Heritage Healthcare of Hammond

1300 DEREK DRIVE, HAMMOND, LA 70403 (985) 345-7210
For profit - Limited Liability company 108 Beds PLANTATION MANAGEMENT COMPANY Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
26/100
#211 of 264 in LA
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

Heritage Healthcare of Hammond has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor quality and significant concerns about care. With a state rank of #211 out of 264 facilities in Louisiana, they are in the bottom half of nursing homes, and rank last in Tangipahoa County. The facility is worsening, as the number of issues reported increased from 10 in 2024 to 21 in 2025. Staffing is a mixed bag; while they have a 39% turnover rate that is below the state average, their overall staffing rating is only 1 out of 5 stars, suggesting inadequate staff levels. Additionally, there are concerning incidents, including a critical finding where a resident did not receive a necessary medication, leading to a life-threatening situation. Other issues include insufficient staff to assist residents with showers and delayed assessments for residents, which could compromise their care. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing retention, the multiple significant deficiencies and poor performance ratings are troubling for families considering this facility.

Trust Score
F
26/100
In Louisiana
#211/264
Bottom 21%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
10 → 21 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
39% turnover. Near Louisiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$13,715 in fines. Higher than 63% of Louisiana facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 9 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
32 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 10 issues
2025: 21 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (39%)

    9 points below Louisiana average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Louisiana average (2.4)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 39%

Near Louisiana avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $13,715

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: PLANTATION MANAGEMENT COMPANY

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 32 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Sept 2025 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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents with Pressure Ulcers received care...

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 residents with Pressure Ulcers received care consistent with professional standards of practice by failing to ensure:1. The nurse documented the date and their initials on the dressings of each treatment performed for 2 (#3 and #4) of 4 (#3, #4, #5, and #6) residents reviewed with Pressure Ulcers; and 2. The nurse applied dressings large enough to fully cover and protect the wounds for 1 (#4) of 4 (#3, #4, #5, and #6) residents reviewed with Pressure Ulcers. Findings: Review of the facility's Wound Care Policy and Procedure, effective 11/26/2014, revealed, in part, the following:Treatment Orders: After observation/evaluation of the affected skin area, implement standing orders. Applying Treatment: 1. Date and Initial each Dressing Nursing Interventions: 1. Local Care a. Cleansing and dressing as ordered and appropriate 2. Keep resident clean and dry Resident #3 Review of Resident #3's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Pressure Ulcer, Unspecified Stage, Bacterial Infection, Spastic Quadriplegic, and Cerebral Palsy. Review of Resident #3's Current Physician Orders revealed the following:Start date- 09/02/2025. Pressure ulcer right anterior hip clean with normal saline/wound cleanser, pat dry apply Dakin soaked dressing, apply barrier of choice, and cover with clean dry dressing daily. Start date- 09/08/2025. Pressure Ulcer to left hip to sacral clean with normal saline/wound cleanser, pat dry apply medical/honey, apply barrier of choice, and cover with clean dry dressing daily. An observation was conducted on 09/08/2025 at 08:55 a.m. of Resident #3's sacrum dressing not fully covering pressure wound area. An observation was conducted on 09/08/2025 at 10:30 a.m. of Resident #3's dressings to the bilateral heels, sacrum, and right ischium. The dressings were observed without the date the treatment was performed or the initials of the person who performed the treatment. An observation and interview was performed on 09/08/2025 at 11:20 a.m. with S6LPN. S6LPN confirmed she was the facility's Wound Treatment Nurse and performed wound treatments Monday through Friday. S6LPN confirmed she did not perform Resident #3's wound treatment on 08/06/2025 or 08/07/2025 and was not aware who served as the treatment nurse on those dates. S6LPN confirmed Resident #3's dressings did not contain the date the treatment was performed or the initials of the person who performed the treatment, and should have. S6LPN confirmed this information was important to have on the dressing to indicate it was performed on time as ordered and to be used as a point of reference to determine the amount of drainage present from a specific timeframe. An interview was conducted with S11CNA on 09/08/2025 at 11:30 a.m. S11CNA confirmed Resident #3's dressing did not have date and initials on dressing prior to being removed. Resident #4 Review of Resident #4's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, Stage 4. Review of Resident #4's Current Physician Orders revealed the following:Start date- 09/02/2025. Pressure ulcer to sacral wound area- clean with normal saline/wound cleanser pat dry apply mesalt and calcium alginate apply barrier of choice and cover with clean dry dressing daily. An observation was conducted on 09/08/2025 at 10:40 a.m. of Resident #4's dressing to the sacrum. The dressing did not extend past the edges of the wound, leaving a 3 inch x 3 inch portion of her sacral wound open to air with no protective covering. Observation also revealed the dressing did not contain the date the treatment was performed or the initials of the person who performed it. An observation and interview was performed on 09/08/2025 at 11:20 a.m. with S6LPN. S6LPN confirmed Resident #4's sacral dressing did not extend beyond the edges of her wound which left an area 3 inches x 3 inches exposed to contaminants and this should not happen. S6LPN confirmed all wounds with orders to cover with a dressing should have a dressing in place which extended beyond the edges of the wound to fully cover it and prevent anything from coming in contact with the wound. S6LPN further confirmed Resident #4's dressing did not contain the date the treatment was performed or the initials of the person who performed the treatment and should have. An interview was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 10:30 a.m. with S7NP. S7NP confirmed Residents #3 and #4 had orders to keep pressure ulcer wound covered. S7NP confirmed importance of wound dressings to be dated and timed to determine the amount of drainage present at a specific timeframe. S7NP confirmed if the treatment order called for the wound to be covered with a dressing, she expected the dressing to be large enough to fully cover wound, leaving no openings to air or exposure to contaminants. S7NP confirmed leaving a wound open to air that should be covered greatly increased the risk of the wound becoming infected and should not occur. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 2:47 p.m. with S2DON. S2DON confirmed both Residents #3 and #4 received wound care for pressure ulcers. S2DON further confirmed dressings should completely cover wounds as per orders, include date of dressing change, and the initials of the person performing the treatment. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 2:47 p.m. with S1ADM. S1ADM confirmed she expected staff to follow orders and policy in regards to wound care treatments.
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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means rece...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 (#4) of 2 (#4 and #R1) residents reviewed for enteral feedings. The facility failed to ensure the enteral feeding bag was appropriately labeled with a date, time, and nurse initials. Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 (#4) of 2 (#4 and #R1) residents reviewed for enteral feedings. The facility failed to ensure the enteral feeding bag was appropriately labeled with a date, time, and nurse initials. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Enteral Nutritional Therapy, dated 01/14/2016 revealed the following: Enteral Nutritional Therapy is to be given as ordered by the physician.11. Change formula container per facility procedure.Review of the clinical record for Resident #4 revealed she was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] (original admission date to facility 12/18/2020) with diagnoses which included Gastrostomy Status. Review of the current Physician Orders for Resident #4 revealed, in part, the following: Start date: 05/30/2025 - Enteral Nutrition via feeding pump- Diabetisource via Peg (percutaneous enteral gastrostomy) at 60 ml (milliliter) per hour continuous secondary to dysphagia. Start date: 09/12/2024 - Closed system container- Change feeding administration set with each new bottle; label the formula container, syringe, and administration set with the resident's name, date, time, and nurse's initials. An observation was made on 09/08/2025 at 10:15 a.m. of Resident #4. Resident #4's enteral feeding solution was infusing at 60 ml/hour with no labeling of date, time or nurse initials noted on the formula container. An interview was conducted on 09/08/2025 at 10:40 a.m. with S5LPN. S5LPN confirmed Resident #4's hanging bag of enteral feeding should have been labeled with a date, time, and nurse's initials and was not. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 2:20 p.m. with S2DON. S2DON confirmed an enteral feeding bag should be labeled with the date, time, and nurse's initials at the start of infusion. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 2:25 p.m. with S1ADM. S1ADM confirmed expectation was for staff to follow physician orders and facility policy for administration of enteral feedings.
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 F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to have a measurable evaluation system in place to ensure nursing staff were trained and competent to perform wound treatment...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to have a measurable evaluation system in place to ensure nursing staff were trained and competent to perform wound treatments as ordered prior to being allowed to independently perform them. This deficient practice was evidenced by failure to ensure: 1. The nurse documented the date and their initials on the dressing of each treatment performed for 1 (#3 and #4) of 4 (#3, #4, #5, and #6) residents present in the facility who were reviewed for wounds; and 2. The nurse applied a dressing large enough to fully cover and protect the wound for 1 (#4) of 4 (#3, #4, #5, and #6) residents present in the facility who were reviewed for wounds. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the facility's 31 wounds with active treatment orders. Findings: Review of the facility's Wound Care Policy and Procedure, effective 11/26/2014, revealed, in part, the following:Treatment Orders: After observation/evaluation of the affected skin area, implement standing orders. Applying Treatment: 1. Date and Initial each Dressing Nursing Interventions: 1. Local Care a. Cleansing and dressing as ordered and appropriate 2. Keep resident clean and dry Review of the facility's Staff Assignments, dated 09/06/2025 through 09/07/2025, revealed, in part, the following: 09/06/2025 (Saturday): Wound Treatment Nurse - S4MDS; and09/07/2025 (Sunday): Wound Treatment Nurse - S4MDS.Review of S4MDS's Personnel File revealed she was a Licensed Practical Nurse who was hired to work at the facility on 09/27/2018 and currently served as the facility's Minimum Data Set (MDS) and Care Plan Nurse. Review of S4MDS's Annual Training and Competency Evaluation, dated 08/29/2025, revealed, in part, S3SD initialed indicating she observed S4MDS perform the following tasks with competency demonstrated: Skin Integrity Program - Treatments and Documentation. 1.An observation was conducted on 09/08/2025 at 10:30 a.m. of Resident #3's dressings to the bilateral heels, sacrum and right ischium. The dressings were observed without the date treatment was performed and/or the initials of the person who performed the treatment. An observation and interview was performed on 09/08/2025 at 11:20 a.m. with S6LPN. S6LPN confirmed she was the facility's Wound Treatment Nurse and performed wound treatments Monday through Friday. S6LPN confirmed the facility utilized various nursing staff from all areas of the facility to perform treatments on Saturdays and Sundays and the person performing them varied from week to week. S6LPN confirmed she did not perform Resident #3's wound treatment on 09/06/2025 or 09/07/2025 and was not aware who served as the treatment nurse on those dates. S6LPN confirmed she did not conduct any training or evaluation of competency in regards to wound treatments for floor nurses or the nurses who filled in as Weekend Treatment Nurse. S6LPN confirmed Resident #3's dressings did not contain the date the treatment was performed and/or the initials of the person who performed the treatment and should have. S6LPN confirmed this information was important to have on the dressing to indicate it was performed on time as ordered and to be used as a point of reference to determine the amount of drainage present from a specific timeframe. 2. An observation was conducted on 09/08/2025 at 10:40 a.m. of Resident #4's dressing to the sacrum. The dressing did not extend past the edges of the wound, leaving a 3inch x 3 inch portion of her sacral wound open to air with no protective covering. The dressing did not contain the date the treatment was performed and/or the initials of the person who performed it. An observation and interview was performed on 09/08/2025 at 11:20 a.m. with S6LPN. S6LPN confirmed she did not perform Resident #4's wound treatment on 09/06/2025 or 09/07/2025 and was not aware who did. S6LPN confirmed Resident #4's sacral dressing did not extend beyond the edges of her wound which left an area 3 inches x 3 inches exposed to contaminants and this should not happen. S6LPN confirmed all wounds with orders to cover with a dressing should have a dressing in place which extended beyond the edges of the wound to fully cover it and prevent anything from coming in contact with the wound. S6LPN confirmed Resident #4's dressing did not contain the date the treatment was performed and/or the initials of the person who performed the treatment and should have. An interview was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 8:50 a.m. with S4MDS. S4MDS confirmed she was the facility's MDS and Care Plan Nurse but due to the facility no longer utilizing agency staff, the administrative nurses were assigned to be on-call to cover shifts at least 5 days a month and could be called in to work direct care when and where they were needed. S4MDS confirmed when she arrived to start her shift on 09/06/2025, she thought she would be working as a floor nurse on 09/06/2025 and 09/07/2025 but was told she would be performing wound treatments. S4MDS confirmed she had never been a Wound Treatment Nurse and prior to 09/06/2025, she had not performed wound treatments in over a year. S4MDS confirmed on 09/06/2025, after she found out she would be performing wound treatments, she printed the treatment orders for all of the residents in the facility then found the wound cart to figure out what to do per the printed treatment orders. S4MDS confirmed she went resident to resident and did the best she could but was not certain if she applied all of the treatments per product specifications. S4MDS confirmed she performed all wound treatments on 09/06/2025 and 09/07/2025 and was not aware she should have dated/initialed the dressings when she applied them to the wounds. S4MDS confirmed she used the dressings she could find and did her best to ensure the wounds were fully covered. S4MDS reviewed her aforementioned Annual Training and Competency Evaluation and confirmed she was not provided with training regarding the performance of wound treatments. S4MDS confirmed S3SD had not observed her performing wound treatments to ensure she was competent in the task. S4MDS confirmed S3SD asked her if she had performed wound treatments in the past, had her initial next to each item then S3SD went behind her and initialed as well. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 1:10 p.m. with S3SD. S3SD confirmed she was responsible for the facility's Staff Development which included training and evaluation of skills competency for nursing staff. S3SD confirmed she considered the performance of wound treatments to be a specialized skill which would require specialized training(s). S3SD confirmed she had never been a wound treatment nurse, had not received wound treatment training and did not consider herself competent in the performance of wound care treatments so she would not be able to train and/or perform the evaluation of competency for this specialized skillset. S3SD confirmed each nurse completed a Training and Competency Evaluation form upon hire then annually thereafter. S3SD confirmed she was responsible for completing this form with the employee. S3SD confirmed when a nurse was hired, she asked them if they had previously performed the skills on the list and if they had, she instructed them to initial next to the line item. S3SD confirmed she did not provide training on all of the line items listed on the form, she just verified the nurse had received training and/or performed the task at some point since they became a licensed nurse. S3SD confirmed if they told her they had not, either she or a floor nurse would perform the training. S3SD confirmed after the employee completed the form, she signed her initials under the competency column. S3SD confirmed her initials on the form did not indicate she evaluated the nurse's skill(s) only that she asked the nurse if they had performed the task before. S3SD confirmed she took the nurse's word for it when they said they were competent to perform the skills required for their position. S3SD confirmed the facility did not currently have a system in place to ensure all nurses assigned to perform wound treatments were trained and/or evaluated as being competent in performing the treatments prior to allowing them to do so. S3SD stated if a nurse was responsible for performing wound treatments, they were expected to print the wound orders then follow them. An interview was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 10:30 a.m. with S7NP. S7NP confirmed she had not provided training or performed a skills competency evaluation regarding wound treatments for S4MDS or anyone other than S6LPN. S7NP confirmed training in wound treatments then evaluating to confirm the competency of the floor nurses and/or weekend treatment nurse(s) would be the responsibility of the facility. S7NP confirmed when a wound treatment was performed, the person performing it should document the date and their initials on the wound's dressing. S7NP confirmed this information was important to have on the dressing to indicate it was performed on time, as ordered and to be used as a point of reference to determine the amount of drainage present from a specific timeframe. S7NP confirmed when a wound treatment was performed, if the treatment order called for the wound to be covered with a dressing, she expected the dressing to be large enough to extend beyond the edges of the wound leaving no areas of the wound open to air or exposed to potential contaminants. S7NP confirmed leaving a wound open to air that should be covered greatly increased the risk of the wound becoming infected and should not occur. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 2:30 p.m. with S2DON. S2DON confirmed the performance of wound treatments was considered a specialized skill and would require specialized training followed by an evaluation to confirm competency in the skill(s). S2DON stated the facility hired licensed nurses and as a licensed nurse the facility expected them to be trained and competent to perform the tasks they were required to perform within the facility. S2DON confirmed S3SD taking a nurse's word for it when asked if they were trained and competent in a skillset would not take the place of actually providing the training and performing an evaluation of competency. S2DON confirmed the presence of S3SD's initials on S4MDS' aforementioned Training and Evaluation of Competency did not indicate she provided the training and/or performed an evaluation of S4MDS' competency. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 2:30 p.m. with S1ADM. S1ADM confirmed the performance of wound treatments was considered a specialized skill and would require specialized training followed by an evaluation to confirm competency in the skill(s). S1ADM stated the facility hired licensed nurses and as a licensed nurse the facility expected them to be trained and competent to perform the tasks they were required to perform within the facility. S1ADM confirmed S3SD taking a nurse's word for it when asked if they were trained and competent in a skillset would not take the place of actually providing the training and performing an evaluation of competency. S1ADM confirmed the presence of S3SD's initials on S4MDS' aforementioned Training and Evaluation of Competency did not indicate she provided the training and/or performed an evaluation of S4MDS' competency.
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 observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure the safe dispositio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure the safe disposition and administration of resident medications for 1 (#2) of 3 (#2, #4, and #5) residents present in the facility who were reviewed for medications. This deficient practice was evidenced by Resident #2, who was not assessed for and did not have a physician's order for self-administration of medications, having an inhaler left at bedside.Findings: Review of the facility's Self Administration of Medication Policy and Procedure, effective 12/05/2014, revealed, in part, the following:Policy: Each resident will be assessed on admission, quarterly, annual, any significant change in condition and as needed for self-administration of medication if applicable. Procedure: 1. A Self-Administration of Medication Assessment will be completed as indicated. 2. Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) will review assessment and determine if resident is safe to administer medication. 3. IDT will determine who will be responsible (resident or nursing staff) for storage and documentation of the administration of drugs, as well as the location of the drug administration. 1. If resident is deemed safe: a. Physician order will be written b. Nursing will monitor weekly and as needed. 2. Care plan will be updated. Equipment: 1. Self-Administration of Medication Assessment2. High Risk Meeting3. Care PlanAn observation was conducted 09/08/2025 at 8:40 a.m. of Resident #2's Albuterol Sulfate Inhaler lying on the bedside table next to her bed with no staff present. Review of Resident #2's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD); Cognitive Communication Deficit; Lack of Coordination; Weakness; and a Disorder of Brain.Review of Resident #2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with a modification Assessment Record Date (ARD) of 06/25/2025 revealed she was assessed by the facility to have a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 which indicated she was cognitively intact. Further review of Section G - Functional Status revealed, in part, the following: Eating: Supervision or touching assistance; Oral Hygiene: Partial/Moderate Assistance; Toileting: Substantial/Maximal Assistance; Shower/Bathe: Substantial/Maximal Assistance; Dressing: Substantial/Maximal Assistance; Footwear: Dependent. Review of Resident #2's active Physician Orders, as of 09/08/2025 at 9:50 a.m., revealed no active orders for Resident #2 to self-administer medications or to have medications left at bedside. Further review revealed, in part, an order written on 06/03/2024 for Albuterol Sulfate Inhaler 108 micrograms (mcg)/actuation (act). Inhale 2 puffs every 6 hours as needed for wheezing related to COPD. Review of Resident #2's Care Plan, as of 09/08/2025 at 9:53 a.m., revealed she was not currently careplanned to self-administer medications or to have medications left at bedside. Review of Resident #2's's MAR, dated 08/01/2025 through 09/08/2025, revealed, in part, no documented evidence of Resident #2's Albuterol Sulfate Inhaler being administered at any time during the aforementioned period. An interview and observation was conducted on 09/08/2025 at 8:42 a.m. with S5LPN. S5LPN confirmed Resident #2's Albuterol Sulfate Inhaler was left unattended on her bedside table in her room. S5LPN confirmed Resident #2 did not have an order for the inhaler to remain at bedside or to self-administer her own medications. S5LPN confirmed an assessment for safe self-administration of medications was required for a resident to have medications left at bedside and Resident #2 had not received this assessment. S5LPN confirmed a physician's order was also required for a resident to keep medications at bedside in order to self-administer and Resident #2 did not have such an order. S5LPN confirmed Resident #2's medications should remain locked in the medication cart at all times when a nurse was not actively administering it to the resident. S5LPN reviewed Resident #2's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and confirmed the last time a nurse documented administering her Albuterol Sulfate Inhaler was in July 2025. S5LPN confirmed the MAR documentation could not be accurate because Resident #2 required frequent use of her inhaler to treat her shortness of breath. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 2:30 p.m. with S2DON. S2DON confirmed any resident who wished to self-administer their own medications and have them left at bedside would require an assessment to determine if they were safe to do so along with a physician's order indicating they were approved to self-administer medications and if they were allowed to have the medication left at bedside. S2DON confirmed Resident #2 had not been assessed for safe self-administration of medications and did not have a physician's order to self-administer so her Albuterol Sulfate Inhaler should not have been left at bedside. S2DON confirmed Resident #2's medications should remain locked in the medication cart at all times when a nurse was not actively administering it to her. S2DON confirmed even when a resident was allowed to self-administer, the date/time when the resident self-administered the medication should be documented on the resident's MAR by their nurse and it was not for Resident #2. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 2:30 p.m. with S1ADM. S1ADM confirmed any resident who wished to self-administer their own medications and have them left at bedside would require an assessment to determine if they were safe to do so along with a physician's order indicating they were approved to self-administer medications and if they were allowed to have the medication left at bedside. S1ADM confirmed Resident #2 had not been assessed for safe self-administration of medications and did not have a physician's order to self-administer so her Albuterol Sulfate Inhaler should not have been left at bedside. S1ADM confirmed Resident #2's medications should remain locked in the medication cart at all times when a nurse was not actively administering it to her. S1ADM confirmed even when a resident was allowed to self-administer, the date/time when the resident self-administered the medication should be documented on the resident's MAR by their nurse and it was not for Resident #2.
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 F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient numbers of direct care ...

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 there was sufficient numbers of direct care staff to provide timely assistance with baths/showers for 4 of 4 (#5, #8, #9, and #10) residents reviewed for baths/showers. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 81 residents residing in the facility. Findings: Review of the facility's Bath, Shower Policy and Procedure, effective 09/04/2014, revealed, in part, the following:Policy: Showers are to be given as scheduled and/or as needed. Procedure: NOTE: Never leave the resident alone in the shower room. Review of the facility's Resident Council Meeting Minutes, dated 09/09/2025, revealed, in part, Resident #5, #8, #9, and #10 participated in the meeting. Further review revealed the residents in attendance agreed the new bath/shower process was not working and no one received their baths/showers at their scheduled times. An observation was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 8:25 a.m. of Resident #8 and 2 other residents, seated in wheelchairs in the hallway outside of the bath/shower room waiting to receive their bath/shower. An observation was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 9:05 a.m. of Resident #8 and the same 2 residents, seated in wheelchairs in the hallway outside of the bath/shower room waiting to receive their bath/shower. An observation was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 9:35 a.m. of Resident #8, #10, and one other resident seated in wheelchairs in the hallway outside of the bath/shower room waiting to receive their bath/shower. An observation was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 9:45 a.m. Resident #8 and #10, and one other resident seated in wheelchairs in the hallway outside of the bath/shower room waiting to receive their bath/shower.Resident #5Review of Resident #5's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included, in part, Unspecified Congestive Heart Failure (CHF).Review of Resident #5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/11/2025, revealed, in part, a BIMS of 14, which indicated she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #5's Plan of Care, as of 08/06/2025, revealed, in part, the following:Resident required staff assistance for ADL care. Resident required limited to moderate assistance with ADL's. Resident needs met per herself and staff.Interventions:Assist resident with bathing.An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 8:35 a.m. with Resident #5. Resident #5 stated she had to clean herself up in her sink in the mornings when her CNA was not available to give her a bath/shower. She stated the facility had a bath/shower situation and she was not receiving regular baths or was having to wait hours for a bath/shower. She stated there were not enough CNAs to get everything done. Resident #8Review of Resident #8's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included, in part, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD), Severe Morbid Obesity, Generalized Muscle Weakness, Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, and Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS). Review of Resident #8's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 07/30/2025, revealed, in part, the resident was assessed by the facility to have a BIMS of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #8's Plan of Care, as of 09/10/2025, revealed, in part, the following:Resident diagnosed with HS.Resident required staff assistance for ADL care.Resident required limited to extensive assistance with ADL's. Resident needs met per himself and staff.Interventions:Assist resident with bathing.An observation and interview was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 9:10 a.m. with Resident #8 in line outside of the bath/shower room. He stated he had a skin condition, HS, which required him to take a bath/shower first thing every morning to prevent further outbreak and control the odor it caused. He confirmed he got in line for his bath/shower this morning a little after 8:00 a.m. and was still waiting. He stated he was the Resident Council President and called a meeting today due to resident complaints of long wait times for baths/showers since the facility no longer utilized Shower Aides. He stated almost two weeks ago the facility removed 2 shower aides from the daily assignments Monday through Friday. He stated since that time, he had waited in excess of two to three hours each morning to receive his daily bath. He stated there was almost never less than three residents waiting in line in the hallway for a bath/shower. He confirmed he required staff assistance to take his bath/shower and could not perform the task independently. He confirmed he had missed some activities within the facility because he was waiting in line to receive his bath. He confirmed the facility's Administration was aware of the delays and had not done anything to improve it. Resident #8 stated he blamed the facility for not having enough staff.An interview was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 10:30 a.m. with S7NP. S7NP confirmed due to Resident #8's diagnosis of HS, he had numerous open lesions on his body which caused a noticeable odor. S7NP confirmed Resident #8 required a bath first thing every morning 7 days a week to remove the bacteria on his skin in order to prevent further infection and additional lesions, as well as, to control the odor his condition caused. Resident #9Review of Resident #9's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included, in part, Severe Morbid Obesity and CHF.Review of Resident #9's annual MDS, with an ARD of 08/13/2025, revealed, in part, the resident was assessed by the facility to have a BIMS of 14, which indicated she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #9's Plan of Care, as of 09/10/2025, revealed, in part, the following:Personalized Care Goal: Staff will accommodate/support valued activities in care routine. Interventions: Bathing preference - Shower.Resident required extensive staff assistance with ADL's. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 10:50 a.m. with Resident #9. She stated she was tired of waiting hours to get her bath/shower. She stated she waited in her wheelchair for over three and a half hours earlier this week to receive her bath, which was unacceptable. She confirmed the three hour wait was typical since the facility no longer utilized Shower Aides. She stated there weren't enough CNAs to get everything done. Resident #9 confirmed she informed staff of her needs not being met and voiced her concerns during the aforementioned Resident Council Meeting. Resident #10Review of Resident #10's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included, in part, History of Falling, COPD. Review of Resident #10's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 06/18/2025, revealed, in part, the resident was assessed by the facility to have a BIMS of 12, which indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #10's Plan of Care, as of 09/10/2025, revealed, in part, the following:Resident required supervision to limited assistance with ADL's. Interventions: Assist resident with bathing.An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 8:45 a.m. with Resident #10. He stated the facility's biggest issue right now was extended wait times for showers/baths due to the facility eliminating the 2 Shower Aides. Resident #10 confirmed no matter what staff might say, prior to his bath yesterday, he had not received a shower from staff in 3 weeks because the facility was shorthanded. An interview was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 9:40 a.m. with S8US. S8US confirmed from the unit secretary's desk, she had a clear view of the hallway outside one of the bath/shower rooms. S8US confirmed the facility no longer utilized shower aides. S8US confirmed prior to the change, there were 2 Shower Ades performing baths/showers from 6:00 a.m. until at least 2:00 p.m. in order to complete them. S8US confirmed since the Shower Aides were removed, there were typically 2 to 4 residents waiting in line in the hallway to receive their bath/shower during the mornings. An interview was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 9:45 a.m. with S9CNA. S9CNA stated until recently she served as one of the facility's 2 Shower Aides. S9CNA stated when she was a Shower Aide, she worked Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. until at least 2:00 p.m. in order to get all of her baths/showers completed. S9CNA confirmed about 2 weeks ago the facility told them there would be no more Shower Aides to give baths/showers during the day. S9CNA stated she was told she would start working as a floor CNA and the floor CNAs would now be responsible for performing their own baths/showers throughout their shift in addition to all of their previously assigned tasks. S9CNA confirmed her current resident assignment included her being solely responsible for a total of 11 residents; 4 residents were 2 person assist, 1 resident required total feeding assistance, 10 residents were set up assistance with all meals, and all 11 residents were incontinent and required turning, repositioning and incontinence care every 2 hours at a minimum. S9CNA confirmed while the CNAs were tied up performing all of the aforementioned regular floor CNA duties, they weren't able to perform baths/showers which meant the residents had to wait until they were available. S9CNA confirmed a 2 to 3 hour wait time for a bath/shower was typical and could be longer depending on the time of day. An interview was conducted on 09/08/2025 at 1:30 p.m. with S10CNA. S10CNA stated at times she could be assigned to independently cover 2 and a half halls which included a total of 28 residents. S10CNA confirmed numerous residents were total care 2 person assist and required incontinence care and turning/repositioning every 2 hours which took her away from performing her scheduled baths/showers. S10CNA stated her current workload made it impossible for her to perform baths/showers when her residents wanted them. An interview was conducted on 09/09/2025 at 2:30 p.m. with S12CNA. S12CNA stated the facility recently made a process change in the assignments and duties for CNA staff. S12CNA stated when this occurred, the facility removed the 2 Shower Aides and the floor CNA‘s were expected to perform all assigned baths/showers and bed baths in addition to all of their previous duties and tasks. S12CNA stated her assignment consisted of 4 to 5 residents who required 2 person assist for changing, turning/repositioning every 2 hours, which took her away from completing her baths/showers and made it impossible to complete them when residents preferred. S12CNA confirmed she felt the new system was not working well and caused delays in residents receiving timely baths/showers. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 2:30 p.m. with S2DON. S2DON confirmed the facility made a system change on 09/05/2025 which removed the 2 Shower Aides and placed them as floor CNAs. S2DON confirmed the facility was still working out the kinks since removing the Shower Aides which caused extended wait times for residents to have their needs met. S2DON confirmed the facility should have enough staff to ensure residents received timely baths/showers but the facility had not yet figured out how to make it work with the new system. An interview was conducted on 09/10/2025 at 2:30 p.m. with S1ADM. S1ADM confirmed the facility made a change on 09/05/2025 which removed the 2 Shower Aides and placed them as floor CNAs. S1ADM confirmed the facility was still working out the kinks since removing the Shower Aides which caused extended wait times for residents to have their needs met. S1ADM confirmed residents should not have to suffer or have any of their needs unmet while this occurred. S1ADM confirmed the facility should have enough staff to ensure residents received timely bath/showers and were not lining the hallways like cattle for extended periods in order to receive a bath/shower.
May 2025 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete a significant change MDS within 14 calendar days after dete...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete a significant change MDS within 14 calendar days after determining there was a significant change in residents status for 2 of 20(#6 and #29) sampled resident's. Findings: Resident #6 Review of Resident #6's Significant Change MDS with an ARD of 03/06/2025 revealed an admission date of 11/24/2021. Further Review of Resident #6's Significant Change MDS with an ARD of 03/06/2025 revealed assessment was completed on 03/26/2025. Resident #29 Review of Resident #29's Significant Change MDS with an ARD of 05/05/2025 revealed an admission date of 10/09/2023. Further review of Resident #29's clinical record revealed a Significant Change MDS with an ARD of 05/05/2025 with a submission status of in progress. On 05/21/2025 at 12:56 p.m. an interview was conducted with S13MDS. She reviewed Resident #6 and Resident #29 most recent significant change assessments. S13MDS confirmed Resident #6 Significant Change assessment dated [DATE] was not completed within required timeframe. S13MDS confirmed Resident #29 Significant Change assessment dated [DATE] was still in progress and assessment was not completed within required timeframe. S13MDS confirmed Resident #6 and Resident #29 significant change assessments should have been completed within 14 days and were not. On 05/21/2025 at 2:10 p.m. an interview was conducted with S2RNSUP. She reviewed Resident #6 and Resident #29 most recent significant change assessments. S2RNSUP confirmed Resident #6 Significant Change assessment dated [DATE] was not completed within required timeframe. S2RNSUP confirmed Resident #29 Significant Change assessment dated [DATE] was still in progress and assessment was not completed within required timeframe. S2RNSUP confirmed Resident #6 and Resident #29 significant change assessments should have been completed within 14 days and were not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed within 48 hours of admission to the facility for 1 (#290) of 20 sampled residents. Findings: Revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed within 48 hours of admission to the facility for 1 (#290) of 20 sampled residents. Findings: Review of Resident #290's medical record revealed an admit date of 05/08/2025 with diagnoses which included Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Atrial Fibrillation and Major Depressive Disorder. Review of Resident #290's medical record revealed a baseline care plan was initiated on 05/19/2025. On 05/21/2025 at 12:56 p.m. an interview was conducted with S19MDS. She reviewed Resident #290's care plan and confirmed she initiated it on 05/19/2025. S19MDS confirmed baseline care plans should be implemented within 48 hours of admission and Resident #290's was not. On 05/21/2025 at 2:10 p.m. an interview was conducted with S2RNSUP. She reviewed Resident #290's baseline care plan and confirmed it was initiated on 05/19/2025. S2RNSUP confirmed she would expect all residents to have a baseline care plan within 48 hours of Admission. S2RNSUP confirmed Resident #290's baseline care was not implemented in a timely manner and should have been.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

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 residents who required assistance to carry out activities o...

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 residents who required assistance to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 1 (#240) of 2 (#37 and #240) residents reviewed for ADLs. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Bath, Bed Policy and Procedure, dated 08/01/2017, revealed the following, in part: Policy: Bed Baths are to be given as scheduled and/or as needed. Review of Resident #240's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Complete Traumatic Amputation of Left Foot and Fracture of Right Shoulder. Review of Resident #240's admission MDS with an ARD of 05/10/2025 revealed he had a BIMS of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Further reviewed revealed he was dependent on staff for bathing/showering. Review of Resident #240's Nurses Notes dated 05/06/2025 - 05/20/2025 revealed no documentation of Resident #240 refusing baths or showers. Review of Resident #240's Shower Logs dated May 2025 revealed his bath/shower days were Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Further review revealed the following, in part: Shower/Bath Task: 05/06/2025-5/14/2025 - blank 05/15/2025 - charted refused 05/16/2025 - 5/20/2025 - blank On 5/20/2025 at 8:31 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #240. He stated he had only received 1 bath since being admitted to the facility. He stated he had multiple fractures and was unable to give himself a bath. He stated he had visitors one day when the CNA came in to give him a bath, and he asked the CNA to come back later if she could. He stated no one ever came back and he had not refused any other baths. On 5/20/2025 at 10:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with S17CNA. She stated she was working 6:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. today, but usually worked the 2:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m. shift. She stated the shower aids on the halls were responsible for giving the resident's baths/showers. She stated when the shower aid was pulled to the floor, the floor CNA would try to get baths completed if possible. She stated she had never given Resident #240 a bath/shower. On 05/20/2025 at 1:51 p.m., an interview was conducted with S18SA. She stated she was scheduled Monday-Friday from 6:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. as the shower aid. She stated she got pulled to the floor usually 3 days a week. She stated when she was pulled, if she did not volunteer to stay until the next shift and bathe/shower residents, staff would attempt to call someone in, if not, residents would not get a bath. She stated she was responsible for bathing/showering the residents on Hall B. She stated Resident #240 required a bed bath because he could not stand on his own to get in the shower. She stated his bath days were Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. She reviewed Resident #240's bath flowsheet dated May 2025 and confirmed since he was admitted , no baths had been documented. She stated she wiped him off the day after he was admitted , but had not given him a bath since then. On 05/21/2025 at 9:04 a.m., an interview was conducted with S16CNA. She stated she was assigned to Resident #240 from 6:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. She stated the shower aid completed Resident #240's baths. She stated on days like today, when they were short staffed and pulled the shower aid to work the floor, the floor CNA was responsible for giving baths/showers. She stated she had never given Resident #240 a bath since he had been admitted . She reviewed Resident #240's bathing flowsheet and verified he was admitted on [DATE] and there had been no baths charted as being given, and only 1 refusal charted on 05/15/2025. On 05/21/2025 at 2:45 p.m., an interview was completed with S1ADM and S2RNSUP. S1ADM reviewed Resident #240's bathing flowsheet and confirmed no baths had been documented as given since he was admitted , and only 1 refusal had been documented. S2RNSUP stated she had 2 CNA's bathe Resident #240 on Saturday 05/17/2025 so she knew he received a bath that day. S1ADM and S2RNSUP were unable to confirm Resident #240 received a bath before 05/17/2025. They stated any refusals or baths given should have been documented.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide wound care in accordance with professional standards of p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide wound care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (#240) of 3 (#19, #76, #240) sampled residents reviewed for wound care. Findings: Review of facility's Dressing Change (Wound Care), Clean Policy and Procedure policy dated 10/30/2024 revealed, in part: Policy Complete dressing changes as ordered by the physician. Review of Resident #240's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Complete Traumatic Amputation of Left Foot and Fracture of Right Shoulder. Review of Resident #240's admission MDS with an ARD of 05/10/2025 revealed he had a BIMS of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #240's current Care Plan revealed the following, in part: Problems: Laceration to left knee, Laceration to right forearm, Surgical incision related to left below knee amputation (LBKA), Abrasion to left knee, Abrasion to right great toe Interventions: The resident is receiving treatment per MD orders Review of Resident #240's current Physician Orders revealed the following, in part -Abrasion to left knee. Clean with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply triple antibiotic ointment (TAO) and cover with clean dry dressing of choice until resolved one time a day. -Abrasion to right great toe. Cleanse with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply TAO and cover with clean dry dressing of choice until resolved one time a day. -Laceration to left knee. Cleanse with wound cleanser, pat dry, and cover with clean dry dressing until resolved one time a day. -Laceration to right forearm. Cleanse with wound cleanser, pat dry, and cover with clean dry dressing until resolved one time a day. -Surgical incision to left below knee amputation (LBKA). Clean with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply betadine and cover with clean dry dressing until resolved one time a day. Review of Resident #240's TAR dated May 2025 revealed no documentation the following wound care was provided on 05/09/2025: Abrasion to left knee, abrasion to right great toe, laceration to left knee, laceration to right forearm, and surgical incision to LBKA. Review of Resident #240's Nurse's Note revealed no documentation regarding a refusal or why wound care was not completed on 05/09/2025. On 05/20/2025 at 8:31 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #240. He stated he was supposed to receive wound care daily. He stated he could not recall specific days, but there had been days where he did not receive wound care. On 05/21/2025 at 10:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with S12TN. She stated she worked Monday-Friday as the wound care nurse. She stated when she was pulled to the floor or was unavailable, one of the ADON's would complete wound care. She stated Resident #240 had dressing changes ordered daily. She stated on 05/09/2025 she had a doctor's appointment at noon and left early. She stated she did not perform Resident #240's wound care treatments and notified S4ADON she was unable to complete them. On 05/21/2025 at 12:28 p.m., an interview was conducted with S4ADON. She stated she was notified S12TN left early on 05/09/2025 and did not complete Resident #240's wound care. She stated Resident #240 had a lot of pain that day and she notified S14NP. She stated S14NP said it was ok to hold the dressing change for 05/09/2025. She stated she did not chart his wound care treatment was held on 05/09/2025 and should have. On 05/21/2025 at 2:07 p.m., an interview was conducted with S14NP. She stated she was not notified on any day since Resident #240's admission that he was in too much pain to receive wound care treatment, or gave an order for wound care to be held. She stated she expected staff to provide wound care to Resident #240 daily as ordered. On 05/21/2025 at 2:45 p.m., an interview was completed with S1ADM. She reviewed Resident #240's TAR for May 2025 and verified the wound care for 05/09/2025 was not documented as completed. She confirmed wound care treatments should be completed per doctor orders, unless a resident was in too much pain. She further confirmed if wound care was not completed because a resident was in pain, it should be documented.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and labeled properly...

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 medications were stored and labeled properly in accordance with current accepted professional principles. The facility failed to ensure medications for Resident #190 were labeled properly, not expired and not available for administration. Findings: Resident #190 Review of Resident #190's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Unspecified Elevated [NAME] Blood Cell Count, Acute Kidney Failure, and Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 4. Review of Resident #190's current Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Order date: 05/16/2025 Cefazolin Sodium Injection Solution Reconstituted 1 gram use 1 gram intravenously one time a day every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday to be given at dialysis related to Unspecified Acute Kidney Failure. On 05/19/2025 at 9:45 a.m., an observation was made of Med a room with S2RNSUP and S3ADON. A large clear plastic bag was observed containing seven pre-packaged intravenous infusions of Cefazolin 1g/50 ml for Resident #190. Further review revealed the manufacturer expiration date of 04/2025 on the seven packages, but was labeled with an expiration date of 05/16/2026 from the facility's pharmacy. On 05/19/2025 at 9:46 a.m., an interview was conducted with S3ADON and S2RNSUP. S3ADON and S2RNSUP observed the seven pre-packaged intravenous infusions of Cefazolin 1g/50 ml for Resident #190 and confirmed the manufacturer expiration date on the packages were dated 04/2025, but were labeled with an expiration date of 05/16/2026 from the facility's pharmacy. S3ADON and S2RNSUP confirmed the medication was received from the facility's pharmacy on 05/16/2025, was expired, not labeled accurately and was available for use. On 05/19/2025 at 9:50 a.m., a telephone interview was conducted with the facility's Pharmacist. He was made aware of the above findings. He confirmed expired medications should not have been filled and delivered to the facility. On 05/19/2025 at 1:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with S10CRN. S10CRN stated she observed the seven pre-packaged intravenous infusions of Cefazolin 1g/50 ml for Resident #190 and confirmed the manufacturer expiration date on the packages were dated 04/2025, but were labeled with an expiration date of 05/16/2026 from the facility's pharmacy. S10CRN confirmed the medications were expired when received from the facility's pharmacy on 05/16/2025.
CONCERN (D)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure garbage and waste were properly contained in the outdoor trash dumpster. Findings: On 05/18/2025 at 8:45 a.m., an observation was ma...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure garbage and waste were properly contained in the outdoor trash dumpster. Findings: On 05/18/2025 at 8:45 a.m., an observation was made of the facility's outdoor trash dumpster with S9CK. The outdoor trash dumpster was observed containing several bags of trash with the lid open. On 05/18/2025 at 8:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with S9CK. She observed the outdoor dumpster lid and stated it should have been closed by the night shift kitchen staff. She stated the dumpster lid was open upon arrival for her shift. She attempted to close the dumpster lid with a broom stick, but was unsuccessful. She further stated she thought the dumpster lid may be broken. On 05/18/2025 at 9:47 a.m., an interview was conducted with S8DM. She was made aware of the above finding. She stated the dumpster lid was not broken, but was hard for staff to close. She confirmed the outdoor trash dumpster lid should be kept closed at all times.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's Medication Administration Recor...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) was accurately documented and complete for 2 (#32 and #60) of 20 residents reviewed in the final sample. Findings: Resident #32 Review of Resident #32's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses with included Presence of Cardiac and Vascular Implant and Graft, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Chronic Kidney Disease. Review of Resident #32's admission MDS with an ARD of 03/10/2025 revealed a BIMS of 12, which indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #32's Current Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, Friday Review of Resident #32's MAR dated May 2025 revealed the following, in part: 05/19/2025- Checked that Resident #32 went to dialysis, initialed by S7LPN Review of Resident #32's Nurse's Notes revealed the following, in part: 05/19/2025-Resident requested to not go to dialysis today, stated she does not feel well. Signed by S11LPN. On 05/19/2025 at 8:26 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #32. She stated she went to dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. She stated she was not feeling well today and refused to go. On 05/19/2025 at 3:15 p.m., an interview and observation was conducted of Resident #32 in the dining room sitting in her wheelchair. She confirmed she refused dialysis today. On 05/20/2025 at 2:32 p.m., an interview was conducted with S7LPN. She confirmed she was assigned to Resident #32 on 05/19/2025. She stated she did not know if Resident #32 went to dialysis yesterday. She stated if Resident #32 refused to go to dialysis, she should have documented the refusal on the MAR, made a nurses note, and called the dialysis clinic to notify them. On 05/20/2025 at 2:48 p.m., an interview was conducted with a staff member from Resident #32's Dialysis Center. She stated Resident #32 did not show up to dialysis yesterday. She stated the clinic called the facility and was notified Resident #32 was not going to dialysis because she was not feeling well. Resident #60 Review of Resident #60's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Mycobacterial Infections. Review of Resident #60's admission MDS with an ARD of 04/18/2025 revealed a BIMS of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #60's current Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Start date: 05/10/2025-Primaxin IV. Use 500 mg every 6 hours Review of Resident #60's MAR dated May 2025 revealed the administration status for the 0600 dose of Primaxin on 05/16/2025 was blank. On 05/20/2025 at 3:17 p.m., an interview was conducted with S11LPN. She confirmed she worked the morning of 05/16/2025 and gave Resident #60 the 0600 dose of Primaxin. She was made aware the 0600 Primaxin was not documented as administered. She stated medications should be documented as given when administered. On 05/21/2025 at 2:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. She reviewed Resident #32's MAR and confirmed it was documented the resident went to dialysis, which was inaccurate. She reviewed Resident #60's MAR and confirmed when a nurse administered medication, it should be documented as administered.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that each resident's comprehensive and non-comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed in a timely manner for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that each resident's comprehensive and non-comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed in a timely manner for 5 of 20 (#24, #29, #37, #57, and #60) resident records reviewed in the final sample. The facility failed to submit Resident assessments within 14 calendar days as required. Findings: Resident #24 Review of Resident #24's Discharge-return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/23/2025, revealed a complete by date of 05/07/2025. Further review of the MDS revealed the MDS had a status of in progress. Resident #29 Review of Resident #29's Discharge-return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/26/2025, revealed a complete by date of 05/10/2025. Further review of the MDS revealed the MDS had a status of in progress. Resident #37 Review of Resident #37's Discharge-return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/24/2025, revealed a complete by date of 05/08/2025. Further review of the MDS revealed the MDS had a status of in progress. Review of Resident #37's Discharge-return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/05/2025, revealed a complete by date of 05/19/2025. Further review of the MDS revealed the MDS had a status of in progress. Resident #57 Review of Resident #57's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/30/2025, revealed a complete by date of 05/14/2025. Further review of the MDS revealed the MDS had a status of in progress. Resident #60 Review of Resident #60's Discharge-return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/20/2025, revealed a complete by date of 05/04/2025. Further review of the MDS revealed the MDS had a status of in progress. On 05/21/2025 at 12:56 p.m., an interview was conducted with S13MDS. She reviewed Resident #57's Quarterly MDS assessment. She further reviewed Resident #24, #29, #37 and #60's Discharge Assessments. She confirmed status for all aforementioned assessments as being in progress and had not been completed in required timeframe. She stated Quarterly and Discharge MDS assessments should be completed within 14 days and were not. On 05/21/2025 at 2:10 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2RNSUP. She reviewed Resident #57's Quarterly MDS assessment. She further reviewed Resident #24, #29, #37 and #60's Discharge Assessments. S2RNSUP confirmed status for all aforementioned assessments as being in progress and had not been completed in required timeframe. S2RNSUP stated Quarterly and Discharge MDS assessments should be completed within 14 days and were not.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to attain or main...

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 provide sufficient nursing staff to attain or maintain each resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Staff assisted resident's request for assistance with ADLs timely for 3 (#6, #31, and #60) of 13 residents reviewed on Hall B; and 2. S7LPN was aware Resident #32 was at the facility for a time period of 3-4 hours when she refused to go to dialysis. Findings: Review of the facility's PBJ Staffing Data Report for Fiscal Year Quarter 1 revealed a one-star staffing rating. Review of the facility's census dated 05/18/2025 revealed there was a total census of eighty-four residents and seven halls. Further review revealed there were thirteen residents residing on Hall B. Review of the facility's Daily Assignment Sheet dated 05/20/2025 revealed the following, in part: 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.: S17CNA - Hall B Further review revealed no other CNA's assigned to Hall B. 1. Resident #6 Review of Resident #6's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Generalized Muscle Weakness and Morbid Obesity. Review of Resident #6's Significant Change MDS with ARD of 03/06/2025 revealed BIMS of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. Further review revealed she required substantial/maximal assistance for toileting and rolling left to right. On 05/20/2025 at 8:00 a.m., an observation was made of the Hall B. There were thirteen residents on Hall B and 1 CNA, S17CNA, was observed on the hall. On 05/20/2025 at 8:10 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #6. She stated the CNA's had too many residents on Hall B to take care of. She stated there was 1 CNA who worked Hall B. She stated she had been told by a CNA before to urinate in her brief two times before she called to be changed. She stated sometimes it was 3 hours between CNA rounds. On 05/20/2025 at 8:55 a.m., an observation was made of S17CNA walking into Resident #6's room then exiting. On 05/20/2025 at 8:57 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #6. She stated she had just soiled herself and she let S17CNA know when she was just in her room. She stated S17CNA brought some briefs in her room, then left. On 05/20/2025 at 9:46 a.m., an observation was made of S17CNA entering Resident #6's room with a brief, a pad, and gloves. At 9:54 a.m., S17CNA exited Resident #6's room. Resident #31 Review of Resident #31's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease. Review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 03/26/2025 revealed she was unable to complete the BIMS interview. Further review revealed she required substantial/maximal assistance for toileting hygiene and rolling right to left. Review of Resident #31's current Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Turn every 2 hours as appropriate, monitor every shift related to decreased mobility, incontinence, high risk breakdown and skin integrity. Review of Resident #31's current Care Plan revealed the following, in part: Resident is high risk for skin breakdown related to incontinence and fragile skin. The resident is on an every 2 hour turning and repositioning program. On 05/20/2025 at 8:02 a.m., an observation was made of S17CNA exiting Resident #31's room, and entering the room next door. On 05/20/2025 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:35 a.m., an observation was made of Hall B. S17CNA nor were any other staff observed entering Resident #31's room after 8:02 a.m. Resident #60 Review of Resident #60's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Mycobacterial Infections. Review of Resident #60's admission MDS with an ARD of 04/18/2025 revealed a BIMS of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Further review revealed he was dependent on staff for transfers and ambulation. On 05/20/2025 at 10:19 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #60's call light to be lit up. At 10:32 a.m., S17CNA was observed entering Resident #60's room. She told the resident once she got finished with the resident she was working with, she would find someone to help her get him back in bed because he required two people. On 05/20/2025 at 10:37 a.m., an observation was made of S17CNA coming out of another resident's room stating this is too much. She grabbed supplies from off the supply cart then went back into the room. On 05/20/2025 at 11:32 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #60. He stated he was mad and had been waiting an hour and a half for S17CNA to put him back to bed. He stated S17CNA told him she was waiting on someone to come help her get him back to bed, but she had not come back yet. On 05/20/2025 at 11:36 a.m., an observation was made of two CNA's assisting Resident #60 back to bed. On 05/20/2025 at 10:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with S17CNA. She stated there was 1 CNA who was assigned to Hall B. She stated it had been 2 months since there had been a second CNA assigned to Hall B. She stated there were 5 residents who needed hoyer lifts so she needed an extra staff member to get those residents out of bed and back to bed. She stated the residents got frustrated with her at times because she was not able to respond to the call light and assist them in a timely manner. She stated there were 13 residents down Hall B she was assigned to, and 4 more down another hall which she was assigned to. She stated she was assigned to 17 resident's total. She confirmed Resident #6 notified her she had a bowel movement and needed changing when she went into her room at 8:55 a.m., and confirmed it was almost an hour later before she was able to change her. She stated Resident #31 was confused and unable to do anything for herself. She confirmed it was now 11:05 a.m., and she had not been in Resident #31's room since 8:00 a.m. She stated Resident #60 put his call light on to get back in bed. She confirmed he had to wait over an hour to be put back to bed because she had to wait on another staff member to help her since he required a hoyer lift transfer. She stated she had notified administrative staff she needed help, but she was told the census was low and Hall B only required 1 CNA. She stated she was unable to complete her rounds every 2 hours and answer call lights in a timely manner with her being the only CNA on Hall B. On 05/20/2025 at 11:38 a.m., an interview was conducted with S15PTA. She stated she frequently was asked to help the CNA on Hall B turn residents and get them out of bed because there was only 1 CNA assigned to the hall. On 05/20/2025 at 1:01 p.m., an interview was conducted with S4ADON. She stated she was responsible for staff scheduling. She stated the number of staff required on each hall depended on the census. She stated the CNA scheduled on Hall B had all the residents on that hall and 4 residents from another hall. She stated those halls were heavy for a while, so there were 2 CNA's assigned, but now those halls were light so there was 1 CNA on the halls. She stated today there were 7 CNA's, including the bath aid, for the whole building for the 6:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. shift. She was notified of the above observations. She stated 15-20 minutes was the most a resident should wait to be changed if soiled. She stated 1.5 hours was not an acceptable time for a resident to have to wait to be put back to bed upon request. She stated based on the observations told to her, Hall B did not have sufficient staff to meet the needs of the residents. She stated the acuity of the residents was not taken into account as it should have been. She stated the average resident to CNA ratio was 1:15. 2. Resident #32 Review of Resident #32's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses with included Presence of Cardiac and Vascular Implant and Graft, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Chronic Kidney Disease. Review of Resident #32's admission MDS with an ARD of 03/10/2025 revealed a BIMS of 12, which indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #32's Current Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, Friday Review of Resident #32's MAR dated May 2025 revealed the following, in part: 05/19/2025- Checked that Resident #32 went to dialysis, initialed by S7LPN Review of Resident #32's Nurse's Notes revealed the following, in part: 05/19/2025-Resident requested to not go to dialysis today, stated she does not feel well. Signed by S11LPN. On 05/19/2025 at 8:26 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #32. She stated she went to dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. She stated she usually left the facility at 11:45 a.m. and returned around 4:15 p.m. She stated she was not feeling well today and was not going to go. On 05/19/2025 at 3:15 p.m., an interview and observation was conducted of Resident #32. She was in the dining room sitting in her wheelchair. She confirmed she refused dialysis today. On 05/20/2025 at 2:32 p.m., an interview was conducted with S7LPN. She confirmed she was assigned to Resident #32 on 05/19/2025. She stated she did not know if Resident #32 went to dialysis yesterday. She stated she was assigned to 32 residents on her shift. She stated, I was pulled in a thousand directions yesterday. She stated she assumed Resident #32 went to dialysis because she didn't get told by the CNA that she refused to go. She stated if Resident #32 refused to go to dialysis, she should have documented the refusal on the MAR, made a nurses note, and called the dialysis clinic to notify them. On 05/20/2025 at 2:48 p.m., an interview was conducted with a staff member from Resident #32's Dialysis Center. She stated Resident #32 did not show up to dialysis yesterday. She stated the clinic called the facility and was notified Resident #32 was not going to dialysis because she was not feeling well. On 05/21/2025 at 2:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. She stated staffing was determined by census. She was made aware of the staffing observations on 05/19/2025. She stated she did not expect a resident to stay soiled for 51 minutes before being changed. She stated CNA's should make rounds every 2 hours, and residents should be assisted back to bed timely. She was notified of S7LPN not being aware Resident #32 refused dialysis on 05/19/2025 because she stated she was pulled in a thousand directions. She stated it was an issue if the nurse did not know her resident refused dialysis and was at the facility for 3-4 hours, when she thought she was out of the facility.
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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by failing to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by failing to ensure: 1. Food was properly stored in the walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer; 2. Food was properly stored in the dry food storage room; 3. Dietary employees wore effective hair restraints while engaged in the handling and preparation of food; 4. Ceiling vents in the kitchen were properly cleaned and free of black and grey substances; and 5. Meals carts were properly cleaned and free of debris. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 79 residents who were served food from the kitchen. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Refrigerated Food with a revision date of 10/2018, revealed the following, in part: Policy: The facility ensures the quality and safety of refrigerated foods through accepted storage practices. Procedure: Food taken out of original containers is put in a clean sanitized container with a tight fitting lid. No food is left uncovered. All non-hazardous, open foods are labeled with name of food and date stored. All hazardous foods are labeled with name of food and date to be discarded or the date stored. On 05/18/2025 at 8:10 a.m., an initial tour was made of the kitchen with S9CK. The following observations were made: Walk-in cooler: One box of cucumbers with a packaged date of 04/25/2025, containing 10 cucumbers, with 5 noted with a grey and green, fuzzy, round substance attached to them, and; One clear plastic bag containing six heads of lettuce with one head noted to have an approximately 1.5 inch by 1.5 inch dark brown spot with dark brown juice on the head and inside the bag. Walk-in freezer: One clear plastic bag containing five round meat patties, unsealed, not labeled or dated, and; One brown box containing mixed vegetables, unsealed and undated. Dry storage room: One opened five pound bag of yellow cake mix, unsealed and not dated, Ten sixteen ounce bags of marshmallows with a best if used by date of 04/01/2025, One clear square container of a white powdery substance, unsealed, not labeled or dated, and; Two clear square containers containing breakfast cereal, unsealed, not labeled or dated. On 05/18/2025 at 8:35 a.m., an observation was made of S9CK preparing and cooking food for the lunch service. Approximately two to three inches of S9CK's hair was not contained in her hairnet. On 05/18/2025 at 08:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with S9CK. She confirmed the above mentioned items were not sealed, labeled, or dated and should have been. She confirmed the cucumbers and bag of lettuce were spoiled and should have been discarded. She further confirmed her hair should be completely contained inside the hairnet while preparing or cooking food. S9CK was observed during the interview to place her uncontained hair into the hairnet without issue. On 05/18/2025 at 09:47 a.m., an interview was conducted with S8DM. She was made aware of the above findings. She confirmed all food items should be properly sealed, dated, and labeled and discarded if spoiled. She further confirmed all dietary employees' hair should be contained inside of their hairnets during food preparation and cooking. On 05/18/2025 at 11:30 a.m., a follow-up visit was made of the kitchen with S8DM. The following observations were made: The ceiling and vent above the dishwasher was observed with a moderate amount of a fluffy grey substance; The ceiling vent above the three compartment sink was observed with a moderate amount of a fluffy grey substance; and The ceiling vent located near the steam table was observed with a moderate amount of a fluffy grey and black substance with an approximate six inch string of a fluffy grey substance hanging. On 05/18/2025 at 12:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with S8DM. She observed and confirmed the above mentioned findings. She stated the kitchen's ceiling vents had dust on them and needed to be cleaned. On 05/18/2025, at 12:05 p.m., an observation was made of one enclosed meal cart brought into the kitchen by S8DM. A microwave was observed secured to the top of the enclosed meal cart and was placed at the end of the food line for loading by S8DM. The top of the enclosed meal cart and microwave were noted to be unclean with food debris and dried substances. Four additional enclosed meal carts with microwaves were observed with S8DM and were noted to be soiled with food debris and dried substances on the top of the carts and inside and outside of the microwaves. On 05/18/2025 at 12:08 p.m., an interview was conducted with S8DM. She stated kitchen staff were responsible for cleaning the enclosed meal carts and microwaves after each meal service. She confirmed the 5 enclosed meal carts and microwaves were not clean and should have been.
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure an infection prevention and control program was maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Nursing staff sanitized insulin pen stoppers prior to attaching an insulin pen needle for 2 (#19 and #69) of 3 (#19, #69, and #391) residents reviewed for insulin administration; and 2. Nursing staff donned proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during direct resident care for 2 of 2 (#1 and #76) residents whom required EBP (Enhanced Barrier Precautions). Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, with an effective date of 09/30/2022, revealed the following, in part: Purpose: The facility will establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Prevention and Control of Transmission of Infection: The facility's infection control practices are important to preventing the transmission of infections. Infection control precautions used by the facility include two primary tiers: Standard Precautions . 1. Standard Precautions B. Standard precautions include but are not limited to safe injection practices . 1. Review of the Humalog Kwik pen Manufacturer's Insert revealed the following, in part: Preparing your Pen: Step 1: Pull the Pen Cap straight off. Wipe the Rubber Seal with an alcohol swab. Step 2: Pull off the Paper Tab from Outer Needle Shield. Step 3: Push the capped Needle straight onto the Pen and turn the Needle forward until it is tight. Resident #19 Review of Resident #19's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy. Review of Resident #19's current Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Order date: 01/28/2025 Humalog Kwik Pen 100 unit/ml, inject per sliding scale, subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime. On 05/19/2025 at 11:18 a.m., an observation was made of S6LPN administering Resident #19's Humalog insulin. S6LPN removed Resident #19's Humalog insulin pen cap and attached the insulin pen needle without sanitizing the insulin pen stopper. S6LPN administered Resident #19's insulin. On 05/19/2025 at 11:20 a.m., an interview was conducted with S6LPN. She confirmed she did not sanitize Resident #19's insulin pen stopper prior to applying the insulin pen needle. Resident #69 Review of Resident #69's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Ketoacidosis with Coma. Review of Resident #69's current Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Order date: 03/26/2025 Humalog Injection Solution 100 unit/ml, inject per sliding scale, subcutaneously with meals. On 05/19/2025 at 8:45 a.m., an observation was made of S7LPN administering Resident #69's Humalog insulin. S7LPN removed Resident #69's Humalog insulin pen cap and attached the insulin pen needle without sanitizing the insulin pen stopper. S7LPN administered Resident #69's insulin. On 05/19/2025 at 8:47 a.m., an interview was conducted with S7LPN. She confirmed she did not sanitize Resident #69's insulin pen stopper prior to applying the insulin pen needle. On 05/19/2025 at 1:47 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2RNSUP. She confirmed all insulin pen stoppers should have been sanitized prior to applying the insulin pen needle. 2. Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions Policy and Procedure , with an effective date of 04/01/2024, revealed the following, in part: Purpose: To prevent the spread of potential infection by implementing Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) when contact precautions do not apply. This approach recommends the use of EBP during high contact care activities for residents with chronic wounds or indwelling devices. Procedure: 1. EBP are indicated for residents' with any of the following: b. Wounds and/or indwelling devices even if the resident is not known to be infected. 4. For residents for whom EBP are indicated. EBP is employed when performing the following high contact resident care activities: g. Device care or use (urinary catheter) h. Chronic Wound care Resident #1 Review of Resident #1's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Overactive Bladder, Neuromuscular Dysfunction of Bladder, and Artificial Opening of Urinary Tract. Review of Resident #1's Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Order date: 01/28/2025 Enhanced Barrier Precautions: utilize gown and gloves during high-contact care activities for resident's with chronic wounds or indwelling medical devices every shift related to Other Artificial Openings Of Urinary Tract Status. Review of Resident #1's Care plan dated 04/30/2025 revealed the following, in part: Revision date 05/20/2025 Problem: Chronic wounds, colostomy, and Suprapubic Catheter that warrants Enhanced Barrier Precautions. Interventions: Utilize gloves and gown when performing high contact resident care activities, gown when providing care to medical devices (urinary catheter). On 05/19/2025 at 04:50 p.m., an observation was made of S3ADON performing catheter care and dressing change on Resident #1. S3ADON gathered supplies outside of resident's room with visible EBP signage posted on outside of door. S3ADON performed hand hygiene, put on gloves and proceeded to enter room. S3ADON did not apply a gown prior to entering room, removing old dressing, or prior to performing catheter care on Resident #1. On 05/20/25 at 03:10 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3ADON. She confirmed she did not apply appropriate PPE prior to performing catheter site care and dressing change on Resident #1's indwelling suprapubic urinary catheter. S3ADON further confirmed there was appropriate signage on outside of door for EBP. She confirmed she should have donned a gown prior to providing direct care of urinary catheter device and she had not. Resident #76 Review of Resident #76's clinical record revealed an admission date of 08/14/2024 with diagnoses, which included Non-Pressure Chronic Ulcer Left Foot, Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, and Pressure Ulcer Left Heel Stage 3. Review of Resident #76's Physician Orders revealed the following: Order Date- 08/14/2024- Enhanced Barrier Precautions: utilize gown and gloves during high contact care activities for Residents with chronic wounds or indwelling devices. On 05/19/2025 at 4:30 p.m., an observation was made of S3ADON performing wound care to Resident #76 wounds. S3ADON gathered supplies outside of resident's room with visible EBP signage posted on outside of door. S3ADON proceeded by entering room, performed hand hygiene and applied gloves. S3ADON failed to adhere to Enhanced Barrier Precautions and apply a gown prior to providing direct care to wounds. On 05/20/2025 at 3:10 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3ADON. She stated Resident #76 was on EBP related to wounds and currently had an indwelling device in place. She confirmed she failed to apply gown prior to providing direct care to Resident #76's wounds and should have. On 05/21/2025 at 9:25 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2RNSUP. She was made aware of the above findings. She stated she expected staff to properly don PPE when a resident is on EBP. S2RNSUP confirmed staff were required to don gown and gloves when performing wound care and catheter care. S2RNSUP confirmed EBP should have been followed prior to providing direct care to wounds and catheter care.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing data was posted on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift and readily accessible to residents and visitors. Thi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing data was posted on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift and readily accessible to residents and visitors. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 82 residents residing in the facility. Findings: On 05/18/2025 at 9:32 a.m., an observation was made of the bulletin board on Hall A. The form titled Daily Staffing Reporting Form dated 05/16/2025 was observed. On 05/18/2025 at 9:38 a.m., an interview was conducted with S4ADON. She stated she was responsible for posting the nurse staffing data information Monday through Friday. She stated on Friday's she completed the nurse staffing data forms for Saturday, Sunday and Monday. She stated there were no staff on the weekend who were responsible for updating the nurse staffing data forms and was not aware it was required. On 05/18/2025 at 10:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2RNSUP and S3ADON. S2RNSUP and S3ADON stated S4ADON was responsible for posting the nurse staffing data information. S2RNSUP and S3ADON observed the bulletin board on Hall A and confirmed the posted form Daily Staffing Reporting Form was dated 05/16/2025. On 05/18/2025 at 10:20 a.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. She observed the bulletin board on Hall A and confirmed the posted form Daily Staffing Reporting Form was dated 05/16/2025.
Feb 2025 4 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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

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 provide necessary care and services for the provisi...

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 provide necessary care and services for the provision of respiratory care in accordance with professional standards. The facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered as ordered by the physician for 1 (#3) of 2 (#2 and #3) residents reviewed for oxygen therapy. Findings: Review of Resident #3's clinical record revealed resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Congestive Heart Failure and Chronic Respiratory Failure. Review of Resident #3's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/29/2025 revealed he had a BIMS of 14, which indicated Resident #3 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #3's February 2025 Physician Orders revealed the following: 01/24/2025: Oxygen at 2 Liters (L) via nasal cannula. On 02/25/2025 at 9:45 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #3 resting in his bed with no oxygen in use. At that time an interview was conducted with Resident #3. He stated he did not wear oxygen and never had since living at the facility. On 02/25/2025 at 11:45 a.m., an interview was conducted with S3LPN. S3LPN reviewed the current Physician's orders for Resident #3. S3LPN confirmed Resident #3 had an active order to administer 2L of O2 via nasal cannula. S3LPN confirmed she failed to follow the Physician's order to administer 2L O2 via nasal cannula for Resident #3. On 02/25/2025 at 12:23 p.m., an interview was conducted with the S2DON. S2DON reviewed Resident #3's active Physician Orders and confirmed he had an order for 2L of O2 nasal cannula. S2DON stated nursing staff did not follow the current Physician Orders for Resident #3 and should 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 F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate weekly skin assessments were completed for 2 (#2 an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate weekly skin assessments were completed for 2 (#2 and #3) of 2 sampled residents. The deficient practice had the potential to affect any of 88 residents residing in the facility. Findings: Resident #2 Review of Resident #2's clinical record revealed resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #2's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/08/2025 revealed she had a risk of pressure ulcers. Review of Resident #2's current Physician Orders revealed the following: 12/31/2024: Weekly Body Audit. Resident #3 Review of Resident #3's clinical record revealed resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #3's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/29/2025 revealed he had a risk of pressure ulcers. Review of Resident #3's current Physician Orders revealed the following: 01/24/2025: Weekly Body Audit. On 02/24/2025 at 1:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3LPN. She stated she was required to perform weekly skin audits for Resident #2 and Resident #3. She stated when she conducted weekly skin audits she only assessed the skin which was visible to her eyes and not under any clothing. She stated it was up to the CNA or shower aid to report any skin breakdown in the area covered by clothing. On 02/24/2025 at 4:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She stated weekly skin audits were the responsibility of the LPN caring for the resident. She stated education was provided upon hire on how to conduct complete skin audits. She stated educated provided on skin audits included how to check the residents' cracks and crevices, behind the ears, and etc., but that she did not realize that some nurses did not understand that they should be checking even the big areas of skin located under clothing. She stated she expected the assigned nurse to assess all skin, including under clothing, and document on the MAR.
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain accurate documentation for 2 (#1 and #3) of 3 (#1, #2, an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain accurate documentation for 2 (#1 and #3) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident #1's daily wound care was accurately documented; and 2. Resident #3's oxygen use was accurately documented. Findings: Resident #1 Review of Resident #1's clinical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Unspecified Fracture of Left Femur, Subsequent Encounter For Closed Fracture with Routine Healing. Review of Resident #1's December 2024 - January 2025 Physician Orders revealed in part, the following: Clean surgical incision to left hip with normal saline/wound cleanser, pat dry, apply dry dressing of choice daily and as needed until healed, start date: 12/18/2024. Review of Resident #1's January 2025 TAR (Treatment Administration Record) revealed in part, the following: Wound care to surgical incision wound on 01/01/2025 was blank. An interview was conducted on 02/24/2025 at 2:00 p.m. with S4LPN. She reviewed Resident #1's January 2025 TAR. She confirmed the TAR was blank for 01/01/2025 wound care on Resident #1's surgical incision wound and should have been filled out. An interview was conducted on 02/24/2025 at 3:05 p.m. with S2DON. She reviewed Resident #1's January 2025 TAR. She confirmed the TAR was blank for 01/01/2025 wound care on Resident #1's surgical incision wound and should have been filled out. Resident #3 Review of Resident #3's clinical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Chronic Respiratory Failure. Review of Resident #3's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/29/2025 revealed he had a BIMS of 14, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #3's current active Physician Orders revealed in part, the following: Oxygen at 2L via nasal cannula, start date 01/24/2025. Review of Resident #3's February 2025 MAR (Medication Administration Record) revealed Oxygen at 2L via nasal cannula was documented as administered by S3LPN on 02/04/2025, 02/05/2025, 02/06/2025, 02/12/2025, 02/13/2025, 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025, 02/20/2025, and 02/24/2025. An observation was made on 02/25/2025 at 9:45 a.m. of Resident #3 with no oxygen in use. At that time an interview was conducted with Resident #3. He stated he did not wear oxygen and never had since living at the facility. An interview was conducted on 02/25/2025 at 11:45 a.m. with S3LPN. She reviewed the February 2025 MAR for Resident #3 and confirmed she had documented Resident #3 receiving Oxygen at 2L via nasal cannula on the following dates: 02/04/2025, 02/05/2025, 02/06/2025, 02/12/2025, 02/13/2025, 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025, 02/20/2025, and 02/24/2025. She confirmed Resident #3 did not use Oxygen at 2L via nasal cannula, and she had documented in error. An interview was conducted on 02/25/2025 at 12:23 p.m. with S2DON. She stated she expected staff to document completed medications/treatments on the MAR. She confirmed staff should not document administering medications or treatments if it had not been completed/performed.
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure all complaint surveys since the last annual survey were available for resident review. This deficient practice had the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure all complaint surveys since the last annual survey were available for resident review. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 88 residents who currently resided in the facility. Findings: An observation was made on 02/24/2025 at 9:45 a.m. of the facility's folder Survey results located on the bulletin board of the facility. Review of the Survey results folder revealed the last survey posted in the binder was dated 06/07/2024. Further review revealed no documented evidence of the survey results from complaint survey dated 11/13/2024 for review. An interview was conducted on 02/24/2025 at 9:45 a.m. with S1ADM. She reviewed the facility's folder Survey results. She confirmed the only survey results located in the folder was the annual recertification survey dated 06/07/2024. She confirmed the survey results from complaint survey dated 11/13/2024 were not located in the folder.
Nov 2024 1 deficiency
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

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, observations, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' assessments accurately reflected ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' assessments accurately reflected the resident's status by failing to ensure a resident's Minimum Data Set was accurately coded for an indwelling catheter for 1 (#2) of 2 (#1 and #2) residents reviewed for catheters. Findings: Review of Resident #2's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] from a local hospital. Review of Resident #2's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/01/2024 revealed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) could not be completed because the resident was rarely/never understood. Further review revealed Resident #2 was not coded for an indwelling catheter. The MDS had a status of Accepted. Review of Resident #2's Clinical admission Screener, with an effective date of 10/30/2024, revealed the resident returned to the facility from the hospital with an indwelling catheter. On 11/12/2024 at 10:50 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #2 lying in his bed with his catheter bag hanging on the lower right side of the bed. On 11/13/2024 at 8:25 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #2 lying in his bed with his catheter bag hanging on the lower right side of the bed. On 11/13/2024 at 1:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2MDS. She stated she was responsible for completing MDS assessments. She reviewed Resident #2's Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] and confirmed he was not coded for an indwelling catheter and should have been. She stated the MDS assessment had been submitted to CMS without accurate coding. On 11/13/2024 at 3:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1DON. She was notified of the above information. She stated Resident #2's Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] will be changed to reflect the indwelling catheter.
Jun 2024 9 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Someone could have died · 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 residents were free of significant medication errors for 1(...

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 residents were free of significant medication errors for 1(#78) of 33 residents reviewed in the final sample. The facility failed to ensure Resident #78 received Eliquis as ordered by the physician. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation for Resident #78, a resident with a history of Pulmonary Embolism and Acute Embolism and Thrombus of the Lower Extremity, on [DATE] at 08:00 a.m. when S5LPN discontinued his order for Eliquis without a physician's order. Resident #78 did not receive Eliquis as ordered from [DATE] through [DATE]. Resident #78 was found on [DATE] at 12:00 a.m., lying on the right side of the floor, unresponsive, pulseless and not breathing. The coroner's report read causes of death: Acute Myocardial Infarction vs Pulmonary Embolism; Hypertension' changes of Aging. The facility implemented corrective actions which were completed prior to the State Agency's investigation, thus it was determined to be a Past Noncompliance citation. S1NFA and S2DON were notified of the Past Noncompliance Immediate Jeopardy on [DATE] at 3:38 p.m. Findings: Review of the medication Black Box Warning for Eliquis revealed the following, in part: Warning: Premature discontinuation of Eliquis increases the risk of thrombotic events: Premature discontinuation of any oral anticoagulant, including ELIQUIS, increases the risk of thrombotic events. To reduce this risk, consider coverage with another anticoagulant if Eliquis is discontinued for a reason other than Pathological bleeding or completion of a course of therapy. Eliquis is indicated for the treatment of DVT and PE, and for the reduction in the risk of recurrent DVT and PE following initial therapy. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #78 was admitted to the facility [DATE] with diagnoses which included, Acute Embolism and Thrombosis of Right Distal Lower Extremity and Pulmonary Embolism without Acute cor Pulmonale. Review of the Care Plan dated [DATE] for Resident #78 revealed the following, in part: Problem: I am at risk for deep vein thrombosis. Interventions: Administer my anticoagulant as ordered . Review of the Hospital Discharge orders, dated [DATE] revealed in part, the following: Eliquis 5 mg tablet for a clot in the lung, take 2 tablets by mouth 2 times daily for 30 days, then 1 tablet (5 mg total) 2 times daily on [DATE]. Review of the Physician Orders dated [DATE] for Resident #78 revealed on [DATE] at 8:00 p.m. an order was implemented for Eliquis 5 mg tablet by mouth twice daily and on [DATE], the Eliquis was discontinued. Further review revealed no order to discontinue Eliquis 5 mg tablet by mouth twice daily. Review of the Medication Administration Record dated [DATE] for Resident #78 revealed Eliquis 5 mg tablet by mouth twice daily was not on the MAR to be administered from [DATE] to [DATE] per physician orders. Review of the nurse's note dated [DATE] revealed the following: [DATE] at 12:00 a.m.: Summons to room by CNA when arrived observed resident lying on right side on floor nonresponsive. No pulse, no breathing noted. Charge nurse verified code status as DNR. Notified Acadian who came out and did an EKG which showed asystole. Acadian paramedics advised to leave body on floor until coroner review body. Review of the Coroner's Report for Resident #78 revealed the following, in part: I, Coroner, certify the following report of death: Date and time of death: [DATE] at 00:15 Causes of death: Acute Myocardial Infarction vs Pulmonary Embolism; Hypertension' changes of Aging. On [DATE] at 10:21 a.m., a telephone interview was conducted with S14NP. She stated she would not discontinue Resident #78's Eliquis due to his history of Pulmonary Embolism and an active blood clot. She stated Resident #78 not receiving the Eliquis for ten days could have contributed to his death. She stated Resident #78 did not have any procedures that would have caused a physician to hold the Eliquis for a period of time. On [DATE] at 10:35 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She stated Resident #78 had a history of a cerebrovascular accident, traumatic brain injury, and was admitted to the facility in [DATE] with a blood clot. She stated S5LPN discontinued Resident #78's Eliquis on [DATE] without a physician's order. On [DATE] at 12:36 p.m., a telephone interview was conducted with S5LPN. She confirmed she discontinued Resident #78's Eliquis, but did not know why. She stated she believed Resident #78 had an upcoming procedure and that was why she discontinued the Eliquis. On [DATE] at 12:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She stated when a medication order was modified or discontinued the nurse should document a note in the electronic chart stating who discontinued or modified the medication and why. She reviewed Resident #78's clinical record and confirmed there was no documentation or order to discontinue Eliquis. She stated if there was no order to discontinue Resident #78's Eliquis, then the medication should not have been stopped. She confirmed S5LPN discontinued Resident #78's Eliquis on [DATE] without a physician's order. She confirmed Eliquis was removed from the MAR on [DATE] after the order was discontinued and there was no documentation Resident #78 received the medication from [DATE] through [DATE] when Resident #78 expired. On [DATE] at 5:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with S13LPN. She explained S2DON or the floor nurse would place orders in the resident's chart and then initiate the order in the electronic system. She stated each day she would review the telephone order slips or order discontinuation forms from the previous day to ensure the orders were implemented accurately. She confirmed if there was not an order to discontinue a medication, she would not have known to review it for accuracy. She reviewed Resident #78's physician's orders and confirmed Eliquis 5 mg twice a day was discontinued on [DATE] at 3:52 p.m., by S5LPN, without a physician's order. S13LPN stated beginning the last week of each month, administrative staff should print reports and verify all orders in the resident's charts were accurate. She stated the facility would not have known Resident #78's Eliquis was discontinued without an order until the end of the month of [DATE]. She confirmed the facility did not include Resident #78's chart check in the [DATE] review because he had already expired. She stated she received in-service training on the new chart check process and verifying order entry and discontinuation during the end of [DATE] through May because the facility switched of computer systems. On [DATE] at 11:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She stated she was not aware Resident #78's Eliquis was discontinued without a physician's order until yesterday. She stated the facility implemented a new computer system on [DATE]. She stated with the implementation of the new system, the facility implemented corrective actions to ensure orders accuracy. She stated the new process was all current resident's orders would be verified against written orders and checked for accuracy. She stated all nursing staff were in-serviced on order entry and discontinuation in the new computer system on [DATE]. She stated on [DATE], after surveyors entered the facility, nursing staff compared the resident's paper MARs to the orders in the new computer system and to the Medication Card instructions during med passes to ensure proper administration of medications as ordered. She stated since [DATE], each morning, Data Entry compared carbon copies of new written orders and a report of newly discontinued orders generated from the computer data to ensure residents received medications as ordered. She stated the facility reeducated nurses on the importance of entering medication orders into the electronic record and comparing the medication cards to the eMAR during med pass for order accuracy on [DATE]. She stated going forward the facility will have e-signature available for physician use to sign orders. She stated on [DATE] education and ongoing completion of order validation began and continues to date with no issues identified. S2DON read the written plan of removal, which stated substantial compliance was attained and maintained effective [DATE]. She stated the facility was in complete compliance on [DATE]. The facility has implemented the following actions to correct the deficient practice: On [DATE] the following plan of correction was completed and included the following: Issue/Concern: Administer anticoagulant medications as ordered. (J.[NAME] documentation of Eliquis being administered as ordered incomplete per review of the MAR beginning [DATE]- [DATE]) Areas/Systems/Programs Affected: - On admission a data entry error into computer system Physician's Order module for Eliquis frequency and a D/C of Eliquis on [DATE] resulted in prior non-compliance for no or inaccurate electronic documentation of administration of Eliquis to J. [NAME]. - An audit of Eliquis supply ordered and obtained from Pharmacy from [DATE] - [DATE] compared to remaining supply of Eliquis indicates facility provided the 140 tabs required to administer Eliquis as ordered during facility stay ([DATE] - [DATE]). Plan of Correction: The following tasks/ methods were completed in to ensure medications administered as ordered by the facility: 1. Administrative nursing staff were trained by the new computer system liaison on order entry including discontinued orders on [DATE] with competencies dated [DATE]. 2. From [DATE] - [DATE], Data Entry nurse reviewed current and newly received orders in computer system for accuracy and no issues were noted. 3. From [DATE] - [DATE], data entry nurse completed audits of carbon copies of newly written orders including newly discontinued orders to ensure current medications ordered are firing properly ensure proper administration of medications. 4. Facility completed chart audits of current resident's physician's orders and compared them to orders entered into computer system electronic order module [DATE] to [DATE] to ensure current medications ordered are firing properly in the eMAR for order validation to ensure proper administration of medications as ordered. Reviewing nurse signed/dated [DATE]'s monthly physician's orders and they were sent to MD for review and signature then filed on resident's chart. 5. Administrative nurses and Regional QI nurses trained staff nurses on order entry including discontinuing orders on [DATE]. 6. On [DATE], facility again completed chart audits of current resident's physician's orders and compared the orders in prior computer system to ensure current medications ordered are firing properly in eMAR for order validation to ensure proper administration of medications as ordered. Reviewing nurse signed/dated [DATE]'s monthly physician's orders and they were sent to MD for review and signature then filed on resident's chart. 7. On [DATE], data migration of orders from the prior computer system into the new system completed. 8. From [DATE] to [DATE], Facility dual entered newly written orders including newly discontinued orders into both computer systems to ensure current medications ordered fired properly in eMAR for order validation to ensure proper administration of medications as ordered. 9. From [DATE] to [DATE], facility completed chart audits of current resident's physician's orders, newly received orders, and newly discontinued orders compared to orders entered into the new system and the prior system's electronic orders module to ensure current medications ordered fired properly in eMAR for order validation to ensure prop administration of medications as ordered. 10. On [DATE], nursing staff compared prior system paper MARs/TARs to new system eMAR/eTAR to Medication Card instructions during med passes for order validation to ensure proper administration of medications as ordered. 11. Since [DATE], each morning, Data Entry has compared carbon copies of newly written orders and a report of newly discontinued orders generated from the new system data validation to ensure residents continued to receive medications as ordered. 12. On [DATE], Data Entry re-validated newly entered and newly discontinued orders in the new system to ensure medications are firing to system's eMAR properly from [DATE] - [DATE] for proper documentation of administration as ordered with no issues noted. 13. The following steps will be completed for order validation to ensure proper administration of medications as ordered: - Data entry of medication orders for new admissions will be confirmed by 2 nurses - Monday - Friday, Data Entry or designee will compare carbon copies of newly written orders and a report of newly discontinued orders generated from the new system to the current orders in the system - These carbon copies of newly received orders and reports of newly discontinued orders will be retained to be reviewed again during end of month order validation 14. [DATE], Data Entry re-educated by the DON on the order validation process to ensure administration of medications as ordered. 15. On [DATE], facility re-educated nurses by ADON on the importance of entering medications orders into the new system and comparing the medication cards to the eMAR during med pass for order validation to ensure proper administration of medications as ordered. 16. Going forward facility will have e-signature available for physician use to sign orders and the facility does not currently use agency staff and has not used them since the last day in [DATE]. There is no plan to reinstitute agency staff at this time. 17. The DON or designee will monitor by reviewing completion of order validation findings twice weekly on a random sample of 10 residents to ensure continued compliance for 6 weeks and randomly monthly thereafter. 18. All new nursing staff will be trained by staff development nurse or designee on administering medication as ordered during orientation prior to independent medication administration. 19. On [DATE] education and ongoing completion of order validation began and continues to date with no issues identified, it is the facilities belief that substantial compliance was attained and maintained effective [DATE].
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 assessment accurately reflected the resident's...

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 assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (#10) of 33 residents reviewed in the final sample. Findings: Review of the facility's policy MDS Policy and Procedure, with an effective date of 6/25/2015, revealed, in part, the following: Policy: All MDS are to be completed and transmitted according to the most current Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual. Procedure: The Interdisciplinary Team will assess the resident and document during the 7 day look back and accurately complete the MDS according to the RAI manual. Review of Resident #10's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed Resident #10 had a diagnosis of Localized Edema with an onset date of 08/23/2011. Review of Resident #10's current Physician Orders revealed the following: Start Date: 02/19/2024 Lasix 40 mg tablet by mouth daily for localized edema Review of Resident #10's MAR for March 2024, April 2024, May 2024, and June 2024 revealed, in part, Resident #10 received Lasix 40 mg by mouth daily as prescribed. Review of Resident #10's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 05/15/2024 revealed Localized Edema was not coded as an active diagnosis in Section I. An interview was conducted on 06/07/2024 at 1:45 p.m. with S10MDS. S10MDS confirmed Resident #10's MDS with an ARD of 05/15/2024 was not coded for the diagnosis of Localized Edema. S10MDS also confirmed Resident #10's MDS should have been coded for the diagnosis of Localized Edema since it was an active diagnosis and she was receiving medication for it. An interview was conducted on 06/07/2024 at 2:00 p.m. with S2DON. She stated if a resident had an active diagnosis in which they were receiving medication for, the MDS should have been coded for the diagnosis.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet the needs of 1 (#1) of 33 residents reviewed in the final sample. The facility failed to develop a care plan with interventions for a resident with diabetes who frequently refuses blood glucose monitoring. Findings: Review of the facility's policy Care Plan Policy and Procedure, with an effective date of 05/22/2017, revealed, in part, the following: Policy: A comprehensive plan of care will be used to communicate and address care issues that are relevant to the resident's individual needs. Procedure: 4. The care plan will be revised on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in the resident and the care the resident is receiving. 6. Consider: f) Respecting the resident's right to decline treatment. Review of Resident #1's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses, which included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Unspecified Complications and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy, Unspecified. Review of Resident #1's current Physician's Orders revealed the following, in part: (Start date: 08/21/2023) Accu Check ACHS cover with Humalog 100 unit/ml Kwikpen per sliding scale. Review of Resident #1's MAR for March 2024, April 2024, and May 2024, revealed Resident #1's Accu Checks were not administered at 6:00 a.m. on the following dates: 03/03/2024, 03/08/2024, 03/09/2024, 03/10/2024, 03/11/2024, 03/12/2024, 03/13/2024, 03/14/2024, 03/15/2024, 03/16/2024, 03/17/2024, 03/22/2024, 03/29/2024, 03/30/2024, 04/03/2024, 04/07/2024, 04/08/2024, 04/09/2024, 04/10/2024, 04/12/2024, 04/13/2024, 04/14/2024, 04/19/2024, 04/20/2024, 04/22/2024, 04/26/2024, 04/27/2024, 04/28/2024, 04/29/2024, 05/03/2024, 05/04/2024, 05/05/2024, 05/06/2024, 05/10/2024, 05/11/2024, 05/12/2024, 05/14/2024, 05/17/2024, 05/18/2024, 05/19/2024, 05/20/2024, 05/24/2024, 05/25/2024, and 05/26/2024. Review of Resident #1's MAR for March 2024, April 2024, and May 2024, revealed Resident #1's Accu Checks were not administered at 11:00 a.m. on the following dates: 03/07/2024, 03/08/2024, 03/11/2024, 03/12/2024, 03/13/2024, 03/17/2024, 03/21/2024, 03/22/2024, 03/28/2024, 04/19/2024, 05/03/2024, 05/10/2024, 05/16/2024, 05/17/2024, 05/23/2024, 05/24/2024, 05/30/2024, and 05/31/2024. Further review of Resident #1's detailed Administration Record revealed documentation of Resident #1's Accu Checks not being administered on all of the above dates and times in March 2024, April 2024, and May 2024 due to being refused by Resident #1. Review of Resident #1's Care Plan revealed no care plan developed related to Resident #1's refusals of Accu Checks. On 06/06/2024 at 5:25 p.m., an interview was conducted with S10MDS nurse. She confirmed she was responsible for updating residents' care plans. She stated morning meets are held to discuss changes in residents' behavior. She stated if a resident requires a care plan change based on information received in the morning meeting, she will update the care plan. She stated she does not recall if Resident #1's frequent refusal of Accu Checks were discussed in daily morning meetings. She confirmed Resident #1 did not have a care plan developed for frequent refusals of Accu Checks. She stated she was not aware of Resident #1's frequent refusals of Accu Checks. She confirmed Resident #1 should have had a care plan developed for frequent refusals of Accu Checks. On 06/06/2024 at 5:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She stated morning meets are held to discuss changes in residents' behavior. She stated if a resident requires a care plan change based on information received in the morning meeting, S10MDS will update the care plan. She stated Resident #1's frequent refusals of Accu Checks have been discussed in daily morning meetings with S10MDS nurse was present and aware of this. She confirmed Resident #1 did not have a care plan developed for refusals of Accu Checks and Resident #1 should have had a care plan developed for refusals of Accu Checks.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure resident's received the necessary services t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure resident's received the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 1 (#17) of 2 (#17 and #45) residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Bath, Tub Policy and Procedure, dated 09/04/2014 revealed the following, in part: Policy: Tub Baths are to be given as scheduled and/or as needed. Procedure: 5. Assist resident into tub and assist with bath as needed. Review of the facility's policy titled, Bath, Shower Policy and Procedure, dated 09/04/2014 revealed the following, in part: Policy: Showers are to be given as scheduled and/or as needed. Procedure: 1. Place resident in shower chair and cover with appropriate drape. 4. Wash face and shampoo hair; rinse well. Review of Resident #17's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Morbid Obesity and Chronic Diastolic Heart Failure. Review of Resident #17's admission MDS with an ARD of 03/18/2024 revealed BIMS of 14 which indicated she was cognitively intact. Further review revealed Resident #17 required substantial/maximum assistance with bathing. On 06/05/2024 at 10:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with S1NFA. She provided April and May 2024 Completed Care AHT bath logs for Resident #17. She stated these are from April 1st-30th and May 1st-31st. S1NFA confirmed these were the reports for the entire month and the only documentation she had. Review of the Completed Care record dated 04/01/2024-04/31/2024 revealed Resident #17 received baths on 04/04/2024 and 04/15/2024. Completed Care Record dated 05/01/2024-05/31/2024 revealed Resident #17 received baths on 05/08/2025 and 05/22/2023. On 06/05/2024 at 8:18 a.m., an observation and interview was conducted with Resident #17. Resident #17 observed to be unkempt with oily hair, dandruff around the perimeter of her head and in her hair, and her skin noted to be flaky and dry. Resident #17 stated it had been seven days since she had a bath or had her hair washed. Resident #17 stated prior to this stent of no baths it was five days before she had her last bath. She confirmed her bath days were Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. She stated she normally washed her hair twice a week and would like her hair washed a minimum of two times a week. She stated she preferred to be bathed via showers or whirlpool over a bed bath. On 06/05/2024 at 8:49 a.m., an interview was conducted with S6ADON. She stated Resident #17 had difficulty getting in the shower chair and the bath aide needed assistance getting her on the shower chair on bath days. She confirmed Resident #17 was supposed to be bathed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. S6ADON confirmed no accommodations were made. On 06/05/2024 at 10:49 a.m., an interview was conducted with S8CNA. She stated she did not provide showers for Resident #17 because she had difficulty getting her on a shower chair, so she gave her bed baths. She stated she could shower Resident #17 if she had assistance, but often times there was no one available to help her. She confirmed there were times Resident #17 did not receive a shower or bed bath before the end of her shift and should 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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents' drug regimens were free from unnecessary psycho...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents' drug regimens were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications for 2 (#4 and #7) of 6 (#1, #4, #7 #10, #35 and #43) residents reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 and Resident #7 had PRN orders for psychotropic drugs that were limited to 14 days. Findings: Resident #4 Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Dementia, Unspecified Severity with Agitation, Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder with Severe Psych Symptoms, Unspecified Mood Defective Disorder, and Alzheimer's Disease, Unspecified. Further review revealed Resident #4 was admitted to Hospice Services on 09/16/2023. Review of Resident #4's active Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Start Date: 12/14/2023- Ativan 1mg tablet give one tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for Agitation. Start Date: 06/03/2024- Lorazepam 1mg give one tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for agitation related to Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified. Further review of Resident #4's active Physician Orders revealed the orders for Ativan and Lorazepam did not have a documented stop date. Resident #7 Review of Resident #7's clinical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Senile Degeneration of Brain, not elsewhere classified, Unspecified Dementia, Other Bipolar Disorders, and Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, In Remission. Further review revealed Resident #7 was admitted to Hospice services on 05/24/2024. Review of Resident #7's active Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Start Date: 06/03/2024- Lorazepam 1mg give one tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for Target Behaviors: Restlessness, Agitation. Hold if sedated. Related to Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Further review of Resident #7's active Physician Orders revealed the orders for Lorazepam did not have a documented stop date. On 06/04/2024 at 10:51 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Hospice Registered Nurse. She confirmed Resident #7, and all residents receiving Hospice care with their company, had a PRN standing order for Lorazepam with no stop date or duration listed on the order. On 06/04/2024 at 11:40 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Hospice Physician. He stated he wrote the order for the Lorazepam medication as a PRN order for Resident #7, and he confirmed there was no duration or stop date on the order. He stated he was not aware that a duration or stop date was needed on the orders for PRN Lorazepam. On 06/04/2024 at 09:46 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She stated she was responsible for assessing all PRN psychotropic medications. She confirmed the Lorazepam order for Resident #7 did not have a stop date or duration. She confirmed PRN Lorazepam orders for residents receiving Hospice care, including Resident #4, are not required to have a stop date or duration. On 06/04/2024 at 10:45 a.m., an interview was conducted with S1NFA. She confirmed the Lorazepam medication was a PRN order for Resident #7 and did not have a stop date or duration. She confirmed PRN Lorazepam orders for residents receiving Hospice, including Resident #4, are not required to have a stop date or duration.
CONCERN (E)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to initiate and resolve grievances voiced for 1 (#17) of 33 sampled residents reviewed for grievances. Findings: Review of the facility's pol...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to initiate and resolve grievances voiced for 1 (#17) of 33 sampled residents reviewed for grievances. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Grievance Policy and Procedure, dated 10/10/2022 revealed the following, in part: Follow Up/Resolution: 1. The grievance official/compliance liaison or designee will follow up with the complainant with a resolution within 5 business days of the date that the grievance was filed. Review of Resident #17's admission MDS with an ARD of 03/18/2024 revealed BIMS of 14 which indicated she was cognitively intact. Further review revealed she was dependent on staff for bathing. Review of the Completed Care record dated 04/01-04/31/2024 revealed Resident #17 only had a bath on 04/04/2024 and 04/15/2024. Completed Care Record dated 05/01-05/31/2024 revealed Resident #17 only had a bath on 05/08/2025 and 05/22/2023. Review of the facility's grievance logs dated December 2023-current revealed on 04/03/2024 Resident #17 had a complaint for nursing. Further review revealed, Resident #17 stated she had not had a bath in 5 days. Corrective Action: Immediately after making this statement to a staff member the bath aid entered the room and performed a complete bed bath. On 06/05/2024 at 8:18 a.m., an observation and interview was conducted with Resident #17. Resident #17 appeared unkempt, dandruff was around perimeter of her head and in hair, her hair was oily, and her skin was noted to be flaky and dry. Resident #17 stated it had been seven days since she had a bath or had her hair washed. Resident #17 stated prior to this stent of no baths it was five days before she had her last bath. On 06/05/2024 at 8:49 a.m., an interview was conducted with S6ADON. She stated Resident #17 did complain in April of not getting bathed. She stated she bathed Resident #17 herself. S6ADON confirmed she did not have anything in place to prevent the occurrence from happening again.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help preven...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection. The facility failed to ensure: 1. S3LPN and S4LPN practiced proper hand hygiene for 3 of 3 (#11, #129, #130) residents observed for medication administration; and 2. S4LPN disinfected blood glucose meters between resident use for 1of 1 (#130) residents observed for blood glucose monitoring. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 79 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Hand Hygiene Policy and Procedure dated 07/01/2020, revealed the following, in part: Policy: 3. Before and after direct resident contact for which hand hygiene is indicated by acceptable professional practice. 1. On 06/03/2024 at 2:05 p.m., an observation was made of S3LPN administering medication to Resident #129. S3LPN did not sanitize her hands prior to putting Resident #129's pills in her cup. S3LPN handed the cup of pills to Resident #129. Resident #129 took her pills and gave her empty cup back to S3LPN. S3LPN discarded the pill cup into the trash. S3LPN did not perform hand hygiene before or after medication administration. On 06/03/2024 at 2:10 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3LPN. She confirmed she did not perform hand hygiene before or after giving Resident #129 her medications. She stated the facility's process is to perform hand hygiene before and after medication administration and she should have. On 06/04/2024 at 7:10 a.m., an observation was made of S4LPN during medication pass. She prepared Resident #11's medication in a pill cup. S4LPN did not sanitize her hands before preparing Resident #11's medications. S4LPN went into Resident #11's room, gave Resident #11 her pill cup, and came out of Resident #11's room without sanitizing her hands. S4LPN then prepared Resident #130's medications in a pill cup and walked into Resident #130's room and gave her pill cup to her without performing hand hygiene. On 06/04/2024 at 7:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with S4LPN. She confirmed she did not sanitize her hands before administering Resident #11's medication or between medication administration with Resident #11 and Resident #130. 2. Review of the facility's policy titled, Hand Hygiene Policy and Procedure dated 07/01/2020, revealed the following, in part: Policy: 4. Before and after performing any invasive procedure (e.g. fingerstick blood sampling) Review of the facility's policy titled, Blood Glucose Monitoring Policy and Procedure 08/24/2016, revealed the following, in part: Procedure: 12. Disinfect all surfaces of the glucometer after use. On 06/04/2024 at 7:20 a.m., an observation was made of S4LPN. She retrieved a glucometer from the top drawer of her medication cart and proceeded to go into Resident 130's room. An observation was made of S4LPN performing a glucometer check on Resident #130. S4LPN came out of Resident #130's room and without sanitizing her glucometer, put the glucometer back in her top drawer of her medication cart. On 06/04/2024 at 7:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with S4LPN. She confirmed she did not sanitize her hands before preforming the glucometer check on Resident #130. She further stated she should have cleaned the glucometer after using it on Resident #130 and before placing it back in her medication cart and she did not. On 06/04/2024 at 9:15 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. S2DON confirmed nurses should use hand sanitizer before and after administering medications to each resident. S2DON further stated the glucometer should be cleaned before and after each resident use.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to post nurse staffing data on a daily basis which included the total resident census number for 2 of 2 areas reviewed for nurse staffing data...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to post nurse staffing data on a daily basis which included the total resident census number for 2 of 2 areas reviewed for nurse staffing data. Findings: An observation was made on 06/04/2024 at 9:46 a.m. of the Daily Nursing Assignment sheet dated 06/04/2024 posted at Nursing Station A with no resident census included. The Daily Nursing Assignment sheet at Nursing Station A revealed it did not include the resident census. An observation was made on 06/04/2024 at 9:50 a.m. of the Daily Nursing Assignment sheet dated 06/04/2024 posted on the bulletin board at the end of Hall B. The Daily Nursing Assignment sheet at Hall B revealed it did not included the resident census. An interview was conducted on 06/04/2024 at 9:55 a.m. with S2DON. She stated S6ADON was responsible for posting the Daily Nursing Assignment sheet. S2DON confirmed the resident census number was not included on the Daily Assignment sheet that was posted on Hall B and it should have been. An interview was conducted on 06/04/2024 at 10:00 a.m. with S6ADON. She stated she was responsible for positing the Daily Nursing Assignment sheet. The Daily Nursing Assignment sheet dated 06/04/2024 which was posted on the bulletin board at the end of Hall B was reviewed. S6ADON confirmed the resident census number was not included on the Daily Assignment sheet that was posted on Hall B She confirmed the resident census number was not included on the Daily Nursing Assignment sheets and stated she was not aware it needed to be included.
Jan 2023 1 deficiency
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record Observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for 2 (Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record Observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for 2 (Resident #2 and Resident #3) of 5 (Resident #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5) residents reviewed with orders for heel protectors. The facility failed to ensure heel protectors were applied as ordered. Findings: Resident #2 Review of the medical record for resident #2 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had following diagnosis, in part, Type 2 Diabetes, Pressure Ulcer of Right Heel, Unstageable, and Pressure Ulcer of Left Heel, Unstageable. Review of a physician order dated 10/19/2022 for Resident #2 revealed the following: Bilateral heel protectors while in bed. Review of the care plan for Resident #2 revealed the following: Onset 12/27/2022: I have impaired skin integrity R/T I have a DTI to my right heel. I am receiving tx per my MD orders. Interventions, in part: I wear bilateral heel protectors while in bed. Problem Onset 10/18/2022: I have impaired skin integrity r/t I have a DTI to my left heel. Interventions: I wear bilateral heel protectors while in bed. On 01/04/2023 at 10:35 a.m., an observation was made of resident #2, he had no heel protectors on his feet and no heel protectors in the bed or on the floor. On 01/04/2023 at 2:40 p.m., an observation was made of Resident #2 in bed with no heel protectors on. No heel protectors were in the bed or on the floor. On 01/04/2023 at 2:40 p.m., an interview was conducted with S5LPN. She verified Resident #2 had no heel protectors on and they were not in the bed or on the floor. She said he should have had heel protectors on. Resident #3 Review of the medical record for Resident #3 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and her diagnoses were, in part, Alzheimer's Disease, Pressure Ulcer of Left Heel. Review of a physician order dated 01/03/2023 for Resident #3 revealed the following: Bilateral heel protectors while in bed. Review of the Care Plan revealed the following: Problem onset: 12/29/2022: I have impaired skin integrity r/t I have a DTI to my left medial heel. Interventions, in part: Apply my bilateral heel boots while in bed as ordered. On 01/04/2023 at 10:48 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #3 and she had no heel protectors on her feet. On 01/04/2023 at 2:50 p.m., an observation was made of Resident #3 and she had no heel protectors on her feet. On 01/04/2023 at 2:51 p.m., an interview was conducted with S7CNA. She said her Resident #3's heel protectors weren't on the resident's feet. She said she didn't know why the resident have them on and should have. On 01/04/2023 at 3:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3LPN. She verified Resident #3 did not have her heel protectors on and should have. On 01/05/2034 at 9:40 a.m., an interview was conducted with S6CNA. She confirmed she was responsible for caring for Resident #3 on 01/04/2022. She confirmed she had not placed a pillow under the resident's heels when the heel protectors were sent to laundry. She confirmed she should have placed a pillow under her heels. On 01/05/2023 at 9:20 a.m., an interview was conducted with S1DON. The above observations of Resident #2 and Resident #3 were reviewed with S1DON. She confirmed the staff should follow physician orders and care plan.
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
  • • 39% turnover. Below Louisiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 32 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $13,715 in fines. Above average for Louisiana. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (26/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 26/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Heritage Healthcare Of Hammond's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Heritage Healthcare of Hammond an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Heritage Healthcare Of Hammond Staffed?

CMS rates Heritage Healthcare of Hammond's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Heritage Healthcare Of Hammond?

State health inspectors documented 32 deficiencies at Heritage Healthcare of Hammond during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 28 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 Heritage Healthcare Of Hammond?

Heritage Healthcare of Hammond is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PLANTATION MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 108 certified beds and approximately 76 residents (about 70% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HAMMOND, Louisiana.

How Does Heritage Healthcare Of Hammond Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, Heritage Healthcare of Hammond's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Heritage Healthcare Of Hammond?

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

Is Heritage Healthcare Of Hammond Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Heritage Healthcare Of Hammond Stick Around?

Heritage Healthcare of Hammond has a staff turnover rate of 39%, which is about average for Louisiana nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Heritage Healthcare Of Hammond Ever Fined?

Heritage Healthcare of Hammond has been fined $13,715 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Louisiana average of $33,216. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Heritage Healthcare Of Hammond on Any Federal Watch List?

Heritage Healthcare of Hammond 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.