Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement

215 FIRST STREET N E, SPRINGHILL, LA 71075 (318) 588-8871
For profit - Limited Liability company 153 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
36/100
#55 of 264 in LA
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's operations and care quality. Ranked #55 out of 264 in Louisiana, they are in the top half of state facilities, but their county ranking is #1 out of 3, meaning they are the best local option but still have serious issues. The facility's trend is stable, with 5 identified issues in both 2023 and 2025, showing no improvement or worsening. While they have a strong 0% staff turnover rate, indicating staff stability, they have also incurred $141,373 in fines, which is concerning and suggests compliance problems. Specific incidents include a resident with severe cognitive impairment who eloped from the facility due to inadequate supervision, which poses a significant safety risk, and another resident whose care plan failed to include activities despite their expressed preferences, indicating a lack of attention to individual needs. Overall, while there are some strengths, such as staff stability, the facility has critical weaknesses that families should consider carefully.

Trust Score
F
36/100
In Louisiana
#55/264
Top 20%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Holding Steady
5 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
$141,373 in fines. Lower than most Louisiana facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
⚠ Watch
15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 5 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Federal Fines: $141,373

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Jan 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

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 ensure MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessments were completed and transm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessments were completed and transmitted within the specified time frames for 3 (#1, #5, #12) of 26 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure: 1. An annual assessment had been completed for Resident #1. 2. A discharge assessment had been completed for Resident #5. 3. An entry assessment had been transmitted for Resident #12. Findings: 1. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/12/2023 with diagnoses that included, in part, cerebral infarction unspecified, metabolic encephalopathy, acute on chronic combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure, schizophreniform disorder, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the following Accepted MDS assessments, in part: 12/19/2023 Admission/Medicare-5 day MDS 12/12/2023 Entry MDS Further review failed to reveal an annual MDS assessment had been completed and submitted within the specified timeframe. During an interview on 01/15/2025 at 9:01 a.m. S3 MDS Coordinator reviewed Resident #1's MDS assessments and reported the 12/11/2024 MDS assessment was completed and transmitted as a quarterly MDS and should have been completed and transmitted as an annual MDS assessment. 2. Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed an initial admission date of 03/08/2024, and admission (reentry) date of 08/23/2024 and a discharge date of 09/03/2024 with diagnoses that included, in part, cerebrovascular disease, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #5's progress notes revealed a note dated 09/02/2024 at 11:10 a.m.: Resident discharged home. All meds and personal belongings sent with resident. Condition stable. Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed the following Accepted MDS assessments, in part: 8/23/2024 Entry MDS 8/30/2024 admission MDS Further review failed to reveal a discharge MDS assessment had been completed and transmitted. During an interview on 01/15/2025 at 8:59 a.m. S3 MDS Coordinator reviewed the MDS assessments and reported a discharge MDS had not been completed for Resident #5's 09/02/2024 discharge and should have been. 3. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed an initial admit date of 03/20/2022. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed an Entry MDS assessment dated [DATE] was Export Ready. During an interview on 01/15/2025 at 8:51 a.m. S3 MDS Coordinator reported she did not transmit Resident #12's Entry MDS assessment dated [DATE] and should have. FACILITY
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident received proper treatment to maintain and/or improve hearing for 1 (#12) of 1 (#12) residents reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident received proper treatment to maintain and/or improve hearing for 1 (#12) of 1 (#12) residents reviewed for communication and sensory problems. Findings: Review of Resident #12's record revealed an inital admit date of 03/30/2022 and diagnoses including: unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility; unspecified glaucoma; and impacted cerumen (earwax), unspecified ear. Review of Resident #12's physician order dated 11/04/2024 revealed an order for a referral by the ENT (Ear, Nose, and Throat doctor) for an audiogram (a hearing test). Review of Resident #12's care plan failed to reveal a care plan for hearing impairment. Review of Resident #12's medical record failed to reveal an appointment was scheduled for an audiogram. During an interview on 01/13/2025 at 02:12 p.m. Resident #12 reported she had increased hearing loss. Resident #12 further reported she was supposed to see a doctor about her hearing loss, but did not believe an appointment was ever made. Resident #12 reported in Novembere of 2024 the ENT doctor told her she may have nerve damage in her ear. Resident #12 was waiting on an appointment because her hearing just keeps getting worse. An observation on 01/13/2025 at 2:12 p.m. revealed the surveyor had to speak loudly during the interview with Resident #12. During an interview on 01/15/2025 at 2:41 p.m. S2 DON (Director of Nursing) reported Resident #12 did not have a care plan for hearing impairment. During an interview on 01/15/2025 at 9:43 a.m. S13 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) reviewed Resident #12's medical record and reported Resident #12 had an appointment with an ENT doctor for ear wax removal on 10/14/2024 and further reported there was a referral for Resident #12 to have an audiogram. S13 LPN reported S14 Transportation CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) was responsible for appointments. During an interview on 01/15/2025 at 12:20 p.m. S14 Transportation CNA reported she was responsible for follow-ups with referrals and transporting residents to their appointments. S14 Transportation CNA reported Resident #12 was transported to the local ENT doctor on 11/04/2024 and the ENT doctor referred Resident #12 to see an Audiologist. S14 Transportation CNA reported she failed to follow up with the referral and did not have a method to keep up with who had completed referrals.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's environment remained free of accident hazards. The facility failed to ensure a resident's TV (televisio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's environment remained free of accident hazards. The facility failed to ensure a resident's TV (television) was positioned in a secure manner for 1 (#12) of 4 (#4, #12, #23, #25) residents reviewed for accidents. Findings: Review of Resident #12's record revealed an admit date of 03/30/2022 and diagnoses including: Unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility, muscle weakness, unspecified glaucoma, repeated falls and lack of coordination. Review of Resident #12's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 12/24/2024 revealed the resident had severe impaired vision. An observation on 01/13/2025 at 1:56 p.m. revealed Resident #12's TV was positioned in a manner of which not all 4 legs were positioned on the nightstand. An observation on 01/15/2025 at 10:55 a.m. with S6 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) revealed Resident #12's TV was positioned on the nightstand with one of the 4 legs hanging off of the nightstand and another leg only halfway on the nightstand. During an interview on 01/15/2025 at 10:55 a.m. S6 CNA examined how Resident #12's TV was positioned on the nightstand and acknowledged the TV was not positioned in a secure manner and was unstable. S6CNA confirmed Resident #12 was visually impaired and could easily bump into the TV knocking it over. During an observation on 01/15/2025 at 1:40 p.m. Resident #12's TV remained positioned in an unstable manner, with one leg off and another leg halfway off of the nightstand. During an interview on 01/15/2025 at 1:40 p.m. S2 DON (Director of Nursing) and S7Maintenance Supervisor acknowledged the TV was unstable on the nightstand.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan was developed for 1 (#50) of 26 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure an activit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan was developed for 1 (#50) of 26 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure an activities care plan had been developed with interventions for Resident #50. Findings: Review of Resident #50's medical record revealed an initial admission date of 09/02/2024 with diagnoses that included, in part, anxiety disorder, essential (primary) hypertension, and depression. Review of Resident #50's 12/02/2024 Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) revealed Resident #50 had a BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score of 15, which indicated Resident #50 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #50's 09/09/2024 admission MDS, Section F-Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities revealed, in part: -It was very important to listen to music Resident #50 likes. -It was somewhat important for Resident #50 to have books, newspapers, and magazines to read. -It was somewhat important for Resident #50 to go outside and get fresh air when the weather is good. Review of Resident #50's care plan failed to reveal and activities care plan with interventions had been developed. During an interview on 01/15/2024 at 11:42 a.m. S3 MDS Coordinator reviewed Resident #50's care plan and comfirmed Resident #50 did not have a care plan for activities and should have.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure correct use and maintenance of bed rails for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure correct use and maintenance of bed rails for 7 (#1, #4, #24, #25, #42, #48, #49) of 7 (#1, #4, #24, #25, #42, #48, #49) residents reviewed for the use of bed rails. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Residents #1, #4, #24, #25, #42, #48, and #49 were assessed for the risk of entrapment prior to the use of bed rails, less restrictive approaches were attempted prior to the use of bed rails, ongoing assessments for the risk of entrapment were conducted after bed rail installation, and residents were care planned with specific interventions for the use of bed rails, and; 2. Bed rails were securely attached to the bed for resident # 4, and #25. Findings: Review of the facility's Bed Rails policy (undated) revealed in part: Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will use appropriate alternatives prior to installing a side or bed rail. 2. If a bed or side rail is used, the facility must ensure correct installation, use, and maintenance of bed rails, including, but not limited to the following elements: a. Assess the resident for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation f. Regularly inspect bed rails to ensure they have not become stiff or loosened over time. 3. If after a facility has attempted alternatives to bed rails and determined that these alternatives do not meet the resident's needs, the facility will assess the resident for the risks of entrapment and possible benefits of bed rails. In determining whether to use bed rails to meet the needs of a resident, the following components of the resident assessment should be considered including, but no limited to: medical diagnosis, conditions, symptoms, and/or behavioral symptoms, size and weight, sleep habits, medications, acute medical or surgical interventions, underlying medical conditions, existence of delirium, ability to toilet self safely, cognition, communication, mobility (in and out of bed), risk of falling 4. In addition, the resident assessment must include an evaluation of the alternatives to the use of a bed rail that were attempted and how these alternatives failed to meet the resident's assessed needs. Possible alternatives include, but are not limited to foam bolsters, low bed, concave mattress. 6. The facility will conduct routine preventive maintenance of beds and bed rails according to manufacturer's recommendations and specifications to ensure they meet current safety standards and are not in need of repair. 7. The facility will conduct ongoing assessments to evaluate risks and assure the bed rail is used to meet the resident's needs. 8. The facility will document in the resident's care plan specific interventions and services for the use of the bed rail. 1. Resident #1 Review of Resident #1's record revealed an initial admission date of 12/12/2023 with diagnoses that included, in part: metabolic encephalopathy, unsteadiness on feet, other idiopathic peripheral autonomic schizophreniform disorder, unspecified bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, other seizures, generalized muscle weakness, unspecified altered mental status, cognitive communication deficit, and depression unspecified. Review of Resident #1's current physician orders revealed an order dated 11/22/2024 - may use AR (assist rail) x 1 to aid in bed mobility & define boundaries. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment with ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 12/01/2024 revealed Resident #1 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15, indicating Resident #1 was cognitively intact. Further review of 12/01/2024 MDS revealed Resident #1 had an impairment to one side of upper and lower extremities in regard to ROM (Range of Motion). Review of Resident #1's State Optional MDS assessment with ARD of 11/06/2024 revealed Resident #1 required extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers. Review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed no specific interventions or services for the use of the bed rails per facility policy. Review of Resident #1's record failed to reveal any assessments for risk for entrapment. Review of Resident #1's Physical Restraint/Device Consent form indicated consent obtained from Resident #1's mother and brother on 10/26/2024, and revealed the section titled Less restrictive approaches tried and proven ineffective was left blank. Observation on 01/13/2025 at 11:18 a.m. revealed Resident #1 was positioned with the left side of his bed against wall (while lying on back in bed) and 1/4 bedrail up to Resident #1's right side of upper bed. Observation on 01/14/2025 at 1:07 p.m. revealed Resident #1 was asleep in bed with HOB (Head of Bed) up and 1/4 bed rail up x 1 to resident's right side of upper bed. Resident #4 Review of Resident #4's record revealed an admission date of 01/16/2017 with diagnoses that included, in part: unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility, cognitive communication deficit, other symbolic dysfunctions, abnormal posture, generalized muscle weakness, lack of coordination, repeated falls, unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of Resident #4's current physician orders revealed an order dated 01/21/2024 - may use 1/2 SR x 2 (Side Rails times 2) to aid in bed mobility and define bed boundaries. Review of Resident #4's MDS assessments with ARD of 12/09/2024 (State Optional and Quarterly) revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 5, indicating a severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the resident required limited assistance with one person physical assist for bed mobility and transfers. Review of Resident #4's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed no specific interventions or services for the use of the bed rails per facility policy. Review of Resident #4's record failed to reveal any assessments for risk for entrapment. Review of Resident #4's Physical Restraint/Device Consent form signed by the resident's responsible party 10/23/2024 revealed the section titled Less restrictive approaches tried and proven ineffective was left blank. Resident #24 Review of Resident # 24's record revealed an admission date of 02/07/2024 with diagnoses that included, in part: muscle weakness, metabolic encephalopathy, and sequelae of cerebral infarction. Review of Resident # 24's current Physician Orders revealed an order dated 11/22/2024 - may use ½ side rail to aid in bed mobility and define bed boundaries. Review of Resident #24's Quarterly MDS revealed a BIMS was not done due to Resident #24 is rarely/never understood. Further review revealed Resident #24 required extensive assistance with one person physical assistance. Review of Resident #24's comprehensive care plan revealed no specific focus/interventions or services for the use of bed rails per facility policy. Review of Resident #24's record failed to reveal any assessments for risk for entrapment. Review of Resident # 24's Physical Restraint/Device Consent for ½ side rails times 2 signed by Resident #24's family member on 11/23/2024 revealed the section titled less restrictive approaches tried and proven effective was blank. Observation on 1/13/2025 at 1:31 P.M. revealed Resident #24 sitting in day area in a wheel chair. Observation of Resident #24's room on 1/13/2025 at 1:31 p.m. revealed Resident #24 had ½ side rails in raised position on each side of the bed. During an interview on 1/13/2025 at 10:00 p.m S15 CNA confirmed side rails were used when Resident # 24 was in bed. Resident #25 Review of Resident #25's record revealed an admission date of 10/14/2024 and diagnoses that included, in part: anxiety disorder, unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition, generalized muscle weakness, unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of Resident #25's current physician orders revealed an order dated 11/21/2024 - May use 1/2 SR x 2 to aid in bed mobility and define bed boundaries. Review of Resident #25's MDS assessments with ARD of 10/21/2024 (admission) revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 4, indicating a severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the resident required extensive assistance with 2 plus persons physical assist for bed mobility and transfers. Review of Resident #25's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed no specific interventions or services for the use of the bed rails per facility policy. Review of Resident #24's record failed to reveal any assessments for risk for entrapment. Review of Resident #25's Physical Restraint/Device Consent form signed by the resident's responsible party 10/23/2024 revealed the section titled Less restrictive approaches tried and proven ineffective was left blank. Resident #42 Review of Resident #42's record revealed an initial admission date of 01/09/2024 with diagnoses that included, in part: vascular dementia unspecified severity with agitation, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS], unspecified anxiety disorder, unspecified depression, essential (primary) hypertension, and generalized muscle weakness. Review of Resident #42's current physician orders revealed an order dated 11/21/2024 - may use ½ SR X1 to aid in bed mobility and define bed boundaries. Review of Resident #42's MDS assessments with ARD of 11/06/2024 (State Optional and Quarterly) revealed Resident #42's BIMS was not conducted as Resident #42 rarely /never understood. Further review revealed Resident #42 required extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers. Review of Resident #42's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed no specific interventions or services for the use of the bed rails per facility policy. Review of Resident #42's record failed to reveal any assessments for risk for entrapment. Review of Resident #42's Physical Restraint/Device Consent form indicated consent obtained from Resident #42's son on 10/26/2024, and revealed the section titled Less restrictive approaches tried and proven ineffective was left blank. Observation on 01/13/2025 at 11:18 a.m. revealed Resident #42 was in bed with HOB slightly elevated and bed against wall on Resident #42's left side, and upper 1/4 bed rail up on Resident #42's right side. Resident #48 Review of Resident #48's record revealed an initial admission date of 08/03/2024 with diagnoses that included, in part: malignant neoplasm of retroperitoneum, lumbago with sciatica unspecified side, other osteoporosis without current pathological fracture, other idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy, and unspecified depression. Review of Resident #48's physician orders revealed an order dated 01/14/2025 - may use ½ SR X2 to aid in bed mobility and define bed parameters. Review of Resident #48's MDS assessments with ARD of 10/30/2024 (State Optional and Significant Change) revealed Resident #48 had a BIMS score of 09, which indicated a moderate cognitive impairment. Further review of MDS revealed Resident #48 had an impairment to one side of upper and lower extremities in regard to ROM and required extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers. Review of Resident #48's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed no specific interventions or services for the use of the bed rails per facility policy. Review of Resident #48's record failed to reveal any assessments for risk for entrapment. Review of Resident #48's Physical Restraint/Device Consent form indicated consent obtained from Resident #48's daughter on 11/05/2024, and revealed the section titled Less restrictive approaches tried and proven ineffective was left blank. Observation on 01/13/2025 at 11:21 a.m. revealed Resident #48 lying on back in bed with HOB elevated and 1/4 bed rails up on each side of upper bed. Observation on 01/14/2024 at 1:14 p.m. revealed Resident #48 lying in bed on back with 1/4 bed rails up on each side of upper bed. Resident #49 Review of Resident # 49's record revealed an admission date of 8/16/2024 and diagnoses that included, in part: unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. Review of Resident #49's current Physician Orders revealed an order dated 12/31/2024 - may have ½ side rails to aid in bed mobility and define bed parameters every shift. Review of Resident #49's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS of 6 which indicated a severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the resident required limited assistance with one person physical assist for bed mobility. Review of Resident #49's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed no specific interventions or services for the use of the bed rails per facility policy. Review of Resident #49's record failed to reveal any assessments for risk for entrapment. Review of Resident # 49's Physical Restraint/Device Consent for 1/2 side rails x 2 signed by the resident's family member on 10/24/2024 revealed the section titled less restrictive approaches tried and proven effective was blank. Observation on 1/13/2025 at 3:20 p.m. revealed Resident #49 sitting in day area in a wheel chair. Observation on 1/13/2025 at 3:20 p.m. revealed Resident #49 had ½ side rails in raised position on each side of the bed. During an interview on 01/15/2025 at 1:48 p.m., S2 DON (Director of Nursing) reported there were no documented initial or ongoing resident assessments for the risk of entrapment or less restrictive approaches attempted prior to the use of bed rails for Residents #1, #4, #24, #25, #42, #48, and #49 and there should be. S2 DON further confirmed the residents were not care planned with specific interventions for the use of bed rails and should have been. 2. Resident #4 Observation on 01/13/25 at 9:50 a.m. Resident #4 in room seated in her wheelchair. Resident #4's bed was positioned with the left side up against the wall, and 1/2 metal bed rail to right side of bed in raised position-fits bed, but not firmly attached-moves freely back and forth parallel to bed. Observation on 01/14/2025 at 2:18 p.m. revealed Resident #4 lying in bed with eyes closed, 1/2 metal bed rail to right side of bed in lowered position, but still loose. Observation on 01/14/2025 at 9:30 a.m. revealed Resident #4 up in wheelchair. The 1/2 metal bed rail to right side of bed was in the lowered position, but still loose. During an interview on 01/14/2025 at 9:50 a.m. S10 CNA reported she was familiar with Resident #4. S10 CNA reported Resident #4 used the bed rail on her bed for positioning and mobility when she was in bed, and they were lowered when she got out of bed. S10 CNA observed the right rail on Resident #4's bed and confirmed it was loose and needed to be tightened. S10 CNA tried to turn the knob that adjusts the rail and said it was as tight as it would go. Resident #25 Observation on 01/13/2025 at 10:00 a.m. Resident #25 lying in bed. Further observation revealed bilateral 1/2 metal bed rails affixed to the upper half of Resident #25's bed in the raised position. The rails were not firmly attached and moved freely back and forth. During an interview on 01/13/2025 at 10:00 a.m., Resident #25 reported she used the rails to assist with positioning when staff turn her. Observation on 01/14/2025 at 10:50 a.m. revealed S8 CNA performing incontinence and catheter care for Resident #25 assisted by S9 CNA. Resident #25 was observed to be use bilateral bed rails to assist with positioning during the incontinence care. Both bed rails were observed to be loose and freely moveable back and forth and side to side. During an interview on 01/14/2025 at 10:51 a.m. S9 CNA confirmed the right bed rail attached to the upper half of Resident #25's bed moved freely back and forth and side to side, and needed to be tightened. During an interview on 01/14/2025 at 10:52 a.m. S8 CNA confirmed the left bed rail attached to the upper half of Resident #25's bed moved freely back and forth and side to side, and needed to be tightened. Observation on 01/15/2025 at 9:00 a.m., revealed bilateral 1/2 metal bed rails affixed to Resident #25's bed in the raised position. Both bed rails were observed to be loose and freely moveable back and forth and side to side. During an interview on 01/15/2025 at 3:20 p.m., S7 Maintenance viewed Resident #4 and #25's bed rails with the surveyor and confirmed they were loose and needed to be tightened.
Dec 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure documentation of resident rights regarding Advance Directi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure documentation of resident rights regarding Advance Directives for 7 (#3, #8, #23, #24, #27, #45, #301) of 11 (#3, #8, #14, #20, #23, #24, #27, #40, #41, #45, #301) residents reviewed for Advanced directives by failing to: 1) Ensure each residents or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives and/or the option to formulate an advance directive. for Resident #3, #8, #23, #24, #27, and #301. 2) Ensure a copy of the resident's Advance Directives was in the medical record and accessible to all staff for Resident #45. Findings: 1) Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #3's medical record failed to reveal resident or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives and/or the option to formulate an advance directive. Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #8's medical record failed to reveal resident or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives and/or the option to formulate an advance directive. Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #23's medical record failed to reveal resident or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives and/or the option to formulate an advance directive. Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #24's medical record failed to reveal resident or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives and/or the option to formulate an advance directive. Review of Resident #27's medical record revealed Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #27's medical record failed to reveal resident or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives and/or the option to formulate an advance directive. Review of Resident #301's medical record revealed Resident #301 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #301's medical record failed to reveal resident or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives and/or the option to formulate an advance directive. During an interview on 12/05/2023 at 12:23 p.m. S4 Social Services Director confirmed Resident #3, #8, #23, #24, #27, #45, and #301's medical record did not contain documentation that resident or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives and/or the option to formulate an advance directive. During an interview on 12/05/2023 at 2:50 p.m. S3 Business Office Manager/Human Resources/Minimum Data Set Nurse confirmed Resident 3, #8, #23, #24, #27, #45, and #301's medical record did not contain documentation that resident or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives and/or the option to formulate an advance directive. 2) Review of Resident #45's medical record revealed Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #45's Advance Directives/Medical Treatment Decisions Acknowledgement of Receipt form signed by the resident's representative on 04/27/2023 revealed the box indicating Resident #45 had a Living Will was checked. Further review of Resident #45's medical record failed to reveal a copy of Resident #45's living will. During an interview on 12/05/2023 at 2:49 p.m. S3 Business Office Manager/Human Resources/Minimum Data Set Nurse in the presence of S1 Administrator confirmed Resident #45's Advance Directive form indicated he had a living will. S3 Business Office Manager/Human Resources/Minimum Data Set Nurse further confirmed the facility should have a copy of Resident #45's living will and did not.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was completed within 48 hours of admission for 1 (#301) of 15 (#3, #8, #10, #14, #20, #23, #24, #27, #29, #40, #...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was completed within 48 hours of admission for 1 (#301) of 15 (#3, #8, #10, #14, #20, #23, #24, #27, #29, #40, #41, #45, #49, #50, #301) residents reviewed for care plans Findings: Review of record revealed Resident #301 had an admission date of 11/28/2023. Further review of Resident #301's clinical record failed to reveal a baseline care plan had been completed within 48 hours of admission date. During an interview on 12/05/2023 at 2:00 p.m. S3 Business Office Manager/Human Resources/Minimum Data Sets reported a baseline care plan for resident #301 had not been completed and should have been completed within 48 hours of admission date.
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observation, and interview the provider failed to ensure an oxygen concentrator filter was placed appropriately in the intake port of the concentrator for 1 (Resident #29) of 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview the provider failed to ensure an oxygen concentrator filter was placed appropriately in the intake port of the concentrator for 1 (Resident #29) of 1 (Resident #29) residents reviewed for respiratory care. Record review of Resident # 29's physician orders for December 2023 revealed the following, in part: Oxygen at two liters per minute per nasal cannula at night time. (09/18/2023) Change the oxygen cannula, sterile water, and tubing every seven days and as needed. Wash filters from oxygen concentrators every seven days with soap and water. Rinse and squeeze dry. (09/18/2023) Record review of Resident # 29's comprehensive care plans revealed the following, in part: Description- I have history of shortness of breath. I get oxygen saturations checked each shift. Interventions- Administer oxygen per physician order; assess lung sounds as needed; monitor oxygen saturations per facility policy, position upright when possible . Record review of Resident # 29's MDS (minimum data set) revealed the following, in part: Section C showed a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 13 which would indicate the rsident is cognitively intact. Section O showed the resident was receiving oxygen therapy. Record review of Resident # 29's MAR (medication administration record) for November and December 2023 revealed the following, in part: Oxygen at 2 liters per minute (LPM) per nasal cannula at hour of sleep was marked completed every day from November 1st through December 4th of 2023. Observation on 12/05/2023 at 8:39 a.m. revealed Resident # 29 lying in bed with eyes open. Nasal cannula was placed to nostrils, oxygen was flowing at 2LPM with humidifier. Oxygen concentrator did not have a filter placed on the intake port of the concentrator and brown dusty substance was noted all around the intake port. Observation on 12/05/2023 at 2:55 p.m. revealed Resident # 29 lying in bed with eyes open. Nasal cannula was placed to nostrils, oxygen was flowing at 2LPM with humidifier. Oxygen concentrator did not have a filter placed on the intake port of the concentrator and brown dusty substance was noted all around the intake port. During an interview on 12/05/2023 at 3:15 p.m., S5LPN (licensed practical nurse) verified Resident # 29's oxygen concentrator did not have a filter in place and also verified a generous amount of brown dusty substance was in the intake port of the concentrator. During an interview on 12/05/2023 at 3:20 p.m., S2DON (director of nursing) verified Resident # 29's oxygen concentrator did not have a filter in place and brown dusty substance was in the intake port of the concentrator. S2DON verified the filter should have been in the concentrator.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview the provider failed to ensure a resident received appropriate monitoring when receiving antidepressant medications for 1 (Resident #20) of 5 (Residents #3, #20, #2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the provider failed to ensure a resident received appropriate monitoring when receiving antidepressant medications for 1 (Resident #20) of 5 (Residents #3, #20, #24, #29, #301) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, psychotrpic medications, and medication regimen review. Record review of Resident #20's diagnosis revealed the following, in part: Heart failure Constipation Depressive episodes Record review of Resident #20's physician orders for December 2023 revealed the following, in part: Duloxetine 30mg (milligrams) by mouth every morning with start date of 10/01/2023. Fluoxetine 40mg by mouth every morning with start date of 10/01/2023. Record review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plans revealed the following, in part: Descripton- Antidepressant medication use: At risk for side effects. I have diagnosis of depression. Interventions- monitor patterns of target behaviors, assess for adverse side effects and report, monitor of signs of extrapyramidal symptoms and document . Record review of Resident #20's MDS (minimum data set) dated 10/06/2023 revealed the following, in part: Section C showed a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) of 6 indicating the resident is moderately impaired. Section I showed the resident had a diagnosis of depression. Record review of Resident #20's medication administration record for November and December 2023 revealed the following, in part: Duloxetine 30mg by mouth and Fluoxetine 40mg by mouth were given every day from November 1st through December 4th. Monitoring for an antidepressant was not completed from November 1st through December 4th of 2023. During an interview on 12/06/2023 at 10:05 a.m., S2DON verified monitoring of antidepressant medications were not completed for Resident # 20 from November 1st through December 4th of 2023 and monitoring should have been completed.
Sept 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from verbal abuse by staf...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from verbal abuse by staff. The facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse by staff for 1 (#1) of 6 (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6) sampled residents. The facility implemented corrective actions which were completed prior to the State Agency's investigation, thus it was determined to be Past Noncompliance. Findings: Review of the facility's Abuse Prevention Program (revised December 2016) revealed in part: our residents have the right to be free from abuse .this includes but is not limited to verbal abuse .as part of the resident abuse prevention, the administration will protect our residents from abuse by anyone including, but not necessarily limited to facility staff . Review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident Report initiated 8/13/2023 revealed in part: Victim: Resident #1 Accused: S4, Cook Allegation: Verbal Abuse-substantiated Employee S4 [NAME] was suspended immediately pending investigation. After facility investigation substantiated the allegation of verbal abuse, the employee was terminated. Review of Resident #1's clinical record revealed an admit date of 02/19/2020 and diagnoses including but not limited to Generalized muscle weakness, Anxiety disorder, Affective mood disorder, and Major depressive disorder. Review of Resident #1's quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment with and Assessment Reference Date of 07/24/2023 revealed the resident had a BIMS score (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 15 out of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of witness statement provided by Resident #1 on 08/13/2023 revealed in part: Resident #1 was in the dining room. The menu for supper wasn't on the menu board, so the resident rolled up to kitchen door and asked dietary employee S4 [NAME] what was for supper and for a glass of juice. Resident #1 voiced that lady S4 [NAME] told me to get the s**t away from the door and don't come back up here and to carry you're a**. Review of signed witness statement by S5 SLP (Speech Language Pathologist) dated 08/13/2023 revealed in part: S4 [NAME] was cussing and telling Resident #1 to carry her a** when she asked for cranberry juice. S5 SLP then overheard S4 [NAME] say F**k this S**t. I need a new job. S4 [NAME] also cussing in kitchen saying B***h and slamming kitchen door. This behavior is inappropriate towards other residents as well as other employees. Review of signed witness statement by S6 DM (Dietary Manager) dated 08/13/2023 revealed in part: I received call about a resident abuse incident. When I got there I spoke with my staff member and she denied the allegation. I asked her to write a statement to tell her side of the story and she refused to write the statement before she left the premises. Review of ___ Police Department Offense Report revealed in part: On Thursday 17 August I, S7 Police officer, was dispatched at 10:30 hours to the ___ Nursing Home .When I arrived at 10:32 I meet with S3 DON (Director of Nursing) who said she had an issue with one of her staff S4 [NAME] that had on Sunday 13 August 2023 verbally abused Resident #1 . I interviewed S5 SLP a staff member and witness to the incident who said the same thing, S4 [NAME] verbally abused Resident #1 by refusing to give her a juice and harshly speaking to her when she told her to get away from the door and not come back. I interviewed Resident #1 who said she was in the dining room and she went to the kitchen door to ask what was for dinner and for a glass of juice. She said that lady S4 [NAME] told me to get the s**t away from the door and don't come back up here and to carry you're a**. Repeated attempts were made to contact S4 [NAME] that were unsuccessful. I was unable to interview her for her side of the incident. During an interview on 09/18/2023 at 3:10 p.m. S3 DON confirmed S4 [NAME] was sent home on [DATE] by S6 DM pending investigation, and had refused to provide a written statement. S3 DON further confirmed S4 [NAME] was terminated after the facility investigation substantiated verbal abuse. During an interview on 09/19/2023 at 8:49 a.m. S6 DM indicated she received a phone on Sunday 08/13/2023 informing her of an allegation of verbal abuse by S4 [NAME] against Resident #1. S6 DM indicated she came to the facility and informed the worker she would have to leave the premises pending investigation of the allegation. S6 DM further stated S4 cook refused to provide a written statement. S6 DM reported S3 SLP had been in the kitchen the whole time, reported that she had witnessed the event, and so S4 [NAME] was terminated for verbal abuse. During an interview on 09/19/2023 at 9:02 a.m. Resident #1 indicated the day S4 [NAME] cussed her, she had just gone to the kitchen door and asked S4 [NAME] for some cranberry juice and asked what was for supper, when she told me to get the s**t away from the door and don't come back. Then she told me to carry my a**. During an interview on 09/19/2023 at 9:30 a.m. S1 Administrator confirmed S4 [NAME] had been terminated after allegations of verbal abuse were substantiated. A telephone interview was attempted with S4 [NAME] on 09/19/2023 at 11:55 a.m. The following message was received: the number you dialed has been changed, disconnected, or is no longer in service. During an interview on 09/20/2023 at 9:05 a.m. S2 Administrator (a second administrator) confirmed S4 [NAME] had been terminated after the facility's investigation confirmed verbal abuse had occurred. During a telephone on 09/20/2023 at 12:16 p.m. S5 SLP indicated she was in the dining room feeding another resident on 08/13/2023 when Resident #1 went to the door and asked S4 [NAME] for a cup of juice and what was for supper, and S4 [NAME] told her to carry her a** away from the door and not come back, so Resident #1 walked away and out of the dining room. S4 [NAME] came out of the kitchen into the dining room performing other duties then went back in the kitchen and slammed the door saying b***h, f**k this s**t, I need another job. Throughout the survey from 09/18/2023 to 09/20/2023, staff interviews and observations revealed staff received training on the facility's abuse policies and procedures, were knowledgeable of the types of abuse, and were aware abuse should be reported to administration immediately. Staff were observed interacting with residents and providing care in a calm, supportive, and respectful manner. The facility has implemented the following actions to correct the deficient practice: 1. S4 [NAME] was immediately removed from resident area and suspended pending investigation. Report to state agency was opened and investigation started. Law enforcement was notified. 2. All residents had the potential to be affected. Residents were interviewed and no other residents were affected. 3. Education on Abuse was provided by S3 DON and Designee to all staff members. Education began on 08/16/2023 and was completed on 08/30/2023. Ambassador rounds 5 days a week by Department Heads for resident interviews for grievances, concerns, or abuse allegations. Rounds are ongoing. 4. Audits/Findings presented to QA (Quality Assurance) for review and discussion of findings on 09/07/2023 and will follow up at each QA meeting. Revisions to plan will be implemented as needed. 5. Date of completion 09/15/2023.
Dec 2022 5 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #3) of 20 (#3, #5, #37, #41, #11...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #3) of 20 (#3, #5, #37, #41, #11, #9, #152, #39, #10, #14, #102, #44, #19, #42, #29, #34, #21, #1, #46, #12) residents reviewed for impaired cognition and/or a diagnosis that may increase their risk of elopement was adequately supervised to prevent elopement from the facility. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #3 on 08/21/2022 at 2:48 a.m. when Resident #3 exited from the facility unsupervised and was found across the street from the facility in front of the police station. Resident #3 had a diagnosis of Schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease and has severe cognitive impairment with a history of confusion and escalating psychotic behaviors. The facility failed to assess Resident #3 as an elopement risk and did not adequately supervise Resident #3 to prevent elopement from the facility. Resident #3 was placed on every 15 minute checks after he eloped on 08/21/2022. Resident #3 eloped again on 08/25/2022, 08/26/2022 and 09/02/2022. The facility received a phone call from a concerned citizen on 09/02/2022 notifying them a resident in a wheelchair was in the middle of the highway a couple of blocks from the facility. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assess Resident #3 as an elopement risk after he eloped on 08/21/2022, 08/25/2022, 08/26/2022 and 09/02/2022. The facility's lack of adequate supervision put Resident #3 at risk for the likelihood of serious injury, harm or death. S1 Administrator, S3 Corporate Risk Management, and S4 DON (Director of Nurses) were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 12/07/2022 at 7:51 p.m. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 12/08/2022 at 3:52 p.m. when the facility Plan of Removal was approved. Through record reviews, interviews and observations, the surveyor confirmed the following components of the Plan of Removal have been initiated and/or implemented prior to exit: 1. On 9/02/22 Resident #3 was placed on the secured unit, where he remains. Facility placed employees in visual proximity to the available exits 24/7 on 12/08/2022 at 1:30 p.m. to monitor residents leaving the facility until door alarms are installed. All employees will monitor residents that are not on the locked unit for any new signs of elopement risk factors or increased confusion and will notify the administrator or DON immediately if any new risks are identified until completion of plan of correction. Employees were educated on appropriate screening for elopement risk. 2. All residents not residing on the secure unit were assessed for elopement risk and evaluated for their BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score by licensed staff 12/05/2022. Results of audit were completed to ensure that all residents at risk for elopement had adequate supervision and were free from accident hazards by placing them on the secured unit. 3. Risk manager/designee will audit preadmission screening forms daily to ensure appropriate placement prior to anyone admitting to the facility. Risk Manager/designee will audit all new admissions daily to ensure they are interviewed using the BIMS and assessed for elopement risk on day 1 and are placed on secure unit if they are identified as an elopement risk. Elopement Risk Assessment and BIMS score will continue to be completed quarterly, annually, and with any status change to identify any residents who are at risk for elopement. 4. All staff will be educated by regional Risk manager/designee on: Wandering and Elopement Policy and how to identify residents at risk for elopement, BIMS Score Interview tool and Elopement risk assessment, communication to administrator and DON if a resident displays new signs of elopement risk factors. 5. Regional risk manager/designee will document that employees, including new hires, receive above education prior to working with residents. Regional risk manager/designee will conduct staff competency interviews on above topics and document completion. Chief Nursing Officer will audit elopement risk assessments, BIMS and preadmission screening daily for two weeks and weekly thereafter. Auditing results will be brought to QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) Committee daily for 2 weeks, weekly for 4 weeks and monthly thereafter. Implementation date 12/08/2022 This deficient practice continued at a potential for harm for 18 current residents who did not reside on the locked Dementia Care Unit, had impaired cognition and/or a diagnosis that may increase their risk of elopement as identified in the facility's Elopement Risk Tools, and were able to either ambulate or propel themselves in their wheelchairs throughout the facility with the potential to elope (#5, #37, #41, #11, #9, #39, #10, #14, #102, #44, #19, #42, #29, #34, #21, #1, #46, #12). Findings: Review of the facility's Wandering and Elopements Policy Revised December 2019 revealed in part: The facility will identify residents who are at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the least restrictive environment for residents. Residents who have been determined to be at risk for wandering/elopement will have immediate interventions put into place according to the resident assessment .If an employee observes a resident leaving the premises, he/she should attempt to prevent the resident from leaving in a courteous manner, get help from other staff members in the immediate vicinity if necessary, and instruct another staff member to inform the Charge Nurse or DON that a resident is attempting to leave or has left the premises. If a resident is missing, initiate the elopement/missing resident emergency procedure .determine if the resident is out on an authorized leave or pass, if the resident was not authorized to leave, initiate a search of the buildings and premises, and if the resident is not located, notify the Administrator and the DON, the resident's legal representative, the attending physician .When the resident returns to the facility, the DON or charge nurse shall examine the resident for injuries, contact the attending physician and report findings and conditions of the resident, notify the resident's legal representative, notify search teams that the resident has been located, complete and file an incident report, and document relevant information in the resident's medical record. Review of Resident #3's record revealed an admit date of 06/16/2022 and diagnoses including but not limited to: Schizophrenia, Major depressive disorder, Insomnia, Anxiety disorder, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of Resident #3's December 2022 Physician orders revealed orders including: 11/07/2022-monitor anti-psychotic medication use-observe resident closely for significant side effects 09/05/2022-admit to secure care unit 09/03/2022-monitor for behaviors while resident on psychotropic medications every shift 06/18/2022- Geodon 60 mg (milligrams) twice daily for schizophrenia 06/18/2022-Depakote 750 mg every day for behavior-document number of target behavior episodes 06/16/2022-Escitalopram (for depression) 20 mg every day 06/16/2022-Clonazepam 1mg twice daily for anxiety disorder Review of Resident #3's admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 5 out of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed the resident was independent for bed mobility, transfers, and locomotion on unit with the use of a wheelchair. Further review of Resident #3's MDS assessments revealed no reassessment was done after the resident's elopements from the facility on 08/21/2022, 08/25/2022, 08/26/2022 and 09/02/2022. Review of the Resident #3's Elopement Risk Tools revealed an elopement risk assessment dated [DATE]. The summary of the assessment indicated the resident was not been found to be at risk for elopement at that time. Further review revealed no other Elopement Risk Tools were completed after the resident's elopements on 08/21/2022, 08/25/2022, 08/26/2022 and 09/02/2022. No reassessment of elopement risk was performed until 09/27/2022 after the resident was placed on the locked dementia care unit. Review of Resident #3's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed the resident was care planned for elopement risk starting with a previous admission beginning 04/15/22 with interventions including Evaluate elopement risk on admission, quarterly and or with improvement in cognition, monitor resident for tailgating following visitors thru exits, place resident information in elopement book, encourage activities of resident interest. Further review revealed no updates to the care plan after the resident's elopements from the facility on 08/21/2022, 08/25/2022, 08/26/2022 and 09/2/2022 when he was placed on the locked dementia unit. Further review revealed the care plan was not updated until 11/07/2022 for placement on the memory care unit. Review of Resident #3's nursing notes revealed in part the following notes: 08/21/22 at 3:52 a.m. by S12 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-Resident seen in lobby at 2:40 a.m. when writer headed down hall for routine rounds. At 2:48 a.m. co-worker came rushing by stating that her daughter called and stated one of the residents was across the street from the facility in front of the police station. We immediately headed that way and observed resident in wheelchair propelling self on the road still in front of police station. Resident appeared stable and denied any pain or injury and agreed to let me bring him back to facility. I then performed assessment and skin/body audit that showed no new issues .While continuously observing resident I then notified S4 DON, and then the medical doctor and was given new order to admit to secure unit .Resident was then taken to secure unit. Attempted to notify resident's responsible party with no answer. Resident does not want to go to bed at this time and is currently in dining room of secure unit with CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) stating he is going to leave again tomorrow. 08/22/2022 at 10:58 a.m. by S13 LPN- MD (Medical Doctor) updated on resident's behavior today . He was placed in secure unit for immediate safety. He is currently at hospital to have Magnetic Resonance Imaging of his foot and toes. After returning from his appointment, we have new order for him to be back in general population. We will do 15 minute checks on him and document his whereabouts. Staff will notify MD with any changes in behavior. 08/24/2022 at 8:04 p.m. by S14 LPN -Resident yelling and cussing at other residents. Talking about kicking someone's ass, and shooting them. Thinks the police are coming after him. Really acting up tonight. Demanding cigarettes and money . 08/25/2022 at 1:22 p.m. by S15 LPN- at 9:16 a.m. resident heading down sidewalk. Resident said he was going to haul logs. Resident redirected by staff, resident entered the building cussing at unseen people . 08/26/2022 at 7:14 a.m. by S15 LPN-Resident observed outside on the sidewalk by the civic center (which is across the street). Staff redirected him inside facility. Resident told staff he was looking for a smoke. 08/27/2022 at 10:27 a.m. by S15 LPN-Resident ambulating from hallway to front lobby cussing at unseen people, staff attempted to redirect resident without success. Resident continued to cuss and threatening unseen people. 08/28/2022 at 8:47 p.m. by S 14-Resident returned to facility via ambulance from behavioral hospital .Behavioral Hospital will not accept resident. Says he does not meet criteria . 09/02/2022 at 6:50 p.m. by S13 LPN Received phone call from concerned citizen. Resident had left out front door and propelled self up to main highway (Highway 157) and was going down the road. Writer immediately went to get him. When I got to him he was smiling and laughing. I ask him what in the world are you doing: He said he was going after a pulp wood truck. Used my cell phone and called DON. Staff from facility met me down the road and brought him back to facility and I drove my vehicle back. After I returned I called MD. She said to discontinue the 15 minutes checks and put him in the secure unit permanently. There was no documentation the resident's RP was notified of the elopement or the placement on the secure unit. Review of the facility's incident reports revealed no incident reports with investigations for Resident #3's elopement episodes. Observations during the survey from 12/05/2022 to 12/07/2022 revealed all exit doors were unlocked with no sound alerting when they were opened with the exception of the doors leading out the north and west sides of the Hall B, the door out the south side of the dining room, and the doors on the locked dementia care unit. There were chairs on the front porch. The building was located in a commercial area surrounded by sidewalks. With the exception of a fence around the patio of the locked dementia unit, there was no was no fence, gate, or barrier of any kind around the building between the sidewalk and the roads. The police station was directly across the street on the [NAME] side, there was a park and the civic center across the street on the North side, and commercial buildings across the street on the South and East sides of the building. During an observation and interview on 12/07/2022 at 10:58 a.m. on the locked dementia unit, Resident #3 was seated with other residents in the day area with staff supervision. The resident was clean and well groomed, and was dressed seasonally appropriate. Resident #3 self-propelled his wheelchair across the room and said he likes it back here and was doing better than when he was out there. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 2:07 p.m. S4 DON confirmed no incident reports were done related to Resident #3's multiple elopements from the facility and should have been. S4 DON indicated management did do an investigation after Resident #3 left on 09/02/2022, but was unable to produce investigation notes or witness statements. S4 DON indicated she had contacted the Corporate Director of Nursing and was told the resident had a purpose, an intent and knew where he was going when he left the faciity on [DATE]. The surveyor asked S4 DON if that was the case with a resident who had a BIMS score of 5 out of 15 at that time. S4 DON responded that was what corporate told her. S4 DON indicated the facility did have a process for cognitive residents and family members to sign residents out when they left on outings and confirmed Resident #3 had never signed himself out. S4 DON confirmed the facility did not have cameras or video footage of the hallways and facility exit doors. S4 DON confirmed staff doing every 15 minute checks on Resident #3 should have noticed him leaving or noticed that he was gone before receiving a phone call from a concerned citizen and did not. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 3:33 p.m. S4 DON indicated Resident #3 was found on 09/02/2022 on Highway 157 a few blocks east of the facility. S4 DON confirmed nurses did not do incident reports each time Resident #3 had been found outside of the facility and should have. S4 DON further confirmed the staff was not retrained on monitoring residents for elopement risk or on completing incident reports and should have been. S4 DON further indicated the front door of the facility was always unlocked except late at night. S4 DON further confirmed Resident #3 was not reassessed for elopement risk and his care plan was not updated after each of his 4 elopement episodes. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 3:36 p.m. S16 LPN on the locked dementia care unit indicated Resident #3 says he is going to get out of here all of the time. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 3:45 p.m. S17 CNA confirmed she had worked with Resident #3 and was familiar with him. S17 CNA indicated she had never witnessed Resident #3 trying to leave the facility, but he had made comments that he was going to get out of here. S17 CNA indicated Resident #3 was placed on every 15 minute checks before he was placed on the locked unit. Indicated she checks all of her assigned residents at least once an hour, but she and the nurses assigned to Resident #3 were supposed to check on him every 15 minutes. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 3:52 p.m. S14 LPN indicated she was familiar with Resident #3, and did remember him saying he needed to get out of here. S14 LPN confirmed Resident #3 was on every 15 minute checks after his elopement on 08/21/2022 and still managed to leave the building 3 more times. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 3:56 p.m., Resident #3 indicated he wants to get out of here because he is tired of being on lock down. When asked if he used his wheelchair to go down the highway, Resident #3 indicated he did go down the highway to get the pulp wood truck, but it wasn't going to be enough money. Review of Resident #3's log of every 15 minute checks for 08/22/2022 through 09/02/2022 revealed checks of the resident's location and activity every 15 minutes documented by facility LPNs. Further review revealed the last entry on 09/02/2022 was for 5:30 a.m. was asleep in his bed. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 4:17 p.m. S4 DON indicated she could not find the logs for the rest of the day on 09/02/2022, and could not confirm the resident was observed every 15 minutes prior to being notified by a concerned citizen on 09/02/2022 at 6:50 p.m. that he was in his wheelchair on the highway. During a telephone interview on 12/07/2022 at 4:52 p.m. S13 LPN confirmed she was taking care of Resident #3 the day of 09/02/2022. S13 LPN confirmed nurses were performing every 15 minute checks on Resident #3 because he had gone to the police department across the street looking for a cigarette the week before he eloped on 09/02/2022. S13 LPN indicated she last saw Resident #3 on 09/02/2022 at roughly 5:30 p.m. when she personally took him out to the smoking area to smoke, and remained outside with him while he smoked. S13 LPN indicated she did not know the resident had left the facility until she got a phone call from a citizen at around 6:30 p.m. that he was on the highway in his wheelchair. S13 LPN indicated she drove up to the gas station where he was in the road. S13 LPN further indicated an agency CNA walked the few blocks to the gas station and brought Resident #3 back to the facility in his wheelchair. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 7:00 p.m. S3 Corporate Risk Management indicated in the presence of S1 Administrator and S4 DON that all residents were not reassessed until 12/05/2022 when she performed an audit on the 39 residents not residing on the locked unit to re-evaluate their BIMS scores and elopement risk. S3 Corporate Risk Management indicated the facility identified one resident at that time who was found to be at risk for elopement that was not already residing on the locked unit. The resident, #152, was moved to the locked unit on 12/05/2022. S3 Corporate Risk Management indicated no other residents were identified by the facility to be at risk of elopement at that time. S3 Corporate Risk Management, S1 Administrator, and S4 DON agreed supervision of Resident #3 every 15 minutes was insufficient to prevent his repeated elopements. S3 Corporate Risk Management, S1 Administrator, and S4 DON further agreed the resident should have been reassessed for elopement risk, and additional interventions should have been put in place and were not. Review of the Elopement Risk Tools performed by the facility on 12/05/2022 revealed the following 19 residents who had cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills and/or a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement: #5, #37, #41, #11, #9, #152, #39, #10, #14, #102, #44, #19, #42, #29, #34, #21, #1, #46, #12. Review of Resident #5's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills, and had a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement. Review of Resident #37's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills, and had a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement. Review of Resident #41's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills. Review of Resident #11's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident had a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement. Review of Resident #9's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills, and had a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement. Review of Resident #152's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills. Review of Resident #39's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills, and had a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement. Review of Resident #10's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills, and had a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement. Review of Resident #14's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills. Review of Resident #102's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills. Review of Resident #44's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills, and had a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement. Review of Resident #19's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills, and had a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement. Review of Resident #42's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills, and had a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement. Review of Resident #29's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident had a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement. Review of Resident #34's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills. Review of Resident #21's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills. Review of Resident #1's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills. Review of Resident #46's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills, and had a diagnosis that may increase the risk of elopement. Review of Resident #12's Elopement Risk Tool performed 12/05/2022 revealed the resident displayed cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, the facility failed to administer its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, 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 Resident #3 was adequately supervised to prevent repeated elopements from the facility 2. Complete incident reports, investigations, and train staff on supervision of residents to prevent elopements 3. Ensure Resident #3 was reassessed for elopement risk and update his plan of care with additional interventions to prevent repeat elopements. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #3 on 08/21/2022 at 2:48 a.m. when the facility's administration failed to ensure resources were effectively utilized to prevent Resident #3 from exiting the facility unsupervised and ensure steps were taken to identify other residents at risk for elopement. S1 Administrator, S3 Corporate Risk Management, and S4 DON (Director of Nurses) were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 12/07/2022 at 7:51 p.m. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 12/08/2022 at 3:52 p.m. when the facility's Plan of Removal was approved. Through record reviews, interviews and observations the surveyor confirmed the following components of the Plan of Removal have been initiated and/or implemented prior to exit. 1. On 09/02/2022 Resident #3 was placed on the secured unit, where he remains. Facility placed employees in visual proximity to the available exits 24/7 on 12/09/2022 at 1:30 p.m. to monitor residents leaving the facility until door alarms are installed. Employees were educated on appropriate screening for elopement risk. DON and Licensed Administrator have acknowledged re-education from Regional Risk Management Director on Wandering and Elopement Policy, how to identify residents at risk for elopement, ensuring education to all staff on communication to Administrator and DON if a resident displays new signs of elopement risk factors. 2. All residents not residing on the secure unit were assessed for elopement risk and evaluated for their BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score by licensed staff 12/05/2022. Results of audit were completed to ensure that all residents at risk for elopement had adequate supervision and were free from accidents hazards by placing them on the secured unit. 1 resident was identified at that time to be an elopement risk and moved to the locked unit immediately. 3. Regional Risk manager/designee will audit preadmission screening forms daily to ensure appropriate placement prior to anyone admitting to the facility. Risk Manager/designee will audit all new admissions daily to ensure they are interviewed using the BIMS and assessed for elopement risk on day 1 and are placed on secure unit if they are identified as an elopement risk. Elopement Risk Assessment and BIMS score will continue to be completed quarterly, annually, and with any status change to identify any residents who are at risk for elopement. 4. All staff, including administrator and DON, will be educated by regional Risk manager/designee on Wandering and Elopement Policy and how to identify residents at risk for elopement, BIMS Score Interview too, and Elopement risk assessment, Communication to administrator and DON if a resident displays new signs of elopement risk factors. 5. Regional risk manager/designee will document that employees, including new hires, receive above education prior to working with residents. Regional risk manager/designee will conduct staff competency interviews on above topics and document completion. Chief Nursing Officer will audit elopement risk assessments, BIMs and preadmission screening daily for two weeks and weekly thereafter. Auditing results will be brought to QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) Committee daily for 2 weeks, weekly for 4 weeks and monthly thereafter. 6. Regional risk manager/designee will provide oversight over administration to ensure staff are taking the appropriate measures. Implementation Date: 12/08/2022 This deficient practice continued at a potential for harm for 18 current residents who did not reside on the locked Dementia Care Unit, had impaired cognition and/or a diagnosis that may increase their risk of elopement as identified in the facility's Elopement Risk Tools, and were able to either ambulate or propel themselves in their wheelchairs throughout the facility with the potential to elope (#5, #37, #41, #11, #9, #39, #10, #14, #102, #44, #19, #42, #29, #34, #21, #1, #46, #12). Findings, Cross Reference F689: During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 2:07 p.m. S4 DON confirmed no incident reports were done related to Resident #3's multiple elopements from the facility, but indicated they did investigate when he left. S4 DON was unable to produce investigation notes or witness statements related to Resident #3's elopements from the facility. S4 DON indicated she had contacted the Corporate Director of Nursing (was a different corporation at that time) and was told the resident had a purpose, an intent and knew where he was going when he left the faciity on [DATE]. The surveyor asked S4 DON if that was the case with a resident who had a BIMS score of 5 out of 15 at that time. S4 DON responded that was what corporate told her. S4 DON confirmed the facility did not have cameras or video footage of the hallways and facility exit doors. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 3:33 p.m. S4 DON confirmed nurses did not do incident reports each time Resident #3 had been found outside of the facility and should have. S4 DON further confirmed no staff training was done after Resident #3's elopements from the facility related to completing incident reports, the wandering resident, or supervision of residents to prevent elopement and should have been. S4 DON further confirmed Resident #3 was not reassessed for elopement risk and his care plan was not updated after each of his 4 elopement episodes. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 4:17 p.m. S4 DON indicated she could not confirm staff observed Resident #3 every 15 minutes as directed prior to being notified by a concerned citizen on 09/02/2022 at 6:50 p.m. that he was in his wheelchair on the highway. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 7:00 p.m. S3 Corporate Risk Management in the presence of S1 Administrator and S4 DON indicated all residents were not reassessed until 12/05/2022 when she performed an audit on the 39 residents not residing on the locked unit to re-evaluate their BIMS scores and elopement risk. S3 Corporate Risk Management indicated the facility identified one resident at that time who was found to be at risk for elopement that was not already residing on the locked unit. The resident, #152, was moved to the locked unit on 12/05/2022. S3 Corporate Risk Management agreed the processes in place to date did not prevent Resident #3 from eloping. S3 Corporate Risk Management further confirmed thorough investigations were not performed after each of Resident #3's elopements, and the resident was able to elope 3 additional times after being placed on every 15 minute checks. S3 Corporate Risk Management further confirmed no processes had been changed/implemented and no updates to policies had been done to ensure no other residents at risk were able to elope from the facility.
CONCERN (E)

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

Employment Screening (Tag F0606)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure adverse actions checks were completed monthly for 5 CNAs (certified nursing assistant) (S5 CNA, S6 CNA, S7 CNA, S8 CNA, S9 CNA) of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure adverse actions checks were completed monthly for 5 CNAs (certified nursing assistant) (S5 CNA, S6 CNA, S7 CNA, S8 CNA, S9 CNA) of 5 CNA (S5 CNA, S6 CNA, S7 CNA, S8 CNA, S9 CNA) personnel files reviewed. The facility also failed to ensure S9 CNA's criminal background/sex offender registry checks were reviewed by facility staff before S9 CNA started working at the facility on 5/30/2022. Findings: Review of S5 CNA's personnel file failed to reveal adverse actions checks were completed monthly. Review of S6 CNA's personnel file failed to reveal adverse actions checks were completed monthly. Review of S7 CNA's personnel file failed to reveal adverse actions checks were completed monthly. Review of S8 CNA's personnel file failed to reveal adverse actions checks were completed monthly. Review of S9 CNA's personnel file failed to reveal adverse actions checks were completed monthly. The review also failed to reveal a criminal background/sex offender registry check was completed. During an interview on 12/06/2022 at 2:27 p.m., S1 Administrator confirmed the facility did not have a process in place for verifying contract/agency CNA's criminal background checks and Adverse Actions website checks prior to them working in the facility. During an interview on 12/07/22 at 1:44 p.m., S4 DON (director of nursing) verified Adverse Actions checks for S5 CNA, S6 CNA, S7 CNA, S8 CNA, and S9 CNA were not checked monthly and should have been. S4 DON further verified S9 CNA's criminal background/sex offender check was not reviewed by facility staff prior to S9 CNA's start date of 5/30/2022.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and observation, the provider failed to ensure comprehensive care plans had been revised for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and observation, the provider failed to ensure comprehensive care plans had been revised for 2 (#19, #46) residents out of a total of 29 sampled residents. Findings: Resident #19 Review of Resident #19's advanced directives revealed a code status of DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed a LaPOST (Louisiana Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment) signed on 03/03/2022 indicating Resident #19 was a DNR. Review of Resident #19's December 2022 physician's orders revealed an order for DNR with a start date of 03/04/2022. Review of Resident #19's comprehensive care plans revealed a care plan with the following description, goals and interventions. Care plan description- I have an advanced directive, I am a full code. Goals- full code will be honored at the appropriate time through the next review. Interventions- Make staff aware of my advanced directives; Notify MD (medical doctor) and RP (responsible party) of resident's condition; perform full code at the appropriate time. During an interview on 12/06/2022 at 3:45 p.m., S4 DON (Director of Nursing) reviewed Resident #19's medical record and confirmed Resident #19's care plan had not been revised to reflect resident #19's wishes for DNR and should have been. Resident #46 Review of resident #46's medical record revealed Resident #46 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included, in part, Stage 4 pressure ulcer to right hip, unspecified dementia, atherosclerotic heart disease, and essential hypertension. Review of Resident #46's physician orders revealed: 10/27/2022 - clean stage 4 pressure ulcer to right hip with acetic acid 0.25% and pat dry. Skin prep perimeter of wound, apply white foam over bone, then black foam. Cover with drape. Wound vacuum settings at 120 mm (millimeters)/hg (mercury) continuous suction. Change two times weekly and prn (as needed). Review of Care Plan failed to reveal Resident #46 was care planned for pressure ulcer. Observation on 12/05/2022 at 12:40 p.m. revealed Resident #46 was positioned slightly on right side with wound vacuum noted to right hip area and set at 120mm/hg. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 10:05 a.m. S4 DON reviewed Resident #46's Care Plan and reported Resident #46 had not been care planned for right hip stage 4 pressure ulcer and should have been.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure dietary services were provided in a sanitary environment for 50 out of 50 residents served a meal tray from the kitchen as reported b...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure dietary services were provided in a sanitary environment for 50 out of 50 residents served a meal tray from the kitchen as reported by the dietary manager. The facility failed to ensure pans and serving utensils were stored in a sanitary manner. Findings: Observation of the kitchen on 12/05/2022 at 9:38 a.m. revealed 5 pans stored wet and dirty with food particles stuck to the pans. During an interview on 12/05/2022 at 9:38 a.m., S10 Dietary Manager, agreed the pans were stored wet and dirty and should not have been. A repeat observation of the kitchen with the S11 Dietitian and S10 Dietary Manager on 12/7/2022 at 10:10 a.m. revealed 5 pans stored wet and dirty with food particles stuck to the pans and 8 serving utensils stored dirty. During an interview on 12/07/2022 at 10:10 a.m. S11 Dietitian and S10 Dietary Manager acknowledged the 5 pans were stored wet and dirty and 8 serving utensils were stored dirty and should not have been.
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
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $141,373 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 15 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $141,373 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Louisiana. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (36/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 36/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Timber Springs Rehab And Retirement's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Louisiana, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Timber Springs Rehab And Retirement Staffed?

Detailed staffing data for Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement is not available in the current CMS dataset.

What Have Inspectors Found at Timber Springs Rehab And Retirement?

State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 13 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 Timber Springs Rehab And Retirement?

Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement 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 153 certified beds and approximately 0 residents (about 0% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SPRINGHILL, Louisiana.

How Does Timber Springs Rehab And Retirement Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.4 and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Timber Springs Rehab And Retirement?

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 Timber Springs Rehab And Retirement Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Timber Springs Rehab And Retirement Stick Around?

Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Timber Springs Rehab And Retirement Ever Fined?

Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement has been fined $141,373 across 1 penalty action. This is 4.1x the Louisiana average of $34,493. 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 Timber Springs Rehab And Retirement on Any Federal Watch List?

Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement 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.