Metairie Health Care Center

6401 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, METAIRIE, LA 70003 (504) 885-8611
For profit - Limited Liability company 202 Beds INSPIRED HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#227 of 264 in LA
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Metairie Health Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about their care and operations. This facility ranks #227 out of 264 nursing homes in Louisiana, placing it in the bottom half, and #9 out of 12 in Jefferson County, suggesting limited local options for better care. While the facility has shown improvement, reducing issues from 25 in 2024 to 8 in 2025, it still faces serious challenges, including 37 total deficiencies, with 2 critical incidents, such as allowing an unsafe smoker to smoke without supervision and failing to follow proper transfer procedures, leading to a resident's fall and injury. Staffing is below average with a rating of 2 out of 5, though turnover is somewhat managed at 44%, and the facility has higher fines of $132,895 than 75% of Louisiana facilities, raising concerns about compliance issues. Additionally, RN coverage is less than 90% of state facilities, which could impact the quality of care, as RNs are crucial for monitoring residents effectively.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Louisiana
#227/264
Bottom 15%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
25 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
44% turnover. Near Louisiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$132,895 in fines. Lower than most Louisiana facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 8 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
37 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 25 issues
2025: 8 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (44%)

    4 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: 44%

Near Louisiana avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $132,895

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: INSPIRED HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 37 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 1 actual harm
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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility assessment included active involvement from dir...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility assessment included active involvement from direct care staff, residents, and residents' representatives in its development. Findings:Review of the facility assessment dated [DATE] revealed, in part, a resident and resident representative and direct care staff, including a Registered Nurse (RN), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) were not included in the development of the facility's assessment. In an interview on 09/03/2025 at 12:52PM, S1Administrator confirmed he had no documentation the facility assessment dated [DATE] was developed with any of the above mentioned staff, residents, and/or residents' representatives.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure staff wore proper personal protective equipment (PPE) for a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure staff wore proper personal protective equipment (PPE) for a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and ensure staff performed hand hygiene during a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (a medical device that provides nutrition, fluids, and medications directly into the stomach) dressing change for 1 (Resident #2) of 2 (Resident #2, Resident #3) sampled residents observed for indwelling device care. Findings: Review of the facility's undated EBP policy and procedure revealed, in part, gloves were to be used during high-contact resident care activities for residents with indwelling medical devices such as feeding tubes (a general term for PEG tube). Review of facility's Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy and procedure, revised on 12/2009 revealed, in part, employees must wash their hands before and after direct resident contact, before and after handing invasive devices, after handling soiled or used dressings, and after removing gloves. Review of Resident #2's August 2025 physician's orders revealed, in part, an order to cleanse Resident #2's PEG tube site with normal saline or wound cleanser, pat dry, apply a drain sponge, and secure with tape as needed. Review of Resident #2's care plan with a start date of 08/13/2024 and a next review date of 09/09/2025 revealed, in part, Resident #2 was on EBP with an intervention for staff to wear gloves. Observation on 09/02/2025 at 11:55AM revealed S17Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) entered Resident #2's room without putting on gloves. S17LPN then removed Resident #2's PEG tube dressing with her ungloved hand, disposed of the dressing, and applied gloves without performing hand hygiene. S17LPN then cleaned Resident #2's PEG tube site, removed her gloves, did not perform hand hygiene, and redressed Resident #2's PEG tube site with ungloved hands. Observation on 09/02/2025 at 12:00PM revealed an EBP sign on Resident #2's door that indicated providers and staff must wear gloves for high-contact resident care activities such as feeding tube care. In an interview on 09/02/2025 at 12:05PM, S17LPN indicated she did not wear gloves when she removed and replaced Resident #2's PEG tube dressing and did not perform hand hygiene after removing her gloves and should have. In an interview on 09/03/2025 at 12:45PM, S2Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed S17LPN did not wear gloves and perform hand hygiene appropriately during PEG tube site care and should have.
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 F0941 (Tag F0941)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure direct care staff were provided effective communication training for 5 (S10Certified Nursing Assistant [CNA], S12CNA, S14CNA, S15C...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure direct care staff were provided effective communication training for 5 (S10Certified Nursing Assistant [CNA], S12CNA, S14CNA, S15CNA, S16CNA) of 5 (S10CNA, S12CNA, S14CNA, S15CNA, S16CNA) sampled direct care staff investigated for training requirements. Findings:Review of S10CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, S10CNA had a date of hire of 10/18/2021. Further review revealed S10CNA did not receive effective communication training since hire. Review of S12CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, S12CNA had a date of hire of 06/25/2024. Further review revealed S12CNA did not receive effective communication training since hire. Review of S14CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, S14CNA had a date of hire of 04/15/2025. Further review revealed S14CNA did not receive effective communication training since hire. Review of S15CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, S15CNA had a date of hire of 12/12/2022. Further review revealed S15CNA did not receive effective communication training since hire. Review of S16CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, S16CNA had a date of hire of 09/22/2011. Further review revealed S16CNA did not receive effective communication training since hire. In an interview on 09/03/2025 at 10:37AM, S3CNA Supervisor indicated she was responsible for providing training for a CNA's new hire orientation. S3CNA Supervisor further indicated effective communication training was not included in orientation training or in-services. In an interview on 09/03/2025 at 1:45PM, S2Director of Nursing confirmed S10CNA, S12CNA, S14CNA, S15CNA, and S16CNA had not received effective communication training.
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 F0944 (Tag F0944)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure direct care staff were provided Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) training for 5 (S10Certified Nursing Assistan...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure direct care staff were provided Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) training for 5 (S10Certified Nursing Assistant [CNA], S12CNA, S14CNA, S15CNA, S16CNA) of 5 (S10CNA, S12CNA, S14CNA, S15CNA, S16CNA) sampled direct care staff investigated for training requirements. Findings:Review of S10CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, S10CNA had a date of hire of 10/18/2021. Further review revealed S10CNA did not receive QAPI training since hire. Review of S12CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, S12CNA had a date of hire of 06/25/2024. Further review revealed S12CNA did not receive QAPI training since hire. Review of S14CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, S14CNA had a date of hire of 04/15/2025. Further review revealed S14CNA did not receive QAPI training since hire. Review of S15CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, S15CNA had a date of hire of 12/12/2022. Further review revealed S15CNA did not receive QAPI training since hire. Review of S16CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, S16CNA had a date of hire of 09/22/2011. Further review revealed S16CNA did not receive QAPI training since hire. In an interview on 09/03/2025 at 10:37AM, S3CNA Supervisor indicated she was responsible for providing training for a CNA's new hire orientation. S3CNA Supervisor further indicated QAPI training was not included in orientation training or in-services. In an interview on 09/03/2025 at 1:45PM, S2Director of Nursing confirmed S10CNA, S12CNA, S14CNA, S15CNA, and S16CNA had not received QAPI training.
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to post the required nurse staffing information at the beginning of each shift daily for 1 (09/02/2025) of 2 (09/02/2025, 09/03/2025) days obse...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to post the required nurse staffing information at the beginning of each shift daily for 1 (09/02/2025) of 2 (09/02/2025, 09/03/2025) days observed for nurse staffing information. Findings:Observation on 09/02/2025 at 10:10AM revealed the facility's posted nurse staffing information dated 09/02/2025 did not include the facility's daily census. In an interview on 09/03/2025 at 12:45PM, S3CNA Supervisor indicated the posted daily nurse staffing information dated 09/02/2025 should have included the daily census. In an interview on 09/03/2025 at 12:52PM, S1Administrator indicated he was unaware the daily posted nurse staffing information should include the daily census.
Jul 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to maintain privacy and confidentiality of medical records observed during a medication pass for 1 (Resident R4) of 1 (Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to maintain privacy and confidentiality of medical records observed during a medication pass for 1 (Resident R4) of 1 (Resident R4) random resident observed. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Resident Rights, dated 02/2017, revealed, in part, federal and state laws guarantee the right to privacy and confidentiality to all resident of the facility.Observation on 07/21/2025 at 9:25AM revealed S6Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stepped away from her computer in the hallway to administer Resident R4's medication in Resident R4's room. Further observation revealed the unattended computer screen visibly displayed and allowed access to Resident R4's private medical information.In an interview on 07/22/2025 at 9:28AM, S6LPN confirmed she should not have allowed Resident R4's private medical information to be visible and accessible when she left her computer unattended in the hallway. S6LPN indicated her action was a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violation.In an interview on 07/22/2025 at 1:33PM, S2Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the staff computer screen should have been locked to prevent the resident's private information is being accessed. S2DON further indicated that S6LPN's action of leaving her computer screen unattended with resident's information available for access was a violation of HIPAA.
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 F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide a Baseline Care Plan summary to a resident and the resident representative for 2 (Resident #1, Resident #3) of 3 (Resident #1, Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide a Baseline Care Plan summary to a resident and the resident representative for 2 (Resident #1, Resident #3) of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3) sampled residents reviewed for care plans.Findings: Resident #1Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed, in part, an admit date of 05/21/2025. Review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/28/2025 revealed, in part, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, which indicated Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #1's Baseline Care Plan revealed, in part, the Baseline Care Plan was completed on 05/21/2025. Further review revealed the resident and resident's representative signature and date box was not signed or dated.There was no documented evidence, and the facility could not present any documented evidence, the facility had provided Resident #1 and Resident #1's representative a summary of Resident #1's Baseline Care Plan.In a telephone interview on 07/16/2025 at 4:55PM, Resident #1's representative indicated the facility had not provided them with a summary of Resident #1's Baseline Care Plan. Resident #3Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed, in part, an admit date of 05/30/2025. Review of Resident #3's admission MDS with an ARD of 05/28/2025 revealed, in part, Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated Resident #3 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #3's Baseline Care Plan revealed, in part, the Baseline Care Plan was completed on 05/30/2025. Further review revealed the resident and resident's representative signature and date box was not signed or dated.There was no documented evidence, and the facility could not present any documented evidence, the facility had provided Resident #3 and Resident #3's representative a summary of Resident #3's Baseline Care Plan.In an interview on 07/22/2025 at 7:51AM, Resident #3 indicated the facility had not provided her with a summary of her Baseline Care Plan since she had been admitted into the facility. In an interview on 07/22/2025 at 12:25PM, S2Director of Nursing (DON) indicated she could not provide any documentation that revealed Resident #1, Resident #1's representative, Resident #3, or Resident #3's representative were provided a summary of their Baseline Care Plan.
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 F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents' comprehensive care plan was prepared by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) with all required members for 2 (Resident #1, R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents' comprehensive care plan was prepared by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) with all required members for 2 (Resident #1, Resident #3) of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3) sampled residents reviewed for care plans.Findings:Resident #1Review of Resident #1's medical records revealed, in part, an admit date of 05/21/2025. Review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/28/2025 revealed, in part, Resident #1 Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, which indicated Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment.Review of Resident #1's progress note dated 05/29/2025 revealed, in part, a comprehensive care plan meeting was held to discuss Resident #1's progress in therapy. Further review revealed the only members of the IDT in attendance were S3Social Worker, S4MDS Coordinator, and S7Rehab Director. Further review revealed no documented evidence, and the facility was unable to present any documented evidence, Resident #1 and/or Resident #1's representative and the additional required IDT members were included in the preparation of Resident #1's comprehensive care plan.There was no documented evidence, and the facility did not present any documented evidence, Resident #1 and/or Resident #1's representative were invited by the facility to prepare Resident #1's comprehensive care plan.In a telephone interview on 07/16/2025 at 4:55PM, Resident #1's representative indicated the facility had not given him the opportunity to attend and participate in the preparation of Resident #1's comprehensive care plan. Resident #3Review of Resident #3's medical records revealed, in part, an admit date of 05/30/2025. Review of Resident #3's admission MDS with an ARD of 05/28/2025 revealed, in part, Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated Resident #3 was cognitively intact.Review of Resident #3's Care Plan Signature Sheet dated 06/10/2025 revealed, in part, a comprehensive care plan meeting was held to discuss Resident #3's care. Further review revealed the only members of the IDT in attendance were S3Social Worker, S4MDS Coordinator, and Resident #3's representative. Further review revealed no documented evidence, and the facility was unable to present any documented evidence, Resident #3 and the additional required IDT members were included in the preparation of Resident #3's comprehensive care plan.There was no documented evidence, and the facility did not present any documented evidence, Resident #3 was invited by the facility to prepare Resident #3's comprehensive care plan.In an interview on 07/22/2025 at 7:52AM, Resident #3 indicated she had not been given the opportunity by the facility to participate in in the preparation of a resident's comprehensive care plan.In an interview on 07/22/2025 at 11:25AM, S3Social Worker indicated a resident's comprehensive care plan was prepared by only the social worker and the MDS coordinator nurse. S3Social Worker further indicated a resident's attending physician did not participate in the preparation of a resident's comprehensive care plan.In an interview on 07/22/2025 at 12:25PM, S2Director of Nursing (DON) indicated none of the attending physicians or other designated providers participated in the preparation of the resident's individual comprehensive care plans. In an interview on 07/22/2025 at 3:15PM, S4MDS Coordinator indicated none of the attending physicians or other designated providers participated in the preparation of the resident's individual comprehensive care plans.In an interview on 07/22/2025 at 12:40PM, S1Administrator indicated the attending physicians did not participate in the preparation of the resident's comprehensive care plans. S1Administrator also indicated there was no documented evidence and he could not provide documented evidence, the above mentioned residents, the above mentioned resident representative, physicians or designated provider's participated in the preparation of the residents' individual comprehensive care plan.
Dec 2024 14 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · 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 residents, who had a history of unsafe smok...

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 residents, who had a history of unsafe smoking used a safety smoking device and was supervised while smoking for 3 (Resident #31, Resident #15 and Resident #53) of 3 (Resident #15, Resident #31, and Resident #53) sampled residents reviewed for unsafe smoking. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation on 12/16/2024 at 9:50 a.m. when Resident #31, a resident identified by the facility as an unsafe smoker with moderate cognitive impairment, was observed smoking without the use of a smoking apron (a safety device which provides protection against burns to clothing and/or skin) and without staff supervision. Resident #31's care plan, initiated on 10/02/2024, included Resident #31 was an unsafe smoker, was required to wear a smoking apron, and required staff supervision while smoking. S1Administrator was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy situation on 12/16/2024 at 5:52 p.m. This deficient practice had the likelihood to cause more than minimum harm to all 3 residents (Resident #15, Resident #31, and Resident #53) identified by the facility as unsafe smokers who required safety smoking devices and/or supervision while smoking. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Smoking Policy, updated 07/04/2024, revealed in part, residents that smoke would be assessed for the safety of smoking unattended and if determined unsafe, would not be allowed to have smoking paraphernalia in their possession, and would be care planned for the amount of supervision needed while smoking. Further review revealed the administrator was responsible for enforcing the designated smoking area, the nursing staff was responsible for keeping and distributing smoking paraphernalia for residents who were identified as unsafe smokers, and the ward clerk was responsible to monitor an active unsafe smoker list. Resident #31 Review of the facility's smoking list revealed, in part, Resident #31 was identified by the facility as unsafe smoker. Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed, in part, Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of, in part, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting his right dominant side. Review of Resident #31's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/10/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #31 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, which indicated Resident #31 had moderate impaired cognition. Further review revealed Resident #31 was identified as a tobacco user. Review of Resident #31's quarterly MDS with ARD of 05/10/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #31 had a BIMS score of 10 which indicated Resident #31 had moderate impaired cognition. Further review revealed Resident #31 was identified as a tobacco user. Review of Resident #31's Comprehensive Care Plan, with an initiation date of 10/02/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #31 was actively an unsafe smoker who was required to wear a smoker's apron, and required staff supervision while smoking. Review of Resident #31's physician orders with a start date of 07/01/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #31 was an unsafe smoker and was required to wear a smoker's apron at all times while smoking. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 9:00 a.m., revealed Resident #31 was sitting in his wheelchair in his room with two burn holes in his shirt, one unlit cigarette under his left leg, and a lighter attached to a retractable device on his jacket. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 11:07 a.m., revealed Resident #31 was rolling in his wheelchair down hall c, with two burn holes in his shirt and a lighter attached to a retractable device on his jacket. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 11:08 a.m., Resident #31 indicated he does not need anyone to go outside with him to smoke. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 12:18 p.m., revealed Resident #31 wheeled himself down hall c, with two burn holes in his shirt, and a lighter attached to a retractable device on his jacket. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 12:19 p.m., Resident #31 indicated he was going to smoke. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 12:24 p.m., revealed Resident #31was outside on the facility's smoking patio, unsupervised and without a smoker's apron on. Further observation revealed Resident #31 removed a pack of cigarettes out of his jacket, removed the cigarette lighter attached to a retractable device on his jacket, and lit a cigarette using the lighter. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 12:39 p.m., S1Administrator witnessed and confirmed Resident #31 was identified as an unsafe smoker, was on the facility's smoking patio unsupervised, without a smoker's apron on, and was in possession of a cigarette and a lighter. There was no documented evidence and the facility could not provide any documented evidence there was a list of identified unsafe smokers located at the nurses' station. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 9:03 a.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) indicated Resident #31, an unsafe smoker, was observed smoking unsupervised, without a smoker's apron on, and in possession of smoking paraphernalia. S2DON further indicated administrative staff was aware of unsafe smokers smoking unsupervised, without a smoker's apron on and in possession of smoking paraphernalia. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 10:35 a.m., S5CNA indicated she was not aware Resident #31 was an unsafe smoker who required a smoker's apron with supervision while smoking. S5CNA further indicated she had not been aware that Resident #31 had smoking paraphernalia in his possession. Resident #15 Review of Resident #15's annual MDS with ARD of 06/11/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #15 was identified as a tobacco user. A review of the facility's smoking list revealed, in part, Resident #15 was identified by the facility as an unsafe smoker. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 3:30 p.m., revealed Resident #15 sitting in his wheelchair in hall c with an opened full pack of cigarettes between his legs. Review of Resident #15's care plan revealed Resident #15 was care planned for unsafe smoking. Further, safe smoking interventions revealed in part; Resident#15 is an unsafe smoker, must wear a smoker's apron while smoking, cigarettes and lighter must be locked in the nurse's cart and Resident #15 must be supervised while smoking in the designated smoking location. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 9:56 a.m., S4CNA indicated she was unaware Resident #15 was an unsafe smoker and should not have smoking material in his possession. Resident #53 Review of Resident #53's smoking assessment dated [DATE], revealed, in part, Resident #53 was an unsafe smoker. Review of Resident #53's annual MDS with an ARD date of 05/28/2024, revealed, in part, Resident #53 had a BIMS of 15 which indicated Resident #53 was cognitively intact and was identified as a tobacco user. Review of Resident #53's care plan, dated 10/24/2024, revealed, in part, Resident #53 should be supervised while smoking and should use a smoker's apron. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 12:45 p.m., Resident #53 indicated he kept his cigarettes in his personal locked box and a lighter in his shirt pocket and he does not have to be supervised while smoking. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 12:45 p.m., revealed Resident #53 took a lighter out of his shirt pocket. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 12:46 p.m., S8CNA indicated Resident #53 should not have smoking material in his room. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 12:47 p.m., S4CNA indicated Resident #53 should not have smoking material in his room. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 12:48 p.m., S11LPN, indicated Resident #53 should not have any smoking paraphernalia in his room. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 12:50 p.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) indicated she was aware Resident #53 was identified as an unsafe smoker, Resident #53 had to be supervised while smoking, and Resident #53 had smoking material in his possession. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 8:55 a.m., S1Administrator confirmed the administrative personnel is responsible for ensuring the facility's designated smoking areas are enforced, Residents who are identified as unsafe smokers do not have smoking paraphernalia available in their rooms or on their person, and there was a current list of identified unsafe smokers at the nursing station In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 9:45 a.m., S1Administrator indicated Resident #15 was an unsafe smoker and should not have had smoking material in his possession. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 12/17/2024 at 6:50 p.m., after it was verified through observations, interviews, and record review, the facility implemented an acceptable Plan of Removal, prior to the survey exit. A Plan of Removal was accepted on 12/17/2024 at 6:50 p.m., which included the following actions to correct the deficient practice: 1.) On 12/16/2024, S2DON and S1Administrator inspected other identified unsafe smokers from a review of an updated smokers list in order to collect and store items on the nursing cart and to prevent other potential harm that could occur. 2.) On 12/16/2024, a review of the current smoker's policy was conducted by S1Admnistrator and S2DON immediately with no immediate changes made. 3.) On 12/16/2024, S2DON and S1Administerator inspected personal belongings of all unsafe smokers and any smoking material found in possession of residents and was confiscated to given to the assigned nurse on the medication cart. All materials collected by S1Administrator and S2DON were placed in a zip locked bag and labeled with the resident's name. 4.) On 12/16/2024, direct care staff were immediately in-serviced on the facility smoker's policy by S2DON, and made aware of who was currently deemed as an unsafe smoker and each resident's level of safety to smoke. 5.) Beginning on 12/16/2024, all direct care staff, CNAs and nurses, were notified and in-serviced by S2DON. All staff would assist with supervising smoking for unsafe smokers as well as ensuring smoker's aprons were worn. This was initiated with the staff who were present and would continue with each shift, prior to the provision of care. 6.) On 12/16/2024, nurses were told by S2DON that they would secure smoking items and would locate a smoking attendant that could assist with smoking activity each time a resident requested to go out and smoke. In-services would be ongoing. 7.) On 12/16/2024, an updated smoking list was provided by S2DON to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurses and placed at the desk for all staff to reference. 8.) On 12/16/2024, MDS nurses reviewed care plans to ensure all unsafe smokers' care plans were up to date with appropriate interventions as well as verifying a smoking assessment was on file to correlate to the person centered care plan. 9.) On 12/16/2024, the S2DON and S1Administrator ensured all unsafe smokers did not have any smoking materials on their person and made a final round prior to exit. There were no smoking materials identified on any resident. The likelihood of serious harm no longer existed for residents related to unsafe smoker supervision on 12/17/2024 at 6:50 p.m.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews, observations, and policy review the administrative staff failed to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, observations, and policy review the administrative staff failed to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of residents by overseeing the effective implementation of the facility's smoking policy and procedure for monitoring and supervision for 3 (Resident #15, Resident #31, and Resident #53) of 3 (Resident #15, Resident #31, and Resident #53) residents identified as unsafe smokers. This lack of administrative oversight resulted in Immediate Jeopardy situation on 12/16/2024 at 9:50 a.m., when facility staff failed to ensure implementation of their smoking policy when an unsafe smoker (Resident #31) was observed smoking on the smoking patio, in possession of a cigarette and a lighter, alone, and without supervision. S1Administrator was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 12/17/2024 at 3:58 p.m. This deficient practice had the likelihood to cause more than minimal harm to the 3 residents (Resident #15, Resident #31, and Resident #53) identified as unsafe smokers. Findings: Cross-Reference Findings at F-689 Review of the facility's policy titled Smoking Policy, last updated 07/04/2024 revealed, in part, residents who continue to smoke will be assessed for the safety of smoking unattended. Further review revealed the administrator is responsible for seeing that the smoking designated areas are enforced. The nursing staff are responsible for keeping and distributing smoking paraphernalia for residents, and the ward clerk was responsible to monitor the active smoker list. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 12:29 p.m., S1Administrator confirmed Resident #31 was on the unsafe smoker list. S1Administrator further indicated he observed Resident #31 smoking on the smoking patio, without a smoker's apron on, in possession of a cigarette and a lighter, alone, and without supervision. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 3:58 p.m., S1Administrator indicated he is ultimately responsible to ensure the facility's smokers are safe and that the facility's policy and procedures for smoking is adhered to. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 9:03 a.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) indicated prior to the observation of Resident #31 smoking on the facility's smoking patio unsupervised, without a smoker's apron on, and in possession of smoking paraphernalia on 12/16/2024 at 12:24 p.m., the facility's staff was not educated on the facility's smoking policy. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 3:30 p.m., S22Regional Administrator (RA) indicated he would provide in person oversight to S1Administrator and the administrative staff weekly beginning 12/17/2024. Further, S22RA would monitor the safe smoking areas of the facility on a weekly basis. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 4:15 p.m., S22RA indicated in his absence, daily monitoring of the safe smoking areas of the facility will be done by S1Admininstrator. Further, S22RA indicated in the absence of S1Admininistrator, the daily monitoring of the safe smoking areas of the facility will be done by S2DON. In the absence of S2DON, the daily monitoring of safe smoking areas of the facility will be done by S6ADON. In the absence of S6ADON, the daily monitoring of the safe smoking areas of the facility will be done by the charge nurse on duty for that shift. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 12/18/2024 at 3:36 p.m., after it was determined through observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility implemented an acceptable Plan of Removal prior to the survey exit. A Plan of Removal was accepted on 12/18/2024 at 3:36 p.m., which included the following actions to correct the deficient practice: S22Regional Administrator will provider oversight as follows: in part; 1.) On 12/17/2024, S22Regional Administrator (RA) provided in-person oversight to S1Admininistrator and administrative staff in the monitoring of unsafe smokers and the smoking areas on a weekly basis. 2.) On 12/17/2024, S22RA reviewed the Smoking Policy to ensure compliance with safe smoking 3.) On 12/17/2024, S22RA monitored unsafe smoking to ensure residents do not have smoking material on their person, are wearing smoker's aprons and are supervised. 4.) On 12/17/2024, S22RA quizzed direct care staff about the smoking policy and their role within. 5.) On 12/17/2024, S22RA reviewed the current smoking list to ensure it was updated. 6.) On 12/17/2024, S22RA reviewed all unsafe resident assessments and care plans to ensure all assessments and care plans were updated. The likelihood of serious harm no longer existed for residents related to unsafe smoking on 12/18/2024 at 3:36 p.m.
CONCERN (D)

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from resident to resident physical abuse for 1 (Resident #5) of 2 (Resident #5 and Resident #62) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from resident to resident physical abuse for 1 (Resident #5) of 2 (Resident #5 and Resident #62) sampled residents investigated for abuse. Findings: Review of the facility's undated Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation of Funds Program revealed, in part, the facility was to ensure the safety and well-being of residents at all times, and the facility was committed to a zero tolerance of any form of abuse in our facility. Review of Resident #5's record revealed, in part, a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14, which indicated a cognitive mental status. Review of Resident #62's record revealed, in part, a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 4, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #5's progress note dated 11/28/2024 at 2:17 p.m. revealed, in part, Resident #5 stated another resident (Resident #62) went into her room and punched her (Resident #5) in the face while she was asleep. Review of Resident #62's progress note dated 11/28/2024 at 2:09 p.m. revealed, in part, Resident #62 went into another resident's (Resident #5) room, punched her in her face and, waking her up out of her sleep. Further review revealed, Resident #62 told Resident #5, Bitch get your yellow ass out my bed. Review of an undated Resident Incident Report revealed, in part, an incident between Resident #5 and Resident #62 was reported on 11/28/2024 at 2:25 p.m. Further review revealed Resident #62 propelled his wheelchair into Resident #5's room, and hit her in the face, and told Resident #5 to get out of his bed. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 1:56 p.m., S6Assistant Director or Nursing (ADON) indicated on 11/28/2024 at 2:14 p.m., S18Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) sent her a text message to inform her Resident #62 hit Resident #5 in the face. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 2:06 p.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) indicated on 11/28/2024 at 2:25 p.m., S6ADON texted her that Resident #62 hit Resident #5. S2DON further indicated resident to resident abuse should not have occurred between Resident #5 and Resident #62. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 11:32 a.m., S1Administrator indicated on 11/28/2024 about 1:30 p.m. S1Administrator received a text from S2DON that Resident #62 hit Resident #5. S1Administratorr indicated resident to resident abuse should not have occurred between Resident #5 and Resident #62.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure an enteral feeding bag (bag that contains a...

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 enteral feeding bag (bag that contains a formula for the purpose of supplying nutrients directly into the stomach) was properly labeled to include the date and time of initiation, an expiration date, the name of the resident, and the rate of the infusion. This practice was identified for 1(Resident#1) of 1 (Resident #1) sampled residents investigated for enteral feeding. Findings: Review of Resident #14's rerecord revealed, in part, Resident #14 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnoses, in part, of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing food and/or liquids) and gastrostomy status (a surgical procedure that creates an opening in the abdomen and into the stomach to provide nutritional support). Review of the facility's undated Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) policy and procedure revealed, in part, formula bottles and/or bags shall be labeled with the resident's name, date and time, and rate of administration. Review of Resident #14's December 2024 Physician Orders revealed, in part, an order with a start date of 09/03/2024 for enteral feed Jevity per PEG tube at 70 milliliters (mL) an hour continuously, with 200 mL free water flush every 6 hours. Review of Resident #14's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/23/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #14 received enteral feeds. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 10:25 a.m. revealed Resident #14's enteral feeding bag and free water flush bag was not labeled with the date and time administered, Resident #14's name, and an infusion rate. Observation on 12/17/2024 at 9:02 a.m. revealed Resident #14's enteral feeding bag and free water flush was not labeled with the date and time administered, Resident #14's name, and rate of administration. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 9:10 a.m., S15Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) confirmed Resident #14's enteral feeding bag and free water flush bag were not labeled with the date and time administered with Resident #14's name, and with an infusion rate for the enteral feed and the free water flush. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 1:28 p.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) indicated Resident #14's enteral feed and free water flush should have been labeled with the date and time administered, Resident #14's name, and an infusion rate for the enteral feed and the free water flush. Observation on 12/19/2024 at 8:49 a.m. revealed Resident #14's enteral feeding was not labeled with Resident #14's name. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 8:49 a.m., S21LPN indicated Resident #14's enteral feed and free water flush should have included Resident #14's name.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to maintain a record of controlled drugs for 2 (Medication Cart a and Medication Cart b) of 2 (Medication Cart a and Medication Cart b) medi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to maintain a record of controlled drugs for 2 (Medication Cart a and Medication Cart b) of 2 (Medication Cart a and Medication Cart b) medication carts reviewed for the reconciliation of controlled drugs (the process of ensuring that the location and quantity of controlled drugs was accurate). Findings: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Controlled Drug Policy and Procedure revealed, in part, controlled drugs are to be counted after every shift by the nurse reporting on duty and the nurse reporting off duty. Further review revealed the inventory of the controlled drugs must be recorded in the narcotic records and signed for correctness. Review of the facility's December 2024 Medication Cart a Controlled Drugs-Count Record revealed, in part, the following shifts had an incomplete reconciliation of controlled drugs by the nurse coming on duty and the nurse going off duty: - 12/01/2024 on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift - 12/16/2024 on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift - 12/17/2024 on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift; and, - 12/18/2024 on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift Review of the facility's December 2024 Mediation Cart b Controlled Drugs-Count Record revealed, in part, the following shifts had an incomplete reconciliation of controlled drugs by the nurse coming on duty and the nurse going off duty: - 12/17/2024 on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 9:28 a.m., S16Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) indicated the controlled drugs-count record should be signed by the off going and on coming nurse each shift. S16LPN further indicated the facility's December 2024 Controlled Drugs-Count Record for Medication Cart a had missing signatures on 12/01/2024, 12/16/2024, 12/17/2024, and 12/18/2024. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 9:50 a.m., S2Director of Nursing confirmed the controlled drugs-count record should be signed by the off going and on coming nurse each shift. S2Director of Nursing acknowledged Medication Cart a had missing signatures on 12/01/2024, 12/16/2024, 12/17/2024, and 12/18/2024 and Medication Cart b had missing signatures on 12/17/2024.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

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 monitor for behaviors and potential side effects of antidepressan...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to monitor for behaviors and potential side effects of antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications for 1 (Resident #346) of 5 (Resident #10, Resident #43, Resident #53, Resident #79, and Resident #346) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings: Resident #346's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed, in part, Resident #346 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, in part, of major depressive disorder and anxiety. Review of Resident #346's December 2024 Physician's Orders revealed the following orders: - Prozac (a medication used to treat depression) Oral Capsule 20 milligrams (mg), give 1 capsule by mouth one time a day related to major depressive disorder beginning on 12/04/2024; and, - Buspirone (a medication used to treat anxiety) Hydrochloride Oral Tablet 5 MG, give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to anxiety disorder beginning on 12/04/2024. Review of Resident #346's December 2024 Electronic Medication Administration Record revealed, in part, no documented evidence and the facility did not present any document evidence side-effect monitoring for antianxiety medication was completed on 12/09/2024 and 12/14/2024 on the night shifts. Further review revealed no documented evidence side-effect monitoring of antidepressants was completed on 12/09/2024 and 12/14/2024 on the night shifts. Review of Resident #346's EMR revealed, in part, no documented evidence and the facility did not present any documented evidence for behavior monitoring on 12/06/2024 for the night shift, 12/08/2024 for the night shift, 12/10/2024 for the morning shift, 12/11/2024 for the night shift, 12/12/2024 for the night shift, 12/13/2024 for the night shift, 12/14/2024 for the evening shift, 12/16/2024 for the evening shift and the night shift, 12/17/2024 for the morning shift and for the night shift, and 12/18/2024 for the evening shift and the night shift. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 10:38 a.m., S19Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #346's EMR did not have any documented evidence of behavior monitoring or side effect monitoring for the above mentioned shifts. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 11:10 a.m., S2Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #346's EMR did not have any documented evidence of behavior monitoring or side effect monitoring for the above mentioned shifts.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0773 (Tag F0773)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a sample for a urinalysis, a test for determining the presence of a urinary tract infection (UTI), was obtained and treatment for a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a sample for a urinalysis, a test for determining the presence of a urinary tract infection (UTI), was obtained and treatment for a UTI was initiated as ordered for 1 (Resident #62) of 1 (Resident #62) sampled residents investigated for urinary tract infections. Findings: Review of Resident #62's record revealed, in part, a physician's order dated 12/05/2024 for a urinalysis (UA) with a culture and sensitivity related to aggressive behavior. Review of Resident #62's record revealed, in part, on 12/05/2024 an order for a urinalysis with a culture and sensitivity. Review of a Resident #62's record revealed, in part, a laboratory report that indicated the urine sample was collected on 12/10/2024 and an approval date of 12/13/2024 that indicated a result of a urinary tract infection. Further review revealed a handwritten order for ampicillin (an antibiotic to treat infection) 500 milligrams (mg) three times a day (tid) for seven days written on the laboratory results. Review of Resident #62's December 2024 Electronic Medication Administration Record revealed, in part, Resident #62 received ampicillin 500 mg as ordered starting on 12/16/2024. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 10:30 a.m. S2Director of Nursing (DON) indicated on 12/05/2024 during a Utilization Review meeting it was discussed, and the decision was made to obtain a UA from Resident #62 due to a history of aggressive behavior. S2DON further indicated the UA was obtained on 12/10/2024. S2DON further indicated she did not know why it took 5 days to obtain Resident #62's UA, but the urine sample should have been obtained on 12/05/2024. S2DON further indicated the culture results were received on 12/13/2024. She further indicated the physician should have been notified, orders received and antibiotics started on 12/13/2024 and they were not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure food was palatable, and served at an appetizing temperature. Findings: Review of Resident #34's Quarterly Minimum Dat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure food was palatable, and served at an appetizing temperature. Findings: Review of Resident #34's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/21/2024 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 10, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 10:41 a.m., Resident #34 indicated food served at the facility did not taste good, and the alternate meal was just as bad as the scheduled main meal. Observation on 12/18/2024 at 11:53 a.m. revealed an alternate meal lunch tray was provided to the survey team by S9Dietary Manager. Four surveyors tasted the food, and findings revealed the mashed potatoes and gravy were lukewarm to room temperature, the cod fish patty was thin and consisted mostly of breading, and the steamed broccoli was soft and mushy. Findings revealed, the sampled alternate meal was not palatable or at an appetizing temperature. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 12:45 p.m., S9Dietary Manager acknowledged the facility's alternate lunch tray was not palatable and not served at an acceptable temperature.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interview the facility failed to: 1. Ensure stored food had an open date for 8 food products; and 2. Ensure kitchen cooking equipment was kept in a clean and sanitary conditi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interview the facility failed to: 1. Ensure stored food had an open date for 8 food products; and 2. Ensure kitchen cooking equipment was kept in a clean and sanitary condition. Findings: Review of the facility's undated policy titled Proper Labeling and Storage of Food revealed, in part, proper food preparation, storage, and handling practices are essential in preventing foodborne illness and unsafe food handling practice represented a potential source of pathogen exposure for those with weakened immune systems (e.g. elderly, young, immunocompromised). Further policy review revealed sanitary conditions and safe food handling are required in food service settings, and proper storage, and labeling of food in a commercial kitchen could help prevent foodborne illness. Policy review revealed label and date all foods with date prepared or opened, the use by date, and identify what the product is. Observations on 12/16/2024 at 10:00 a.m. revealed, in part, - one opened container of jelly, with no open date; - one opened 5 pound container of peanut butter, with no open date; - one opened 11 ounce container of dry parsley flakes, with no open date; - one opened 24 ounce container of cinnamon spice, with no open date; - one opened 24 ounce container of nutmeg spice, with no open date; - one opened 24 ounce container of Italian seasoning, with no open date; - one opened 24 ounce container of oregano seasoning, with no open date; and - one opened 20 ounce container of mustard, with no open date. Further observation revealed the standing fryer had a clear to yellow thick substance build up on the edges of the fryer. Further observations revealed the side of the stove next to the standing fryer and the side of the oven next to the standing fryer had thick clear to yellow substance on the sides of each of these equipment. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 10:30 a.m., S9Dietary Manager indicated all the above listed containers should have had an open date, and they did not. She further indicated there was built up grease on the fryer, oven, and stove. S9Dietary Manager further indicated the fryer, oven, and stove should have been kept in a sanitary manner.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure staff performed hand hygiene between assisting residents (Resident #71 and Resident #411) with meals; and, 2. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure staff performed hand hygiene between assisting residents (Resident #71 and Resident #411) with meals; and, 2. Ensure an indwelling urinary catheter tubing and collection bag was not on the floor for 1 (Resident #197) of 2 (Resident #62 and Resident #197) sampled residents investigated for urinary catheter and urinary tract infections (UTI), Findings: 1. Review of the facility's 2009 policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene revealed, in part, the facility considered hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. Further review revealed hand hygiene should be performed before and after assisting residents with meals. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 11:49 a.m. revealed S19Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) assisted Resident #71 with her meal without performing hand hygiene. Further observation revealed S19CNA then assisted Resident #411 with her meal without performing hand hygiene. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 11:54 a.m., S19CNA confirmed she did not perform hand hygiene in between assisting Resident #71 and Resident #411 with their meals and she should have. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 11:58 a.m., S20Licenced Practical Nurse confirmed hand hygiene should be performed between assisting residents with meals. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 9:50 a.m., S2Director of Nursing confirmed hand hygiene should be performed between assisting residents with meals. 2. Review of Resident #197's hospice admission orders dated 12/06/2024 revealed, in part, an order to insert a size 16 or 18 French Foley catheter for urinary retention or incontinence. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 9:42 a.m. revealed Resident #197's urinary catheter tube was lying on the floor. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 2:35 p.m. revealed Resident #197 urinary catheter tube was lying on the floor. Observation on 12/17/2024 at 9:40 a.m revealed Resident #197's urinary catheter tubing and collection bag were observed lying on the floor under his bed. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 9:45 a.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #197's urinary catheter tubing and bag was lying on the floor at his bedside. S2DON further indicated Resident #197's urinary catheter tubing and collection bag should not have been lying on the floor. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 9:50 a.m., S1Administrator confirmed Resident #197's urinary catheter tubing and bag was lying on the floor at his bedside. S1Administrator further indicated Resident #197's urinary catheter tubing and bag should not have been lying on the floor.
CONCERN (E)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of physical abuse was reported on the Statewide Incident Management System no later than 2 ho...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of physical abuse was reported on the Statewide Incident Management System no later than 2 hours after an allegation for resident to resident physical abuse for 1 (Resident #62) of 2 residents (Resident #5 and Resident #62) sampled residents investigated for abuse. Findings: Review of the facility's undated Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation of Funds Program policy revealed, in part, if a determination of abuse occurred the incident would be reported by the Administrator to the Department of Health and Hospitals via the Statewide Incident Management System (SIMS). Review of Resident #5's progress note dated 11/28/2024 at 2:17 p.m., revealed, in part, Resident #5 stated another resident (Resident #62) came into her room and punched her (Resident #5) in the face while she was asleep. Review of Resident #62's progress note dated 11/28/2024 at 2:09 p.m., revealed, in part, Resident #62 went into another resident's (Resident #5) room, punched her in her face, waking her up out of her sleep. Further review revealed, Resident #62 told Resident #5, Bitch get your yellow ass out my bed. Review of an undated Resident Incident Report revealed, in part, an incident between Resident #5 and Resident #62 was reported on 11/28/2024 at 2:25 p.m. Further review revealed Resident #62 propelled his wheelchair into Resident #5's room, hit Resident #5 in the face, and told Resident #5 to get out of his bed. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 2:06 p.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) indicated on 11/28/2024 at 2:25 p.m., she received a text message from S6Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) that Resident #62 hit Resident #5. S2DON further indicated she texted S1Administrator with this information immediately after receiving the information from S6ADON. S2DON further indicated S1Administraotr was the only staff who could input incidents into the SIMS system. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 11:32 a.m., S1Administrator indicated on 11/28/2024 at approximately 1:30 p.m. he received a text from S2DON that Resident #62 hit Resident #5. S1Administrator further indicated there was no documented evidence and he could not produce documented evidence that a Statewide Incident Management System incident report or investigation was reported and it should have been.
CONCERN (E)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure: 1. a thorough investigation was completed following an allegation of abuse for 2 (Resident #5 and Resident #62) of 2 (Resident #...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure: 1. a thorough investigation was completed following an allegation of abuse for 2 (Resident #5 and Resident #62) of 2 (Resident #5 and Resident #62) sampled residents was investigated for abuse; and 2. increased supervision was provided after an allegation of resident to resident abuse for (Resident #62) of 2 sampled residents (Resident #5 and Resident #62) investigated for abuse. Findings: Review of the facility's undated Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation of Funds Program policy revealed, in part, all incidents or suspected incidents of resident abuse would be investigated immediately. Further review of the facility's undated Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation of Funds Program policy revealed a thorough investigation of facts regarding the incident would be recorded and maintained by the administrator. Further review revealed in the instance of resident to resident abuse, the involved resident would be separated, monitored, and protected. Further review revealed the Description of Investigation shall include: 1. Date/time of incident; 2. Statement that allegation was found to be valid or invalid; 3. Signature of Director of Nursing or Administrator; and 4. Identify of Resident. Review of Resident #5's progress note dated 11/28/2024 at 2:17 p.m. revealed, in part, Resident #5 stated another resident (Resident #62) went into her room and punched her (Resident #5) in the face while Resident #5 was asleep. Review of Resident #62's progress note dated 11/28/2024 at 2:09 p.m., revealed, in part, Resident #62 went into another resident's (Resident #5) room, punched her in her face waking her up out of her sleep. Further review revealed, Resident #62 told Resident #5, Bitch get your yellow ass out my bed. Review of the facility's Resident Incident Report revealed, in part, no indication the allegation of resident to resident abuse was valid or invalid. Further review revealed no indication the Administrator or Director of Nursing investigated the incident on the date it occurred. Further review revealed no documentation of a 24 hour follow-up. Review of Resident #62's December 2024 Electronic Medication Administration Record revealed visual checks every 2 hours starting on 12/06/2024 at 4:00 p.m. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 2:06 p.m., S2DON indicated on 11/28/2024 at 2:25 P.M., S6Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) texted her Resident #62 hit Resident #5. She further indicated the was no documented evidence and she could produce documented evidence a thorough investigation on the incident of resident to resident abuse between Resident #5 and Resident #62 was completed. She further indicated there was no documented evidence and she could not produce documented evidence of increased supervision for Resident #62 immediately after the 11/28/2024 incident. She further indicted a more complete investigation should have been completed and increased supervision of Resident #62 should have been done. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 11:32 a.m., S1Administrator indicated on 11/28/2024 at approximately 1:30 p.m. he received a text from S2DON that Resident #62 hit Resident #5. S1Administrator further indicated there was no documented evidence and he could not produce documented evidence that a thorough investigation of resident to resident abuse. S1Administrator further indicated there was no documented evidence and he could not produce documented evidence increased supervision for Resident #62 was provided after the incident occurred on 11/28/2024.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, interviews, and observations, the facility failed to ensure staff were able to demonstrate competency i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, interviews, and observations, the facility failed to ensure staff were able to demonstrate competency in skills necessary to assess for safe smoking for 3 (Resident #31, Resident #15 and Resident # 53) of 3 (Resident #31, Resident #15 and Resident #53) residents reviewed for unsafe smoking. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Smoking Policy, updated 07/04/2024, revealed in part, residents that smoke would be assessed for the safety of smoking unattended and if determined unsafe, would not be allowed to have smoking paraphernalia in their possession, and would be care planned for the amount of supervision needed while smoking. Further review revealed the administrator was responsible for enforcing the designated smoking area, the nursing staff was responsible for keeping and distributing smoking paraphernalia for residents who were identified as unsafe smokers, and the ward clerk was responsible for monitoring an active unsafe smoker list. Resident #31 Review of the facility's smoking list revealed, in part, Resident #31 was identified by the facility as unsafe smoker. Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed, in part, Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, in part, of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following an unspecified cerebrovascular accident (stroke) affecting his right dominant side. Review of Resident #31's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 05/10/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #31 had a BIMS score of 10 which indicated Resident #31 had moderately impaired cognition. Further review revealed Resident #31 was identified as a tobacco user. Review of Resident #31's Comprehensive Care Plan, with an initiation date of 10/02/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #31 was an unsafe smoker who was required supervision and a smoker's apron while smoking. Review of Resident #31's physician orders with a start date of 07/01/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #31 was an unsafe smoker and was required to wear a smoker's apron at all times while smoking. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 9:00 a.m., revealed Resident #31 was sitting in his wheelchair in his room with two burn holes in his shirt, one unlit cigarette under his left leg, and a lighter attached to a retractable device on his jacket. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 11:07 a.m., revealed Resident #31 was rolling in his wheelchair down hall c, with two burn holes in his shirt and a lighter attached to a retractable device on his jacket. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 12:18 p.m., revealed Resident #31 wheeled himself down hall c, with two burn holes in his shirt, and a lighter attached to a retractable device on his jacket. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 12:24 p.m., revealed Resident #31 was outside on the facility's smoking patio, unsupervised and without a smoker's apron on. Further observation revealed Resident #31 removed a pack of cigarettes out of his jacket, removed the cigarette lighter attached to a retractable device on his jacket, and lit a cigarette using the lighter that was attached to his jacket. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 12:39 p.m., S1Administrator confirmed Resident #31 was identified as an unsafe smoker, was on the facility's smoking patio unsupervised, without a smoker's apron on, and was in possession of a cigarette and a lighter. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 12:40 p.m., S1 Administrator confirmed Resident #31 was identified as an unsafe smoker, was on the facility's smoking patio unsupervised, without a smoker's apron on, and was in possession of a cigarette and a lighter. There was no documented evidence and the facility could not provide any documented evidence there was a list of identified unsafe smokers located at the nurses' station. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 8:40 a.m., S7Agency Certified Nursing Assistant (ACNA) indicated he had not received any training on safe and/or unsafe smoking policies. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 9:03 a.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) indicated prior to Resident #31's above mentioned observation on 12/16/2024 at 12:24 p.m., staff had not received education on the facility's smoking policy and there was no evidence presented that staff were educated on residents who were identified as unsafe smokers. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 9:56 a.m., S4CNA indicated she did not know Resident #15 was an unsafe smoker and should not have had smoking material in his possession. S4CNA further indicated prior to 12/16/2024 she was not educated on residents considered to be unsafe smokers and interventions required for unsafe smokers. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 10:35 a.m., S5CNA indicated she was not aware Resident #31 was an unsafe smoker, who required a smoker's apron with supervision while smoking. Resident #15 Review of Resident #15's annual MDS with ARD of 06/11/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #15 was identified as a tobacco user. A review of the facility's smoking list revealed, in part, Resident #15 was identified by the facility as an unsafe smoker. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 3:30 p.m., revealed Resident #15 sitting in his wheelchair in hall c with an opened full pack of cigarettes between his legs. Review of Resident #15's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed, in part, Resident #15 was an unsafe smoker. Further review revealed, interventions for Resident #15 included he must wear a smoker's apron while smoking, cigarettes and lighter must be locked in the nurse's cart and Resident #15 required supervision while smoking. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 9:56 a.m., S4CNA indicated she was unaware Resident #15 was an unsafe smoker and should not have had smoking material in his possession. Resident #53 Review of Resident #53's smoking assessment dated [DATE], revealed, in part, Resident #53 was an unsafe smoker. Review of Resident #53's annual MDS with an ARD date of 05/28/2024, revealed, in part, Resident #53 had a BIMS of 15 which indicated Resident #53 was cognitively intact and was identified as a tobacco user. Review of Resident #53's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 10/24/2024, revealed, in part, Resident #53 required supervision and a smoker's apron while smoking. Observation on 12/16/2024 at 12:45 p.m., revealed Resident #53 received a lighter from his shirt pocket. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 8:55 a.m., S1Administrator confirmed the administrative personnel was responsible for ensuring staff are educated and trained on unsafe smoking policy and procedures. Further, S1Administrator indicated staff training/education was not implemented and the policy was not enforced as required for unsafe smokers.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed ensure a pneumonia vaccine was administered for 1 (Resident #23) of 5 ( Resident #10, Resident #23, Resident #41, Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed ensure a pneumonia vaccine was administered for 1 (Resident #23) of 5 ( Resident #10, Resident #23, Resident #41, Resident #42 and Resident #46) reviewed for vaccines. Findings: Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed the Responsible Party (RP) signed a consent on 01/10/2024 for Resident #23 to receive a pneumonia vaccine. There was no documented evidence that the pneumonia vaccine was administered as per the consent, and the facility could not provide documentation the pneumonia vaccine had been administered. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 5:35 PM, S2Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the pneumonia vaccine had not been administered to Resident #23 after the RP signed the consent on 01/10/2024.
Oct 2024 2 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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a staff member who had a charge which barred employment was not allowed to work in the facility without a final disposition of the c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a staff member who had a charge which barred employment was not allowed to work in the facility without a final disposition of the charge for 1 (S3Certified Nursing Assistant [CNA]) of 5 (S3CNA, S4CNA, S5CNA, S6CNA, and S7CNA) personnel records reviewed for criminal background checks. Findings: Review of the facility's undated policy for Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation of Funds program revealed, in part, pre-employment screenings would be completed on all potential employees prior to the offer of a position. Further review revealed an offer of employment would not be made to an individual with any felony conviction listed in the state regulations as list of enumerated charges for health care workers. Review of Louisiana R.S. (revised statute) 40:1203.3 revealed, in part, no employer shall hire non-licensed person when the results of a criminal history check reveal that the non-licensed person has been convicted of any of the following offenses: R.S. 14 37.4 Aggravated assault with a firearm. Further review revealed, if the results of a criminal history check reveal that a non-licensed person had been convicted of any of the offenses listed, the employer shall immediately terminate the person's employment. Review of S3CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, a hire date of 02/05/2024. Further review of S3CNA's personnel record revealed a criminal background check with a completion date of 02/02/2024. Review of S3CNA's criminal background check revealed, in part, an arrest date of 03/08/2021 with a charge of R.S. 14 37.4 aggravated assault with a firearm. Review of S3CNA's personnel record revealed no documented evidence, and the facility presented no documented evidence, of a disposition for S3CNA's charge which barred employment. In an interview on 10/09/2024 at 10:31 a.m., S1DirectorOfNursing (DON) confirmed S3CNA had a charge which barred employment. S1DON further indicated the facility did not have a disposition for the charge of R.S. 14 37.4 aggravated assault with a firearm.
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 F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication room was locked when unattended for 1 (Medication Room a) of 1 Medication rooms (Medication Room a) reviewed for storage ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication room was locked when unattended for 1 (Medication Room a) of 1 Medication rooms (Medication Room a) reviewed for storage of medications. Findings: Observation on 10/08/2024 at 11:35 a.m. revealed the door of Medication Room a was open and unattended with a door stop at the base of the door. Further observation revealed Medication Room a had individual cubby areas with medications. In an interview on 10/08/2024 at 11:37 a.m., S2DirectorOfNursing (DON) confirmed Medication Room a was open, unattended and had medications. Review of the facility's video surveillance on 10/08/2024 at 11:40 a.m. revealed, in part, on 10/08/2024 at 9:55 a.m. S3AssistantDirectorOfNursing (ADON) entered Medication Room a and placed the door stop at the base of the door. Further review of the video surveillance revealed S3ADON exited Medication Room a on 10/08/2024 at 10:02 a.m. and the door remained open with the door stop at the base of the door. The door of Medication Room a remained open and unattended until 11:35 a.m. In an interview on 10/08/2024 at 11:40 a.m., S1Administrator and S2DON confirmed the medication room door was open, unattended and had medications.
Jan 2024 9 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) used a mechanical...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) used a mechanical lift to transfer a resident who was dependent on staff for transfers from the bed to the wheelchair as indicated on their plan of care. This deficient practice resulted in an actual harm when a CNA transferred Resident #10 alone via the mechanical lift from the bed to the wheelchair when the strap on the lift pad broke causing Resident #10 to fall to the floor which resulted in a closed fracture of the left hip and laceration of right lower leg. The left hip fracture required surgery for an Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) and the laceration to the right leg required sutures. This deficient practice was identified for 1 (Resident #10) of 14 sampled residents who required mechanical lift transfer. Findings: Record review revealed, in part, Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis, in part, of Morbid Obesity. Review of Resident #10's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed, in part, Resident #10 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 which indicated Resident #10 was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance of two persons with transfers between surfaces which included to or from the bed, chair, wheelchair, and standing position. Review of Resident 10's Nurses Notes dated 12/21/2023 at 2:43 p.m. revealed, in part, S16Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was transferring Resident #10 from the bed to the wheelchair via a mechanical lift when the strap on the lift pad broke and Resident #10 fell to floor landing on her left side. Review of Resident #10's hospital progress notes dated 12/23/2023 revealed, in part, a diagnosis of a closed fracture of the left hip and laceration of right lower leg. Further review revealed the left hip fracture required surgery for an Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) and sutures for a laceration to the right leg. Further review of Resident #10's progress notes revealed, in part, Resident #10 was admitted to the hospital for a left femur fracture after falling to the ground from the strap breaking on the mechanical lift. In an interview on 01/22/2024 at 11:38 a.m., Resident #10 stated she sustained a fall from a mechanical lift last month because an employee attempted to transfer her from the bed to the wheelchair without asking for help. Resident #10 further stated this action caused her to break her left hip and get stitches in her right leg. In an interview on 01/23/2024 at 10:35 a.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) stated on 12/21/2023, S16CNA transferred Resident #10 without a 2 person assist and as a result of the fall, Resident #10 sustained a fracture to her left hip and a laceration to her right shin which required sutures. S2DON also acknowledged that S16CNA should have asked for help and should have not transferred Resident #10 without a second person to assist as indicated by Resident #10's care plan. In an interview on 01/25/2024 at 12:10 p.m. S16CNA stated on 12/21/2023 she did not ask for a second person to assist her before transferring Resident #10 from the wheelchair to the bed and again from the bed to the wheelchair using the mechanical lift. S16CNA further stated she should have asked for a second person to assist her in transferring Resident #10 from the bed to the chair using the mechanical lift.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to immediately notify a resident's physician of a significant weight loss for 1 (Resident #26) of 4 (Resident #12, Resident #26, Resident #80, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to immediately notify a resident's physician of a significant weight loss for 1 (Resident #26) of 4 (Resident #12, Resident #26, Resident #80, and Resident #87) sampled residents reviewed for Nutrition. Findings: Review of Resident #26 record revealed an admission date of 02/05/2022 with diagnoses, in part of osteoporosis; high blood pressure; major depressive disorder; atrial fibrillation; gastroesophageal reflux disease; and pain. Review of record with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 01/10/2024 revealed, in part a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 which indicated resident was cognitively intact. Further review revealed she required setup or clean-up assistance when eating and that she did have a weight loss but not on a physician-prescribed weight loss plan. Review of Resident #26's current Physician Orders (01/23/2024) revealed a diet order for regular diet, with no added salt, no fried foods and use skim milk, 2gm sodium with a 2.5L fluid restriction. Further review revealed she was on a diuretic and was taking Lasix 40mg daily with a start date of 11/25/2023. Review of policy title Weight Loss Program revealed, in part, Monitor all resident's weight monthly and evaluate if they need to be added to weekly weight program. Weekly weigh all residents with a 5% weight loss in 30 days or 7.5% weight loss in 90 days and/or 10% in 180 days. Review of procedures revealed, in part, Notify MD of significant weight loss, notify responsible part of weight loss and document in nurses notes. Review of Resident #26 weight loss record revealed resident weighed 180.6 pounds on 11/08/2023 and 171.4 pounds on 12/06/2023. The weight loss total was 9.2 pounds in a 28 day period. This amount of weight loss equaled 5.09%. In an interview on 01/24/2024 at 1:00 p.m., S6Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated Resident #26 flagged for high risk weight loss on 12/06/2023. S6ADON further stated Resident #26's physician and responsible party were not notified of the significant weight loss until 12/27/2023. In an interview on 01/25/2024 at 12:00 p.m., S2Director of Nursing stated Resident #26's physician and responsible party should have been notified of the significant weight loss on 12/06/2023 but failed to do so.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to: 1. Ensure an isolation room had the specified transmi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to: 1. Ensure an isolation room had the specified transmission based precautions sign posted for employees and visitors knowledge; 2. Ensure an isolation room's door remained closed; and, 3. Ensure staff used appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when entering the room of a COVID-19 positive resident for 1 (Resident #89) of 3 (Resident #62, Resident #89, Resident #149) residents reviewed for transmission based precautions. Findings: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #89 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, in part, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Review of Resident #89's record revealed, in part, Resident #89 tested positive for COVID-19 on 01/14/2024. Observation on 01/22/2024 at 10:50 a.m. revealed the door to Resident #89's room open. Further observation revealed a sign stating Caution, Isolation Room on Resident #89's door. Observation on 01/22/2024 at 1:35 p.m. revealed the door to Resident #89's room open and a sign stating, Caution, Isolation Room, on the door. Observation 01/23/2024 at 11:00 a.m. revealed the sign on Resident #89's door stated isolation, but did not indicate the type of isolation with proper instructions on the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to wear. Observation on 01/23/2024 at 11:15 a.m. revealed S11Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) entered Resident #89's room without donning appropriate PPE. S11CNA then exited Resident #89's room and walked to the clean linen supply closet on the Hall J and obtained clean linen. S11CNA then walked into Resident #89's room without donning appropriate proper PPE. Observation on 01/23/2024 at 11:23 a.m. revealed S11CNA entered Resident #89's room without donning appropriate PPE. Observation on 01/23/2024 at 11:43 a.m. revealed S11CNA entered Resident #89's room without donning appropriate PPE. In an interview on 01/23/2024 at 11:54 a.m., S1Administrator stated Resident #89's door should not have been left open. S1Administrator further stated an isolation sign specifying what type of isolation and the required personal protective equipment (PPE) required should have been on Resident #89's door. In an interview on 01/23/2024 at 11:55 a.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident #89's door should not have been left open. S2DON further stated an isolation sign specifying what type of isolation and the required PPE should have been on Resident #89's door. S2DON further stated all staff should use appropriate PPE before entering an isolation room and S11CNA should not have entered Resident #89's room at any time without wearing appropriate PPE for contact/droplet isolation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide documentation of 12 hours of annual in-service training for 3 (S11Certified Nursing Assistant [CNA], S12CNA, and S13CNA) of 4 (S11...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide documentation of 12 hours of annual in-service training for 3 (S11Certified Nursing Assistant [CNA], S12CNA, and S13CNA) of 4 (S11CNA, S12CNA, S13CNA, and S14CNA) records reviewed for in-service training. Findings: Review of S11CNA personnel records revealed no documentation of 12 hours of annual in-service training for 2023. Review of S12CNA personnel records revealed no documentation of 12 hours of annual in-service training for 2023. Review of S13CNA personnel records revealed no documentation of 12 hours of annual in-service training for 2023. In an interview on 01/25/2024 at 1:07 p.m., S2Director of Nursing stated she was unable to provide documentation of 12 hours of annual training for S11CNA, S12CNA, and S13CNA for the year 2023. S2DON further stated she was unsure if the training was completed, but the CNAs should have had the training.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's code status consistently reflected the resident's wishes for 2 (Resident #26 and Resident #17) of 18 (Resident #1, Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's code status consistently reflected the resident's wishes for 2 (Resident #26 and Resident #17) of 18 (Resident #1, Resident #5, Resident #10, Resident #12, Resident #17, Resident #21, Resident #22, Resident #26, Resident #73, Resident #80, Resident #87, Resident #89, Resident #96, Resident #97, Resident #98, Resident #250, Resident #251, and Resident #252) residents reviewed for advanced directives. Findings: Resident #17 Review of Resident #17's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/08/2023. Review of Resident #17's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed Resident #17 was a full code (which indicated she wanted medical intervention in the event she presented with no pulse or no breath). Review of Resident #17's January 2024 electronic medication administration record revealed Resident #17's code states of full code was signed off by a nurse at 5:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 9:00 p.m. on each day in December. Review of Resident #17's Louisiana Physician Orders For Scope of Treatment (LaPOST) revealed, in part, Resident #17's request was to be a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Further review revealed, LaPOST was signed by Resident #17's physician on 12/05/2023. In an interview 01/24/2023 at 12:35 p.m. S2Director Of Nursing acknowledged Resident #17's physician order for full code did not match her LaPOST order for DNR. Resident #26 Review of Resident #26's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/05/2022. Review of Comprehensive Care Plan revealed Resident #26's Code Status was a full code (which indicated she wanted medical intervention in the event she presented with no pulse or no breath.) Review of December 2023 and January 2024 electronic medical record, revealed, in part, an order for Full Code that was signed off by a nurse at 5:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 9:00 p.m. on each day in December and on each day from January 1 through January 23. Review of Resident #26's Louisiana Physician Orders For Scope of Treatment (LaPOST) revealed, in part, Resident #26's request was to be a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Further review revealed, LaPOST was signed by Resident #26's physician on 02/07/2022. In an interview on 01/24/2024 at 11:40 a.m., S2Director Of Nursing confirmed Resident #26 had a LaPOST signed by the physician on 02/07/2022 that indicated Resident #26 desired to be a DNR and that her current electronic physician's orders indicated Resident #26 did not reflect that desire.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview facility failed to ensure a resident's weight was monitored weekly after a significant weight loss was identified for 1 (Resident #26) of 4 (Resident #12, Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview facility failed to ensure a resident's weight was monitored weekly after a significant weight loss was identified for 1 (Resident #26) of 4 (Resident #12, Resident #26, Resident #80, and Resident #87) sampled residents reviewed for Nutrition. Review of Weight Loss Program policy revealed, in part, Weekly weigh all residents with a 5% weight loss in 30 days. Review of Resident #26 weight loss record indicated resident weighed 180.6 pounds on 11/08/2023 and 171.4 pounds on 12/06/2023. The weight loss total was 9.2 pounds in a 28 day period. This amount of weight loss equaled 5.09%. Further review revealed Resident #26 weighed 165.4 pounds on 01/03/2024. In an interview on 01/24/2024 at 1:00 p.m., S6Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated Resident #26 flagged for high risk weights on 12/06/2023 but was not weighed weekly thereafter for monitoring. S6ADON confirmed there were no further weights that had not been documented in the system between 12/06/2023 and 01/03/2024. In an interview on 01/24/2024 at 1:10 p.m., S2Director of Nursing stated when a resident flags for high risk weights, they should be weighed weekly and Resident #26 was not weighed weekly and should have been.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain communication with a dialysis center for 1 (Resident #87) of 1 (Resident #87) sampled residents investigated for dialysis services...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain communication with a dialysis center for 1 (Resident #87) of 1 (Resident #87) sampled residents investigated for dialysis services. Findings: Review of Resident #87's record revealed an admission date of 11/07/2023 with End Stage Renal Disease. Review of Resident #87's current Physician Orders revealed, in part, an order to send Resident #87 to dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at 10:45 am. Review of Resident #87's current Comprehensive Care Plan revealed, in part, the facility was to coordinated transportation for Resident #87 to and from the dialysis center. In an interview on 01/23/24 at 2:38 p.m., S18Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated the dialysis communication is done through paperwork in a binder that travels to and from dialysis with Resident #87. S18LPN further stated the binder then is returned to the facility with the resident when dialysis is completed. Review of dialysis binder for Resident #87 revealed dialysis communication sheets that had no communication information from the facility for the following days: 11/08/2023 - there was no documented information from the facility and no facility nurse signature 11/13/2023 - there was no documented information from the facility, only the name of the dialysis center, and no facility nurse signature 11/15/2023 - there was no documented information from the facility and no facility nurse signature 11/17/2023 - there was no documented information from the facility, only the name of the resident, and no facility nurse signature 11/20/2023 - there was no documented information from the facility and no facility nurse signature 11/22/2023 - there was no documented information from the facility, only the name of the resident, and no facility nurse signature 11/24/2023 - there was no documented information from the facility and no facility nurse signature 12/01/2023 - there was no documented information from the facility, only the name of the resident, the name of the dialysis center, the frequency, but had no facility nurse signature 12/04/2023 - there was no documented information from the facility, only the name of the resident, the name of the dialysis center, but had no facility nurse signature. In an interview on 01/25/2024 at 9:18 a.m., S19Ward Clerk stated she did not have any of Resident #87's missing dialysis communication papers to file. In an interview on 01/25/2024 at 9:21 a.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there was no communication nor nurse's signature from the facility on the days that did have a dialysis communication paper in the binder and that there were no communication papers for the rest of the days in which Resident #87 went to dialysis. In an interview on 01/25/2024 at 11:07 a.m., S2DON acknowledged there were missing dialysis communication sheets on some of the days in which Resident #87 did go to dialysis. S2DON further acknowledged the dialysis communication papers that were in Resident #87's binder were incomplete and confirmed they should have been completed by the facility nurse before Resident #87 went to dialysis.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on Record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure accuracy of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 2 (Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on Record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure accuracy of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 2 (Resident #97 and Resident #98) of 18 (Resident #1, Resident #5, Resident #10, Resident #12, Resident #17, Resident #21, Resident #22, Resident #26, Resident #73, Resident #80, Resident #87, Resident #89, Resident #96, Resident #97, Resident #98, Resident #250, Resident #251, and Resident #252) sampled residents. Findings: Resident #97 Review of the Resident #97's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed Resident #97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to another facility on 11/16/2023. Review of Resident #97's MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/16/2023 revealed, in part, an entry under Section A2105 incorrectly documenting that Resident #97's discharge status was (1) Home/community. In an interview on 01/24/2024 at 3:30 p.m. S9Minimum Data Set (S9MDS)Nurse stated that section A2105 of the MDS should have documented that Resident #97's discharge status was (2) Nursing Home instead of (1) Home/Community. Resident #98 Review of Resident #98's discharge MDS dated [DATE] revealed, in part, Resident #98 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for skilled services and was discharged to home on [DATE]. Further review revealed Resident #98's discharge assessment was coded as a planned skilled nursing facility per diem prospective payment Part A discharge assessment to a Short-Term General Hospital. Review of Resident #98's discharge status was coded incorrectly as discharge to home. Review of Nurses notes dated 11/14/2023 at 2:06 p.m. revealed Resident #98 was discharged from the facility with medications and instructions and to make a follow up appointment with Primary Care Physician (PCP) within 1-2 weeks. In an interview on 01/24/2024 at 9:21 a.m., S9MDS Nurse acknowledged Resident #98's discharge MDS was coded incorrectly. S9MDS Nurse further stated, Resident #98 was discharged to home.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to document an accurate discharge for 1 (Resident #97) of 1 discharge...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to document an accurate discharge for 1 (Resident #97) of 1 discharge record reviewed. Findings: Review of the Resident #97's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed Resident #97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to another facility on 11/16/2023. Review of Resident #97's EMR revealed, in part, a physician's order dated 11/15/2023 to discharge Resident #97 to another nursing facility on 11/16/2023. Review of Resident #97's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/16/2023 revealed, in part, an entry under Section A2105 written by S9Minimum Data Set nurse (S9MDS) stating that Resident #97's discharge status was (1) Home/Community. Review of Resident #97's EMR revealed, in part, a nurse's note written by S10 Licensed Practical Nurse (S10LPN) dated 11/16/2023 at 06:29 p.m. stating Resident #97 left facility via EMS transport at 5 pm. Further review of Resident #97's EMR revealed no discharge instructions were documented, a discharge summary was not completed at the time of discharge, the accurate status of medications was not documented, and Resident #97's destination was not documented. Review of Resident #97's EMR revealed, in part, a Discharge summary dated [DATE] prepared by S6Assistant Director of Nursing (S6ADON) stating Resident #97 was discharged home with home health per family request. Review of Resident #97's Medical Record revealed, in part, a Release of Responsibility for Medication form signed by S8Licensed Practical Nurse (S8LPN) and Resident #97's wife with no time or date. S8LPN's name was documented incorrectly at the top of the page assuming responsibility for the care and safety of Resident #97 while he was away from the facility. Review of the facility's Discharge of Resident procedure revealed, in part, instructions to write a discharge summary, include time of discharge, by whom accompanied, type of conveyance, and all other pertinent observations, and to document discharge instructions, medications, and to whom instructions were given. In an interview on 01/24/2024, 12:40 p.m., S5Social Worker (S5SW) stated Resident #97 and his wife requested transfer to another facility. Resident #97 was accepted at another facility on 11/15/2023 and transferred on 11/16/2023. In an interview on 01/24/2024 at 2:30 pm, S8LPN stated her name should not have been written at the top of the Release of Responsibility for Medication form; instead, the responsible party's name should have been written there. S8LPN stated that the form should have been dated and signed when Resident #97's wife picked up the medications. In an interview on 01/24/2024 at 4:12 p.m., S2Director of Nursing (S2DON) stated that the Section A2105 of the MDS should have accurately documented Resident #97's discharge status as (2) Nursing home instead of (1) Home/Community; the Discharge Summary should have documented Resident #97 was being discharged to another nursing home and not discharged home with home health; S8LPN's name should NOT be at the top of the Release of Responsibility for Medication form, instead the responsible party's name should have been there; and the Release of Responsibility for Medication form should have been dated and signed by the staff LPN when Resident #97's wife picked up the medications.
Jan 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received oxygen as ordered for 1 (Resident #29) of 1 sampled residents reviewed for oxygen and respiratory ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received oxygen as ordered for 1 (Resident #29) of 1 sampled residents reviewed for oxygen and respiratory care. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 22 residents identified by the facility who receive oxygen. Findings: Review of Resident #29's Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 01/24/2023 revealed, in part, Resident #29 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 00, which indicated Resident #29 was severely cognitively impaired. Further review revealed Resident #29 had a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (a condition that causes airflow blockages and breathing problems) and required oxygen therapy. Review of Resident #29's January 2023 Physician's Orders revealed, in part, an order started on 12/07/2021 for continuous oxygen at 2 liters per minute (L/min) via nasal cannula. Review of Resident #29's Care Plan revealed, in part, Resident #29 had the potential for shortness of breath related to the diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and continuous oxygen per nasal cannula with interventions for staff to administer oxygen as ordered. Observation on 01/24/2023 at 1:32 p.m. revealed Resident #29 was sitting in her wheelchair wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen infusing at 4L/min per Resident #29's oxygen concentrator. In an interview on 01/24/2023 at 1:32 p.m., S11Certified Nursing Assistant stated Resident #29 must wear her oxygen continuously. Observation on 01/25/2023 at 10:24 a.m. revealed Resident #29 was sitting in the dining room with her nasal cannula draped on the portable oxygen tank adhered to the back of Resident #29's wheelchair. Further observation revealed Resident #29 was on room air. Observation on 01/25/2023 at 12:46 p.m. revealed Resident #29 was sitting in her wheelchair with her nasal cannula lying on the floor. Further observation revealed Resident #29 on room air. In an interview on 01/24/2023 at 1:53 p.m., S3Licensed Practical Nurse stated Resident #29 had shortness of breath with exertion and had an order for continuous oxygen at 2L/min via nasal cannula. Observation on 01/26/2023 at 9:56AM revealed Resident #29 sitting in her wheelchair in the dining room with her portable oxygen tank set at 0 liters per minute in the holster on the back of Resident #29's wheelchair. Further observation revealed Resident #29 was on room air at this time and her nasal cannula was draped over the oxygen tank. In an interview on 01/26/2023 at 9:56 a.m., S6Activities confirmed Resident #29 was not utilizing her oxygen and further stated Resident #29 often did not wear her oxygen. In an interview on 01/26/2023 at 10:03 a.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident #29 had an order for continuous oxygen at 2L/min via nasal cannula. S2DON confirmed Resident #29 did not have an order for oxygen to be administered as needed or an order for oxygen at 4L/min. S2DON further stated Resident #29 should have had her oxygen administered as ordered.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to discontinue the administration of Claritin. For 1 of 5 opportunities observed during facility task medication administration ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to discontinue the administration of Claritin. For 1 of 5 opportunities observed during facility task medication administration with S5 Licensed Practical Nurse. Findings: Review of Resident #48's medical record revealed, in part, Resident #48 had a diagnosis of Allergic Rhinitis. Review of Resident #48's handwritten physician order revealed, Claritin 10 mg daily time 7 days. Claritin 10 mg was documented to have been administered daily from 08/03/2022 through 01/24/2023. In an interview on 01/24/2023 at 12:32 p.m., S5Licensed Practical Nurse, stated Resident #48's Claritin should have been discontinued on 08/02/2022. S5 Licensed Practical Nurse further stated that Resident #48's Claritin had been administered three times a day since 08/03/2022. In an interview on 1/24/2023 at 1:10 PM S2Director of Nursing stated Resident #48's Claritin should not have been given after day 7 and should have been discontinued on 08/02/2022 per physician's order.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, observation, and record reviews the facility failed to: 1. Label insulin pens with open date (D1Medication Cart); and 2. Discard insulin pens after 28 days per manufacturer guideli...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and record reviews the facility failed to: 1. Label insulin pens with open date (D1Medication Cart); and 2. Discard insulin pens after 28 days per manufacturer guidelines (D1 Medication Cart). This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 medication carts (D1 Medication Cart) reviewed during medication administration. Findings: Review of the facility's Stability of Common Insulins in Vials and Pens revealed Humalog Insulin Pens and Novolog Insulin Pens should be discarded after 28 days of being opened. Observation on 01/24/23 at 10:00 a.m., of D1 Medication Cart revealed Resident #47's Humalog Insulin Pen (medication used to treat high blood sugars) with an open date of 12/22/22; Resident #31's Humalog Insulin Pen with an open date of 12/22/2022; and Resident #3's Novolog Insulin Flexpen (medication used to treat high blood sugars) with an open date of 12/22/2022. In an interview on 01/24/2023 at 10:00 a.m., S3Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated Resident #31 and Resident #47's Humalog Insulin Pens should have been discarded on 01/19/2023. S3LPN further stated Resident #3's Novolog Insulin Flexpen should have been discarded on 01/19/2023. In an interview on 01/24/2023 at 10:15 a.m., S4LPN stated Resident #R3's Insulin Glargine Solostar Pen (medication used to treat high blood sugars) should have been dated once opened so the nursing staff would know when to discard the insulin.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene following incontinence care of a resident on isolation for 1 (Resident #63) of 1 resident observed on tr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene following incontinence care of a resident on isolation for 1 (Resident #63) of 1 resident observed on transmission based precautions; Findings: Review of the facility's policy on Handwashing/Hand Hygiene revealed, in part, staff must complete hand hygiene before and after direct resident contact, before and after assisting a resident with meals, and complete handwashing with soap and water after contact with a resident with infectious diarrhea caused by Clostridium Difficile (C. Diff) (a bacterial infection of the large colon). Observation on 01/24/2023 at 12:45 p.m. revealed Resident #63 was on contact isolation for C. Diff and S10CNA donned personal protective equipment (PPE) mask, gloves, and gown to enter Resident #63's room to provide care. Further observation revealed S10CNA entered Resident #63's room without completing hand hygiene. S10CNA checked Resident #63's diaper by touching the diaper, and then S10CNA touched the top of Resident #63's nightstand, opened several drawers, and touched Resident #63's door handle with contaminated gloves. Observed S10CNA take off her PPE and left Resident #63's room without completing any hand hygiene to retrieve a diaper. Observation on 01/24/2023 at 12:47 P.m. revealed S10CNA re-entered Resident #63's room without completing hand hygiene, and S10CNA proceeded to assist Resident #63's with incontinence care. While providing the incontinence care, S10CNA removed her gloves that were soiled with feces to get a clean diaper, and then removed gloves from the pocket of her uniform and put on without performing hand hygiene. S10CNA then removed her PPE again, left Resident #63's room to get more gloves without completing hand hygiene. S10CNA then re-entered the room with newly donned PPE (mask, gown, gloves) without completing hand hygiene. In an interview on 01/24/2023 at 12:56 p.m., S10CNA stated she should have washed her hands before leaving Resident #63's room, before entering Resident #63's room, and after having contact with Resident #63's soiled diaper. In an interview on 01/24/2023 at 1:04 p.m., S4Licensed Practical Nursing (LPN) stated that when residents are on contact precautions for C. Diff, staff's hands are to be washed before entering the room and when leaving the room with soap and water. In an interview on 01/24/2023 at 1:15 p.m., S2Director of Nursing (DON) stated that when a resident is on contact isolation for C. Diff, staff should wash their hands with soap and water when entering the room, before contact with the resident, and before leaving the room.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 44% turnover. Below Louisiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $132,895 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 37 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $132,895 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Louisiana. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Metairie Health Care Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Metairie Health Care Center 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 Metairie Health Care Center Staffed?

CMS rates Metairie Health Care Center's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Metairie Health Care Center?

State health inspectors documented 37 deficiencies at Metairie Health Care Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 31 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 Metairie Health Care Center?

Metairie Health Care Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by INSPIRED HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 202 certified beds and approximately 94 residents (about 47% occupancy), it is a large facility located in METAIRIE, Louisiana.

How Does Metairie Health Care Center Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, Metairie Health Care Center's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Metairie Health Care Center?

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 Metairie Health Care Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Metairie Health Care Center has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Louisiana. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Metairie Health Care Center Stick Around?

Metairie Health Care Center has a staff turnover rate of 44%, 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 Metairie Health Care Center Ever Fined?

Metairie Health Care Center has been fined $132,895 across 2 penalty actions. This is 3.9x the Louisiana average of $34,408. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Metairie Health Care Center on Any Federal Watch List?

Metairie Health Care Center is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.