CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2a. On 2/22/23 at 9:36 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medication storage on the 3rd floor vent
wing and the medication cart desig...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2a. On 2/22/23 at 9:36 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medication storage on the 3rd floor vent
wing and the medication cart designated for this unit with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff
#68. The review revealed opened bottles of each of the medications listed, located in the
second drawer of the medication cart; Melatonin 5mg, Loratadine 10mg, [NAME]-Vite, and Folic
Acid 400mcg (Microgram). All the bottles were opened with no date written on them to indicate when the
medication was first opened. These bottles were brought to the attention of Staff #68.
On 2/22/23 at 10 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medication cart located on the 4th floor,
dedicated to the team one hallway, with (LPN) Staff #69. The surveyor noted in the second
drawer of the medication cart, a bottle of Lactulose 10mg/15mg had an open date indicating the
bottle was opened on 2/14/23, however the expiration date on the bottle was labeled 2/9/23. It
appeared the bottle was opened after the medication expired. The surveyor brought this to Staff
#69 & #39's attention.
On 2/22/23 at 10:59 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medication cart findings with the Director of
Nursing (DON). The DON stated that it is her expectation that all medication should be labeled
with the date they are opened. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was also present and
explained it could be possible for the pharmacy to deliver a medication, the medication not be
opened, the medication expire, and then be opened by the staff however, the staff should have
checked the expiration date before opening.
On 2/24/23 at 7:51 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medication storage cart designated to the
2nd floor Pavilion unit. The surveyor noted the sodium bicarbonate 325mg bottle, located in the
second draw, had an expiration date of 1/23. Registered Nurse (RN) Staff #70 observed the
date and indicated the date was alongside the lot number and wasn't sure if it was expired.
On 2/24/23 at 8:29 AM, the surveyor showed the RN Manager Staff #27 the expired sodium
bicarbonate 325mg bottle. Staff #27 states she would have to speak with the DON for guidance.
On 2/24/23 at 8:30 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medication storage on the 3rd floor Pavilion
and reviewed the dedicated medication cart for that unit with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)
Staff #71 . The surveyor observed a docusate sodium 50mg(milligram)/5ml (milliliter) bottle with an
expiration date of 10/2022. Staff #71 acknowledged the expired medication and stated he would get rid of it.
On 2/27/23 at 8:50 AM, the surveyor reviewed the concern with the DON that staff were not
confident identifying expiration date on medication bottles in which the lot number and expiration
date were along the same line and that expired medications were found in medication carts. The
surveyor reviewed the sample of the bottle with the DON. The DON stated an in-service would
be needed for any staff unable to identify if a medication was expired.
2b) On 2/27/23 at 8 AM, the surveyor conducted a review of the 4th floor medication storage
room with LPN Staff #19. Staff #19 unlocked the refrigerator and upon opening the door, the
surveyor observed condensation on the back wall of the refrigerator. The thermometer in the
refrigerator registered at 50 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The surveyor reviewed the temperature
logbook which indicated it was 40 degrees Fahrenheit on 2/27/23. The surveyor informed Staff
#19 of the findings. Staff #19 stated she would speak with the night nurse responsible for
recording temperatures.
On 2/27/23 at approximately 8:10 AM, the surveyor interviewed LPN staff #76. Staff #76 stated
he last took the temperature at 4 AM and could not think of any reason the refrigerator would
have been left open and was unsure of how the temperature was 10 degrees F different.
On 2/27/23 at approximately 8:15 AM, the surveyor interviewed the covering floor manager LPN
Staff #10. The surveyor informed Staff #10 of the refrigerator temperature at 8 AM. Staff #10
stated she would call maintenance to come and take a look.
On 2/27/23 at 2:34 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Maintenance Director Staff #21. During
the interview Staff #21 stated he was aware of the reported refrigerator issues and he had
addressed the refrigerator issue. He stated that when he checked the refrigerator it was
registering at 45 degrees F and he had to adjust the temperature. Staff #21 stated the refrigerator
temperature should be 40 degrees F and he was planning on returning to check the temperature.
The DON was present during this interview. On 2/27/23 at 2:34 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Maintenance Director Staff #21. During
the interview Staff #21 stated he was aware of the reported refrigerator issues and he had
addressed the refrigerator issue. He stated that when he checked the refrigerator it was
registering at 45 degrees F and he had to adjust the temperature. Staff #21 stated the refrigerator
temperature should be 40 degrees F and he was planning on returning to check the temperature.
The DON was present during this interview.
On 2/27/23 at 2:34 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Maintenance Director Staff #21. During
the interview Staff #21 stated he was aware of the reported refrigerator issues and he had
addressed the refrigerator issue. He stated that when he checked the refrigerator it was
registering at 45 degrees F and he had to adjust the temperature. Staff #21 stated the refrigerator
temperature should be 40 degrees F and he was planning on returning to check the temperature.
The DON was present during this interview.
Based on observations, staff interviews and review of medical record documentation, the facility
failed to 1. maintain a safe and effective system for securing medication, treatment supplies, and
hazardous medical equipment in their designated carts on nursing units with confused and
wandering residents. Surveyors repeatedly observed these incidents on 2 of 5 floors. This has the
potential to impact all residents, 2. ensure only authorized staff maintain a safe and effective
system for securing medications in designated carts. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 2
medication carts located on the second-floor nursing unit observed during a tour of the facility. 3.
label medication bottles when opened, discard expired medications and maintain proper
temperatures for medications requiring refrigeration. This was found evident in 4 of 10
medications carts and 1 of 3 medication storage units reviewed for medication storage on an
annual survey.
The Maryland Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) determined that concerns 1. met the
Federal definition of Immediate Jeopardy and the facility was notified in writing of this
determination at 1:45 PM on 2/10/23.
The findings include:
1a. During tour and observation of the third floor ventilator unit on 2/8/23 at 11:31 AM, surveyor
observed an unlocked and unattended treatment cart. In the medication cart were multiple
medicated resident creams, gauze pads and scissors. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff #13
was interviewed on 2/8/23 at 11:34 AM stating the treatment cart was shared with her and the
other units and was not aware that it was open.
b. Surveyor proceeded down the hallway and noted that the door to the medication room was
ajar, and not pulled shut and locked. In the room the medication refrigerator was also unlocked,
the padlock was hanging to the side. Inside the refrigerator included: Latanoprost eye drops,
Humalog, Epogen and Veltessa patches. LPN staff #13 was notified of the observations of the
medication room. She stated that she has not been in there today and was not aware that it was
unlocked, and again that it is shared with all the 3rd floor staff.
c. On 2/9/23 upon entering the non-vent 3rd floor unit, where there are noted residents that
wander and have varying behaviors including aggression, at 11:43 AM proceeding towards the
320 rooms, the surveyor observed an unattended maintenance cart in front of room [ROOM NUMBER]. On the
cart there was an open Exacto knife and a screwdriver. Residents #252 and #119 were observed
in the immediate vicinity. Record review on 2/10/23 at 8:20 AM regarding Resident # 252
revealed diagnosis including; cerebrovascular accident (stroke) and 15/15 on a Brief Interview of
Mental Status (BIMS) Assessment on the 1/4/23 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS)
assessment. However, a 1/3/23 dated psychogeriatric note and admission assessment noted that
s/he does not appear to have any clear knowledge about medical or psychiatric medical issues or
treatment plan. Regarding Resident #119, s/he was noted as ' rarely understood ' and in physician
monthly assessments and answers ' yes/no secondary to aphasia ' . Per assessments in the
electronic health record, Resident #119 is dependent on staff for activities of daily living and
becomes frustrated and is care planned for behaviors including having verbal and physical and
verbal altercations. Resident #119 was observed wheeling his/herself down the hall
independently. At 11:45 AM RN staff # 18 walked past the maintenance cart towards the nursing
station and did not address the items on the cart. At 11:50 AM maintenance staff #17 came out of
room [ROOM NUMBER] where he was observed at the window doing repairs and grabbed blinds to replace in
the room. At 11:54 AM staff #17 again exited the room and the surveyor reviewed concerns with
staff #17 that the cart was unattended with residents around. He stated that he was just trying to
make the room nice, however, acknowledged the safety hazard of the equipment in the hallway.
d. Surveyor proceeded to tour the ventilator unit on unit 3. At 12:05 PM the medication room
door was again observed ajar and not fully closed and the medication refrigerator padlock was
observed off the door. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Nursing Home Administrator
(NHA) was notified of all the observations from 2/8/23 and today on 2/9/23 at 12:15 PM. They
(DON and NHA) said that they would look into the surveyors & #39; concerns.
e. Tour of the facility and unit 3 on 2/10/23 at 6:42 AM, surveyor observed an unlocked and
unattended treatment cart in front of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The Surveyor was able to go through and
document all the medications in each drawer before staff # 18 from the day shift approached and
asked if the surveyor needed assistance. Prior to approaching the surveyor, staff #18 was
observed walking up and down the hall, checking on his residents and passing the unlocked cart
and the surveyor 3 times. The Surveyor asked staff #18 where the night shift nursing staff was
and he stated that he did not know. Surveyor asked for the DON at that time. The treatment cart
contained nail clippers, sodium chloride flushes, multiple medicated creams for residents,
intravenous fluid tubing and wound dressings. In addition, there were (3) tuberculin syringes, (1)
insulin syringe and (2) 25-gauge safety syringes.
The DON arrived on the unit and was notified by the surveyor of the repeated observations at
6:55 AM. She stated that she was in at 4:00 AM this morning doing training regarding our
findings.
f. On 2/10/23 at 8:11 AM, the surveyor observed a treatment cart unattended and unlocked on the
4th floor hallway with rooms #421-438. The surveyor observed no staff around the treatment
cart. All 5 drawers were able to be opened. First drawer had a boxed of: Silver sulfadiazine
cream, Permethrin cream triamcinolone 0.1%, the 2nd drawer had normal saline, the 3rd drawer
had dressing supplies such as, kerlix, gauze, the 4th drawer had slipper, normal saline syringes,
suture removal kit, the 5th had wound cleaner spray and heparin syringes. The surveyor
conducted an interview at 8:13 AM with LPN staff #19. She stated that the treatment cart was
named team 2 cart and she was responsible for the treatment cart. When asked if the treatment
cart should be left open she stated, no but the cart is locked. The LPN was then able to open all
the drawers. She pointed to the silver lock in the right upper drawer and said, if it is pushed in it
is locked. The LPN was able to demonstrate opening the cart with a key, the lock protruded out,
then engaging the lock in again and stated, now it is locked. After this, all 5 drawers could be
opened. LPN, staff #19, stated this lock must not be working. The surveyor interviewed the 4th Floor Nurse Supervisor, Registered Nurse (RN) staff #20, on 2/10/23 at 8:18 AM, who walked to the treatment cart. RN# 20 was notified that the drawers to the cart were able to be opened when the lock was engaged. RN #20 demonstrated opening and locking the treatment cart and it locked. LPN #19 informed her when she did that it did not work. RN #20 then performed a locking and unlocking cart again and this time when the lock was engaged all 5 drawers were
able to be opened. RN #20 attempted to unlock and lock again and again all drawers could be
opened when lock was engaged. The RN #20 stated the cart should be locked when unattended and
would notify maintenance that the cart was not locking correctly. She also said she would let
management know.
The Maryland Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) determined that these concerns met the
Federal definition of Immediate Jeopardy and the facility was verbally notified of this
determination at 1:45 PM on 2/10/23.
The facility provided a plan to remove the immediacy while the surveyors were onsite. The
removal plan was accepted by the OHCQ at 5:00 PM on 2/10/23, after 2 initial plans were
submitted at 3:25 PM and 4:26 PM, respectively. The plan included the assurance no further
maintenance carts, medication or treatment carts, doors and or refrigerators in the facility were
left unattended or unlocked and reeducation of all licensed nurses, maintenance staff and
certified medication aids regarding the expectation on securing medication and treatment carts,
doors, and refrigerators. After removal of the immediacy, the deficient practice remained with a scope and severity of E.
The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 2/15/23 after on-site confirmation of the completion of the facility's plan of removal.
The facility plans of removal included the following: Education of all licensed nurses working on
the 7-3 shift for 2/10/23 was immediately performed by the DON. Education of all licensed
nurses will be completed by 2/15/23. Education will be validated by quizzes performed
randomly by DON or staff development coordinators weekly for a period of 3 months. The
DON, ADON, staff development coordinators and unit managers will conduct daily audits on all
shifts for 3 months to determine compliance. All the findings will be reported monthly at the
Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting for 3 months to monitor progress
towards improvement and recommendations.
CRITICAL
(L)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and medical record review it was determined that the facility failed to maintain water temper...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and medical record review it was determined that the facility failed to maintain water temperatures less than 120 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in residents' rooms and failed to have a system in place to monitor the temperature of the boiler that supplies hot water to resident rooms. The failure identified has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Water temperatures exceeding 120 degrees Fahrenheit were identified in 8 out of 8 rooms (Rooms 418, 417, 457, 461, 111, 204, 301 and 541A). In addition, the facility failed to provide supervision and interventions to ensure the safety of resident #208 when served a hot beverage(tea) in his room that caused 2nd degree burns to the lower extremities.
As a result of these findings, a state of immediate jeopardy was declared on 2/27/23 at 2:45 PM. An IJ summary tool was provided to the facility at that time. The facility submitted a draft of their plan to remove the immediacy at 5:06 PM and it was not accepted. The facility submitted a second plan at 5:19 PM and it was accepted by the state agency at 5:30 PM. After removal of the immediacy, the deficient practice remained with a scope and severity of F.
An extended survey was completed on 2/28/23, 3/1/23 and 3/3/23. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 3/6/23 at 1:00 PM after on-site confirmation of the completion of the facility's plan of removal.
The findings include:
Water Temperature - Water may reach hazardous temperatures in hand sinks, showers, tubs, and any other source or location where hot water is accessible to a resident. Burns related to hot water/liquids may also be due to spills and/or immersion. Many residents in long-term care facilities have conditions that may put them at increased risk for burns caused by scalding. These conditions include: decreased skin thickness, decreased skin sensitivity, peripheral neuropathy, decreased agility (reduced reaction time), decreased cognition or dementia, decreased mobility, and decreased ability to communicate.
The degree of injury depends on factors including the water temperature, the amount of skin exposed, and the duration of exposure. Some States have regulations regarding allowable maximum water temperature. Table 1 illustrates damage to skin in relation to the temperature of the water and the length of time of exposure.
Table 1. Time and Temperature Relationship to Serious Burns
Water Temperature Time Required for a 3rd Degree Burn to Occur
155°F 68°C 1 sec
148°F 64°C 2 sec
140°F 60°C 5 sec
133°F 56°C 15 sec
127°F 52°C 1 min
124°F 51°C 3 min
120°F 48°C 5 min
100°F 37°C
Safe Temperatures for Bathing (see Note)
NOTE: Burns can occur even at water temperatures below those identified in the table, depending on an individual's condition and the length of exposure.
Based upon the time of the exposure and the temperature of the water, the severity of the harm to the skin is identified by the degree of burn, as follows.
First-degree burns involve the top layer of skin (e.g., minor sunburn). These may present as red and painful to touch, and the skin will show mild swelling.
Second-degree burns involve the first two layers of skin. These may present as deep reddening of the skin, pain, blisters, glossy appearance from leaking fluid, and possible loss of some skin.
Third-degree burns penetrate the entire thickness of the skin and permanently destroy tissue. These present as loss of skin layers, often painless (pain may be caused by patches of first- and second-degree burns surrounding third-degree burns), and dry, leathery skin. Skin may appear charred or have patches that appear white, brown, or black.
1). The surveyor investigated a facility reported incident from 8/13/22 that Resident #191 in room [ROOM NUMBER] reported to facility staff that Staff #46 used hot water to wash him/her up that burned him/her. The Surveyor checked water temperatures with the Director of Maintenance on 2/27/23.
The Director of Maintenance (DOM) with the Surveyor present checked the water temperature in room [ROOM NUMBER] at 9:35 AM and the water temperature was 156 degrees F with the facility thermometer. The DOM told the Surveyor he was going to get another thermometer. The DOM returned with another facility thermometer and rechecked the water temperature in room [ROOM NUMBER] at 9:40 AM and the water temperature was 163 degrees F. The DOM then obtained the following water temperatures with the facility thermometer:
1.room [ROOM NUMBER]-9:41 AM-133 degrees F
2. room [ROOM NUMBER]-9:44 AM-143 degrees F
3. room [ROOM NUMBER]-9:45 AM-145 degrees F
During an interview with the DOM on 2/27/23 at 9:46 AM, the DOM stated water temperatures in resident rooms should be less than 120 degrees F. The Surveyor requested the DOM notify the Administrator about the findings of high-water temperatures.
The Surveyor with another surveyor present checked additional resident rooms on all floors of the facility and obtained the following water temperatures on 2/27/23:
1.room [ROOM NUMBER]-9:52 AM-144 degrees F
2.room [ROOM NUMBER]-9:56 AM- 158 degrees F
3. room [ROOM NUMBER]-10:00 AM- 138 degrees F
4. room [ROOM NUMBER]A- 10:02 AM-154 degrees F
The Surveyor returned to the conference room and called the Director of Nursing (DON) at 10:09 AM and asked to speak to the DON, Administrator and DOM in the conference room.
The Surveyor reviewed the water temperatures obtained by the DOM and the Surveyors with the DOM, DON, and Administrator on 2/27/23 at 10:25 AM. The DOM was asked about the process for monitoring water temperatures and who was responsible. The DOM stated one person on the maintenance team depending who is here in the morning obtains water temperatures for 2 resident rooms on each unit daily. At that time the Administrator stated the plan now is to shut off the boiler that goes to resident rooms and call the contractor immediately. The DOM was asked if he keeps a log of the boiler temperatures and the DOM stated no.
The 2 Surveyors then accompanied the Administrator, DON and DOM to the basement and boiler #3 that the DOM stated sends the hot water to resident rooms on 2/27/23 at 10:42 AM. The temperature gauge read 218 degrees F. The DOM stated the temperature gauge should read 190 on Boiler. The Surveyor again asked the DOM if he had any logs on water temperatures on boiler #3. The DOM stated no he did not have logs.
After surveyor intervention, Interview with the Administrator on 2/27/23 at 10:48 AM confirmed boiler #3 has been shut off and the contractor has been called.
Review of Residents ' medical records in the rooms identified revealed the Residents range from severely cognitively impaired to alert and oriented. Review of the most recent comprehensive medical assessments for residents living in the affected rooms revealed that two of eight residents could move independently in their rooms. One of those two mobile residents had a diagnosis of dementia (room [ROOM NUMBER]A). Six of eight residents were totally dependent on staff for bathing.
As a result of these findings, a state of immediate jeopardy was declared on 2/27/23 at 2:45 PM. An IJ summary tool was provided to the facility at that time. The facility submitted a draft of their plan to remove the immediacy at 5:06 PM and it was not accepted. The facility submitted a second plan at 5:19 PM and it was accepted by the state agency at 5:30 PM. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 3/6/23 at 1:00 PM after on-site confirmation of the completion of the facility's plan of removal.
The provisions of the plan to remove the immediacy had a completion date of 3/2/23 and included the following:
1.Boiler was immediately turned off and contractor contacted to present to facility for same-day service.
2. All areas of building audited by Maintenance Director on 2/27/23 to ensure no further water temperatures were recorded out of acceptable range-120 degrees or less
3. Maintenance Director and Staff Development Coordinators were educated by Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on acceptable temperature ranges for water in patient care areas (120 degrees or less), how to properly take and record temperatures in resident rooms/ care areas, how to take and record temperatures from Boiler servicing resident care areas (acceptable ranges per manufacturer guidelines), and how to use TELS system to communicate water temperatures found to be out of range.
Education of all facility staff working the 3-11 shift on 2/27/23 was immediately performed by Staff Development Coordinators on acceptable temperature ranges for water and how to use the TELS system to communicate water temperatures found to be out of range. Staff Development Coordinators will ensure education of all facility staff will be completed by 3/2/23. Any staff member unable to be reached by 3/2/23 will be educated upon arrival at the facility; NHA will ensure that education has been provided to them prior to beginning their shift. Education will be validated by quizzes performed randomly by NHA, Director of Nursing, or Staff Development Coordinators weekly for a period of 3 months.
4. Maintenance technicians will continue to conduct daily audits of water temperatures in patient care areas and from Boiler to determine compliance with water temperatures remaining within acceptable range. In addition, validation audits will be performed by Asst. NHA, Staff Development Coordinators, and/or Maintenance Director accompanying the Maintenance Technician on temperature checks 3 times per week x 3 months to validate values.
Findings will be reported by NHA at the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Meeting for a period of 3 months to monitor progress towards improvement and recommendations.
The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 3/6/23 at 1:00 PM after on-site confirmation of the completion of the facility's plan of removal.
2). The BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) is a mandatory tool used to screen and identify the cognitive condition of residents upon admission into a long-term care facility. The test is usually administered by a social worker who asks a series of questions while noting the answers on the BIMS scorecard. Each question is scored according to a numeric value. The total BIMS score ranges between zero to fifteen points and is categorized into three cognitive groups: Intact, Moderate, and Severe. The objective of a BIMS assessment is not to diagnose cognitive illnesses like dementia or Alzheimer's but rather to assist facility staff with detecting early symptoms and the potential need for further evaluation.
Record review on 03/09/2023 at 10:00 AM the surveyor review indicated that Resident #208 had a BIMS score of 15 on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE]. Resident #208 required supervision; defined as oversight, encouragement or cueing in the eating section. Resident #208 has a documented medical history of; lack of coordination, muscle weakness (generalized), malignant neoplasm of vertebral column, unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility and a history of cerebral infarction. Further review of the facility ' s investigation notes on 03/09/2023 at 2:00 PM revealed that Resident #208 asked the Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) # 59 for a cup of tea after dinner. Further review of the record indicated that GNA# 59 went to the kitchen and retrieved a paper cup and filled the cup with hot water from the coffee/water machine located on a counter in the kitchen. The GNA made the tea and placed it on the resident's bedside table.
According to the nurse's note dated 01/31/2023 at 9:58 AM, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #61 reported, During wound care the resident was noted with blisters to the right leg and right upper thigh. Upon assessment no other new skin issue was noted. Denies any pain or discomfort. Resident stated he/she mistakenly spilled hot tea to the right leg and right upper thigh. The wound physician #52 was made aware and visited the resident at bedside. A new medication order was given for Silvadene every shift. Resident #208 is the self-Responsible Party (RP). The sister of the resident was unable to be reached, a message was left for her to call the facility back. The resident remains in stable condition.
On 03/09/2023 at 10:00 AM the surveyor reviewed Resident # 208's wound care medical record. It was revealed that on 01/31/2023, the resident had a 2nd degree burn with a ruptured blister on the resident's right posterior thigh and a second degree burn with an intact blister located on the right medial leg.
During the surveyor's interview conducted on 03/09/2023 at approximately 10:45 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that the 7 AM - 3:00 PM wound care nurse (Staff # 53) assessed Resident #208 and identified second degree burns on the right thigh and right leg. The wound care nurse Staff # 53 immediately called the wound care physician (# 52) and the DON. The DON stated that she went to the resident's room and assessed the resident at bedside and initiated an incident report. The GNA (# 59) was suspended and later resigned.
A plan of correction was created that consisted of:
1. Staff members who went against current procedures were reprimanded appropriately including GNA # 59.
2. In order to keep the Curtis Hot Water Boiler at the appropriate temperature, the setting will permanently be left on Holding. The machine was found to be set to boiling which produced hot water exceeding the safe temperature zone for hot beverages.
3. All staff members are allowed to retrieve their own beverages from the kitchen, they must sign a form indicating name, floor, position, and date prior to retrieving beverages.
4. To ensure that residents receive hot beverages at the correct temperature, staff will be required to sign for the hot beverage when requested in between meals.
a.
All hot beverages provided to residents must be in a designated handled cup with lid and tempted to ensure the resident's beverage will not exceed 145 degrees Fahrenheit upon receival.
b.
All staff members who retrieve a hot beverage from the kitchen for any resident must verify and sign that beverage was retrieved in the proper cup for delivery. The name of the resident, diet order/texture must be listed on the sign out form. A dietary staff member is required to sign for verification of appropriate beverage temp.
5. Carafes with hot water in the safe temperature zone may be held in the nourishment rooms for use in between mealtimes to assist the facility in meeting residents' dietary preferences.
The surveyor interviewed staff member #58, Certified Dietary Manager, on 3/9/23 at 2PM.Staff # 58 showed this surveyor the coffee machine. He stated that when the kitchen staff turn on the coffee maker, it automatedly reaches a temperature of 168 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Staff # 58 stated that that temperature is too hot for a resident or anyone else to drink. The coffee is then poured into a designated handled cup and placed into a holding area where the temperature drops to 140-145 degrees Fahrenheit. At that point the coffee or hot water is ready to be taken to the residents. Staff # 58 stated he has temperature logs that are taken each day before food or hot drinks are served. He stated that with this incident, GNA # 59 came down to the kitchen and did not notify kitchen staff of what his/ her needs were and took water independently from the hot water dispenser without placing it in the holder to drop the temperature. The Director of Nursing and Certified Dietary Manager (#58) both stated this type of incident has never happened before.
During an interview conducted on 03/09/2023 at 10:30 AM, the resident stated that he was reaching for something on the bedside tray table and mistakenly knocked the cup of hot tea onto himself which burned his right leg. The resident further stated that he continues to suffer from pain from the burns to his right leg and was currently in pain.
On 3/9/2023 at 10:40 AM the surveyors told the RN Unit Manager (#60) that Resident #208 was in pain, and she replied that he gets pain meds before dialysis. Which is on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday (MWF). Oxycodone is administered every 4 hours before dialysis. The surveyors informed the Unit Manager (#60) and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #61 that the resident was currently expressing pain due to his burns.
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and medical record review it was determined that the facility failed to notify a resident's Responsible Part...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and medical record review it was determined that the facility failed to notify a resident's Responsible Party of 1) an injury and 2) change in treatment. This was found evident of 9 (Residents #19, #22, #63, #87, #115, #176, #551, #553 and #556) of 10 residents reviewed for notifications during the facility's annual and complaint survey.
The findings include:
1. On 2/28/23 at approximately 1 PM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #551's medical records and reviewed documentation from a lower extremity arterial doppler preformed by the Vascular Specialist, dated 12/9/20. On the top of the document the facility's name was handwritten and Resident #551's name was typed in the upper right corner.
Further review of the chart revealed no documentation that Resident #551's Responsible Party (RP) was informed prior to the test being performed or after the test was performed.
On 3/1/23 at 12:11 PM, the surveyor interviewed the [NAME] President of the contractor/vender, Staff #15. The surveyor asked Staff #15 if the arterial doppler was performed at the facility. Staff #15 stated the handwritten name of the facility written at the top of the document indicated it was done at the facility. Staff #15 reported that staff from the Vascular Specialist see residents at the facility occasionally. Staff #15 stated she was unable to find notes from that visit and was not able to find documentation that the RP for Resident #551 was contacted and informed about the test preformed on 12/9/20 by the Vascular Specialist. Staff #15 also stated it would be the facility's expectation that the RP would have been notified if the arterial doppler was performed at the facility and she would continue to look for documentation.
As of 3/9/23 at 4:15 PM the facility was not able to produce additional documentation to support that notification was given to Resident #551's RP.
2. Review of complaint #MD00173571 revealed general care concerns related to Resident #556.
Review of the medical record for Resident # 556 on 3/1/23 at 12:30 PM revealed admission to the facility in August of 2021 with multiple comorbidities including a sacral pressure ulcer, dementia, and heart failure. Resident #556 was also not his/her own representative secondary to the dementia diagnosis. The spouse was designated at admission
according to the face sheet and social work documentation.
A. On 3/3/23 surveyor requested any notifications to family from the resident's admission to discharge. The following incidents failed to have documented notifications according to the facility electronic health records and what they provided to the survey team during the annual survey.
Review of progress notes on 3/1/23 noted an 'Alert Note' created on 9/22/21 at 11:13 AM. That the RD [Registered Dietician] 'made aware of Resident frequently refusing meals. Placed orders for Ensure Plus TID with meals and snacks. Would recommend continuing to encourage PO (mouth) intake and hydration at meals and snacks, [prn] as needed.' Additionally, a 'weight change note' was entered, noting a 13.8 pounds/10.6% weight loss in less than 30 days which triggers as a significant weight loss.
Record review failed to reveal any notification to the family regarding the residents frequently refusing of meals and weight loss. A 'care conference note,' was completed on 10/1/21. It was not documented until then that an interdisciplinary meeting was held with the family, and they were notified of the residents poor intake and meal refusals noted secondary to his/her dementia. At that time the family was able to discuss the resident's food preferences.
B. On 10/11/21 resident had lab work completed. The results were abnormal, and the attending physician ordered for the nursing staff to insert a foley catheter, give intravenous fluids and repeat the lab work in the morning.
According to the 'eInteract Change in Condition Evaluation' completed by nursing staff on 10/11/21, the RP notified was 'self,' referring to the resident, who was not his/her own representative.
C. A 'skin/wound note' completed on 10/13/21 at 3:19 PM noted that patient was seen by wound team/doctor [physician]; for assessment/ treatment; wound to sacrum observed to be infected patient stared on [antibiotics]ABT/Vitamins for wound healing. The corresponding 'eInteract Change in Condition Evaluation' form did note notification to the family; however, it was related to lab work and did not have any notification related to changes in the residents wound, infection or antibiotic administration.
D. Another 'skin/wound note' was created on 10/20/23 at 4:37 PM noting 'wound to sacrum observed to be infected, patient started on ABT [antibiotics] . 10 days for wound healing.' There was no documentation regarding family notification of the residents wound status.
Concerns regarding notification to the resident and representatives was reviewed with the facility Director of Nursing throughout the survey.
3. An Advanced Directive is a document that allows a resident to decide who they want to make health care decisions for them if they are unable to do so or it can go into effect upon signing.
A Maryland Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) is a form that includes orders for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and other medical personnel regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other life-sustaining treatment options for a specific resident or patient.
A review of Resident #553's clinical record on 3/1/23 to 3/8/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed the MOLST had section for medical testing completed to instruct staff to only do medical testing if symptoms are present. Further review revealed the resident's primary physician ordered medical testing without symptoms present and in some cases the lab testing was done.
The nurse practitioner (CRNP) observed the resident on 9/2/21. She wrote: [Resident] remains in a vegetative state with no signs of pain or respiratory distress noted during this encounter. Vital signs stable and Foley draining clear yellow urine. Abdominal distension persist but soft with positive bowel sounds throughout, and staff report daily bowel incontinence. Patient also tolerating tube feedings with no residual or vomiting.
Blood was drawn on 9/3/21, 10/8/21, and 10/12/21 for testing without symptoms. The pharmacist recommended on 9/25/21 for valproic acid and phenobarbital (anti-seizure drugs) levels to be drawn even though the resident did not have seizures. The physician ordered on 9/29/21 for levels to be checked daily for three days. Blood was never obtained for these levels and the tests were never done.
The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/6/23 at 1:48 PM. She was informed of the findings. The DON said she understood but would like to review the clinical record because she believes the resident was very sick.
No further evidence of symptoms were presented to the survey team prior to exit.
4. A review of Resident #19's clinical record on 2/7/23 revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed that the resident did not have nor was offered an Advanced Directive.
5. A review of Resident #22's clinical record on 2/6/23 revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed that the Social Worker wrote a note on 12/26/22 that the resident has an Advanced Directive and the facility has a copy but the electronic records did not include this copy.
A copy of the Advanced Directive was requested from the DON on two occasions but not produced prior to exit.
6. A review of Resident #63's clinical record on 2/7/23 revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed that the resident has an Advanced Directive but a copy was not in the clinical record. A MOLST was completed on 12/14/21 and it noted the resident did not want to be resuscitated if found without a pulse.
7. A review of Resident #87's clinical record on 2/7/23 at 10:22 AM revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed that the resident has a MOLST but not an Advanced Directive.
8. A review of Resident #115's clinical record on 2/7/23 revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed the resident has a MOLST but no evidence of an Advanced Directive.
9. A review of Resident #176's clinical record on 2/7/23 revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed that the resident has a MOLST but the facility does not have a copy of an Advanced Directive in the clinical record.
The Regional Services Social Worker was interviewed on 2/9/23 at 12:05 PM. She said the facility interviews the residents on admission for a baseline and then care plan meetings are scheduled. The Social Worker reviews the MOLST within 48 hours of admission. The Social Worker also reviews MOLST's for any changes. The Social Worker then asks the resident and/or the responsible party if advanced directives are desired. The facility staff will review advanced directives at the care plan meetings and it they are not present at admission then they are audited.
The DON acknowledged on 2/9/23 at 2:30 PM that advanced directives were not provided to the residents.
The DON was interviewed on 2/14/23 at 8:55 AM. She stated that she would look for any of the Advanced Directives but thought that all of the advanced directives in their possession would have been uploaded to the appropriate clinical record.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. On 3/6/23, this surveyor recieved a complaint from a former staff member # 56 that since he/she has been employed at this facility, he/she has witnessed countless incidents of abuse to resident and...
Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 3/6/23, this surveyor recieved a complaint from a former staff member # 56 that since he/she has been employed at this facility, he/she has witnessed countless incidents of abuse to resident and staff and went on to mention a hot beverage being spilled on a resident who then received second degree burns.
On 3/7/23 at 10:58 AM a medical record review was conducted for Resident # 208. On 1/31/23 the resident requested hot water for tea. Geriatric Nursing Assistance (GNA) # 59 went down to the Kitchen and brought back hot water for the resident. GNA # 59 left the hot water on the bed table. A short while later Resident # 208 spilled the water on his lap. He called for help but no one responded until about 10 PM at night when GNA # 59 came in to change him. At that time, Resident #208 explained to GNA # 59 what happened The resident was assessed, and there was no redness or blisters on legs until the next morning. Resident #208 complained he was in pain and he was assessed again. The Nurse discovered Resident # 208 received second degree burns on the right upper thigh and right leg. The Doctor was notified. This accident/incident was not forwarded to the Office of Health Care Quality. On 3/9/23 Director of Nursing was made aware at aproximately 2:30 PM. She stated that she did not think she had to report this because she knew what happened.
Based on a review of intakes #MD00161558 and #MD00161718 (Resident # 316} and MD00189716 ( Resident # 56) and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to report to the Office of Health Care Quality an allegation of abuse and resident that sustained a 2nd degree burn when handling hot coffee This was evident for 2 out of 53 residents in the survey sample.
The findings include:
1. A review of the facility investigation into the allegation of abuse made by Resident #22 on 12/13/2020 revealed staff interviewed other residents to determine their experiences with the alleged perpetrator and to determine if there are any unreported incidents of abuse. Resident #316 was interviewed on 12/13/20 (time not noted) and asked Has staff, a resident, or anyone else here abused you -- this includes verbal, physical, or sexual abuse? Resident answered yes but said they did not tell staff.
The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 2/21/23 at 11:45 AM. The findings were explained. She did not have an immediate answer as to whether or not this new allegation was reported to OHCQ or if it had been investigated. She requested an opportunity to search for any evidence that it had been reported and/or investigated. I agreed to review any investigation they had.
The DON was asked again on 2/22/23 at 12:30 PM for the investigation into the allegation.
This surveyor interviewed the DON and the corporate nurse on 3/3/23 at 2:42 PM. They said they had looked for the investigation. The DON said she cannot find an investigation but concluded that staff must have checked the wrong box during the investigation and it was therefore a mistake because they take all allegations seriously. They gestured to a pile of red folders which appeared to contain allegations. The DON said she would search for contact information for the resident or the resident's responsible party (RP) to see if the resident made the allegation.
The DON returned on 3/6/23 at 1:40 PM with a response regarding the allegation and it not being reported or investigated. She said the resident had a court appointed guardian and so the staff person would not have to report it unless it came from the guardian. I explained that all allegations have to be reported even if it comes from someone who is not their own RP. She said she understood.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews it was determined the facility failed to provide a bed hold for a resident transferred to...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews it was determined the facility failed to provide a bed hold for a resident transferred to the hospital. This was found to be evident for 1 (resident #94) out of 1 residents reviewed for transfer and discharge.
The findings include:
During an interview conducted on 02/07/2023 at approximately 1:28 PM, Resident #94 stated he recently was hospitalized for bleeding.
On 02/07/2023 at approximately 1:45 PM a review of Resident #94's medical records revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] due to profuse bleeding. Further review of the medical records did not reveal documentation of a bed hold for the transfer to the hospital on [DATE].
On 02/13/2023 at approximately 11:15 AM the surveyor advised the Director of Nursing (DON) the s/he was unable to locate a bed hold for Resident # 94 hospitalization on 09/05/2022.
On 02/13/2023 at approximately 1:00 PM the DON provided the surveyor a notice of transfer/discharge. The notice included Resident #94's name, facility's name, and address only. The notice was blank for; date of transfer/discharge, where the resident was transferred, the reason for transfer, facility contact information, and was unsigned by the resident and nursing home facility representative. The surveyor advised the DON the notice provided was incomplete and did not indicate it was for the resident's transfer to the hospital on [DATE].
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, interview with resident, and facility staff and observations, it was determined that the facility staff failed to appropriately code a residents mobility ability on adm...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, interview with resident, and facility staff and observations, it was determined that the facility staff failed to appropriately code a residents mobility ability on admission Minimum Data Set (MDS). This was evident during the review of 1 of 9 (Resident #242) residents reviewed for positioning/mobility.
The findings include:
The MDS is a federally mandated assessment tool used by nursing home staff to gather information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions. MDS assessments need to be accurate to ensure each resident receives the care they need.
The Care Area Assessment (CAA) process provides guidance on how to focus on key issues identified during a comprehensive MDS assessment. The triggered MDS items target care areas for additional assessment and review, as warranted by MDS item responses.
During initial tour and screening, Resident #242 was interviewed on 2/06/23 at 10:40 AM. Resident #242 was very teary and visibly and verbally anxious and stated that she is now on antianxiety medications because staff does not come and care for her. S/he verbalized that s/he is unable to do anything for him/herself because s/he has [ALS] amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (A nervous system disease that weakens muscles and impacts physical function). Resident #242 was observed tucked in the bed with a hands free call bell located at his/her mouth as s/he is unable to use his/her hands to call for assistance.
Further review of Resident #242's medical record on 2/17/23 at 11:50 AM failed to reveal a care plan in place related to his/her ability to move his/her extremities. Surveyor further reviewed the care area assessment (CAA) from the admission MDS completed on 11/10/22.
According to the admission MDS, section 'G' functional status, Resident #242 was coded under G0400 under A (upper extremities)-impairment one side, B (lower extremities)-no impairment.
On 2/23/23 at 12:55 PM staff #54 the MDS coordinator was interviewed. The concerns were reviewed, and she stated she would review.
The concerns were followed up on with the Director of Nursing throughout the survey and again during exit from the facility.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. In May of 2022 Resident #201 reported an alleged incident of abuse by a male aide employed by the facility. The facility repo...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. In May of 2022 Resident #201 reported an alleged incident of abuse by a male aide employed by the facility. The facility reported the incident to the Office of Health Care Quality indicating that based on information gathered during their investigation, the allegation of abuse could not be substantiated.
In response to the allegation of abuse, the resident's care plan was revised to restrict male aides from assisting the resident.
During surveyor's initial interview on 2/6/23 at 10:40 AM of Resident #201, s/he reported the same male aide had continued to assist them in their wheelchair onto the elevator since the alleged incident of abuse and that this was not her/his preference.
On 3/6/23 at 12:49 PM during an interview with the facility's Director of Nursing, they reported the following as their expectation: In an abuse situation the alleged perpetrator is not allowed to assist the resident at all in any capacity around the facility. In other situations, the resident's preference is followed.
Staffing sheets for the facility floor that the resident resides on were reviewed by the surveyors on 3/7/23 at 1:30 PM. The male aide who was the alleged perpetrator was listed on the staffing sheet as having worked on 5/27/22 on the same floor as the resident in an adjacent unit.
On 03/07/2023 at 01:11 PM the surveyor shared concern for the alleged perpetrator listed on the staffing sheet continuing to work on the floor of the resident, as this resident must utilize the elevator consistently to get to another part of the facility.
On 3/7/23 at 01:47 PM the Director of Nursing was interviewed and reported the process for staff scheduling was that staff can sign up for their own shifts on staffing sheets. When a staff member is an alleged perpetrator she has a conversation with them so they know not to go to the resident's room.
During another interview with Resident #201 on 3/8/23 at 9:33 AM, s/he further reported that male geriatric nursing assistants (GNAs) have come into her/his room since the incident to also obtain blood pressures and this is not their preference.
The facility's investigation file for the May 2022 alleged incident of abuse was reviewed on 3/9/23 at 9:07 AM which included both a written statement from the resident regarding their preference that s/he no longer wants a male GNA taking care of her/him and a typed and signed statement from the nurse supervisor at the time that her/his preference for a female aide will be honored.
The facility's current care plan for the resident was reviewed on 3/6/23 at 9:49 AM which stated that the resident has a preference for female GNA assistance related to the allegation of abuse and several interventions including: 1.) allow the resident to make decisions about ADL's care, to provide a sense of control, 2.) resident will be assigned a female GNA per her preference.
The surveyors' findings were reviewed with the DON on 3/8/23 that the facility failed to consistently implement the interventions regarding the use of female only GNA's in the resident's care plan.
Based on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to develop and/or implement a resident's interdisciplinary care plan (Residents #1, #22 and #201). This was evident for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for care planning during an annual survey.
The findings include:
A care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident's care.
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) is a federally-mandated assessment of all residents in Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions.
1. The facility staff failed to develop a care plan to manage depression for Resident #1.
During interview of Resident #1 on 2/7/23 at 8:28 AM, Resident #1 stated he/she would like to see a counselor for his/her depression and he/she can't remember the last time he/she talked to one.
Review of Resident #1's medical record on 2/8/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has a diagnosis to include Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent.
Further review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the facility staff completed a MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment on 11/2/22.
Review of Resident #1's 11/2/22 MDS Assessment revealed the facility staff assessed the resident in Section D Mood with the presence of the following symptoms: feeling down, depressed or hopeless; trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much; and feeling tired or having little energy. Further review of the 11/2/22 MDS Assessment revealed the facility staff coded in Section V08. Mood State as Care Area triggered and marked for Care planning. Review of Resident #1's care plans revealed no care plan for depression.
After surveyor intervention, the facility staff initiated a care plan for Resident #1 on 2/10/23 that is entitled, Resident triggered for depression on the PHQ9 (Patient Health Questionnaire) related to diagnosis of Depression, Quadriplegia.
During interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/10/23 at 8:45 AM, it was confirmed the facility staff failed to develop a care plan to manage Resident #1's depression when they indicated they would on 11/2/22 MDS Assessment.
2. A review of Resident #22's clinical record on 2/6/23 revealed that on 11/24/22 the facility's interdisciplinary team (IDT) met to review the resident's comprehensive assessment as a response to a significant change in the resident's condition. A review of the resident's MDS revealed that Section V200 Care Area Assessment was scored to show the IDT agreed to develop a dental care plan to address the resident's lack of teeth and dentures. Further review revealed that the care plan was never developed.
Evidence of a care plan was not provided by the facility staff to the team prior to exit.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure nursing staff followed professional standards of practice. This was evident during 1 out of 2 medica...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure nursing staff followed professional standards of practice. This was evident during 1 out of 2 medication administrations that were observed as part of the survey.
The findings are:
During observation of the medication administration on 2/22/23 at 9:28 AM, Staff #57 left Resident #451's medications in a cup on the bedside table while she went back to the medication cart to get the resident's nasal spray. The medications that were left unattended were: carvedilol 3.125 mg (treats high blood pressure), Lasix 40 mg (diuretic), Potassium Chloride (supplement), isosorbide 5mg (treats angina), senna 8.6 mg (treats constipation), and vitamin D3 (supplement).
Staff #57 was preparing medications for Resident #107 on 02/22/23 at 10:17 AM. She left a bottle of aspirin on the top of the medication cart unattended while she entered the resident's room to find out if the resident needed lactulose (helps with bowel movements).
Staff #57 asked on 02/22/23 at 10:39 AM if she made any errors during the medication administration. This surveyor informed nurse about the aspirin being left on the top of the cart. Initially, she denied that she administered the resident aspirin. When I suggested she look on the computer screen for what medications had been administered she then denied leaving the medication on top of the cart.
The Director of Nursing was informed of the medication administration observations.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide grooming and p...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide grooming and personal hygiene services for a resident (Resident #3). This was evident for 1 out of 8 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) during an annual survey.
The findings include:
Observation of Resident #3 on 2/6/23 at 11:16 AM revealed the resident to have elongated and dirty fingernails, elongated toenails and unshaven facial hair. Interview with the resident at that time revealed the resident would like to have his/her fingernails and toenails trimmed and have face shaven. The Surveyor had Staff #25 come to the resident's room at that time and confirmed the surveyor's observations.
Review of Resident #3's medical record on 2/8/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] is dependent on the facility staff for his/her care, comfort and safety. The facility staff conducted a MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment on 1/25/23 and coded the resident in Section G Functional Status as a extensive assistance with one person physical assist for personal hygiene.
Further review of Resident #3's medical record revealed the resident had a care plan entitled, Resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit initiated on 11/4/19.
Interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/14/23 at 8:35 AM confirmed the facility staff failed to provide grooming services for Resident #3.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews with staff and resident, and review of facility records, it was determined that the facility failed to have an activities program designed to meet the interests and needs of reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews with staff and resident, and review of facility records, it was determined that the facility failed to have an activities program designed to meet the interests and needs of residents from both facility sponsored and individual activities based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and care plan. This was found evident of 1 of 2 residents reviewed for activities (Resident #114) during an annual survey.
The findings include:
On 2/7/23 at approximately 8 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #114's medical record. The review revealed that Resident #114 was admitted to the facility in late 2018.
On 2/7/23 at 10:04 AM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #114. During this interview Resident #114 express he/she was one for the youngest residents in the facility and that the activities that were offered were not very age appropriate.
On 2/13/23 at 12:15 PM, the surveyor conducted an interview with the Activities Director Staff #14. Staff #14 reported Resident #114 participates in resident council and (specific gender) club but prefers to socialize with friends outside and do spontaneous group gatherings. Staff #14 also reported that Resident #114 has 1:1 conversation for one of his/her activities and during this time he/she can vent frustrations. Staff #14 stated she didn't have any age specific offerings on calendar but was open to adding some. Staff #14 indicated that the younger residents usually go outside and have spontaneous group activities.
On 2/14/2023 at 11:54 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #114's care plan. The review revealed that Resident #114's had a care plan for physical limitations in activity involvement and had a goal stating; (Resident #114) prefers to pursue independent interest such as watching tv and movies, using cell phone for games, social media and talking, socializing and conversing with others, wheeling outdoors and receiving visitors. (He/she) will continue to receive 1:1s weekly for encouragement and discussions.
On 2/15/2023 at approximately 8 AM, the surveyor reviewed the activities calendar along with Resident #114's attendance log. Resident #114 was documented to have attended one event that was marked on the activites calendar for the month of January 2023. The attendance date was 1/2/2023. This activity was titled Calendar/Newsletter. Resident #114 attended no other activities that were written on the calendar for January 2023.
Further review of Resident #114's activities attendance record revealed that the dates of 11/29/22 through 12/11/22 there was no documentation that Resident #114 attended any activities, personal or facility sponsored, (13 days) and that only one 1:1 conversation was recorded for the month of December, which was recorded on 12/30/2022. Additionally, there were no recorded activities from 1/25/2023 through 2/2/23 (9 days), and in the time frame from 1/24/23 through 2/8/23 (16 days) there was no documentation that a 1:1 conversation activity was conducted.
The surveyor reviewed the concerns with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/23/23 at 2:03 PM about the lack of age specific activities for Resident #114 as well as the absence of 1:1 conversations per Resident 114's activities care plan.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to follow up and ensure ophthalmology s...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to follow up and ensure ophthalmology services were obtained for Resident #140. This is evident for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for vision and hearing during an annual survey.
The findings include:
During an interview with Resident #140 on 2/6/23 at 1:21 PM, the resident stated he/she was supposed to be sent to an eye specialist in 2022 but it still hasn't happened.
Review of Resident #140's medical record on 2/10/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was seen by an Ophthalmologist on 3/1/22. An Ophthalmologist is a specialist in medical and surgical eye problems. Review of the Ophthalmologist's assessment on 3/1/22 revealed the Ophthalmologist documented the plan was a consult with a Retina Specialist due to visual disturbance.
Further review of the resident's medical record revealed the resident was seen again by an Ophthalmologist on 9/2/22 where again the Ophthalmologist again documented the plan was a consult with a Retina Specialist. On 12/21/22 the resident was seen again by an Ophthalmologist who documented the resident did not see the Retina Specialist and reinput referral.
Further review of the resident's medical record revealed the resident is scheduled to go to the Ophthalmologist on 3/31/23 for a retinal exam, one year after the Resident was recommended to be seen.
Interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/14/23 at 8:35 AM confirmed the facility staff failed to follow up and ensure ophthalmology services were provided for Resident #140 in a timely manner.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 2/23/23 at 11:15 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #551's medical record. There review revealed Resident #551 was admitte...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 2/23/23 at 11:15 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #551's medical record. There review revealed Resident #551 was admitted to the facility in fall of 2020 and was seen by Skilled Wound Care (SWC) shortly after admission for wounds Resident #551 entered the facility with.
On 2/23/23 at 11:20 AM, the surveyor reviewed the wound progress notes and discovered an initial wound treatment for a right toe wound was started on 12/15/20.
On 2/23/23 at 12:54 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident # 551's orders. The review revealed an order written on 12/15/2020 by Medical Director Staff #42. The order stated, Cleanse Right big toe with NSS (normal saline solution), pat dry, apply skin prep and leave open to air.
On 2/28/23 the surveyor asked the Director of Nursing (DON) for the incident report for Resident #551's toe wound.
The surveyor reviewed the facility's policy titled, Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management. In the procedure section it states, An incident report is completed by the assigned nurse when a resident is found to have a new skin tear or wound.
On 3/1/23 at 12:11 PM, the surveyor followed up with the DON who confirmed there was no incident report for Resident #551's toe wound.
Based on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to provide treatment/services to prevent/heal pressures ulcers (Resident #1 and #554, 551). This is evident for 3 of 15 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during an annual survey.
The findings included:
A pressure ulcer also known as pressure sore or decubitus ulcer is any lesion caused by unrelieved pressure that results in damage to the underlying tissue. Pressure ulcers are staged according the their severity from Stage I (area of persistent redness), Stage II ( superficial loss of skin such as an abrasion, blister or shallow crater), Stage III ( full thickness skin loss involving damage to subcutaneous tissue presenting as a deep crater), Stage IV (full thickness skin loss with extensive damage to muscle, bone or tendon) or Unstageable Pressure Ulcer (full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough and / or eschar in the wound bed).
A deep tissue injury (DTI) is a unique form of pressure ulcer. The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel defines a deep tissue injury as A pressure-related injury to subcutaneous tissues under intact skin. Initially, these lesions have the appearance of a deep bruise.
1. The facility staff failed to document weekly pressure ulcer measurements.
Review of Resident #1's medical record on 2/8/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnosis to include Stage IV Pressure ulcer of the sacral region. The sacrum is a shield-shaped bony structure that is located at the base of the lumbar vertebrae and that is connected to the pelvis.
Review of Resident #1's care plans revealed the resident has a care plan entitled, Resident has Stage IV pressure ulcer of the sacrum and remains at risk for pressure ulcer development related to history of ulcers, Immobility that was initiated on 09/16/2019 with an intervention of weekly treatment documentation to include measurement of each area of skin breakdown's width, length, depth, type of tissue and exudate.
Further review of Resident #1's medical record revealed although the facility staff were providing treatment to the sacral pressure ulcer there was no weekly measurement of the pressure ulcer between 11/29/22 and 1/31/23.
Interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/13/23 at 10:30 AM confirmed the facility staff failed to document weekly measurements of Resident #1's sacral pressure ulcer from 11/29/22 until 1/31/23.
2. The facility staff failed to provide pressure ulcer treatments as ordered.
Review of Resident #554 medical record on 2/15/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis to include Pressure ulcer to sacrum. The resident was seen by the Wound Care Specialist on 8/3/21 and was assessed to have a Stage IV Pressure ulcer to the sacrum.
Further review of the medical record revealed the resident was discharged to the hospital on 8/17/21 and returned to the facility on 9/7/21. The resident was seen again by the Wound Care Specialist on 9/8/21 who documented daily treatment orders for the resident's Stage IV Sacral Pressure ulcer. Review of the resident's September 2021 Treatment Administration Records and nurses' notes revealed the facility staff failed to provide treatment to the Resident's pressure ulcer on 9/10, 9/11, 9/12, 9/13 and 9/15/21.
Interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/16/23 at 11:30 AM confirmed the facility staff failed to provide treatment for Resident #554's Sacral Pressure ulcer on 9/10, 9/11, 9/12, 9/13 and 9/15/21.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0687
(Tag F0687)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews, record review, and observation it was determined that the facility failed to ensure Resident #201 was receiving proper foot care treatment. This was evident for one of one residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and observation it was determined that the facility failed to ensure Resident #201 was receiving proper foot care treatment. This was evident for one of one resident (#201) reviewed for foot care.
The findings include:
Upon initial tour Resident #201 reported to the surveyor on 2/6/23 at 1:37 PM that s/he was performing foot soaks with epsom salt every day and did not require betadine or other wound care anymore.
Resident #201 with diagnoses of gangrene of foot required surgical amputation (removal) on 12/14/22 of right digits (toes) 1-5, and left digits (toes) 1, 2, and 5.
During surveyor record review on 2/6/23 subsequent to initial tour, hospital discharge instructions dated 12/14/22 did not reveal recommendation for epsom salt soaks. The most recent recommendation made by the foot surgeon prior to 2/6/23, was on 1/23/23 and included instructions to the facility for care of the wounds: wash with soap and water, apply betadine to incisions, and cover daily with dry gauze and wrap with rolled gauze.
Notes from the wound healing center on 1/4/23 and notes from the foot surgeon on 1/23/23 were reviewed and there were no recommendations for Epsom Salt soaks to be performed. Instructions were provided to the facility via both of these documents which included the following information for foot care of the resident: Do not soak the incisions in water, no swimming or tub baths for now.
Surveyor noted the facility's active medical order dated 1/24/23 that included the following information: Do not soak the incisions in water, no swimming or tub baths for now.
During an interview with surveyors on 2/13/23 at 12:50 PM Resident #201 reported they continue to soak their own feet with epsom salt and s/he again reported not having wound care anymore. The most recent recommendation from the facility's wound care provider on 2/8/23 included: Right 1st to 3rd toe tip, Right 5th toe tip, Left 1st toe tip, Left 5th toe tip: apply Betadine to wound bed, allow to dry.
The facility's treatment administration record for February 1-7, 2023 was reviewed on 3/2/23 at 9:26 AM and the following six treatment orders were found to be co-occurring, checked off, and initialed by staff members daily as being performed for the resident:
1.) Use soap and water, apply betadine to areas of gangrene, cover with kerlix and secure with tape every day bilateral toes with a start date of 11/1/22 (foot care order date prior to resident surgery on 12/14/22).
2.) Cleanse left foot 1-5 toe with NSS (normal saline solution, used to cleanse wounds) pat dry, apply betadine, allow to dry, cover with 4x4 gauze, wrap with kerlix (gauze wrapping) and secure with tape, with a start date of 8/17/22 (foot care order date prior to resident surgery on 12/14/22).
3.) Cleanse right foot 1-5 toes with NSS, pat dry, apply betadine, leave open to air, with a start date of 7/9/22 (foot care order date prior to resident surgery on 12/14/22).
4.) Cleanse left 1st and 5th toe surgical wound with NSS, pat dry, apply xeroform (wound covering) and betadine, cover with 4x4 gauze, wrap with kerlix, and secure with tape, with a start date of 12/24/22 (after surgery date).
5.) Bilateral foot/toes wound care instruction: wash and bathe both legs and feet with soap and water, pat dry, apply betadine to the incisions, cover with dry gauze and wrap with rolled gauze, change dressing daily after cleansing and secure with tape every day shift for amputation of toes, with a start date of 1/24/23.
6.) Cleansing of incisions of both feet daily, with soap and water, this will loosen the stitches from the dead skin/scabs every day shift for wound care, with a start date of 1/24/23.
According to the signed treatment orders, the resident was receiving co-occurring wound treatment that was conflicting in nature about: the type of medication being used, the locations it was being applied to, and covering vs. leaving the wounds open to air.
Facility wound care provider consults dated 12/15/22, 12/22/22, 2/8/23, 2/22/23 and 2/28/23 did not reveal any recommendation for epsom salt soaks to be performed or wound care training of the resident.
On 3/2/23 at 10:45 AM staff #52, the facility's wound care physician, was interviewed and was informed by surveyors of Resident #201 reporting: 1.) they were performing their own epsom salt baths to soak feet and 2.) they didn't require wound care anymore. After bringing concerns to the physician's attention, surveyor noted a change to the March treatment administration record. Treatment dated as beginning on 1/23/23 that included do not soak the incisions in water was discontinued as of 3/2/23 at 4:16 PM.
On 3/8/23 at 9:33 AM the resident was again interviewed and continued to report that facility staff were not performing any wound care and s/he was continuing to perform her/his own wound care including epsom salt soaks and also reported performing her/his own applications of betadine. During this interview, the resident gestured over to a bottle which surveyors then observed containing a brown solution with a generic betadine label located in the resident's room and also showed surveyors where the supplies of swabs to apply it were located.
The observations and interview with Resident #201 that occurred on 3/8/23 were immediately relayed to the facility Director of Nursing. The Director of Nursing was made aware that the previously reported concerns from 3/2/23 are still ongoing regarding implementation of physician orders and ensuring that Resident #201 is receiving the proper wound care treatment.
Cross Reference 757, 842
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. On 2/8/23 at 12:42 PM, the surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #57. The review revealed that Resident #57 was readmitted to the facility in late December 2022. Resident #57's past med...
Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 2/8/23 at 12:42 PM, the surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #57. The review revealed that Resident #57 was readmitted to the facility in late December 2022. Resident #57's past medical history included, end stage renal (kidney) disease, dysphasia (impaired speech), cognitive communication deficient and peripheral vascular disease.
Further review of Resident #57's medical record revealed recent weights.
12/22/22- 237.6 Pounds (lbs)
1/3/23- 231.5 lbs
1/24/23- 229.9 lbs
2/7/23- 202.4 lbs
From 1/3/23 to 2/7/23, approximately one month, Resident #57 had a 12.57% weight loss.
On 2/6/2023 at 10:40 AM, Resident #57 was observed sleeping in his/her bed. At 1:09 PM, that same day, resident #57 was observed sleeping in his bed with his/her lunch food tray unopened and untouched on his/her bedside table.
On 2/7/23 at 11:13 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #57's breakfast tray with only a few bits taken from the tray.
On 2/22/23 the surveyor conducted an interview with the Dietitian, Staff #3. During the interview Staff # 3 stated she was familiar with Resident #57. Staff #3 indicated Resident #57 was diet non-compliant and was on monthly weights. Staff #3 described the process of monitoring resident's weight as follows: Monthly weights are obtained the 1st through the 10th of the month. Dietary monitors for significant changes, and if a significant change is identified a request for a re-weight is sent, the Director of Nursing (DON) is notified. We have a weekly weight meeting and communicate our concerns with the provider through emails.
On 2/24/23 10:23 AM, the surveyor conducted an interview with Medical Director, Staff #42. During this interview Staff #42 stated that Resident #57 had fluid shifts with his/her refusals to go to dialysis and believes this is the cause of the 20 pounds weight loss over that last month. When asked if there could be a nutritional component to the weight loss Staff #42 stated potentially, but that he believes this weight loss was from fluid shifts and was not concerns with Resident #57's nutritional intake.
On 2/28/23 at approximately 8:30 AM, the surveyor reviewed facility policy entitled; Weighing the Resident/Patient. Section 3 states; Any significant weight loss/gain is to be reported to the physician, family/responsible party, dietitian, nursing supervisor and address at the weekly weight or At Risk meeting. Section 4 states; Reweight of resident/patient is required with fluctuation of 5 lbs. from previous weight, with Licensed Nurse observation/validation. Also with significant weight change:
a.
5% loss or gain in one month
b.
7.5% loss or gain in three months
c.
10% loss or gain in six months
On 3/8/23 at 7:04 AM the surveyor conducted an interview with the DON. The surveyor requested the risk meeting minutes for the Risk meeting from the week of 2/7/23. The DON reported they did not hold a meeting that week.
On 2/28/2023 at 9 AM, the surveyor reviewed the progress notes dated, 2/10/23 written at 9:15 AM by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff #66. Staff #66 documented that Resident #57 refused to eat the evening meal but was encouraged and ate some crackers.
Further review of the progress notes dated 2/22/23 reported that LPN Staff #65 documented, resident returned from dialysis around 8 PM. Resident refused to eat and to take his medications.
Additionally, on 2/25/23 at 10:06 Dietitian Staff #67 wrote; Spoke with RN (registered nurse) who reports res (resident) ate >50% of breakfast tray this morning but has a tendency to refuse meals and trays due to limited food choices.
On 2/28/23 at 915 AM, the surveyor reviewed the Medical Director Staff #42's physician progress notes from an evaluation written on 2/22/23. The review revealed Resident #57 's weight was documented in vitals section and noted to be 202.4 lbs from the weight conducted on 2/7/23. Documented in the Review of systems section # 11) Abdominal: Soft Non-tender Non-distended Bowel sounds active Obese, and is section #14) Extremities: No edema. In the section entitled; Plan of care there was no mention of significant weight loss however Obesity was documented with nutritional support. The note revealed no new intervention to monitor weight loss or addressing contributing factors to significant weight loss.
On 3/8/2023 at approximately 11 AM, the surveyor reviewed a progress note dated 3/6/23 written by staff #3. The type of note labeled Weight Change Note. The progress note states; Res (Resident)triggers for weight loss of 43 lbs (18%) x 90d. CBW (current body weight) is 195 lbs with (Body Mass Index) BMI of 27 (appropriate for age.) Res was readmist on 2/24 and still on weekly wts (weights). RD (registered dietitian) Spoke with MD (medical doctor) and wt loss is likely from fluid removal as res has been going to HD (hemodialysis) on schedule. This was the first documentation of a clinical rational for the significant weight loss over a month after the significant weight loss was identified.
The surveyor reviewed her/his concern regarding the lack of clinical documentation in the medical record for significant weight loss with the Director of Nursing on 2/23/23 at 2:03 PM.
Based on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to follow up and implement interventions for a residents #231 and #57 with an identified impaired nutritional status. This was for 2 out of 53 residents reviewed within the survey sample.
The findings include:
1. Review of the medical record for Resident #231 on 2/21/23 at 8:56 AM revealed diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with dependence on mechanical ventilation, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (the placement of a feeding tube through the skin and the stomach wall and is needed when you are unable to eat or drink) feeding for nutrition and hemodialysis.
Review of the weight/change note completed on 12/16/22 noted Resident #231 had a significant weight loss. Per facility admission weights, Resident #231 was due for 1 more weekly weight as well as the following month of Januarys weight.
A nutrition/dietary note was completed on 1/12/23 noting abnormal labs and that the monthly weight was not yet available for review.
On 1/30/23 a 'weight change note' was created and noted that, 'Resident may not be receiving adequate feeding, will notify MD and nursing. Added order for weekly weights .'
On 2/22/23 at 11:49 AM the facility Registered Dietitian, staff #3, was interviewed. The concern identified in the record was the lack of completed weights and the follow-up after noted significant weight changes.
The weights from December 2022 were first reviewed. She (Staff #3) stated that she remembers the situation, as there are always interdisciplinary meetings about residents with concerns. She recalls the Registered Dietitian (RD) that was reviewing Resident #231's case had ordered for weekly weights on 12/16/22. Concurrently, we reviewed the chart and agreed that it was not completed.
Again on 1/30/23 there was a request from the RD for weekly weights, these too were not completed, nor was there documentation from the 2/22/23 recommendations.
Surveyor asked if there was a possibility, they could be suing the dialysis weights to monitor the resident and she stated, 'no they do not rely on the dialysis scales.'
The concern that there were multiple requests for weekly weights for significant weight loss and even after the request for the weights there was no timely follow up before another significant weight loss was noted as reviewed with the RD and the DON throughout the survey.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to provide post dialysis care consistent with professional standards of practice. This was evident of 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to provide post dialysis care consistent with professional standards of practice. This was evident of 1 of 4 Residents reviewed for dialysis during the annual survey (Resident #616).
The findings include:
On 2/13/23 at 7:52 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #616's medical record. This review revealed Resident #616 was admitted in May 2022. Resident #616' past medical diagnoses history includes, but not limited to, memory deficit following cerebral infarction, end stage renal disease, and dependance on renal (kidney) dialysis.
On 2/10/23 at 9:50 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #616 with a white dressing over right his/her dialysis access site.
On 2/10/23 at 9:51 AM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #616. Resident #616 stated he/she had dialysis yesterday and indicated the dressing on his right arm was from dialysis treatment preformed yesterday.
On 2/10/23 at 11:32 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident's # 616's medical orders. The review revealed that Resident #616 had an order written on 1/30/23 for dialysis 3 times a week during the day on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Additionally, Resident # 616 had an order written on 1/30/23 stating, Remove dialysis site dressing, 4 hours post-dialysis and check for signs of bleeding. Notify MD/NP (doctor or nurse practitioner) if present. Site: (Right arm AV (arterial/venous) Fistula). (Dialysis stie).
On 2/13/23 at 12:42 PM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #616's progress notes. Registered Nurse (RN) Staff #73 documented and confirmed that Resident #616 had dialysis on 2/9/23. Staff #73 stated, Resident #616 had dialysis rescheduled from the early morning til 10:30 AM on the day of 2/9/23.
On 2/22/23 at 7:33 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #616 with a white dressing over his/her dialysis site.
On 2/22/23 7:50 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse (RN) Staff #72 , the nurse assigned to Resident #616. During the interview, staff #72 stated that Resident #616 had dialysis yesterday and the dressing noted on Resident 616's dialysis site should have been removed by yesterdays afternoon nurse per orders.
On 2/23/23 at 2:03 AM, the surveyor reviewed the concerns related to post dialysis care with the Director of Nursing (DON).
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure properly working bedrails (#3). This was evident for 1 out of 53 residents in the sur...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure properly working bedrails (#3). This was evident for 1 out of 53 residents in the survey sample.
The findings are:
Resident #3 was interviewed on 2/22/23 at 9:32 AM. The resident said that the left upper rail of the bed was broken. This surveyor held onto the rail and was able to move it towards the resident and back towards the wall. A bed rail should not move as it is to provide stability.
Staff #21 was shown the bed rail on March 3, 2023, at 1:30 PM. This surveyor showed him how the rail moved and told him what the resident said. He looked at the rail and attempted some adjustments by hand. After a couple of attempts he said he would adjust later in the evening after we were done touring.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During interview of Resident #1 on 2/7/23 at 8:28 AM, Resident #1 stated he/she would like to see a counselor for his/her dep...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During interview of Resident #1 on 2/7/23 at 8:28 AM, Resident #1 stated he/she would like to see a counselor for his/her depression and he/she can't remember the last time he/she talked to one.
Review of Resident #1's medical record on 2/8/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has a diagnosis to include Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent.
Further review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the facility staff completed a MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment on 11/2/22. The MDS is a federally-mandated assessment tool that helps nursing home staff gathers information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions. Review of Resident #1's 11/2/22 MDS Assessment revealed the facility staff assessed the resident in Section D Mood with the presence of the following symptoms: feeling down, depressed or hopeless; trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much; and feeling tired or having little energy.
Review of the resident's Psychiatric Progress Notes on 2/9/23 revealed the last time the resident was seen by the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP) was 11/25/22. At that time the Psychiatric NP documented, Patient is stable and will be managed on a monthly and consistent basis.
Interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/10/23 at 8:45 AM confirmed the facility staff failed to provide monthly behavioral health services in December 2022 and January 2023.
Cross Reference F 741, F 742
Based on medical record review and observation and interview with resident and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent potential trauma triggers as identified in the trauma screen in order to limit or prevent the exacerbation of a residents anxiety. This was evident during the review of 2 of 11 residents (#242, #1) reviewed for behavioral health services.
The findings include:
1. Record review on 2/9/23 at 8:27 AM revealed that on 11/4/22 a trauma screen was completed. This revealed that Resident #242 had a history of sexual abuse in adolescence, sexual assault in the hospital and had a history of childhood trauma, on top of this new diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) a fatal debilitating disease, as of 2022.
The trauma screen includes a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) checklist. There were two areas identified as 'a little bit' that bothered the resident within the past month; #2 feeling upset when something reminded you of a stressful situation from the past and #4. feeling distant or cut off from other people.
Although Resident #242 was only identified as having been bothered 'a little bit' in the past month, the facility failed to ensure that if and when those situations arose that were identified in the PTSD screen they were addressed and further ensure Resident #242 attained his/her highest practicable well-being as a resident in the facility.
The facility response to Resident #242's anxiety and alleged frequent request for staff was to implement a care plan on 12/16/22 noting residents 'socially inappropriate behavior' of: demanding excessive use of staff time when needs are met, and depression related to poor prognosis with an intervention only to administer medication as ordered and monitor for reactions to the medications. Further interventions including a psychiatric consult were not completed until 1/3/23. This consult noted the resident's concern that staff is not responsive to his/her needs which is contributing to his/her anxiety and distrust of the staff.
Resident #242 on multiple occasions, including 2/6, 2/8, 2/10 and 3/8 verbalized to the surveyor his/her anxiety and stress related to concern that s/he is fully dependent on staff for care and cannot depend on them to care for him/her and just wants to go home.
The Surveyor met with Resident #242 on 3/8/23. S/he continued to verbalize anxiety, cried to the surveyor, and reported that staff was not responsive to his/her needs as s/he was not fed the day prior as s/he is fully dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. This information was brought to the RN Unit Manager, staff #27, and further the facility Director of Nursing.
Cross reference F699, F742
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0741
(Tag F0741)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During interview of Resident #1 on 2/7/23 at 8:28 AM, Resident #1 stated he/she would like to see a counselor for his/her dep...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During interview of Resident #1 on 2/7/23 at 8:28 AM, Resident #1 stated he/she would like to see a counselor for his/her depression and he/she can't remember the last time he/she talked to one.
Review of Resident #1's medical record on 2/8/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnosis to include Major Depressive Disorder and dependence on a ventilator. A ventilator is a piece of medical technology that provides mechanical ventilation by moving breathable air into and out of the lungs, to deliver breaths to a patient who is physically unable to breathe, or breathing insufficiently.
Further review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the facility staff completed a MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment on 11/2/22. The MDS is a federally-mandated assessment tool that helps nursing home staff gathers information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions. Review of Resident #1's 11/2/22 MDS Assessment revealed the facility staff assessed the Resident in Section D Mood with the presence of the following symptoms: feeling down, depressed or hopeless; trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much; and feeling tired or having little energy.
During interview of Resident #1 on 2/9/23 9:00 AM, the resident stated he/she does sometimes get in room activities but would like to be able to get out of his/her room for activities at times.
Review of the resident's Psychiatric Progress Notes on 2/9/23 revealed the resident was seen monthly from May 2022 until November 2022. Review of the Psychiatric Progress Notes documented by the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP) revealed a Plan of Patient is encouraged to participate in activities on the unit.
Review of the Resident's Activity Log provided by the Activities Director on 2/9/23 revealed the only activity the Resident participated in from 11/1/22 until 2/9/23 was in his/her room.
Reviewed the concern of not providing the Resident with out of the room activities during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/10/23 at 8:45 AM. The DON stated at that time she would need to create a plan and obtain staff to be able to provide the resident with out of the room activities due to his/her ventilator status.
Interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/10/23 at 10:00 AM confirmed the facility staff failed to provide Resident #1 with other activities outside his/her room due to lack of staffing.
Cross Reference F 740, F 742
Based on medical record review and interview with resident and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have non-pharmacologic interventions in place to address a resident's psychosocial well-being. This was evident for 2 of 11 residents reviewed for behavioral health. (residents # 1 and # 242).
The findings include:
1. Surveyor met Resident #242 during initial tour and screening on 2/6/23 at 10:40 AM. Resident #242 was very teary and visibly and verbally anxious and stated that he/she is now on antianxiety medications because staff does not come and care for him/her.
A care plan was noted in place related to the residents 'behavior problems' of: refusing treatment, 'socially inappropriate behavior' of: demanding excessive use of staff time when needs are met and depression related to poor prognosis with an intervention only to administer medication as ordered and monitor for reactions to the medications.
According to the medication administration record, the targeted behaviors that were to be monitored were documented as '(i.e. crying, withdrawn, expressing feelings of sadness, etc.).'
No behaviors or interventions specific to Resident #242 were implemented for either pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic.
See F 740, F 742
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0800
(Tag F0800)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews, observation, and review of the facility's documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately provide a meal based on the facility's established menu. This was...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, observation, and review of the facility's documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately provide a meal based on the facility's established menu. This was evident of 1 of 2 residents (Resident #149) reviewed for accuracy of meals during an annual survey.
The findings include:
On 2/22/23 at 7:38 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #149 eating breakfast in his/her room. The food on the tray consisted of eggs, toast, oatmeal, apple juice, and a coffee. On the tray was a printed meal ticket requesting regular ground meats. No meat was observed on Resident #149's tray, however sausage was on the daily menu for that morning's breakfast.
The surveyor conducted an interview with Resident #149 during the observation. In this interview Resident #149 stated the food was okay and that he/she prefers to have meat in the morning but does not normally receive meat on his/her breakfast tray.
On 2/22/23 at 7:42 AM the surveyor interviewed the facility's Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) Staff #58. During the interview staff #58 stated, if the kitchen has the ability to grind the meat on the menu it should be served to residents who request ground meats. Staff #58 confirmed that Resident #149 should have been served the ground sausage, which was on the menu selection. Staff #58 revealed the kitchen currently had ground sausage and would deliver it to Resident #149.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to serve food at appetizing temperatures. This was evident on 2 of 2 meal tray delivery observations r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to serve food at appetizing temperatures. This was evident on 2 of 2 meal tray delivery observations reviewed during an annual survey.
The finding include:
On 2/9/23 at 11:46 AM, the surveyor observed the facility's kitchen staff assemble food trays for the lunch mealtime. The surveyor requested a sample tray to be placed on the food cart scheduled to be delivered to the 5th floor.
On 2/9/23 at 12:48 PM, the surveyor observed the food cart delivered to the 5th floor.
On 2/9/23 at 12:57 PM, the surveyor observed all the lunch meal trays, from the 5th floor meal cart, had been delivered with the exception of the sample tray. At this time the surveyor asked the facility's Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) Staff #58, and the Food Service Manager, Staff #4 to use their kitchen thermometer to monitor the temperatures of the foods on the sample tray. The results were as follows:
Stew- 127 degrees
Beans- 126 degrees
Vegetable blend- 133 degrees
Puree meat- 128 degrees
Puree vegetable- 138 degrees
Iced tea- 43 degrees
Jell-O- 58 degrees
After temperatures were taken, the surveyor discussed that the meal temperatures were below 135 degrees and the beverage and jell-o temperatures were above 41 degrees. Staff #58 and Staff #4 agreed that the temperatures taken were not at desired temperatures.
On 2/22/23 at 7:25 AM, the surveyor observed a second meal preparation in the kitchen. The surveyor requested a sample tray be added for the 3rd floor food cart.
On 2/22/23 at 7:44 AM, the surveyor observed all food trays had been passed out from the 3rd floor food cart, leaving only the test tray. At this time Staff #58 and Staff #4 used their kitchen thermometer to monitor the temperatures of the foods in the sample tray. The results are as follows:
Puree bread- 140 degrees
Puree eggs- 167 degrees
Puree sausage- 167 degrees
Oatmeal-145 degrees
Coffee -156 degrees
Turkey sausage- 168 degrees
Eggs- 144 degrees
Milk- 45 degrees
Juice- 39 degrees
After temperatures were taken, the surveyor discussed the meal temperatures were now above 135 degrees, but the milk was above 41 degrees. Staff #58 and Staff #4 agreed that the milk was not at the desired temperature.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interviews with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards. This was evident of 2 of 5 kitchen observat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards. This was evident of 2 of 5 kitchen observations done during the annual survey.
The findings include:
On 2/6/23 at 9:16 AM, the surveyor conducted an initial tour of the facility's kitchen. The surveyor noted pots and pans piled up on a shelf adjacent to the pots and pan washing area. Further inspection of the pots and pans revealed moisture noted between both pots and pans and after turning the pots and pans the surveyor observed water dripping out.
The facility's Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) Staff #58 was present during the tour and stated that pots and pans should be fanned out not allowing moisture to accumulate and he would get an additional shelf to help in this process.
The surveyor continued the observation of the kitchen and observed one bag of elbow macaroni and one bag of spaghetti pasta opened with no opened date marked on the bags. Additionally, a grape drink mix was opened without an open date and a pan of what Staff #58 stated was a pan of cinnamon sugar was not labeled or dated.
On 2/6/23 at 9:37 AM, the surveyor observed the dry storage area of the kitchen. A bag of rolls was labeled as opened on 1/31/23, however there was moisture noted in the bag. Staff #58 removed the bag and discarded it.
Further observation of the dried storage area revealed marshmallows, walnuts and chocolate syrup opened but no date marked as to when the food was opened.
The surveyor noted a rack of spices. Dill weed was opened but had no open date. The surveyor asked Staff #58 how long spices were kept for after being opened and Staff #58 response was, a year. Further review of the spices revealed red pepper flakes were dated as opened 11/19/21 and bay leaves dated opened on 1/21/21. Staff #58 removed these spices.
The surveyor observed the refrigerator next to the dry storage room. The surveyor noted a plate of fresh fruit covered but no label or date was noted. An American cheese pack was opened but no date to indicate when the package was opened. Next to the American cheese there was a pack of opened and unlabeled cheese. Staff #58 identified it as Swiss cheese. On a different shelf Staff #58 identified whip cream in a container that was opened and unlabeled. Staff #58 instructed kitchen staff to remove the opened and unlabeled items from the refrigerator.
On 2/6/23 at 10:10 AM, the surveyor observed the walk-in freezer in the kitchen.
The following items were opened without a label indicating when items were opened:
Hashbrowns
Chicken nuggets
Sausage breakfast links
Veggie burgers
Italian sausage
Western fries
Pepperoni
Further observation of the freezer had six boxes on the ground.
On 2/8/23 at 11:15 AM, the surveyor had a follow-up tour of the kitchen. During this tour the surveyor observed a new rack added to the pots and pans drying station with pans drying upright and spread apart, however the deep pans were noted stacked together with water pooling between them.
The surveyor met staff #58 on 2/8/23, at 11:18 AM, and continued to observe the kitchen. The surveyor observed individualized containers of salads in the stand-up refrigerator as well as egg salad sandwiches. No container or sandwich had a label to indicate when the salad or the egg salad sandwiches were made. Staff #58 stated that the tray the food was on had one big label indicating when the salads and egg salad sandwiches were made. The surveyor expressed concern that if the label gets removed or if a salad or sandwich is removed from the tray the ability to identify when that salad was made is eliminated, leaving the potential for items to be left behind longer than recommended. Staff #58 stated he would label all individual containers and sandwiches.
Further tour of the kitchen revealed all opened and unlabeled items observed from the 2/6/23 tour, were removed and no boxes were observed on the freezer floor.
On 2/8/23 at 11:40 AM, the surveyor informed Staff #58 of the observation of the pooling water between the deep pans in the drying rack. Staff #58 indicated that should not be happening.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0825
(Tag F0825)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the provision of rehabilitation services fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the provision of rehabilitation services for a resident who had surgery and was recommended to begin physical therapy by their surgeon. This was evident in one of one resident (#201) reviewed for rehabilitation services.
The findings include:
Upon initial tour occurring on 2/6/23 at 1:38 PM, Resident #201 expressed to the surveyor that s/he was told that therapy was needed and then s/he can go home. Additionally, the resident had questions about when therapy was going to work with her/him. The resident reported s/he currently had the ability to do some walking.
During an interview on 2/13/23 at 12:50 PM, Resident #201 further reported to the surveyors' that therapy had still not begun and that s/he has been able to ambulate in the room and has been doing her/his own therapy by walking down the hallways holding the railing because s/he was ready to get back home, and family life was very important to her/him.
On 3/2/23 at 9:26 AM, review of the resident's medical record revealed after surgery hospital discharge instructions dated 12/14/22 stating the resident could bear weight on lower extremities as tolerated. Documentation of a follow up evaluation with the resident's foot surgeon occurring on 1/23/23 instructed the facility that the resident could stand up and begin walking with physical therapy, and additionally, a referral form for physical therapy was completed and dated 1/23/23 at 10:51 AM.
Additional documentation was reviewed, including a MDS (minimum data set) progress note dated 2/8/23 at 4:55 PM. Facility staff documented, Resident #201 was alert, a good historian, able to answer questions appropriately, and assessed for ADL (activities of daily living) performance. It was further noted in the documentation that the resident was able to walk in the room and walk some distance outside the room using the railings which concurred with what Resident #201 had told surveyors during the interview on 2/13/23. Additionally, the MDS dated [DATE] was coded with the resident as independent for walking in their room, and as supervision for walking in the corridor and confirmed each of these activities as having occurred three or more times. Facility documentation for the specific ADL of walking in the corridor was reviewed and the resident was documented as performing this task independently five out of six times between the dates of 2/2/23 and 2/11/23.
After surveyors were in the building, rehabilitation screening of the resident occurred on 2/15/23. Documentation of the rehab screen was reviewed and found to recommend a physical therapy evaluation. A physician's order was not put into place until 2/15/23 for the resident to begin therapy.
On 3/2/23 at 10:45 AM, Staff #52, the facility's wound care physician was interviewed and reported that the resident was having trouble bearing weight prior to surgery (12/2022), but since then her/his feet have improved and she/he can start therapy.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0840
(Tag F0840)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was scheduled for a necessary outside specialist provider appointment. This was evident for o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was scheduled for a necessary outside specialist provider appointment. This was evident for one out of one resident (#201) reviewed for wound care.
The findings include:
Upon the surveyor's review of Resident 201's medical record on 3/9/23 at 10:22 AM, the resident had toe amputations (removals) in December 2022, and required a necessary vascular specialist appointment for after surgery care of their lower extremities.
Resident #201 had an outside consultation on 1/4/23 for wound healing with instructions documented for the resident to have a follow up evaluation with vascular surgery, and additionally included was a referral dated 1/4/23 to the specified vascular specialist. On 1/23/23 there was another consult for wound healing with documented instructions: keep the follow up appointment with vascular surgery. Another ambulatory clinical summary, dated 2/27/23, instructed the facility to ensure the scheduling of a follow up appointment with a podiatrist/vascular surgeon prior to discharge because they needed a follow up appointment within one month.
During an interview with the resident on 3/8/23 at 9:33 AM they reported Staff #32, social worker told her/him to look up the doctors they need. The resident voiced frustration that they did not know/understand all the specialists they required for follow up care and had difficulty getting staff #32 to check in with them and was expecting that the facility honor their planned discharge date of 4/1/23. Additionally, the resident reported having an appointment scheduled for 3/20/23 with concern for lack of communication and follow up from facility staff regarding transportation arrangements to appointments. The resident further reported the facility staff had missed other recently scheduled appointments due to transportation not having been appropriately facilitated in a timely manner.
Review of the medical orders on 3/9/23 at 10:22 AM revealed that there was no order in place for a follow up appointment with the vascular surgeon.
On 3/8/23 at 11:00 AM Staff #32 was interviewed and provided that they were responsible for notifying the nurse responsible. Staff #32 reported that the Unit Manager, who is sometimes assisted by another staff member, is responsible for scheduling resident appointments and getting the information to the staff member who schedules transportation. Within this interview, no information was provided that related to a process that the facility used to follow up on resident appointments. Staff #32 was unaware of the resident's need for the vascular specialist appointment until it was brought to their attention by surveyors.
During an interview on 3/8/23 at 11:17 AM, Staff # 27 (Registered Nurse Unit Manager) reported that when a resident comes from an appointment if there is a follow up, they fill out a form and social service does the transportation. If a resident misses a scheduled appointment, they call social services to find out what happened and to reschedule it. When asked by the surveyors about transportation having been set up for an appointment that Resident #201 was communicating as scheduled, they responded the resident is seen by Staff #79 during vascular rounding and she will receive an email from them.
The surveyors interviewed Staff #79, an outside resource technician, who performs rounds on residents who are patients of the physician she works with. They reported that Resident #201 was followed under their care and was discharged prior to their surgery to a higher level of vascular care.
After repeated recommendations had been made, the facility failed to make the necessary arrangements for a scheduled appointment and transportation to ensure that the resident's highest practicable level of vascular health.
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
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. On [DATE] at 9:26 AM, the treatment administration records were reviewed for Resident #201's wound care and were found to con...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. On [DATE] at 9:26 AM, the treatment administration records were reviewed for Resident #201's wound care and were found to consist of six orders that were conflicting, co-occurring, checked off and signed with staff initials as having been performed. Three out of six wound care orders for the resident were reviewed and found to be dated as ordered prior to the resident's surgery for partial amputation (removal) of eight toes having been performed.
On [DATE] at 10:43 AM staff #52, wound care physician #1, was interviewed and provided the current recommendation for wound care of the resident was to paint with betadine (solution that can be used for wound care) and leave it open to air, dressing is no longer needed and could cause deterioration of the wounds.
On [DATE] at 11:15 AM, Staff #53, wound nurse, head of the department, was interviewed. During the interview s/he acknowledged themself or the staff who is implementing another treatment is responsible for clearing out old treatment administration records. Staff #53 acknowledged upon concurrent review with the surveyor of the treatment administration record, these orders are conflicting and not reflective of the wound care provider's current plan for care of the wounds.
Cross reference F687
3. On [DATE] at 11:15 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #551's medical record. The review revealed, Resident #551 was admitted to the facility in Fall of 2020 and was discharged on [DATE]. Resident #551 had a medical history that included, but not limited to, chronic kidney disease, chronic respiratory failure, tracheostomy (tube surgically placed to offer a direct airway) and muscle weakness.
On [DATE] 9:15 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #551's March of 2021 progress notes. The review revealed a note written on [DATE] at 4:48 PM, by Registered Nurse (RN) Staff #27, stating that Staff #27 had spoken to Resident 551's spouse and informed him/her that Resident #551 had Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed and was being transferred to the hospital.
On [DATE] at 9:16 AM, the surveyor reviewed a note written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff #75 written on [DATE] at 6:04 PM revealing that Resident 551's pulse was restored at 4:39 PM and was then transported to the hospital.
Further review of the progress notes revealed that Resident #551 did not return to the facility and was discharged on [DATE].
On [DATE] at 12:15 AM, the surveyor reviewed the Respiratory Therapy Treatment Administration Record (RT TAR) for Resident # 551 with the Director of Nursing (DON). The surveyor showed the DON documentation from Respiratory Therapist (RT) Staff #74 on Resident 511's respiratory TAR as follows:
On [DATE]
Suctioning and lavage - Signed off at 7 PM
Tracheostomy care- Signed off at 7 PM
Check 02 (oxygen) saturation- Check 02 (oxygen)- Signed off at 7 PM
TV (title volume) - Signed off at 8 PM
On [DATE]
TV (title volume)- Signed off at 2 AM
The DON confirmed that those treatments could not have been completed and they were marked in error.
4. On [DATE] at 9:29 AM, the surveyor observed a computer screen open to Resident #56's medication profile. The computer was on top of a medication cart on the third floor and was unattended. The surveyor was able to read the list of Resident #56's medication that were due at 9 AM.
On [DATE] at 9:33 AM, the surveyor observed Registered Nurse (RN) Staff #73 walk over to the medications cart. At this time the surveyor interviewed Staff #73. Staff #73 stated that she had just walked away for a second but that she should have locked the screen before walking away.
On [DATE] at approximately 2 PM, the surveyor reviewed the privacy concern with the DON.
2. On [DATE] at 2:00 PM surveyor observed Resident #262 in bed. S/he motioned for the surveyor to come into the room. S/he proceeded to ask for assistance to use the urinal located at the end of the bed out his/her reach. Surveyor was not aware of why it was out of reach so requested that the resident use the call bell to call for help.
A few moments later the Unit Manager, staff #62 entered the room with the assigned nurse. They were asked why the urinal was not within reach of the resident. Staff #62 stated that it was because s/he is still unsteady and very shaky because of the back brace and needs assistance. Staff #62 reported that although Resident #262 is relying on staff for assistance, this is not causing incontinence episodes.
At 2:26 PM on [DATE], the surveyor reviewed the observations with the DON about the urinal being in the room but not in the residents reach. The DON stated that although the resident is relying on the staff for the urinal s/he has not had to be incontinent. However, we concurrently reviewed the minimum data set coding for Resident #262 completed on [DATE] and this documented him/her as being frequently incontinent of urine. The DON said that she would review this.
On [DATE] the documentation survey report for [DATE]-[DATE] was requested and reviewed. According to the documentation completed by the geriatric nursing staff (GNA) they consistently documented that Resident #262 was incontinent and in an adult brief.
The documentation concern was reviewed with the DON on this date.
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that clinical records were maintained in a complete manner (#553, #262, #551, #56, #201). This was evident for 5 out of the 53 residents in the survey sample.
The findings are:
1. A review of Resident #553's clinical record revealed that there was no indication that the resident's family was able to Facetime with the resident as they requested upon admission.
The Social Worker (#32) was interviewed on [DATE] at 12:38 AM. He confirmed that he remembered the resident's name. He said he did not keep the records the facility had to show they contacted family during the pandemic. He said the records of family notification and Facetime visits were shredded. He stated that if family had requested Facetime then he would have made sure it happened. He suggested that he might have notes supporting the use of Facetime on behalf of the resident. He, also, recalled making contact with another nursing home for a transfer but was unsure if he followed up on it.
The Director of Nursing was interviewed on [DATE] at 1:50 PM. She said she would follow up with Staff #32 since she is sure the family visited regularly. She said she thought that the facility was using two laptops dedicated to Facetime during the pandemic and would check.
No evidence of the Facetime visits were presented prior to exit.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based tour of the facility, observation, and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain patient care equipment. This was evident for 1 out of 5 floors toured.
The fi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based tour of the facility, observation, and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain patient care equipment. This was evident for 1 out of 5 floors toured.
The findings are:
During tour of the facility on 2/7/23 at 10:02 AM a survey team member observed on the 4th floor a Hoyer lift with wheels that could do not rotate so the lift must be dragged to moved.
This surveyor toured with Staff #21 on 3/3/23 at 1:00 PM. At 2:05 PM Staff #21 left the Conference Room at the end of the tour and he said he would request logs from the outside company that is contracted to maintain the Hoyer lifts on Monday. Staff #21 stated that he thinks they were serviced by the company back in November 2022 and that he may only have an email receipt and/or an acknowledgement of service. Staff #21 returned to the Conference Room at 2:15 PM and said he thought that he gave a list of 14 Hoyer lifts that were inspected to the survey team.
The list of Hoyer lifts that were inspected and maintained, according to Staff #21, was not in the possession of the survey team as of the exit conference on 3/9/2023.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation while touring the facility it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the facility was maintained in a safe manner.
The findings are:
During tour of the facility on 2/15...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation while touring the facility it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the facility was maintained in a safe manner.
The findings are:
During tour of the facility on 2/15/23 at 11:44 AM the second floor pavilion stairwell #2 door was observed to be ajar. No residents were currently in the hallway. Staff #10 was informed and she secured the door.
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 medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to offer and/or obtain advance directives for residents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to offer and/or obtain advance directives for residents (Resident #1, #8, #19, #22, #63, #87, #115, #176, #553). This was evident for 9 of 16 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
The findings include:
An advance healthcare directive is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity.
A Maryland Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) is a form that includes orders for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and other medical personnel regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other life-sustaining treatment options for a specific resident or patient.
1. Review of the medical record for Resident #8 on 2/7/23 at 9:58 AM revealed the presence of a Maryland order for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST).
Further review of the resident's medical record failed to reveal the presence of an actual Advance Directive (AD)(Advance directives are legal documents that provide instructions for medical care and only go into effect if you cannot communicate your own wishes).
Interview with the facility social worker, staff #32 on 2/9/23 revealed that the perception was that the MOLST was the same as the AD.
On 2/9/23 a facility social work representative, staff #7, revisited Resident #8 and documented that s/he did have an AD and that the facility has a copy on file and does not have a living will. This was provided to the survey team on 2/13/23. Again, the survey team reviewed with the facility that a MOLST is not the same as an AD, though the resident can refuse, they need to appropriately document that information.
2. Review of Resident #1's medical record on 2/7/23 revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and there are no advance directives in the record.
Further review of the Resident's medical record revealed there is no documentation by the facility staff that advance directives were obtained and/or offered to the Resident and/or the Resident's representative. On 2/9/23 at 12:00 PM, the Regional Social Worker was advised the Surveyor could not locate the Resident's advance directives in the medical record.
After surveyor intervention, the Director of Social Services documented on 2/9/23 at 7:50 PM, Writer met with resident at bedside to ask about his/her Power of Attorney (POA). The Resident redirected the writer to speak with his/her family member. The writer called and spoke with his/her family member who confirmed he/she is both his financial and health POA. Family member was provided Social Services Manager's email to send a copy to.
Interview of Director of Nursing on 2/16/23 at 1:30 PM confirmed the facility staff failed to offer and/or obtain Resident #1's advance directives.
3. A review of Resident #553's clinical record on 3/1/23 to 3/8/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed the MOLST had the section for medical testing completed to instruct staff to only do medical testing if symptoms are present. Further review revealed the resident's primary physician ordered medical testing without symptoms present and in some cases the lab testing was done.
The nurse practitioner (CRNP) observed the resident on 9/2/21. She wrote: [Resident] remains in a vegetative state with no signs of pain or respiratory distress noted during this encounter. Vital signs stable and Foley draining clear yellow urine. Abdominal distension persist but soft with positive bowel sounds throughout, and staff report daily bowel incontinence. Patient also tolerating tube feedings with no residual or vomiting.Blood was drawn on 9/3/21, 10/8/21, and 10/12/21 for testing without symptoms. The pharmacist recommended on 9/25/21 for valproic acid and phenobarbital (anti-seizure drugs) levels to be drawn even though the resident did not have seizures. The physician ordered on 9/29/21 for levels to be checked daily for three days. Blood was never obtained for these levels and the tests were never done.
The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/6/23 at 1:48 PM. She was informed of the findings. The DON said she understood but would like to review the clinical record because she believes the resident was very sick.
No further evidence of symptoms were presented to the survey team prior to exit.
4. A review of Resident #19's clinical record on 2/7/23 revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed that the resident did not have nor was offered an Advanced Directive.
5. A review of Resident #22's clinical record on 2/6/23 revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed that the Social Worker wrote a note on 12/26/22 that the resident has an Advanced Directive and the facility has a copy but the electronic records did not include this copy.
A copy of the Advanced Directive was requested from the DON on two occasions but not produced prior to exit.
6. A review of Resident #63's clinical record on 2/7/23 revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed that the resident has an Advanced Directive but a copy was not in the clinical record. A MOLST was completed on 12/14/21 and it noted the resident did not want to be resuscitated if found without a pulse.
7. A review of Resident #87's clinical record on 2/7/23 at 10:22 AM revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed that the resident has a MOLST but not an Advanced Directive.
8. A review of Resident #115's clinical record on 2/7/23 revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed the resident has a MOLST but no evidence of an Advanced Directive.
9. A. review of Resident #176's clinical record on 2/7/23 revealed that the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Further review revealed that the resident has a MOLST but the facility does not have a copy of an Advanced Directive in the clinical record.
The Regional Services Social Worker was interviewed on 2/9/23 at 12:05 PM. She said the facility interviews the residents on admission for a baseline and then care plan meetings are scheduled. The Social Worker reviews the MOLST within 48 hours of admission. The Social Worker also reviews MOLST forms for any changes. The Social Worker then asks the resident and/or the responsible party if advanced directives are desired. The facility staff will review advanced directives at the care plan meetings and it they are not present at admission then they are audited.
The DON acknowledged on 2/9/23 at 2:30 PM that advanced directives were not provided to the residents.
The DON was interviewed on 2/14/23 at 8:55 AM. She stated that she would look for any of the Advanced Directives but thought that all of the advanced directives in their possession would have been uploaded to the appropriate clinical record.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2). Review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) conducted on 02/24/2023 at approximately 9:10 AM revealed an allegation of misappropriation of funds. The report stated that Resident # 540's family ...
Read full inspector narrative →
2). Review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) conducted on 02/24/2023 at approximately 9:10 AM revealed an allegation of misappropriation of funds. The report stated that Resident # 540's family came to the facility on 3/11/2022 and stated that there were ATM transactions on 03/9/2022 and 03/10/2022 from the resident's debit card. The family stated they suspected the money was drawn from the ATM machine at Cadia Hyattsville and used for pizza delivery. The police were called, and an investigation was initiated.
Further review of the FRI revealed the facility conducted an investigation that consisted of staff interviews, statements, and interviews with residents who were not cognitively impaired. The facility also contacted the pizza delivery service to attempt to identify if the resident's debit card was used. However, the report did not include interviews with families of residents who are cognitively impaired.
During an interview conducted on 02/24/2023 at approximately 11:50 AM, the DON confirmed the investigation file provided to the surveyor contained the full investigation. The DON confirmed the investigation did not include interviews with families of residents who are cognitively impaired to ensure those residents had not experienced a misappropriation of funds.
Based on interviews and review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) investigation documentation it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation for: 1) abuse (Resident #316) and 2) misappropriation of funds (Resident #540). This was evident for 2 out of 2 residents (Resident# 316 and # 540) reviewed for conducting a throrough investigation.
The findings include:
1). A review of the facility investigation into the allegation of abuse made by Resident #22 on 12/13/2020 revealed staff interviewed other residents to determine their experiences with the alleged perpetrator and to determine if there are any unreported incidents of abuse. Resident #316 was interviewed on 12/13/20 (time not noted) and asked Has staff, a resident, or anyone else here abused you -- this includes verbal, physical, or sexual abuse? Resident answered yes but said they did not tell staff.
The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 2/21/23 at 11:45 AM. The findings were explained. She did not have an immediate answer as to whether or not this new allegation was reported to OHCQ or if it had been investigated. She requested an opportunity to search for any evidence that it had been reported and/or investigated. I agreed to review any investigation they had.
The DON was asked again on 2/22/23 at 12:30 PM for the investigation into the allegation.
This surveyor interviewed the DON and the corporate nurse on 3/3/23 at 2:42 PM. They said they had looked for the investigation. The DON said she cannot find an investigation but concluded that staff must have checked the wrong box during the investigation and it was therefore a mistake because they take all allegations seriously. They gestured to a pile of red folders which appeared to contain allegations. The DON said she would search for contact information for the resident or the resident's responsible party (RP) to see if the resident made the allegation.
The DON returned on 3/6/23 at 1:40 PM with a response regarding the allegation and it not being reported or investigated. She said the resident had a court appointed guardian and so the staff person would not have to report it unless it came from the guardian. I explained that all allegations have to be reported even if it comes from someone who is not their own RP. She said she understood.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interviewed it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident, and/or t...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interviewed it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident, and/or their responsible party, received written notification of a transfer to the hospital, including appeal rights and Ombudsman contact information (Residents #3, #22, #63, #94, #87, #107). This was found to be evident for 6 out of 13 residents reviewed for hospitalization during an annual survey.
The findings include:
1. Review of Resident #3's medical record on 2/8/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident was transferred from the facility on 11/9/22 to the hospital. Further review of the resident's medical record failed to reveal any documentation that a written notice regarding the transfer had been provided to the resident and/or the resident's responsible party.
Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/14/23 at 10:40 AM confirmed neither Resident #3 nor their responsible party had been sent a letter that notified them of the transfer to the hospital on [DATE].
2. Review of Resident #107's medical record on 2/7/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident was transferred from the facility on 12/23/22 to the hospital. Further review of the resident's medical record failed to reveal any documentation that a written notice regarding the transfer had been provided to the resident and/or the resident's responsible party.
Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/14/23 at 10:40 AM confirmed neither Resident #107 nor their responsible party had been sent a letter that notified them of the transfer to the hospital on [DATE].
3. A review of Resident #22's clinical record on 2/6/23 revealed that the resident was sent to the hospital on [DATE]. There was no evidence that the family was notified in writing of the transfer.
4. A review of Resident #63's clinical record on 2/7/23 revealed that the resident was sent to the hospital on 1/5/23. Further review revealed that the family was not notified in writing.
5. A review of Resident #87's clinical record on 2/7/23 revealed that the resident was sent to the hospital on 1/16/23. Further review revealed that the family was not notified in writing.
6. During an interview conducted on 02/13/2023 at approximately 11:15 AM the surveyor advised the Director of Nursing (DON) that s/he was unable to locate documentation of the notification to the Responsible Party. The DON confirmed the facility had failed to provide the Responsible Party notification of the resident's transfer to hospital. During an interview conducted on 02/07/2023 at approximately 1:28 PM, Resident # 94 stated he recently was hospitalized for bleeding.
On 02/07/2023 at approximately 1:45 PM a review of Resident #94's medical records revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] due to profuse bleeding. Further review of the medical records did not reveal documentation that the Responsible Party was notified in writing for the resident's transfer to the hospital on [DATE].
The Director of Nursing was interviewed on 2/15/23 at 11:15 AM. She was informed of the findings and asked for evidence of the notification to the family and/or responsible party. No evidence of notification was provided prior to the exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interviews with resident and facility staff, it was determined that facility staff failed to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interviews with resident and facility staff, it was determined that facility staff failed to 1.) appropriately code a resident's weight loss; and 2.) accurately code a resident's oral/dental status on the Minimum Data Set (MDS). This was evident for one out of one resident (#26) that was reviewed for both weight loss and oral/dental status.
The findings include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) is a federally mandated assessment tool used by nursing home staff to gather information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions. MDS assessments need to be accurate to ensure each resident receives the care they need.
1. Section K0300 of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] was reviewed on 2/15/23 at 2 PM. There are three available selections for coding this section of the MDS regarding weight loss of a resident. The three selections that are available for coding are: 0 (indicating no or unknown), 1 (indicating Yes, on physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen), or 2 (indicating Yes, not on physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen). Resident #26 was coded as a 1, indicating that she was on a physician-prescribed weight loss regimen.
Upon further record review occurring on 02/15/23 at 02:00 PM, the MDS quarterly assessment, section K0300 dated 01/10/23 was reviewed the resident was found to be coded as a 2, indicating the resident was not on a physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen.
During interview on 02/16/23 at 01:15 PM, Resident #26 informed surveyors that the weight loss was self-directed.
Upon interview on 02/24/23 at 01:34 PM, Staff #3, Registered Dietician, acknowledged the coding of the K0300 section of the MDS dated [DATE] as inaccurate and informed the surveyor that Resident #26 was not on a physician-prescribed weight loss regimen.
2. Section L0200 of the comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] was reviewed. There are 8 available selections to check all that apply in order to describe the oral/dental status of a resident. The available selections include: A.) Broken or loosely fitting full or partial denture, B.) No natural teeth or tooth fragments, C.) Abnormal mouth tissue, D.) Obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth, E.) Inflamed or bleeding gums or loose natural teeth, F.) Mouth or facial pain, discomfort or difficulty with chewing, G.) Unable to examine, and Z.) None of the above were present.
Upon further record review occurring on 02/27/23 at 11:00 AM, the MDS comprehensive assessment, section L0200 dated 07/03/22 was reviewed and Resident #26 was found to be incorrectly coded with selection Z.
Dental consult records of Resident #26 were reviewed and confirmed that the MDS section L0200 dated 07/03/22 failed to accurately reflect this resident ' s dental status. A consult dated 05/21/22 reported missing teeth, retained roots (tooth root present), and deep caries (tooth decay affecting the deep).
Additionally, a nursing progress note dated 05/14/21 at 05:18 reported the resident's tooth has already fallen out.
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on medical record review and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to revise Resident #26's plan of care accordingly after dental consults occurred. This was e...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to revise Resident #26's plan of care accordingly after dental consults occurred. This was evident in 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dental problems. In addition, the facility staff failed to ensure care meetings were held for residents (#173 and #542). This was evident for 2 out of 53 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
The findings include:
A plan of care is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess, and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident's care.
1.) Review of Resident #26's current care plan revealed the resident has an ADL (activities of daily living) self-care performance deficit. The intervention listed for personal hygiene/oral care states this resident requires set up assistance by one staff to maximize independence. Dental provider recommendations were made because of consults which occurred on 05/21/22 and 01/17/23. On 05/21/22, the following recommendations were made; action required by nursing home staff: brush tongue twice a day, monitor teeth for signs/symptoms of problems, please assist patient in brushing twice a day, morning, and night. On 01/17/23 the following recommendations were made; action required by nursing home staff: brush tongue twice a day, monitor teeth for signs/symptoms of problems, please assist patient in brushing twice a day, morning, and night, recommend mouthwash swabs twice a day.
The facility failed to revise the care plan despite the following documentation of events having occurred: 05/14/21 nursing note reporting the resident was not going to their scheduled dental appointment because their tooth had already fallen out, 10/06/21 recommendations from consult provider for surgical removal and extractions of seven teeth, 05/21/22 consult provider documentation of exam revealing: multiple root tips (the part of the tooth that holds the tooth in place), generalized gingival inflammation (irritation of the gum at the base of teeth), and deep caries (tooth decay), with provider informing patient their teeth are non restorable and recommendation for panoramic xray and again, repeated the recommendations for surgical extractions to occur, listing fourteen teeth, and prophy and varnish in three months, 08/22/22 care plan update reporting completion of the resident's antibiotic therapy for tooth pain, 11/07/22 provider progress note indicating resident was having tooth and gum soreness and recommending a dental consult, 01/17/23 consult provider recommendation for resident to receive prophy (professional dental cleaning by hygienist) and varnish (solution applied by dental provider to protect teeth from further decay) in three months to assist in oral hygiene, 02/06/23 change of condition form completed by facility staff reporting resident started on antibiotic for tooth infection, 02/06/23 dietary note reporting resident complained of dental issue and requested chopped up meats, 02/06/23 physician progress note indicating resident complained of a toothache in two different teeth and was placed on antibiotic and ibuprofen per patient's request, again recommending a follow up with the dental provider, 02/09/23 care plan update note by the dietician regarding the resident having difficulty chewing and noting that the resident has been losing their teeth and agreed to downgrade their diet to a softer texture in order to have less difficulty with eating, 02/14/23 weight change note indicating the resident's diet had been recently downgraded due to missing teeth and reported difficulty chewing.
Review of the resident's care plan on 02/16/23 at 10:36 AM failed to have an update indicating the currently recommended dental needs of the resident.
During an interview with Staff #62, Unit Manager, conducted on 02/28/23 at 08:30 AM, they verbalized that when the recommendations are made by the consult provider, s/he reviews the emails and then acts upon them.
2a.) A review of Resident #173's clinical record on 2/6/23 revealed that the last care plan conferences held were on 10/1/21, 8/12/22, and 9/29/22. Care plan conferences are held quarterly, sooner if the need arises. There was no evidence of a December conference.
2b.) A review of Resident #542's clinical record on 3/9/23 revealed that the facility had a care plan conference planned for 12:30 PM on 7/14/20. The resident's sister had confirmed that she would be in attendance. On 7/14/20 at 12:27 PM she called the facility to say she was having issues with finding the facility but would be attending. When she arrived the meeting was over and she had not received one phone call asking if she was still going to attend. A review of the meeting notes revealed that it was identified that the resident could benefit from a dry erase board to improve communication. This need supports how important it was to have a family present to advocate for the resident.
No further information was provided to the team prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Gangrene is a serious condition where a loss of blood supply causes body tissue to die. It can affect any part of the body bu...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Gangrene is a serious condition where a loss of blood supply causes body tissue to die. It can affect any part of the body but typically starts in the toes, feet, fingers, and hands. Gangrene can occur because of an injury, infection or a long-term condition that affects blood circulation.
On 03/01/2023 at approximately 9:30 AM a review of Resident #541's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed the resident was diagnosed with dry gangrene of the left 4th finger and had and wound care treatment plan.
A record review of Resident #541's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for June 2020 and July 2020 was conducted on 03/01/2023 at approximately 9:40 AM. The TARs did not reveal an order for treatment of the left 4th finger for dry gangrene.
On 03/01/2023 at approximately 9:42 AM a review of the Resident #541's physician order did not reveal a wound consult or wound care order for the resident's left 4th finger.
On 03/01/2023 at approximately 11:15 AM, the surveyor advised the Director of Nursing (DON) of the findings. The DON stated she would look to see if there were any documentation showing wound care.
On 03/01/2023 at approximately 7:45 AM the DON stated she could not locate documentation for an order wound care or that there was wound care provided for dry gangrene of the left 4th finger for Resident #541.
During an interview conducted on 03/01/2023 at approximately 11:50 AM, the Wound Care Physician # 52 stated he had not worked for the facility during the time Resident #541 was diagnosed with dry gangrene of the left 4th finger. The Wound Care Physician confirmed the resident's medical record did not show an order or treatment for the for the left 4th finger. The Wound Care Physician further stated it is expected that if a resident is admitted or re-admitted to the facility from a hospital, the discharge orders are reviewed, a skin assessment is performed by the assigned nurse and the wound care nurse assesses the resident 24 hours after admission depending on the time of admission.
4. On 02/10/23 11:41 AM, a medical record review was conducted. Resident #161 was ordered Citalopram 10 mg every day on 7/6/21 and medication was not given or transcribed on the medication sheet until Medical Director staff # 42 reordered it on 11/2/22 at 09:00 AM. The resident went without ordered Citalopram for four months before it was ordered by the Doctor again. Citalopram, sold under the brand name Celexa, is an antidepressant of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class. It is used to treat major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and social phobia. The Director of Nursing was made aware of this failure on 2/10/23.
Based on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to administer medications (Resident #204 and #161), failed to provide treatments and services (Residents #541, #555, #8, #201) as ordered by the physician and This was evident for 6 out of 103 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
The findings include:
1. During an interview with Resident #204's responsible party (RP) on 3/1/23 at 1:30 PM, the RP stated he/she believed the facility are not administering the resident's seizure medications as ordered.
Review of Resident #204's medical record on 3/1/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis to include seizures and had a physician order for Clonazepam 1 mg every 8 hours for seizure activity.
Further review of Resident #204's medical record revealed the resident was transferred to the emergency room (ER) on 3/2/23 and returned to the facility on 3/3/23 at approximately 8:20 PM. Review of the resident's March 2023 MAR (Medication Administration Record) and nurses' notes revealed the resident did not receive Clonazepam 1mg on 3/4/23 at 8 AM, 2 PM and on 3/5/23 at 8 AM and 2 PM.
During interview with the Director of Nursing on 3/6/23 at 9:10 AM who confirmed that the facility staff failed to reorder and administer Clonazepam after the transfer to the ER on 3/4 and 3/5/23 for Resident #204.
2. During investigation of a complaint regarding Resident #555's wound care while at the facility, the Surveyor reviewed the medical record of the resident on 2/23/23.
Review of Resident #555's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis to include infection of the skin.
Further review of the medical record revealed the resident was seen by the Wound Care Specialist on 6/10/21 to manage the resident's wounds. Review of the Wound Care Specialist Surgical Note revealed the resident had wounds to his/her left leg, knee, ankle, heel, foot and also his/her right knee, ankle, foot and heel. At that time the Wound Care Specialist recommended daily treatment to the resident's wounds.
Review of the resident's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for June 2021 revealed although treatment was provided to the resident's left leg, knee, ankle, foot and heel daily, the facility staff failed to provide treatment to the resident's right knee, ankle, foot and heel until 6/23/21.
Interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/21/23 at 12:00 PM confirmed the Surveyor's findings of no wound treatment documented for Resident #555's right knee, ankle, foot and heel from 6/10/21 until 6/23/21.
5. During initial meeting and screening of Resident #8 on 2/7/23 at 9:10 AM the surveyor identified a debilitated individual completely dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. Resident #8 was lying in bed with his/her lower extremities exposed including his/her feet. Resident #8's arms and legs were noted swollen. His/her feet were noted red and peeling, the legs were scaly.
A review of the residents' medical record revealed multiple comorbidities including cognitive communication deficit, cellulitis, severe morbid obesity and lymphedema. Surveyor also reviewed all the physician wound care notes. At the time of the review, the resident was being treated for lymphedema, an area to his/her lower back, some areas on the arms and under the chest. There were no notations anywhere in the medical record regarding areas or changes to the feet.
On 2/8/23 at 11:34 AM surveyor interviewed Registered nurse (RN) staff #12 about what treatments Resident #8 was currently receiving for his/her skin. She mentioned A and D ointment is rubbed on his/her legs and other treatments that were reviewed in the medical record, however nothing related to treatment to the feet.
At 11:40 AM on 2/8/23 the DON accompanied the surveyor to Resident #8's room. She completed a review of his/her skin. The DON reviewed the medical record and followed up with the survey team with the wound physician.
On 2/9/23 at 8:33 AM the wound physician followed up with the survey team and stated that he is diagnosing the resident with tinea pedis/athletes' foot. He further stated that he just saw the resident last week and did not see any concerns with the feet at that time and was not notified since then of any changes in the resident, however, he further stated that there is a new order for care and treatment in place now.
6. Upon surveyor 's review of Resident 201's medical record on 3/9/23 at 10:22 AM, the resident had toe amputations (removals) in December 2022, and required a necessary vascular specialist appointment for after surgery care of their lower extremities.
Resident #201 had an outside consultation on 1/4/2023 for wound healing with instructions documented for the resident to have a follow up evaluation with vascular surgery, and additionally included was a referral dated 1/4/23 to the specified vascular specialist. On 1/23/23 there was another consult for wound healing with documented instructions: keep the follow up appointment with vascular surgery. Another ambulatory clinical summary, dated 2/27/23, instructed the facility to ensure the scheduling of a follow up appointment with a Podiatrist/Vascular Surgeon prior to discharge because they needed a follow up appointment within one month.
During an interview with the resident on 3/8/23 at 9:33 AM, Staff #32, Social Worker, told her/him to look up the doctors needed. The resident voiced frustration that he/she did not know/understand all the specialists required for follow up care and had difficulty getting Staff #32 to check in and was expecting that the facility honor their planned discharge date of 4/1/23. Additionally, the resident reported having an appointment scheduled for 3/20/23 with concern for lack of communication and follow up from facility staff regarding transportation arrangements to appointments. The resident further reported that other recently scheduled appointments were missed due to transportation not having been appropriately facilitated in a timely manner.
Review of the medical orders on 3/9/23 at 10:22 AM revealed there was no order in place for a follow up appointment with the Vascular Surgeon.
On 3/8/23 at 11:00 AM Staff #32 was interviewed and provided statement that the facility staff was responsible for notifying the nurse responsible. Staff #32 reported that the Unit Manager, who is sometimes assisted by another staff member, is responsible for scheduling resident appointments and getting the information to the staff member who schedules transportation. From this interview, no information was provided that related to a process that the facility uses to follow up on resident appointments. Staff #32 was unaware of the resident's need for the Vascular Specialist appointment until it was brought to his/her attention by surveyors.
During an interview on 3/8/23 at 11:17 AM, Staff # 27, Registered Nurse Unit Manager reported that when a resident comes from an appointment if there is a follow up, they fill out a form and social service does the transportation. If a resident misses a scheduled appointment, they call social services to find out what happened and reschedule it. When asked by the surveyors if transportation had been set up for an appointment for Resident #201 as scheduled, Staff #27 responded, the resident is seen by an outside resource technician during vascular rounding and that Staff 27 will receive an email from them.
The Surveyors interviewed an outside resource technician who performs rounds on residents who are patients under the care of the assigned physician she/he works with. They reported that Resident #201 was followed under their care and was discharged prior to their surgery to a higher level of vascular care.
After repeated recommendations had been made, the facility failed to make the necessary arrangements for a scheduled appointment and transportation to ensure the resident's highest practicable level of vascular health.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5a.) On 2/15/23 at 12:02 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #108's medical record. The review revealed that Resident #108 was ad...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5a.) On 2/15/23 at 12:02 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #108's medical record. The review revealed that Resident #108 was admitted to the facility in early 2021. Resident #108 had a past medical history which included, but was not limited to, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, muscle weakness, and abnormalities of gait and mobility.
On 2/16/23 at 7:54 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #108's progress notes. The review revealed a clinical specialist, Staff #77 wrote a note on 8/18/21 at 4:43 PM describing the recommendations and action taken from Resident #108's Urology (urinary system) consult. The note stated that Resident #108's foley (a tube that removes urine from the bladder) was removed at 8:30 AM and a straight catheterization had to be performed (a onetime use of a catheter to remove urine in the bladder). The note indicated a bladder scan (a machine used for the purpose of scanning and detecting the volume of fluid in the bladder) was used to determine that straight catheterization was necessary with results of 449 milliliters (ml). The bladder scan was documented as being completed approximately 6 hours after the foley was removed. Future care directions were then written and were as follows: A bladders scan should be completed again between 8 PM and 10 PM and if the bladder scan amount in greater than 400 ml (milileters) replace foley.
Further review of the progress notes revealed a note written on 8/18/21 at 10:41 PM by Registered Nurse (RN) Staff #78. Staff #78 reported doing a bladder scan at 10 PM with results of 31 ml.
On 2/16/23 at 8:05 AM, the surveyor reviewed a progress note written on 9/2/21 by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff #63. In that progress note Staff #63 reports changing Resident #108's foley due to it not draining.
On 2/17/23 at approximately 8 AM, the surveyor reviewed the August 2021 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for Resident #108. The review revealed the bladder scans done on 8/18/21 at 2 PM and 10 PM had been recorded, however no additional bladder scans were recorded.
Further review of the August 2021 TAR for Resident #108 revealed no documentation a foley was placed or changed even though the progress note stated it was changed on 9/2/21.
On 2/21/23 the surveyor reviewed the facility's nursing policy title, Catheter/Insertion/Removal of Indwelling Urethra Catheter'. In the documentation section it states, Document on Progress Note, Resident Care Record/flow sheet: Size of catheter, Urine amount and characteristic and Resident response.
On 2/23/23 at 2:03 PM, the surveyor reviewed the concerns with the Director of Nursing (DON)regarding lack of documentation on foley care for Resident #108.
5b.) On 2/6/23 at 11:06 AM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #108. Resident #108 reported that a few days ago he/she felt abdominal distention and had to let the staff know of his/her discomfort. After Resident #108 reported the discomfort his/her foley catheter was changed by staff.
On 2/15/23 at 12:02 PM, the surveyor reviewed Resident # 108's orders. The review revealed on 1/3/23 orders pertaining to Resident #108 foley were as follows: 1. Change foley catheter bag as needed. 2. Foley catheter care q (every) shift. No orders were found to insert or place foley and no orders to indicate the type of foley required for Resident #108.
On 2/16/23 at 8:45 AM, the surveyor requested the facility's foley care policy, progress notes, and change of condition for Resident #108 from 1/30/23. The surveyor also requested orders written on 1/30/23 for Resident #108.
On 2/16/23 at 9 AM, the surveyor reviewed the progress note written for Resident #108 on 1/30/23 from Registered Nurse (RN) Staff #73. In this progress note Staff #73 reported Resident #108 was feeling fatigued, sweaty, and having chills. Staff #73 stated she notified the Nurse Practitioner and new orders were initiated. Staff # 73 listed labs, urine sample and a foley change.
Further review of the progress notes reveals a change in condition note from 1/30/23 for Resident #108. The situation was described as Resident #108 having elevated blood pressure, sweating and feeling sick. It further described the recommendations: Section 1 Recommendation for Primary Clinicians: Change foley. Section 4. Nursing Notes: Foley changed with 1300 cubic centimeters(cc) urine output.
On 2/16/23 at approximately 9:15 AM, the surveyor reviewed the orders placed for Resident #108 on the date of 1/30/23. The orders consisted of: Complete Blood Count (CBC) with differential, & CMP (Comprehensive Metabolic Panel) (laboratory blood work), and 2. Urinalysis with culture and sensitivity (UA) (laboratory work on urine to identify conditions in the urine). No order was found to replace or change foley.
On 2/17/23 at approximately 8 AM, the surveyor reviewed the January 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for Resident #108. The review revealed areas to document foley catheter care every shift and areas to document maintaining catheter bag. On the date of 1/30/23 both theses areas were marked as completed. Further review revealed no documentation that a foley was placed or replaced on 1/30/23.
On 2/17/23 at 12:42 PM, the surveyor interviewed Registered Nurse (RN) Staff # 73. During the interview staff #73 explained the procedure for inserting a foley catheter. Staff #73 stated you would need to check the order to know what supplies to gather. After Staff #73 explained the procedure the surveyor asked Staff #73 how do you know when to change the catheter. Staff #73 stated you would check the orders or look on the TAR. Staff #73 also reported that all care, insertion, or changes of the foley or foley bag should be documented on the TAR.
On 2/21/23 the surveyor reviewed the facility's nursing policy title, Catheter/Insertion/Removal of Indwelling Urethra Catheter'. The first statement in the procedure section state, 1. Check MD (doctor) order to determine if catheter size or type is specific. In the Documentation section it states, Document on Progress Note, Resident Care Record/flow sheet: Size of catheter, Urine amount and characteristic and Resident response.
On 2/23/23 at 2:03 PM, the surveyor reviewed the concerns with the DON regarding foley catheter documentation and placement of a foley without an order.
3.) On 3/1/23 at 11:41 AM a medical record review was conducted for resident # 537. According to family, resident # 537 was not provided with incontinence care on the night of 4/21/22 and 4/29/22.
Documentation of Geratric Nursing assistant (GNA) record for April 2023 indicates that for 4/21/22 night shift and April 29/22 day shift Bowl and Bladder was not signed off indicating care was not received. The Director of Nursing made aware on 3/1/23 at 1 PM and stated that the GNA forgot to sign document.
4.) On 2/15/23 at 9:45 AM a medical record review was conducted for resident # 534. Resident # 534 was in the facility to get rehab services. Throughout stay, resident received rehab services, however therapy often had to wait until resident # 534 was up out of bed, dressed and clean. Daughter stated therapy was delayed due to feces were running down residents leg. Daughter also stated that resident suffers from diaper rash. Unit manager # 27 stated she spoke to daughter and stated there was no GNA to clean and change resident # 534 because the GNA's are taking resident's to dialysis and they should be back shortly. On 1/20/23 Therapist atempted to coordinate with the GNA to have patient cleaned prior to them comming to the bedside.
Based on observation, interview and medical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to follow up on urology concerns for residents (Resident #140, #534, #537, #108). This was evident for 4 of 103 residents reviewed during an annual survey. In addition the facility failed to keep resident's # 534 and # 537 clean and dry, This was evident for 2 out of 2 residents.
The findings include:
1. During an interview with Resident #140 on 2/6/23 at 1:21 PM, the resident stated he/she was supposed to be sent to the Urologist in October of 2022 but it still hasn't happened. Urologists diagnose and treat diseases of the urinary tract. Observation of the resident at that time revealed the resident has an indwelling urinary catheter.
Review of Resident #140's medical record on 2/10/23 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder.
Further review of the resident's medical record revealed the resident went to a urology appointment on 9/22/22 and the Urologist documented the plan was to return in 1 month for catheter change. Review of Resident #140's medical record revealed the resident has not had a urology appointment since 9/22/22.
Interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/14/23 at 8:35 AM confirmed the facility failed to ensure the resident attends monthly urology appointments.
2.A) On 3/1/23 at 11:41 AM a medical record review was conducted for Resident # 537. According to family, Resident # 537 was not provided with incontinence care on the night of 4/21/23 and 4/29/23.
Documentation of the Geratric Nursing Assistant (GNA) record for April 2023 indicated that for 4/21/23 night shift and April 29/23 day shift Bowl and Bladder was not signed off indicating care was not received. Director of Nursing made aware on 3/1/23 at 1 PM and stated that the GNA forgot to sign document.
2.B) On 2/15/23 at 9:45 AM a medical record review was conducted for Resident # 534. Resident # 534 was in the facility to get rehab services. Throughout stay, the resident received rehab services, however therapy often had to wait until Resident # 534 was up out of bed, dressed and clean. Daughter stated therapy was delayed due to feces running down the residents leg. Daughter also stated that the resident suffers from diaper rash. The Unit Manager # 27 stated that she spoke to the resident's daughter and stated there was no GNA to clean and change Resident # 534 because the GNA's were taking resident's to dialysis and they should be back shortly. On 1/20/23, the Therapist atempted to coordinate with the GNA to have the resident cleaned prior to them coming to the bedside.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure that a resident received medication according to the physician's orders. This was evident for...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure that a resident received medication according to the physician's orders. This was evident for 1 out of 53 residents in the survey sample.
The findings are:
A review of Resident #22's clinical record on 3/2/23 revealed that the resident's primary physician ordered Oxycodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg 1 tab every 6 hours as needed for severe pain (8-10) on 12/26/22. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the resident rated pain as a 7 on 12/28 and 12/31 but was administered the medication. During the month of January the resident rated pain as a 6 on 1/1/23 at 5:45 AM, 1/2/23 at 6 AM, 1/6/23 at 6 AM, and on 1/21/23 at 6 AM.
Also, during January the resident rated pain as a 7 on 1/2/23 at 11:40 PM, 1/4/23 at 5:40 AM, 1/11/23 at 5:30 AM and 11:15 PM, 1/13/23 at 5:55 AM, 1/18/23 at 5:35 AM, 1/19/23 at 6 AM, 1/28/23 at 5:30 AM, and 1/29/23 at 5 AM. The February MAR was reviewed and the resident rated pain as a 7 but was administered the medication during the morning hours on 2/1/23, 2/3/23, 2/9/23, 2/10/23, and 2/17/23.
The surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/6/23 at 9:00 AM. She said she educated the nurse who gave the resident pain medication outside of the ordered parameters and thereby violating the pain management plan.
The surveyor interviewed the DON on 3/6/23 at 1:40 PM. She produced the controlled substances policy and a log of when the drug was taken from the automated system. The DON was informed that it was the same nurse each time and the DON replied that she noticed it, as well.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0699
(Tag F0699)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on medical record review, observation and interview with resident and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to address and implement interventions for a resident with verbal...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, observation and interview with resident and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to address and implement interventions for a resident with verbalized history of trauma. This was evident for 1 of 11 residents reviewed for trauma informed care (#242).
The findings include:
Surveyor met Resident #242 during an initial tour and screening on 2/6/23 at 10:40 AM. Resident #242 was very teary and visibly and verbally anxious and stated that s/he is now on antianxiety medications because staff does not come and care for him/her.
Resident #242 was started on an antidepressant on 11/27/22, this was increased on 12/25/22 and then s/he was started on a sedative 1/10/23 related to his/her anxiety.
Record review on 2/9/23 at 8:27 AM revealed that on 11/4/22 a trauma screen was completed. This revealed that Resident #242 has a history of sexual abuse in adolescence, sexual assault in the hospital and has a history of childhood trauma, on top of this new diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) a fatal debilitating disease, as of 2022.
Review of Resident #242's care plans failed to reveal a care plan in place for the history of trauma.
The trauma screen also has a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) checklist. There were two areas identified as 'a little bit' that bothered the resident within the past month; #2. feeling upset when something reminded you of a stressful situation from the past and #4. feeling distant or cut off from other people.
A review of the baseline care plan noted that under section 'C' completed by social services the goals for care documented that 'trauma history was discussed with resident at bedside .very resilient with history of trauma.'
The facility identified that the resident had a history of trauma, however, based on the scoring of the screens determined that it was not a factor in the residents status or care at the time of admission according to the facility Social Worker, staff #32, when interviewed on 2/9/23.
The facility's response to Resident #242's anxiety and alleged frequent request for staff was to implement a care plan on 12/16/22 noting residents 'socially inappropriate behavior' of: demanding excessive use of staff time when needs are met and depression related to poor prognosis with an intervention only to administer medication as ordered and monitor for reactions to the medications. Further interventions including a psychiatric consult was not completed until 1/3/23. This consult noted residents concern that staff is not responsive to his/her needs which is contributing to his/her anxiety and distrust of the staff.
Surveyor met with Resident #242 on 3/8/23. S/he continued to verbalize anxiety, cried to the surveyor, and reported that staff was not responsive to his/her needs as s/he was not fed the day prior as s/he is fully dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. This information was brought to the registered Nurse (RN) Unit Manager, staff #27, and further the facility Director of Nursing.
As noted in the assessment under the PTSD screening, #4. feeling distant and cut off from other people, his/her inability to move and having complete dependence on staff and his/her continued and documented verbalization to the Psychiatrist and this surveyor and staff that s/he was anxious and felt that staff was not responsive to his/her needs was an identified concern reviewed throughout the survey.
Cross reference F740, F742
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0711
(Tag F0711)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on medical record review and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility staff failed to document an accurate overview of the resident during a physician visit. This was ev...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility staff failed to document an accurate overview of the resident during a physician visit. This was evident during 2 of 65 resident record reviews. (#242, #247)
The findings include:
1. Review of the medical record on 2/9/23 for Resident #242 revealed a physician history and physical completed on 11/6/22. The attending physician #42 documented active diagnosis for Resident #242 including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. However, under #22 for cranial nerves 'c.' moves all extremities was selected.
Surveyor had met with Resident #242 previously on 2/6 and 2/8 where s/he verbalized not being able to move any extremity secondary to their diagnosis and being completely dependent on staff.
Staff #42 was interviewed on 3/1/23. He stated that he was familiar with Resident #242 and that due to his/her diagnosis that 'no' s/he would not be able to move their extremities. He went on to explain the form that he has to fill out and that there are click buttons and he must have just 'selected the wrong one.' The significance that it further can have an effect on the minimum data set and assessments staff use was reviewed at that time, also in the presence of the Director of Nursing.
Cross reference F636
2. Review of the medical record for Resident #247 on 3/02/23 09:13 AM revealed orders for Eliquis, an anticoagulant. Further review of the wound care notes completed by staff # 51 the previous wound care physician, completed between 10/22/2020 and 2/4/2021, she consistently documented that Resident # 247 was not on an active therapeutic anticoagulant.
Staff # 52, the current wound physician, was interviewed repeatedly throughout the survey process. During an interview on 3/1/23, he stated that although the resident was on an anticoagulant that would not have an effect on the wound care treatment that s/he received. He did understand the identified documentation concern.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0742
(Tag F0742)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 2/16/23 at 9:25 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident 109's medical record. The review revealed Resident #109 had a past medi...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 2/16/23 at 9:25 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident 109's medical record. The review revealed Resident #109 had a past medical history that included, but is not limited to, personal history of trauma brain injury, schizotypal disorder, and major depressive disorder.
On 2/16/23 AM, the surveyor interviewed Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner (PMHNP) Staff #29. During this interview Staff #29 reported that Resident #109 had been on Depakote (a medication used to treat seizures as well as acute manic symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder) in the past but was not on the medication currently.
On 2/21/23 at approximately 8 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #109's progress notes written by PMHNP, Staff #29. On 10/6/22 and 11/4/22 Staff #29 visited with Resident #109 and wrote progress notes. On both of these visits, Staff #29 documented the current medications for Resident #109 as; Depakote 500mg bid (twice a day). Further review of these progress notes from 10/6/22 and 11/4/22 documents a plan for Resident #109, which states, Continue Current Meds (medications), Tapering meds (medications) is not indicated, Psychiatric team will monitor mood and behavior' followed by, Antipsychotic Medication: Modify Behavior.
On 2/21/23 at approximately 8:10 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident # 109's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the months of October and November from 2022. The review revealed no Depakote was ordered or administered in October 2022 or November 2022. No medications on the MAR were indicated for modifying behavior or had the classification of antipsychotic medications.
On 2/23/23 at 2:03 PM, the surveyor relayed the concerns with the Director of Nursing (DON) that staff #29 was documented monitoring Resident #109 for behaviors, however was documenting an inaccurate plan of treatment than what Resident #109 was actually receiving.
2. During interview of Resident #1 on 2/7/23 at 8:28 AM, Resident #1 stated he/she would like to see a counselor for his/her depression and he/she can't remember the last time he/she talked to one.
Review of Resident #1's medical record on 2/8/23 revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses to include Major Depressive Disorder, dependence on a ventilator and Quadriplegia. A ventilator is a piece of medical technology that provides mechanical ventilation by moving breathable air into and out of the lungs, to deliver breaths to a patient who is physically unable to breathe, or breathing insufficiently. Quadriplegia is a form of paralysis that affects all four limbs, plus the torso.
Further review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the facility staff completed a MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment on 11/2/22. The MDS is a federally-mandated assessment tool that helps nursing home staff gather information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions. Review of Resident #1's 11/2/22 MDS Assessment revealed the facility staff assessed the Resident in Section D Mood with the presence of the following symptoms: feeling down, depressed or hopeless; trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much; and feeling tired or having little energy.
During interview of Resident #1 on 2/9/23 9:00 AM, the resident stated he does sometimes get in room activities but would like to be able to get out of his/her room for activities at times.
Review of the Resident's Psychiatric Progress Notes on 2/9/23 revealed the resident was seen monthly from May 2022 until November 2022. Review of the Psychiatric Progress Notes documented by the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner ( Psych NP) revealed a Plan of Patient is encouraged to participate in activities on the unit.
Review of the Psychiatric Progress Note dated 6/16/22 revealed the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner ( Psych NP) documented No psych medication but then went on to document Antidepressant medication helps the elderly to provide quality of life and also helps the patient to be interactive and be responsive to everyday care. The patient has been evaluated and the medications have been examined the patient will be continued on the current medications for now.
Review of the Psychiatric Progress Note dated 7/25/22 revealed the Psych NP documented No psych medication but then went on to document Feedback will also be obtained from the staff about patient's behavior and if necessary, the medications can be adjusted. For now, the patient appears to be stable, and the medications continued.
Review of the Psychiatric Progress Note dated 10/20/22 revealed the Psych NP documented, No psych medication and The patient was encourage to maintain social distance, use masks and handwashing to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Patient was educated about the benefits of proper nutrition, hydration and exercise. The Psych NP also documented at that time reviewed potential risks of antipsychotic medication when the resident is not on psych medication.
Review of the resident's Activity Log provided by the Activities Director on 2/9/23 revealed the only activity the resident participated in from 11/1/22 until 2/9/23 was in his/her room.
Reviewed the concern of not providing the resident with out of the room activities during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/10/23 at 10:00 AM. The DON stated at that time she would need to create a plan and obtain staff to be able to provide the resident with out of the room activities due to his/her ventilator status.
During interview with the Psych NP on 2/16/23 at 9:22 AM reviewed the concerns of the Psych NP documenting monthly Patient is encouraged to participate in activities on the unit when the facility is not offering the resident activities on the unit. The Surveyor reviewed the concern on 6/16/22 the Psych NP documented No psych medication but then went on to document Antidepressant medication helps the elderly to provide quality of life and also helps the patient to be interactive and be responsive to everyday care. The patient has been evaluated and the medications have been examined the patient will be continued on the current medications for now. The Surveyor reviewed the concern on 7/25/22 the Psych NP documented the resident was not on psychiatric medication but then documented Feedback will also be obtained from the staff about patient's behavior and if necessary, the medications can be adjusted. For now, the patient appears to be stable, and the medications continued. The Surveyor reviewed the concern on 10/20/22 the Psych NP documented patient was encourage to maintain social distance, use masks, and handwashing to prevent the spread of coronavirus. patient educated about the benefits of proper nutrition, hydration and exercise. when the resident has quadriplegia and the Psych NP documented at that time reviewed potential risks of antipsychotic medication when the resident is not on psychiatric medication.
Interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/16/23 at 1:30 PM confirmed the psychiatric services documented by the Psych NP are not accurate for Resident #1.
Cross Reference F 740, F 741
Based on medical record review, observation and interview with resident and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate interventions for a resident with identified history of trauma. This was evident for 3 of 11 residents reviewed for behavioral and emotional concerns. (Resident # 242, #1 and # 109)
The findings include:
1. Record review on 2/9/23 at 8:27 AM revealed that on 11/4/22 a trauma screen was completed. This revealed that Resident #242 has a history of sexual abuse in adolescence, sexual assault in the hospital and has a history of childhood trauma, on top of this new diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) a fatal debilitating disease, as of 2022.
According to the 11/10/22, 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment section 'D' for mood, the severity was documented as a '3' for minimal depression.
A review of the baseline care plan noted that under section 'C' completed by social services the goals for care documented that 'trauma history was discussed with resident at bedside .very resilient with history of trauma.'
The facility identified that the resident had a history of trauma, however, based on the scoring of the screens determined that it was not a factor in the residents status or care at the time of admission.
Resident #242 was started on an antidepressant on 11/27/22, this was increased on 12/25/22 and then s/he was started on a sedative 1/10/23 related to his/her anxiety.
The facility response to Resident #242's anxiety and alleged frequent request for staff was to implement a care plan on 12/16/22 noting residents 'socially inappropriate behavior' of: demanding excessive use of staff time when needs are met, and depression related to poor prognosis with an intervention only to administer medication as ordered and monitor for reactions to the medications. Further interventions including a psychiatric consult was not completed until 1/3/23. This consult noted residents concern that staff is not responsive to his/her needs which is contributing to his/her anxiety and distrust of the staff.
Resident #242 on multiple occasions, including 2/6, 2/8, 2/10 and 3/8 verbalized to the surveyor his/her anxiety and stress related to concern that s/he is fully dependent on staff for care and cannot depend on them to care for him/her and just wants to go home.
On 2/10/23 during a follow-up visit with Resident #242, the Surveyor asked him/her about medication refusals that were documented in their chart. S/he stated that s/he doesn't need medication, s/he needs staff to take care of him/her and respond to the call bell.
These concerns were repeatedly reported to the facility Director of Nursing.
Cross reference with F699, F740
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
3. During an interview with Resident #201 on 3/08/23 at 9:33 AM he/she continued to report that facility staff do not perform daily wound care. The resident further stated the staff continue to perfor...
Read full inspector narrative →
3. During an interview with Resident #201 on 3/08/23 at 9:33 AM he/she continued to report that facility staff do not perform daily wound care. The resident further stated the staff continue to perform their own wound care using epsom salt in their room to soak the wounds and then apply the betadine with swabs. Additionally, it was reported by the resident that s/he performs the wound care every other day myself but I didn't do it yesterday.
During the interview on 3/08/23 at 9:33 AM, Resident #201 gestured over to a bottle which the surveyors then observed containing a brown solution with a generic betadine label located in the resident's room.
On 3/08/23 at 12:14 PM, the facility Director was notified of the surveyor's concerns for non-monitored medication in the resident's room.
Upon review of the medical records, no records were present that ensured the monitoring of medication located in the resident's room, and no physician orders were present relating to medication being stored and/or utilized by the resident in the resident's room. No documentation of any wound care training of the resident was found in the wound care physician's surgical notes.
Cross Reference F842
2. Review of the medical record for Resident #242 on 2/9/23 at 10:00 AM revealed Resident #242 was started on an antidepressant on 11/27/22, this was increased on 12/25/22 to 75 milligrams (mg). This was ordered as a 25mg and 50mg tablet administered together for a total of 75mg.
Review of the medication administration record (MAR) for January 2023 revealed on 1/15/23 the 50mg tablet was discontinued.
Physician visits around that time, including on 1/2/23 continued to document Resident #242 receiving 75 mg.
The DON was interviewed on 2/10/23 at 9:52 AM regarding the surveyors findings and concerns.
The DON followed up with the surveyor prior to exit and stated that after her review of Resident #242's medical record she determined that the antidepressant medication was discontinued in error. Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure a resident received medication according to physician's orders. This was evident for 3 out of 53 residents in the survey sample. Resident (# 22, 242, 201).
The findings are:
1. A review of Resident #22's clinical record on 3/2/23 revealed that the resident's primary physician ordered Oxycodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg 1 tab every 6 hours as needed for severe pain (8-10) on 12/26/22. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the resident rated pain as a 7 on 12/28 and 12/31 but was administered the medication. During the month of January the resident rated pain as a 6 on 1/1/23 at 5:45 AM, 1/2/23 at 6 AM, 1/6/23 at 6 AM, and on 1/21/23 at 6 AM. Also during January the resident rated pain as a 7 on 1/2/23 at 11:40 PM, 1/4/23 at 5:40 AM, 1/11/23 at 5:30 AM and 11:15 PM, 1/13/23 at 5:55 AM, 1/18/23 at 5:35 AM, 1/19/23 at 6 AM, 1/28/23 at 5:30 AM, and 1/29/23 at 5 AM. The February MAR was reviewed and the resident rated pain as a 7 but was administered the medication on 2/1/23, 2/3/23, 2/9/23, 2/10/23, and 2/17/23.
Interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/6/23 at 9:00 AM. She said she educated the nurse who gave the resident pain medication outside of parameters which means the resident received those medications unnecessarily.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
3. During an interview conducted on 02/07/2023 at approximately 12:21 PM, Resident #210 stated s/he had a painful loose tooth in the bottom front row that sometimes was painful when s/he ate a meal. T...
Read full inspector narrative →
3. During an interview conducted on 02/07/2023 at approximately 12:21 PM, Resident #210 stated s/he had a painful loose tooth in the bottom front row that sometimes was painful when s/he ate a meal. The resident stated s/he had complained to numerous nursing staff of the tooth pain and had been treated with the oral medication Orajel. The resident stated s/he had seen a Dentist months ago and had been waiting since then to have an Xray for the tooth extraction.
On 02/16/2023 at approximately 12:45 PM a review of Resident #210's nurse's note dated 05/21/2022 stated, the resident complained of tooth pain. Tylenol given.
On 02/16/2023 at approximately 12:50 PM a review of Resident #210's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed an order for Anbesol Maximum Strength dental Gel 20% (Benzocaine) 1 application dental three times a day for toothache. Start date 06/22/2022. Discontinued date 02/14/2023.
On 02/16/2023 at approximately 12:52 PM a review of Resident # 210's MAR revealed an order for Orajel three times mouth sores gel 20-0.1-0.15 %. 1 application dental every 12 hours for gum/tooth ache for 30 days Start Date 02/14/2023.
A record review conducted on 02/16/2023 at approximately 1:07 PM revealed a dental evaluation from HealthDrive dated 07/08/2022. The dental assessment revealed the resident stated, My tooth hurts on the lower right. Recommend 4BWs (Bitewings) and 4PAs (Periapical) dental x-rays for tooth #3,8,9,20,27. Patient symptomatic (showing that a particular disease is present) to palpation (is a method of feeling with the fingers or hands during a physical examination) on tooth #27 (right lower tooth); re-evaluate after x-rays for extraction and restoration.
On 02/16/2023 at approximately 1:10 PM a review of Resident #210's medical record did not reveal a dental Xray was conducted.
On 02/16/2023 at approximately 1:30 PM the surveyor advised the Director of Nursing (DON) of the findings.
On 02/17/2023 at approximately 8:00 AM the DON provided the surveyor with an email correspondence from complete care to healthdrive that stated under the Recommended Treatment does that mean that an Xray is being recommended and we in the facility should schedule it OR Xray is being recommended and healthdrive will come back to do the Xray? HealthDrive response email stated that means HealthDrive has put in the recommendation and HealthDrive follows-up to schedule a future visit where we will take care of the x-rays. No action required by nursing home.
During an interview conducted on 02/17/2023 at approximately 11:15 AM, the surveyor asked the DON what the facility's policy was to follow up to ensure a resident received follow up care. The DON stated if a resident required an appointment with an outside specialist other than with HealthDrive there is a spreadsheet maintained by the Unit Manager and the DON. Appointments made for specialist through HealthDrive are managed by HealthDrive are not followed up by the facility. The DON confirmed the resident did not receive a follow up appointment for an Xray that was recommended 7 months ago.
On 02/17/2023 at approximately 1:00 PM the DON stated the facility had followed up with HealthDrive and Resident #210 had been scheduled for an dental consult for 03/07/2023.
2. Surveyor met with Resident #8 on 2/7/23 at 9:19 AM during the initial screening and interview process. Resident #8 was asked if s/he has seen a Dentist while a resident in the facility, as part of the screening questions. S/he stated that s/he was in a car accident occurring in the 1980's that has contributed to his/her current debilitating conditions including the loss of most of his/her teeth. Further s/he stated that 'no' since admission back in 2019 s/he has not seen a dentist though s/he is missing most of his/her teeth. Resident #8 was asked if s/he had any interest or felt the need to see a Dentist. Resident #8 said that he/she did feel that a Dentist was needed.
A review of the medical record for Resident #8 on 2/17/23 at 8:54 AM failed to reveal any consults on the medical record for a Dentist.
Staff #15, the [NAME] President (VP) of Informatics who was assisting the survey team with resident medical records followed up with the surveyor on 2/27/23 at 1:59 PM. She stated that after a thorough review, she could not find any dental consults on the chart or that one was ever completed since the residents admission.
Based on observation and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that residents received needed dental care (#22, #8, #210). This was evident for 3 out of the 53 residents in the survey sample.
The findings include:
1. Resident #22 was observed on 2/6/23 at 9:43 AM. The resident did not have teeth and was not wearing dentures.
A review of the resident's clinical record revealed that Resident #22 had a dental exam on 1/30/20 and the Dentist recommended that the resident's dentures be replaced. The resident had a dental exam scheduled for 9/8/20. The exam was not done because family could not visit secondary to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) restrictions. There was no indication as to why staff were not able to transport.
Resident #22 had another dental appointment rescheduled for 10/21/20. The resident was not treated because the resident was not due for treatment and family was not present. It was noted that dental services would continue once family is able to return to the facility.
No evidence of the resident having dental consults being completed were presented prior to the survey exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on multiple random observations and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain proper infection control practices while providing care to reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on multiple random observations and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain proper infection control practices while providing care to residents.
The findings include:
Review of Maryland Department of Health (MDH) Amended Directive and Order Regarding Nursing Home Matters, dated 9/8/21, revealed the following: All personnel who are in close contact with residents of nursing homes shall use appropriate Standard and Transmission-based Precautions, as recommended by MDH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), based on the procedures being performed and the availability of specific forms of PPE. Facilities shall use good faith efforts to maintain adequate supplies of all types of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
During tour of the facility and observations of residents on 2/13/23 staff GNA #33 was observed in a resident room that was designated for contact precautions, including gown in gloves for contact with the resident. At 12:50 PM, staff #33 was observed in Resident #201's room holding an open packaged gown without any gloves on and touched Resident #201's bare foot. Resident #201 has a recent history of gangrene requiring amputation of the toes on the bilateral feet that is currently undergoing treatment and followed by the wound care staff.
Staff #33 finished her conversation with Resident #201 then exited the room and proceeded into the adjacent room holding the same gown she was holding in Resident #201's room. The Adjacent room was also noted on contact precautions. She was called out of the room by the surveyors. The observations of her touching Resident #201's wound with bare hands, not washing or sanitizing on exit and then entering another resident room, also carrying an open packaged gown from one room to another was reviewed with her. She stated that she appreciates us bringing this to her attention and that with all they have to do sometimes they forget.
These findings were brought to the attention of the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/13/23.
On 2/17/23 at 10:46 AM infection control training regarding, Do not wear the same gloves/isolation gown from patient room to patient room was reviewed by this surveyor, provided to the team as part of the infection control review. According to the attendance sign-in sheet, training was conducted between 1/6-1/18/23. Staff #33 was noted on the sign in sheet.
During tour of the second floor-vent unit on 2/27/23 at 1:30 PM, while testing the water, staff Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #50 was observed sitting at the nursing station playing on her phone without a mask on. The Surveyor stood at the desk for a few moments observing her behavior and actions. Another nurse saw the surveyors and kept walking by and tapped staff #50, bumped her chair and she just scooted in and continued to play on her phone. Surveyor then introduced herself and she said 'hi,' and looked back at her phone. Surveyor then stated that the reason for my introductions and asked if she should have a mask on and she then stated 'oh, sorry,' and pulled her mask up.
This information was relayed to the DON upon returning to the conference room.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0924
(Tag F0924)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on tour of the facility and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that handrails were...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on tour of the facility and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that handrails were secured to the walls.
The findings include:
During tour of the facility on 02/07/23 at 09:22 AM the handrails in the 5th floor hallway across from room [ROOM NUMBER] were observed to be loosely fitting to the wall. A handrail should be secure with no movement but these handrails moved.
This surveyor toured with Staff #21 on 3/3/23 from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM. Staff #21 was made aware of the handrails and stated that he would ensure they were secure.
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on tours of the facility and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the facility envir...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on tours of the facility and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the facility environment was maintained in a homelike manner. This was evident for 5 out of 5 floors.
The findings are:
Tours of the facility by members of the survey team revealed:
room [ROOM NUMBER] on 2/7/23 at 1:00 PM was observed to have water-stained ceiling tiles. A tour of the facility on 2/15/23 at 11:27 AM revealed 3 ceiling tiles outside of the room were water stained. The window in the room had two trapezoid windows that are part of the larger window. These trapezoids are 9.5 wide at the bottom, 8.5 at the top, and 4 tall. The trapezoid windows are designed to have screens to prevent insects, birds, etc. from entering the room. The left window was missing the screen.
Tour on 2/6/23 at 2:18 PM revealed the Men's room window right trapezoid screen was missing.
During the tour of the second floor pavilion the door to stairwell #2 was ajar. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #10 was informed and shown the door. She closed the door and started to ask staff members on the unit who was responsible for the door being left ajar.
A member of the survey team was touring the third floor on 2/7/23 at 9:16 AM and observed upon entering room [ROOM NUMBER] a foul odor, bed had stained sheets, and the partially visible mattress was torn. The floor had food scattered throughout the floor.
The men's shower room across from room [ROOM NUMBER] had an area of disintegrating drywall around the border of the shower and the tile around the shower head was cracked.
It was observed during the tour of the third floor on 2/3/23 at 1:25 PM in room [ROOM NUMBER] there were a lot of fruit flies and gnats.
During the tour it was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 2/6/23 at 11:00 AM that the hallway had a foul odor.
The resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] told the survey team that the long window in the room is not covered up at night.
Survey team members observed on 2/7/23 at 10:02 AM the ceiling in the third floor hallways showed signs of water leaking. There was a Hoyer lift with wheels that can't turn by themselves.
The vent outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed on 2/16/23 at 1:02 PM to have black specks or some form of black discoloration.
Survey team member observed on 2/6/23 at 9:27 AM that room [ROOM NUMBER] has blood on the walls.
Survey team member observed on 2/6/23 at 1:18 PM a strong urine odor when entering room [ROOM NUMBER].
It was observed on 02/06/23 at 01:32 PM in the 5th floor hallway on the right hand wall across from room [ROOM NUMBER] there was an area 3 feet high and 2 feet wide with the wall paper torn off and visible damage to the drywall.
room [ROOM NUMBER] had a wall that was observed on 2/6/23 at 1:40 PM to be damaged (chipped up).
Survey team members observed that the code for the third floor soiled utility rooms, which are located in an alcove in the hallway, was found written on the sign that says Danger: Oxygen hanging on the door of the supply room next to room [ROOM NUMBER] on 2/16/23 at 12:45 PM. No residents were observed in the area and residents were not observed in the alcove during the survey by team members. The code also worked for the nutrition room. The supply room contained, but not limited to, equipment for tracheostomies, dressing materials, and catheter supplies. The nutrition room across from the oxygen room was able to be opened at 12:53 PM. Inside there were safety syringes, insulin syringes, stock syringe lancets, Jevity tube feed, enema supplies, alcohol pads, mouthwash, nail clippers, and IV bags filled with either 5% Dextrose or Dextrose and 0.45 Sodium. One bag of the 5% Dextrose and Sodium had an expiration date of 01/2022.
During tour of the 5th floor the blinds in the dining room were observed to be ripped. Rust was discoloring the floor at the entrance to the dining room. Fruit flies had been observed.
During investigation of an anonymous complaint of residents on the 5th floor not having toilet paper in the common area restroom a member of the Survey team toured the 5th floor common area restroom for residents and found it did have toilet paper. The Surveyor then randomly toured 3 resident rooms on 2/16/23 at 12:25 PM and observed the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]A had a bedside commode but no toilet paper. The Surveyor immediately got the facility ICP (Infection Control Preventionist) on 2/16/23 at 12:28 PM who confirmed room [ROOM NUMBER]A had a bedside commode with no toilet paper.
This surveyor toured with the Maintenance Director (Staff #21) on 3/3/23 at 1:20 PM. This was the fourth time this surveyor attempted to tour with Staff #21. He was asked at 1:38 PM what he is doing about the third floor showers. He said the showers in the 3rd floor shower room across from room [ROOM NUMBER] are not used. Staff #21 said at 1:42 PM that the holes in the ceilings and walls are patched and will be painted over once the roof is replaced.