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** 2) On 9/13/22 at 9:51 AM, the surveyor observed medication stored in medication cart #1 on the [NAME] Oak unit in the presence o...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) On 9/13/22 at 9:51 AM, the surveyor observed medication stored in medication cart #1 on the [NAME] Oak unit in the presence of Certified Medication Aide (CMA) #43. The top drawer contained an open bottle of acetaminophen 500mg with no date written to indicate when the bottle was opened.
The surveyor observed medication stored in medication cart #2 of the Sycamore unit. A bottle of Benadryl 25mg was opened but had no open date on the container. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 recalled the bottle was opened yesterday and labeled the bottle. A bottle of aspirin EC (enteric coated) 81mg was noted to have a manufactured expiration date of 8/22/22. The surveyor brought this to the attention of LPN #7 and she threw the bottle away.
On 9/13/22 at 10:32 AM, during observation of the [NAME] Oak medication storage room, the surveyor found a box of expired heparin flushes, with expiration date of 6/7/22. This box was labeled for a resident who was identified by LPN #26 as having been discharged in January 2022.
Ongoing observation of the [NAME] Oak medication storage room revealed two large bags containing approximately 50 heparin syringes in each bag. The syringes in both bags had expiration dates in 2021.
Further observation of the storage room revealed a box of heparin syringes labeled with the expiration date of 3/17/22, for a resident identified by LPN #26 as having been discharged in 2021. However, the individual prefilled syringes had a manufacturer expiration of 2023. LPN #26 was present during the medication storage observation and was made aware of all the expired medications. LPN #26 then disposed of the expired medications.
3) On 08/30/22 at 10:51 AM tour of the Sycamore Unit, the surveyor observed Resident #54 in their room wearing an oxygen tubing without a label.
On 8/30/2022 at 10:56 AM tour of the Sycamore Unit, the surveyor observed Resident #36 in their room wearing oxygen tubing without labeling on it.
On 8/30/2022 at 11:15 AM LPN #6 with surveyor in Resident #54's room to confirm the oxygen tubing without a label. LPN #6 stated the oxygen tubing will be changed and labeled.
On 08/30/2022 at 11:30 AM LPN #6 with surveyor in Resident #36's room to identify the oxygen tubing without a label. LPN #6 stated the oxygen tubing will be changed and labeled.
During a subsequent tour of the nursing unit with LPN #6 on 8/30/2022 12:30 PM, surveyors identified dirty filters on the oxygen concentrators in Resident #36 and Resident #54's rooms. The filters were covered in dark gray lint-like substance and the structure of the filters were not identifiable. LPN #6 confirmed the findings during observations.
On 9/7/2022 at 10:10 AM the surveyor held an interview with the Maintenance Director regarding who is responsible for maintenance of resident oxygen concentrators in the facility. The Maintenance Director stated that the oxygen concentrators are leased equipment and the Unit Managers are responsible for reporting maintenance issues with the concentrators to the maintenance department via a written report.
On 9/7/2022 at 10:52 AM the surveyor interviewed the Administrator who was made aware of the surveyor's observations during the tour of the Sycamore Unit. The Administrator stated that the oxygen concentrators in the facility are scheduled for maintenance once a complaint or work order is submitted by nursing staff then once the maintenance department is aware, the maintenance department would contact the leasing company for the oxygen concentrators.
On 9/12/2022 at 11:30 AM the surveyor reviewed a document provided by the Administrator titled the Facility Assessment Tool. Page six of the section titled, Physical Environment revealed that routine preventative maintenance of the oxygen tanks and equipment is scheduled by the Maintenance Director; The process to ensure quality and quantity of physical resources is the responsibility of the Maintenance Director in conjunction with Directors and Department managers.
During an interview on 9/12/2022 at 1PM, the Maintenance Director confirmed with the surveyor that all oxygen concentrators were serviced by the maintenance department.
During the exit conference on 9/21/2022, the Administrator confirmed that all oxygen concentrators were serviced by the maintenance department.
Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of medical record documentation it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe and effective system for securing medication, treatment supplies, and hazardous medical equipment in their designated carts on nursing units with residents with documented cognitive deficits and wandering behaviors. This practice was noted on 8/31/22 and included five (5) medication/treatment carts that were observed unlocked and unattended. The facility's failure to secure medications and treatment supplies was evident throughout the facility's two (2) nursing units. The deficient practice was observed on 4 out of 4 medication carts and 1 of 3 treatment carts. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure that 2. medications and biologicals were labeled with and dated after opened and medications stored in medication storage areas were unexpired. This was evident for 2 out of 3 medication carts and 1 of 1 medication storage room and 3. ensure that resident nasal cannulas (oxygen tubing) were accurately labeled, and the resident oxygen concentrators were adequately serviced. This was evident for 2 (Resident #36 and Resident #54) of 13 residents reviewed during the investigative portion of the annual survey.
The findings include:
1a) On 8/30/22 at 8:27 AM, the surveyor observed an unlocked and unattended and unlabeled treatment cart on the Sycamore nursing unit. The treatment cart had the following medications in it: 10 packs of povidone iodine, 1 pack of alcohol swab stick, 1 tube of Thera Honey, 1 tube of Santyl, 1 large and blue-handled pair of scissors, 1 pair of silver-handled small scissors, 2 bottles of sterile normal saline, 2 bottles of ammonium lactate 12% solution, 2 tubes of Skintegrity hydrogel, 1 tube of silver sulfadiazine cream (US 1%), 3 bottles of iodoform package strips, 1 bottle of PVP prep solution, and 1 packaged skin staple remover.
During an interview that took place on 8/30/22 at 8:35 AM, licensed practical nurse (LPN) #6 stated the treatment cart was shared by herself and LPN #7 and was not aware that the treatment cart was unlocked and locked it after surveyor notification.
b) During an observation that took place on 8/31/22 at 5:58 AM, the surveyor noted one medication cart and one treatment cart unlocked and unattended on the Sycamore unit near the nurse's station.
During an interview conducted on 08/31/2022 at 6:00 am, the registered nurse (RN) #8 stated the medication and treatment carts had remained unlocked and unattended while he opened the side entrance to the facility. The entrance was around a corner and out of sight of both carts. The carts were not labeled with designated numbers, just identified with their immediate location on the identified unit.
c) On 8/31/22 at 6:19 AM on the [NAME] Oak nursing unit, the surveyor observed a medication cart that was labeled as the Station 1 Team 1 medication cart unlocked and unattended. Further observation revealed multiple medications on top of the cart including: a yellow tablet in a medicine cup, a packaged 20mg) omeprazole tablet labeled for Resident #24, a packaged 200 mg carbamazepine labeled for Resident #10, and a bottle of extra strength 500mg acetaminophen tablets.
Within the vicinity of the medication cart, approximately 10 feet, Resident #10 was observed sitting in his/her wheelchair outside his/her room facing the medication cart for an unknown time frame. The resident remained in area of the unlocked medication carts and nursing station during the continued interactions with the survey team and the nursing staff.
LPN #10 was observed returning to the [NAME] Oak unit on 8/31/22 at 6:22 AM. LPN #10 was interviewed at that time and confirmed that the yellow tablet was left open in a medication cup on top of the cart but could not explain why it was there. LPN #10 stated that the yellow tablet was a Pantoprazole tablet for a resident.
d) On 8/31/22 at 6:19 AM on the [NAME] Oak nursing station, a medication cart was observed in front of room [ROOM NUMBER] unlocked and unattended. Surveyor continued to observe Resident #10 wandering the unit in his/her wheelchair alone at that time.
At 6:21 AM, LPN #10 was observed walking past the medication cart, turned, and then returned to the medication cart. LPN #10 placed her hand on the cart and made eye contact with this surveyor, who was still standing near the unlocked medication cart, and then LPN #10 walked away from the cart without securing it. The surveyor proceeded to verify that the cart could still be opened and observed that the cart was stocked with a variety of house stock medications as well as medications prescribed to residents in rooms assigned to the cart.
On 8/31/22 at 7:50 AM a review of Resident #10's record revealed on 3/29/222 the facility initiated a care plan goal for the Resident #10 to remain free of injury related to a dementia diagnosis. On the 5/28/22 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment the resident scored a 0/15 on a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident was care planned to remain free of injury related to his/her dementia with an approach that states, remove resident from other residents' rooms and unsafe situations with an initiation date of 3/29/22. Resident #10 is also a noted wanderer and elopement risk based on a facility reported incident where s/he eloped from the facility. This event with Resident #10 occurred on 7/18/22. S/he had an elopement assessment completed on 7/19/2022 documenting that s/he is not aware of his/her surroundings, is confused and lacks safe decision-making capabilities.
Multiple residents were observed to gather in this area where the unlocked medication carts were located, throughout the day. These observations included Resident #7 who was known to wander the facility based on surveyor observations starting on 8/30/2022. Additionally, per medical record review completed on 9/2/2022, Resident #7 had an order for a wander guard and was noted with diagnosis including schizophrenia and mood disorder and a BIMS of 3/15 indicating severe cognitive impairment.
The facility policy on 'Medication Management Program,' was reviewed on 8/31/22 at 12:00 PM and stated under Security and Safety Guidelines 3. The medication cart is locked when not in use and in direct line of sight. 4. Keys to the medication room and cart are kept with the authorized staff and are the responsibility of the person assigned those keys.
The Administrator and Corporate Consultant, Staff #14 confirmed that this policy, revised and effective 7/13/21 was in place and enforced.
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 12:30 PM on 08/31/2022.
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 8/31/2022, after two initial plans were submitted at 3:06 PM and 3:35 PM respectively. The plan included the reeducation of the licensed nurses and certified medication aids regarding the expectation that all drugs and biologicals are to be stored in locked compartments and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys.
The facility plans of removal included the following: if a cart is observed unlocked and unattended, staff are to lock the cart or remain with the cart until a nursing staff member is available to lock the cart. A department head or nursing manager will be assigned to validate that the carts are locked and secure and round hourly for the next 6 shifts and report the findings to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI). An ad-hoc QAPI meeting was held on 8/31/2022 to review and approve this plan to be completed by 9/2/2022.
e) On 9/2/2022 at 7:37 AM upon entry into the facility on the Sycamore unit, Surveyor observed two (2) unlocked medication carts on opposite ends of the nursing station, approximately 10 feet on either side. LPN #7 was observed at the nursing station on the telephone. LPN #6 and RN #8 were also observed behind the nursing station talking. LPN #6 was asked if she worked last night, and she stated that she just came in to work the day shift. LPN #7 was then observed snapping her fingers at RN#8 and pointing towards the medication cart to the right, he walked over and locked it and LPN #6 then proceeded to walk to the cart to the left and lock that medication cart.
RN #8 was interviewed at 7:43 AM. He confirmed that he was responsible for both medications' carts and that they were both unlocked.
The facilities initial plan of removal had a completion date of 9/2/2022 that all trainings would be implemented. However, secondary to the noted observations with RN #8 the facility was placed out of compliance. These findings were reviewed with the Administrator at 9:27 AM on 9/2/22 and the OHCQ. The Administrator was notified that a new plan of removal would need to be submitted to the OHCQ.
On 9/2/22 secondary to observed noncompliance with the original plan of removal the facility had to submit a new plan of removal. This plan was submitted at 12:59 PM on 9/2/22 and accepted by the OHCQ at 1:46 PM. After confirmation of the plan and implementation, the immediacy was removed, and the deficient practice remained at a potential for more than minimal harm with a scope/severity of D for the remaining residents.
The second plan of removal initiated on 9/2/2022 after noncompliance was established included to discipline identified staff and re-education by the Clinical Consultant Staff #14. The facility also implemented having a department head assigned to make continuous rounds during medication pass and at a minimum of every hour for five additional shifts through 9/3/22. The facility held an ad-hoc QAPI meeting on 9/2/22 to review and approve the addendum to the plan and continue monitoring.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interviews, and record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the dignity of a resident as evidenced by the resident's uncovered urine catheter bag lyi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the dignity of a resident as evidenced by the resident's uncovered urine catheter bag lying on the floor uncovered, under the resident's bed. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #20) out of 13 residents observed during a tour of the nursing unit.
The findings include:
During a tour of the nursing unit on 8/30/2022 at 10:37 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #20's urine catheter bag lying flat on the floor, uncovered, under Resident #20's bed in plain view to be seen by anyone walking the hallways or entering the resident's room.
During an interview held with Resident #20, the resident asked the surveyor if the floor was wet and advised the surveyor to be careful of the slippery floor because the night shift GNA (Geriatric Nursing Assistant) had spilled urine from the bag when emptying at the end of the shift. Resident #20 could not recall the identity of the GNA.
During an observation and interview on 8/30/2022 at 10:45 AM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 and LPN #7, confirmed the uncovered urine catheter bag lying under Resident #20's bed. LPN #6 stated, it must have been left there by one of the nightshift GNAs. LPN #6 recovered the bag from the floor and placed it in a blue privacy bag then hung it from the bottom frame under Resident #20's bed.
During the exit conference on 9/21/2022, the Administrator and Clinical Consultant, Registered Nurse (RN) #14, were made aware of the observation and interviews with LPN #6 and LPN #7. LPN's #6 and #7 confirmed that Resident #20's urine catheter bag was on the floor.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2) During a tour conducted on 09/07/2022 at 9:02 AM of the Sycamore Nursing Unit, the surveyor observed Resident #26's call bell wrapped around the left bed rail. The Resident was observed being fed b...
Read full inspector narrative →
2) During a tour conducted on 09/07/2022 at 9:02 AM of the Sycamore Nursing Unit, the surveyor observed Resident #26's call bell wrapped around the left bed rail. The Resident was observed being fed by Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #27 who sat on the left side of the resident's bed next to the left bedrail.
Further during the tour, the Surveyor observed Resident #26's roommate, Resident #44's call bell wrapped around the right bed rail.
On 09/07/2022 at 9:03 AM during an interview, the GNA #27 stated the call bell should not be wrapped around the bedrails and it is the facility's expectation to always keep the call bells within reach of the resident. However, the GNA did not unwrap the call bells from around the bedrail.
During an interview on 09/07/2022 at 9:07 AM, the License Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 and Surveyor observed Resident #26 & #44 call bells wrapped around the bedrails. The LPN stated the call bell should be within reach of the resident at all times, the LPN unwrapped the call bells from around the bedrails and placed the call bells within reach of each resident.
Minimum Data Set (MDS) is a standardized, primary screening and assessment tool of health status which forms the foundation of the comprehensive assessment for all residents of long-term care facilities certified to participate in Medicare or Medicaid. The MDS contains items that measure physical, psychological, and psycho-social functioning. The items in the MDS give a multidimensional view of the patient's functional capacities.
On 09/07/2022 at 9:17 AM review of the quarterly MDS record dated 06/23/2022 assessed Resident #26's functional status as required 1-person physical assist for locomotion. According to MDS Locomotion functional status is an assessment on how the resident moved between locations in his/her room and adjacent corridor on the same floor. If in a wheelchair, self-sufficiency once in the wheelchair.
On 09/07/2022 at 9:20 AM review of the quarterly MDS record dated 07/28/2022 assessed Resident #44's functional status as required 1-person physical assist for locomotion. According to MDS Locomotion functional status is an assessment on how the resident moved between locations in his/her room and adjacent corridor on the same floor. If in a wheelchair, self-sufficiency once in the wheelchair.
During an interview conducted on 9/07/2022 at 10:15 AM, the Surveyor advised the Administrator of the findings.
Based on review of resident medical record, interview with resident representatives and facility staff, and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) ensure that Resident #96's shower preferences were obtained at the beginning of his/her stay; and 2) failed to have access to the facility's communication system. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #96) of 4 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) and 2 out of 20 residents (Resident #26, and #44) reviewed during the annual survey.
The evidence includes:
1) The surveyor interviewed Resident #96's responsible party (RP) on 9/19/22 at 11:13 AM. During the interview, the RP indicated that Resident #96 was never given a shower during their 30+ day stay.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #96's medical record on 9/19/22 at 11:18 AM. The review revealed that Resident #96 was admitted to the facility from mid-April to late-May 2022, with diagnoses that included anemia, unsteadiness, and dementia without behavioral disturbance. The resident's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with assessment reference date of 4/28/22 coded Item G0120 (Bathing) that the resident was totally dependent on staff for bathing. Review of the point of care (POC) responses for bathing revealed that the resident received a bed bath on 4/22/22, 4/23, 4/27, 4/28, 4/29, 4/30, 5/2, 5/4, 5/7, 5/8, 5/10, 5/11, 5/12, 5/13, and 5/22. The resident was never documented as being given a shower.
On 9/20/22 at 10:43 AM, the facility provided the surveyor with the policy entitled, Self Determination. The procedure in the policy stated, 1. During initial assessments, the interdisciplinary team will review and document the resident's personal preferences such as: . C. Preferences related to showers . 2. The facility will make reasonable effort to honor resident choices about aspects of his/her life in the Facility that is significant to the patient/resident. 3. The facility will utilize this information in the development of personalized care plans to address the patient/resident's needs and to accommodate the resident's preferences to the extent possible. 4. The Facility will strive to honor the patient/resident's known preferences and choice whenever possible without compromising safety. The policy had a date of 10/31/17.
On 9/20/22 at 11:30 AM, the facility provided the surveyor with a bathing order for Resident #96. The order was dated 4/22/22 and stated, Bath/Shower: once a day on Monday and Thursday between 3:00 PM and 11:00 PM.
On 9/20/22 at 12:46 PM, the surveyor reviewed the resident's initial assessments. The assessments failed to reveal any evidence that the resident was asked about preferences related to showers. Resident progress notes were also reviewed at this time. They failed to reveal any evidence that Resident #96's preferences with bathing and showering were evaluated during his/her stay, or that the resident was offered a shower at any point.
On 9/20/22 at 1:00 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that there was no evidence that Resident #96 was asked about bathing and showering preferences throughout his/her stay.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of resident medical record and interview with facility staff and residents' representatives, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physicians and residents' represe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of resident medical record and interview with facility staff and residents' representatives, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physicians and residents' representatives were notified when the resident sustained a change in condition. This was evident for 2 (Resident #75 and #7) of 10 residents reviewed for change in condition.
The findings include:
1)The surveyor interviewed Resident #75's responsible party (RP) on 9/14/22 at 11:00 AM. During the interview, the RP stated that the resident was not capable of making decisions and that the resident's family should have been informed of all changes in the resident's condition. The RP stated that the resident's family had never been notified of swelling in the resident's hand or of pressure ulcers that developed during the resident's stay.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #75's medical record on 9/14/22 at 12:20 PM. The review revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility from late December, 2019, to the end of January, 2020, with diagnoses that include urinary tract infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, dementia without behavioral disturbance, heart failure, anemia, atrial fibrillation (a disorder of the heart's rhythm), and melanoma (a skin cancer). The medical record confirmed that Resident #75 was not able to make his/her own decisions and that a family resident representative was established for the resident.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #75's medical record regarding pressure ulcers on 9/14/22 at 1:05 PM. The review revealed a nursing progress note dated 1/27/20 that stated, Resident lying in bed during this shift, during activities of daily living (ADL) care, small red open area 0.4 x 0.3 noted on right buttock, no drainage no odor noted. Patient did not complain of pain or discomfort. Will continue to monitor as needed. Ongoing review failed to reveal any evidence that this finding was communicated to a provider or to the resident's family.
The surveyor interviewed the Clinical Consultant (Staff #14) on 9/14/22 at 1:30 PM. During the interview, Staff #14 confirmed that there was no evidence of notification to either a provider or to family related to the new ulcer identified on Resident #75's right buttock.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #75's medical record regarding hand swelling on 9/14/22 at 1:40 PM. The review revealed a Nurse Practitioner note dated 1/2/20 at 11:39 AM that stated, Acute left upper extremity edema (swelling) - get venous ultrasound of left upper extremity to evaluate for deep vein thrombosis, identify source of edema, patient is at high risk for clots secondary to history of cancer. Patient is already on Coumadin presently, monitor. The NP note did not reference any notification sent to family.
Further review revealed a nursing progress note dated 1/2/20 at 4:49 PM that stated, Resident alert and verbally responsive. Ultrasound to left upper extremity done this shift for left arm edema, awaiting results. Orders to hold Coumadin for tonight and start Coumadin 2mg tomorrow. Resident in stable condition, no acute distress observed. Will continue to monitor. There was no evidence in this note or any assessment form that indicated the family was notified of the findings of arm swelling or the order for the ultrasound.
Cross Reference F686
2) Review of the medical record of Resident #7 on 9/2/2022 at 1:31 PM revealed multiple diagnosis including generalized muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, history of falling and Schizophrenia. In addition, there were multiple falls noted documented in the resident's care plan.
Review of a facility reported incident (FRI) occurring on 4/2/2022, reported that Resident #7 was observed with a lump on [his/her] forehead and a darkened area around [his/her] left eye.
A facility investigation occurred and revealed that Resident #7 stated that s/he thinks [s/he] fell a few days ago. The nurse on duty 4/2/2022, reviewed the nursing notes from the previous days and there were no notes written regarding a fall.
Further interviews with staff revealed Resident #7 did have a fall, days prior, however, the nurse on duty RN #8 failed to document the fall and to notify the physician and representative of the fall.
Resident #7 was sent to the hospital on 4/3/2022 for further treatment from the fall.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2) On 9/12/22 at 1:33 PM, a medical record review was conducted for Resident #68. On 6/21/19 Resident #68 made a complaint to the former Director of Nursing (DON) that on 6/20/19 during the night shif...
Read full inspector narrative →
2) On 9/12/22 at 1:33 PM, a medical record review was conducted for Resident #68. On 6/21/19 Resident #68 made a complaint to the former Director of Nursing (DON) that on 6/20/19 during the night shift, Resident #68 put on the call bell and requested to be changed. The LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) staff #49 came into the room and started to change Resident #68. Resident stated that [s/he] tried to use the urinal but did not make it. The nurse was angry she had to change me. Resident #68 stated that in the midst of being changed Resident #68 urinated again. Resident # 68 began to cry and said s/he didn't mean it. Nurse #49 said to resident I ought to leave you this way and removed all his blankets and placed them in a chair in his room. Resident was left with only a sheet on and remained cold all night.
LPN #49 reported to the DON as requested and LPN #49 stated she did not provide any care to Resident #68. LPN #49 was picked out by Resident #68 as the nurse that took care of him/her.
LPN #49 was suspended pending investigation. As a result of the investigation, LPN #49 was given a final warning and suspended for 90 days. She was also given education on a 1 to 1 basis on resident rights, abuse, and neglect. The Administrator was made aware prior to survey exit.
Based on medical record review, interview and review of pertinent facility policies and documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent incidents of abuse and neglect. This was evident during the review of 2 of 19 abuse investigations, including complaints and facility reported incidents.
The findings include:
1) Surveyor reviewed an allegation of neglect reported to the state agency from a family that their loved one, Resident #100, was left soiled for hours. In addition, the facility also completed an investigation into the neglect allegation. The facility investigation reviewed by the surveyor on 9/09/2022 at 8:24 AM included witness statements stating observing Resident #100 soiled and wet around 12:30 PM, notified geriatric nursing assistant (GNA) staff #100 and Resident #100 was still wet on follow up around 6:00 PM. GNA Staff #32 was interviewed by the facility Administrator regarding the allegation of leaving Resident #100 soiled for an extended period on 4/21/2022. When GNA #32 was asked to sign 'corrective action form' the Administrator documented that she refused to sign the form and stated that she quit.
A review on 9/9/2022 at 10:10 AM of the GNA point of care history revealed no documentation of any activities of daily living care or treatment provided to Resident #100 by GNA #32 on 4/21/2022.
These identified concerns and findings were reviewed with the facility Corporate Consultant, staff #14 and the Administrator on 9/9/2022 and again during the survey exit on 9/21/2022.
CONCERN
(D)
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 9/12/2022 10:20 AM, review of facility records related to MD00150382 was conducted. Resident #54's medical record lists diagnoses of chronic pulmonary disease and systolic heart failure. Further...
Read full inspector narrative →
2) On 9/12/2022 10:20 AM, review of facility records related to MD00150382 was conducted. Resident #54's medical record lists diagnoses of chronic pulmonary disease and systolic heart failure. Further review of Resident #54's medical record also revealed that Resident #54 reported a chest injury to NP #60 on 01/09/2020.
During review of written statements, it was revealed that NP #60 confirms visiting Resident #54 on 01/09/2020 at which time Resident # 54 complained of thoracic pain after accidently pulling the breakfast tray that hit Resident #54's chest. NP #60 assessed Resident #54 and determined at that time there were no signs of trauma or injury, and the exam was normal. Further review of the investigation revealed that NP #60 had a follow up visit with Resident #54 on 1/16/2020 and Resident #54 complained of right-side chest pain again and NP #60 then ordered a chest Xray. The results came back to the facility on 1/17/2020 which revealed fractures of 3rd, 4th, and 5th right ribs.
The facility report also included a record of in-service for facility staff with date 01/21/2020, titled Timely notification of incident/accident to appropriate personnel which included the signature of attendance from NP #60.
An interview was held on 9/13/2022 at 12:15 PM with the Administrator and Clinical Nurse Consultant (RN #14) and they both confirmed that the injury should have been reported to the Director of Nursing (DON)/Assistant DON (ADON) at the time the injury was initially reported by Resident #54.
Based on facility documentation review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to timely report investigations to the Survey Agency, which is the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) within 24 hours of an alleged incident and the final report within 5 working days. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #26, and #54) out of 19 residents reviewed for abuse during the annual survey.
The findings include:
1) A record review of the Nurse Practitioner's (NP) #60 progress note for Resident #26 was conducted on 09/09/2022 at 9:17 AM. The NP's note dated 01/14/2022 stated Xrays were done, revealed ligament injury.
Further review of the Resident #26's medical records did not reveal documentation of the ligament injury.
On 09/09/2022 at 9:33 AM a review of the Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) communication form dated 01/14/2022 stated left wrist pain, splint on left wrist and ice for 10 mins TID (three times a day) for one week due to Xray result.
On 09/09/2022 at 9:47 AM a review of the physician order stated apply ice to left wrist for 10 mins (minutes) three times a day; frequency 9:00 AM, 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM with an open-end date.
During an interview conducted on 09/12/2022 at 12:50 PM, the Clinical Consultant Nurse (CCN) #14 confirmed the resident's medical records did not document the cause of the injury. The CCN further stated the facility did not report the injury of unknown origin to the OHCQ as required.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
3) On 9/20/2022 at 8:30 AM a review of the facility investigation for MD00146133 revealed that on 9/29/2019, Resident #70 reported to the shift supervisor, RN# 62, that his/her GNA (#57) was aggressiv...
Read full inspector narrative →
3) On 9/20/2022 at 8:30 AM a review of the facility investigation for MD00146133 revealed that on 9/29/2019, Resident #70 reported to the shift supervisor, RN# 62, that his/her GNA (#57) was aggressive, antagonistic, and disrespectful during transfer from the wheelchair to the bed. RN #62 assumed care for Resident #70 and GNA #57 had completed Resident #70's care. The allegation of staff to resident abuse was not substantiated as there was no evidence that any wrongdoing occurred.
A review of Resident # 57's medical record revealed diagnoses including history of falling, muscle weakness, and difficulty walking.
As a part of the investigation, staff that work on the same unit as Resident # 57 that were present during and after the time of the incident were interviewed. Review of the investigation revealed a statement from GNA #27 who was present with GNA #57 at the time the incident occurred, and it read, On 9/29/2019-Resident #70 was irate about a towel that was taken from his/her wheelchair, and they (GNA #57 and GNA #27) politely explained that a towel was not in the chair and then Resident #70 began to yell. GNA #27 also stated that Resident #70 was screaming and yelling even though they did not raise their voice to Resident #70. GNA #27 also wrote that s/he reported the incident to the shift supervisor upon exit from Resident #70s room.
Further review oof the investigation of MD00146133 revealed a statement from the shift supervisor, RN #62, which states Resident #70 was upset about a missing towel from his/her wheelchair during transfers from wheelchair to bed. RN #62 states that Resident #70 was educated on high risk for falls with usage of a towel during transfers. RN #62 assured Resident #70 that a statement will be obtained and given to the DON of the facility. Review of the investigation of MD00146133 failed to reveal interviews/statements from other residents on the unit where the incident occurred or from other residents on units where GNA #57 worked.
The Administrator was interviewed on 9/20/2022 at 11AM and confirmed there were a lack of statements or interviews from residents in the facility at that time the investigation was conducted, and the investigation was not a thorough investigation of the allegation of abuse.
(Cross Reference F609, and F610)
Based on interview, administrative record review and review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) investigation documentation it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate incidents of alleged physical abuse and allegations of neglect. This was evident for 3 out 19 residents (Resident #26, #24 and #70) reviewed for abuse.
The findings:
1a) Review of Facility Report Incident for Resident #26 on 08/31/2022 at 10:55 AM revealed that the Administrator was notified by the Charge Nurse /License Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 that an X-Ray was ordered for Resident #26 because the Charge Nurse observed swelling on her right ankle. The review of the facility's investigation did not include interviews for the other residents and staff on the nursing unit to determine if someone witnessed the injury.
During an interview conducted on 08/31/2022 at 11:19 AM, the Surveyor advised the Administrator that the investigation did not include resident and staff interviews and therefore was incomplete. The Administrator advised s/he would see if there were any more documentation including interviews conducted. However, the Surveyor was not provided documentation that the resident and staff interviews were conducted.
1b) A record review of the Resident #26 medical records conducted on 09/09/2022 at 9:17 AM revealed the resident had a left wrist ligament injury of an unknown origin.
During an interview conducted on 09/12/2022 at 12:50 PM, the Clinical Consultant Nurse (CCN) #14 confirmed the Resident's medical records did not document the cause of the injury. The CCN further stated the facility did not investigate the injury of unknown origin.
2) Review of the complaint and facility reported incident on 9/2/2022 at 12:39 PM regarding Resident #24 revealed an allegation of physical abuse alleged from a resident and spouse occurring from an employee of the facility.
Further review of the medical record for Resident #24 revealed diagnosis including cognitive communication deficit, unspecified speech disturbances and need for assistance with personal care.
Surveyor review of the facility investigation into the allegation into physical abuse revealed that Resident #24's spouse was concerned that GNA staff #32 had hit Resident #24. The facility attempted to interview Resident #24. However, secondary to his/her communicative ability, s/he was unable to state yes or no and therefore the facility determined that the allegation did not occur. The facility closed the investigation and failed to continue with interviews into the spouses' concerns.
This concern was reviewed with the facility Administrator throughout the survey and again during the survey exit conference on 9/21/2022.
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 review of recent facility discharge practices and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of recent facility discharge practices and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents and or their representative (RP) with the proper paper documentation of the facilities bed hold policy. This was evident for 3 of 3 (#24, 67 and 74) resident records reviewed regarding unexpected hospitalizations.
The findings include:
1) Review of the medical record for Resident #24 on 8/31/2022 at 10:07 AM regarding a complaint revealed a hospitalization following a fall on 5/3/2022. Further review of the medical record failed to reveal documentation from the facility that they provided timely notification to the family regarding the bed hold notice.
Interview on 9/8/2022 with staff # 57, the Admissions Director, at 11:59 AM, revealed that there was no notification to the family when a resident is sent out to the hospital regarding the bed hold policy (A bed hold is when a nursing home holds a bed for you when you go into the hospital). She further stated that she only calls the family to notify them of the bed hold policy 24 hours after the resident is discharged from the facility and the facility is notified that the resident is admitted to the hospital. She also stated that she was never told to do otherwise.
2) Review of the medical record of Resident #67 on 9/13/2022 at 11:00 AM regarding a complaint about the residents' hospitalization and subsequent readmission revealed the facilities failure to provide the resident and or representative with the facilities bed hold policy.
Resident #67 was hospitalized on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Upon readmission, the family complained that the resident was readmitted to a different unit and far away from the nursing station. They were concerned that the change in location and being far away from the nursing station would be a detriment to their family member as they had a history of a cerebral infarction (stroke) and was unable to call for assistance and use the call bell.
Review on 9/13/2022 at 8:13 AM revealed that within 24 hours of Resident #67's discharge another resident was admitted to the room s/he was occupying.
Interview on 9/13/2022 with staff #59 revealed that her process is to always call the family regarding the bed hold policy. The bed hold policy for Resident #67 was reviewed at this time. It noted that it was revealed on 1/30/2022, the following day after Resident #67's discharge, however, the section to 'request' or 'do not request' the bed hold was not selected. Staff #59 then stated that she guesses it's her word against theirs and she made a mistake. The Surveyor also reviewed that there was another concern that the bed hold policy was not reviewed with the resident or representative at the time of discharge. Again, as with Resident #57, staff #59 stated that the notice was not given at discharge, and she contacts them 24 hours later
3. Review of the medical record for Resident #74 on 9/13/2022 at 1:03 PM revealed a hospitalization on 7/23/2021. According to the notice Request for a Temporary Leave Bed-Hold notice, the family selected to have the bed hold held, however, this was not reviewed with the family until 7/27/2022. The notice and identified concern were reviewed with Staff #57 on 9/13/2022 along with the notice for Resident #67.
Cross reference with F865
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, medical record review, review of facility reported incidents and interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure that care plans were revised as required. This was fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, medical record review, review of facility reported incidents and interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure that care plans were revised as required. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #49 and #69) out of 20 residents reviewed for Care Plans during the Annual Survey.
The findings include:
1) During an interview conducted on 08/31/2022 at 11:58 AM, the Surveyor observed bruises on Resident #49 right forearm. The resident stated the bruises were caused by an anticoagulant that had been prescribed.
Anticoagulants are medicines that help prevent blood clots. They're given to people at a high risk of getting clots, to reduce their chances of developing serious conditions such as strokes and heart attacks.
Lovenox (enoxaparin sodium) Injection is an anticoagulant (blood thinner) used to prevent blood clots.
On 08/31/2022 at 12:19 PM a review of the physician ordered revealed an order for Lovenox (enoxaparin) syringe; 40 mg/0.4 mL; amount to administer: 40mg sub [subcutaneous] q [once] nightly for prophylaxis (an attempt to prevent disease).
On 08/31/2022 at 12:22 PM a review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed an order for Lovenox (enoxaparin) syringe; 40 mg/0.4 mL; amount to administer: 40mg sub [subcutaneous] q [once] nightly effective 7/22/2022. Further review confirmed that Resident #49 received all doses of the medication as ordered.
On 08/31/2022 at 12:25 PM a review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #49 revealed an order to monitor for side effects every shift; anticoagulant (days/evenings/nights) Lovenox effective 08/05/2022.
According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention a Care Plan sets client goals, identifies activities or action steps needed to achieve these goals, expected dates for each action step, and any resources or support needed to complete the Care Plan. Each action step on the Care Plan should list a responsible party, target date, outcome, and outcome date.
On 08/31/2022 at 12:33 PM a review of the Resident #49's care plan did not reveal a care plan for the anticoagulant.
On 08/31/2022 at 1:10 PM the Surveyor advised the Administrator of the findings.
2) Surveyor reviewed a facility reported incident investigating an incident that allegedly occurred on September 29, 2019. A family member of Resident #69 alleged that their family member was abused as they reported what appeared to be scratch marks on his/her arms.
Review of the facilities investigation revealed staff notified Resident #69's representative of the concerns. They stated that they were aware that their family member exhibited behaviors that could contribute to the identified marks including picking and rubbing and scratching herself. These same behaviors were observed by the officer sent in to report the abuse observed by the initial family member.
A review of Resident #69's medical record revealed on 9/20/22 at 10:04 AM diagnosis including late onset Alzheimer's disease. Review of his/her care plans revealed a problem area related to pressure ulcers related to cognition and impaired skin mobility. The interventions included daily systematic skin inspections. The care plans did not address the residents' identified behaviors of potential self-injurious behaviors and needed interventions.
These concerns were reviewed with staff #14 the Clinical Consultant on 9/20/2022 and again with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/21/2022.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review and interview with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide resident with identified assistance for activities of daily living (ADL) as...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and interview with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide resident with identified assistance for activities of daily living (ADL) as identified in the resident's care plans. This was evident for 2 of 3 (#73, 74) residents reviewed for ADL's.
The findings include:
1. Review of the medical record for Resident #73 on 9/13/2022 at 1:37 PM revealed admission to the facility with multiple diagnoses including muscle weakness, lack of coordination and need for assistance with personal care.
Secondary to a complaint, Resident #73's ADL's and physician orders were reviewed. The physician orders revealed a general order set from admission that Resident #73 required the assistance of one person for eating and toileting.
Review of the ADL documentation from Geriatric Nursing staff for support provided to Resident #73 from 2/11/2020-3/11/2020 revealed that of 90 opportunities to aid with eating, staff only documented help 18 times and documented that s/he was independent in eating 28 times.
This concern was reviewed with staff #14 on 9/13/2022 at 3:30 PM regarding the noted physician order and need for assistance of 1 with meals and review of the GNA documentation and further that there was not documentation noted for feeding support on all shifts.
2. Review of the medical record for Resident #74 on 9/13/2022 at 1:03 PM revealed diagnosis including Alzheimer's disease with physician order set noting the need set-up assistance with eating and assistance of one staff with toileting.
Review on 9/13/2022 at 6:45 PM of the ADL documentation noted that from 2/15/2020 to 3/15/2020 (30-day window review), 90 opportunities only 56 times was there any documentation and in that only 41 times did staff correctly document that they provided set up help to the resident for meals versus no set up help. Otherwise, nothing was documented for the resident eating that day in the medical record.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2) On 9/8/22 at 11:44 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #42's medical record. The review revealed that Resident # 42 was admitted to the facility in late July of 2022. The review also revealed an ord...
Read full inspector narrative →
2) On 9/8/22 at 11:44 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #42's medical record. The review revealed that Resident # 42 was admitted to the facility in late July of 2022. The review also revealed an order written on 7/24/22 for calcium gluconate (a supplement given for bone density disorder) to be given twice a day.
On 9/14/22 at 8:28 AM, the surveyor reviewed the calcium gluconate administration on Resident #42's Medication Administration Record (MAR). The review revealed that, on 7/25/22, both morning and afternoon doses were documented: Not administered, with a comment of: Drug/item unavailable. The following day, on 7/26/22, the morning dose was also documented as: Not administered, Drug/item unavailable. However, the afternoon dose was documented as: Late administration, charted late.
Further review of the MAR revealed 27 times calcium gluconate was documented as given between 7/25/22 and 8/10/22, either on time or with late administration, and 6 times it was documented as not administered with a comment indicating that the medication was unavailable. This was noted until 8/10/22 when the afternoon dose was documented, not administered due to the drug not being available and had a comment, Will call pharmacy.
On 9/15/22 at 8:28 AM, the surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7, who had documented that Resident #42's calcium gluconate was given late on 7/27/22 with the comment: charted late. During the interview, LPN #7 stated that, when she documents medications administration in that manner, it means that the medication was given on time but was documented after the fact. LPN #7 was clear that she believed the medication was given that day. LPN #7 also stated that if a medication was not available, she would check the nursing home stock and, if the medication still could not be found, would call the pharmacy and the doctor, and write a progress note documenting these steps.
On 9/14/22 at 8:28 AM, the surveyor further reviewed Resident #42's medical record. The review revealed a fax dated 8/11/22 at 10:03 PM in reference to calcium gluconate that stated, Unfortunately, this is NOT available to order from any of our vendors. Remedi is NOT able to supply. Please discuss with provider and contact pharmacy. The surveyor then found the progress note written on 8/12/22 that stated, New telephone order given to discontinue calcium gluconate as medication is not available from pharmacy. These documents seem to indicate that the medication would never have been available to administer to the resident, even when the nursing staff had documented that the medication had been given. The review failed to reveal any evidence that Resident # 42's physician or the pharmacy were notified of the missing medication prior to 8/11/22.
The surveyor interviewed the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 9/15/22 at 11:28 AM. During the interview, the surveyor informed the NHA of the concern related to medications being documented in the MAR as given without having the medication available.
On 9/15/22 at 11:46 AM, during a follow-up interview with the NHA, no documentation was provided that showed calcium gluconate was available to Resident #42 on the days documented at administered.
Based on observation, medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) ensure ordered splints were in place, 2) failed to administer a medication as ordered by the physcian. This was evident for 2 (Resident #24 and #42) of 19 residents reviewed for neglect during the annual survey.
The findings include:
1) Surveyor completed initial tours of the facility and multiple observations of Resident #24 on 8/30/2022. During these observations Resident #24 was observed up in his/her wheelchair without any noticeable splints or braces in place.
Medical record review for Resident #24 on 8/31/2022 at 10:09 AM revealed multiple diagnosis including hemiplegia (Muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) post cerebral vascular accident (stroke) affecting left dominant side, dysphagia, unspecified dementia without behaviors and chronic pain. Further Resident #24's physician orders were reviewed and noted the following;
a. Ensure brace (a device fitted to something, in particular a weak or injured part of the body, to give support) is on residents right hand each day and removed at bedtime ordered 11/23/2021
b. Place left elbow splint (a rigid or flexible material used to protect, immobilize, or restrict motion) on after morning care and remove at night ordered 3/18/2022.
c. Bunny boots (made to prevent and heal decubitus ulcers) to bilateral feet ordered 4/29/2022.
Resident #24 was observed again on 8/31/2022 at 10:31 AM. Surveyor spent time with resident attempting to complete an interview and at that time no splints were observed anywhere on the resident or in the resident's immediate area.
Surveyor observed resident on 9/1/2022 at 10:50 AM. S/he was up in his/her wheelchair watching television. There were no splints, braces or bunny boots observed on Resident #24.
Surveyor approached staff #3 and staff #18 the 2 interim Assistant Directors of Nursing on 9/1/2022 at 11:12 AM regarding the observations made of Resident #24 and the physicians orders. At this moment cares were in progress, but they ensured the braces and splints would be placed onto Resident #24.
Surveyor proceeded to review the medical record for Resident #24. At 11:26 AM, review of the treatment administration record (TAR) revealed that the ordered bunny boots and splints were signed off by the day shift nurse LPN staff #6 although they were not observed at 10:50 AM and care was currently in progress.
Surveyor observed Resident #24 again at 11:30 AM with staff #6. The resident still did not have any splints or braces in place. Initially staff #6 was unable to find any devices in Resident #24's room to apply to him/her, however, they were finally located after a thorough search.
The concerns that after 3 days of observations the braces and splints were not in place and were not readily available were reviewed with the ADON's and the Administrator throughout the survey and again during exit on 9/21/2022.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of resident medical record, it was determined that the facility failed to intervene when a newly identified stage 2 pressure ulcer was found on Resident #75's skin. This was evident fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of resident medical record, it was determined that the facility failed to intervene when a newly identified stage 2 pressure ulcer was found on Resident #75's skin. This was evident for 1 (Resident #75) of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
The findings include:
The surveyor interviewed Resident #75's responsible party (RP) on 9/14/22 at 11:00 AM. During the interview, the RP stated that the resident was discharged from the facility at the end of January, 2020, to a hospital due to a change in the resident's condition. The RP further stated that, at the hospital, the resident was diagnosed with stage 2 pressure ulcers on both buttocks. The RP claimed that the facility never contacted family regarding any skin condition that the resident developed at the facility. The RP noted that the resident was not capable of making decisions and that the resident's family should have been informed of all changes in the resident's condition.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #75's medical record on 9/14/22 at 12:20 PM. The review revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility from late December, 2019, to the end of January, 2020, with diagnoses that included urinary tract infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, dementia without behavioral disturbance, heart failure, anemia, atrial fibrillation (a disorder of the heart's rhythm), and melanoma (a skin cancer). The medical record confirmed that Resident #75 was not able to make his/her own decisions and that a family resident representative was established for the resident.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #75's medical record regarding pressure ulcers on 9/14/22 at 1:05 PM. The review revealed a nursing progress note dated 1/27/20 that stated, Resident lying in bed during this shift, during activities of daily living (ADL) care, small red open area 0.4 x 0.3 noted on right buttock, no drainage no odor noted. Patient did not complain of pain or discomfort. Will continue to monitor as needed. Ongoing review failed to reveal any other documentation regarding the ulcer, including evidence that the skin condition was communicated to a provider, that any new orders were placed for skin care or pressure reduction, or that there was any change to the resident's care plan regarding an actual pressure ulcer.
The surveyor interviewed the Clinical Consultant (Staff #14) on 9/14/22 at 1:30 PM. During the interview, Staff #14 confirmed that there was no evidence of notification to a provider related to the new ulcer identified on Resident #75's right buttock, no new orders regarding skin care or pressure reduction, or of any care plan changes.
Cross Reference F580.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) A. On 9/8/22 at 11:44 AM the surveyor reviewed the medical record or Resident #42. The review revealed Resident #42 was admit...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) A. On 9/8/22 at 11:44 AM the surveyor reviewed the medical record or Resident #42. The review revealed Resident #42 was admitted to the facility in late July of 2022 and resided at the facility for approximately one month.
On 9/16/22 at 1:31 PM, the surveyor reviewed weights documented for Resident #42. Two weights were recorded: one on 7/20/22 and another on 8/2/22. It was noted that the second weight was obtained 12 days after the first weight.
Further review of Resident #42's medical record revealed a care plan initiated by staff #21 on 7/25/22 for nutrition. The goal described gradual weight loss with an intervention of continuing to monitor weights.
Review of the orders failed to reveal any order written to obtain weights for Resident #42 even with one of the care plan interventions describing monitoring weights.
On 9/1/22 at 12:27 PM, the surveyor conducted an interview with staff #21. Staff #21 stated that when a resident is admitted , it is protocol to assess the resident's nutritional status, get their weight for the first three days, and then monthly after that. If concerns about significant weight change arise, the weights are ordered weekly for three weeks.
On 9/1/22 at approximately 1:00 PM, the facility's policy for weighting the resident was reviewed. The procedure stated: Weights are to be obtained within 24 hours of admission and re-admission, are to be weighed daily for 3 days, then weekly for 3 weeks, then monthly and/or per physician's order. The policy differed from what Staff #21 reported during the interview on 9/1/22.
The facility's policy for obtaining weights was not followed for Resident #42 and weights were not obtained according to the schedule described in the policy. This limited the monitoring of weights that were specifically identified to be done for Resident #42 per their individualized care plan.
2) B. On 9/2/22 at 10:32 AM the surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #55 and discovered that Resident #55 was admitted in early August and resided at the facility for approximately one month.
On 9/6/22 at 9:13 AM the surveyor reviewed recorded weights in Resident #55's medical record and noted one weight recorded on 8/9 for Resident #55's entire stay.
Further review of the medical record revealed an order placed on 8/5/2022 for daily weights for three days with an end date of 8/8/2022.
Ongoing review of Resident #55's medical record revealed a care plan initiated on 8/9/22 for nutrition. The intervention for Resident #55 was described as continuing to monitor weights and was updated by staff #21 on 8/31/2022. However, no additional weights were taken after this update.
On 9/1/22 at 1:10 PM an interview was done with the Clinical Consultant Staff # 14. The concern about failure to obtain weights per facility policy was discussed. Staff #14 agreed that weights were not done per facility policy.
Based on review of resident medical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to address a significant weight loss for a resident. This was evident for 3 (Residents #76, #42 and #55) of 5 residents reviewed for nutrition.
The findings include:
1) The surveyor interviewed the responsible party (RP) for Resident #76 on 9/20/22 at 1:16 PM. During the interview, the RP stated that the resident had lost 50 lbs while at the facility and that it was never addressed by the facility.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #76's medical record on 9/20/22 at 1:18 PM. The review revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility from February to May, 2020, with diagnoses that included orthopedic care, anemia, kidney failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and high blood pressure. During the review, the surveyor examined all of the weights obtained by the facility for the resident. They were as follows:
- 2/14/20: 232 lbs
- 4/9/20: 230 lbs
- 5/5/20: 184 lbs
- 5/7/20: 187 lbs
- 5/11/20: 209 lbs
- 5/13/20: 173 lbs
- 5/18/20: 173 lbs.
The above weights reflected that the resident experienced a 46 lbs (20.0%) weight loss between 4/9/20 and 5/5/20 (less than a month). And, with the exception of the weight on 5/11/20 of 209 lbs, the subsequent weights on 5/5, 5/7, 5/13, and 5/18 show that the weight loss was sustained until discharge.
On 9/20/22 at 2:17 PM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #76's hospital discharge paperwork (when s/he was discharged from the hospital to the facility). The hospital discharge paperwork documented a weight of 231 lbs on 2/9/20, consistent with the resident's admission weight at the facility.
On 9/20/22 at 2:20 PM, the surveyor reviewed nutrition documentation for the resident. The nutrition information included an admission nutrition assessment dated [DATE] that was completed by a Registered Dietician (RD). The assessment did not provide any information on the nutritional needs of the resident. There was no other assessment information for Resident #76 that had been completed by an RD.
Ongoing review of the record revealed an SBAR (situation, background, assessment and recommendation - a communication form that nursing completes when a change in condition occurs) dated 5/8/20. The SBAR documented the unplanned weight loss between 4/9/20 and 5/5/20, noting that the resident was positive for COVID-19. However, concurrent review of COVID-19 test results for Resident #76 demonstrated that the resident was actually negative for COVID-19 based on samples collected on 5/2/20 and 5/7/20.
The surveyor reviewed Resident #76's care plan on 9/20/22 at 2:35 PM. The review revealed that a new nutritional care plan was entered into the system on 5/8/20. The care plan topic was Inadequate intake related to decreased appetite, dementia as evidenced by varying intakes, unplanned weight loss. Significantly, dementia was not listed as one of the resident's diagnoses while at the facility nor from the hospital discharge paperwork. The interventions on the care plan included Recommended supplement as ordered, Multivitamin with minerals as ordered, nutrition supplement as ordered. However, there was no evidence that the resident was ever ordered a nutritional supplement or a multivitamin during his/her stay. In fact, there were no new nutritional orders for the resident after the 5/8/20 SBAR and new care plan.
The surveyor interviewed the Clinical Consultant (Staff #14) on 9/21/22 at 10:08 AM. During the interview, Staff #14 stated that there was no evidence of new orders or nutritional assessments performed by an RD after the weight loss identified on 5/8/20.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to establish and made understood the roles and responsibilities for the Nurses functioning in the role of Director...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to establish and made understood the roles and responsibilities for the Nurses functioning in the role of Director of Nursing (DON) in their absence.
The findings include:
During an interview with the Administrator on 09/08/22 at 11:17 AM. S/he revealed that the Director of Nursing (DON) had been on an extended leave since July 2022. In their absence, s/he along with Registered Nurses (RN) #3 and #2 shared the DON responsibilities. The Administrator added it was a combined effort, and the RNs were aware of their specific roles and duties.
An interview was conducted with RN #3 and RN #2 on 09/08/22 at 11:55 AM. RN #3 and RN #2 identified themselves as Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and assigned to work on the Sycamore and [NAME] Oak Units. RN # 3 stated they were contracted for a limited time to work at the facility. RN #2 stated that they began training as an ADON 4 weeks prior.
The RNs were asked what specific duties traditionally assigned to the DON that they were responsible to perform in his/her absence. RN #3 and #2 stated that they were not aware of or given any specific assignments related to the absent DON's role. Staff #3 added that the two of them were instructed to work on the unit as staff/floor nurses when the facility was short on nursing staff which had been almost daily.
In addition, during an interview held on 8/30/2022 at 10:00 AM, RN #3 stated she started working at the facility two weeks prior to the beginning of the survey and had assisted as a part-time Infection Control Preventionist (ICP) role during her time at this facility. She added that when the full-time ICP Nurse (RN #61) resigned, the role became vacant, so s/he and various RN staff completed the ICP tasks as needed.
An interview held with Clinical Consultant, RN #14, and the Administrator on 9/12/2022 at 10:30 AM revealed that when RN #61 resigned on 5/19/2022, a part-time RN (#63) assisted with the responsibilities of the ICP role. Once this part-time RN left, the ICP role was vacant and various RN staff members would assist in completing ICP tasks as needed. The Administrator added that since RN#3 is no longer working for the facility there will be no ICP available for the remainder of the survey. RN#2 will be the new ICP once training for the position has been completed at a future undetermined date. (Cross Reference F 882).
On 09/12/22 at 11:12 AM during an interview with RN #2 s/he stated they were the only floor nurse scheduled for both units that day. S/he added that due to the staff shortages, their daily responsibilities were the same as the unit nurses' role because often they had to fill in to cover the units. This mostly consisted of medication and treatment administrations, new admissions, assessments, and translate physician orders. When asked, s/he responded that they would not expect the DON to work on the unit as a floor nurse.
On 09/12/22 at 11:45 AM, a review of the facility's staffing ratio records for 9/12/22 showed that the required number of nursing staff to care for the number of residents in the facility on those days was not met.
Further review of the nursing staff/resident ratio conducted on 09/21/22 at 10:09 AM revealed that from 8/28/22 to 9/21/22; 20 of the 25 days had less than the required level for nursing staff. (Cross Reference F 725)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation of medication administration, interview with facility staff, and review of medication administration records and facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to hav...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation of medication administration, interview with facility staff, and review of medication administration records and facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to have a medication administration rate of less than 5 percent during the medication administration facility task. Out of 26 observed medications administered, 2 medications were split by a soiled communal pill cutter, resulting in an error rate of 7.96%. This involved 2 of 4 residents (Resident #208 and Resident #7), 1 of 1 Certified Medication Aide (CMA) and 1 of 2 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN #7) that were observed.
The findings include:
1) On 9/1/22 at 8:14 AM, the surveyor observed CMA #43 administrating medications to Resident #208. CMA #43 obtained a pill cutter from the top of the medication cart. The pill cutter had a white powder substance noted in the chamber where pills are placed to be split. CMA #43 used the pill cutter to cut one of Resident #208's metoprolol tablets (a medication used for blood pressure).
During an interview with CMA #43 on 9/1/22 at approximately 8:30 AM, she stated that Resident #43's preference is to have their metoprolol quartered for ease of swallowing. When asked how she ensures there is no residue from the previous medication left on the pill cutter, CMA #43 denied that the pill cutter required cleaning in this case because it was utilized only for this one resident. CMA # 43 reported she would place the pill cutter in a bag with Resident #208's name on it.
2) On 9/2/22 at 8:31 AM, the surveyor observed LPN #7 administrating medications to Resident #7. LPN #7 was unable to locate 250mg of vitamin c from the floor stock and proceeded to pull the 500mg vitamin c. She left the medication cart and brought back a pill cutter. The pill cutter was in a bag labeled with Resident #208's name on it. Staff #7 proceeded to use the pill cutter without cleaning it prior to or after splitting the 500mg tablet of vitamin c. She returned the pill cutter to the plastic bag labeled with Resident # 208's name.
During an interview with LPN #7 on 9/2/22 at approximately 9:05 AM, she explained that the pill cutter should be cleaned before each use. She admitted to not having cleaned the pill cutter prior to use. LPN #7 went on to explain the pill cutter was not designated to one resident and was not sure why the bag it was in was labeled with Resident #208's name.
On 9/2/22 at 10:12 AM, the surveyor reviewed the policy entitled, Medication Management Program. In section D, the policy states, Pill crusher (hinged model type) is available on the top of the cart and included the following instructions: 1. When soiled, the pill crusher is cleaned according to manufacturer recommendations. 2. If contaminated, the pill crusher is sanitated per manufacturer guidelines or by using a disinfecting wipe.
The surveyor reviewed all concerns with the Nursing Home Administrator on 9/20/22 at 1:30PM.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0865
(Tag F0865)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interviews, review of other pertinent documentation and survey findings, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that effective quality assessment and assurance performanc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews, review of other pertinent documentation and survey findings, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that effective quality assessment and assurance performance improvement policies and procedures were implemented to ensure deficiencies were not repeated and residents remained in a safe, enriching, and comfortable environment. This was found to be evident during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
The findings include:
The facility's previous annual survey conducted on 12/2018 found the facility cited for deficiencies including representative notification, resident/representative notification of the bed hold notice and care plan revisions. Additionally, a focused infection control survey (FIC) was conducted on 2/2022 citing concerns with infection control practices and medical records within the facility. During this year's annual survey conducted from 8/30/2022 through 9/21/2022 again found the same deficiencies affecting a pattern (both units, not all shifts) of residents including related to staffing and the repeated deficiencies mentioned. This annual survey also found widespread (both units over several months and all shifts) concerns related to medication administration.
Surveyor reviewed the facility 'Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program Committee Guidelines.' According to the QAPI goals the facility is to 2. Utilize the QAPI process to facilitate, monitor and act as a change agent in the following areas A. investigation of Quality deficiencies and work to prevent reoccurrence, B) track, trend and report adverse events, C) receive, investigate, and work toward quality resolution of grievance complaints .E.5) drug regimen review to include medication availability . 10) compliance to documentation standards .12)competency of staff . 19) adverse events .21) staff turnover and exit interviews and 24) infection control program.
The concerns that although the facility had a QAPI plan in place but could not provide adequate documentation or sufficient evidence that the Action plans were put in place was reviewed with the facility Administrator on 9/20/2022 at 1:26 PM and again at exit on 9/21/2022 during a review of the annual survey findings.
cross reference with F867
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interviews, review of other pertinent documentation and survey findings, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that effective quality assessment and assurance performanc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews, review of other pertinent documentation and survey findings, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that effective quality assessment and assurance performance improvement interventions were implemented to address identified quality deficiencies. This was found to be evident during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
The findings include:
The facility's previous annual survey conducted on 12/2018 found the facility cited for deficiencies including representative notification, resident/representative notification of the bed hold notice and care plan revisions. Additionally, a focused infection control survey (FIC) was conducted on 2/2022 citing concerns with infection control practices and medical records within the facility. During this year's annual survey conducted from 8/30/2022 through 9/21/2022 again found the same deficiencies affecting a pattern of residents.
The Surveyor reviewed the facilities Quality Assurance Program (QAPI) plan with the facility Administrator on 9/20/22 at 1:26 PM. Although there is a QAPI plan in place to identify and address identified concerns and prevent further deficiencies, the facility was unable to provide sufficient documentation that the plans of correction were implemented as evidenced by surveyor's observations, interviews with resident's and staff and record reviews occurring through this annual survey.
cross reference with F865
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4) During an observation on the Sycamore unit on 8/30/22 at 8:30 AM, the unit's posted assignment board showed Geriatric Nursing...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4) During an observation on the Sycamore unit on 8/30/22 at 8:30 AM, the unit's posted assignment board showed Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #18 was assigned to care for 23 residents. An observation of the [NAME] Oak's assignment board at 8:45 AM showed that 1- GNA #57 was assigned to care for 32 residents.
Upon arrival to the [NAME] Oak Unit on 8/30/22 at 11:18 AM the surveyors noted Room # 107's call bell light indicator was lit, and a low chime was heard from an alarm box across from the unit's dining room. Standing in the hallway of the dining room and across from the alarm box, surveyors saw several staff members walk past Room # 208 but no one entered. At 11:52 AM the surveyors heard Resident # 208 call out they needed help. The Surveyors entered the room and found the resident seated in a wheelchair. When the surveyors greeted the resident, s/he said that they were pissed off because they had been waiting for almost an hour for someone to come into the room.
During an interview on 9/7/22 at 11:19 AM, GNA #28 stated that they always worked short-staffed and that it is not unusual for them to have at least 28 residents on the day shift with no additional help. She added that there is not enough time during their regular shift to care for all the residents so s/he would work overtime, double shifts, and on their scheduled days off because there is no one else scheduled to care for the residents. The GNA said that although a nurse was also with them on the unit, they would often be scheduled to work alone or on both units at the same time and had the work they needed to do for the residents on the units.
An interview conducted on 9/12/2022 at 10:45 AM with Nurse #17 revealed there was one GNA assigned to the unit with her/him that day for the 7:00 AM -3:00 PM shift. The LPN added that s/he always stayed past their scheduled work shift to catch up on documentation and had also given out medications and performed treatments late because they did not have the time to do it during their shift. In addition, the nurse stated that they often worked extra shifts to cover for staff shortages.
During an interview at 11:00 AM on 9/12/2022 Nurse #6 revealed that one GNA was scheduled to work on the unit with them that day. At 11:12 AM during an interview with Nurse #18 s/he stated that they were the only nurse scheduled for both units. S/he added that the staffing shortage had been going on for a while.
On 09/21/22 at 10:09 AM, a review of the facility's Person Per Day (PPD) (a daily calculated ratio for the number of nursing personnel to the number of residents in the facility) was calculated for 8/30/22, 9/7/22, and 9/12/22 showed that the required number of nursing staff to care for the number of residents in the facility on those days was not met. Further review of the PPDs from 8/28/22 to 9/21/22 found that the facility had less than the standard ratio of staffing to care for residents for 20 out of 25 days.
3) During a tour of the [NAME] Oak Nursing Unit on 08/31/2022 at 6:00 AM, the Surveyor heard the call bell alarm and observed the call bell light illuminated above the entry door of resident (Resident #5) room [ROOM NUMBER]. The Surveyor observed Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #11 enter and exit resident rooms 102, 104, 106, and 108. During the observations the surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #10 walk passed resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and enter and exit resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The Surveyor continued to observe GNA #11 enter and exit resident rooms while resident room [ROOM NUMBER]'s call bell continued to alarm.
During an interview conducted on 08/31/2022 at 6:15 AM, GNA #11 confirmed s/he was assigned to resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and stated s/he would go assist the resident.
During a tour conducted on the Sycamore Nursing Unit on 08/31/2022 at 10:05 AM the Surveyor heard the call bell alarm ringing and observed Resident #49, #57, and #309 call bell lights illuminated above each of the resident's entry door. The Surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse #15 standing at the medication cart at the entrance of the Sycamore nursing hallway.
On 08/31/2022 at 10:07 AM Resident #35 stated s/he was soiled and had turned on his/her call bell light. Resident #35 stated GNA #28 came into the resident's room and turned off the call bell light 20 minutes ago and stated s/he would be back. The Surveyor turned back on the call bell light. At 10:22 AM, after 25 minutes the Surveyor went out into the hallway and advised LPN#15 that the resident required assistance and in addition, Resident #49, #57 and #309 call bell lights had been observed illuminated for more than 45 minutes.
During an interview conducted on 08/31/2022 at 10:48 AM, the Surveyor asked LPN#15 if there was a shortage of staff for the unit. The LPN#15 stated no, the unit had 1-GNA assigned to the unit. The LPN further stated s/he would assist the residents. The Surveyor observed LPN #15 answer the call bells for Residents #49, #57 and, 309 and GNA #28 answered Resident #35's call bell.
During an interview conducted on 08/31/2022 at 12:27 PM, the Surveyor advised the Administrator of the observations of the delayed call bell response time.
2a) On 9/1/22 at 11:32 AM a medical record review was conducted for Resident # 95. Resident # 95 was admitted to the facility 2/24/22. Resident # 95 was admitted for therapy following radiation treatments in the hospital for brain cancer. The daughter of the resident complained s/he was not getting incontinent care as much as s/he needed. The resident's daughter was very much involved in his/her care. The resident's daughter stated that every time she came in to visit, Resident #95 was wet or had feces on him/her and smelled. There was no evidence that Resident # 95 was being changed or that treatment was not provided according to the medication and treatment records. During the resident's time at the facility the census was about 70 residents, which did change frequently, there were only at times 2 nurses and 2 GNAs (geriatric nursing assistants) scheduled. On 9/1/2022 at 12 PM, the Administrator stated that she was aware of the staffing issues identified throughout the building at different times.
2b) On 9/14/22 at 12:09 PM the medical records and staffing sheets were reviewed. A complaint came from Resident # 81's sister who stated that the resident was left in a soiled diaper to the next day. A review of the treatment records indicated that Resident #81 was changed on 5/15/21 at 8:57 AM and on 5/15/21 at 10:46 PM was not toileted as no help was needed from staff. On May 14, 2021, on the 11PM-7AM shift the facility had 1 Registered Nurse (RN) supervisor, 1 LPN, and 1 GNA for a census of 52 residents. The daughter reported that the GNA told Resident #81 that she had 39 patients to care for and alleged that the patients were being neglected due to the facility's short staffing. The Administrator was made aware of the staffing issues on 9/1/2022 at 12:00 PM.
Based on observations and review of resident medical records and interview with residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that there was sufficient nursing staff to: 1) provide for timely and accurate documentation of residents' administered medications. This was evident for 5 (Residents #21, #61, #35, #25, and #73) out of 5 residents reviewed for timely administration of medications. 2) provide sufficient staff to care for residents. This is evident for 2 out of 2 complaints (Resident # 95 and # 81), 3) to answer the call bell in a timely manner. This was found to be evident for 6 (resident #5, #35, #49, #57, 208 and #309) out of 20 residents observed for call bell response time during the Annual Survey, and 4) have the required number of nursing staff to care for residents resulting in delayed resident care and documentation of care. This was found to be true for 2 out of 2 units. This practice has the potential to affect all residents.
The findings include:
Surveyors reviewed resident medication administration records (MARs) for the following residents:
- Resident #21 on 9/12/22 at 11:07 AM for the period of 8/17/22 to 9/12/22
- Resident #35 on 9/12/22 at 2:08 PM for the period of 8/18/22 to 9/12/22
- Resident #61 on 9/19/22 at 2:37 PM for the month of March 2018
- Resident #25 on 9/12/22 at 12:00 PM for the month of August 2022
- Resident #73 on 9/14/22 at 9:05 AM for the month of February 2022
Review of these MARs demonstrated a pattern of multiple staff documenting multiple medications hours late. Specifically, medication documented in this manner read, Late Administration: charted late. This occurred on the majority of the days under review. This practice involved significant medications and was noted on both nursing units.
The surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #7) on 9/13/22 at 11:40 AM, who was identified as one of the staff documenting medications late. During the interview, LPN #7 stated that her errors in medication administration documentation were occurring because she was too busy and that there wasn't enough staff to allow her the time to document correctly. She stated that she would sometimes have to stay well past the end of her shift to catch up on all of the documentation that she couldn't complete during her shift.
Cross reference F760
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4) A colostomy is an artificial exit for a patient's bowels created by surgically rerouting where stool leaves a person's body. ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4) A colostomy is an artificial exit for a patient's bowels created by surgically rerouting where stool leaves a person's body. It is most often placed on the abdomen. The procedure is performed for patients with various gastrointestinal diseases. To contain stool as it leaves the body, a bag called a colostomy bag is attached to the abdomen at the site of the opening.
On 08/30/22 at 12:20 PM, during rounds on the Sycamore Unit, the surveyor observed Resident #29 in bed without clothes on. The resident had a sheet and blanket covering him/her, but underneath the sheet, the resident's colostomy bag had been removed. The stoma (the opening in the abdomen where the colostomy bag attaches) was only covered with a towel and it was slightly soiled with stool. The resident was interviewed at that time. The resident complained of not having been changed in a reasonable amount of time when soiled, stating that they only come when they want to. The resident stated that the staff never put the colostomy bag on. During the observation, it was also noted that the room had multiple boxes of colostomy bag supplies in a variety of sizes.
On 08/30/22 at 01:50 PM, during a repeat tour of the unit, the resident was noted to had been cleaned and was wearing a gown.
On 8/30/22 at 2:44 PM, the surveyor interviewed licensed practical nurse (LPN) #7 who was assigned to Resident #29 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM on 8/30/22. When asked about the surveyor's observation of the resident lying unclothed and without a colostomy bag, LPN #7 stated that Resident #29 refuses care regularly, and specified that everyone knows that. LPN #7 suggested that Resident #29 had removed his/her clothing and colostomy bag himself/herself. LPN #7 stated that the resident's assigned geriatric nursing assistant (GNA) later went into the room and performed bed care and cleaned the resident up. LPN #7 agreed that Resident #29 was exhibiting behaviors when removing clothing and colostomy bag.
On 8/30/22 at 2:55 PM, the surveyor also interviewed GNA # 17 who was assigned to Resident #29 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM on 8/30/22. During the interview, GNA #17 also said Resident #29 refuses care regarding his/her colostomy site and says that s/he does not want the colostomy bag because none of the sizes fit. As a result, even though Resident #29 lets them put bags on, s/he regularly removes them and puts a towel on top.
During Record review that took place on 09/07/22 at 10:42 AM, the surveyor reviewed progress notes for Resident #29. The review failed to reveal any documentation of Resident #29's refusal behaviors from the shift on 8/30/22.
3) During a phone interview on 09/01/2022 at 11:18 AM, the responsible party of Resident #26 stated s/he received a phone call from LPN #7 at approximately 11:00 AM today. The LPN advised Resident #26 was transferred out of the facility earlier that morning around 8 AM. The responsible party further stated s/he was concerned that s/he was not contacted prior to the transfer.
Record review conducted on 09/01/2022 at 11:20 AM revealed documentation dated 08/31/2022 that stated repeat HGB 6.5, resident will be transferred to hospital in am for blood transfusion. [Responsible Party] was made aware. Resident in no distress at this time, no s/s [signs or symptoms] of dyspnea, vss [vital signs stable].
During an interview with the Administrator on 09/01/2022 at 11:25 AM, the Administrator stated it is the facility's expectation that staff contact the responsible party as soon as time allows when a resident is transferred out of the facility. The Surveyor advised the responsible party called concerned that s/he was not advised prior to the transfer but there was documentation in Resident #26 medical record that stated the responsible party was advised on 08/31/2022. The Administrator stated s/he would investigate the matter.
On 09/01/2022 at 1:19 PM the Administrator confirmed the responsible party was not advised until after Resident #26 was transferred out of the facility on 09/01/2022.
2) A medical record review was conducted on Resident # 95 on 9/1/22 and 9/2/22 at 11:32 AM. Resident # 95 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She/he came to the facility for therapeutic services following radiation treatment of a mass in his/her brain. Daughter was very involved in residents care but according to LPN #6 who took care of Resident # 95, the daughter wanted Resident # 95 to do more than she/he was capable of doing. Resident # 95 had cancer and had just finished radiation treatments when she/he came to the facility.
Resident # 95's daughter insisted that he/she receive chemo treatments for her/his cancer against medical advice. Once the Chemo started resident became worse refusing care, medications, food, water, therapy, sitting up in a chair and activities. The resident told Nurses and Geriatric nursing assistants that she/he wanted to be left alone. The resident was weak and lethargic. There was no care plan on chart or documentation of her/his many refusals. On 4/17/22 the resident was sent to the hospital with a change of condition. Resident # 95 was diagnosed with Septic shock, Urinary tract infection and Resp. failure. The resident never returned to the facility and passed away on 4/21/22 of Chronic medical conditions and cancer. The Administrator was interviewed on 9/22 at 8:52 AM and stated, the medical team tried to speak with Resident #95's daughter about starting chemo, however the daughter disagreed. Before chemotherapy was initiated, Resident # 95 could speak and make his/her own decisions. After chemo started, she/he became very weak, and her voice was very low. The Administrator verbalized that there was no documentation stating the refusal of care.
Based on medical record review, interview with facility staff and observation it was determined that the facility failed to maintain consistent and accurate documentation in the residents' medical records related to care, notification and behaviors respectively. This was evident in 4 of 70 medical records (#99, 95, 26, and #29) reviewed during the annual survey.
The findings include:
1) Surveyor reviewed Resident #99's medical record on 9/21/2022 at 9:23 AM secondary to complaints that s/he was not given the appropriate meals during his/her stay at the facility.
Record review at that time revealed diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), following a cerebral infarction (stroke, when blood flow is disrupted to the brain). The Physician orders initiated on admission noted for Resident #99 Eating with assist of one, patient is a feeder. Additionally, noted a week later an order was entered to Assist patient with eating during mealtime.
A review of the Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) point of care history noted that out of a review of a 2-week period of Resident #99's stay of 42 opportunities to document feeding assistance, GNA staff only documented help 9 times. Nursing documentation however did document that assistance occurred; however, it was documented all as late entries.
This concern was reviewed with the facility Director of Nursing and Administrator upon finding on 9/21/2022.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary environment to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection as evidence...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary environment to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection as evidenced by: 1) lack screening for visitors upon entrance to the facility and 2) staff did not wear face mask appropriately. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 1 staff members observed during a facility tour and 4 out of 4 surveyors upon entrance to the facility.
The findings include:
COVID-19 spreads when an infected person breathes out droplets and very small particles that contain the virus. These droplets and particles can be breathed in by other people or land on their eyes, noses, or mouth. In some circumstances, they may contaminate surfaces they touch. Wearing a well-fitting mask that covers your nose and mouth will help protect yourself and others.
1) On 8/31/2022 6 AM surveyors entered the facility and were not accurately screened by facility staff for sign and symptoms of COVID-19. Surveyors observed facility staff members stationed at the entrance on the [NAME] Oak Unit, to screen incoming visitors, were not able to operate the thermometer to accurately assess the temperatures of staff upon entrance to the facility.
During and interview with the Administrator on 8/31/2022 at 8:40 AM, the Administrator was made aware of the lack of accurate screening upon entrance. The Administrator stated that it is the expectation of the facility that all visitors and staff are to be screened for COVID-19 upon entrance to the facility.
2) During tour of the unit on 9/15/2022 at 7 AM, GNA #64 was observed on the nursing unit without a mask donned.
During the survey exit on 9/21/2022, the Administrator confirmed having knowledge of the Infection Control concerns related to the lack of screening of visitors or staff upon entrance to the facility and staff not wearing a mask while working in the facility.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record reviews and facility staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to designate at least one Infection Preventionist who is responsible for the facility's Infection Preve...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and facility staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to designate at least one Infection Preventionist who is responsible for the facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program. This was evident during the Infection Control portion of the recertification survey.
An interview held with the Interim ADON/IP (Assistant Director of Nursing/ Infection Preventionist), RN#3, on 8/30/2022 at 10:00 AM stated that she started working at the facility two weeks prior to the beginning of the survey and is assisting with the IP role during her time at this facility.
On 9/12/2022 at 8:45 AM an interview was held with the Human Resources (HR) Director, Staff #50, revealed that the previous IP's, RN #61, last day worked was 5/19/2022.
An interview held with Clinical Consultant, RN #14, and the Administrator on 9/12/2022 10:30 AM revealed that when RN #61 resigned on 5/19/2022, part- time RN #63 assisted with the responsibilities of the IP role. Once RN #63 left, the IP role remained vacant and various RN staff members would assist in completing IP tasks as needed.
During interview on 9/12/2022, RN #14 and the Administrator were unable to identify a current IP for the duration of the survey as RN #3 is no longer employed at the facility. The Administrator made it known that RN #18 will be the new IP once IP training has been completed at a future undetermined date.
During the survey exit conference on 9/21/2022 the Administrator confirmed that the facility does not have an Infection Preventionist.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
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 with staff it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) ensure that each resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) ensure that each resident or responsible party (RP) received education regarding benefits and risk and document that the residents or the responsible party were provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the influenza and pneumococcal immunization and 2) that the resident either received the influenza immunization or did not receive the influenza immunization due to medical contraindications or refusal. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #52) reviewed for immunization.
The findings include:
On 9/21/2022 9 AM the facility influenza immunization policy and procedure was reviewed and revealed the following: all patients/residents will be offered the influenza vaccine when it becomes available upon admission during the vaccine season, October 1 through March 31 and each year after .Documentation in the record should include: a) Education provided concerning the risks benefits of receiving the influenza vaccine, b) the patient's /resident's decision regarding whether to accept or decline the vaccine, c) if there is a medical contraindication to receiving the vaccine.
On 9/21/2022 9:15 AM the facility pneumococcal disease prevention and control policy and procedure revealed the following: the pneumococcal vaccine will be offered to all new patients/residents upon admission after determining whether they have previously received the vaccine or if they have a medical contraindication; documentation in the medical record should include: a) Education provided concerning the risks benefits of receiving the pneumococcal vaccine, b) the patient's /resident's decision regarding whether to accept or decline the vaccine, c) if there is reason to believe that the pneumococcal vaccine(s) was given previously, but the date cannot be verified.
Further review on 9/21/2022 11:30 AM of Resident # 52's medical record revealed: the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. There were no active orders for the influenza, or the pneumococcal vaccine identified and no documentation of education of the influenza vaccine or pneumococcal vaccine provided to the resident or the resident representative upon admission.
During an interview with LPN #6 on 9/21/2022 1:20 PM, Resident #52's electronic medical record and paper medical record were reviewed, and LPN #6 was unable to identify documentation regarding Resident #52's influenza and pneumococcal vaccines.
All findings were discussed with the DON and the Nursing Home Administrator during the survey exit on 9/21/2020.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
3) According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention insulin is a hormone made by your pancreas that acts like a key to let blood sugar into the cells in your body for use as energy.
Basaglar...
Read full inspector narrative →
3) According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention insulin is a hormone made by your pancreas that acts like a key to let blood sugar into the cells in your body for use as energy.
Basaglar (insulin glargine) is a long-acting insulin that helps lower high blood sugar levels.
A review of Resident #35's Medication Administration Record (MAR) was conducted on 09/12/2022 at 2:08 PM. The MAR revealed an order for Basaglar Kwik Pen U-100 insulin (insulin glargine); Administer 15 units subcutaneous (applied under the skin). Further review of the MAR for the period of 08/18/2022 to 09/12/2022 revealed the Resident's insulin was documented as charted late 19 out of 26 days.
A record review of Resident #35's physician order conducted on 09/12/2022 at 2:15 PM confirmed an order effective 08/18/2022 for Basaglar KwikPen U-100 Insulin (insulin glargine) insulin pen; 100 unit/mL (3 mL); amt [amount]: 15 units; subcutaneous for a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The frequency of the medication administration was ordered for once a day at 08:00 AM.
2) On 9/8/22 at 8:25 AM, a medical record review was conducted in response to a complaint from the daughter of Resident #61. The resident's Daughter alleged that Resident #61 received insulin late on March 9, 2018.
After reviewing the medical record, it indicated that on the evening of 3/9/18 Resident # 61 was ordered insulin at 5 PM, however the insulin was given at 8 PM by the RN Supervisor #29. The Doctor of Resident #61 was made aware. The Employee (#29) was suspended pending investigation. Upon return from suspension, the employee (#29) received corrective action regarding his/her responsibility for complying with the prescribed medication administration of patients. Nurse #29 also showed how s/he administers insulin and performed the process without any errors.
The Surveyor observed that the Administrator was aware of the incident as she had a file on the documented incident.
Based on review of resident medical records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents' medications were documented at the time of administration, including high risk medications, resulting in a consistent and widespread pattern of medications being documented inaccurately and hours after they were due. This involved multiple staff on all shifts and on both units. This was evident for 5 (Residents #21, #61, #35, #25, and #73) out of 5 residents reviewed in detail for timely medication administration but was also noted in every medication administraion record (MAR) seen during the survey. This practice has the potential to impact all residents.
Documentation is an integral part of medication administration. Documentation communicates the timing, dosing, and effect of any and all medications received by a patient. In the setting of skilled nursing care, residents are often prescribed multiple medications for significant medical conditions. They are also often more vulnerable to medication error and more prone to changes in condition that require review and adjustment of their medication regimen. Inaccurate medication documentation has the potential to place residents at significant risk of medication error, provide incomplete or inaccurate information for providers and care givers to evaluate, and represents a failure of basic medication administration principles.
Late documentation is a form of inaccurate documentation and is worsened if the documentation does not document when medications were actually given. 'Late administation' is defined as giving medication greater than 1 hour after a medication is due. 'Late documentation' is defined as not documenting immediately after administration.
The findings include:
1) The surveyor reviewed Resident #21's medical record on 8/31/22 at 8:56 AM. The review revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility in November, 2020, with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, stage 3 sacral pressure ulcers, osteoarthritis, recurrent urinary tract infection, neurogenic pain, hypothyroidism, hypertension, parkinson's disease, and dementia. The resident was noted to still be present in the facility at the time of the survey.
The surveyor reviewed the medication administration record (MAR) for Resident #21 on 9/12/22 at 12:00 PM. The MAR covered the period of 8/17/22 - 9/12/22. The review revealed a significant pattern of late documentation for every medication that the resident was prescribed. It was impossible to tell from the MAR when medications were actually given. Specifically, affected medication administrations documented, late administration: charted late, yet only included the time of charting and not the time of administration. The following medications were affected:
- ceftriaxone for urinary tract infection, given intravenously. Documented late 7 out of 7 opportunities, up to 5 hours and 33 minutes late.
- Vitamin B-12, given as injection into muscle. Documented late 1 out of 1 opportunity, 6 hours and 40 minutes late.
- normal saline for hydration, given intravenously. Documented late 6 out of 6 opportunities, up to 6 hours and 57 minutes late.
- insulin glargine for diabetes, given twice a day as subcutaneous injection. Documented late 41 out of 51 opportunities, up to 6 hours and 25 minutes late.
- insulin lispro for diabetes, given before meals and bedtime as subcutaneous injections. Documented late 72 out of 84 opportunities, up to 8 hours 7 minutes late. This practice resulted in doses being documented one minute apart, doses being documented after the next dose was due (which was then documented as not given), and prevents anyone from determining the timing of administrations for this high risk medication.
- amantadine for parkinson's disease, given twice a day as a table. Documented late 46 out of 52 opportunities, up to 7 hours and 46 minutes late.
- aspirin given once a day as a tablet. Documented late 26 out of 27 opportunities, up to 8 hours and 13 minutes late.
- folic acid for anemia, given once a day as a tablet. Documented late 26 out of 27 opportunities, up to 8 hours and 34 minutes late.
- gabapentin for neuropathic pain, given three times a day as a tablet. Documented late 59 out of 80 opportunities, up to 8 hours and 13 minutes late, sometimes after subsequent doses were due.
- glucerna given as a supplement with meals. Documented late 34 out of 36 opportunities, up to 7 hours and 17 minutes late, sometimes after subsequent doses were due.
- lisinopril for high blood pressure, given once a day as a tablet. Documented late 25 out of 27 opportunities, up to 8 hours and 19 minutes late.
- metformin for diabetes, given twice a day as a tablet. Documented late 47 out of 54 opportunities, up to 8 hours and 13 minutes late.
- methotrexate, given once on Mondays. Documented late 3 out of 3 oppotunities, up to 5 hours and 31 minutes late.
- metoprolol for high blood pressure, given once a day as a tablet. Documented late 25 out of 27 oppotunities, up to 8 hours, 19 minutes late.
- polyethylene glycol for constipation, given once a day as a supplement. Documented late 25 out of 26 opportunities, up to 8 hours 34 minutes late.
The surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #7) on 9/13/22 at 11:40 AM, who was identified as one of the staff documenting medications late. During the interview, LPN #7 stated that when she documented medication as Late Administration: charted late, she was indicating that the medication was given 'on time' but that she could not chart at the time of the administration because she was too busy. When asked what 'on time' meant, LPN #7 stated it meant within an hour before or after the medication was scheduled to be given.
On 9/14/22 at 11:00 AM, the surveyor reviewed the facility policy entitled, Medication Management Program with the revision date of 7/13/21. In the section, Administering the Medication Pass, the policy stated, 12. Immediately after administer the medication to the resident, the authorized staff or licensed nurse will return to the medication cart and document medication administration with initials on the MAR.
Cross reference F658 and F725.
4) During the initial tour and interviews with Resident's, the Surveyor interviewed and screened Resident #25. During the interview occurring on 8/30/2022 at 12:48 PM, Resident #25 stated that there was a lack of help and shortage of staffing, this led to a delay in general help with care and the delivery of medications.
Further review of the medical record for Resident #25 on 9/12/2022 at 12:00 PM revealed physician orders for Lasix (diuretic) 40 milligrams (mg) to be administered at 9:00 AM daily for edema. According to the resident's medication administration record (MAR) for August however, the Lasix was documented beyond the acceptable parameters of administration time frames of 1 hour before and after the scheduled administration time as noted below. Of the 31 opportunities, Lasix was documented as 'charted late' 9 times that varied from 3 hours late, signed off at 12:00 PM to 7 hours late, signed off at 4:03 PM. Labetalol (cardiac medication administered for high blood pressure) was ordered for administration twice a day at 9 AM and 9 PM. The administration of the medication depended on the results of the resident's blood pressure. The administration of Labetalol also has the potential to influence the results of the resident's blood pressure. Of 62 opportunities for the month of August, Labetalol was documented as administered late 18 times with the times varying from 1.5 hours, with staff signing the medication off at 10:33 PM to over 9 hours late, with the morning dose scheduled at 9 AM with staff signing the medication off at 5:12 PM.
Interview with Resident #25 on 9/20/2022 at 11:08 AM revealed that the facility staff is still taking a while to tend to him/her including administering medications.
5) Review of the medical record for Resident #73 secondary to a complaint about general care and welfare, on 9/13/2022 at 2:00 PM revealed diagnoses including congestive heart failure and diabetes mellitus.
Further review of the MAR and physician orders for Resident #73 revealed orders for Novolog flex pen (Novolog-which is a rapid-acting insulin. It is used to help patients with high blood sugar levels
It replaces the insulin that your body would normally make. Insulin aspart starts working faster and lasts for a shorter time than regular insulin. It works by helping blood sugar (glucose) get into cells so your body can use it for energy). The physician order was for administration 4 times a day, before meals and again before bed.
Further review of the February 2022 MAR on 9/14/2022 at 9:05 AM revealed that out of 53 opportunities for the insulin administration, the insulin was signed as a 'late administration' 30 times.
The Surveyor reviewed concerns and findings with the Clinical Consultant (Staff #14) on 9/13/2022 at 3:30 PM and with the facility Administrator throughout the survey.
On 9/14/2022 at 11:35 AM the surveyor interviewed LPN staff#17 about medication administration, specifically regarding insulin. He stated that 'with the workload here, after staff get report, everyone scatters to do the finger sticks and give coverage as needed, it may not be signed off right away. He stated there are options in the computer to chart; late entry, unavailable, refuse, etc. however, most times they are completed timely.' The Surveyor reviewed with staff #17 that according to the documentation it appears that the medications are administered late. Staff #17 verbalized understanding.