TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER

7014 HWY 71, PALMETTO, LA 71358 (337) 623-4227
For profit - Corporation 108 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
11/100
#168 of 264 in LA
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Tri-Community Nursing Center in Palmetto, Louisiana, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. They rank #168 out of 264 facilities in Louisiana, placing them in the bottom half, and #6 out of 7 in St. Landry County, meaning only one local option is better. While the facility is improving, as issues have decreased from 9 in 2024 to 4 in 2025, there are still serious concerns, including $243,354 in fines, which is higher than 96% of Louisiana facilities, suggesting repeated compliance problems. Staffing is rated average with a 39% turnover rate, which is lower than the state average, but there have been critical incidents such as a resident being injured during transport due to improper wheelchair securing, highlighting serious safety lapses. Additionally, the facility failed to submit accurate staffing information, raising concerns about their ability to provide proper care.

Trust Score
F
11/100
In Louisiana
#168/264
Bottom 37%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
9 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
39% turnover. Near Louisiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$243,354 in fines. Higher than 71% of Louisiana facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 16 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 9 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

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

    9 points below Louisiana average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Near Louisiana average (2.4)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 39%

Near Louisiana avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $243,354

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Aug 2025 1 deficiency
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 F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from financial exploitation for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents. The facility's census wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from financial exploitation for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents. The facility's census was 49.Findings:On 08/05/2025, a review of the facility's undated policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, read in part: It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property.Review of Resident #1's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed an admission date of 05/31/2023, with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side; alcohol use, unspecified with withdrawal with perpetual disturbance; and major depressive disorder. Review of Resident #1's last quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed he had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 14, indicating his cognition was intact.Review of the facility's investigative report dated 07/08/2025 at 4:00 p.m., revealed in part: Resident #1's family member reported to S2DON (Director of Nursing) that she had reviewed the resident's bank statements and noted several transactions in which the resident transferred money to S3LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) via a peer to peer payment service. The dates and amount listed were: 06/03/2025-$103.96; 06/04/2025 -$206.00, $104.00, and $106.00; 06/09/2025 - $410.00 and $50.00; and in May 2025 $50.00 and $25.00. Further review revealed S2DON and S4SSD (Social Services Director) spoke to S3LPN on 07/09/2025, and she confirmed receiving the money from Resident #1, and stated the money was used to purchase clothes and several pairs of shoes for the resident.Review of a police report dated 07/14/2025 at 11:17 a.m., revealed a complaint was made by Resident #1's family member that she had reviewed the resident's May 2025 bank statement and noticed several peer to peer transfers to S3LPN. The family member further stated that after questioning Resident #1 about the transactions, he stated S3LPN had asked him for $400 because her son was in the hospital.Review of Resident #1's bank statements dated 01/28/2025 to 02/26/2025 revealed the following in part: On 02/08/2025 a payment of $258.00 was sent to S3LPN's Card.On 02/11/2025 an overdraft fee of $34.00 was posted for the $258.00 payment sent to S3LPN's Card.Review of Resident #1's bank statements dated 04/24/2025 through 05/23/2025 revealed the following:On 05/07/2025, a payment of $50.00 was sent to S3LPN's Card.On 05/07/2025, a payment of $25.00 was sent to S3LPN's Card.On 05/08/2025, an overdraft fee of $34.00 was posted for the $50.00 payment sent to S3LPN's Card.On 05/08/2025, an overdraft fee of $34.00 was posted for the $25.00 payment sent to S3LPN's Card.Review of Resident #1's bank statements dated 05/24/2025 to 06/25/2025 revealed the following:On 06/03/2025, a payment of $103.96 was sent to S3LPN's Card.On 06/04/2025, a payment of $206.00 was sent to S3LPN's Card.On 06/04/2025, a payment of $104.00 was sent to S3LPN's Card.On 06/04/2025, a payment of $106.00 was sent to S3LPN's Card.On 06/09/2025, a payment of $410.00 was sent to S3LPN's Card.On 06/09/2025, a payment of $50.00 was sent to S3LPN's Card.Review of Resident #1's bank statements dated 06/26/2025 through 07/24/2025 revealed the following:On 07/03/2025 an ATM (Automated Teller Machine) withdrawal of $400.00.On 08/04/2025 at 10:07 a.m., a phone interview was conducted with S5PInv (Police Investigator). She stated she reviewed Resident #1's bank statements and discovered the peer to peer payments to S3LPN. She stated she interviewed Resident #1, and he stated to her that S3LPN requested money from him in June of 2025 because her son was in the hospital. The payment of $410 showed as a payment to S3LPN on 06/09/2025. S5PInv stated Resident #1 told her prior to that, he sent S3LPN money to purchase shoes and clothes for himself. She stated S3LPN had purchased the items and had them at her house. When S3LPN was asked to bring the items in, there was a pair of shoes that were not the resident's size. S5PInv also stated S3LPN was not able to provide receipts for any of the purchases.On 08/04/2025 at 12:12 p.m., a phone interview was conducted with Resident #1's family member. She stated she discovered the peer to peer payment service transactions on Resident #1's bank statements. The family member stated she reported it to the facility in July of 2025. She stated the facility did an investigation and S3LPN stated she used the money to make purchases the resident asked her to make, but when asked she was not able to provide receipts for the purchases, so she (the family member) reported it to the police.During a telephone interview with Resident #1 on 08/04/2025 at 12:47 p.m., the resident confirmed that he had sent money via Cash App to S3LPN.On 08/04/2025 at 1:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She stated the facility started investigating the allegation of financial abuse on 07/08/2025. Resident #1 and S3LPN both stated the money was to purchase groceries, clothes, and shoes for Resident #1. S2DON stated that on 07/14/2025 when S5PInv came to conduct her investigation, Resident #1 confirmed sending $400.00 to S3LPN for her personal use and also sent her money to purchase groceries, clothes and shoes for himself. S2DON stated that S3LPN was not able to produce receipts for the purchases. She further stated S3LPN should have known better and should not have accepted any money from Resident #1. On 08/05/2025 at 9:08 a.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM (Administrator). S1ADM stated she was notified of the financial abuse allegation between S3LPN and Resident #1 on 07/08/2025. She stated on 07/14/2025, she sat in on separate interviews conducted by S5PInv with Resident #1 and S3LPN. S1ADM stated S3LPN told S5PInv that she received money via the peer to peer payment service from Resident #1 to purchase groceries, clothes and shoes for him, and did not have receipts for the purchases. S1ADM also stated she heard when Resident #1 told S5PInv that he sent S3LPN $400 for personal use because she told him her son was sick. S1ADM stated S3LPN should not have accepted any payments from Resident #1, should not have told Resident #1 her personal story because that's exploitation, and should not have accepted cash from Resident #1.On 08/05/2025 at 10:08 a.m., an interview was conducted with S3LPN. She confirmed receiving the above payments from Resident #1, and stated they were used to purchase food, cigarettes and clothing items for the resident. When asked if she had provided receipts for the purchases, S3LPN stated I think so. S3LPN stated she did not report that Resident #1 had asked her to make purchases, or that she received payments from the resident to the resident's family, S4SSD, S2DON, or S1ADM. She confirmed that she was trained on abuse and exploitation and the facility's policy. S3LPN further stated she should not have accepted the peer to peer payment service payments from Resident #1.
Feb 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to supervise and monitor assistive devices to prevent a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to supervise and monitor assistive devices to prevent accidents. This occurred in 1 (#35) out of 1 (#35) residents who were investigated for Accidents out of 19 sampled residents. Findings: Record review of the facility policy titled Resident Alarms and dated 12/31/2024 read in part, Alarms are to be utilize in accordance with the resident's needs .to maintain highest .level of well-being .when movement is detected .The use of alarms does not eliminate the need for adequate supervision of the resident .Each resident shall be assessed for fall .and periodically thereafter as part of the comprehensive assessment process .When alarms are used .monitoring shall be provided .to .verify alarms are working properly. Review of Resident #35's record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses were in part, Bipolar, Major Depression, Seizures, Paralytic Syndrome, Anoxic brain damage, Cerebral Vascular Disease, and Hemiplegia affect left dominant side. Resident had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 13 meaning his cognition was intact. Record review of Resident #35's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed a total score 50 meaning he was at a High Risk for falls. Record review of Resident #35's care plan dated 05/03/2024, under problem area, read in part Resident #35 is at risk for falls due to CVA (Cerebrovascular Accident or Stroke) with left side hemiplegia, paralytic syndrome .weakness .unsteadiness . Under approaches read in part, Monitor for falls q (every) ½ hours .Bed alarm while in bed .Staff to observe more closely when resident coming back from smoking and assist to bed .Staff to offer resident transfer assist more often. Record review of Resident #35's February 2025 physicians orders read in part, Monitor for falls q ½ hours .Bed alarm while in bed. On 02/24/2025 at 11:23 AM, an observation was made of Resident #35 lying in bed with his bed alarm pad located under his torso and attached to the alarm monitor hanging from his bed rails. Resident #35 stood up on one leg and transferred himself into his wheelchair. At this time, the bed alarm was not alarming. On 02/25/2025 at 2:57 PM, an observation was made of Resident #35 lying in bed. His bed alarm pad was not observed under his torso. The alarm monitor was hanging from the bed rails. There was no light on to indicate that the alarm was working. On 02/25/2025 at 3:02 PM, an observation was made with S4CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) who confirmed Resident #35 was lying in bed with the alarm pad by his feet. She stated the nurses and CNA were to ensure the alarm pad was located under the resident's torso and the monitor was working. She stated the bed alarm monitor for Resident #35 was not working at this time. On 02/25/2025 at 3:08 PM, S5LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated the batteries in Resident #35's bed alarm monitor was dead. She stated the alarm pad was not under the resident and if the monitor was working it would alarm. On 02/25/2025 at 3:10 PM, S6LPN entered the room and stated she was Resident #35's nurse. She stated the staff were to ensure Resident #35's alarm pad was located under his body and were to ensure that the alarm monitor was working. On 02/26/2025 at 10:01 AM, an observation was made of Resident #35 lying in his bed and his alarm monitor was hanging from the side rails. The alarm pad was under the resident's bed sheet at the foot of the bed. The monitor was not alarming. On 02/26/2025 at 10:03 AM, S7CNA confirmed Resident #35's bed alarm pad was not under his body. At this time, S7CNA placed the pad under Resident #35's body and turned on the monitor. She then had the resident stand up and the alarm sounded. She stated it was the nurses and the CNA's responsibility to ensure the pad was under the resident's body and that the alarm monitor was working properly. On 02/26/2025 at 12:30 PM, S8MDS (Minimum Data Set) Coordinator confirmed the nurses should be monitoring the resident and the nurses and CNA should be ensuring the Resident's bed alarm pad was correctly placed under the resident as well as ensuring the alarm monitor was working every shift.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate and sufficient services, treatmen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate and sufficient services, treatment and care according to standards of professional practice for 1 (#48) of 4 (#16, #17, #32 and #48) residents that were reviewed for urinary catheter or UTI (urinary tract infection). The facility failed to ensure Resident #48's urinary catheter drainage bag was secured properly off of the floor. Findings: On 02/26/2025 a review of the facility's policy with a review date of 12/31/2024 titled Catheter Care read in part, It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents with indwelling catheters receive appropriate catheter care and maintain their dignity and privacy when indwelling catheters are in use. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder and retention of urine. Review of Resident #48's quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 01/21/2025 revealed in Section H - Bladder and Bowel she was coded for an indwelling catheter. On 02/24/2025 at 9:30 AM, an observation was made of Resident #48's indwelling urinary drainage bag lying on the floor beneath her bed. On 02/24/2025 at 11:24 AM, a second observation was made of Resident #48's indwelling urinary drainage bag in the same position lying on the floor beneath her bed. On 02/24/2025 at 11:46 AM, an observation and interview was conducted with S2CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant). She confirmed that Resident #48's indwelling urinary drainage [NAME] was lying on the floor beneath the bed. She stated that the drainage bag should have been clipped to the bed below the resident's bladder and not on the floor. On 02/26/2025 at 9:30 AM, an interview was conducted with S3LPN/IP (Licensed Practical Nurse/Infection Preventionist). She stated appropriate catheter care for indwelling urinary drainage bags were that they should be hung on the resident's bed or wheelchair with a privacy covering and should not be on the floor.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to electronically submit accurate payroll information for direct care staffing as required. This deficient practice had the potential to affec...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to electronically submit accurate payroll information for direct care staffing as required. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 51 residents residing in the facility. Findings: Review of the PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) Staffing Data Report for Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 1 (October 1- December 31) revealed the following: -One star staffing rating, triggered. -Excessively low weekend staffing, this metric is suppressed for this facility and quarter. -Failed to have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours/day, triggered. On 02/26/2025 at 9:22 AM, an interview was conducted with S1ADM (Administrator). She stated she reviewed her entries to PBJ for Quarter 1, and realized she had two licensed practical nurses coded as a regular staff member versus a licensed practical nurse that was providing direct care to the residents. S1ADM confirmed she did not submit accurate payroll information to PBJ.
Jan 2024 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0572 (Tag F0572)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to inform Resident #254 and his RP (resident representative) of the resident's rights by failing to complete an admission packet during the ad...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to inform Resident #254 and his RP (resident representative) of the resident's rights by failing to complete an admission packet during the admission process for 1 (#254) out of 29 final sampled residents. This deficient practice had the potential to effect all the resident's that reside in the nursing facility. The facility census was 54. Findings: A review of Resident #254's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/13/2023. Further review of the medical record revealed there was no admission packet completed, which contained documents that informed the resident and/or the resident's RP of the resident's rights and of all rules and regulations governing the resident conduct and responsibilities during his or her stay. On 01/18/2024 at 11:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with S5SSD (Social Services Director). She confirmed that she was responsible for completing the admission packet with resident's and the resident's RP upon admission. She confirmed that Resident #254 did not have a completed and signed admission packet. On 01/18/2024 at 3:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM (Administrator). S1ADM confirmed that the SSD was responsible for having the resident and/or the resident's RP sign the admission packet documents within 3-5 days after admission. She confirmed that because the admission packet documents had not been signed by the resident and/or the resident's RP during the admission process, they had not received written notification of the resident's rights and of all rules and regulations governing the resident conduct and responsibilities during his or her stay.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the nurse informed the physician of low blood pressure readi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the nurse informed the physician of low blood pressure readings for 1 (#37) resident out of 29 sampled residents. Findings: Resident #37. Review of the resident's electronic clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included Cerebral Infarction, Dysphagia, Hypertension, Anxiety Disorder, and Atrial Fibrillation. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 1/9/2024 revealed the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score was 13 which meant the resident was cognitive. Review of the resident's nurse's notes dated 1/14/2024 at 3:31 p.m. revealed, 11 a.m.: Called into room by CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) due to low blood pressure reading on vs (vital sign) machine. VS machine had BP (blood pressure) of 77/33, re-checked with manual cuff BP 80/40 . Placed in Trendelenburg (position elevating the feet and legs of the resident above the level of the heart while resident is lying on back) at this time. 12:20 p.m.; Resident sitting up in bed, re-checked BP now 90/44 . Placed back in Trendelenburg at this time. 1:30 p.m. re-checked BP 96/48 2 p.m. re check BP 104/52. There was no evidence the physician was informed concerning the resident's low blood pressure. On 1/18/2024 at 10:15 a.m., an interview was conducted with S3LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse). She confirmed that on 1/14/2024, the resident did have low blood pressure readings. S3LPN stated that the resident was placed in Trendelenburg position to help raise the resident's blood pressure. S3LPN confirmed that she could not provide evidence in the resident's clinical record she notified the physician concerning the resident's low blood pressure. On 1/18/2024 at 10:25 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON (Director of Nursing). She confirmed that there should have been evidence in the resident's clinical record the nurse notified the physician concerning the low blood pressure readings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to accurately assess Resident #4's dental status out of a sample of 2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to accurately assess Resident #4's dental status out of a sample of 29 residents. Findings: Record review of Resident #4's care plan dated 07/31/2023 read in part, Resident #4 has natural teeth with some missing and broken. Record review of S5SSD (Social Service Director) progress notes dated 08/01/2023 read in part, New admit: Resident #4 is a new admit to the facility on [DATE] .Resident #4 has natural teeth with some missing. Record review of Resident #4's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 08/07/2023 under Section L, Oral/Dental Status, B. No natural teeth or tooth fragments., D. Obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth. were not checked. Further review of this document revealed Z None of the above were present was checked On 01/15/2024 at 12:48 p.m., observation revealed Resident #4 had missing, broken and decayed teeth. On 01/18/2024 at 8:07 a.m., an interview and record review was conducted with S5SSD (Social Service Director). She reviewed her progress notes dated 08/01/2023 and Resident #4's MDS dated [DATE]. She confirmed she had documented that Resident #4 had natural teeth with some missing and had incorrectly coded the dental section of his MDS. On 01/18/2024 at 11:26 a.m., record review of S5SSD (Social Service Director) progress notes dated 08/01/2023 and Resident #4's MDS dated [DATE] was conducted with S7MDS (Minimum Data Set) Coordinator. She confirmed S5SSD had documented in her progress notes on 08/01/2023 that she had assessed Resident #4's oral cavity and observed that he had natural teeth with some missing. S7MDS reviewed Resident #4's MDS admission assessment dated [DATE] and confirmed S5SSD had chosen Z. None of the above were present. S7MDS stated this was an inaccurate. S5SSD should have chosen D. Obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to reassess the resident's pain level after administering pain medica...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to reassess the resident's pain level after administering pain medication as required by the facility's policy for 2 (#4, #21) of 3 (#4, #21, #304) residents investigated for pain management out of 29 sampled residents. Findings: Record review of the facility's policy titled Pain Management read in part, The facility must ensure that pain management is provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice . Resident #4 Record review of revealed Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with current diagnoses of, Pain, Weakness, Type 2 Diabetes mellitus, Muscle wasting and Atrophy, Atrial Fibrillation, and Cardiac Pacemaker. Record review of Resident #4's care plan read in part, Resident #4 has episodes of generalized pain to left shoulder. X-rays shows probability of chronic rotator cuff tear. Give PRN (as needed) medication for pain as ordered. Monitor the effectiveness of PRN medication. Record review of Resident #4's Physicians Orders dated from 1/1/2024 to 1/31/2024 read in part, Ibuprofen 600 milligram tablet every day PRN Norco 7.5-325 milligrams give 1 tablet PO (Orally) every 8 hours PRN for shoulder pain. On 01/18/2024 at 9:55 a.m., record review of Resident #4's MAR (Medication Administration Record) with S8LPN confirmed that on 1/5/2024, Resident #4 was given Norco 7.5 milligram table for moderate pain at 8:20 a.m. He was not reassessed for pain medication effectiveness until 10:00 a.m. Further review of the MAR revealed that on 1/7/2024 at 8:18 a.m., Ibuprofen 600 milligram tab was administered for shoulder pain. The resident's pain level was not reassessed until at 1:51 p.m. She stated the nurses were not reassessing the pain medication effectiveness timely. She confirmed it was the facility's policy to reassess the resident pain one hour after administering pain medication. On 01/18/2024 at 10:53 a.m., an interview with S2DON (Director of Nursing) confirmed the facility's policy was for nurse to recheck the resident's pain an hour after administering pain medication for the effectiveness. At this time S2DON reviewed Resident #4's MAR dated 1/01/2024 and confirmed S11LPN gave Resident #4 Ibuprofen 600 mg at 8:06 a.m., and reassessed his pain at 1:07 p.m. S2DON also confirmed that on 1/5/2024 at 8:20 a.m., S12LPN gave Norco 7.5 mg-325 mg to Resident #4 for complaint of right shoulder pain and didn't reassess until 10:00 a.m. S2DON stated the nurses were not following facility policy and reassessing the resident pain in a timely manner. Resident #21 Record review revealed Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with current diagnoses of Chronic Pain, Restless legs syndrome, Hypertension, Cerebrovascular diseases, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease, Arthropathy, and Primary Arthritis. Record review of Resident #21's care plan read in part, Resident has chronic pain to his bilateral lower extremities secondary to Osteoarthritis, Neuropathy, Restless Leg Syndrome .and Spinal Stenosis .Give pain mediation as ordered .Monitor effectiveness of pain medication. Record review of Resident #21's Physicians Orders dated from 1/1/2024 to 1/31/2024 read in part, Norco 7.5-325 milligram tablets take one orally every 8 hours as needed for pain and Tramadol 50 milligrams tablet take one orally every 8 hours for pain. On 01/18/2024 at 9:55 a.m., S8LPN reviewed Resident #21's MAR dated 1/17/24 and confirmed a nurse gave Norco 7.5-325 milligram tablet at 7:57 PM. The resident's pain was not reassessed until 4:57 a.m. on 1/18/24 for effectiveness. She also confirmed that on 1/18/2024 at 7:49 a.m., a nurse gave the resident Tramadol 50 milligram tablet and wasn't reassessed for the medication's effectiveness until 9:48 a.m. on 1/18/2024. S8LPN stated the nurses were not following the facility's policy to reassess the resident's pain an hour after giving pain medication. On 01/18/2024 at 10:53 a.m., S2DON reviewed Resident #21's MAR and confirmed the nurses were not following the facility's policy to reassess residents within an hour of giving pain medication to ensure pain medications were effective.
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure menus met the nutritional needs of the residents and were followed as evidenced by kitchen staff failing to: 1) Have k...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure menus met the nutritional needs of the residents and were followed as evidenced by kitchen staff failing to: 1) Have knowledge of recipes to be followed when preparing pureed foods and 2) Ensure the appropriate sized scoops were used to serve pureed foods. This deficient practice had the potential to contribute to an unpleasant dining experience, decreased intake, altered nutritional needs and weight loss for the 3 residents who consumed pureed diets. Findings: Record review of a form titled, Tuesday Week 3 Diet Spreadsheet, provided by S10Cook revealed column 3 of 6 that was titled Puree with the menu items that were divided into the three meals of the day: breakfast, lunch and supper. The corresponding scoop sizes served for an individual portion size were listed before the menu item. Review of the Puree lunch meal revealed #10 sc (scoop) for pork chop. There was also a separate chart noted at the bottom of the spreadsheet that listed the different scoop sizes (No. 6, 8, 10, 12 and 16) and the converted measurements of each scoop in cup and oz (ounces). The #10 scoop had a capacity of 3/8 of a cup or 3.75 oz and the #12 scoop had a capacity of 1/3 cup or 2.6 oz. Review of a form titled, Substitution Record, revealed the lunch meal served on 01/18/2024 was initially chicken and sausage gumbo and was being substituted for hot dogs and pork chops with the reason for the change being that the chicken did not come per S9DS (Dietary Supervisor). On 01/18/2024 at 10:27 a.m., a follow up visit was conducted of the facility's kitchen. S10Cook was observed preparing food items on the steam table that were to be served for the lunch meal. S10Cook was interviewed and stated she was responsible for preparing pureed and mechanical chopped meats diets. S10Cook was unable to recall or show evidence of recipes used and followed when preparing pureed foods. S10Cook stated she followed a diet spreadsheet that included the meals of the day that were separated by the weekday and the week of the month. S10Cook explained that the Tuesday, Week 3, Diet Spreadsheet was being used for the substituted lunch meal which included pureed pork chop. On 01/18/2024 at 10:40 a.m., an observation was made of a green handled scoop in the pureed meat container on the steam table. S10Cook reviewed the Diet Spreadsheet for Tuesday, Week 3 and confirmed a #10 scoop was to be used. S10Cook stated the #10 scoop was a white handled scoop. S10Cook confirmed the green handled #12 scoop that was observed on the steam table line inside the pureed meat container was the incorrect scoop for the pureed pork chop that was going to be served for lunch.
CONCERN (D)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 54 residents who resided in the facility. Fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 54 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: On 01/18/2024 at 10:33 a.m., an observation with S10Cook was made of the facility's 2 dumpsters located outside in the rear of the building. Surrounding the 2 large dumpsters were a large amount of cigarette butts scattered on the ground. There was also discarded disposable gloves and multiple areas of litter scattered on the ground surrounding the 2 dumpsters. On 01/18/2024 at 2:18 p.m., S2DON (Director of Nursing) confirmed the facility's dumpsters area was unsanitary and there should not have been any litter on the ground surrounding the dumpsters.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment for 4 (#6, #20, #26 and #38) out of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment for 4 (#6, #20, #26 and #38) out of 6 (#6, #20, #26, #28, #38 and #50) residents investigated for a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all the residents residing in the facility. The facility's census was 54. Findings: Review of the facility's policy, Maintenance Inspection revealed, in part, the following: Policy Statement: It is the policy of this facility . to assure a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public. Resident #6: Review of Resident #6's record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, Essential Hypertension, Cerebrovascular Disease, and Pain. Review of Resident #6's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 12 indicating his cognition was moderately impaired. An observation on 01/15/2024 at 10:07 a.m. revealed Resident #6's headboard was half way detached from the resident's bed. Resident #6's bedside table had splintered wood exposed to the outside of the bedside table. A follow up observation on 01/17/2024 at 12:35 p.m. revealed Resident #6's headboard was half way detached from the resident's bed. Resident #6's bedside table had splintered wood exposed to the outside of the bedside table. Resident #20: Review of Resident #20's record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, Cerebrovascular disease, Chronic Diastolic Heart Failure, and Muscle Wasting and Atrophy. Review of Resident #20's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 8 indicating his cognition was moderately impaired. An observation on 01/15/2024 at 11:15 a.m. revealed Resident #20's bedside nightstand had plastic edging unattached and nails exposed and his overhead light was not working. A follow up observation on 01/17/2024 at 12:32 p.m. revealed Resident #20's bedside nightstand had plastic edging unattached and nails exposed and his overhead light was not working. Resident #26: Review of Resident #26's record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, Transient Cerebral Ischemia Attack, Polyneuropathy, and Heart Failure. Review of Resident #26's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 99 indicating the resident was unable to participate. An observation on 01/17/2024 at 12:41 p.m. revealed Resident #26's bedside nightstand had plastic edging unattached and nails exposed. Resident #38: Review of Resident #38's record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, Dementia, Other Lack of Coordination, and Other Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility. Review of Resident #38's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 99 indicating the resident was unable to participate. Section GG Functional Abilities and Goals, revealed toilet transfer: partial/moderate assistance. An observation on 01/15/2024 at 9:15 a.m. revealed baseboards were missing from the wall and a small hole noted in the wall where the baseboards were missing and Resident #38's toilet was easily moveable. A follow up observation on 01/17/2024 at 12:43 p.m. revealed baseboards were missing from the wall and a small hole noted in the wall where the baseboards were missing and Resident #38's toilet was easily moveable. On 01/17/2024 at 12:47 p.m., an interview was conducted with S8LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse). S8LPN confirmed that Resident #38 used the toilet sometimes. On 01/17/2024 at 12:49 p.m., an interview and observation was conducted with S1ADM (Administrator) and S4MS (Maintenance Supervisor). S4MS stated that his responsibility was to maintain the building for the facility and fix any issues for the residents. S4MS stated he has a maintenance log and completes a daily maintenance inspection in each room in the facility and checks the electrical outlets, any leaks, plumbing, bed control, call button, bathroom, and the overall environment making sure it is homelike for the resident. Observations of Resident #6, #20, #26, and #38's room was conducted with S1ADM and S4MD who confirmed multiple findings: Resident #6's bedside table had splintered wood exposed to the outside of the bedside table, Resident #20's bedside nightstand had plastic edging unattached and nails exposed and his overhead light was not working, Resident #26's bedside nightstand had plastic edging unattached and nails exposed, and Resident #38's revealed baseboards were missing from the wall and a small hole noted in the wall where the baseboards were missing and her toilet was easily moveable. S1ADM and S4MS confirmed that these issues needed to be repaired and did not provide a homelike environment for Resident #6, #20, #26, and #38.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service by failing to ensure all stored food items in the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service by failing to ensure all stored food items in the facility's walk in freezer were labeled and dated. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 52 residents who consumed meals prepared and/or served from the facility's kitchen. Findings: Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Food Storage revealed in part: . Food is stored, prepared, and transported at an appropriate temperature and by methods designed to prevent contamination . 16. Frozen foods . c. Foods should be covered, labeled and dated . On 01/15/2024 at 9:15 a.m., during the initial walk through of the facility's kitchen, an observation was made of the facility's walk in freezer with S9DS (Dietary Supervisor). There were a total of 6 individual clear storage bags containing food items without dates or labeling. S9DS verified the contents of the unlabeled bags were 2 bags of frozen meat pies; 1 bag of frozen crab cakes; 1 bag of frozen chicken nuggets; and 2 bags of frozen seasoning blend. S9DS confirmed all food items in the freezer should be labeled and dated and were not.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to electronically submit payroll information for direct care staffing as required. Findings: Review of the PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) Staff...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to electronically submit payroll information for direct care staffing as required. Findings: Review of the PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) Staffing Data Report for FY (Fiscal Year) Quarter 4 2023 from 07/01/2023 - 09/30/2023 revealed triggers for the following: failed to submit accurate data for the quarter- One Star Staffing Rating. On 01/18/2024 10:10 a.m., S1ADM (Administrator) stated that she was unaware that the facility's PBJ had not been submitted. She stated that the nursing facility had a third-party company that submitted the facility's PBJ information. At 10:35 a.m., S1ADM contacted the HR (Human Resource) Director with the company. During the phone interview, the HR Director confirmed that the company only complied the data sent by the nursing home and create the PBJ, but the nursing home was responsible for submitting their data. S1ADM confirmed that the PBJ information was not submitted into the system.
Feb 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of the resident's ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of the resident's needs by failing to ensure the resident's call light button was within reach to call for assistance when needed for 1 (#28) out of 2 (#28 and #33) residents investigated for environmental concerns. According to facility policy, this deficient practice had the potential to effect the 42 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Call Light System revealed, in part, Purpose: To respond to resident's request and needs .Essential Points: .each resident, when in their room or in bed, must have the call light placed within reach at all times, regardless of staff assessment of resident ability to use it . Review of Resident #28's electronic health record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following pertinent diagnoses: Type 2 Diabetes with Diabetic Autonomic Polyneuropathy, Stroke, Weakness, Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Glaucoma Secondary to other Eye Disorders, Right Eye, indeterminate stage, End Stage Renal Disease and Dependence on Renal Dialysis. Review of Resident #28's Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/20/2022 revealed the following, in part: Resident #28 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 13, which indicated she was cognitively intact when making daily decisions. Resident #28 required extensive/total assistance from staff for performing and maintaining activities of daily living (ADLs). A review of the current Care Plan for Resident #28 revealed the following, in part: Category: ADL's with problem onset dated 12/06/2019 due to old CVA (Cerebrovascular Accident), weakness and unsteadiness with the intervention to provide assist as needed . Category: Skin/Pressure Ulcers with problem onset dated 12/06/2019 due to impaired mobility, incontinence and bed bound .calls staff . with the intervention for staff to encourage Resident to call for assistance . On 02/06/2023 at 10:37 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #28 who reported she was bed bound. She stated that sometimes staff have forgotten to place her call bell in one of her hands in order for her to call for assistance. Resident #28 stated that when her call bell was not placed within reach, she had to scream for help until staff would come to provide assistance. On 02/07/2023 at 1:59 p.m., an observation was made of Resident #28 in bed and upon entering the room, the resident reported feeling as if she were going to vomit and that she was freezing. Her call bell was observed hanging off of the resident's right bedrail and not within her reach. This surveyor alerted the staff that the resident needed assistance. On 02/07/2023 at 2:02 p.m., S15CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) entered the resident's room and asked her what was wrong. She provided the resident with a plastic basin and informed the resident to hold the basin under her mouth in case she vomited. S15CNA exited the resident's room and failed to place the resident's call bell in one of her hands. On 02/07/2023 at 2:06 p.m., an observation was made of S9LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) entering the resident's room. She administered an anti-nausea medication to the resident and informed the resident that she was going to get a thermometer to check her temperature. Resident #28's call bell remained hanging off of the resident's bedrail to the right of the resident out of reach. On 02/07/2023 at 2:09 p.m., S9LPN returned to Resident #28's room and checked her temperature. Upon exiting the resident's room, stated to the resident If need something else call me. Resident #28's call bell was observed still hanging off of the bedrail. On 02/07/2023 at 2:10 p.m., an observation and interview was conducted with S9LPN. S9LPN was asked how would the resident call for assistance. S9LPN reported the call bell should be placed in one of the resident's hands for her to call for assistance. An observation of the resident's hands was made with S9LPN. She confirmed there was no call bell in the resident's hands and the call bell was hanging off the resident's bedrail. She also confirmed that the resident's call bell should have been placed in one of the resident's hands. An interview was conducted with S3DON (Director of Nursing) on 02/08/2023 at 10:48 a.m. who stated that Resident #28 was bedbound and required assistance from staff. She stated that staff were to make sure Resident #28's call bell was wrapped around one of the side rails and placed in one of her hands. S3DON confirmed that S9LPN and S15CNA should have ensured the resident's call bell was within reach.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to submit a written notice of emergency transfers to a representative ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to submit a written notice of emergency transfers to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 2 (#18, #39) of 3 (#18, #25, #39) residents investigated for hospitalizations in a final sample of 12 residents. Findings: Resident #18 Review of Resident #18's records revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Quadriplegia, Cauda Equina Syndrome, Muscle Wasting/Atrophy and Neurogenic Bowel. Review of the resident's transfer records from 11/6/22 - 1/31/23 revealed in part: 11/7/22 resident complained of chest pain and demanded to go to the ER. 12/26/22 resident complained of abdominal pain and bladder infection. Physician order-send to ER to evaluate and treat. 1/6/23 resident complained of trouble breathing and stated his left lung hurt bad. Physician order- send to ER to evaluate and treat. 1/29/23 resident complained of chest pain, burning, tightness. Physician order- sent to ER to evaluate and treat. Review of facility's State Long-Term Care Ombudsman log titled, Emergency Transfer Log for November 2022 - January 2023 failed to reveal evidence that a notice of Resident 18's emergency transfers were submitted to the Ombudsman's office. On 02/07/23 at 09:15 a.m., S4LPN confirmed Resident #18 was transferred to the hospital on the above dates as listed on the resident's transfer forms. Resident #39 Review of Resident #39's records revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Schizoaffective disorder Bipolar type, Major Depressive disorder with severe psychotic symptoms, Anxiety disorder, and Pain. She was diagnosed with Peripheral Vascular Disease on 11/16/22. Review of the resident's nurse's notes revealed in part: 11/16/22 6:55 a.m. physician notified resident in severe pain both feet and unable to walk. 3+ edema (swelling) to right lower leg and hot to touch. 2+ edema to left lower leg. Further review of the notes revealed Resident #39 was transferred to the ER via ambulance service. Review of facility's State Long-Term Care Ombudsman log titled, Emergency Transfer Log for November 2022 failed to reveal evidence that a notice of Resident 39's transfer was submitted to the Ombudsman's office. Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Hold Prior to Transfer failed address procedures for notifying the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of resident transfers. On 02/07/23 at 11:30 a.m., S3DON stated that S6LPNMDS and S5MDS/WC were responsible for sending notification of transfers to the Ombudsman's office every month. A review of the facility's policy, Bed Hold Prior to Transfer was conducted with S3DON. She confirmed the policy did not address procedures for notifying the Ombudsman of resident transfers. S3DON stated that notifications were sent to the Ombudsman per the policy written on the back of the facility's form titled, Nursing Home Transfer Discharge Notice. Review of the form Nursing Home Transfer Discharge Notice revealed no information regarding procedures for notifying the Ombudsman of transfers. On 02/07/23 at 11:48 a.m., a review of the facility's State Long-Term Care Ombudsman log titled, Emergency Transfer Log for November 2022 - January 2023, including records of Resident #18's and Resident #39's transfers was conducted with S6LPNMDS. She confirmed the residents were transferred on the documented dates. She further stated that she would only report transfers to the Ombudsman if the resident was admitted to the hospital. S6LPNMDS further stated that notifications were not sent to the Ombudsman if the resident was transferred to the ER and returned the same day. When asked why notifications were not sent for all emergency transfers, she replied this is how it was always done. At this time, S5MDS/WC was interviewed. S5MDS/WC also stated that she did not submit notifications of emergency transfers to the Ombudsman if the resident went to the ER then returned the same day. She confirmed that Residents #18 and #39 were transferred to the ER and that notification of the residents' emergency transfers were not submitted to the Ombudsman.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received necessary treatment an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, and prevent new pressure ulcers from developing by failing to provide an air mattress for 1 (#2) of 2 (#18, #2) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings: A review of Resident #2's clinical record revealed that was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included Acquired absence of right and left leg above knee, Paraplegia, and Peripheral vascular disease. A review of Resident #2's Care Plan dated 12/27/16 read, in part: I am at risk for skin breakdowns related to be/chair bound and history of breakdowns. Interventions read, in part: Pressure relieving mattress on bed at all times (air mattress). On 9/28/22 I have a right upper buttock stage II pressure ulcer. Interventions read, in part: Air mattress on bed at all times. Review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly dated 11/29/22 revealed his cognition was 15, which indicated that the resident is cognitively intact. Further review revealed he was to have pressure reducing device for bed. On 2/06/23 at 10:43 a.m., an observation was conducted in Resident #2's room revealed there was no air mattress on the resident's bed. On 2/07/23 at 1:40 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #2. The resident stated that he is supposed to have an air mattress on his bed, and that S7ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) told him today that she will order him a new air mattress. The resident added that he has not had an air mattress for a few months. On 2/07/23 at 2:06 p.m., an interview was conducted with S7ADON who confirmed that Resident #2 is supposed to have an air mattress on his bed at all times and he does not currently have one on his bed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care services were provided c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care services were provided consistent with professional standards of practice as evidence by failing to ensure that the respiratory equipment was appropriately dated and covered with plastic bags when not in use for 1 (#38) of 2 (#28 and #38) residents investigated for respiratory care. Total census was 44 residents. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Oxygen Administration read in part, Policy: Oxygen is administered to residents who need it, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plans, and the resident's goals and preferences . .b. Change oxygen tubing and mask/cannula weekly and as needed if they become soiled or contaminated . e. Keep delivery devices covered in plastic bag when not in use . Review of the resident's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Cough, Dyspnea and Cachexia. Review of Resident #38's care plan revealed the following, in part: Category: Breathing Pattern with problem onset dated 11/07/2022 due to resident with SOB (shortness of breath) and received O2 routinely due to COPD with an intervention to clean and change O2 equipment as ordered. Review of Resident #38's February 2023 physician orders revealed an order entry dated 11/08/2022 that read, Change plastic bag equipment to neb.(nebulizer) weekly on Thurs ( Thursday) Review of Resident #38's February 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed no documented evidence that the oxygen or nebulizer tubing was changed weekly. On 02/06/2023 at 11:10 a.m. an observation was made of the resident sitting on the edge of her bed with oxygen in place via nasal cannula. Further observation revealed the oxygen nasal cannula tubing, the nebulizer tubing, the plastic bag for the oxygen tubing, the plastic bag for the nebulizer tubing and mask were not labeled with a date. On 02/07/2023 at 9:00 a.m., Resident #38 was observed sleeping in bed with her nebulizer mask observed under her head near her pillow not being used. Further observation revealed the oxygen nasal cannula tubing, the nebulizer tubing, the plastic bag for the oxygen tubing, the plastic bag for the nebulizer tubing and mask were not labeled with a date. On 02/07/2023 at 12:57 p.m., a follow up observation revealed Resident #38 was resting in bed with a nebulizer treatment in progress. The nasal cannula tubing was not in use and was observed draped over the oxygen concentrator outside of the plastic bag. Further observation revealed the oxygen nasal cannula tubing, the nebulizer tubing, the plastic bag for the oxygen tubing, the plastic bag for the nebulizer tubing and mask were not labeled with a date. On 02/07/2023 at 1:38 p.m. an interview was conducted with S9LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) who verified Resident #38 received continuous oxygen via nasal cannula and that the resident notified staff when she required her nebulizer treatments. S9LPN stated the night shift staff were responsible for changing the tubing to the nasal cannula and nebulizer. S9LPN stated she was not sure why the oxygen and nebulizer tubing and/or the plastic bags had not been labeled. S9LPN verified there was no way to verify the last time the oxygen and nebulizer tubing had been changed. On 02/07/2023 at 3:42 p.m. in an interview and observation conducted with S3DON (Director of Nursing). She stated that respiratory tubing was changed by the treatment nurse. An observation was made with S3DON of the resident's respiratory equipment. She confirmed the oxygen and nebulizer tubing had not been labeled and she stated that she was unable to verify when the oxygen and nebulizer tubing were last changed. S3DON also made an observation of the resident's nebulizer mask uncovered on the nightstand drawer. S3DON confirmed that the oxygen and nebulizer tubing should have been dated and the nebulizer mask should have been covered in a plastic bag.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environmen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility failed to: 1. have water management policies, procedures or an assessment process of the facility's water system in order to implement specific measures to prevent the growth of Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens in the building's water systems; and 2. ensure staff performed hand hygiene after changing gloves while administering wound care for 1 (#18) of 2 (#2, #18) residents investigated for pressure ulcers. The facility's census was 42. Findings: 1. On 02/07/23 at 12:55 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3DON and S5ADON (Infection Prevention Coordinator) who stated that the facility did not have an assessment of their water system, a policy, or a plan that included measures to prevent the growth of Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens in the building's water systems. She stated she was unaware of this new requirement and inquired about regulation on water management. 2. Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Control Hand Hygiene read in part: Staff will perform hand hygiene when indicated, using proper technique consistent with accepted standards of practice. Hand hygiene is indicated and will be performed under the conditions listed in, but not limited to, the attached hand hygiene table. Review of the attachment titled, Hand Hygiene Table revealed either soap and water or alcohol based hand rub (ABHR is performed) after handing contaminated objects, before applying and after removing personal protective equipment (PPE), including gloves, before and after handling clean or soiled dressings . Review of CDC recommendations titled, Hand Hygiene for Healthcare Providers revealed in part: Wear gloves, according to standard precautions, when it can be reasonably anticipated that contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, potentially contaminated skin or contaminated equipment could occur. Gloves are not a substitute for hand hygiene. If your task requires gloves, perform hand hygiene prior to donning gloves, before touching the patient or the patient environment. Perform hand hygiene immediately after removing gloves .Clinical indications for hand hygiene: After contact with blood, body fluids or contaminated surfaces .immediately after glove removal. Review of Resident #18's record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Quadriplegia, Cauda Equina Syndrome, Muscle Wasting/Atrophy and Neurogenic Bowel. Further review revealed the resident had a stage 2 pressure ulcer to his right great toe. Review of the resident's physician orders dated 1/31/23 revealed: clean re-opened stage 2 pressure ulcer right great toe with normal saline, apply collagen and cover every day until healed. On 02/07/23 at 09:55 a.m., an observation of Resident #18's wound care was conducted with S5MDS/WC. S5MDS/WC entered Resident #18's room with a tray of wound care supplies containing a bandage, plastic cup of a gauze soaked in normal saline, a dry gauze, a trash bag, and loose pairs of clean gloves. She prepared Resident #18 for his wound treatment. S5MDS/WC applied clean gloves then removed the old dressing from the resident's right great toe. The dressing was observed soiled with exudate (fluid that leaks out of blood vessels into nearby tissues. It may come from cuts or form areas of infection or inflammation). After removing the dressing, she removed her gloves, discarded them into the trash bag then applied a pair of clean gloves. She did not perform hand hygiene before putting on the pair of clean gloves. S5MDS/WC cleaned the wound with the saline soaked gauze, discarded her gloves, then applied clean gloves. She failed to perform hand hygiene after removing the gloves and prior to putting on the clean pair. S5MDS/WC blotted the wound with the dry gauze, changed her gloves then applied the clean bandage. S5MDS/WC again did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes. At this time, S5MDS/WC was asked if nurses should perform hand hygiene between glove changes. She replied that nurses do not have to perform hand hygiene between glove changes only between patients. On 02/07/23 at 11:35 a.m., S3DON stated the facility's Infection Preventionist was not at the facility today. On 02/07/23 at 11:41 a.m., an interview was conducted with S3DON who stated that staff were not required to perform hand hygiene between glove changes. She stated that S5MDS/WC did not need to perform hand hygiene after removing her soiled gloves and before applying clean gloves during Resident #18's wound treatment because the nurse was administering treatment to only one wound. She further stated that gloves the nurse wore was sufficient enough in preventing contamination because the gloves were clean. S3DON was asked if gloves should be used as a substitute for hand hygiene. She replied stating that she had been doing this for 30 years and that this is how we have always done it. The facility's policy on hand hygiene was reviewed with S3DON. She insisted that the nurse was not required to perform hand hygiene between glove changes, after removing a soiled dressing, or before applying clean gloves to apply a clean dressing during wound treatments despite the statements written in the facility's policy.
Dec 2022 4 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' environment were as free of acciden...

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 ensure residents' environment were as free of accident hazards by failing to: 1. properly secure wheelchairs in the facility's van for 1 (#3) of 8 (#1-#5, #R1-#R3) sampled residents who utilized wheelchairs during facility transport; and 2. train transportation staff on the correct procedure for utilizing the van's restraint system. This failed practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 08/24/22 at 4:45 p.m. when S4CNADriver placed Resident #3, who utilized a wheelchair, in the facility's transport van with the j-hook of the van strap applied to the wheel instead of the frame of Resident #3's wheelchair. The driver made a turn and the resident flipped backward and hit her head which resulted in 3 lacerations to the back of her head. The resident was sent to the ER (emergency room) for scalp laceration repair that required 7 skin staples. S1ADM was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 11/30/2022 at 2:50 p.m. The IJ was removed on 12/01/22 at 3:15 p.m., when the facility presented an acceptable POR (plan of removal) prior to the survey exit, which by observation, record review, and interview, the survey team verified was in progress. The POR read: Immediate Action To assure resident #3 and all wheelchair bound residents identified (13) with potential to be affected by improperly securing of safety straps; facility has implemented the following to assure residents are as free from accident hazards. As of 12/01/22, S1ADM will update Company Vehicle Policy to include Safe Vehicle, Safe Wheelchairs, Safe Procedures (unloading and loading wheelchairs), Safe Planning(wheelchair placement), and Emergency Safety Procedures to ensure proper application of safety straps are being used in accordance with policy. On 11/30/22, S10Maintenance inspected all safety straps on Eco line Van and Sprint Van for proper functions- Ford Sprint Van is not equipped with shoulder strap and as of this date (11/30/22) will only be utilized for non-wheelchair bound residents. Ford Eco-line Van is fully equipped with functioning safety straps, including shoulder strap. Supervision To ensure resident (#3) and all wheelchair bound residents are secured properly with all straps per manufactures instructions. Training Residents who are wheelchair bound will use the Ford Hi Top van with pelvic and shoulder attachment on transports. On 11/30/22 an immediate in service was held with facility van drivers. The instructor was S3Owner and participants were S6CNADriver, S7MaintDriver, and S5CNATransport. These three employees listed will be the only staff allowed to transport residents; unless a new employee is trained on driving, loading, and securing residents. In service on the Ford Eco Line will include Step 1: Position the wheelchair, Step 2: Attach the front tie downs, Step 3: Attach rear tie downs, Step 4: S-Hook placement on solid part of wheelchair frame, Step 5: Attach the lap belt, Step 6 Attach shoulder belt per manufacture instructions for securing wheelchair bound residents. In service will also include once resident is placed on lift when to lock and unlock wheelchair brakes. Staff will be educated on how to keep one hand on the resident's wheelchair during operation of the lift for Ford Eco-Line. Repeat demonstration was performed immediately by drivers S6CNADriver, S7MaintDriver, and S5CNATransport on 11/30/22. As of today, 12/01/22 the following employees performed repeat demonstration: S12CNA, S13CNA, S14CNA, S11ADON, S15CNA), S16Clerk, S10Maintenance, S2DON, and S1ADM. New hires with potential to drive or assist with loading the van will be trained on proper placement of straps and wheelchair brakes ensuring that the chair is placed correctly and secure per manufactures instructions. Evaluation All day shift CNA's (Certified Nursing Assistants) will start in servicing on 12/01/22 for the Ford Eco Line Van with proper lift and strap use by S3Owner with return demonstration by all dayshift CNA's. For Quality Assurance purposes to ensure staff members are in compliance with application of safety straps (J-Hook), S1ADM will meet with transportation drivers on a weekly basis, review and discuss monitoring/findings, and provide direction, guidance, and recommendation in area of concern three times a week. This will last up to 4 weeks January 4, 2023 or until compliance is met. Quality Assurance S2DON and S11ADON team will monitor drivers and S1ADM weekly of proper operation of safety straps and brake usage of wheelchair residents. Quality Assurance will last up until 4 weeks or until compliance is met. Compliance will be met on January 4, 2023. Findings: Review of the facility's policy, Company Vehicles failed to include procedures for safe transportation of residents and proper use of the van straps and lift. Review of manufacturer's instructions for van straps, Q'Straint Use and Care Manual QRT-360 4-point wheelchair securement system, read in part: J-Hooks must be attached to the WC19 compliant chair securement points or a solid wheelchair frame for all other wheelchairs (no spokes or movable components) at an approximate 45 degree angle with floor .Compliant Shoulder and Pelvic Belt Restraint must go across occupant's shoulder and pelvis (lap), and not be worn twisted or held away from occupant's body by wheelchair components. We recommend using both a pelvic and shoulder belt together and not individually since it will compromise the performance of the system. The QRT-360 4-Point wheelchair securement system should not be operated by anyone who does not have fully comprehension of how the system works or if the system is not working properly. Further review revealed illustrations of the equipment with labeled parts. Review of the entire system with depictions with wheelchair placement revealed straps/J-hooks secured to wheelchair frame (not wheel spokes) with two in front and two in back. A lap and shoulder belt was also illustrated in the completed setup. Resident #3: Review of Resident #3's clinical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Complete Traumatic Amputation at level between left hip and knee, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Generalized Muscle Weakness, and Muscle Spasm. Review of Resident #3's quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 10/04/22 revealed the resident had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Further review revealed the resident used a wheelchair. Review of Resident #3's nursing notes revealed in part: 08/24/22 4:45 p.m., S4CNADriver FaceTime called and advised that while transporting resident, wheelchair overturned with resident in it .[Local ambulance service] called and advised location to transport resident to hospital for assessment .ER doctor via FaceTime informed nurse that resident had a small cut on the back of head. 08/24/22 7:45 p.m., ER nurse reports resident will be returning to facility, laceration to back of head with staples, .9:15 p.m., RFH (returned from hospital) .staples to back of head noted and intact . Review of S4CNADriver's handwritten statement dated 08/25/22 revealed in part: took Resident #3 to the __ in (city name) .After her appointment we loaded up, traveled to (city name). Stopped at the store __ to pick up items for the nursing home. I loaded Resident #3 up in the van, hooked all 4 straps, seat belted her down, shook the chair (as I did each time I loaded her) for securing her. All was well, closed the doors, got in the van and pulled off. I exited the parking lot, took off down the street __ leading to the interstate. I looked in my rear view mirror and shouted (Resident #3's name). She hollered and I said, what happened? How did you do that? I was in my turning lane. I had to get all the way over in order to assist her. Once I was in a safe place I got out the van, got to the back of the van and phoned 911 at 4:39 p.m. I recognized my mistake #1 exiting the parking lot on a slant. #2 hooking the hooks to the wheels instead of the bars under the chair. Review of an attached page read in part: when I opened the back doors to the van, Resident #3 was lying flat on her back at an angle .She had bleeding from the back of her head. Review of Resident #3's hospital records revealed in part: 08/24/22 17:21 (5:21 p.m.) resident presented to the emergency department for evaluation due to fall from her wheelchair. The patient was in an agency van just prior to ED (emergency department) evaluation when the wheelchair fell backward and the patient hit her head on the floor of the van. The patient has a scalp laceration. Laceration repair: occipital linear superficial wounds. Laceration #1- length 3 cm (centimeters), closed with 3 staples. Laceration #2- length 2 cm, closed with 2 staples. Laceration #3- length 2 cm, closed with 2 staples. A total of 7 staples. On 11/29/22 at 10:07 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #3 who was asked to recall the incident. She stated that S4CNADriver took her to her appointment. After the appointment, they stopped to a store. After shopping, S4CNADriver loaded her into the van in her wheelchair and strapped her down. Everything seemed fine so S4CNADriver got into the driver's seat and began driving out the parking lot. When S4CNADriver made a left turn, the back wheels on the left side of the van hit a curb causing the van to jump up. When this happened, she fell backward in her wheelchair hitting her head on the van's floor. She stated that there was a lot of blood from her head. The ambulance transported to the hospital where it took 7 skin staples to repair the laceration to her head. She then parted the hair behind her head and stated she had scars behind her head. Three scars observed in a disrupted pattern to left posterior skull. At this time resident began to cry and stated that since the fall it seemed like everything hurts and she has occasional headaches that she did not experience prior to the fall. On 11/29/22 at 10:32 a.m., a phone interview was conducted with S4CNADriver who stated she was no longer employed at the facility. She was asked to recall the incident involving Resident #3 and explained it in detail as was documented in her witness statement. She stated that she hooked the straps to the residents chair and shook the chair to make sure it was sturdy. She was driving down the road after pulling out the store driveway when she looked in her rear view mirror and saw that the resident was not visible. She yelled out to the resident and the resident began yelling so she pulled over to a safe area on the side of the road, called 911, and video called the nurse at the nursing home. She stated the resident fell backward in her wheelchair and was bleeding from the back of her head. The ambulance took Resident #3 to the hospital. S4CNADriver stated, I made a mistake .I hooked the straps to the wheels, not the cross bar. She stated that the straps of the j hooks should have been placed on the frame of the wheelchair not the wheels. She further stated she had been transporting residents for many years and knew better. On 11/29/22 at 11:59 a.m., an observation was conducted of S5CNATransport and S6CNADriver loading Resident #3 into the facility's gray Ford Sprinter van. S3Owner was present during the observation. Once the resident was lifted into the van, S6CNADriver began securing the J hook straps to Resident #3's wheelchair. S6CNADriver hooked two front straps and two rear straps onto the wheels of the resident's wheel chair. The hooks were observed as the same hooks illustrated in the operator's manual as the J hook. The hooks did not have a secure closing on the ends. S6CNADriver then stepped out to allow closer observations. At this time, S3Owner was standing next to S6CNADriver at the side doors in view of the resident. All 4 straps were observed on the wheelchair wheel. There were no straps observed on the frame of the wheelchair. When asked if these were all the straps required for transport, S6CNADriver stated yes. S6CNADriver then secured the resident's lap belt, a shoulder strap was not applied. S6CNADriver was asked if this was how staff secured the straps, to the wheels of the wheelchair, and she replied yes. She was again asked if any other straps needed to be applied to the frame of the wheelchair, and if these were the only straps required to secure the resident, and she said yes. At this time S3Owner confirmed this was the proper placement of the straps, 4 J hooks applied to the wheel with a strap across the resident's lap. S6CNADriver confirmed she was done securing the resident's wheelchair and that the resident was ready for transport. S6CNADriver and S5CNATransport entered the driver and passenger seats respectively and drove off with the resident. On 11/29/22 at 3:20 p.m., Resident #3 had returned to the facility. An observation was conducted of Resident #3 was still loaded inside the van with straps in place. S1ADM, S5CNADriver, and S6CNADriver were present. The straps of the J hooks were now observed to the frame of the resident's wheelchair. There was no shoulder belt in place, only a lap belt. No shoulder strap attachments were observed in the back of the van where Resident #3 was located. S5CNATransport and S6CNADriver were asked why the straps were placed differently. Resident #3 then replied, to satisfy the state. Both CNAs confirmed straps were placed on wheels this morning as previously observed. They were asked which way was the correct placement, on the wheels or frame? S5CNATransport stated that both methods were correct. S6CNADriver stated she was not sure why, but that staff placed them on the wheels. S6CNADriver confirmed the straps of the J hooks should have been secured to the frame of the resident's wheelchair. Resident #3 stated that staff normally hooked the straps to her wheels and that today on her return trip hooked it to the frame. S5CNATransport and S6CNADriver then stated that Resident #3 preferred that staff strap the hooks on the wheels, so that's what they did, and it was the resident's preference. S1ADM confirmed Resident #3 fell on 8/24/22 because S4CNADriver hooked the straps to the wheel. She confirmed staff did not follow the manufacturer's instructions and that resident was not properly secured during transport. On 11/30/22 8:09 a.m., an interview was conducted with S7MaintDriver who stated that he normally drives the white high top van and does not drive the gray Ford Sprinter van (the one observed on 11/29/22.) He stated he straps the resident across the lap and hooks the straps to the frame of the chair. When asked about a shoulder strap he stated, I think that maybe there is one that goes across the shoulder but he wasn't sure. Interviews conducted with residents who had been transported in the facility's van from August 2022-November 2022 revealed the following: Resident #1 Review of the resident's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed she had a BIMS score of 15, indicating she was cognitively intact. Review of the Transport Logs revealed the resident was transported in the van via wheelchair on 11/02/22 and 11/10/22. During an interview on 11/29/22 at 2:30 p.m., Resident #1 confirmed she had been transported to medical appointments via the facility van in her wheelchair. She stated that whenever they transport her the staff strap the safety belts to the wheels of her wheelchair and then one strap goes across her waist. Resident #2 Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed she had a BIMS score of 12, indicating she was cognitively intact. Review of the Transport Logs revealed the resident was transported in the van via wheelchair on 09/22/22 and 11/21/22. During an interview on 11/29/22 at 3:20 p.m., Resident #2 confirmed she had been transported to medical appointments via the facility van in a wheelchair. She stated that staff hooked straps onto to the wheels of her wheelchair for transport. Resident #5 Review of the resident's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed she had a BIMS score of 14, indicating she was cognitively intact. Review of the Transport Logs revealed the resident was transported in the van via wheelchair on 09/19/22, 10/06/22, and 11/02/22. During an interview on 11/29/22 at 2:30 p.m., Resident #2 confirmed she had been transported to appointments via the facility van in a wheelchair. He stated that whenever they transport him, the staff secure the safety belts to the wheels of his wheelchair with one strap across his waist. Resident #R1 Review of the resident's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed she had a BIMS score of 14, indicating he was cognitively intact. Review of the Transport Logs revealed the resident was transported in the van via wheelchair on 09/27/22. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 11:00 a.m., Resident #R1 confirmed he had been transported in a wheelchair in the facility van. He stated that whenever he is transported, the staff hook the safety belts to the wheels of his wheelchair using 4 straps to the wheels plus a lap belt. Resident #R2 Review of the resident's annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed she had a BIMS score of 14, indicating he was cognitively intact. Review of the Transport Logs revealed the resident was transported in the van via wheelchair on 09/13/22, 09/27/22, and 10/20/22. During an interview on 11/29/22 at 2:30 p.m., Resident #R2 stated he was transported regularly in the facility van in his wheelchair. He stated that whenever staff transport him, the staff strap 4 safety belts to the wheels of his wheelchair and apply a lap belt; no mention of a shoulder strap. Resident #R3 Review of the resident's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed she had a BIMS score of 15, indicating he was cognitively intact. Review of the Transport Logs revealed the resident was transported in the van via wheelchair on 10/08/22. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 10:30 a.m., Resident #R3 confirmed she had been transported to via the facility van in a wheelchair. She stated that staff hooked straps onto to the wheels of her wheelchair for transport. He stated staff hook the straps to the wheels of his wheelchair and apply a lap belt. On 11/29/22 at 2:07 p.m., in an interview with S8CNA, she stated she was trained on the van about 3 weeks ago after Resident #4's fall. S1ADM conducted the training and demonstrated to staff to strap the wheelchair down by attaching each strap to each wheel. She further stated that each CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) at the training had to perform a return demonstration. On 11/30/22 at 9:40 a.m., in an interview with S9CNA, she stated S1ADM trained her 3 weeks ago on van transportation. She stated she was taught to hook the straps front straps on the front of each wheel and the back straps on the back wheels. On 11/30/22 at 10:55 a.m., an interview and record review was conducted with S1ADM. She stated that the facility owned a white high top Ford van and a gray Ford Sprinter van. She stated that shoulder straps were used as needed and if the resident can wear it. She was asked to explain what can meant and under what circumstance a shoulder strap would be used. She stated that it depended on which van the resident rode and was also based on resident's needs/condition. She was informed a shoulder strap was not observed in the gray van used to transport Resident #3, nor was there any shoulder strap attached to the van frame. She stated that a shoulder strap was not required in the gray van, but it was required in the white van. She stated that both vans were equipped with the same QRT-360 strapping system. The QRT-360's manufacturer's instructions were reviewed with S1ADM at this time. She then confirmed that a shoulder strap was required to ensure integrity of the strapping system. She then stated that the gray Sprinter van used to transport Resident #3 on 11/29/22 was borrowed from a sister facility after it was wrecked sometime after Resident #3's incident. She stated that the facility had not inspected the van or the van's strapping system to ensure the van was in proper working order before transporting residents. She further stated that it was her error that she failed to do this. On 11/30/22 at 4:35 p.m., S1ADM observed the gray Ford sprinter van and confirmed the van was not equipped with shoulder straps for wheelchair residents. On 11/30/22 at 5:27 p.m., S3Owner stated that when he purchased the gray Ford Sprinter van it did not come with lift and straps. Another company installed the lift and straps and a shoulder strap was not installed. He further stated that the van never had a shoulder strap. He confirmed that the QRT-360 belt system was installed in the gray van. He reviewed manufacturer's instructions which noted that strap system should have included a shoulder strap. There were no instructions to use the system as a lap strap only although he continued to insist that it could be used without a shoulder belt. He further stated that the manufacturer's instructions provided to surveyors on yesterday were printed off of the internet to provide us with what we requested, and that the facility did not have any manufacturer's instructions onsite. He confirmed he was not aware of the information stated in the instructions because the van did not come with manufacturer's instructions for the straps after install. He confirmed S5CNATransport did not strap the resident according to manufacturer's instructions as observed on 11/29/22.
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, and interview; the facility failed to administer its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and interview; the facility failed to administer its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident by failing to: 1. ensure the safety of Resident #3 during van transport, 2. ensure staff were properly trained and competent to secure wheelchair residents in the van according to manufacturer's instructions for use, and; 3. ensure all transportation staff were retrained on proper wheelchair restraint after Resident #3's incident and develop policies and procedures for safe tranportation to prevent future incidents. This failed practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 08/24/22 at 4:45 p.m. when the facility failed to develop policies and procedures after staff placed Resident #3, who utilized a wheelchair, in the facility's transport van with the j-hook of the van strap applied to the wheel instead of the frame of Resident #3's wheelchair. The driver made a turn and the resident flipped backward and hit her head which resulted in 3 lacerations to the back of her head. The resident was sent to the ER (emergency room) for scalp laceration repair that required 7 skin staples. The facility also failed to retrain all transportation staff on the correct procedure for utilizing the van's restraint system to prevent future incidents. S1ADM was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 11/30/2022 at 2:50 p.m. The IJ was removed on 12/1/2022 at 3:15 p.m., when the facility presented an acceptable POR (plan of removal) prior to the survey exit, which by observation, record review, and interview, the survey team verified was in progress. The POR read: To assure all staff members have an understanding on the vehicle policies and procedures of van operation. As of 12/01/22, S1ADM will update policy to include training of the proper application of safety straps to secure wheelchairs. On 11/30/22 13 residents who are in wheelchairs were identified for potential risk of improper use of brake and safety strap usage on transportation van. On 11/30/22 S10Maintenance checked all straps on the van to ensure they were properly working. Ford Sprinter van will be used for residents that do not require to be transported by wheelchair/lift. Supervision Facility will develop and implement a policy on safe transporting of residents in wheelchairs. Policy will be completed on 12/01/22. S1ADM will randomly monitor transportation drivers S6CNADriver, S7MaintDriver, and S5CNATransport. Day shift CNA's (Certified Nursing Assistants) will also be in serviced on proper application of safety straps to assure residents are free of accident hazards, three times a week for four weeks (January 4, 2023). Administrator will instruct if any deficient practice noted. Training On 12/01/2022 S1ADM will review policies on Safe Transport of Wheelchair Residents with drivers and ensure a copy of the policy will be placed in the van. New hires with potential to drive the van or potential to assist in loading a wheelchair bound resident will be trained on proper placement of straps and wheelchair brakes ensuring that the chair is placed correctly and secured per manufacture instruction. Evaluation On 12/01/2022 for Quality Assurance purposes and to ensure staff members are in compliance with application of safety straps (J-Hook), Administrator will meet with transportation drivers on a weekly basis, review and discuss monitoring/findings, and provide direction, guidance, and recommendation in area of concern. Quality Assurance Coordinator S11ADON and or S2DON will monitor drivers and S1ADM randomly three times a week for four weeks (January 4, 2023). Quality Assurance will instruct if any deficient practice noted. Compliance will be met on January 4, 2023. This deficient practice continued at a potential for more than minimal harm for the 13 wheel-chaired residents who had the potential to be transported in the facility's van. Findings: Cross reference findings at F689 Review of the facility's policy, Company Vehicles failed to include procedures for safe transportation of residents and proper use of the van straps and lift. On 11/30/22 at 9:36 a.m., S1ADM stated that the only policy she had on transportation was the one given on yesterday Company Vehicles. She further stated that the facility did not have any other policies regarding resident transportation or safe resident transport. She stated that staff should transport residents according to their training. On 11/30/22 at 10:41 a.m., an interview and review of in-service records dated 8/25/22 and 11/2/22 was conducted with S1ADM. S1ADM stated that she conducted the in-services where she demonstrated the proper placement of straps to staff. She stated that S5CNATransport, S6CNADriver, and S7MaintDriver were the facility's designated transportation staff, but that any CNA could transport residents. She confirmed that S5CNATransport, S6CNADriver, and S7MaintDriver were not retrained on 8/25/22 after Resident #3's incident. On 11/30/22 at 10:55 a.m., another interview and record review was conducted with S1ADM. She confirmed that Resident #3 fell in the van because S4CNADriver hooked the straps to the wheel not to the frame of the resident's wheelchair as stated in the manufacturer's instructions. S1ADM stated she conducted the QA after Resident #3's fall in which she directly observed staff for proper placement of the straps on the wheelchair for 4 weeks. She reviewed the QA forms and confirmed it stated proper placement of straps on wheel. She stated that it was an error. On 11/30/22 at 5:27 p.m., S3Owner stated that he was responsible for training staff on the proper way to strap residents' wheelchairs in the van. He had the van lift and straps installed after purchasing the gray Ford Sprinter van which did not come with manufacturer's instructions for the straps and lift. He stated that a shoulder strap was not installed and that the van never had a shoulder strap. He confirmed that the QRT-360 belt system was installed in the gray van. He reviewed manufacturer's instructions which noted that strap system should have included a shoulder strap and J hooks should be attached to the frame of the wheelchair. He confirmed he was not aware of the information stated in the instructions regarding the shoulder strap. He further stated that the manufacturer's instructions provided to surveyors on yesterday were printed off of the internet to provide us with what we requested because the facility did not have the manufacturer's instructions onsite. He confirmed S5CNATransport did not strap the resident according to manufacturer's instructions as observed on 11/29/22.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report an incident that resulted in hospitalization after a resident fell from the facility's van lift to the State Survey Agency within 24...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report an incident that resulted in hospitalization after a resident fell from the facility's van lift to the State Survey Agency within 24 hours for 1 (#4) of 2 (#3, #4) residents who had reportable incidents in a final sample of 8 residents (#1-#5, #R1-#R3). Findings: Review of the State Agency document titled, Guidance for Mandated Reporting for Allegations of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Misappropriation of Resident Property and Other Reportable Incidents read in part: II. Additional Incidents requiring report, as determined by the NF (Nursing Facility), to (State Survey Agency) via electronic database, implementation of corrective actions(s), and referrals, as applicable to the appropriate authorities/agencies: D. Falls .falls resulting in residents being sent to the hospital .Falls that result from accidental contact with objects or other persons .If the event involve abuse and does not result in bodily harm or injury, then the NF is to report the allegation/incident no later than 24 hours from the discovery of the event. Review of the facility's policy titled, Reporting failed to address the required time frames for reporting incidents that do not allege abuse or neglect. Review of Resident #4's nursing notes revealed in part, on 11/01/22 at 7:30 a.m., the nurse observed Resident #4 sitting up on ground near the rear of the transport van. Resident #4 was unclear as to what exactly happened during incident. Review of the facility's surveillance camera revealed once the resident (in wheelchair) and staff member were on the van wheelchair lift, wheelchair/resident began to back pushing staff member off the lift. Then, the resident and wheelchair fell off of the left side of the lift while approximately 2 feet off the ground. Injuries: head hit concrete .c/o (complaints of) pain left side of arm. Entry 11/01/22 11:30 a.m. Administrator said that resident is now agreeing to go to hospital. Called __ for transport to __ER (emergency room). Review of Resident #4's facility report to the State Agency revealed the incident was discovered on 11/01/22 at 7:29 a.m. The incident was entered into the State Agency database by S2DON on Friday 11/04/22 at 1:11 pm, three days after the incident was discovered. On 11/30/22 at 1:30 p.m., an interview and review of Resident #4's facility report to the State Agency was conducted with S2DON. S2DON stated that she entered the report to the State Agency on 11/04/22 because S1ADM was having trouble logging into the State Agency's incident reporting system. She confirmed the report was entered on the 3rd day following the incident and explained that she was busy doing the leg work for the investigation into Resident #3's incident while S1ADM was still trying to gain access to the State Agency reporting system. She stated that after some time, S1ADM still had not gotten access, and that is when she entered the report under her name on 11/04/22. She confirmed the incident should have been reported within 24 hours and was not reported timely as required On 11/30/22 at 1:39 p.m., an interview and review of Resident #4's facility report to the State Agency was conducted with S1ADM who confirmed the incident had not been reported to the State Agency within 24 hours as required. S1ADM stated that she had tried to enter Resident #4's incident into the system but had trouble logging into the system. She stated that S2DON also had issues logging in and that the login issue had been reported to the State Agency with a request to gain access. S1ADM was asked to provide written evidence of correspondence with the State Agency. On 11/30/22 at 1:47 p.m., a review of the email correspondence was conducted with S1ADM. The first email notice was dated 11/03/22. S1ADM stated her initial contact was by phone call, but had no evidence to prove that. She further stated that she had no evidence that S1DON had issues logging in nor any evidence that S1DON contacted the State Agency with any issues of her not being able to log into the State Agency reporting system.
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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement appropriate plans of action after a transportation incident occurred and resulted in injury for 1 (#3) out of 8 (#1-#...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement appropriate plans of action after a transportation incident occurred and resulted in injury for 1 (#3) out of 8 (#1-#5, #R1-#R3) sampled residents transported by wheelchair in the transportation van. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 13 residents that are transported in the van in a by wheelchair. Findings: Review of the facility's QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) policy revealed in part the following: .It is the policy of this facility to develop, implement, and maintain an effective, comprehensive, data-driven QAPI program that focuses on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life . Definitions: Adverse Event is an untoward, undesirable and usually unanticipated event that causes death or serious injury, or the risk thereof, including near misses . A review of the facility's incident reports revealed the following: Resident #3: On 08/24/22, a van transportation incident occurred secondary to the resident's wheelchair not being strapped appropriately. The wheelchair fell backwards and causing the resident to land on her head resulting in transfer to the hospital emergency department. The resident was diagnosed with 3 lacerations to the back of her head requiring repair with 7 skin staples. Review of manufacturer's instructions for van straps Q'Straint Use and Care Manual QRT-360 4-point wheelchair securement system read in part: J-Hooks must be attached to the WC19 complaint chair securement points or a solid wheelchair frame for all other wheelchairs (no spokes or movable components) at an approximate 45 degree angle with floor . Further review revealed illustrations of the equipment with labeled parts. Review of the entire system with depictions with wheelchair placement revealed straps/j-hooks secured to wheelchair frame (not wheel spokes) with two hooks in front and two in back. Review of the facility's QA (Quality Assurance) documentation revealed staff were observed for usage of wheelchair lift, wheelchair brakes and van strap three times a week for four weeks on 08/25/22 - 09/22/22. Further review under the column titled Description revealed, proper placement of straps on wheel, which was not correct procedure according to manufacturer's instructions for van straps. Review of facility's QAPI meeting notes dated 09/20/22 failed to reveal evidence that the van transportation incident that occurred on 08/24/22 had been addressed and discussed. On 11/30/22 at 10:55 a.m., another interview and record review was conducted with S1ADM. She confirmed that Resident #3 fell in the van because S4CNADriver hooked the straps to the wheel not to the frame of the resident's wheelchair as stated in the manufacturer's instructions. S1ADM stated she conducted the QA after Resident #3's fall in which she directly observed staff for proper placement of the straps on the wheelchair for 4 weeks. She reviewed the QA forms and confirmed it stated proper placement of straps on wheel. She stated that it was an error. On 12/01/22 3:08 p.m., another interview was conducted with S1ADM who stated that there was no evidence that van safety was discussed in meeting notes that S2DON provided. On 12/01/22 at 3:12 p.m., S2DON confirmed that the van transportation incident was not addressed in the QA meeting held in September 2022.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 39% turnover. Below Louisiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $243,354 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 22 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $243,354 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Louisiana. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (11/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 11/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Tri-Community Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Louisiana, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Tri-Community Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Tri-Community Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 20 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Tri-Community Nursing Center?

TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 108 certified beds and approximately 49 residents (about 45% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PALMETTO, Louisiana.

How Does Tri-Community Nursing Center Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Tri-Community Nursing 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 I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Tri-Community Nursing Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Louisiana. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Tri-Community Nursing Center Stick Around?

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

Was Tri-Community Nursing Center Ever Fined?

TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER has been fined $243,354 across 2 penalty actions. This is 6.9x the Louisiana average of $35,512. 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 Tri-Community Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING 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.