwich and took a bite before LPN was able to remove from resident. Further review of the note revealed when LPN #1 attempted to redirect the resident, she saw the resident was showing signs of choking. LPN #1 encouraged resident to cough and resident unable to, so LPN attempted sweeping of mouth digitally, and then performed Heimlich maneuver multiple times and called for help. Resident produced small bolus of food from mouth but still showed signs of aspiration. Continued review of the note revealed LPN #2 (from another unit) came to assist LPN #1 with Heimlich; and an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) and Crash Cart were brought with O2 via nasal cannula applied and suction hooked up and provided. The physician was notified with orders received to send to emergency room (ER) and Emergency Medical System (EMS) called. The Nursing Note further revealed Resident became unconscious and cyanotic (bluish discoloration of skin related to an inadequate supply of oxygen being provided to the blood), pulse was not palpable, respirations ceased, and Resident's fingers and face began turning blue. Resident was full code so the LPN's initiated CPR. Resident gasped for air and began vomiting, was rolled to side, and resident color returned. Resident began using accessory muscles to breathe, pulse bounding, resident then began resisting care, kicking at staff while vomitus continued from mouth. Further review revealed at 8:18 PM, EMS was on site and took over care. Resident was kicking, coughing, and yelling while on stretcher and EMS left facility with emergency lights activated. Review of Emergency Department to Hospital admission records, dated 08/07/2020 at 8:30 PM, revealed Resident #1 from LTC (long term facility) apparently ate a peanut butter sandwich and became acutely choked and EMS was called, EMS retrieved a fair amount of peanut butter material out of oropharynx. However, resumption of normal oxygenation could not be accomplished and because of this Resident #1 was transported to hospital for further care. Resident was quite restless, and pulling at all equipment and fighting EMS and their ability to oxygenate resident. The last oxygen saturation EMS able to obtain was 71% and resident had blue lips upon arrival. Resident was intubated at 10:07 PM on 08/07/2020, and placed on a respirator with resident admitted . Interview with LPN #1, on 08/20/2020 at 9:46 AM and 11:45 AM, revealed there were two (2) CNA's and herself assigned to the unit. She stated she was administering medications, and one CNA was outside supervising resident smoke break and one CNA was providing care in a resident's room. She stated Resident #1 smokes but he/she was out of cigarettes so she was sitting to the left of the medication cart while she was administering medications and passing snacks since the two CNA's were busy. She stated while she was pouring a glass of water for another resident to take his/her medications, Resident #1 grabbed a half of a peanut butter sandwich off the snack tray on the med cart and took a bite (half of half of sandwich) before she was able to get the sandwich from him/her. LPN #1 revealed she saw Resident #1 was choking on the sandwich and saw CNA #1 coming up the hall and told her to get LPN #2 from the other hall. She stated they performed the Heimlich maneuver, and initiated CPR and tried to suction the resident because the resident had no pulse. She stated EMS arrived and took over care of the resident. LPN #1 stated Resident #1 was on 1:1 for a prior incident as he/she had grabbed another resident and given them a skin tear. She further revealed Resident #1 does get manic, upset, grabs at everything, and was an elopement risk as the resident tried to go to the door anytime he/she was up. Further interview with LPN #1, on 09/03/2020 at 2:25 PM, revealed she had received training in December 2019 or January 2020, related to Resident #1's being on 1:1 anytime out of bed. She stated a staff member (nurse or aide) had to be present and ensure the resident was out of reach or grabbing distance of other residents. LPN #1 revealed when giving medications and watching the resident on 1:1 that she pulled the resident along in his/her wheelchair (w/c), keeping the resident beside the med cart. She stated most of the time residents would be in their w/c and she gave their meds at their room door but if she had to go into a room it was only for a minute. She stated the nurse determines who does the 1:1, and when staff were doing 1:1, they still have other duties. LPN #1 stated that she was aware Resident #1's care plan stated that resident would grab food from other residents, and the resident's name was in the nurse book at the desk indicating would grab food. She stated she had also seen Resident #1 grab food out of another residents lap. She further stated she did not think the resident could reach the top of the med cart to grab the sandwich off the snack tray. Interview with LPN #2, on 08/20/2020 at 7:43 AM, and on 08/30/2020 at 12:30 AM, revealed he was on another hall and LPN #1 was the nurse on Resident #1's hall. LPN #2 stated CNA #1 screamed to him that Resident #1 was choking and he responded. He stated he saw Resident #1 about midway down the hall, on the floor, on his/her bottom, but slouched over with head falling down. He stated the resident's eyes were shut, lips were pale, and was not breathing, LPN #2 stated they performed the Heimlich maneuver on the resident three (3) times with nothing coming up, so they initiated CPR because the resident did not have a pulse. He revealed when they started compressions the resident tried to cough the food up and they turned him/her to side and got some to come out. He stated he opened the resident's mouth to see if could swipe anything out and could not so he suctioned the resident. He revealed an ambulance was called and the resident was transferred to the hospital. He revealed he thought the incident happened about 8:00 PM, because he was passing meds when called. LPN #2 revealed Resident #1 was on 1:1 and had been for a while. He stated the aides watched him/her or if the aides were busy, the nurse watched the resident. LPN #2 further revealed Resident #1 was on 1:1, because he/she grabbed things, was real mobile and strong. The resident could grab on to things, people and all kinds of things like that. He stated the resident was on a pureed diet. Interview with CNA #1, on 08/20/2020 at 12:17 PM, revealed she brought residents who smoke in from smoke break and was starting to get residents ready for the night when she came out of a resident's room and saw Resident #1 moving around on the hallway close to the medication cart. She stated she did not notice if Resident #1 had anything in his/her hand She revealed she thought LPN #1 was passing medications because the medication cart was at the back of the hallway. CNA #1 stated a little while after that she and CNA #2 were in hall talking about who we had left to take care of and which one would be taking break; when she observed LPN #1 and then heard her say Resident #1 was choking. She revealed she saw LPN #1 grab Resident #1 and do the Heimlich. She stated LPN #1 told her to get LPN #2 and she obtained crash cart and called 911. She stated the licensed staff had to perform CPR. She revealed Resident #1 was supposed to be on 1:1 when out of bed and someone was to be with him/her at all times and within touching distance. CNA #1 stated they do not have enough staff to provide 1:1. Interview with CNA #2, on 08/21/2020 at 9:27 AM and 08/31/2020 at 3:31 PM, revealed Resident #1 was on 1:1 supervision when out of bed but there was not enough staff to provide 1:1 care. CNA #2 stated the last time she saw Resident #1, he/she was roaming hallway. She revealed staff were not allowed to put the brakes on the resident's chair because it was considered a restraint. CNA #2 stated the nurse was in a room administering medication at the back of the hall, Resident #1 was roaming the hall, and she was in the shower room disposing of dirty laundry. CNA #2 stated when she came out of shower room, she saw the nurse place something on the medication cart, push the cart away, grab Resident #1, and perform the Heimlich maneuver on the resident. She stated she did not see the resident grab the sandwich and did not see any remains of peanut butter sandwich or the plastic bag it came in. She revealed LPN #1 told her that Resident #1 had grabbed a peanut butter sandwich. CNA #2 stated the snack tray was on the end of the med cart, because the nurse served the nighttime snacks as she passed meds. CNA #2 stated Resident #1 was acting like he/she was choking and his/her color went from pink to blue. She revealed LPN #2 and LPN #1 provided CPR when Resident #1 coded. She stated EMS was called and arrived to transport Resident #1 to the hospital. CNA #2 stated we do not have the staff to sit with the resident 1:1, so no one does 1:1, we just watch resident while doing care on the hall and sometimes the nurse watched the resident. CNA #2 further stated Resident #1 grabbed staff and residents, and anything else in reach. Interview with hospital Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP), on 08/21/2020 at 10:05 AM, revealed Resident #1 was brought into ER with blue lips, O2 in 70's and restless but alert and altered level of consciousness (ALOC). She stated a video assisted intubation was provided, and the resident was admitted to hospital with acute hypoxic respiratory failure, aspiration, and was put on ventilator for hypoxic respiratory failure at time of intubation. She stated she consulted an ear/nose/throat (ENT) specialist for trach but it has not been done yet, the plan was for 08/21/2020. She revealed she did not know when the resident would be discharged as he/she may have to go to long term acute care at the hospital to get off the ventilator Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #2, on 08/23/2020 at 12:40 AM, revealed 1:1 meats the resident was at least in eyesight; if not right beside staff. She stated she did not think there was enough staff to provide 1:1 supervision for Resident #1. RN #2 revealed the few times that she provided care for Resident #1 it was a struggle. She stated the resident's behavior was to grab anything off the desk or carts. In addition, the resident would pull things out of staff pockets, and would pull lanyard off of staff's neck. She further revealed the resident would grab anything within reach, even in his/her room, the resident would reach and try to pull his/her TV off the table. Interview on 08/26/2020 at 5:51 PM, with CNA #16, revealed when Resident #1 was out of bed the resident was supposed to be 1:1, because the resident was feisty and would grab people and stuff. Interview with Social Services Director (SSD) #2, on 08/20/2020 at approximately 3:35 PM, revealed Resident #1 had been on 1:1 for quite some time, and was constantly reaching out grabbing residents. She stated the resident had scratched them, was a constant wanderer, and would try to get out the doors. She stated the resident needed staff within arms length of him/her at all times while out of bed (OOB). She stated she was sure Resident #1 grabbed food, as he/she liked to grab just about anything, and she believed Resident #1 was on a mechanical soft or pureed diet. Interview with Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), on 08/20/2020 at 3:36 PM, revealed Resident #1 must be constantly observed when up. She stated the resident was care planned for 1:1 supervision and needed to be constantly observed. She stated staff needed to be pretty close as that was the reason for 1:1 supervision. Interview with Administrator, on 09/01/2020 at 3:20 PM, 09/02/2020 at 9:45 AM and 09/03/2020 at 4:42 PM, revealed when asked what 1:1 entailed for a resident she stated it depended on the reason the resident was on 1:1. She stated Resident #1 was care planned for 1:1 supervision when out of bed due to grabbing and scratching other residents, so the staff only had to keep the resident in line of sight to ensure the resident was not within reaching distance of another resident. She stated she was not aware the resident would constantly grab items and people and was care planned for grabbing food not on his/her diet. Further interview with Administrator, on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, revealed Resident #1 was still in the hospital and remained intubated with a tracheotomy, on a ventilator, and a nasogastric tube for feeding. The Administrator further revealed the facility had identified the snacks were being left on the medication cart while the nurse was passing medications which enabled residents to have access to food that was not on their prescribed diets. She stated staff had been educated to ensure snacks were kept at nursing station and each snack passed out from there by a staff member so snacks were not left unsupervised with residents having access to them. However, observation on 09/04/2020 at 10:02 AM, revealed a dietary staff delivered the snacks to the nurse on the 200 hall. The nurse went down the hall and placed the snack tray on the med cart. Further observation revealed the nurse obtained a snack from the tray then delivered the snack to resident in their room, leaving snack tray on the cart unsupervised. There was a half peanut butter sandwich and peanut butter crackers still on the snack tray. The facility implemented the following to remove the Immediate Jeopardy: 1. Resident #1 was transferred from the facility on 08/07/2020 and has not returned to the facility. 2. The Dietary Manager provided a list of all current residents on mechanical altered diets (17 residents) on 09/08/2020. The Administrator completed a review of the care plans of residents with mechanical soft and pureed diets in regard for the potential for reaching for food not on their meal tray. 3. The Administrator, Social Service Director, and/or licensed nurse completed a review of psychosocial/behavior care plans for any resident currently identified as requiring 1:1 supervision, on 09/08/2020. There were no additional residents at this time requiring 1:1 supervision. This was completed on 09/08/2020. 4. The Regional Director of Operations provided education to the Administrator on 09/04/2020 regarding: One-to-one supervision regarding one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during the time. 5. The Regional Quality Manager (RQM) provided education to the Director of Nursing (DON) on 09/04/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 6. The DON provided education to assigned licensed nurses (4) and director of medical records/medication technician (a train the trainer education) on 09/04/2020 through 09/06/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. To notify the Administrator and/or the Director of Nursing when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 7. Education was provided to the facility nursing staff, (licensed nurses and nursing assistants), and facility dietary staff by the DON, Administrator, and Regional Quality Manager beginning 09/04/2020 through 09/09/2020, regarding: Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 8. Verbal acknowledgement of understanding along with signed education was obtained after the inservice. The facility employs no agency staff. Employed nursing or contracted dietary staff currently on leave or newly hired to the facility will receive this education from the DON or assigned facility manager before assuming duties. 9. The Regional Quality Manager provided education to the DON on 09/08/2020 regarding: To notify the Administrator and/or the DON when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. 10. The DON provided education (train the trainer) to the staff development Coordinator on 09/08/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. To notify the Administrator and/or the DON when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 11. The Regional Quality Manager, the DON and or Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) provided education to the licensed nursing staff on 09/08/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. To notify the Administrator and/or the DON when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. 12. Verbal acknowledgement of understanding along with signed education was obtained after the inservices. The facility employs no agency staff. Employed nursing or contracted dietary staff currently on leave or newly hired to the facility will receive this education from the DON or assigned facility manager before assuming duties. 13. An ad-hoc meeting was held on 09/04/2020 to review the summary of Immediate Jeopardy findings and discuss the development of the action items to be completed. This meeting included the Administrator, DON, Social Services, Activities, Dietary, Therapy, and MDS. This information was reviewed with the facility Medical Director by the Administrator via the phone on 09/04/2020. 14. The Administrator, Assistant Administrator, DON, and/or Weekend Department Manager Supervisor would observe five (5) times (X) a week on various shifts to include weekends for two (2) weeks, then three (3) X week for two (2) weeks, then two (2) X week for four (4) weeks for the following: All snacks would be placed in a covered container by dietary staff. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. The nursing staff member would place the container on the ice chest cart and begin snack pass to the residents. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. Any identified concern will be addressed at the time of discovery by the monitor. The audit began on 09/04/2020. 15. In the morning clinical meeting beginning 09/08/2020, the Administrator, the DON, and/or assigned licensed nursing staff would review the plan of care for all residents requiring 1:1 supervision. 16. The Administrator or the DON would review and sign off on the staffing assignments sheets daily in regards to potential need for any 1:1 supervision. A review of the weekend staffing sheet would be completed on Fridays. The Administrator, the DON was to be notified at any time a resident required a 1:1 supervision. 17. Beginning 09/08/2020, the DON and/or assigned licensed staff would audit five (5) residents requiring 1:1 supervision, risk for diet non-compliance, and/or (if no 1:1 supervision) with mechanically altered diets weekly times four (4) weeks for: Care plans interventions in place and observe the resident for care plan implementation as written in the plan of care 18. The results of the monitoring would be reviewed at a minimum of weekly in the QAPI meetings being held to track the facility's progress toward regulatory compliance. 19. A second ad hoc QAPI meeting was held on 09/08/2020, to review the initial audit findings of the list of residents with mechanically altered diets and subsequent care plan review. This meeting included the Administrator, DON, Social Services, Dietary, Activities, and MDS. This information was reviewed with the facility Medical Director by the Administrator via the phone, on 09/08/2020. The State Survey Agency validated the corrective actions taken by the facility as follows: 1. Review of Notice of Emergency Transfer and Nurses Progress, dated 08/07/2020 at 8:20 PM, revealed Resident #1 was sent to hospital via EMS (emergency management services) related to choking incident. Interview with Administrator, on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, revealed Resident #1 had not returned from the hospital. 2. Interview with Dietary Manager on 09/15/2020 at 11:40 AM revealed she provided a list of residents who were on a mechanically altered diet to the Administrator. Review of care plans of residents that were identified as on mechanically altered diets revealed the Administrator reviewed the care plans, on 09/08/2020 to ensure if resident was known to grab food; it was addressed on the resident's care plan. Interview on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, with Administrator revealed she had reviewed dietary needs of residents with mechanical soft and pureed diets in regard for the potential for reaching for food not on their meal tray. 3. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with Administrator at 3:45 PM, Social Service Director at 10:15 AM, and Director of Nursing (DON) at 12:00 PM revealed there were no additional residents at this time requiring 1:1 supervision. 4. Interview on 09/15/2020 at 3:05 PM, with Regional Quality Manager, revealed the Regional Director of Operations provided education to the Administrator, on 09/04/2020. Interview with Administrator, on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, revealed she was educated by the Regional Director of Operations to ensure staffing would be provided for 1:1 supervised residents with no other duties assigned to that staff member. Review of education documentation revealed the Administrator signed the form indicating she had received education related to one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during the time provided on 09/04/2020 5. Interview with the Regional Quality Manager (RQM) revealed she provided education to the Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/04/2020. Interview with DON, on 09/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, revealed she was educated by RQM to ensure if there was 1:1 supervision of a resident, then a staff member would be assigned and have no other duties. She stated in addition she was educated on the new process of dietary delivering, and nursing storing and delivering dietary snacks. 6. Interview with DON, on 09/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, revealed she provided education to SDC, LPN #4 and weekend staff, on 09/04/2020 through 09/06/2020, to ensure they knew the requirements for the 1:1 supervision and snack pass process. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with LPN #1 at 11:20 AM, LPN #2 at 3:11 PM, CNA #1 at 2:25 PM, and CNA #2 at 3:28 PM, revealed they were educated on 1:1 supervision, the new snack pass process and snack requirement, and care plan implementation. They also stated they were educated to call DON and/or Administrator when a resident was placed on 1:1. 7. Interviews on 09/14/2020 with LPN #5 at 4:20 PM, LPN #7 at 4:27 PM, and LPN #3 at 4:30 PM; on 09/15/2020 with Dietary Manager at 11:40 AM, Dietary Aide #1 at 2:30 PM, Dietary Aide #2 at 2:50 PM, SDC at 10:15 AM, SSD at 10:15 AM, KMA#1/Director of Medical Records/Central Supply at 11:00 AM, LPN #1 [TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of the Staff Assignment Sheet, facility education documentation, hospital records, and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of the Staff Assignment Sheet, facility education documentation, hospital records, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure sufficient staff had the appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing and related services to ensure one (1) of four (4) sampled residents (Resident#1) safety as determined by resident assessments and care plans. The facility assessed and care planned Resident #1 with a history of grabbing food off trays, was at risk for choking, and required 1:1 supervision when out of bed. However, on 08/07/2020, the facility did not assign staff to provide 1:1 supervision, due to insufficient staffing. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed Resident #1 was kept within line of sight during medication pass due to not having enough staff to implement the required 1:1 supervision. In addition, LPN #1 stated she placed a tray of snacks on top of the medication cart with Resident #1 near the cart. Resident #1 grabbed a half of a peanut butter sandwich off the tray and consumed half the sandwich before staff intervention. Resident #1 became choked with staff providing Heimlich (abdominal thrusts to remove object causing to choke) and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) (chest compressions with artificial respirations). Resident #1 was transferred to an acute care facility where he/she was intubated, placed on a ventilator and a (Nasogastric tube) feeding tube was placed. The facility's failure to provide sufficient staff to provide nursing and related services has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident, Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 09/04/2020 and determined to exist on 08/07/2020. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 09/04/2020. An acceptable Credible Allegation of Compliance (AoC), related to the Immediate Jeopardy was received on 09/10/2020 alleging the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 09/10/2020. The State Survey Agency validated the AoC and determined the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 09/10/2020. The Scope and Severity was lowered to a D while the facility develops and implements the Plan of Correction (PoC); and, the facility's Quality Assurance (QA) monitors the effectiveness of the systemic changes. The findings include: Interview with the Administrator, on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, revealed the facility did not have a staffing policy. Review of facility policy titled, Facility Assessment Tool Record dated 03/26/2020, revealed care provision was monitored on a daily basis to ensure that each resident received the care and services that were dictated by the plan of care. Staffing patterns were reviewed on a daily basis. The facility worked to cover the needs of residents on a daily basis, including accounting for call-ins, etc. This was an approach to staffing to ensure sufficient staff to meet the needs of the residents at any given time based on resident population and their needs for care and support. Review of facility education documentation provided to staff, on 06/13/19, 06/14/19, and 06/20/19, titled, Following Care Plans and Resident to Resident Procedure, revealed when a resident was on 1:1 staffing it was because they have been evaluated as needing continuous supervision. This meant that these residents must always be in the line of sight of the staff member assigned to them. Staff cannot leave the resident sitting unattended while attending to another resident or any other task unless someone else was watching them. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 03/21/2013 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Dementia, Encephalopathy, Unspecified Psychosis, Anoxic Brain Damage, Altered Mental Status (AMS), Aphasia, and Dysphagia. Review of a Speech Therapy Evaluation dated 07/13/2020; a Comprehensive Care Plan for at risk for nutritional decline, dated 11/18/19; and a Comprehensive Care Plan for alterations in mood/behavior revealed, Resident #1 was was assessed and care planned to require 1:1 Supervision due to grabbing food not on his/her diet, and having behaviors of scratching, hitting, and grabbing others. Review of Daily Staffing Sheet, dated 08/07/2020, revealed there was one nurse and two Certified Nurse Aides (CNA's) assigned to Resident #1's unit on the 2:30 PM-10:30 PM shift. Further review revealed there was no one assigned for 1:1 supervision of Resident #1. Review of Nurses Note, dated 08/07/2020 at 8:02 PM by LPN #1, revealed LPN #1 witnessed Resident #1 take a peanut butter sandwich from snack tray on medication cart in hallway and take a large bite of sandwich before LPN #1 could get sandwich from resident. The Resident choked and licensed staff performed the Heimlich maneuver multiple times, and the resident coded with staff providing CPR with success. EMS arrived and took over care of Resident #1 and transported resident to hospital. Review of Emergency Department to Hospital admission Records dated 08/07/2020 at 8:30 PM and interview with hospital Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP), on 08/21/2020 at 10:05 AM, revealed Resident #1 had to be intubated and placed on respirator and admitted to hospital with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and aspiration. An ear/nose/throat (ENT) specialist was consulted for a tracheotomy and it was planned for 08/21/2020. Resident may have to be discharged to go to long-term acute care at the hospital to get off the vent. Interview with Administrator, on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, revealed the resident was still in the hospital and remained intubated with a tracheotomy, on a ventilator, and a nasogastric tube for feeding. Interview with LPN #1, on 08/20/2020 at 9:46 AM, 11:45 AM and on 09/03/2020 at 2:25 PM, revealed, Resident #1 required 1:1 supervision and she did not have enough staff to provide 1:1. She stated she tried to call another CNA into work to provide the 1:1, with no success. She stated one CNA was supervising resident smoke break outside, one CNA was providing resident care in room, and she was administering medications and had placed the snack tray on the medication cart, so she could administer snacks at the same time. She revealed Resident #1 smoked but was out of cigarettes so she had no choice but to try to keep Resident #1 by the medication cart while she administered the medications and passed snacks. She stated as she was pouring a cup of water to administer another resident's medications, Resident #1 grabbed a half of a peanut butter sandwich off of med cart and had eaten half of it before she could stop the resident. LPN #1 stated the facility had sitters for Resident #1, but the sitters were done away with, and the routine scheduled staff had to provide 1:1 supervision along with the duties they already had. Interview with CNA #1, on 08/20/2020 at 7:41 AM, and CNA #2 on 08/21/2020 at 9:27 AM and 08/31/2020 at 3:31 PM, revealed CNA #1 was outside providing supervision for residents' smoke break and CNA #2 was in a resident's room providing resident care. The CNA's stated Resident #1 was sitting in the hallway but they were not paying attention to Resident #1. The CNA's revealed Resident #1 was supposed to be on 1:1 when out of bed and someone was to be with him/her at all times and within touching distance. The CNA's stated they did not have enough staff to provide 1:1 to the resident so the resident wandered up and down the hall and the staff on the hall tried to keep an eye on the resident. CNA #2 revealed the facility used to have a sitter for Resident #1, but now staff have to watch the resident but there was no one to assign to watch the resident on their shift. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #2, on 08/23/2020 at 12:40 AM, revealed she did not think there was enough staff to do 1:1 with Resident #1. RN #2 stated the few times that she provided care for Resident #1 it was a struggle. She revealed the resident's behavior was to grab anything off the desk or a cart. She stated the resident would pull things out of staff pockets, and would pull lanyard off staff's neck. She stated the resident would even reach from the bedside to grab the television and try to pull it off the table in his/her room. Interview with Unit Manager (UM) #1, on 09/03/2020 at 2:10 PM, revealed the staff for each hall stayed the same on the Day Shift (6AM-6:00 PM), with one nurse and three aides for halls 100 and 200; and one nurse and two aides on 300 hall. She stated when there was a resident that required 1:1 supervision they were able to pull the Hospitality Aide, Restorative Aide or transportation aide when needed. She stated on Night Shift (6:00 PM-6:00 PM) there were five (5) CNA's and three nurses in building and a Kentucky Medication Assistant, four nights a week. She stated the hospitality aide, restorative aide, and transportation aide would not be available on night shift. She further revealed if there is not enough staff to provide 1:1, the nurse could call a CNA into work. She stated staff were not necessarily assigned to do 1:1 with other duties, but if able to watch the resident and keep in view, it would be okay. She stated Resident #1 was mobile in his/her broda chair and would grab staff, residents and other items when saw them. She was not aware the resident would grab food. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) (hired 08/10/2020) and Administrator, on 09/03/2020 at 11:20 AM, revealed the Unit Managers and Staff Development Coordinator do the daily staffing sheets. The DON stated staffing was determined by the amount of activity going on. The DON revealed staff had been moved around since COVID, as all three (3) halls used to have the same amount of staff. She stated since the 300 hall was now used mainly for new admits and possible COVID residents, there were less residents on the hall and the 300 hall had less staff. She stated when there was a resident on 1:1, it was handled with staff throughout the building not just that unit. The Administrator and DON both were not able to describe exactly how they determined the number of staff that were required on each unit. The facility implemented the following to remove the Immediate Jeopardy: 1. Resident #1 was transferred from the facility on 08/07/2020 and has not returned to the facility. 2. The Dietary Manager provided a list of all current residents on mechanical altered diets (17 residents) on 09/08/2020. The Administrator completed a review of the care plans of residents with mechanical soft and pureed diets in regard for the potential for reaching for food not on their meal tray. 3. The Administrator, Social Service Director, and/or licensed nurse completed a review of psychosocial/behavior care plans for any resident currently identified as requiring 1:1 supervision, on 09/08/2020. There were no additional residents at this time requiring 1:1 supervision. This was completed on 09/08/2020. 4. The Regional Director of Operations provided education to the Administrator on 09/04/2020 regarding: One-to-one supervision regarding one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during the time. 5. The Regional Quality Manager (RQM) provided education to the Director of Nursing (DON) on 09/04/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 6. The DON provided education to assigned licensed nurses (4) and director of medical records/medication technician (a train the trainer education) on 09/04/2020 through 09/06/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. To notify the Administrator and/or the Director of Nursing when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 7. Education was provided to the facility nursing staff, (licensed nurses and nursing assistants), and facility dietary staff by the DON, Administrator, and Regional Quality Manager beginning 09/04/2020 through 09/09/2020, regarding: Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 8. Verbal acknowledgement of understanding along with signed education was obtained after the inservice. The facility employs no agency staff. Employed nursing or contracted dietary staff currently on leave or newly hired to the facility will receive this education from the DON or assigned facility manager before assuming duties. 9. The Regional Quality Manager provided education to the DON on 09/08/2020 regarding: To notify the Administrator and/or the DON when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. 10. The DON provided education (train the trainer) to the staff development Coordinator on 09/08/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. To notify the Administrator and/or the DON when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. Dietary would provide a list of mechanically altered diets and thickened liquids with each snack pass delivery. All snacks would be placed in a covered container by the dietary staff prior to handling off to nursing staff. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. 11. The Regional Quality Manager, the DON and or Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) provided education to the licensed nursing staff on 09/08/2020 regarding: One to one supervision requires one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during this time. To notify the Administrator and/or the DON when there was a need to add a care plan intervention for 1:1 supervision of a resident. The care plan was to be implemented as indicated for 1:1 supervision. 12. Verbal acknowledgement of understanding along with signed education was obtained after the inservices. The facility employs no agency staff. Employed nursing or contracted dietary staff currently on leave or newly hired to the facility will receive this education from the DON or assigned facility manager before assuming duties. 13. An ad-hoc meeting was held on 09/04/2020 to review the summary of Immediate Jeopardy findings and discuss the development of the action items to be completed. This meeting included the Administrator, DON, Social Services, Activities, Dietary, Therapy, and MDS. This information was reviewed with the facility Medical Director by the Administrator via the phone on 09/04/2020. 14. The Administrator, Assistant Administrator, DON, and/or Weekend Department Manager Supervisor would observe five (5) times (X) a week on various shifts to include weekends for two (2) weeks, then three (3) X week for two (2) weeks, then two (2) X week for four (4) weeks for the following: All snacks would be placed in a covered container by dietary staff. Dietary staff would hand off snacks to the nursing staff. If for any reason the nursing staff was unavailable, the snack pass was to be placed in the secured nourishment station. The nursing staff member would place the container on the ice chest cart and begin snack pass to the residents. A closed container system would now be used for snack pass versus an open tray. Following snack pass, the closed container of snacks should be returned to dietary. Any identified concern will be addressed at the time of discovery by the monitor. The audit began on 09/04/2020. 15. In the morning clinical meeting beginning 09/08/2020, the Administrator, the DON, and/or assigned licensed nursing staff would review the plan of care for all residents requiring 1:1 supervision. 16. The Administrator or the DON would review and sign off on the staffing assignments sheets daily in regards to potential need for any 1:1 supervision. A review of the weekend staffing sheet would be completed on Fridays. The Administrator, the DON was to be notified at any time a resident required a 1:1 supervision. 17. Beginning 09/08/2020, the DON and/or assigned licensed staff would audit five (5) residents requiring 1:1 supervision, risk for diet non-compliance, and/or (if no 1:1 supervision) with mechanically altered diets weekly times four (4) weeks for: Care plans interventions in place and observe the resident for care plan implementation as written in the plan of care 18. The results of the monitoring would be reviewed at a minimum of weekly in the QAPI meetings being held to track the facility's progress toward regulatory compliance. 19. A second ad hoc QAPI meeting was held on 09/08/2020, to review the initial audit findings of the list of residents with mechanically altered diets and subsequent care plan review. This meeting included the Administrator, DON, Social Services, Dietary, Activities, and MDS. This information was reviewed with the facility Medical Director by the Administrator via the phone, on 09/08/2020. The State Survey Agency validated the corrective actions taken by the facility as follows: 1. Review of Notice of Emergency Transfer and Nurses Progress, dated 08/07/2020 at 8:20 PM, revealed Resident #1 was sent to hospital via EMS (emergency management services) related to choking incident. Interview with Administrator, on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, revealed Resident #1 had not returned from the hospital. 2. Interview with Dietary Manager on 09/15/2020 at 11:40 AM revealed she provided a list of residents who were on a mechanically altered diet to the Administrator. Review of care plans of residents that were identified as on mechanically altered diets revealed the Administrator reviewed the care plans, on 09/08/2020 to ensure if resident was known to grab food; it was addressed on the resident's care plan. Interview on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, with Administrator revealed she had reviewed dietary needs of residents with mechanical soft and pureed diets in regard for the potential for reaching for food not on their meal tray. 3. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with Administrator at 3:45 PM, Social Service Director at 10:15 AM, and Director of Nursing (DON) at 12:00 PM revealed there were no additional residents at this time requiring 1:1 supervision. 4. Interview on 09/15/2020 at 3:05 PM, with Regional Quality Manager, revealed the Regional Director of Operations provided education to the Administrator, on 09/04/2020. Interview with Administrator, on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, revealed she was educated by the Regional Director of Operations to ensure staffing would be provided for 1:1 supervised residents with no other duties assigned to that staff member. Review of education documentation revealed the Administrator signed the form indicating she had received education related to one staff member dedicated to the supervision of one resident with no other assigned duties during the time provided on 09/04/2020 5. Interview with the Regional Quality Manager (RQM) revealed she provided education to the Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/04/2020. Interview with DON, on 09/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, revealed she was educated by RQM to ensure if there was 1:1 supervision of a resident, then a staff member would be assigned and have no other duties. She stated in addition she was educated on the new process of dietary delivering, and nursing storing and delivering dietary snacks. 6. Interview with DON, on 09/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, revealed she provided education to SDC, LPN #4 and weekend staff, on 09/04/2020 through 09/06/2020, to ensure they knew the requirements for the 1:1 supervision and snack pass process. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with LPN #1 at 11:20 AM, LPN #2 at 3:11 PM, CNA #1 at 2:25 PM, and CNA #2 at 3:28 PM, revealed they were educated on 1:1 supervision, the new snack pass process and snack requirement, and care plan implementation. They also stated they were educated to call DON and/or Administrator when a resident was placed on 1:1. 7. Interviews on 09/14/2020 with LPN #5 at 4:20 PM, LPN #7 at 4:27 PM, and LPN #3 at 4:30 PM; on 09/15/2020 with Dietary Manager at 11:40 AM, Dietary Aide #1 at 2:30 PM, Dietary Aide #2 at 2:50 PM, SDC at 10:15 AM, SSD at 10:15 AM, KMA#1/Director of Medical Records/Central Supply at 11:00 AM, LPN #1 at 11:20 AM, DON at 12:00 PM, UM #2 at 2:50 PM, RQM at 3:05 PM, LPN #2 at 3:11 PM, CNA #1 at 2:25 PM, CNA #2 at 3:28 PM, and CNA #4 at 1:58 PM revealed they were educated on the new process for resident snack delivery and storage. Observation on 09/14/2020 at 2:10 PM, revealed staff followed the new snack pass guidelines. 8. Review of education documentation revealed all nursing staff and dietary staff signed the education to acknowledge understanding of education. Additionally, interview with LPN #7 (new hire), on 09/14/2020 at 4:27 PM, revealed she was educated on the new process for snacks, 1:1 resident supervision and care plan implementation. 9. Interview on 09/15/2020 at 3:05 PM, with Regional Quality Manager, revealed she provided education to the DON, on 09/08/2020, to ensure she was aware she and/or the Administrator should be notified when a resident was placed on 1:1, and the care plan was to be implemented, as indicated for 1:1 supervision. Interview with DON, on 09/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, revealed she was educated on being notified if a resident was placed on 1:1, and care plan implementation of 1:1 by RQM. Review of education documentation dated 09/08/2020, revealed the DON signed the form indicating she understood the education provided by the RQM. 10. Review of education documentation (train the trainer) provided by DON to the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), on 09/08/2020, revealed the DON educated the SDC and the SDC signed the form indicating she understood the education. Interview with SDC, on 09/15/2020 at 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM, revealed she was educated by the DON on the new snack process, that the DON and the Administrator must be notified if a resident was placed on 1:1 supervision, and that staff assigned to that resident would have no other duties but the 1:1. 11. Interviews on 09/14/2020 with LPN #7 at 4:27 PM; on 09/15/2020 with LPN #1 at 11:20 AM, LPN #2 at 3:11 PM, LPN #3 at 4:30 PM, and LPN #5 at 4:20 PM, revealed they were educated that staff assigned 1:1 supervision of a resident would not be assigned any other duties, nursing staff were to notify DON and/or the Administrator if a resident was placed on 1:1, and care plan implementation of the 1:1 supervision. Review of education documentation revealed all licensed nursing staff signed they understood the education provided on 09/08/2020 12. Interviews on 09/15/2020 LPN #1 at 11:20 AM, LPN #2 at 3:11 PM, CNA #1 at 2:25 PM, and CNA #2 at 3:28 PM, revealed verbal acknowledgement of provision of education and signing of signature page for verification of education. 13. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with Administrator at 3:45 PM, DON at 12:00 PM, SSD at 10:15 AM, Dietary at 11:40 PM; and Therapy at 2:15 PM revealed an ad-hoc meeting was held on 09/04/2020 to review the summary of Immediate Jeopardy findings with discussion of action plan to address findings of Immediate Jeopardy. Interview with Administrator on 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM, and with Medical Director on 09/15/2020 at 4:14 PM, revealed the Administrator made the Medical Director aware of the action plan and obtained his input. 14. Review of the Monitoring Tools for Snack Pass, revealed monitoring was conducted five times during the week of 09/04-09/11/20 and continued to be completed with no concerns identified. The monitors were signed by the DON/or weekend supervisor. 15. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with Administrator at 3:45 PM, Administrator in Training (AIT) at 9:37 AM and at 3:45 PM, the DON at 12:00 PM, UM #2 at 2:50 PM, and MDS #1 at 4:06 PM revealed there were no residents on 1:1 at this time but were aware they would review care plans for all residents requiring 1:1 supervision. Review of a facility form that was developed to use to review the plans of care revealed a place to document Resident Name, Follow-up needed, Initials, Assigned to, and date. 16. Interview on 09/15/2020 with the DON at 3:45 PM, the AIT at 9:37 AM and 3:45 PM, and the Administrator at 3:45 PM, revealed they were to be notified at any time a resident required a 1:1 supervision, and that the staffing sheets were being reviewed daily and weekend staffing sheets reviewed on Friday, but at this time there were no residents on 1:1 supervision. A list of reviewed staffing sheets was present in the AOC binder for review 17. Interview on 09/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, with DON, revealed she was auditing accuracy of care plans related to supervision of 1:1, dietary needs, and watched a meal of audited resident that day. 18. Review of documented QAPI meetings revealed a review of facility progress with discussion of any issues dealt with immediately upon point of discovery. Interview on 09/15/2020 with DON at 12:00 PM, Administrator at 3:45 PM, AIT at approximately 9:37 AM and 3:45 PM, revealed they were meeting weekly to discuss any issues identified with during monitoring. 19. Interviews on 09/15/2020 with SSD at 10:15 AM, Dietary Manager at 11:40 AM, DON at 12:00 PM, Administrator at 3:45 PM, AIT at 9:37 AM and 3:45 PM, MDS at 4:06 PM and Medical Director at 4:14 PM revealed there were ongoing reviews of facility's progress toward compliance.
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Record review revealed the facility readmitted Resident #30 on 06/10/19 with diagnoses, which included Heart Failure and Hype...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Record review revealed the facility readmitted Resident #30 on 06/10/19 with diagnoses, which included Heart Failure and Hyperlipidemia. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15), indicating the resident was interviewable. Observations on 09/01/2020 at 11:25 AM, 2:14 PM, and 4:25 PM, revealed Resident #30 was in his/her wheelchair in the hallway with his/her name written in black ink/marker on the back of his/her shirt and visible to other residents. Interview with Resident #30, on 09/01/2020 at 4:25 PM, revealed he/she was unaware his/her name was written on the outside of his/her shirt. Resident #30 stated he/she did not like it and would like name placed on the inside of his/her clothes. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5, on 09/04/2020 at 8:26 AM, revealed it was inappropriate to have residents' names displayed on the outside of their clothing, as it can be considered a dignity issue. Interview with CNA #17 on 09/04/2020 at 8:35 AM,, revealed the facility staff normally label clothes on the inside tags. She stated staff should not write on resident's clothing and their names should be on the inside labels. Interview with the DON on 09/04/2020 at 11:03 AM, revealed she would expect residents clothing to be labeled on the inside tags and not visible to everyone in order to maintain the dignity and privacy of each resident. Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to treat three (3) of twenty (20) sampled residents (Residents #30, #39, and #52) with respect, dignity, and provide care in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his/her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. Staff failed to ensure Resident #30's name was not displayed on his/her clothing visible to others, failed to answer Resident #39's call light in a timely manner which caused the resident to be incontinent, and failed to meet Resident #52's grooming needs to remove facial hair including mustache. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Quality of Life-Dignity, not dated, revealed each resident shall be treated for in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity, respect, and individuality. Residents shall be treated with dignity and respect at all times. Treated with dignity meant the resident would be assisted in maintaining and enhancing his/her self-esteem and self-worth. Residents shall be groomed as they wish to be groomed (hair styles, nails, facial hair, etcetera). 1. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #39, on 07/02/2020 with diagnoses, which included Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), and Hemiplegia, and Major Depressive Disorder. Review of the admission MDS assessment, dated 07/09/2020, revealed the facility assessed Resident #39's cognition as intact with a BIMS score of thirteen (13) which indicated the resident was interviewable. Further review of the MDS, Section H: Bladder and Bowel revealed the facility assessed Resident #39 as occasionally incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. Interview with Resident #39, on 09/01/2020 at 8:39 AM, revealed the staff took too long to answer the call light, which resulted in episodes of bladder and bowel incontinence. Resident #39 stated, I know when I need to use the bathroom; however, by the time staff answers the call light it is too late, then I have to be cleaned up and this makes me feel degraded, less, than. I had a stroke, that's why I'm here, I need help. Interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2, on 09/03/2020 at 1:35 PM, revealed Resident #39 is incontinent and it takes ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes, sometimes longer to answer a call light. CNA #2 stated, this could cause a resident to be incontinent if staff is not there to assist the resident with toileting. 2. Record review revealed the facility readmitted Resident #52, on 01/28/2020 with diagnoses, which included Parkinson's, Diabetes, and Morbid Obesity due to Excess Calories. Review of the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the facility assessed Resident #52's cognition as intact with a BIMS score of fifteen (15) which indicated the resident was interviewable. Further review of the MDS, Section G: Functional Status, revealed the facility assessed Resident #52 required extensive assistant of two (2) or more staff with personal hygiene. Observations on 09/01/20 at 10:58 AM and 09/03/20 at 8:18 AM, revealed Resident #52 had facial hair with a mustache on upper lip. Interview with Resident #52, on 09/01/2020 at 10:58 AM, revealed the resident stated I used to shave myself but unable too now. When I ask staff to shave me, I'm told they're too busy. I don't like for the hair to grow out on my face. I tell them to shave me when I get my shower which is scheduled twice a week; however, I choose to only take one a week at most times. Interview with CNA #2, on 09/03/2020 at 1:35 PM, revealed she was not aware Resident #52 wanted to be shaved on days he/she did not take a shower. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/04/2020 at 11:15 AM, revealed she expected Resident #39 to notify staff of any concerns related to dignity issues if staff is involved. The DON stated she expected Resident #52's facial hair, including mustache to be shaved at the resident's request to enhance the resident's dignity.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the h...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents, for one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents (Resident #45). Observations revealed Resident #45's call light was not accessible to him/her. The findings include: Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/04/2020 at 11:03 AM, revealed the facility did not have a policy directly related to call lights. She stated the facility followed state and federal guidelines related to resident accommodations. Record review revealed the facility readmitted Resident #45 on 04/16/2020 with diagnoses which included Major Depressive Disorder and Heart Failure. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/07/2020, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight (8), which indicated the resident was interviewable. Further review of the MDS revealed the resident required extensive assist for activities of daily living (ADLs). Observation, on 09/01/2020 at 9:53 AM, 10:35 AM, and 12:01 PM, revealed Resident #45 was sitting up in his/her wheelchair, with a bedside table in front of him/her and at 12:01 PM voiced concerns of a need for pain medication to the surveyor. Further observation revealed the call light was wrapped around the bed rail, was not in his/her reach and he/she was unable to call for assistance. Interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #17, on 09/04/2020 at 8:35 AM, revealed Resident #45's call light should have been within his/her reach, either clipped to his/her clothing or within reach and not wrapped around the bed rail. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5, on 09/04/2020 at 8:26 AM, revealed she expected the aides to put the call light within Resident #45's reach when he/she is out of bed, possibly clipped to his/her clothing. LPN #5 stated Resident #45 is able to use the call light to ask for assistance. Further interview with the DON, on 09/04/2020 at 11:03 AM, revealed her expectations were that all residents had access to the call light and it was everyone's responsibility to ensure the call lights were accessible to residents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to provide housekeeping services necessary to maintain a clean, comfortable, and homelike interior in two (2) of fourteen (14) residents' rooms on the one-hundred (100) hall. Observations, of rooms #113-B and 117-A, on 09/01/2020 and 09/02/2020, revealed debris and dried matter on the floors. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Resident Rights, not dated, revealed the resident had a right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely. Review of the facility policy, 5-Step Daily Room Cleaning, not dated, revealed the entire accessible flooring area of resident rooms needed to be dust mopped and damp mopped, ensuring the floor area under the bed was also cleaned. 1. Observations of room [ROOM NUMBER]-B, on 09/01/20 at 12:07 PM, revealed the floor was covered with scattered paper debris, dried brown stain, and food wrappers. Further observations of room [ROOM NUMBER]-B on 09/02/2020 at 9:19 AM, revealed the same debris on the floor. Observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]-A on 09/01/2020 at 3:15 PM, revealed food crumbs on the floor, dried spill and a pair of medical gloves on the floor under the bed. Telephone interview with Housekeeper #1, on 09/03/20 at 4:28 PM, revealed he had worked the one-hundred (100) hall, on 09/01/2020, and stated he had cleaned room [ROOM NUMBER] but when he attempted to clean room [ROOM NUMBER], the resident was unpleasant, cursed and asked me to get out. Housekeeper #1 further stated he was unable to clean the room at that time. He stated he was called into assist the facility with housekeeping services and was just there to help out from his usual facility. He stated he was not familiar with the residents or certified nurse aides on duty but should have asked for assistance in distracting or redirecting the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Housekeeper #1 further stated he failed to make his supervisor aware he did not complete his duties. Interview with the Housekeeping Supervisor, on 09/03/20 at 3:08 PM, revealed resident rooms were cleaned daily and housekeeping staff were in the building seven days a week, on day shift. She stated after housekeeping left the certified nurse aides were responsible for cleaning up spills or large debris from the floor. The housekeeping supervisor further revealed if staff were unable to clean a residents room they should make her aware so other arrangements could be made to ensure the room was cleaned.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of facility investigation, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to conduct interviews with staff who worked with the alleged perpetrator or might have knowledge of the incident related to an allegation of abuse to ensure a thorough investigation was completed for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #2). The findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Abuse Investigations last revised April 2010, revealed a completed copy of documentation forms and written statements from witnesses, if any, must be provided to the Administration. Individuals conducting the interviews of the allegation will at a minimum interview any witnesses to the incident, the resident, the attending physician, all staff members (on all shifts) who have had contact with the resident during the period of alleged incident. Witness reports will be obtained in writing, and witnesses will be required to sign and date such reports. Review of a facility policy titled, Abuse Prohibitions Standard of Practice, last revised March 2019, revealed investigations should include interviews of all involved persons, including alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses, and others who might have knowledge of the allegations with information documented. Record review reveals Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Disorganized Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorder, and Need for Assistance with Personal Care. Review of the facility investigation provided by the Administrator concerning Resident #2's allegation that Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #3 was mean to the resident revealed there was documented interviews conducted with CNA #3, a Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA), and interviewable residents with a BIMS greater than (8) eight. However, there was no documented evidence any staff who worked with the alleged perpetrator were interviewed to see if they were aware of the CNA being mean to any residents. Interview with facility Administrator dated 09/15/2020 at 3:45 PM revealed she had questioned other staff concerning allegation of Resident #2 but that she had not documented anything regarding the interviews.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

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 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 User Manual, it was determ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 User Manual, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents received an accurate assessment, reflective of the resident's status at the time of the assessment (Resident #18). The facility inaccurately coded Resident #18's Section E of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment as a 1, indicating Resident #18's behavior had improved as compared to the previous assessment when there was no previous assessment. The findings include: Review of the RAI Version 3.0 User Manual on Coding instructions for E1100, Changes in Behavior or Other Symptoms, revealed prior to coding in this section all of the symptoms assessed in items E0100 through E 1000 should be considered. Further review of the instructions for Section E1100 revealed a 3 should be coded if there was no prior MDS assessment for comparison. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #18, from an acute hospital on [DATE], with diagnoses, which included Morbid Obesity and Peritoneal Abscess. Review of Resident #18's admission MDS Assessment, dated 06/25/2020, revealed Section E1100 was coded 1, indicating the residents behaviors had improved. However, there was no prior MDS assessment for comparison. Interview with the MDS Coordinator,on 09/03/2020 at 2:44 PM, revealed the previous Social Services Director (SSD) had made an error when coding Resident #18''s behaviors as improved as it should have been coded as three (3) because there was no prior assessment for comparison. She stated she used the RAI manual for instructions on completing the MDS assessments for residents. Telephone interview with the previous SSD,on 09/04/2020 at 8:17 AM, revealed she must have made an error when coding the MDS assessment because if there was no previous assessment for comparison a 3 should be marked as indicated. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/04/2020 at 11:03 AM, revealed she expected the MDS Coordinator to code resident assessments per the RAI manual.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy and procedure, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. On 09/02/2020, observation of medication room refrigerator revealed a medication vial with an open date of 07/17/2020, was still available for use. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medications, not dated, revealed the facility shall not use outdated drugs or biological's and all such drugs shall be returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. Observation of the refrigerator in the 300 hall Medication Room, on 09/02/2020 at 4:17 PM, revealed one (1) vial of Tubersol (tuberculin protein derivative) solution, dated opened on 07/17/2020 which was expired due to being opened more than thirty (30) days prior. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7, on 09/02/2020 at 4:23 PM, revealed the vial of Tubersol should have been discarded because it expired thirty (30) days after opening. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/04/2020 at 11:09 AM, revealed she expected the nurses to discard expired medications such as Tubersol because the solution expired thirty (30) days after opening.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, dietary meal slip review, and facility policy review, it was determined the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, dietary meal slip review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to honor one (1) of twenty (20) sampled residents meal preferences (Resident #52). The facility identified Resident #52 disliked green beans, green peas, spinach, and greens; however, served the resident lima beans, on 09/01/2020. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Food Preferences, not dated, revealed nutritional assessments would include an evaluation of individual food preferences. The Dietician would discuss resident food preferences with the resident when such preferences conflict with a prescribed diet. The residents clinical record (orders, care plan, or other appropriate locations) would document the resident's likes and dislikes and special dietary instructions or limitations such as altered food consistency and caloric restrictions. Record review revealed the facility readmitted Resident #52 on 01/28/2020 with diagnoses which included Hypothyroidism, Parkinson's, Diabetes, Hypertension, Hyperlipidemia, Non-Rheumatic Mitral Valve Insufficiency, and Morbid Obesity due to Excess Calories. Review of the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident as cognitively intact with a BIMS score of fifteen (15) which indicates the resident was interviewable. Observation of Lunch meal, on 09/01/2020 at 12:06 PM, revealed Resident #52 was served his/her meal in his/her room which consisted of Hamburgers, Tater Tots, and Lima Beans. However, review of Resident #52's dietary meal slip revealed in capitalized letters **NO GREENS, **NO SPINACH, **NO GREEN BEANS, **NO GREEN PEAS. Interview with Resident #52 on 09/01/2020 at 12:45 PM revealed the resident stated they know I do not like any green vegetables, I'm not eating any green beans or green vegetables. Observation revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 set up the resident's tray. Further observation revealed Resident #52 did not eat the Lima Beans and was not offered an alternative choice. Interview CNA #2, on 09/03/2020 at 1:35 PM, revealed Dietary was supposed to ensure trays were accurate and honored likes and dislikes. She stated staff serving the resident's meal was supposed to also check prior to delivering tray to resident. She stated I looked at the slip to ensure the resident received the appropriate tray and diet but I did not identify lima beans as green beans or offer the resident an alternative choice. Interview with the Dietary Account Manager, on 09/03/2020 at 2:20 PM, revealed he would expect dietary and the staff member serving the resident's tray to identify if the resident would eat lima beans. Interview revealed if the resident's dietary meal slip listed **NO GREEN BEANS** staff should offer the resident an alternate, not lima beans. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 09/04/2020 at 11:15 AM revealed if Resident #52's dietary meal slip likes/dislikes listed **NO GREEN BEANS** she would expect staff tp offer the resident an alternate, and not serve lima beans.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #372 on 08/15/2020, with diagnoses which included Myoneural Disorder, E...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #372 on 08/15/2020, with diagnoses which included Myoneural Disorder, Extrapyramidal and Movement Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Unspecified Open-Angle Glaucoma, Severe Stage. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/22/2020, revealed the facility assessed #372's cognition as severely impaired with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of zero (0) which indicated the resident was not interviewable. Review of Resident #372's Dietary Meal Slip revealed the resident required a red divided plate, and black foam handled utensils However, observation on 08/17/2020 at approximately 5:50 PM revealed the resident had a regular plate instead of divided plate; and on 09/01/2020 at 12:15 PM; 09/02/2020 at 8:20 AM and 5:10 PM; and 09/03/2020 at 8:30 AM, revealed Resident #372 feeding himself/herself with regular utensils. There was no black foam built up spoon and fork on the resident's meal tray. Interview with CNA #2 on 09/04/2020 at 10:20 AM, revealed Dietary is responsible to ensure adaptive equipment is on the resident's meal tray and staff that serve the resident's tray is responsible to make sure the meal tray matches the dietary meal slip. CNA #2 stated she could not remember who served the resident breakfast and lunch tray on the dates and times listed. Interview with Unit Manager #3 on 08/17/2020 at 5:06 PM revealed dietary checks meal tickets in kitchen to ensure tray contain adaptive equipment when tray prepared, and the CNA's check the meal ticket with tray prior to providing tray to resident to ensure correct. Interview with the Dietary Account Manager on 09/03/2020 at 2:20 PM, revealed Dietary staff receive orders from therapy and/or nursing staff for a resident to have adaptive equipment. She stated if a residents dietary meal slip has adaptive equipment listed, he would expect dietary and the staff that served the resident's tray to ensure utensils were available for the resident to use. Interview with the DON on 09/04/2020 at 11:15 AM, revealed residents with adaptive equipment listed on their meal card should have utensils available for eating and drinking. She stated she expected dietary and staff serving meal tray to follow the listed items on the meal slip. Based on observation, interview, record review, and Dietary Meal Slip review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure adaptive equipment was provided to two (2) of twenty (20) sampled residents (Resident #36 and Resident #372). Observations revealed the facility failed to provide a black-foam built up utensils for Resident #372 and double handed cup for Resident #36. The findings include: Interview with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) on 09/04/2020 at 8:40 AM revealed there is no policy for adaptive equipment. 1. Record review revealed Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Hypothyroidism, Alzheimer's Disease, Carotid Artery Syndrome, Hyperlipidemia, and Diabetes. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed the resident's cognition as severely impaired with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of two (2) which indicated the resident was not interviewable. Review of Resident #36's Dietary Meal Slip, dated 12/02/19 revealed resident to have handled cup with lid, divided dish, and built up utensils. However, observation of the supper meal in dining room on 08/17/2020 at approximately 5:30 PM revealed Resident #36's tray did not have a double handled cup per meal slip requirement. Interview on 08/17/2020 at approximately 5:35 PM and on 08/18/2020 at approximately 12:35 PM with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #4 revealed the meal ticket did say double handled cup and asked another CNA to bring the cup. Additionally, CNA #4 stated that the tray should have everything resident needs and that it should be checked in the kitchen.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, facility menu review, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to follow the standardized four (4) week cycle menus as determined by menu c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, facility menu review, and review of facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to follow the standardized four (4) week cycle menus as determined by menu changes not assessed by the Dietitian for prior approval. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Menus, not dated, revealed facility menus were planned in advance to meet the nutritional need of Residents in accordance with established national guidelines. Menus would be developed to meet the criteria through the use of an approved menu planning guide. A Registered Dietitian/Nutritionist (RDN) or other clinically qualified nutritional professional reviews and approved the menus. The RDN or other clinically qualified nutrition professional would adjust the individual meal plan to meet the individual requests including cultural, religious, or ethnic preferences, as appropriate. Review of the facility menus titled, Week-AT-A-Glance Southern 2020, week 1 through week 4, not dated, revealed the menus were not followed. The posted weekly menu for the last weekend of August 2020 and the first week of September 2020 did not correspond to any of the standardized four (4) cycle menus. Further review and comparison of the weekly-posted menu with the standardized four (4) week cycle menus revealed the individual menu's food items changed or were removed from the original standardized menu. Observation on 09/01/2020 at 4:00 PM, of the posted weekly menu, revealed the menu did not appear within the current set of four (4) week cycle menus. Interview on 09/02/2020 at 3:50 PM, with Account Manager, revealed she followed the menus, however, she wrote out the menu for the week. She stated she discussed substitutions with the dietitian and she selected, each meal from the four (4) week cycle menus, to create her own weekly menu. She continued to reveal she selected some menus from week four (4) and some menus from the other weeks to create the current weekly posted menu. Interview on 09/02/2020 at 2:30 PM, with the Registered Dietitian, Licensed Dietitian (RD) (LD) revealed she had instructed the account manager concerning substitutions. She stated she was not aware the Account Manager was creating her own menu from the four (4) week cycle menus. She further revealed the Account manager needed RD approval for any changes to the menu prior to posting the menu for the week. She stated she expected the cycle menus to be followed and there to be prior approval by the RD for any changes. Interview on 09/04/2020 at 10:55 AM,with Administration, revealed she expected the menus to be followed and any changes pre-approved by the dietitian.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, it was determined the facility failed to prepare food under sanitary conditions. Observation during initial kitchen tour revealed dusty ceiling vents over the produ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined the facility failed to prepare food under sanitary conditions. Observation during initial kitchen tour revealed dusty ceiling vents over the production area. The findings include: Observation on 09/01/2020 at 9:59 AM, during the initial kitchen tour revealed a build up of dust on the air vents over the production area. Interview on 09/04/2020 at 9:15 AM, with Certified Dietary Manager, revealed the maintenance department was responsible for cleaning the kitchen ceiling air vents. Interview on 09/03/2020 at 4:50 PM, with Maintenance, revealed maintenance was not responsible for cleaning the kitchen ceiling air vents. Interview on 09/04/2020 at 10:55 AM, with Administration, revealed maintenance dusted the high ceiling areas and dietary dusted the lower areas of the ceiling that were in reach.
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 facility's policies/procedures, and review of the Centers for Dise...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the facility's policies/procedures, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, it was determined the facility failed to prevent the possible spread of COVID-19. Observations revealed personal protective equipment (PPE) was not available on hall, and multiple staff failed to don PPE prior to entering residents' rooms who were on isolation precautions (due to being newly admitted and/or possibly exposed to COVID-19). In addition, one staff failed to remove PPE prior to exiting resident room. The findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Policy and Procedure: Subject: Novel Coronavirus (2020-nCoV), last revised 03/25/2020, revealed Coronavirus were a large family of viruses that were common in people. The incubation time was 2-14 days and the virus could be transmitted from asymptomatic patients. The length of time the virus could live on surfaces was not clear at present. The facility would conduct education, surveillance and infection control and prevention strategies to reduce the risk of transmission of the virus. The facility would implement actions according to CDC, DOH, and the World Health Organization Review of facility policy titled, Isolation- Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions, not dated, revealed Droplet Precautions may be implemented for an individual documented or suspected to be infected with microorganisms transmitted by droplets (generated by cough/sneeze/talking). Masks would be worn when entering the room and gloves, gown, and goggles should be worn if there was a risk of spraying respiratory secretions. Review of facility inservice records dated 03/16/2020, provided by Staff Development Coordinator SDC/Infection Control Nurse (IFC) revealed staff were educated per CDC guidelines of removal of PPE (including gown) before exiting resident rooms. Further review revealed they were educated the type of PPE would vary based on level of precautions required, with instruction for donning of gown, gloves, mask, goggles, respirator or shield provided. Review of the CDC Preparing for COVID-19 in Nursing Homes, guidance, updated 06/25/2020, revealed HCP (Health Care Professional) should wear N95 or higher level respirator, eye protection (goggles or a face shield that covered the front and sides of the face), gloves, and gown when caring for these residents. 1. Tour with SDC/Infection Control Nurse on 08/17/2020 at approximately 4:00 PM, revealed bins on hall 300 with no PPE supplies for isolation rooms. Observation of isolation room [ROOM NUMBER] on 200 hall, revealed there was no PPE available for staff to provide care to residents in room. Interview on 08/17/2020 at 4:00 PM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, revealed the bins on the hall did not have needed PPE in them for staff to provide care to the residents on isolation. Interview on 08/17/2020 at 3:58 PM, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #7, revealed there were no gowns on the hall available for use. Interview on 08/18/2020 at 4:08 PM, with LPN #3, revealed the IFC/SDC was responsible to put the gowns in the bins. LPN #3 stated there were no gowns in bin at Isolation room [ROOM NUMBER], and she had to go all the way up to room [ROOM NUMBER] to obtain the gowns. Interview on 08/17/2020 with Staff Development Coordinator/Infection Control Nurse (ICN) at 4:13 PM, 4:25 PM at 5:15 PM, revealed the isolation rooms were supposed to have the required PPE (gown/gloves/masks) in the bins at each room. She stated she needed to educate the staff that when they run out they need to get some from the nurses. She stated Central Supply (CS) was responsible for ensuring PPE was available in the bins. Interview on 08/18/2020 at 3:45 PM with CS revealed she had not been told and did not know she was responsible to put PPE (gowns/goggles/mask) in the supply bins at the isolation rooms. 2. Observation of signs posted at isolation rooms on 300 hall, on 08/17/2020 at 3:45 PM revealed gown, gloves and mask required related to droplet precautions. Observation on 08/17/2020 at 5:30 PM, revealed CNA #5 exited room [ROOM NUMBER] (Resident #41{dialysis Resident on isolation}) with gown on and untied and carrying supper tray. CNA #5 then went to meal cart and placed meal tray on cart. Interview on 08/17/2020 at 5:30 PM with CNA #5, revealed she should have taken gown off in room before coming into the hallway. 3. Observation on 08/24/2020 at 11:40 AM, revealed Maintenance Director in room [ROOM NUMBER] not wearing any PPE and resident in room. The Maintenance Director was observed leaning over and touching bed while addressing plug in and attempting to plug in a cord to the socket and touching the A/C Unit in room. Interview on 08/24/2020 at 3:10 PM, with Maintenance Director revealed he had not thought about wearing PPE when coming into contact with the bed of resident, while checking his/her air conditioner and plug ins. 4. Observation on 08/17/2020 at approximately 5:50 PM, revealed CNA #5 sitting in a resident room with (2) new Residents (Resident #370 and #372) who were new admits and persons under investigation (PUI) for exposure to COVID-19) with no gown on feeding Resident #370. In addition, there was no sign on the door to indicate the residents were on isolation or gloves, gown, and masks were required. Interview with CNA #5, on 08/17/2020 at 5:15 PM and on 09/01/2020 at 5:15 PM, revealed there was no PPE available and that the residents were admitted over the weekend. In addition, there was not a sign on the door, but they were on isolation because they were new admits. Observation on 08/24/2020 at 5:17 PM, revealed CNA #4 and CNA #6 exited Resident #370's and #372's room carrying a meal tray with no gloves or gown on while in room. Interviews with CNA #4, on 08/24/2020 at approximately 5:20 PM, revealed they had fed Resident #370, and did not wear gloves or gown while in room. Interview with CNA #6, on 08/27/2020 at 10:08 AM, revealed she did not realize she needed to wear gloves and gown while in the room providing direct care. She stated the facility did not communicate needed information, and the sign was not there and no one had told her to wear PPE in that room. Observation on 08/24/2020 at approximately 11:40 AM, revealed Physical Therapist (PT) #1 was helping Resident #370 in bathroom for continent care and was not wearing the appropriate PPE. Interview on 09/24/2020, at approximately 11:45 AM with Physical Therapist #1, revealed that he had been in the room helping Resident #370 with bathroom care and was not wearing any PPE at the time. Observation on 08/18/2020 at approximately 4:29 PM, revealed CNA #7 in Resident #370's and #372's room without gown on while in room. Interview on 08/18/2020 at approximately 4:20 PM, with CNA #7, revealed that she should have put a gown on prior to going into a resident's room due to the resident being on isolation precautions. Interview on 08/18/2020 at approximately 4:29 PM with LPN # 3, revealed staff should put a gown on prior to entering Resident #370's and #372's room. Interview on 09/01/2020 at approximately 4:05 PM, with LPN #4, revealed staff was to wear gown, gloves, and mask when going into a room, and the PPE should be taken prior to exiting room. In addition, supplies should be available in the bins for staff to wear in rooms. Interview on 08/24/2020 at 11:55 AM with DON revealed if staff was providing direct patient care staff needed to wear PPE. Interview on 08/18/2020 at 5:15 PM, with Administrator revealed there was no need for staff to wear gowns unless there was potential for staff to come in contact with body fluids, such as doing incontinent care, or come into contact with residents. 5. Observations on 09/02/2020 at 8:13 AM, revealed signage on Resident #21's room indicating isolation and PPE outside the resident's doorway. LPN #7 entered Resident #21's isolation room without donning the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to provide care to the resident. Further observation revealed LPN #7 standing over Resident #21 and administering medications. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7, on 09/02/2020 at 8:15 AM, revealed she should have taken appropriate precautions to include the use of goggles and gloves when administering medications to residents on the isolation unit. LPN #7 further stated the resident was on droplet precautions and wearing the PPE keeps staff and residents safe. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 09/04/2020 at 11:23 AM, revealed she expected staff to follow the CDC guidelines and facility policy when providing care to residents on the isolation unit. The DON further stated signs are posted outside the door and PPE is available for staff.
Jul 2019 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

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 policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a bed-hold...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a bed-hold notice was provided for two (2) of eighteen (18) sampled residents (Residents #62 and #52). Residents #62 and #52 were transferred to the hospital; however, the facility failed to provide written bed hold information to the residents/responsible parties per facility policy. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Holds and Returns Standard of Practices, last revised November 2017, revealed prior to transferring a resident to the hospital or if the resident goes on therapeutic leave, the facility will provide written information to the resident and/or the resident/representative regarding the bed hold and return standard of practice. The facility will follow Federal and State specific requirements for bed holds and returns. The current bed hold and return policy established by the State (if applicable) will apply to all residents in the facility. 1. Record review revealed the facility transferred Resident #52 to the hospital on [DATE] and he/she returned on 06/09/19; however, further review of the record revealed there was no documented evidence the facility provided written information related to bed hold to the resident/representative per facility policy. 2. Record review revealed the facility transferred Resident #62 to the hospital from the wound care center on 03/26/19 and he/she returned on 04/01/19; however, further review of the record revealed there was no documented evidence the facility provided written information related to bed hold to the resident/representative per facility policy. Interview with the Assistant Business Office Manager, on 07/10/19 at 2:03 PM, revealed the Business Office Manager was not available. She stated bed holds were not being issued to the resident or responsible party and she was not able to provide a bed hold for either of the residents. She revealed it was a failure by the business office as well as nursing, as nursing was supposed to tell them when a resident went out to the hospital. She stated orders may be discussed in the morning meeting; however, she does not attend the morning meetings. Interview with the Administrator, on 07/11/19 at 1:04 PM, revealed it was the responsibility of the Business Office to complete the bed holds; however, it was not done, and he expected the written bed hold information to be provided in the future, according to the facility's policy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to administer medications according to accepted standards of clinical practice for one (1) of eighteen (18) sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to administer medications according to accepted standards of clinical practice for one (1) of eighteen (18) sampled residents (Resident #58). Resident #58 had a Physician Order to receive Aspirin 81 mg by mouth every day, and Tylenol 325 mg two (2) by mouth as needed for pain or fever. However, the nurse failed to administer the medication per Physician's Order and left cups with the Aspirin and Tylenol in them on the resident's bedside table. The findings include: Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #58 on 08/29/18 with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), repeated falls, and Vertigo. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/17/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #58's cognition as intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of twelve (12), which indicated the resident was interviewable. Review of the July 2019 Physician Orders revealed to administer Aspirin 81 mg by mouth, one tablet every day; and Tylenol 325 mg tablet, two by mouth as needed for pain or fever. However, observations, on 07/09/19 at 12:55 PM and 2:50 PM, and on 07/11/19 at 1:15 PM, revealed two (2) clear medication cups sitting on the resident's over bed table. Observation of the top cup revealed a round white tablet and the bottom cup with a small round yellow tablet. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, on 07/11/19 at 9:16 AM, and observation of Resident #58's medications in the medication cart revealed a small round yellow tablet (Aspirin 81 milligrams) and a round white table (Tylenol 325 mg tablet), given as needed. Interview with the Unit Manager (UM), on 07/11/19 at 10:38 AM, revealed she was late coming to work on 07/09/19 and the night nurse stayed over for her and gave the medication to the residents prior to her coming to work. She stated she expected staff when giving medications to take the medication to the resident and not leave the room until taken; and, if the resident refused medication, they were to remove the medication from the room and notify the physician. She further revealed, nurses were to follow the physician's orders as written. Three attempts were made to contact RN #4 on 07/11/19 at 10:45 AM, 07/11/19 at 11:48 AM and 07/11/19 at 3:10 PM with no success. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 07/11/19 at 10:00 AM, revealed in regards to medication administration she expected the nurse to follow policies and Physician Orders. as written.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biological's used in the facility were labeled in accordance with curren...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure drugs and biological's used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, to include the date opened for one (1) multi-dose vial, in one (1) of three (3) medication carts. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Administering Medications, last revised April 2010, revealed when a multi-dose vial was opened, the date would be recorded on the container. Observation of one (1) of three (3) medication/treatment carts, on 07/10/19 at 10:35 AM, revealed one (1) insulin pen of Triseba Insulin, not dated when opened. Interviews on 07/11/19 with Unit Manager (UM) #1 at 10:27 AM, UM #2 at 10:42 AM, and the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) at 10:25 AM, revealed they expected staff to write the date on the multi-dose vial of medication when opened. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 07/11/19 at 10:18 AM, revealed she expected multi-dose vials of medications to be dated when opened.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a safe, environment for one (1) of eighteen (18) sampled residents (Resident #58). Observation, in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a safe, environment for one (1) of eighteen (18) sampled residents (Resident #58). Observation, in Resident #58's room, revealed two (2) medication cups stacked upon each other with a white round pill in a cup and a small yellow round pill in a cup. No staff were in the room. Interview on 7/12/19 at 10:00 AM with the Director of Nursing revealed there were wanderers in the facility with two wanderers on the hall with Resident #58. The findings include: Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #58 on 08/29/18 with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), repeated falls, and Vertigo. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/17/19, revealed the facility assessed Resident #58's cognition as intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of twelve (12), which indicated the resident was interviewable. Observation on 07/09/19 at 12:55 PM and 2:50 PM revealed two (2) medication cups on the over the bed table with a pill in each one. Observation on 07/11/19 at 1:15 PM revealed two clear medication cups sitting on Resident #58's overbed table. The top cup revealed a round white tablet and the bottom cup a small round yellow tablet. Interview with the resident during observation revealed the round tablet was a Tylenol; however she did not know the identity of the small yellow tablet. She revealed she had a headache earlier and the tablet was brought to her. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 on 07/11/19 at 9:16 AM and observation of the medications that are given to Resident #58 daily revealed a small round yellow tablet (Aspirin 81 milligrams {mg}) and round white table (Tylenol 325 mg tablet). LPN #1 stated when she gives medication, she does not leave the room until the resident takes the medication. She revealed if the resident refuses the medication, the medication is removed and wasted. She revealed she would never leave medications in a room. Interview with the Unit Manager on 07/11/19 10:38 AM revealed she was late coming to work on 07/09/19 and Registered Nurse (RN) #4 stayed over to give medications. She stated RN #4 would have given Resident #58 his/her medications prior to her coming into work. The Unit Manager revealed she expected staff to take the medications to the resident and not to leave until taken. She stated if resident refuses medications then the medications should be removed from the room and staff should notify the Physician. She revealed if a nurse finds medications not given in a room, the he/she should remove the medications, waste them, and investigate as to why they were not given. Three attempts were made to contact RN #4 on 07/11/19 at 10:45 AM, 07/11/19 at 11:48 AM and 07/11/19 at 3:10 PM with no success. Interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/11/19 at 10:00 AM revealed she expected nurses to give medications and never leave medications in the resident's room. She stated if the resident refuses, then medications should be removed from the room.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • $1,398 in fines. Lower than most Kentucky facilities. Relatively clean record.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 29 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 63% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is River Haven's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns RIVER HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Kentucky, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is River Haven Staffed?

CMS rates RIVER HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 63%, which is 17 percentage points above the Kentucky average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at River Haven?

State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at RIVER HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2019 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 26 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates River Haven?

RIVER HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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 BENJAMIN LANDA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 103 certified beds and approximately 77 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PADUCAH, Kentucky.

How Does River Haven Compare to Other Kentucky Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Kentucky, RIVER HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (63%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting River Haven?

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

Is River Haven Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, RIVER HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Kentucky. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at River Haven Stick Around?

Staff turnover at RIVER HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 63%, the facility is 17 percentage points above the Kentucky average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 67%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was River Haven Ever Fined?

RIVER HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $1,398 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Kentucky average of $33,093. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is River Haven on Any Federal Watch List?

RIVER HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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.