SAGE REHABILITATION HOSPITAL SNF

8000 SUMMA AVENUE, BATON ROUGE, LA 70809 (225) 819-0703
For profit - Individual 25 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
2/100
#156 of 264 in LA
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Sage Rehabilitation Hospital SNF has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #156 out of 264 facilities in Louisiana, placing it in the bottom half, and #11 out of 25 in East Baton Rouge County, meaning only ten local options are better. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2023 to 10 in 2024. Staffing is a strength, earning a 5/5 star rating, although the turnover rate is average at 54%. While there have been no fines, which is a positive sign, there are serious concerns regarding infection control; critical incidents included failures to screen employees for COVID-19 and ensure proper safety protocols, which put residents at risk during an outbreak. Overall, while the staffing quality is excellent, the facility faces major challenges in health and safety protocols.

Trust Score
F
2/100
In Louisiana
#156/264
Bottom 41%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 10 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
54% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Louisiana facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 100 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Louisiana nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 3 issues
2024: 10 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Near Louisiana average (2.4)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 54%

Near Louisiana avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record

4 life-threatening
Oct 2024 5 deficiencies
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's discharge assessment accurately reflected the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's discharge assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 1 (#16) residents reviewed for MDS. Findings: Review of Resident #16's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #16's discharge MDS with an ARD of 05/23/2024 revealed the following: Section A0410: 2. Unit is neither Medicare nor Medicaid certified On 10/29/2024 at 2:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with S6MDS. She reviewed Resident #16's discharge MDS and stated Section A0410 was coded incorrectly. She confirmed the MDS should have been coded as number 3, Unit is Medicare and/or Medicaid certified, to accurately reflect Resident #16's discharge status. On 10/29/2024 at 2:25 p.m., an interview was conducted with S7MDS. She reviewed Resident #16's discharge MDS and stated Section A0410 was coded incorrectly. She confirmed the MDS should have been coded as number 3, Unit is Medicare and/or Medicaid certified, to accurately reflect Resident #16's discharge status. On 10/29/2024 at 2:30 p.m. an interview was conducted with S1ADM. He reviewed Resident #16's discharge MDS and confirmed Section A0410 was coded incorrectly. He confirmed the MDS should have been coded as number 3, Unit is Medicare and/or Medicaid certified, to accurately reflect Resident #16's discharge status.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control progra...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of infection for 1 (#25) of 3 (#25, #129, and #179) residents reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure staff wore proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while providing a dressing change to an indwelling medical device for a resident who was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions revised on 03/2024, revealed the following, in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to implement enhanced barrier precautions for the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms. Enhanced Barrier Precautions refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and gloves use during high contact resident care activities. 2. Initiation of Enhanced Barrier Precautions: a.ii. Indwelling medical devices (central lines) even if the resident is not known to be infected or colonized with a MDRO. 3.b. High-contact resident care activities include: Device care or use (central line) Review of Resident #25's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Cervical Spine Osteomyelitis. An observation was made on 10/28/2024 at 10:34 a.m. of the Enhanced Barrier Precautions sign posted on Resident #25's door which revealed the following, in part: Providers and staff must also: Wear gloves and a gown for the following high-contact resident care activities. Device care or use: central line. An observation was made on 10/28/2024 at 10:35 a.m. of S5RN performing a PICC line dressing change for Resident #25. S5RN did not wear a gown while performing Resident #25's central line dressing change. An interview was conducted on 10/29/2024 at 2:34 p.m. with S3ADON. S3ADON confirmed when a resident was on EBPs, staff should wear a gown while performing a PICC line dressing change. An interview was conducted on 10/29/2024 at 2:33 p.m. with S2DON. S2DON confirmed when a resident was on EBPs, staff should wear a gown while performing a central line dressing change.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0575 (Tag F0575)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of pertinent state agencies and advocacy groups, such as the State Survey Agency, the State ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of pertinent state agencies and advocacy groups, such as the State Survey Agency, the State licensure office, adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities, the protection and advocacy network, home and community based service programs, and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. Findings: On 10/28/2024 at 8:40 a.m., an observation of the facility revealed no list of names, addresses (mailing and email), and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups, such as the State Survey Agency, the State licensure office, adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities, the protection and advocacy network, home and community based service programs, and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. On 10/29/24 at 9:56 a.m., a tour of the facility was conducted with S1ADM. He confirmed a list of names, addresses (mailing and email), and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups, such as the State Survey Agency, the State licensure office, adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities, the protection and advocacy network, home and community based service programs, and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit was not posted in the facility.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the results of the most recent survey was posted in a place readily accessible to residents, and family members and legal representa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the results of the most recent survey was posted in a place readily accessible to residents, and family members and legal representatives of residents. Findings: On 10/28/2024 at 8:40 a.m., an observation was made of the facility. There was no facility binder available with survey results observed. On 10/28/2024 at 10:00 a.m., an observation was made of the facility. There was no facility binder available with survey results observed. On 10/28/24 at 1:03 p.m., a tour of the facility was conducted with S2DON. She could not locate the survey results binder at that time. She stated there was a holder on the wall where the binder was located, but it was no longer there. On 10/29/24 at 9:39 a.m., an interview was conducted with S4US. She stated the 'survey results binder was located behind the nurse's station. S4US pulled a binder from behind the nurse's station which was labeled SNF Survey Results. On 10/29/24 at 9:50 a.m., an interview with conducted with S1ADM. He confirmed he was aware the survey results binder should be readily accessible for residents and/or their family members to view. He stated there was a holder on the wall where the binder was located, but it was no longer there. He confirmed if the survey results binder was behind the nurse's station, it was not readily accessible to residents and/or their family members.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing data was posted daily in a prominent location readily accessible to residents and visitors. This defici...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing data was posted daily in a prominent location readily accessible to residents and visitors. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 15 residents residing in the facility. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Nurse Staffing Posting Information revised on 06/2024, revealed the following: Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The Nurse Staffing Sheet will be posted on a daily basis and will contain the following information: a. Facility name b. The current date c. Facility's current resident census d. The total number and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift: i. Registered Nurses ii. Licensed Practical Nurses/Licensed Vocational Nurses iii. Certified Nurse Aides 2. The facility will post the Nurse Staffing Sheet at the beginning of each shift. 3. The information posted will be: b. In a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. An observation was made on 10/28/2024 at 8:35 a.m. of the facility. No staffing data sheets were observed. An interview was conducted on 10/28/2024 at 1:00 p.m. with S2DON. She stated the facility did not post daily staffing data sheets in a prominent location readily accessible to residents and visitors. An interview was conducted on 10/29/2024 at 9:56 a.m. with S1ADM. He was notified of the above observation. He confirmed nurse staffing data was not posted daily in a prominent location readily accessible to residents and visitors.
Oct 2024 5 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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure alleged violations involving sexual abuse were reported to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure alleged violations involving sexual abuse were reported to the state survey agency within 2 hours after the allegations were made for 1 (#1) of 2 (#1 and #2) residents reviewed for abuse. Findings: Review of the facility's Compliance with Reporting Allegations of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation policy, revised 08/2022, revealed, in part, the following: Policy: It is the policy of the facility to report all allegations of abuse to other appropriate agencies in accordance with current state and federal regulations within prescribed timeframes. Compliance Guidelines: 4. Identification: b. Abuse: ii. Sexual Abuse is the non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. 8. Reporting/Response: The facility will report all alleged violations . to the state agency . Procedure for Response and Reporting Allegations of Abuse: 2. The Administrator or Designee will: a. Notify the appropriate agencies immediately . Resident #1 Review of Resident #1's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed Resident #1 was discharged from the facility on 08/23/2024. Review of Resident #1's Discharge MDS, with an ARD of 08/23/2024, indicated the resident had a BIMS of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the facility's Grievance Log, dated 08/01/2024 through 10/08/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/12/2024 - Resident #1 reported to S4NP she was raped overnight. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 10:40 a.m. with S4NP. S4NP confirmed she was familiar Resident #1 and Resident #1 was cognitive. S4NP confirmed during her morning rounds on 08/11/2024, Resident #1 reported she was raped overnight on 08/10/2024 by S5LPN during a catheter procedure and S6CNA was present. S4NP confirmed she immediately left Resident #1's room and verbally made S1ADM and S2DON aware of Resident #1's allegation of rape by a staff member. Review of the facility's Report Submission to the state agency regarding Resident #1's allegation of sexual abuse revealed, in part, the following: Date/Time Incident reported to State Office: 08/23/2024 at 6:10 p.m. Date/Time Staff first became aware of the Incident: 08/12/2024 at 9:00 a.m. Allegation Type: Sexual Abuse Alleged Victim: Resident #1 Alleged Perpetrator: S5LPN An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 4:20 p.m. with S3ADON. S3ADON confirmed S2DON was on extended medical leave and unavailable by telephone. S3ADON confirmed S2DON and S1ADM handled the reporting and investigation of the rape allegations made by Resident #1. S3ADON confirmed Resident #1's allegation of rape would be considered an allegation of sexual abuse and should have been reported to the state agency within the required 2 hour timeframe. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 4:00 p.m. with S1ADM. S1ADM confirmed he was responsible for submitting required reports to the state agency. S1ADM confirmed an allegation of rape would be considered an allegation of sexual abuse and should be reported to the state agency within 2 hours of the allegation being made. S1ADM confirmed Resident #1's allegation of rape was originally made on 08/11/2024 and not reported to state office until 08/23/2024. S1ADM confirmed the allegation of sexual abuse was not reported within the required 2 hour timeframe and should have been.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services that assure the accurate acquirin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident. The facility failed to ensure prescribed medications were available for administration for 2 (#3 and #6) of 5 (#2, #3, #4, #5, and #6) residents reviewed for medication availability. Findings: Review of the facility's Unavailable Medications policy, revised 07/2022, revealed, in part, the following: Policy: The facility shall use uniform guidelines for unavailable medications. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility maintains a contract with a pharmacy provider to supply the facility with routine . medications. Resident #3 Review of Resident #3's Clinical Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Stage 4 Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region; Sepsis; and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA). Further review revealed Resident #3 was discharged from the facility on 08/26/2024. Review of the facility's Incident Log, dated 08/01/2024 through 10/08/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/21/2024 - Resident #3; Medication Error - Missed Dose. 08/22/2024 - Resident #3; Medication Error - Missed Dose. Review of the facility's above Incident Reports involving Resident #3 revealed, in part the following: Date of Incident: 08/21/2024 Involved Person: Resident #3 Reported by: S11LPN Overview of Incident: Medication not administered. Date of Incident: 08/22/2024 Involved Person: Resident #3 Reported by: S11LPN Overview of Incident: Patient made aware medication is still unavailable. Review of Resident #3's Physician Orders, dated 07/31/2024 through 08/26/2024, revealed, in part, the following: Order Date: 07/31/2024. Zyvox 600mg/300mL IVPB. Infuse over 1 hour IVPB every 12 hours. Duration: 23 days. Start Date: 07/31/2024. Stop Date: 08/23/2024. Review of Resident #3's MAR, dated 08/20/2024 through 08/23/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/21/2024 9:22 p.m. - Zyvox 600mg/300mL IVPB every 12 hours. - Not given. Medication unavailable. 08/22/2024 9:00 a.m. - Zyvox 600mg/300mL IVPB every 12 hours. - Not listed on MAR. 08/22/2024 8:22 p.m. - Zyvox 600mg/300mL IVPB every 12 hours. - Not given. Medication unavailable. 08/23/2024 9:00 a.m. - Zyvox 600mg/300mL IVPB every 12 hours. - Given by S12LPN. 08/23/2024 9:00 p.m. - Zyvox 600mg/300mL IVPB every 12 hours. - Given by S11LPN. Review of Resident #3's Nurses Notes, dated 08/20/2024 through 08/23/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/21/2024 9:06 p.m. - S11LPN - Pharmacy contacted at approximately 9:00 p.m. regarding missing antibiotic. 08/24/2024 4:43 a.m. - S11LPN - Night dose of Zyvox for 08/23/2024 not received with medication delivery. Review of Resident #3's Physician's Notes, dated 07/31/2024 through 08/26/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/01/2024 - Assessment/Plan: Sacral Decubitus Stage IV Ulcer. Zyvox 600mg IV every 12 hours x28 days. End of Treatment: 08/23/2024. 08/24/2024 - Pharmacy did not deliver IVPB Zyvox. Missed doses. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 2:15 p.m. with the facility's pharmacist. She stated the pharmacy sent a total of 41 doses to cover up to the last dose on 08/20/2024 at 9:00 p.m. She confirmed the facility would not have had medication on hand to administer Resident #3's Zyvox on 08/21/2024, 08/22/2024, or 08/23/2024. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 2:45 p.m. with S11LPN. S11LPN confirmed Resident #3's antibiotics were not present in the facility and she missed doses of the medication. S11LPN stated if she wrote a note on 08/24/2024 stating Resident #3's medication still had not been received, it would mean the medication was still not available to be administered at that time and she must have inadvertently misdocumented on the MAR. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 10:40 a.m. with S5NP. S5NP confirmed if an order was written for a patient to receive a medication, she would expect the medication to be available for administration as ordered. S5NP confirmed Resident #3's last dose of Zyvox should have been on 08/23/2024 at 9:00 p.m. S5NP confirmed Resident #3 missed doses of her antibiotic on 08/21/2024, 08/22/2024, and 08/23/2024 and should not have. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 10:40 a.m. with S4NP. S4NP confirmed the missed doses caused Resident #3 to remain inpatient an additional 2 days after her planned discharge date in order to complete her full course of antibiotics. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 4:20 p.m. with S3ADON. S3ADON confirmed Resident #3 missed 4 consecutive doses of an antibiotic because it was not available for administration and should not have. Resident #6 Review of Resident #6's Clinical Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed Resident #6 was discharged from the facility on 09/04/2024. Review of the facility's Incident Log, dated 08/01/2024 through 10/08/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/18/2024 - Resident #6; Medication Error - Missed Doses. Review of the facility's above Incident Reports involving Resident #6 revealed, in part the following: Date of Incident Report: 08/18/2024 Date of Incident: 08/17/2024 Involved Person: Resident #6 Reported by: S17LPN Overview of Incident: At least 2 missed doses of Esomeprazole 40mg. Order present for home medications to be used. Family provided staff with medication on 08/13/2024. Staff have been unable to locate medication for administration. Review of Resident #6's Physician Orders, dated 08/10/2024 through 09/04/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/14/2024 - Omeprazole 40mg. 1 capsule PO daily. Ok to use home medication. Review of Resident #6's MAR, dated 08/20/2024 through 08/23/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/18/2024 7:00 a.m. - Omeprazole 40mg. Give 1 capsule daily. - Not given. Medication unavailable. 08/19/2024 7:00 a.m. - Omeprazole 40mg. Give 1 capsule daily. - Not given. Medication unavailable. Review of Resident #6's Physician's Notes, dated 08/10/2024 through 09/04/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/17/2024 - Resident #6 complaining of acid reflux. Daughter stated home doses of Omeprazole were given to staff at the facility but it can't be found. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 10:40 a.m. with S4NP. S4NP stated she wrote an order to approve the use of Resident #6's home medication. S4NP stated Resident #6's daughter gave the medication to her and she immediately gave it to the floor nurse. S4NP stated several days later, Resident #6 reported still not receiving her home medication because staff told her they could not locate it. S4NP confirmed if an order was written for a patient to receive a medication, she would expect the medication to be available for administration as ordered. S4NP confirmed when staff misplaced Resident #6's medication it caused her to miss multiple doses and should not have. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 4:20 p.m. with S3ADON. S3ADON confirmed Resident #6 missed multiple doses of medication because it was not available for administration and should not have.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for 1 (#3) of 2 (#3 and #6) residents reviewed for medication errors. Findings: Review of the facility's Medication Administration and Documentation policy, revised 08/2024, revealed, in part, the following: Policy: Drugs shall be prepared and administered in accordance with the orders of the physicians or licensed independent practitioners responsible for the patient's care and accepted standards of practice. B. Patient's Personal Drugs The patient's personal medication, once approved, will be kept in a locked medication storage. C. Medication Administration Record (MAR) Use the MAR as a guide for medication administration. F. Medication Administration Recording An entry of drugs administered . and omitted doses shall be properly documented in the patient's medical record as follows: If the patient for any reason does not receive a dose of medication as prescribed, . explain, in nurses' notes, the reason for each . omitted dose . Review of the facility's Unavailable Medications policy, revised 07/2022, revealed, in part, the following: Policy: The facility shall use uniform guidelines for unavailable medications. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility maintains a contract with a pharmacy provider to supply the facility with routine . medications. 3. Medications may be unavailable for a number of reasons. Staff shall take immediate action when it is known that the medication is unavailable: a. Determine reason for unavailability, length of time medication is unavailable and what efforts have been attempted by the facility or pharmacy provider to obtain the medication. b. Notify the physician of inability to obtain medication upon notification or awareness medication is not available. Obtain alternate treatment orders and/or specific orders for monitoring patient while medication is on hold. 4. If a patient misses a scheduled dose of the medication, staff shall follow procedures for medications errors, including physician/family notification, completion of a medication error report via the facility's incident reporting process/form and monitoring the patient for adverse reactions to omission of the medication. Review of the facility's Medication Errors policy, revised 03/2019, revealed, in part, the following: Policy: Medication administration errors shall be reported immediately to the practitioner who ordered the drug in accordance with written procedures. If the practitioner who orders the drug is unavailable, the error shall be reported to the attending practitioner or another responsible practitioner. The medication . omitted shall be properly recorded in the patient's medical record. Notification of the ordering practitioner must be documented in the medical record. Definition of Medication Administration Errors: This policy applies only to medication . doses omitted. Medication administration errors need not necessarily have caused harm to the patient. Written reports shall also be made of minor error that result in no harm to the patient but have a potential adverse affect on patient care. Examples of medication administration errors include, but are not limited to: Omission of a dose. Review of the facility's Staff Training conducted on 08/13/2024 revealed, in part, the following: Nursing: 2. Medication b. If medication is unavailable, call pharmacy. Let the provider know. Document provider was notified and when. Notify Charge Nurse and S1DON. Complete an incident report. Resident #3 Review of Resident #3's Clinical Record revealed an admission date of 07/31/2024 with diagnoses including Stage 4 Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region; Sepsis; and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA). Further review revealed Resident #3 was discharged from the facility on 08/26/2024. Review of the facility's Incident Log, dated 08/01/2024 through 10/08/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/21/2024 - Resident #3; Medication Error - Missed Dose. 08/22/2024 - Resident #3; Medication Error - Missed Dose. Review of the facility's above Incident Reports involving Resident #3 revealed, in part the following: Date of Incident: 08/21/2024 Involved Person: Resident #3 Reported by: S11LPN Overview of Incident: Medication not administered. Pharmacy contacted and reported the order they received for the medication discontinued on 08/20/2024. On-call NP notified and looking into it. Date of Incident: 08/22/2024 Involved Person: Resident #3 Reported by: S11LPN Overview of Incident: Provider already notified on 08/21/2024 of missing antibiotic. Pharmacy already contacted on 08/21/2024. Patient made aware medication is still unavailable. Review of Resident #3's Physician Orders, dated 07/31/2024 through 08/26/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 07/31/2024 - Linezolid (Zyvox) 600mg/300mL IVPB. Infuse over 1 hour IVPB every 12 hours. Indication MRSA. Duration: 23 days. Start Date: 07/31/2024. Stop Date: 08/23/2024. Review of Resident #3's MAR, dated 08/20/2024 through 08/23/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/21/2024 9:22 p.m. - Zyvox 600mg/300mL IVPB every 12 hours. - Not given. Medication unavailable. 08/22/2024 9:00 a.m. - Zyvox 600mg/300mL IVPB every 12 hours. - Not listed on MAR. 08/22/2024 8:22 p.m. - Zyvox 600mg/300mL IVPB every 12 hours. - Not given. Medication unavailable. 08/23/2024 9:00 a.m. - Zyvox 600mg/300mL IVPB every 12 hours. - Given by S12LPN. 08/23/2024 9:00 p.m. - Zyvox 600mg/300mL IVPB every 12 hours. - Given by S11LPN. Review of Resident #3's Nurses Notes, dated 08/20/2024 through 08/23/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/21/2024 9:06 p.m. - S11LPN - Pharmacy contacted at approximately 9:00 p.m. regarding missing antibiotic. Pharmacist stated he received a discontinue date of 08/20/2024. NP contacted to verify stop date. NP looking into it. 08/24/2024 4:43 a.m. - S11LPN - 08/23/2024 night dose of Zyvox not received with medication delivery. On-call NP notified of incident. Pharmacy contacted. Review of Resident #3's Physician's Notes, dated 07/31/2024 through 08/26/2024, revealed, in part, the following: 08/01/2024 - Assessment/Plan: Sacral Decubitus Stage IV Ulcer. Zyvox 600mg IV every 12 hours. End of Antibiotic: 08/23/2024. Final report: MRSA. Contact Precautions: MRSA. 08/24/2024 - Pharmacy did not deliver IVPB Zyvox. Missed doses. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 2:15 p.m. with the facility's pharmacist. She reviewed Resident #3's file for the preparation and shipments of Zyvox to the facility. She stated when the original order was received by the pharmacy on 07/31/2024, the pharmacy sent a total of 41 doses for the last dose to be given on 08/20/2024 at the 9:00 p.m. dose. She stated the pharmacy then received an additional order for 3 more doses on 08/23/2024 and those 3 doses were not sent out for delivery until 08/24/2024. She confirmed the facility would not have had medication on hand to administer Resident #3's morning or night time doses of Zyvox on 08/21/2024, 08/22/2024, or 08/23/2024. She stated she reviewed the original order and whomever entered the order put it in with a stop date of 08/20/2024. She stated given the original stop date, the facility would have only received enough doses through the 2nd dose on 08/20/2024. She confirmed the pharmacy did not send additional doses until they were contacted by the facility's provider on 08/24/2024 with a new order for 3 additional doses. She stated the facility's provider informed them the stop date had been entered incorrectly and should have been 08/23/2024 not 08/20/2024. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 2:45 p.m. with S11LPN. S11LPN confirmed she was familiar with Resident #3 and had been her nurse when she was in the facility. S11LPN confirmed she recalled a few days when she did not have Resident #3's antibiotics available at the facility to administer. S11LPN stated she could not be certain of the exact number of doses she missed, but she knew it was at least 2. S11LPN stated if she wrote a note on 08/24/2024 stating Resident #3's medication still had not been received, it would mean the medication was not available to be administered and she must have documented incorrectly by accident on the MAR. S11LPN confirmed multiple consecutive missed doses of an antibiotic for a resident admitted to receive antibiotics would be considered a significant medication error and should not happen. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 2:48 p.m. with S13RN. S13RN confirmed 4 consecutive missed doses of an antibiotic a resident was admitted to receive would be considered a significant medication error and should never happen. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 10:40 a.m. with S5NP. S5NP confirmed if an order was written for a patient to receive a medication, she would expect the medication to be given as ordered. S5NP confirmed various problems could occur from missed doses of antibiotics. S5NP confirmed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility from an acute care hospital in order to complete her full course of IVPB antibiotics due to an infected sacral wound. S5NP reviewed Resident #3's medical record and confirmed she was supposed to receive a dose of IVPB antibiotic every 12 hours through the 2nd dose on 08/23/2024. S5NP confirmed she and S4NP were not aware of Resident #3's missing doses of medication until 08/24/2024. S5NP stated a call was placed by the facility to the on-call NP after the first missed dose but the floor nurses never made her or S4NP aware during rounds. S5NP stated if she or S4NP had been made aware, the situation would have been resolved promptly thus preventing any additional significant medication errors from occurring. S5NP stated once additional doses of Resident #3's antibiotic arrived to the facility on [DATE], the resident had to remain in the facility an additional 2 days to complete her full course of treatment. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 10:40 a.m. with S4NP. S4NP confirmed 4 consecutive missed doses of an antibiotic a resident was admitted to receive would be considered a significant medication error and should never happen. S4NP confirmed the significant medication error caused Resident #3 to remain inpatient an additional 2 days after her planned discharge in order to complete her full course of antibiotics. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 4:20 p.m. with S3ADON. S3ADON confirmed S1DON was on extended medical leave and unavailable by telephone. S3ADON confirmed S1DON handled the investigation into Resident #3's medication errors so she could not speak directly to the situation. S3ADON confirmed multiple consecutive missed doses of an antibiotic causing a resident to remain inpatient in the facility an additional 2 days past their planned discharge date would be considered a significant medication error and should not happen.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure services were provided by the facility to meet professiona...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure services were provided by the facility to meet professional standards of quality for 1 (#4) of 2 (#4 and #5) sampled residents reviewed for diabetes in the facility. The facility failed to notify the nurse practitioner of the resident's refusal of blood sugar checks and diabetic medications. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 20 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings: Review of Resident #4's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Diabetes Mellitus. Review of Resident #4's current Physician's Orders revealed the following: (Start date: 10/02/2024) Fingerstick Blood Sugar, before meals and at bedtime; (Start date: 10/02/2024) Glimepiride 2 mg, give 4 mg by mouth twice daily; and, (Start date: 10/02/2024) Insulin Lantus, inject 25 units subcutaneously at bedtime. Review of Resident #4's MAR for October 2024 revealed Resident #4's Fingerstick Blood Sugar checks were not administered at 7:30 a.m. on 10/06/2024 through 10/08/2024. Review of Resident #4's MAR for October 2024 revealed Resident #4's Fingerstick Blood Sugar checks were not administered at 11:30 a.m. on 10/04/2024 through 10/08/2024. Review of Resident #4's MAR for October 2024 revealed Resident #4's Fingerstick Blood Sugar checks were not administered at 4:30 p.m. on 10/03/2024 through 10/06/2024. Review of Resident #4's MAR for October 2024 revealed Resident #4's Fingerstick Blood Sugar checks were not administered at 9:00 p.m. on 10/04/2024 through 10/06/2024. Review of Resident #4's MAR for October 2024 revealed Resident #4's Glimepiride was not administered at 7:00 a.m. on 10/07/2024 and 10/08/2024. Review of Resident #4's MAR for October 2024 revealed Resident #4's Glimepiride was not administered at 7:00 p.m. on 10/04/2024 through 10/06/2024. Review of Resident #4's MAR for October 2024 revealed Resident #4's Insulin Lantus was not administered on 10/03/2024 through 10/09/2024. Further review of Resident #4's detailed Medication Administration Record revealed documentation of Resident #1's Fingerstick Blood Sugar checks, Glimepiride, and Insulin not being administered on all of the above dates and times due to being refused by Resident #4. Review of Resident #4's Nurses' Notes revealed no documentation of Resident #4's nurse practitioner being notified of Resident #4's refusal of blood sugar checks, Glimepiride, and insulin on the above dates. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 10:45 a.m. with S4NP. S4NP confirmed she had not been notified of Resident #4's above documented refusals and should have been. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 10:50 a.m. with S5NP. S5NP confirmed she had not been notified of Resident #4's above documented refusals and should have been. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 11:16 a.m. with S15LPN. S15LPN confirmed she provided care to Resident #4 on 10/03/2024. She confirmed Resident #4 refused a Fingerstick Blood Sugar check and insulin on 10/03/2024 at 9:00 p.m. S15LPN confirmed she did not notify S4NP or S5NP of Resident #4's refusals and should have. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 11:52 a.m. with S14LPN. S14LPN confirmed she provided care to Resident #4 on 10/04/2024, 10/05/2024, and 10/06/2024. She confirmed Resident #4 refused Fingerstick Blood Sugar checks and diabetic medications at 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on those dates. S14LPN confirmed she did not notify S4NP or S5NP of Resident #4's refusals and should have. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 12:05 p.m. with S8LPN. S8LPN confirmed he provided care to Resident #4 on 10/08/2024. S8LPN confirmed Resident #4 refused Fingerstick Blood Sugar Checks and diabetes medication on 10/08/2024 at 7:00 a.m., 7:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. S8LPN confirmed he did not notify S4NP or S5NP of Resident #4's refusals and should have. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 2:47 p.m. with S16LPN. S16LPN confirmed she provided care to Resident #4 on 10/07/2024. She confirmed Resident #4 refused insulin at 9:00 p.m. on 10/07/2024. S16LPN confirmed she did not notify S4NP or S5NP of Resident #4's refusal and should have. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 5:39 p.m. with S2DON. S2DON confirmed S4NP or S5NP should have been notified of Resident #4's refusals of blood sugar checks and diabetic medications.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0943 (Tag F0943)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure required trainings were completed for 7 of 7 (S1ADM, S2DON, S6LPN, S7CNA, S8LPN, S9RT, and S10LD) personnel files reviewed. The fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure required trainings were completed for 7 of 7 (S1ADM, S2DON, S6LPN, S7CNA, S8LPN, S9RT, and S10LD) personnel files reviewed. The facility failed to ensure: 1. S8LPN and S9RT completed the required abuse, neglect, and dementia training; and 2. S1ADM, S2DON, S6LPN, S7CNA, and S10LD completed the required dementia training. Findings: Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation policy, last revised 08/2022, revealed, in part, the following: II. Employee Training A. New employees will be educated on abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property during initial orientation. B. Existing staff will receive annual education through planned in-services and as needed. S1ADM Review of S1ADM's personnel file revealed a hire date of 03/05/2023. Further review revealed no documentation of completion of dementia training. S2DON Review of S2DON's personnel file revealed a hire date of 11/06/2022. Further review revealed no documentation of completion of dementia training. S6LPN Review of S6LPN's personnel file revealed a hire date of 08/18/2023. Further review revealed no documentation of completion of dementia training. S7CNA Review of S7CNA's personnel file revealed a hire date of 04/17/2024. Further review revealed no documentation of completion of dementia training. S8LPN Review of S8LPN's personnel file revealed a hire date of 05/19/2024. Further review revealed no documentation of completion of abuse, neglect, and dementia training. S9RT Review of S9RT's personnel file revealed a hire date of 05/09/2024. Further review revealed no documentation of completion of abuse, neglect, and dementia training. S10LD Review of S10LD's personnel file revealed a hire date of 06/13/2022. Further review revealed no documentation of completion of dementia training. An interview was conducted on 10/09/2024 at 6:01 p.m. with S1ADM. S1ADM confirmed the facility did not have documentation of completion of abuse and neglect training and dementia training for the aforementioned staff and should have.
Oct 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to accurately complete transmission of MDS assessments in the require...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to accurately complete transmission of MDS assessments in the required timeframe for 2 of 2 (#6 and #7) residents reviewed for resident assessment. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled MDS Completion revealed the following, in part; Policy: Residents are assessed, using a comprehensive assessment process, in order to identify care needs and to develop an interdisciplinary care plan. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guideline: 7. Transmission requirements: a. All assessments shall be transmitted to the designated CMS system within 14 days of completion. b. Each assessment must be accepted into the system, as verified by validation reports. Review of the MDS assessments for Residents #6 and #7 revealed the following resident assessments were open and not accepted for greater than 120 days: -Resident #6's Entry MDS dated [DATE]. -Resident #6's 5 day MDS dated [DATE]. -Resident #6's Admit MDS dated [DATE]. -Resident #6's Discharge MDS dated [DATE]. -Resident #7's 5 day/Discharge MDS dated [DATE]. An interview was conducted on 10/24/2023 at 11:00 a.m. with S5MDS. She confirmed MDS resident assessments had been transmitted to CMS, but had not been accepted within the required timeframe for Residents #6 and #7. She stated she was responsible for ensuring MDS resident assessment transmissions were completed, passed CMS standard edits and were accepted into the system timely. S5MDS stated, for Resident #6 and #7, the MDS resident assessments transmitted to CMS were not accurate and should have been. S5MDS stated Resident #6 and #7's MDS assessments were open, not accepted by CMS, and greater than 120 days past due for accurate completion and accepted transmission.
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 observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility failed to ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Milk was held at a safe temperature for consumption of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below prior to being served to residents; 2. Staff documented milk temperatures on the temperature logs. This had the potential to effect 13 of the 13 residents who were served meals from the kitchen. Findings: Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Preparation Display and Service of Food Items revealed, in part, the following: Policy Statement: The Food and Nutrition Department will implement procedures for preparation, display and service of food items in accordance with health department codes to reduce the risk of food borne illness and prevent the spread of infection. Procedure: 7. Food being held for serving will be held at temperatures below 41 degrees Fahrenheit or above 104 degrees Fahrenheit. 9. All cold food items will be prepared and maintain a temperatures of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or less. On 10/23/2023 at 11:45 a.m., during preparation of the lunch meal, an observation was made of temperature checks for four individual cartons of milk, which revealed temperature readings of 45.0 degrees Fahrenheit. Review of the Temperature log for 08/01/2023-10/23/2023 revealed no documentation of milk temperatures being recorded. On 10/23/2023 at 12:10 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3DM. S3DM verified the temperature of 45.0 degrees Fahrenheit in all four cartons of milk sampled and stated the milk should have been 41.0 degrees Fahrenheit or lower. S3DM also verified the temperature log had no documentation of milk being check for temperatures. S3DM verified the milk was prepared and ready for consumption. S3DM stated milk was served during breakfast earlier that day and if any resident requested milk during lunch, it would have been served.
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 record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an infection prevention and control program...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an infection prevention and control program was maintained by failing to ensure a resident's contaminated PPE was appropriately discarded as biohazardous waste for 1 of 1 (#169) residents reviewed for transmission precautions. This deficiency had the potential to effect all 13 residents in the facility. Findings: Review of the facility's policy, Disposal of Infectious waste revealed the following, in part: Policy: To ensure the handling and disposal of infectious waste is done safely as to not cause injury or exposure to patients, visitors and employees. To outline the employee responsibility for the disposal of infectious wastes. To ensure safety from exposure to biomedical wastes. Procedure: Objects that are contaminated with potentially infectious materials shall be placed in an impervious bag . All biological hazardous waste shall be identified with Biohazard label. Review of the facility's policy, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan revealed the following, in part: 6. b. Handling, Storage and Transporting: . Biohazard bags and containers are red with appropriate signage. Review of the Clinical Record revealed Resident #169 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which included MRSA and Status Post Right Great Toe Amputation. Review of Resident #169's admission physician orders revealed, in part: 10/19/2023 Contact precautions for MRSA history in toe (amputated) Review of Resident #169's current care plan revealed the following: Problem: At risk for Infection Interventions: Transmission based precautions On 10/23/2023 at 9:31 a.m., an observation was conducted of Resident #169's room. A sign was noted on Resident #169's door, Contact Precautions, gloves and gown required for entry. Gowns and gloves were noted hanging on Resident #169's door. There was no designated biohazard bag or box noted in the room. An interview was conducted with S12CNA on 10/23/2023 at 12:23 p.m. She stated for Resident #169, she removed her PPE inside the room, placed it in a clear trash bag, tied the clear trash bag, exited the room, and brought the clear trash bag to the uncontaminated trash room. An interview was conducted with S10HK on 10/23/2023 at 11:23 a.m. She stated she was assigned to Resident #169's room today. She confirmed she disposed her PPE in a clear trash bag and disposed the bag in her trash can on her housekeeping cart. She further confirmed she did not have access to the biohazard trash room and only the nursing staff had access. An interview was conducted with S11HK on 10/23/2023 at 11:28 a.m. She stated she was assigned to Resident #169's room over the weekend. She stated she disposed her PPE in a small clear trash bag and disposed the bag in the trash can on her cleaning cart. On 10/23/2023 at 12:28 p.m., an observation was conducted of S6LPN exiting Resident #169's room. An interview was conducted at this time, she confirmed there was not a red biohazard bag in Resident 169's room and she placed her PPE in the clear trash bag. She further confirmed there should be a red biohazard bag inside a box in the room. An interview was conducted with S7LPN on 10/23/2023 at 2:57 p.m. She stated for residents on contact transmission precautions she would remove PPE and place them on the resident's floor. An interview was conducted with S8LPN on 10/23/2023 at 4:30 p.m. She confirmed she was assigned to Resident #169 on 10/22/2023 and there was not a red biohazard bag or a box in the room to dispose of used PPE and should have been. An interview was conducted with S13CNA on 10/24/2023 at 9:35 a.m. She confirmed she worked on 10/22/2023 and was assigned to Resident #169. She stated on 10/22/2023 there was not a red biohazard bag or box to dispose of used PPE and she placed her PPE in a clear trash bag in the resident's room. An interview was conducted with S9LPN on 10/24/2023 at 1:06 p.m. She confirmed she was assigned to Resident #169 on 10/20/2023 and 10/22/2023 and the resident was on contact precautions. She further confirmed there was not a red biohazard bag or box in the room and she discarded her PPE in the clear trash bag but was not sure where it went after that. An interview was conducted with S2DON on 10/24/2023 at 1:35 p.m. She stated Resident #169 was admitted on [DATE] on contact precautions. She confirmed PPE should be discarded in a red biohazard bag inside a box and brought to the biohazard room. She further confirmed PPE should not be placed in the clear trash bag and brought to the uncontaminated trash room.
Dec 2022 4 deficiencies 4 IJ (4 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources by failing to ensure an effective system was im...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources by failing to ensure an effective system was implemented for preventing and controlling COVID-19 infections. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Visitors were notified of active COVID-19 infections, screened, educated and provided appropriate PPE prior to entering the facility; 2. All employees performed COVID-19 screening prior to working; and 3. Agency staff were COVID-19 tested prior to working during a COVID-19 outbreak. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation on 12/09/2022 with the likelihood of severe injury and/or death for 12 (F1, F2, F3, F6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, and RF8) non COVID-19 positive residents residing in the facility during a COVID-19 outbreak. On 12/09/2022 at 9:22 a.m., S2DON confirmed agency staff should have been tested prior to working each shift and were not. On 12/09/2022 at 10:50 a.m. an employee was observed entering the facility without being screened. On 12/09/2022 at 3:01 p.m., a visitor was observed exiting the COVID-19 unit without a face mask and walked down the main hallway into the general population area before exiting the facility at the side entrance. As of 12/09/2022 there were 17 residents residing in the facility with 5 active COVID-19 cases. S1ADM was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 12/09/2022 at 3:15 p.m. Plan of Removal: Identification of Residents Affected or Likely to be Affected: Review of facility census data on 12/09/2022 determined there were 17 patients in the facility. DON and Infection Interventionist immediately identified that 12 patients were determined to have potential risk related to the deficient practice (F1, F2, F3, F6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, and RF8). Corrective Action: -On 12/09/2022 the corporate Director of Compliance and Board Certified Infection Preventionist reviewed all applicable facility policies and procedures with the Administrator, Director of Nursing, and Infection Preventionist to ensure the systems established for infection prevention and control program including COVID-19 related policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infections in the facility are followed as outlined in the facility's policies and CDC guidelines. -Effective 12/09/2022, the DON re-educated all staff , including agency and contract workers, on the following COVID-19 related infection control and COVID screening policies regarding the following facility's policies. Any remaining staff will be provided education prior to their next work shift. The remaining staff will be educated by the charge nurse as they report for COVID screening and testing until all remaining staff have been educated on the following: a. COVID-19 and COVID-19 Vaccine Reporting b. Coronavirus Surveillance c. Coronavirus Testing d. Interim COVID-19 Visitation e. Coronavirus Prevention and Response Staff education will be completed by 12/16/2022. Compliance will be monitored by post education testing that will be kept on file with the screening and testing logs. Testing will be administered by the DON and Infection Preventionist. -Beginning 12/09/2022 and continuing for a duration of 4 weeks, the corporate infection control consultant will review all employee and visitor screening logs for compliance, as well as reviewing all employee post education testing. Any non-compliant findings during this period will result in immediate corrective action. After 4 weeks, on future site visits, corporate infection control consultant will randomly review audits conducted by DON and Infection Preventionist related to COVID screening, testing, and education. DON, Infection Preventionist, and Administrator completed post education testing on 12/12/2022. -Training and education will be provided to staff during orientation, annually, and as needed with any updated changes and recommendations for infection prevention and control and COVID-19 related policies as outlined in the CDC's Interim Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. -The DON and/or Infection Preventionist designee will conduct a review of daily timesheets/schedule to cross-match the COVID testing and screening logs of all employed and contracted staff working to identify all direct care staff in the facility has completed COVID-19 testing anytime the facility's COVID-19 Outbreak Testing protocol is activated. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 12/13/2022 at 12:05 p.m. when the provider presented an acceptable plan of removal. Through observations, interviews and record review, the surveyors confirmed the following components of the plan of removal had been initiated and/or implemented prior to exit. This deficient practice continued at more than minimal harm for the remaining 12 negative COVID-19 residents residing in the facility that were at risk for contracting COVID-19. Findings: Cross Reference F880 Cross Reference F882 Cross Reference F886 Review of the Policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program -LTC revealed the following, in part: Policy: This facility has established and maintains 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. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The designated Infection Preventionist is responsible for oversight of the program and serves as a consultant to our staff on infectious diseases, implementing isolation precautions, staff and resident exposures, surveillance, and epidemiological investigations of exposures of infectious diseases. 3. Surveillance: a. A system of surveillance is utilized for prevention, identifying, reporting, investigating, and controlling infections and communicable diseases for all residents, staff, visitors, and other individuals providing services under a contractual arrangement based upon a facility assessment and accepted national standards. b. The Infection Preventionist serves as the leader in surveillance activities, maintains documentation of incidents, findings, and any corrective actions made by the facility and reports surveillance findings to the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee. Review of the Policy titled, Coronavirus Surveillance revealed the following, in part: Policy: This facility will implement heightened surveillance activities for coronavirus illness during periods of transmission in the community and/or during a declared public health emergency for the illness. 1. The facility's Infection Preventionist will monitor the status of COVID-19 outbreak through the CDC website, and will monitor for changes in prevention, treatment, isolation, or other recommendations. 2. Heightened surveillance will be implemented to limit the transmission of COVID-19. These include, but are not limited to, screening visitors, staff, and residents. 3. Screening for visitors and staff: a. Symptoms of COVID-19; b. A positive viral test for SARS-CoV-2 c. Close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection (for visitors) or a higher-risk exposure (for healthcare personnel) 5. Symptomatic healthcare personnel, regardless of vaccination status, should be restricted from work pending evaluation for SARS-CoV-2 infection and should follow facility policy regarding testing and return to work. 8. The facility's Infection Preventionist, or designee, will track the following information: c. The number of residents and staff who have been tested for COVID-19 (testing in accordance with current CDC guidelines and priorities). Review of the Policy titled, Coronavirus Prevention and Response revealed the following, in part: Policy: The facility will respond promptly upon suspicion of illness associated with a SARS-CoV-2 infection in efforts to identify, treat, and prevent the spread of the virus. 4. Ensuring that everyone is aware of the recommended IPC practices in the facility by posting visual alerts (e.g., signs, posters) at the entrance and in strategic places to include instructions about current IPC recommendations. Review of the Policy titled, COVID-19 and COVID-19 Vaccine Reporting-LTC/SNF revealed the following, in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to share appropriate information regarding COVID-19 with staff, residents and their representatives and to report COVID-19 information to the local/state health department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility has implemented a system of surveillance designed to identify possible communicable diseases or infections, including COVID-19, before they can spread to other persons in the facility. 2. Positive COVID-19 test results are reported to the Infection Preventionist, or designee, within one hour of receipt so that reporting activities may begin. 3. Notify the state/local health department promptly about any of the following: a. > 1 residents or healthcare personnel (HCP) with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. On 12/09/2022 at 9:22 a.m., S2DON provided a list of nine agency staff who worked at the facility since the COVID-19 outbreak started on 11/11/2022 and their COVID-19 testing requisition forms. She confirmed all nine of the agency staff should have been tested prior to working each shift and were not. On 12/09/2022 at 2:03 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She said the current COVID-19 outbreak started on 11/11/2022, after a family member who visited a resident called the facility and notified staff she tested COVID-19 positive. She said the resident who was exposed and his roommate tested COVID-19 positive. She said the COVID-19 positive visitor was not tracked or checked to see if she was screened. She confirmed there was no signage posted at either entrance or in the facility indicating a COVID-19 outbreak or visitor screening and should be. She said the visitor screening process included performing hand hygiene, don a face mask, temperature checks and signs and symptoms filled out on the visitor screening form. She said all staff were responsible for making sure visitors were screened. She said S14R was responsible for screening visitors at the front entrance. She said S12US and any staff that was in that area were responsible for screening visitors at the side entrance. She said staff and visitors should wear face masks in the facility. She said she would have expected staff to stop any visitor in the hall that did not screen or were not wearing a face mask and direct them to do both. She reviewed the employee screening log dated 12/07/2022 and 12/08/2022 and confirmed two visitors had signed the employee log but did not document their temperature or signs or symptoms and should have. She said by not screening all visitors, it could contribute to the spread of COVID-19. She said all staff were expected to screen every time they came in for a shift, which would include checking their temperature and documenting any signs or symptoms on the employee log. She was unable to provide documentation of employee and visitor screening logs since the COVID-19 outbreak from 11/11/2022 to 12/06/2022. She said all staff including agency staff should be COVID-19 tested prior to working their shift or every 48 hours if they worked back to back shifts. She said the charge nurses were responsible for ensuring all staff including agency staff COVID-19 tested accordingly. She confirmed S27LPN, S16CNA, and S11LPN were agency staff and were not COVID-19 tested prior to working their shifts and should have been. She said she and S3IP shared the infection control responsibilities. She said S3IP was responsible for ensuring staff and visitors were screened and staff were COVID-19 tested prior to working. S2DON said she had not reviewed any screening logs or staff's COVID-19 test results. S2DON confirmed she was S3IP's supervisor and did not review or audit her work and should have been. On 12/09/2022 at 2:14 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3IP who stated she was the facility's infection control nurse and responsible for the facility's infection control program, including tracking facility infections; staff and visitor screening; and staff and resident COVID-19 testing. She said the first positive COVID-19 case during the outbreak was a resident on 11/11/2022. She said staff were to inform visitors upon entry of COVID-19 in the building, assist with screening and encourage them to wear a face mask. She said S14R was responsible for screening visitors at the front entrance and S12US was responsible for screening visitors on the side entrance. She confirmed there was no signage posted indicating a COVID-19 outbreak or signage directing visitors at either entrance to screen for signs and symptoms, take their temperature, perform hand hygiene and wear a face mask. She said all employees were expected to screen themselves for COVID-19 including a temperature check prior to every shift worked. She reviewed the employee screening log dated 12/07/2022 and 12/08/2022 and confirmed two visitors had signed the employee log but did not document their temperature or signs or symptoms and should have. She said she would have expected employees to stop and redirect any visitor who had not been screened or were not wearing a mask to do so right away. She was unable to provide documentation of employee and visitor screening logs since the COVID-19 outbreak from 11/11/2022 to 12/06/2022. She confirmed visitors not being screened could have contributed to the spread of the COVID-19 infection. She said agency staff should be rapid COVID-19 tested prior to every shift or if they worked several days in a row then every 48 hours. She said the charge nurses were responsible for making sure all staff including agency staff were COVID-19 tested accordingly. S3IP said she did not review the visitor and staff COVID-19 screening logs along with resident and staff testing on a consistent basis, and she should have. She said she did not consistently check the schedules and COVID-19 test results to ensure agency staff were tested and should have. She said S1ADM and S2DON were her supervisors and no one checked her work behind her. On 12/09/2022 at 3:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. He said S3IP was the facility's Infection Preventionist. He said S29DQ was the facility's corporate Quality Infection Control Nurse who assisted from a corporate level and was not responsible for auditing S3IP's work. He said S2DON was S3IP's direct supervisor and was responsible for checking S3IP's work. He said he was S2DON's supervisor and had not been supervising her in that capacity and should have been. He confirmed there was no signage posted at either entrance or in the facility indicating a COVID-19 outbreak or visitor screening process and there should be. He said there was no designated staff member assigned to screen visitors at the side entrance. He said it was a collaborative effort between staff and S12US to make sure visitors were screened when they entered through the side entrance. He said S14R was responsible for screening visitors at the front entrance. He said the visitor screening process included performing hand hygiene, don a face mask, temperature checks and signs and symptoms filled out on the visitor screening form. He said he would expect staff to stop and redirect visitors that were not wearing a face mask, had not screened and signed in. He reviewed the employee screening log dated 12/07/2022 and 12/08/2022 and confirmed two visitors had signed the employee log but did not document their temperature or signs or symptoms and should have. He said he expected all employees to screen themselves with a temperature check prior to starting their shift. He confirmed visitor and staff screening had not been monitored as close as they should. He said visitors and staff not being screened could contribute to the spread of COVID-19. He said the charge nurses on each shift were responsible for making sure all staff, including agency staff, COVID-19 tested prior to working their shift. He was notified the charge nurse reported it was the responsibility of the agency staff and S3IP to COVID-19 test agency staff; and S2DON and S3IP reported it was the charge nurses responsibility. He confirmed there was a definite breakdown with communication in general and staff were not on the same page. He confirmed the agency staff that worked since the COVID-19 outbreak on 11/11/2022 were not COVID-19 tested prior to working every shift and should have been. He said staff, including agency staff, not being COVID-19 tested prior to working could contribute to the spread of COVID-19.
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure an effective infection control and preventi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure an effective infection control and prevention program was implemented for preventing and controlling COVID-19 infections for 12 (F1, F2, F3, F6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, and RF8) non positive residents who resided in the facility during a COVID-19 outbreak. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Visitors were notified of active COVID-19 infections, screened, and educated on precautions prior to entering the facility; 2. All employees performed COVID-19 screening prior to working; and 3. Soiled linens were properly stored on the COVID-19 unit. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation on 12/09/2022 with the likelihood of severe injury and/or death for 12 (F1, F2, F3, F6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, and RF8) non COVID-19 positive residents residing in the facility during a COVID-19 outbreak. On 12/09/2022 at 9:22 a.m., S2DON confirmed agency staff should have been tested prior to working each shift and were not. On 12/09/2022 at 10:50 a.m. an employee was observed entering the facility without being screened. On 12/09/2022 at 3:01 p.m., a visitor was observed exiting the COVID-19 unit without a face mask and walked down the main hallway into the general population area before exiting the facility at the side entrance. As of 12/09/2022 there were 17 residents residing in the facility with 5 active COVID-19 cases. S1ADM was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 12/09/2022 at 3:15 p.m. Plan of Removal: Identification of Residents Affected or Likely to be Affected: On 12/09/2022, through review of the facility census data, Infection Preventionist, DON, and Administrator reviewed and identified the COVID-19 cases in the building. After notification of deficient practices, it was determined that there were 3 active COVID-19 cases in the building, and 2 cases that were previously COVID positive during the outbreak. The following 12 patients were at risk (F1, F2, F3, F6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, and RF8). Corrective Action: -As of 12/09/2022, the facility had 3 active COVID-19 cases. The facility had 2 COVID-19 cases that had met the criteria to discontinue isolation precautions post positive COVID Day 10 accordance to CDC guidelines on 12/09/2022. -Immediately on 12/09/2022 the DON assigned a staff member designated to the screening station at each visitor entrance to ensure visitors are screened appropriately. The assigned staff member was educated by the DON on COVID screening practice. The screening staff will provide education both verbally as well as through signage posted in building regarding COVID screening. -Screening stations will be staffed daily beginning 12/09/2022 continuing for a duration of the next 4 weeks. Staffed screening stations will be implemented at the beginning of any potential future COVID outbreak. -Signage was posted at each visitor entrance declaring COVID outbreak/COVID cases in the facility on 12/09/2022. -Educational resources related to COVID were posted at each visitor entrance and each screening station. -Facemasks are provided for source control, at each screening station. -On 12/09/2022 the corporate Director of Compliance and Board Certified Infection Preventionist reviewed all applicable facility policies and procedures with the Administrator, Director of Nursing, and Infection Preventionist to ensure the systems established for infection prevention and control program including COVID-19 related policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infections in the facility are followed as outlined in the facility's policies and CDC guidelines. Re-education on COVID-19 prevention and control was provided by the corporate Director of Compliance and Board Certified Infection Preventionist to DON, Infection Preventionist, and Administrator. COVID education testing was completed on DON, Infection Preventionist, and Administrator on 12/12/2022. -Effective 12/09/2022, the DON re-educated all staff , including agency and contract workers, on the following COVID-19 related infection control and COVID screening policies regarding the following facility's policies. Any remaining staff will be provided education prior to their next work shift. The remaining staff will be educated by the charge nurse as they report for COVID screening and testing until all remaining staff have been educated on the following: a. COVID-19 and COVID-19 Vaccine Reporting b. Coronavirus Surveillance c. Coronavirus Testing d. Interim COVID-19 Visitation e. Coronavirus Prevention and Response Staff education will be completed by 12/16/2022. Compliance will be monitored by post education testing that will be kept on file with the screening and testing logs. Testing will be administered by the DON and Infection Preventionist. -Staff will be tested daily prior to starting their work day, effective 12/09/2022 and continuing for a duration of 14 days without any additional COVID cases. At the conclusion of the designated testing period, staff will revert to established COVID testing guidelines. In the event of future COVID cases, staff will implement outbreak protocol and test daily through the duration of the outbreak. -Beginning 12/09/2022, staff will be screened for COVID daily prior to their working day. This screening will take place at the nurses' station, and compliance will be ensured by pre-filled employee logs listing each employee scheduled that day. The employee will sign by their name, and the charge nurse will document compliance on the employee log. Screening procedures will be ongoing. -Employee logs for testing and screening will be reviewed by Administrator, DON, Infection Preventionist, or designee twice daily, once for AM shift and once for PM shift to ensure compliance beginning 12/09/2022 and continuing for a minimum duration of 4 weeks. -In addition to daily review of the employee logs for a minimum of 4 weeks beginning 12/09/2022, the Director of Nursing (DON), or designee, will conduct a weekly review of the visitor screening sign in log and employee screening log. The DON, or designee, will conduct weekly review for 3 consecutive months until 100% compliance is achieved and sustained. Once 100% compliance is achieved and sustained the DON will continue to conduct an audit review of the screening logs monthly ongoing. -The Director of Nursing (DON), or designee, will conduct 5 weekly random observational rounds to ensure COVID screening is conducted at the stations for 3 consecutive months until 100% compliance is achieved and sustained. Once 100% compliance is achieved and sustained the administrative staff will continue to conduct observational rounds of the facility's screening stations to ensure compliance with education to visitors of alerting them of active COVID-19 cases, infection control education related to hand hygiene, social distancing, and adhering to face masks to be used anytime the facility has identified any active COVID cases. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 12/13/2022 at 12:05 p.m. when the provider presented an acceptable plan of removal. Through observations, interviews and record review, the surveyors confirmed the following components of the plan of removal had been initiated and/or implemented prior to exit. This deficient practice continued at more than minimal harm for the remaining 12 negative COVID-19 residents residing in the facility that were at risk for contracting COVID-19. Findings: Review of the Policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program -LTC revealed the following, in part: Policy: This facility has established and maintains 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. 10. Linens: a. Direct care staff shall handle, store, process, and transport linens to prevent spread of infection. b. Clean linens shall be separated from soiled linen at all times. e. Soiled linen shall be collected at the bedside and placed in a linen bag. When the task is completed, the bag shall be closed securely and placed in the soiled utility room. 11. Resident/Family/Visitor Education: c. Isolation signs are used to alert staff, family members, and visitors of isolation precaution. d. Reminders are posted in the facility to alert family members and visitors to adhere to handwashing, respiratory etiquette, and other infection control principles to limit spread of infection from family members and visitors. Review of the Policy titled, Coronavirus Prevention and Response revealed the following, in part: Policy: The facility will respond promptly upon suspicion of illness associated with a SARS-CoV-2 infection in efforts to identify, treat, and prevent the spread of the virus. 4. Ensuring that everyone is aware of the recommended IPC practices in the facility by posting visual alerts (e.g., signs, posters) at the entrance and in strategic places to include instructions about current IPC recommendations. Environmental Infection Control: 3. Management of laundry should be performed in accordance with routine procedures. Review of the Policy titled, Coronavirus Surveillance revealed the following, in part: Policy: This facility will implement heightened surveillance activities for coronavirus illness during periods of transmission in the community and/or during a declared public health emergency for the illness. 1. The facility's Infection Preventionist will monitor the status of COVID-19 outbreak through the CDC website, and will monitor for changes in prevention, treatment, isolation, or other recommendations. 2. Heightened surveillance will be implemented to limit the transmission of COVID-19. These include, but are not limited to, screening visitors, staff, and residents. 3. Screening for visitors and staff: a. Symptoms of COVID-19; b. A positive viral test for SARS-CoV-2 c. Close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection (for visitors) or a higher-risk exposure (for healthcare personnel) 5. Symptomatic healthcare personnel, regardless of vaccination status, should be restricted from work pending evaluation for SARS-CoV-2 infection and should follow facility policy regarding testing and return to work. 1. On 12/07/2022 at 8:35 a.m., an observation was made of two of the three facility entrances. No signage was posted on the front entrance or side entrance to inform visitors there was a COVID-19 outbreak in the facility. No signage was posted directing visitors to screen and wear a face mask in the facility. No thermometer or visitor screening forms were available at the side entrance screening station. No staff direction or education was provided on the visitor screening process. On 12/07/2022 at 8:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. He said there were 17 residents residing in the facility with 5 active COVID-19 cases. He said the facility's current COVID-19 outbreak began on 11/11/2022 when a resident tested COVID-19 positive. He said only one staff member, S6DA, tested COVID-19 positive on 11/28/2022. On 12/08/2022 at 8:20 a.m., an observation was made of the front entrance of the facility. There was no signage posted indicating the facility was in a COVID-19 outbreak or staff present to assist and direct visitors to screen at the front receptionist window by taking their temperature, performing hand hygiene or to wearing a face mask. On 12/08/2022 at 8:25 a.m., an observation was made of the side entrance of the facility. There was no signage posted indicating the facility was in a COVID-19 outbreak or staff present to assist and direct visitors to screen at the entrance by taking their temperature, performing hand hygiene or to wearing a face mask. On 12/08/2022 at 9:11 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #F1's visitors. Both visitors said they did not know there was a COVID-19 outbreak in the facility. Neither visitor was aware they needed to wear a face mask. Both visitors verbalized they did not take their temperature because there were no directions or staff at the entrance to instruct them. The visitors confirmed they did not know there was a screening process or additional precautions that needed to be taken to visit Resident #F1. Both visitors confirmed that no staff stopped them, directed them to screen or to wear a face mask. Neither of the visitors were observed wearing a face mask or performing hand hygiene. On 12/08/2022 at 10:00 a.m., an observation was made of a visitor for Resident #RF1 entering the side entrance of the facility. No staff were observed at the entrance assisting the visitor. The visitor was not wearing a face mask and was not screened upon entering the facility. S9LPN was observed to walk the visitor to Resident #RF1's room. On 12/08/2022 at 10:09 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #RF1's wife and RP. The visitor was observed seated at the resident's bedside. The visitor was observed not wearing a face mask. She said she had not been informed of any COVID-19 positive residents in the facility. She confirmed she had not been screened for COVID-19 upon entry to the facility and was not asked to wear a face mask or to check her temperature. She verified she was escorted to Resident #RF1's room by S9LPN and was not told to put on a facemask or perform hand hygiene before entering Resident #RF1's room. On 12/08/2022 at 10:15 a.m., an interview was conducted with S9LPN. She verified she had walked Resident #RF1's visitor from the side entrance, down the hall, and into Resident #RF1's room. She verified the visitor did not have on a face mask and confirmed she had not instructed her to place a face mask on or verify she had been screened prior to entering the facility. She said all visitors should be screened, including a temperature check, and should wear a face mask upon entry. S9LPN verified she did not follow the facility's COVID-19 infection control policy. On 12/08/2022 at 10:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #RF1's daughter. She said she visited Resident #RF1 daily at the facility. She verified she visited Resident #RF1 yesterday (12/07/2022) and did not wear a face mask at any time inside of the building and had not been instructed of the need to wear a face mask by any staff member. She said today was the first day she had ever been asked to put a face mask on and to sign in upon entry into the facility. She further stated she had never been made aware there were COVID-19 cases in the facility. On 12/08/2022 at 11:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with S10RN. She said staff and visitors were to screen themselves upon entry to the facility. She said staff and visitors screened by performing hand hygiene, donning a face mask, taking their temperature, writing their names, temperature reading on a log and answering COVID-19 screening questions. She reviewed the log book at the side entrance and verified there were no visitor sign in sheets or employee log sheets in the binder since the COVID-19 outbreak which started on 11/11/2022. On 12/08/2022 at 11:10 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #RF2's RP and a visitor. Both said they were not notified of the facility having any COVID-19 positive residents. Both said they did not see a sign posted on the doors indicating there was COVID-19 in the facility. On 12/08/2022 at 11:35 a.m., a telephone interview was conducted with Resident #F2's RP. She said she visited Resident #F2 every other day. She said staff had never instructed or asked her to do a temperature check or wear a face mask upon entry to the facility since Resident #F2 was admitted on [DATE]. On 12/09/2022 at 8:24 a.m., an observation was made of the side entrance of the facility. There were no staff at the check-in area. There was no signage posted at the check-in table directing visitors to take their temperature, perform hand hygiene or to wear a face mask. On 12/09/2022 at 3:01 p.m., an observation was made of a visitor exiting the COVID-19 unit. He was not wearing a face mask and did not perform hand hygiene after exiting the enclosed barrier of the COVID-19 unit. He proceeded to walk down the main hallway into the general population area and exited the facility at the side entrance. On 12/12/2022 at 8:03 a.m., an observation was made of a visitor entering the facility at the front entrance. The visitor asked the surveyor how to screen in. No facility staff member was observed at the front entry and no thermometer was observed at the sign-in station. 2. On 12/07/2022 at 12:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with S15CNA. She said the facility staff members were supposed to check their temperatures when they arrived for their shift, however, she did not do temperature checks every day. On 12/08/2022 at 12:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with S6DA. She said she tested positive for COVID-19 on 11/28/2022 after reporting to work. She stated she began having signs and symptoms of COVID-19 while working in the kitchen. She said she never screened herself prior to working and entered through the back door of the facility. She said no one told her she was supposed to screen herself prior to working. She said since she did not work directly with the residents, she did not think she needed to be screened. On 12/08/2022 at 12:05 p.m., an interview was conducted with S7DA. She said she began working in the facility's kitchen on 11/28/2022. She said prior to each shift, she entered the facility through the back door and did not screen herself for COVID-19. She said she was not told she needed to screen herself for COVID-19 with a temperature check prior to each shift and sign in on the employee log. On 12/09/2022 at 10:50 a.m., an observation was made of an employee entering the front entrance of facility. The employee was noted to bypass the screening window and proceeded to walk into the facility. On 12/10/2022 at 8:35 a.m., an interview was conducted with S17HS. She said since 12/09/2022, she had not been re-educated by the facility's staff on COVID-19 related infection control, COVID screening or testing policies prior to working her shift. She said she entered the facility this morning, screened herself at the front entrance desk, but there was no thermometer. She was not aware she had to screen herself at the nurses' station, sign the employee log, and have the charge nurse review her completed forms. On 12/10/2022 at 8:42 a.m., an interview with S18HK. She said since 12/09/2022, she had not been re-educated by the facility's staff on COVID-19 related infection control, COVID screening or testing policies prior to working her shift. She said she entered the facility this morning, screened herself at the front entrance desk, but there was no thermometer. She was not aware she had to screen herself at the nurses' station, sign the employee log, and have the charge nurse review her completed forms. On 12/10/2022 at 9:06 a.m., an interview was conducted with S19RN. She said she was responsible for making sure all staff were educated, screened, and COVID-19 tested at the nurses' station prior to starting their shift. She confirmed she was supposed to review the staff's completed education, screening, and COVID-19 testing forms and place them in the binder labeled Staff and agency screening and testing book for COVID. She confirmed she had not ensured S17HS and S18HK were educated, screened or COVID-19 tested prior to working their shift today. 3. On 12/07/2022 at 10:05 a.m., an interview was conducted with S16CNA. She said she was agency staff and assigned to the COVID-19 unit. She said a COVID-19 resident's laundry was placed into soiled linen bags. She said there was no laundry receptacle in the COVID-19 positive resident's rooms or on the COVID-19 unit. An observation was made of an open soiled linen bag containing soiled linen on the floor in the staff's break room on the COVID-19 unit. S16CNA confirmed there was soiled linen from the COVID-19 positive residents' rooms in the open soiled linen bag. She said after resident care was completed for the COVID-19 positive residents, she placed the soiled linen bag outside the resident's room on the floor, then transferred the soiled linens into the soiled linen bag. She then brought the soiled linen bag containing COVID-19 positive resident's linens into the break room until it was full, and last exited out the side door to bring it to the laundry receptacle. She confirmed bringing an open bag of COVID-19 soiled linens into the staff's break room was an infection control issue and could mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 infection. On 12/08/2022 at 10:30 a.m., an observation was made on the COVID-19 unit of an open soiled linen bag containing soiled linens that was tied to the clean linen cart containing clean linens. On 12/08/2022 at 11:48 a.m., the COVID-19 unit was observed with S3IP. She verified the observation of an open blue soiled linen bag that contained soiled linens tied to the clean linen cart on the COVID-19 unit hallway. She confirmed the bag of soiled linens should not be open and tied to the clean linen cart. She confirmed this posed a risk for the spread of COVID-19. On 12/08/2022 at 11:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with S11LPN. She said she was agency staff assigned to the COVID-19 unit. She verified the observation of the open soiled linen bag tied to the clean linen cart. She confirmed the soiled linen bag contained the soiled gowns staff used as PPE when caring for the COVID-19 residents. She confirmed the soiled linen bag should not be open and tied to the clean linen cart on the hallway. On 12/09/2022 at 2:03 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She said the current COVID-19 outbreak started on 11/11/2022 after a COVID-19 positive family member notified facility staff that she tested positive. She said the visitor had exposed the resident and his roommate tested COVID-19 positive afterwards. She confirmed there was no signage posted at either entrance or within the facility indicating a current COVID-19 outbreak or directions for visitor screening and should be. She said the visitor screening process included performing hand hygiene, donning a face mask, temperature checks and signs and symptoms filled out on the visitor screening form. She said all staff were responsible for making sure visitors were screened. She said S14R was responsible for screening visitors at the front entrance. She said S12US and any staff that was in that area were responsible for screening visitors at the side entrance. She said staff and visitors should wear face masks in the facility. She said she would have expected staff to stop any visitor in the hall that did not screen or were not wearing a face mask and direct them to do both. She said not screening all visitors could contribute to the spread of COVID-19. She said all staff were expected to screen every time they came in for a shift, which would include checking their temperature and documenting any signs or symptoms on the employee log. She said all staff including dietary staff should screen themselves prior to working their shift no matter what door they entered into the facility. She was unable to provide documentation of employee and visitor screening logs since the COVID-19 outbreak from 11/11/2022 to 12/06/2022. She confirmed linen bags containing COVID-19 resident's soiled linen should not be kept in the staff's break room or tied to the clean linen cart. She said her expectations were to not leave soiled linens in the clean area, and if staff did not have a dirty linen cart, to tie up the soiled linen bag, leave it in the COVID-19 resident's bathroom, pick it up and place in the dirty linen cart at the end of their shift and exit out the side door that led to the dirty linen receptacle. On 12/09/2022 at 2:14 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3IP. She said the first positive COVID-19 case during the outbreak was on 11/11/2022. She explained a resident's visitor called the nurses station and reported she had tested positive for COVID-19. She said that resident and his roommate both tested COVID-19 positive afterwards. She said the facility staff were responsible to inform visitors upon entry of COVID-19 in the building, assist with screening and encourage them to wear a face mask. She said S14R was responsible for screening visitors at the front entrance and S12US was responsible for screening visitors on the side entrance. She confirmed there was no signage posted indicating a COVID-19 outbreak or signage directing visitors at either entrance to screen for signs and symptoms, take their temperature, perform hand hygiene and wear a face mask. She said she did not think it through and thought only the residents RP's should be notified. She said a COVID-19 positive resident's soiled linen should stay in the resident's room, be double bagged and left in the room until staff were ready to take it directly out of the facility to the laundry receptacle. She confirmed a linen bag containing soiled linens should not be left open, tied to the clean linen cart or be placed on the floor in the staff's break room. She said all employees were expected to screen themselves for COVID-19 including a temperature check prior to every shift worked. She said she would have expected employees to stop and redirect any visitor who had not been screened or were not wearing a mask to do so right away. She was unable to provide documentation of employee and visitor screening logs since the COVID-19 outbreak from 11/11/2022 to 12/06/2022. She confirmed visitors and staff not being screened could have contributed to the spread of the COVID-19 infection. On 12/09/2022 at 3:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. He confirmed there was no signage posted at either entrance or within the facility indicating a current COVID-19 outbreak or directions for the visitor screening process and there should be. He said there was no designated staff member assigned to screen visitors at the side entrance. He said it was a collaborative effort between staff and S12US to make sure visitors were screened when they entered through the side entrance. He said S14R was responsible for screening visitors at the front entrance. He said the visitor screening process included performing hand hygiene, donning a face mask, temperature checks and signs and symptoms filled out on the visitor screening form. He said he would expect staff to stop and redirect visitors that were not wearing a face mask, had not screened or signed in. He said he expected all employees, including dietary staff, to screen themselves with a temperature check prior to starting their shift. He confirmed visitor and staff screening was not monitored since the outbreak began. He said there was a definite breakdown with communication in general and staff were not on the same page. He said visitors and staff not being screened could contribute to the spread of COVID-19. He said placing COVID-19 positive resident's soiled linens in a clean area could contaminate the clean area and spread the COVID -19 infection. He said it was common sense not to put dirty linen in a clean area because then that area was contaminated. On 12/10/2022 at 9:11 a.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. He confirmed S19RN was responsible for ensuring all staff were educated, screened, and COVID-19 tested prior to working their shift. He confirmed there was a continued breakdown in communication with the staff on the facility's COVID-19 policies and procedures.
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0882 (Tag F0882)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the individual designated as the Infection Preventionist established and maintained an infection prevention and control program to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the individual designated as the Infection Preventionist established and maintained an infection prevention and control program to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation on 12/09/2022 with the likelihood of severe injury and/or death for 12 (F1, F2, F3, F6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, and RF8) non COVID-19 positive residents residing in the facility during a COVID-19 outbreak. On 12/09/2022 at 9:22 a.m., S2DON confirmed agency staff should have been tested prior to working each shift and were not. On 12/09/2022 at 10:50 a.m. an employee was observed entering the facility without being screened. On 12/09/2022 at 3:01 p.m., a visitor was observed exiting the COVID-19 unit without a face mask and walked down the main hallway into the general population area before exiting the facility at the side entrance. As of 12/09/2022 there were 17 residents residing in the facility with 5 active COVID-19 cases. S1ADM was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 12/09/2022 at 3:15 p.m. Plan of Removal: Identification of Residents Affected or Likely to be Affected: After notification of deficiency, a review of facility census data on 12/09/2022 determined there were 17 patients in facility. DON and Infection Interventionist immediately identified that 17 patients were determined to have potential risk related to the deficient practice (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, RF8, RF9, RF10, and RF11). Corrective Action: -As of 12/09/2022, the facility had 3 active COVID-19 cases. The facility had 2 COVID-19 cases that had met the criteria to discontinue isolation precautions post positive COVID Day 10 in accordance to the CDC guidelines on 12/09/2022. -On 12/09/2022 the corporate Director of Compliance and Board Certified Infection Preventionist reviewed all applicable facility policies and procedures with the facility's Infection Preventionist to ensure the systems established for infection prevention and control program including COVID-19 related policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infections in the facility are followed as outlined in the facility's policies and CDC guidelines. -Beginning 12/09/2022 and continuing for a duration of 4 weeks, the corporate infection control consultant will review all employee and visitor screening logs for compliance, as well as reviewing all employee post education testing. Any non-compliant findings during this period will result in immediate corrective action. After 4 weeks, on future site visits, corporate infection control consultant will randomly review audits conducted by DON and Infection Preventionist related to COVID screening, testing, and education. -On 12/09/2022, the facility's infection preventionist received re-education and infection control competencies on the facility's infection prevention and control program. The corporate infection control consultant will provide oversight to the facility's infection preventionist by conducting review of infection control audits, environmental rounds, and COVID-19 protocol for compliance. The corporate infection control consultant will perform site visits with the facility's infection preventionist for 4 consecutive weeks. Any non-compliant findings will result in immediate corrective action. DON, Infection Preventionist, and Administrator completed post education testing on 12/12/2022. -Effective 12/09/2022 and continuing on as an ongoing process, the corporate Board Certified Infection Control consultant will be notified of any COVID positive cases and activation of COVID outbreak testing any time it is activated. Notification will be provided via email by either the DON or the Infection Preventionist in the facility. -On 12/09/2022, the corporate consultant provided the facility's infection preventionist with resources, tools, and checklist to ensure all components of COVID guidelines are being completed. The corporate consultant will continue to provide the facility's infection preventionist with additional resources, tools, and checklists related to any changes in existing documentation by the CDC. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 12/13/2022 at 12:05 p.m. when the provider presented an acceptable plan of removal. Through observations, interviews and record review, the surveyors confirmed the following components of the plan of removal had been initiated and/or implemented prior to exit. This deficient practice continued at more than minimal harm for the remaining 12 negative COVID-19 residents residing in the facility that were at risk for contracting COVID-19. Findings: Cross Reference F880 Review of the Policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program -LTC revealed the following, in part: Policy: This facility has established and maintains 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. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The designated Infection Preventionist is responsible for oversight of the program and serves as a consultant to our staff on infectious diseases, implementing isolation precautions, staff and resident exposures, surveillance, and epidemiological investigations of exposures of infectious diseases. 3. Surveillance: a. A system of surveillance is utilized for prevention, identifying, reporting, investigating, and controlling infections and communicable diseases for all residents, staff, visitors, and other individuals providing services under a contractual arrangement based upon a facility assessment and accepted national standards. b. The Infection Preventionist serves as the leader in surveillance activities, maintains documentation of incidents, findings, and any corrective actions made by the facility and reports surveillance findings to the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee. Review of the Policy titled, Coronavirus Surveillance revealed the following, in part: Policy: This facility will implement heightened surveillance activities for coronavirus illness during periods of transmission in the community and/or during a declared public health emergency for the illness. 1. The facility's Infection Preventionist will monitor the status of COVID-19 outbreak through the CDC website, and will monitor for changes in prevention, treatment, isolation, or other recommendations. 2. Heightened surveillance will be implemented to limit the transmission of COVID-19. These include, but are not limited to, screening visitors, staff, and residents. 3. Screening for visitors and staff: a. Symptoms of COVID-19; b. A positive viral test for SARS-CoV-2 c. Close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection (for visitors) or a higher-risk exposure (for healthcare personnel) 5. Symptomatic healthcare personnel, regardless of vaccination status, should be restricted from work pending evaluation for SARS-CoV-2 infection and should follow facility policy regarding testing and return to work. 8. The facility's Infection Preventionist, or designee, will track the following information: c. The number of residents and staff who have been tested for COVID-19 (testing in accordance with current CDC guidelines and priorities). Review of the Policy titled, Coronavirus Prevention and Response revealed the following, in part: Policy: The facility will respond promptly upon suspicion of illness associated with a SARS-CoV-2 infection in efforts to identify, treat, and prevent the spread of the virus. 4. Ensuring that everyone is aware of the recommended IPC practices in the facility by posting visual alerts (e.g., signs, posters) at the entrance and in strategic places to include instructions about current IPC recommendations. Review of the Policy titled, COVID-19 and COVID-19 Vaccine Reporting-LTC/SNF revealed the following, in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to share appropriate information regarding COVID-19 with staff, residents and their representatives and to report COVID-19 information to the local/state health department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility has implemented a system of surveillance designed to identify possible communicable diseases or infections, including COVID-19, before they can spread to other persons in the facility. 2. Positive COVID-19 test results are reported to the Infection Preventionist, or designee, within one hour of receipt so that reporting activities may begin. 3. Notify the state/local health department promptly about any of the following: a. > 1 residents or healthcare personnel (HCP) with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. On 12/07/2022 at 8:38 a.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. He said the facility's current COVID-19 outbreak began on 11/11/2022 when a resident tested COVID-19 positive. He said only one staff member, S6DA, tested COVID-19 positive on 11/28/2022. On 12/09/2022 at 2:03 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She said she and S3IP shared the infection control responsibilities. She said S3IP was responsible for ensuring staff and visitors were screened and staff were COVID-19 tested prior to working. S2DON said she received her instructions from S3IP and worked closely with S29DQ. S2DON said S3IP educated her on any new infection control information during their staff meetings. S2DON said she was responsible for providing staff with any new or changed infection control information. She said S3IP was responsible for everything else related to infection control. She said S3IP kept track of all staff and residents' COVID-19 testing documentation and provided her with the logs. She said since the COVID-19 outbreak, she nor S3IP had done anything new related to infection control. S2DON said she had not reviewed any screening logs or staff's COVID-19 test results. S2DON confirmed she was S3IP's supervisor and did not review or audit her work and should have been. On 12/09/2022 at 2:14 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3IP who stated she was the facility's infection control nurse and responsible for the facility's infection control program, including tracking facility infections; staff and visitor screening; and staff and resident COVID-19 testing. She said her title was the Inpatient Quality Improvement and Compliance Assistant not the Infection Preventionist, but she was treated as though she was. She said she shared the infection control roles and duties with S1ADM, S2DON, the charge nurses and staff nurses. She said she could not perform all of the infection control duties by herself along with her other job responsibilities, including Quality. She said S29DQ was the director of the Infection Control program and only came to the facility one to two times a month and did not audit her work. S3IP said she did not review the visitor and staff COVID-19 screening logs along with resident and staff testing on a consistent basis, and she should have. She said the first positive COVID-19 case during the outbreak was a resident on 11/11/2022. She said a resident's visitor called the nurses station and reported she was COVID-19 positive. She said she was unaware if that visitor had been screened upon entrance to the facility. She said she was not aware staff had tested COVID-19 positive during the outbreak. She contacted S1ADM on the telephone during the interview and he confirmed S6DA had tested COVID-19 positive at the facility on 11/28/2022. She reported to S1ADM, she was unaware a staff member had tested COVID-19 positive and this should have been communicated to her right away. She said had she known, she would have had the dietary staff COVID-19 test daily for several days to make sure no additional staff tested positive. She said agency staff needed to be rapid COVID-19 tested prior to every shift, or if working several days in a row then every 48 hours. She said the charge nurses were responsible for making sure staff including agency staff were COVID-19 tested accordingly. She said she did not consistently check the schedules and COVID-19 test results to make sure agency staff were tested and should have. She confirmed she had not posted signage indicating there was a COVID-19 outbreak or signage directing visitors at either entrance to screen themselves upon entering the facility. S3IP said she was part of the QA committee that met monthly but had not met since the outbreak. She said S1ADM and S2DON were her supervisors and no one checked her work behind her. On 12/09/2022 at 3:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. He said S3IP was the facility's Infection Preventionist who also had other job duties. He said S3IP worked full time. He said S29DQ was the facility's corporate Quality Infection Control Nurse who assisted from a corporate level and was not responsible for auditing S3IP's work. He said S2DON was S3IP's direct supervisor and was responsible for checking S3IP's work. He said he was S2DON's supervisor and had not been supervising her in that capacity and should have been.
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0886 (Tag F0886)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure COVID-19 testing of staff prior to providing direct care to residents during a COVID-19 outbreak. This deficient practice resulte...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure COVID-19 testing of staff prior to providing direct care to residents during a COVID-19 outbreak. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation on 12/09/2022 with the likelihood of severe injury and/or death for 12 (F1, F2, F3, F6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, and RF8) non COVID-19 positive residents residing in the facility during a COVID-19 outbreak. On 12/09/2022 at 9:22 a.m., S2DON confirmed agency staff should have been tested prior to working each shift and were not. On 12/09/2022 at 10:50 a.m. an employee was observed entering the facility without being screened. On 12/09/2022 at 3:01 p.m., a visitor was observed exiting the COVID-19 unit without a face mask and walked down the main hallway into the general population area before exiting the facility at the side entrance. As of 12/09/2022 there were 17 residents residing in the facility with 5 active COVID-19 cases. S1ADM was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 12/09/2022 at 3:15 p.m. Plan of Removal: Identification of Residents Affected or Likely to be Affected: After notification of deficiency, a review of facility census data on 12/09/2022 determined there were 17 patients in facility. DON and Infection Interventionist immediately identified that 12 patients were determined to have potential risk related to the deficient practice (F1, F2, F3, F6, RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4, RF5, RF6, RF7, and RF8). Corrective Action: -Upon notice of deficient practice on 12/09/2022, immediate re-education on COVID-19 prevention and control was provided by the corporate Director of Compliance and Board Certified Infection Preventionist to DON, Infection Preventionist, and Administrator. -The DON immediately reviewed current testing log on 12/09/2022 and all staff and agency staff. All direct care staff scheduled have been tested within the past 48 hours. -Any oncoming staff for 6 p.m. shift will complete COVID testing in accordance to the CDC COVID-19 outbreak testing guidelines prior to providing direct care at the beginning of their shift. On 12/09/2022, DON oversaw COVID testing and screening for all staff working including incoming PM shift staff. -Effective 12/09/2022, the DON re-educated all staff , including agency and contract workers, on the following COVID-19 related infection control and COVID screening policies on facility policies regarding the following facility's policies. Any remaining staff will be provided education prior to their next work shift. The remaining staff will be educated by the charge nurse as they report for COVID screening and testing until all remaining staff have been educated on the following: a. COVID-19 and COVID-19 Vaccine Reporting b. Coronavirus Surveillance c. Coronavirus Testing d. Interim COVID-19 Visitation e. Coronavirus Prevention and Response Staff education will be completed by 12/16/2022. Compliance will be monitored by post education testing that will be kept on file with the screening and testing logs. Testing will be administered by the DON and Infection Preventionist. -Beginning 12/09/2022 and continuing for a duration of 4 weeks, the corporate infection control consultant will review all employee and visitor screening logs for compliance, as well as reviewing all employee post education testing. Any non-compliant findings during this period will result in immediate corrective action. After 4 weeks, on future site visits, corporate infection control consultant will randomly review audits conducted by DON and Infection Preventionist related to COVID screening, testing, and education. DON, Infection Preventionist, and Administrator completed post education testing on 12/12/2022. -Effective 12/09/2022, and continuing for the following 14 days without COVID cases, employee logs have been distributed to each department head for them to fill in all employees scheduled including any agency employee. The employee will sign by their name and list their testing status. Employee logs and testing will be verified by charge nurse administering testing. Employee logs for testing and screening will be reviewed by Administrator, DON, Infection Preventionist, or designee twice daily, once for AM shift, and once for PM shift to ensure compliance beginning 12/09/2022 and continuing for a minimum duration of 4 weeks. -After testing, each department head or designee will scan and email the completed log and test verification results to DON, Infection Preventionist, and Administrator every shift. This is to be done through the duration of outbreak testing and will resume again in the event of a future outbreak requiring outbreak testing. -All department heads including contracted companies have been notified that all staff must test prior to the start of their shift. -Staff and agency staff will complete COVID testing in accordance to the CDC COVID-19 outbreak testing guidelines prior to providing direct care at the beginning of their shift anytime the facility has activated their COVID outbreak protocol. -The facility will maintain documentation of COVID-19 Testing Log and ensure testing documentation is completed for staff and agency staff as required. -In addition to daily review of the employee logs for a minimum of 4 weeks beginning 12/09/2022, the Director of Nursing (DON), or designee, will conduct a weekly review of the visitor screening sign in log and employee screening log. The DON, or designee, will conduct weekly review for 3 consecutive months unitl 100% compliance is achieved and sustained. Once 100% is achieved and sustained the DON will continuue to conduct an audit review of the screening logs monthly ongoing. -The DON and/or Infection Preventionist designee will conduct a review of daily timesheets/schedule to cross-match the COVID testing and screening logs of all employees and contracted staff working to identify all direct care staff in the facility has completed COVID-19 testing anytime the facility's COVID-19 Outbreak Testing protocol is activated. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 12/13/2022 at 12:05 p.m. when the provider presented an acceptable plan of removal. Through observations, interviews and record review, the surveyors confirmed the following components of the plan of removal had been initiated and/or implemented prior to exit. This deficient practice continued at more than minimal harm for the remaining 12 negative COVID-19 residents residing in the facility that were at risk for contracting COVID-19. Findings: Cross Reference F880 Review of the Policy titled, COVID Testing revealed the following, in part: Policy: The facility will implement testing of facility staff including individuals providing services under agreement (contracted staff, agency staff) for COVID-19. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will conduct testing through the use of rapid point-of-care (POC) diagnostic testing devices or through an arrangement with an offsite laboratory. Table 1: Testing Summary (regardless of vaccination status) Newly identified COVID-19 positive staff or resident in a facility that can identify close contacts: Staff: Test all staff, regardless of vaccination status, that had a higher-risk exposure with a COVID-19 positive individual. Testing of Staff and Residents in Response to an Outbreak Investigation: 1. An outbreak investigation is initiated when a single new case of COVID-19 occurs among residents or staff to determine if others have been exposed. 2. Upon identification of a single new case of COVID-19 infection in any staff or residents, testing will begin immediately. 5. Contact tracing or broad-based testing is recommended immediately (but not earlier than 24 hours after the exposure) and, if negative, again 48 hours after the first negative test and, if negative, again 48 hours after the second negative test. 7. If possible, testing should be repeated every 3-7 days until no new cases are identified for at least 14 days. Documentation of Testing a. Upon identification of a new Covid-19 case in the facility (i.e., outbreak), document: i. Date the case was identified ii. Date other staff and residents are tested iii. Dates that staff and residents who tested negative are retested iv. Results of all tests Review of the Agency staff scheduled during the COVID-19 outbreak dated 11/11/2022 - 12/08/2022 revealed the following Agency staff did not have COVID-19 testing performed for the following shifts worked: S11LPN: 11/16/2022, 12/01/2022, 12/02/2022, 12/06/2022, 12/08/2022; S16CNA: 11/27/2022, 11/28/2022, 11/29/2022, 11/30/2022, 12/01/2022, 12/05/2022, 12/07/2022; S20LPN: 11/17/2022, 11/18/2022, 11/26/2022, 12/06/2022; S21LPN: 11/17/2022, 11/18/2022, 11/19/2022, 12/01/2022, 12/08/2022; S22LPN: 11/15/2022, 11/18/2022, 11/19/2022, 11/20/2022, 11/23/2022, 11/27/2022; S23LPN: 11/25/2022, 11/26/2022, 11/27/2022, 12/02/2022; S24LPN: 11/19/2022, 11/20/2022, 11/21/2022, 11/24/2022, 11/25/2022, 11/27/2022, 11/28/2022, 12/02/2022, 12/04/2022, 12/07/2022, 12/08/2022; S25CNA: 11/16/2022, 11/17/2022, 11/18/2022, 11/19/2022, 11/20/2022, 11/21/2022, 11/22/2022, 11/23/2022, 11/26/2022, 11/27/2022, 12/01/2022, 12/02/2022, 12/03/2022; and S26CNA: 11/29/2022, 11/30/2022, 12/01/2022, 12/02/2022. On 12/07/2022 at 9:45 a.m., an interview was conducted with S27LPN. She said she was agency staff and worked on the COVID-19 unit. She said no one at the facility told her she needed to test for COVID-19 prior to working her shift. She confirmed she had not COVID-19 tested at the facility today or in the last 48 hours. On 12/07/2022 at 10:05 a.m., an interview was conducted with S16CNA. She said she was agency staff and worked on the COVID-19 unit. She confirmed she was not COVID-19 tested prior to working her shift today or in the last 48 hours. On 12/08/2022 at 11:05 a.m., an interview was conducted with S3IP. She said agency staff should be rapid COVID-19 tested prior to every shift or if they worked several days in a row then every 48 hours. She said the charge nurses were responsible for making sure all staff including agency staff were COVID-19 tested accordingly. She said she did not consistently check the schedules and COVID-19 test results to ensure agency staff were tested and should have. On 12/08/2022 at 11:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with S11LPN in the presence of S3IP. S11LPN said she was agency staff and worked on the COVID-19 unit. S11LPN confirmed she was not COVID-19 tested prior to working her shift today or in the last 48 hours. S3IP told S11LPN she should have COVID-19 tested prior to working her shift. On 12/08/2022 at 1:25 p.m., an interview was conducted with S30RN. She said it was the agency staff's responsibility to self COVID-19 test every 48 hrs. She said S3IP was responsible for monitoring agency staff for COVID-19 testing. On 12/08/2022 at 1:53 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She said all staff including agency staff should be COVID-19 tested prior to working their shift or every 48 hours if they worked back to back shifts. She said the charge nurses were responsible for ensuring all staff including agency staff COVID-19 tested accordingly. She confirmed S27LPN, S16CNA, and S11LPN were not COVID-19 tested prior to working their shifts and should have been. On 12/09/2022 at 9:22 a.m., S2DON provided a list of agency staff who worked at the facility since the COVID-19 outbreak started on 11/11/2022 and their COVID-19 testing requisition forms. She confirmed agency staff should have been tested prior to working each shift and were not. On 12/09/2022 at 9:28 a.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. He said the charge nurses on each shift were responsible for making sure all staff, including agency staff, COVID-19 tested prior to working their shift. He was notified the charge nurse reported it was the responsibility of the agency staff and S3IP to COVID-19 test agency staff; and S2DON and S3IP reported it was the charge nurses responsibility. He confirmed there was a definite breakdown with communication in general and staff were not on the same page. He confirmed the agency staff that worked since the COVID-19 outbreak on 11/11/2022 were not tested prior to working every shift and should have been. He said staff, including agency staff, not being COVID-19 tested prior to working could contribute to the spread of COVID-19. On 12/09/2022 at 2:44 p.m., an interview was conducted with S28CNA. She said this was her first day back to work after being out for the last two months. She said she had not been COVID-19 tested upon returning to work today. She said she was supposed to have been COVID-19 tested but she had not been.
Nov 2022 5 deficiencies
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** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident was treated with respect ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident was treated with respect and dignity in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 2 (#51 and #52) of 12 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure: 1. S9CNA knocked and requested permission to enter Resident #51's room, communicated with the resident, and requested the resident's permission prior to pulling back the bed linens, and 2. S11RN knocked and requested permission to enter Resident #52's room. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 19 residents residing in the facility. Findings: Resident #51 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #51 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Dementia, Left Lower Extremity Hematoma Evacuation, and Left Lower Extremity Cellulitis status post Incision and Drainage. Review of Resident #51's admission MDS with ARD of 10/25/2022 revealed Resident #51 had a BIMS of 4, which indicated she had severe cognitive impairment. On 11/01/2022 at 2:30 p.m., an observation was made of S9CNA entering Resident #51's room through the open door without knocking and receiving permission to enter. Resident #51 was observed asleep in bed and startled awake when S9CNA yanked the bed linens off the bottom of the bed, threw them back on top of Resident #51's upper extremities and exposed her bare legs, feet, and wound dressing. Resident #51 asked S9CNA what she was doing. S9CNA exited Resident #51's room and abruptly reentered Resident #51's room and yanked the bed linens back over Resident #51's legs. S9CNA exited the room without ever speaking to Resident #51. On 11/01/2022 at 3:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with S8CS. She said residents had the right to be treated with dignity and respect. She said staff were expected to knock and request permission prior to entering a resident's room. She said staff were expected to introduce themselves and ask permission to provide any care prior to touching a resident or their belongings. She said she would consider a staff member entering a resident's room without knocking and yanking their covers off their legs to be disrespectful. On 11/01/2022 at 3:05 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She said residents had the right to be treated with dignity and respect. She said she would expect staff to knock and request permission to enter a resident's room even if the door was already open. She said she would expect staff to explain to a resident what the staff was there to do and request permission prior to touching a resident. She said staff should never yank a resident's bed linens off them. On 11/02/2022 at 11:51 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #51. She said staff came into her room often without knocking. She said she would prefer staff to knock prior to walking into her room even if her door was open. She said she was startled yesterday when S9CNA came into her room without knocking and threw back her covers while she was asleep. She said she wanted staff to let her know what they were doing before they did it. On 11/02/2022 at 11:53 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #51's family member. She said she had observed staff coming into Resident #51's room without knocking and asking permission to enter. She said due to Resident #51's confusion some days she would appreciate staff knocking and asking permission to enter the room and before providing care so they did not startle her. Resident #52 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #52 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Congestive Heart Failure, Atrial Fibrillation, Right Transmetatarsal Amputation, and Right Foot Posterior Tibial Bypass. Review of Resident #52's admission MDS with ARD of 10/20/2022 revealed Resident #52 had a BIMS of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. On 11/02/2022 at 10:05 a.m., an observation was made of S11RN outside Resident #52's room. She opened the room door without knocking and entered without permission from Resident #52. On 11/02/2022 at 10:32 a.m., an observation was made of S11RN outside Resident #52's room. She opened the room door without knocking and entered without permission from Resident #52. On 11/02/2022 at 10:43 a.m., an interview was conducted with S11RN. She confirmed she entered Resident #52's room twice this morning without knocking. S11RN stated she normally knocked and waited for an answer, but that day she did not and she should have waited for permission before entering the resident's room. On 11/02/2022 at 3:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #52. He verified S11RN did not knock and obtain permission to enter his room twice this morning. He said the staff should knock out of respect for him. He said he urinated in a urinal in bed and needed his privacy. He said he would feel embarrassed if staff walked in on him while he was urinating. On 11/02/2022 at 4:30 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She confirmed all staff should knock and request permission to enter a resident's room.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's right to personal privacy ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's right to personal privacy was maintained for 1 (#51) of 12 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure the privacy curtain was pulled or the room door was closed when S9CNA exposed Resident #51's bare lower extremities. Findings: Resident #51 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #51 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Dementia, Left Lower Extremity Hematoma Evacuation, and Left Lower Extremity Cellulitis status post Incision and Drainage. Review of Resident #51's admission MDS with ARD of 10/25/2022 revealed Resident #51 had a BIMS of 4, which indicated she had severe cognitive impairment. On 11/01/2022 at 2:30 p.m., an observation was made of S9CNA entering Resident #51's room through the open door. Resident #51 was observed asleep in bed. With the door open, S9CNA yanked Resident #51's bed linens off the bottom of the bed, threw them back on top of Resident #51's upper extremities and exposed her bare legs, feet, and wound dressing. S9CNA did not pull the privacy curtain. On 11/01/2022 at 2:33 p.m., an observation was made of S9CNA exiting Resident #51's room through the open door while the resident's bare legs were exposed. Staff and visitors were observed in the hallway. On 11/01/2022 at 3:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with S8CS. She confirmed residents had the right to privacy. She said a resident's room door or privacy curtain should not be open if any part of a resident's body was to be exposed. She said since Resident #51's door was open there was no barrier to keep the resident from being exposed to anyone in the hallway. On 11/02/2022 at 11:51 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #51. She said she wanted staff to close the room door before they provided care. When asked if she would have wanted S9CNA to close the door or pull the privacy curtain before she moved her bed linens and exposed her bare legs, she replied yes I would. On 11/01/2022 at 3:05 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She confirmed residents had a right to privacy. She said she would not expect staff to throw back the resident's covers and expose a resident's bare legs and wound dressing with the room door open and the privacy curtain not pulled. She said Resident #51 could have been exposed to anyone that passed in the hall.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents had a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment for 10 (Room a, Room b, Room c. Room d, R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents had a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment for 10 (Room a, Room b, Room c. Room d, Room e, Room f, Room g, Room h, Room i, and Room j) of 19 resident rooms observed during the initial pool process. The facility failed to ensure: 1. privacy curtains were clean and functional in Rooms a, c, f, and g, 2. walls were clean and free of stains in Rooms a, b, i, and j, 3. walls were free of chipped paint in Rooms a, c, d, and h, 4. trim remained attached to the wall in Room g, 5. linens were clean in Room a, 6. floors were clean and free of debris in Rooms a, c, and g, 7. doors remained clean and free of chipped wood in Rooms e and g, 8. baseboard remained attached to wall and present in Rooms a, 9. light fixtures had working bulbs in Room b, and 10. ceilings were clean and free of stains in Room c. There were 25 certified beds in the facility. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Maintenance Work Order Request revealed the following, in part: Policy: Work orders are generated to notify the facility's Maintenance Department of the need for a repair or other maintenance issue requiring attention. Procedure: To obtain maintenance services from the facility's maintenance department staff shall: 4. Request priority a. High- Address within the next 24 hours Review of the maintenance log dated October 2022 revealed a request for Room b on 10/14/2022. Description of needed work repair: Room b over bed light needs to be changed. Request Priority: High-Addressed within the next 24 hours. On 10/31/2022 at 12:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with a family member of Resident #51 in Room a. She said the facility had not been keeping Resident #51's room clean. She said housekeeping had been hit or miss and when they cleaned Resident #51's room, they left dirt and debris on the floors and behind the door. She said Resident #51's linens were not getting changed daily or when they were soiled. She pulled back Resident #51's covers and revealed scattered dark red stains to the bottom right corner of the fitted sheet. She said the blood stains had been on the fitted sheet since the weekend. On 10/31/2022 at 12:30 p.m., an observation was made of Room a. The observation revealed the following: privacy curtain soiled with multiple small scattered black, brown and red stains, a dime sized dark red spot on the floor under the room sink, dried sticky black and brown substance behind the room door and on all corners of the room, debris scattered on the floor, and small amounts of dried light brown substance on the wall across from the bathroom, missing baseboard by the room sink, and chipped paint on the three walls around the room sink. On 10/31/2022 at 12:42 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #53 in Room b. She said the light above her bed had two bulbs and the top one had not worked for weeks. She said she had asked staff five times to have the bulb changed. She said the light on the bottom of the fixture was too bright when she read at night and she would like the light at the top of fixture to work. She flipped the light switches on the wall by the bed up and down. The lower light was observed to turn on but the upper light did not. On 10/31/2022 at 12:44 p.m., an observation was made of Room b. The observation revealed the following: the wall behind the head of bed was covered in a large amount of a black and white substance. On 10/31/2022 at 12:47 p.m., an observation was made of Room c. The observation revealed the following: chipped paint on the walls by the door and room sink, privacy curtain soiled with scattered brown stains, debris on the floor and behind the door, scattered trash and debris near a wet floor sign, and scattered yellow and brown spots on the ceiling above the bed. On 10/31/2022 at 12:48 p.m., an observation was made of Room d. The observation revealed the following: chipped paint on wall by room sink. On 11/01/2022 at 7:50 a.m., an observation was made of Room g. The observation revealed the following: privacy curtain with scattered dried red and brown substance, floor behind the room door with a dried, sticky yellow and brown substance, a black substance scattered on the floor by the door, small section of trim on the wall behind the bed was unattached and sticking out from the wall, room door noted with large amount of scuff marks and chunks of the door missing with wood exposed. On 11/01/2022 at 7:57 a.m., an observation was made of Room f. The observation revealed the following: privacy curtain soiled with scattered black substance and partially unattached from the ceiling and touched the floor. On 11/01/2022 at 8:27 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #51 in Room a. She said staff had not changed her sheets in days, pulled back the bed linens and revealed scattered dark red stains to the bottom right corner of the fitted sheet. Further observation of Room a revealed the following: privacy curtain soiled with multiple small scattered black, brown and red stains, a dime sized dark red spot on floor under the resident's sink, dried sticky black and brown substance behind the room door and on all corners of the room, debris scattered on the floor, and small amount of a dried light brown substance on the wall across from the bathroom, missing baseboard by the sink, and chipped paint on the three walls around the sink. On 11/01/2022 at 9:05 a.m., an observation was made of Room f. The observation revealed the following: privacy curtain soiled with scattered black substance and partially unattached from the ceiling and touched the floor. On 11/01/2022 at 12:01 p.m., an observation was made of Room i. The observation revealed the following: black scuff marks on the wall by the head of the bed and down the wall approximately 27 foot by 3 inches. On 11/01/2022 12:03 p.m., an observation was made of Room j. The observation revealed the following: black staining on the wall. On 11/01/2022 12:05 p.m., an observation was made of Room h. The observation revealed the following: paint missing on the wall in two patches approximately 4 inches by 7 inches and 2 inches by 6 inches. On 11/01/2022 at 1:05 p.m., an observation was made of Room e. The observation revealed the following: room door was scuffed and chipped with wood exposed. On 11/01/2022 at 1:35 p.m., an interview was conducted with S4MS. He reviewed the work order dated 10/14/2022 for Room b that stated the over bed light needed to be changed and marked as high priority- address within the next 24 hours. He confirmed he had previously reviewed the work order for Room b, but had not gotten to it yet. He said there was no specific time frame for completing the work order requests that it depended on the priority of the work as to when he got to it. He was observed turning the light switches on and off by Room b's bed. He confirmed the light bulb on top of the light fixture did not work and needed to be changed. On 11/01/2022 at 1:58 p.m., an interview was conducted with S8CS. She said a resident's bed linens should be changed daily and as needed when soiled. She said the CNAs were responsible for changing bed linens daily and checking to see if they were soiled. On 11/01/2022 at 2:30 p.m., an interview was conducted with S9CNA. She said she changed Resident #51's bed linens in Room a yesterday and checked the bed linens this morning. She said Resident #51's linens were not soiled. On 11/01/2022 at 2:32 p.m., an observation was made of Room a's bed linens with S9CNA. She confirmed the scattered dark red stains to the bottom right corner of the fitted sheet. On 11/01/2022 at 2:40 p.m., an environmental tour was conducted with S1ADM. The following resident rooms were observed: Room a, Room b, Room c. Room d, Room e, Room f, Room g, Room h, Room i, and Room j. He confirmed the items observed were present and needed cleaning and or repair. He said within 24 hours of S4MS being notified of a maintenance issue it should be addressed. He reviewed the Maintenance Work Request dated 10/14/2022 for Room b. He said he would have expected Room b's over bed light bulb to be changed prior to today. On 11/01/2022 at 3:05 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She said a resident's bed linens should be changed daily and as needed when soiled. She was notified of the observations made on 10/31/2022 and 11/01/2022 of Resident #51's soiled bed linens. She said she would have expected Resident #51's soiled bed linens to be assessed and changed by staff prior to today.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure services were provided to meet quality professional standar...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure services were provided to meet quality professional standards for 2 (#53, #152) of 2 (#53, #152) sampled residents reviewed for diabetes. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Adequate blood glucose monitoring 2. Staff administered sliding scale insulin per the physician's order Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Administration and Documentation revealed the following: An entry of drugs administered and omitted shall be properly documented in the patient's medical record as follows: 1. Record every dose of drug administered in the patient's record after administration. 2. If the patient for any reason does not receive a dose of medication prescribed, the nurse must chart the reason for omitting the dose in the nurse's notes of the chart. The nurse shall also circle he dose omitted on the MAR and write a brief explanation next to the circled dose. Review of the facility's policy titled Blood Glucose Monitoring revealed the following: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to perform blood glucose monitoring to diabetic residents as per physician's orders. Resident #53 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #53 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Diabetes Type 2 and Insulin Dependent Diabetic. Review of the October 2022 Physician orders for Resident #53 revealed the following, in part: 10/11/2022- Accucheck BID 10/07/2022- Accucheck before breakfast and at bedtime 10/07/2022- Sliding Scale for SQ Regular Insulin <200= 0 units, 201-250=2 units, 251-300=4 units, 301-350=6 units, 351-400=8 units, >400=10 units and notify MD. Recheck CBG 1 hour after administering insulin 10/07/2022- Insulin 70/30 ASP-PRT 10 units before breakfast and supper Review of October 2022 MAR for Resident #53 revealed the following, in part: -Insulin ASP-PRT 70/30 inject 10 units subcutaneously before breakfast and supper 10/27/2022 4:30 p.m. dose not documented as administered -Accuchecks Twice Daily 10/27/2022 7:30 a.m. not documented as performed 10/27/2022 4:30 p.m. not documented as performed -Regular Insulin Sliding Scale: <200= 0 units, 201-250=2 units, 251-300=4 units, 301-350=6 units, 351-400=8 units, >400=10 units and notify MD. Recheck CBG 1 hour after administering insulin 10/31/2022 7:30 a.m. accucheck 223 Sliding Scale Insulin not documented as administered. Review of the Graphic Record Form dated 10/27/2022 revealed no Blood Glucose results documented for Resident #53. Review of the Graphic Record Form dated 10/31/2022 revealed Blood Glucose results 223 at 7:00 a.m. for Resident #53. Resident #152 Review of the History and Physical revealed Resident #152 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2. Review of the current Physician's orders revealed Resident #152 was to receive blood glucose monitoring before meals and at bedtime with insulin coverage on a sliding scale. Review of the Graphic Record Form revealed no blood glucose results on 09/28/2022 at 7:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., and 4:30 p.m. Review of the MAR revealed the following: On 09/21/2022 at 7:30 a.m., Resident #152's blood glucose level was 230 and no sliding scale insulin was administered. On 09/21/2022 at 11:30 a.m., Resident #152's blood glucose level was 285 and no sliding scale insulin was administered. On 09/21/2022 at 4:30 p.m., Resident #152's blood glucose level was 317 and no sliding scale insulin was administered. On 09/27/2022 at 11:30 a.m., Resident #152's blood glucose level was 308 and no sliding scale insulin was administered. On 09/28/2022 at 7:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., and 4:30 p.m., staff failed to obtain Resident #152's blood glucose level as ordered. On 11/01/2022 at 2:28 p.m., an interview was conducted with S6LPN. S6LPN stated once the nurse checks a resident's blood glucose, it would be documented on the Graphic Record Form and MAR. S6LPN stated if the nurse administered insulin, it would be documented on the MAR. S6LPN stated if they were not document in the Graphic Record Form or the MAR, the nurse did not check the blood glucose or administer insulin. On 11/02/2022 at 4:30 p.m., an interview was conducted S2DON. She reviewed Resident #53's clinical record including the MAR, graphic record forms, and nursing flow sheets. She verified S10LPN signed Resident #53's MAR on the 6 a.m.-6 p.m. shift on 10/27/2022 and 10/31/2022. She confirmed on 10/27/2022 there was no documentation indicating Resident #53's scheduled insulin was administered at 4:30 p.m. She confirmed there was no documentation that accuchecks were performed twice a day as ordered on 10/27/2022 for Resident #53. She confirmed on 10/31/2022, Resident #53's blood glucose was 223 at 7:30 a.m. and required insulin per the sliding scale. She confirmed there was no documentation that the sliding scale insulin was administered to Resident #53 as ordered. She said she would have expected S10LPN to perform and document accuchecks and administration of medications as ordered for Resident #53 on the MAR. On 11/02/2022 at 4:32 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. S2DON confirmed the following findings for Resident #152 on 09/21/2022, 09/27/2022, and 09/28/2022. S2DON stated the nurses were expected to document the blood glucose level on the MAR and Flowsheet and any insulin administered was expected to be documented on the MAR. S2DON confirmed there was no documentation on the MAR, Graphics Record Form, and Flowsheet for the findings above. S2DON stated she would expect the staff to have checked the resident's blood sugar and done the sliding scale insulin accordingly.
CONCERN (F)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 9 (#51, #53...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 9 (#51, #53, #151, #152, #201, #204, #251, #252, #256) of 12 sampled residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed for: 1. Altered skin integrity for 2 (#201, #204) residents; 2. Psychotropic drugs for 3 (#151, #204, #256) residents; 3. Diagnosis of Diabetes for 2 (#53, #152) residents; 4. Anticoagulant use and at risk for bleeding for 1 (#51) resident; 5. Dialysis for 1 (#251) resident; and 6. Indwelling urinary catheter for 1 (#252) resident. Findings: Review of facility's Plan of Care Policy stated, in part: A. Assessment: 1. After a thorough nursing assessment is done, Care Plans are initiated by an RN. The Care Plan will identify the main problems or potential problem areas that are patient specific including interventions and measurable goals. All interventions should be patient specific. 2. The admission assessment data and physician orders are the basis for the selection and individualization of the Patient Plan of Care. Patients receive care based on documented assessment of their needs. 3. Each Patient's Nursing Care Plan is based on identified nursing diagnosis and are consistent with the therapies of other disciplines. The care plans are also based on patient care needs and standards. Resident #51 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #51 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Left Lower Extremity Hematoma Evacuation, Left Lower Extremity Cellulitis status post Incision and Drainage, Chronic Venous Insufficiency, Peripheral Artery Disease, and History of Left Arm Surgery for Thrombectomy. Review of the admission MDS with ARD of 10/25/2022 for Resident #51 revealed she received an anticoagulant for 7 days. Review of the October 2022 Physician orders for Resident #51 revealed the following, in part: 10/19/2022-Lovenox 40 mg subcutaneously daily. Review of the current Care Plan for Resident #51 revealed it did not contain goals and interventions related to the risk for bleeding due to anticoagulants. On 11/02/2022 at 2:18 p.m., an interview was conducted with S7LPN. She said Resident #51 was prescribed Lovenox 40 mg subcutaneously daily for a post-surgical procedure to her left leg. She said Lovenox was prophylactic per facility protocol for Deep Vein Thrombosis prevention. She said Resident #51 had very thin skin and bruising to her abdomen from the Lovenox injections. She reviewed the care plan for Resident #51 and confirmed she was not care planned for risk for bleeding related to anticoagulants. Resident #53 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #53 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Diabetes Type 2 and Insulin Dependent Diabetic. Review of the 5-day MDS with ARD of 10/14/2022 for Resident #53 revealed she received insulin injections 6 of 7 days. Review of the current Care Plan for Resident #53 revealed it did not contain goals and interventions related to Diabetes. On 11/02/2022 at 12:25 p.m., an interview was conducted with S7LPN. She said Resident #53 was diabetic and was prescribed insulin. She said Resident #53 should be care planned for diabetes. She reviewed the care plan for Resident #53 and confirmed the resident was not care planned for diabetes. Resident #151 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #151 revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of Anxiety and Depression. A review of the Medication Administration Record dated 10/25/2022 revealed Resident #151 had an order for Venlafaxine 75mg ER by mouth daily, with a start date of 10/25/2022. A review of Resident #151's care plan revealed it did not contain goals and interventions related to the use of psychotropic drugs. Resident #152 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #152 revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2. A review of Resident #152's care plan revealed it did not contain goals and interventions related to Diabetes. Resident #201 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #201 revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Diverticulosis. A review of the facility's History and Physical revealed Resident #201 was hospitalized for bowel obstruction and had a hernia repair. She was discharge from the hospital and transferred to the facility for therapy and wound care. A review of Resident #201's care plan revealed it did not contain goals and interventions related to altered skin integrity. Resident #204 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #204 revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included Dementia and Colon obstruction. Review of the facility's History and Physical revealed Resident #204 was hospitalized for abdominal pain with nausea and vomiting. She had a small bowel resection on 10/13/2022 and then was transferred to the facility for therapy. A review of the Medication Administration Record dated 11/01/2022 revealed Resident #204 had an order for Quetiapine 25 mg tablet by mouth at bedtime, with a start date of 10/20/2022. A review of Resident #204's care plan revealed it did not contain goals and interventions related to the use of psychotropic medications or altered skin integrity. Resident #251 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #251 revealed resident was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of ESRD on Hemodialysis. A review of Resident #251's care plan revealed it did not contain goals and interventions related to Dialysis care. Resident #252 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #252 revealed resident was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Osteomyelitis to sacrum secondary to decubitus, debility. Further review of the clinical record revealed the resident had a urinary catheter. A review of Resident #252's care plan revealed it did not contain goals and interventions related to a urinary catheter. Resident #256 Review of the Clinical Record for Resident #256 revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of Anxiety and Major Depressive Disorder. A review of the Medication Administration Record dated 10/21/2022 revealed Resident #256 had an order for Trazodone 75mg ER by mouth nightly and Venlafaxine XR 150mg by mouth daily, with a start date of 10/21/2022. A review of Resident #256's care plan revealed it did not contain goals and interventions related to the use of psychotropic drugs. On 11/02/2022 at 11:48 a.m., an interview was conducted with S5RN. She stated she was the charge nurse. She stated it was the charge nurses responsibility to initiate the care plan when a resident was admitted . She stated upon admit, she completed the care plan according to the resident's diagnosis and medications. She stated after she initiated the care plan, she did not go back and update the care plan. She stated she assumed the MDS nurse took over the care plans after the initial assessment and updated them. On 11/02/2022 at 4:04 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3MDS. She stated it was the responsibility of the charge nurse to initiate resident's care plans on admit. She stated every Tuesday a staff meeting was held and included the following staff: the MDS nurse, the doctor, a speech therapist, a physical therapist, an occupational therapist, the case manager, the wound care nurse, and a dietary staff member. She stated at the staff meetings each of the residents care plans were reviewed and updated by the team. She reviewed Resident #51's care plan and confirmed she was not care planned for bleeding related to anticoagulant drug use and should have been. She reviewed Resident #201 and #204's care plan and confirmed these residents were not care planned for impaired skin integrity and should have been. She reviewed Resident #151, #204, and #256's care plan and confirmed these residents were not care planned for psychotropic drug use and should have been. She reviewed Resident #53 and #152's care plan and confirmed they were not care planned for Diabetes and should have been. She reviewed Resident #251's care plan and confirmed Resident #251 was not care planned for Dialysis and should have been. She reviewed Resident #252's care plan and confirmed Resident #252 was not care planned for a urinary catheter and should have been. On 11/02/2022 at 4:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She stated the charge nurse or the wound care nurse initiated the care plan within 24 hours of a resident being admitted to the facility. She stated if the care plan needed to be updated, it would be updated at the Tuesday staff meeting. She reviewed Resident #51's care plan and confirmed she was not care planned for bleeding related to anticoagulant drug use and should have been. She reviewed Resident #201 and #204's care plan and confirmed these residents were not care planned for impaired skin integrity and should have been. She reviewed Resident #151, #204, and #256's care plan and confirmed these residents were not care planned for psychotropic drug use and should have been. She reviewed Resident #53 and #152's care plan and confirmed they were not care planned for Diabetes and should have been. She reviewed Resident #251's care plan and confirmed Resident #251 was not care planned for Dialysis and should have been. She reviewed Resident #252's care plan and confirmed Resident #252 was not care planned for a urinary catheter and should have been. She confirmed as a supervisor it was her responsibility to ensure care plans were accurate.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Louisiana facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 22 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (2/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 4 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Sage Rehabilitation Hospital Snf's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SAGE REHABILITATION HOSPITAL SNF an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Louisiana, 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 Sage Rehabilitation Hospital Snf Staffed?

CMS rates SAGE REHABILITATION HOSPITAL SNF's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Sage Rehabilitation Hospital Snf?

State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at SAGE REHABILITATION HOSPITAL SNF during 2022 to 2024. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 15 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Sage Rehabilitation Hospital Snf?

SAGE REHABILITATION HOSPITAL SNF is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 25 certified beds and approximately 23 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BATON ROUGE, Louisiana.

How Does Sage Rehabilitation Hospital Snf Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, SAGE REHABILITATION HOSPITAL SNF's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Sage Rehabilitation Hospital Snf?

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

Is Sage Rehabilitation Hospital Snf Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SAGE REHABILITATION HOSPITAL SNF has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Louisiana. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Sage Rehabilitation Hospital Snf Stick Around?

SAGE REHABILITATION HOSPITAL SNF has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 8 percentage points above the Louisiana average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Sage Rehabilitation Hospital Snf Ever Fined?

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

Is Sage Rehabilitation Hospital Snf on Any Federal Watch List?

SAGE REHABILITATION HOSPITAL SNF 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.