RESTORE HEALTH REHABILITATION CENTER

4615 EINSTEIN PLACE, WHITE PLAINS, MD 20695 (240) 448-2000
For profit - Corporation 80 Beds FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
43/100
#125 of 219 in MD
Last Inspection: June 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Restore Health Rehabilitation Center in White Plains, Maryland has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some concerning issues. The facility ranks #125 out of 219 in the state, placing it in the bottom half of Maryland nursing homes, and #4 out of 4 in Charles County, meaning there are no better local options. While the facility is trending positively, with a reduction in issues from 23 in 2022 to 12 in 2025, it still faces significant challenges, particularly in staffing, which received a below-average rating of 2 out of 5 stars and has a concerning turnover rate of 56%. Notably, there were incidents involving medication storage problems and failures in timely insulin administration, which could lead to health risks. On a positive note, the facility has no fines on record, suggesting a lack of severe compliance issues.

Trust Score
D
43/100
In Maryland
#125/219
Bottom 43%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
23 → 12 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Maryland facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Maryland. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
41 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 23 issues
2025: 12 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Maryland average (3.0)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 56%

Near Maryland avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (56%)

8 points above Maryland average of 48%

The Ugly 41 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jun 2025 12 deficiencies
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 record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide privacy to a resident during the administration of a subcutaneous injection. This was evi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide privacy to a resident during the administration of a subcutaneous injection. This was evident in 1 (Resident #54) of 1 resident observed for injection administration. The findings include: A review of Resident #54's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Dementia and Diabetes Mellitus. On 06/16/2025 at 10:10 AM the surveyor observed Registered Nurse (RN) #2 administer medications to Resident #54. The medications included Heparin 5,000 units to be administered by subcutaneous injection twice a day. During the observation, RN#2 failed to provide privacy to the resident while administering the Heparin injection. After going into Resident #54's room, RN#2 did not close the door or pull the privacy curtain. RN#2 informed the resident that she was going to administer a Heparin injection, then pulled up the resident's hospital-type gown and administered the injection to the right side of the resident's abdomen. In an interview during the medication observation, the surveyor enquired about the practice for providing privacy during injection administration. RN #2 confirmed that she did not provide privacy by pulling the curtain or by closing Resident #54's door. RN #2 stated I apologize, I should have provided privacy. On 06/26/2025 at 07:52 AM in an interview with the surveyor, the Director of Nursing stated that staff members are required to provide privacy to residents during injection administration. She stated that if a resident is in a private room, the door should be closed and if the resident was in a semi-private room the curtain should be drawn. The surveyor informed the DON of the findings during the observation of a Heparin injection administration.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and an investigation into a complaint, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of suspected resident abuse to the Office of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and an investigation into a complaint, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of suspected resident abuse to the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ). This finding was evident for 1 (#166) of 2 residents reviewed for abuse during the annual survey. This finding is related to complaint #MD00185506. The findings include: The Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) is the agency within the Maryland Department of Health charged with monitoring the quality of care in Maryland's health care facilities and community-based programs. Allegations of abuse are to be reported to the Office of Healthcare Quality in a timely manner. A review of complaint intake MD00185506 on 6/30/2025 revealed that on 11/10/2022, Resident #166 alleged that staff members washed him/her in a rough manner while providing assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) care. A review of Resident#166's clinical record on 06/30/2025 at 11:18AM revealed a nursing progress note dated 11/10/2022 at 2:02 PM which stated Resident refused to be changed by two aides this shift. S/he stated that s/he does not want to be abused. GNAs made writer and ADON aware. Further record revealed a nursing progress note dated 11/10/2022 at 4:13 PM which stated, Resident observed to be combative and physically abusive towards staff during care, patient was offered a shower by a staff members, two therapy staff and two nursing assistant, patient consented to the shower, patient was transfer from bed to the shower chair by 4 staff member with a Hoyer lift, during the shower process the above patient started punching and hitting on staff, throwing towels with feces on it, the shower was stop, patient was dried up by staff and transfer back to bed safely, the police was called in, patient refused to talk to the police officer regarding the allegation of been physically abusive to the staff, patients medicated for pain with Tylenol 650mg x1 for pain.call place to the responsible party about patient aggressive behavior towards staff, refusing therapy services, P.O.A verbalized understanding of the patients behavior, writer request for a psych consult request as per MD order and RP consented On 6/30/2025 at 2:05 PM, the surveyor requested the facility's investigative record regarding the incident that occurred with Resident #166 on 11/10/2022. During an interview with the Administrator on 6/30/2025 at 2:22PM, the Administrator stated that she was unable to locate an investigative file related to the incident that occurred with Resident #166 on 11/10/2022. When asked if the allegation of abuse was reported to OHCQ, the Administrator stated, I'm not sure if it was reported to the state because I was not here at that time, but I can look into it and get back to you. During a follow up interview with the Administrator on 6/30/2025 at 2:52 PM, theAdministrator was not able to confirm that the allegation of abuse made by Resident #166 on 11/10/2022 was reported to the OHCQ. The Administrator further stated that it is the expectation that the facility reports all allegations of abuse to OHCQ in a timely manner. At the time of exit interview, the facility did not provide any additional evidence that the OHCQ was notified of Resident #166's allegation of abuse on 11/10/2022.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on facility staff interview and surveyor record review it was determined that the facility failed to investigate an alleged violation of abuse. This finding was found to be evident in 1 (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility staff interview and surveyor record review it was determined that the facility failed to investigate an alleged violation of abuse. This finding was found to be evident in 1 (Resident #187) out of 1 Resident that was reviewed for investigation of an alleged violation of abuse. The findings include: The Office of Healthcare Quality (OHCQ) received a facility reported incident (FRI)/self-report on 6/29/2023 at 8:56 AM from the facility's Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) for an allegation of Resident abuse (family to Resident) - Intake#MD00193872. Resident #187 was linked to the Intake#MD00193872. The surveyor requested the facility investigation file for the facility reported incident (FRI) for Resident #187 on 6/17/2025 at 7:15 AM from the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator/ED (LNHA/ED). In an interview with the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator/Executive Director (LNHA/ED) on 6/17/2025 later in the day, she stated that she was unable to locate an investigation file for this facility reported incident (FRI) for Resident #187, but that she would continue to look for the investigation file. In a follow-up interview with the LNHA/ED on 6/23/2025 at 4:15 PM she stated she would have the company's IT/IS Department see if they were able to locate the self-reports in her email file for Resident #187. The surveyor conducted a record review of Resident #187's closed electronic medical record on 6/25/2025. Review of the medical record revealed a progress note written on 6/28/2023 at 4:54 PM by a licensed nurse which indicated that Resident #187's son was visiting Resident and yelled at him/her to stop screaming and then he/she left the facility. Additionally, there was a progress note written on 6/29/2023 at 5:16 PM by Social Services which indicated that Resident #187 responded no then yes when asked if his/her son grabbed his/her face and the Resident responded yes when asked if he/she felt safe. The surveyor reviewed on 6/25/2025 at 2:55 PM the facility's policy for Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation of Property dated 10/23/2019. The policy indicated that the facility collects, retains, and safeguards all information and evidentiary material pertinent to the investigation of the alleged abuse or neglect. The LNHA/ED provided the surveyor on 6/26/2025 with the initial self-report and final self-report for the facility reported incident (FRI) for 6/29/2023 that the company's IT/IS Department was able to locate in the LNHA/ED's email account. However, the facility was unable to produce an investigation file of the alleged violation of abuse (family to Resident) for Resident #187. No additional information was provided by the facility at the time of exit.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility staff interviews and surveyor review of a facility reported incident and a complaint, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility staff interviews and surveyor review of a facility reported incident and a complaint, it was determined that facility failed to provide written notice to the Office of the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman of a Resident's discharge, and failed to ensure that a discharge summary was completed by a Resident's physician. This finding was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #62 and #171) out of 3 residents reviewed for discharge process during the annual survey. The findings include: 1. On [DATE] at 12:15 PM, a review of Resident #62's clinical record revealed that Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged home on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #62's electronic clinical record revealed no documentation that the local ombudsman was notified of the resident's discharge from the facility. On [DATE] at 03:01 PM, an interview conducted with the Administrator revealed that discharge notices are sent to the ombudsman via email each time a resident is transferred to hospital by the Admissions Director #6. On [DATE] at 03:10 PM, an interview conducted with the Admissions Director #6 confirmed that an email is sent to the ombudsman each time a resident transfers / discharges to the hospital, however the Admissions Director #6 was unable to confirm that the ombudsman is notified when a resident discharged to home. On [DATE] at 03:23 PM, a review of the facility provided documentation of transfer/discharge notices sent the ombudsman via email from [DATE] to [DATE] was conducted by the surveyor. The review did not reveal any evidence that the ombudsman was notified of Resident #62's discharge to home on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 11:55 AM, an interview conducted with Regional Clinical Nurse #5 revealed that she could not locate any evidence that a written notice of discharge was given to the local ombudsman for Resident #62's discharge to home on [DATE]. At the time of exit conference, the facility did not provide any evidence that a written notice of discharge was given to the local ombudsman for Resident #62's discharge to home on [DATE]. 2. On [DATE] at 7:15 AM the surveyor conducted an investigation of a complaint (MD#00193420) that was received at the Office of Healthcare Quality (OHCQ) on [DATE] at 15:07 PM. The complainant alleged that Resident #171 was found unresponsive by the nursing staff, and it was unknown if a physician was present to determine the Resident's status at the time. The complainant alleged that the cause of Resident #171's death was unknown at that time. Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) is a program designed to improve the quality of care for patients with serious illnesses by translating patient preferences into medical orders that can be followed across different healthcare settings. The MOLST helps ensure that a patient's end of life wishes are honored by providing clear, portable medical orders that guide healthcare providers. The key aspects of the MOLST focus on patient preferences, portable and standardized, specific medical orders, collaboration and communication, and not a replacement for other advance directives. The surveyor conducted a record review of Resident #171's closed electronic medical record. Review of the medical record revealed that there was a progress note from the nursing staff that indicated that Resident #171 was observed unresponsive, no pulse at 7:07 PM on [DATE] by the nursing staff. The physician was notified via phone by the nursing staff and the physician pronounced Resident #171 deceased . Further review of the medical record revealed that Resident #171 had a MOLST which indicated that Resident was Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status. In an interview on [DATE] at 8:00 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) the surveyor asked what the expectation was for physician documentation of a death in the facility. The DON stated that the expectation was that a progress note/discharge note was to be completed by the physician that pronounced the Resident. The surveyor conveyed to the DON that there was not a progress note/discharge note in Resident #171's medical record. The only progress note was from the nursing staff and there was a Record of Death and Mortician's Receipt form from Maryland Cremation Services which indicated that the remains was released from the facility and received by the mortician. The surveyor interviewed the Medical Records Coordinator (MRC) at 10:15 AM on [DATE]. The surveyor conveyed to the MRC that there was not a physician progress note/discharge note for Resident #171. The MRC acknowledged the surveyor and stated that there should be a discharge summary/progress note from the physician and that she had contacted the Maryland Cremation Services for a death certificate. In a follow up interview later that day with the Medical Records Coordinator (MRC) on [DATE] she stated that she was waiting for the death certificate as she had sent an email to Maryland Cremation Services requesting the certificate. Additionally, the MRC stated that the physician that pronounced Resident #171 on [DATE] was no longer employed with Adfinitas Health-Physician Services as of [DATE]. The surveyor received a copy of the death certificate via email from the facility on [DATE].
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 observation, interviews with Residents and staff and surveyor record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Resident's care plans were revised and updated timely. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews with Residents and staff and surveyor record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Resident's care plans were revised and updated timely. This finding was found to be evident in 2 (Resident #51 and #54) out of 2 Residents reviewed for care plan timing and revision. The findings include: The surveyor toured the nursing unit on 6/16/2025 at 8:44 AM and observed Resident #51 in his/her room in the wheelchair. The Resident stated that he/she had a fall in the bathroom when he/she attempted to transfer from the toilet to the wheelchair and lost balance and had pain in both knees a few weeks ago. A record review was conducted by the surveyor on 6/18/2025 at 11:15 AM of Resident #51's medical record. Record review of the progress notes revealed that Resident #51 had a fall on 5/27/2025 at 4:00 PM when Resident attempted to transfer self from toilet to wheelchair and lost balance. Bilateral knee x-rays were performed which revealed no fractures. Additionally, review of Resident #51's care plan revealed that Resident had a care plan for at risk for falls but not a care plan for an actual fall, and there was not an intervention added to the care plan when the Resident had the fall on 5/27/2025. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) at 1:40 PM on 6/18/2025 the surveyor conveyed that Resident #51 had a fall on 5/27/2025 and the incident report and the fall investigation that were provided by the DON substantiated the fall on 5/27/2025. Additionally, the surveyor conveyed that there was not an intervention added to the care plan when Resident #51 had the fall on 5/27/2025 at 4:00 PM. Further record review of Resident #51's care plan on 6/23/2025 at 11:00 AM revealed that a plan of care time stamped 6/18/2025 at 2:28 PM for an actual fall was now included in Resident's care plan. Resident #51's care plan was updated to reflect an actual fall after surveyor intervention. An MDS assessment nurse, also known as a nurse assessment coordinator, is a Registered Nurse (RN) who specializes in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for Residents in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. They play a crucial role in ensuring accurate and timely assessments, which are essential for Resident care planning, facility funding, and regulatory compliance. In an interview with the RN MDS Coordinator #3 at 12:15 pm on 6/24/2025 the surveyor asked who was responsible for the update and revision of Resident care plans and the RN MDS Coordinator stated that the nursing staff were responsible for updates and revisions to the Resident care plans. A Foley catheter is a thin, flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine. It's also known as an indwelling urinary catheter and is held in place by a small balloon inflated inside the bladder. Foley catheters are used for various reasons, including urinary retention, incontinence, and after certain surgeries, and they allow for continuous urine drainage into a collection bag. On tour of the facility on 6/16/2025 at 8:44 AM the surveyor observed Resident #54 in bed with a Foley catheter drainage bag attached to the frame of the bed. The Resident stated that he/she has the catheter for edema. The surveyor conducted a record review of Resident #54's medical record on 6/23/2025 at 11:05 AM. The record review revealed that Resident #54 had a physician order for an indwelling Foley catheter for urinary retention as of 6/13/2025. Further review of the medical record, specifically the care plan revealed that there was not a plan of care for the indwelling Foley catheter. In an interview with the RN MDS Coordinator #3 on 6/24/2025 at 12:15 PM the surveyor conveyed that Resident #54 had an indwelling Foley catheter in place since 6/13/2025 but there was not a care plan for the catheter. The RN MDS Coordinator acknowledged the surveyor. At 3:45 PM on 6/26/2025 the surveyor reviewed the care plan concerns with the Regional Nurse, Director of Nursing (DON) and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator/Executive Director (LNHA/ED) and they acknowledged the surveyor. No additional information was provided by the facility.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to initiate wound care upon admission for a Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to initiate wound care upon admission for a Resident with Pressure Ulcers. This was evident for 1 (Resident #191) out of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during the survey. The findings include: A pressure ulcer (also known as pressure sore or decubitus ulcer) is any lesion caused by unrelieved pressure that results in damage to the underlying tissue. Pressure ulcers are staged according to their severity from Stage I (area of persistent redness), Stage II (superficial loss of skin such as an abrasion, blister, or shallow crater), Stage III (full thickness skin loss involving damage to subcutaneous tissue presenting as a deep crater), and Stage IV (full thickness skin loss with extensive damage to muscle, bone, or tendon). Deep Tissue Injuries (DTIs) are characterized by intact skin that is discolored (purple or maroon) or a blood-filled blister, indicating damage to underlying soft tissue due to pressure or shear. DTIs are considered unstageable pressure injuries until the wound fully evolves and can be numerically staged. During a review of Compliant #MD00203067 for Resident #191 on 6/24/25 at 12:56 PM it revealed, after just one week under their care, he/she developed bedsores and blisters across his/her body. During a medical record review on 6/24/25 at 1:06 PM for Resident #191 it was discovered that the Resident was admitted on [DATE] at 6:14 PM. The Discharge/Transfer summary from the transferring hospital reported Resident #191 had a right thigh decubitus in clean dressing and the Hospital Discharge Diagnosis/Plan stated, Decubitus lesion, Continue wound care. During continued review of the medical records for Resident #191 it was discovered that the Observation Report for admission was completed on 2/16/24 at 7:33 PM and the skin assessment identified a Bruise right upper arm. A Nursing progress note written on 2/17/2024 at 12:41 AM reported A head-to-toe examination revealed dry skin, a dry scar on the right foot, and a nonbleeding bruise on the right forearm. No open wound was noted. During additional medical record review it was revealed that physician orders were added for wound care for Resident #191 on 2/19/24 at 4:47 PM. The orders included: wound treatment: Location bilateral heel, Apply skin prep Twice a day, Right upper thigh, clean with wound cleanser, apply hydro gel and cover with boarded gauze twice a day and Sacral wound, clean with wound cleanser, Apply Medi honey and cover with boarder gauze. It was discovered that the Resident had no wound care documented prior to these orders. During further medical record review for Resident #191 it was discovered that a Nursing Progress note written on 2/19/24 at 9:54 PM stated, Please note the following addendum to the admission note: Upon further examination, a DTI of 1.7 x 2 was indicated on the resident's right lateral foot, with an additional area of 1.5 x 1.2 on the middle of the foot and an area of 6 x 4 cm on the right heel. Also, a DTI of 1.1 x 1.3 has been noted on the left lateral foot. In addition, the resident has an open wound measuring 7 x 2 cm with dry blisters measuring 6 x 2 cm on the right upper thigh and an open wound of 1.2 x 1 cm on the sacrum, including the left ischium DTI of 6X2.2cm. An order has been placed to manage the skin and monitor the wounds. During an additional medical record review for Resident #191 a Wound Management Detail report dated 2/22/25 was discovered and the following wounds were documented as being present upon admission: DTI - Right big toe, DTI - Left big toe, Trauma - Right Buttock Right Ischium, Pressure Ulcer - Sacrum Stage 3, a DTI - Right top of foot and to the right lateral foot. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/27/25 at 11:50 AM she reported the Resident would get a head-to-toe assessment upon admission and if any bedsores are found they should be documented, assessed, treated and redressed if necessary. She advised any wound care provided to the Resident should have been documented in the Resident's medical record. She reported treatment for the wounds should have been started earlier because the goal is to catch it before it gets worse. She is not sure what may have caused the delay in wound care because she was not working in the facility at the time Resident #191 was a Resident. During an interview with the Unit Manger for the [NAME] Oak Unit on 6/30/25 at 10:07 AM it was discovered that upon admission nursing staff should perform a head-to-toe skin assessment and if any issues are found the doctor should be notified. She confirmed that pressure ulcers are a reason for the doctor to be notifed. The doctor would provide orders and care for the pressure ulcers should start care as soon as orders are obtained. She advised she is not sure what the wound care delay would have been for Resident #191 because she wasn't working at the facility at that time; however, she believes care should have started sooner.
CONCERN (D)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the posted nurse staffing information was accurate and current. This finding was found to be...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the posted nurse staffing information was accurate and current. This finding was found to be evident in the review of sufficient and competent Nurse staffing. The findings include: The facility's staffing data document may be a form or spreadsheet, and all the required information displayed clearly and in a visible place. The information should be displayed in a prominent place that was readily accessible to residents, staff, and visitors and presented in a clear and readable format. This information posted must be up-to-date and current. The facility must post the nurse staffing data on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift. The facility must ensure staffing information was accurate and current. At 1:20 PM on 6/18/2025 the surveyor observed in the facility lobby on the receptionist desk the posted nurse staffing information in a clear standing frame. The date that was indicated on the posted nurse staffing information form was 6/17/2025. In an interview with employee #9 at 1:22 PM on 6/18/2025 she stated that the posted nurse staffing information form was posted daily by the Administrator-In-Training (AIT) employee #8. The surveyor conveyed to employee #9 that the date was incorrect on the posted nurse staffing information form. Employee #9 requested an updated nurse staffing information form from employee #8. Employee #9 posted on the receptionist desk the updated nurse staffing information form with the correct date of 6/18/2025. At 1:40 PM on 6/18/2025 the Director of Nursing (DON) was notified of the nurse staffing information form not posted on the receptionist desk with the correct date of 6/18/2025. The surveyor conveyed to the DON that the nurse staffing information sheet was posted but not with the correct date. The DON acknowledged the surveyor and stated, yes they told me about the incorrect date of 6/17/2025 and an updated nurse staffing information form was posted with the correct date of 6/18/2025.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to store food in a manner that ensures food safety. This was evident in 1 out of 2 dining areas observed during the surv...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to store food in a manner that ensures food safety. This was evident in 1 out of 2 dining areas observed during the survey. The findings include: During an observation of the Refrigerator in the [NAME] Oak Dining Room on 6/16/25 at 8:12 AM there were food containers found that were expired and that had no name or date. These foods included: A disposable plastic food container for Resident #51 dated 6/11/25 A plate of salad without a date made or date placed into the refrigerator A plastic container of food with no name or date written on it Two containers with a room number but no date A plastic bag of food for Resident #61 with no date A plastic bag of food with no name or date During an interview with the Director of Dining Services on 6/16/25 at 8:18 AM he reported the refrigerator was for Residents to store food brought into the facility. He advised anything put into the refrigerator should be labeled fully with the name of the Resident and the date that the item was put inside. He reported items would be considered expired and thrown out after three days. He confirmed the food for Resident #51 should have been removed from the refrigerator and wasted. During a review of the facility's Nutrition Policies and Procedures: Food From Outside Sources, Safe Handling Of on 6/17/25 at 1:46 PM it stated that Foods are labeled to identify the patient/resident's name, container contents, and the date it was prepared and that Items will be stored for three days. Expired and unlabeled items will be discarded.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on Record Reviews, Observations and Interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medical records were complete and accurate. This was evident for 2 (Resident #61, #46) out of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Record Reviews, Observations and Interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medical records were complete and accurate. This was evident for 2 (Resident #61, #46) out of 5 Residents reviewed for complete and accurate medical records. The findings include: 1. During a medical record review on 6/18/25 at 9:23 AM it was discovered that Resident #46 had an order for a Pressure relieving Mattress present on bed for skin integrity protection that was ordered on 3/28/25 and an Air Mattress for pressure relieving to wounds every shift that was ordered on 5/01/25. During a review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for Resident #46 it was discovered that the order for the Pressure Relieving Mattress and the order for Air Mattress was documented as being completed from 6/01/25 to 6/20/25. During an observation of Resident #46 with LPN #16 on 6/20/25 at 10:52 AM she confirmed the Resident dId not have an air mattress but dId have a pressure relieving mattress. During an interview with the Unit Manager for the Sycamore Unit on 6/20/25 at 11:04 AM she confirmed that the Resident had orders for two different types of mattresses and was unsure which order should be followed. She advised the Air Mattress order was placed most recently so that was probably the correct order to follow, but she would investigate. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/20/25 at 2:45 PM she reported the order for the Air Mattress should have been removed because after the order was placed, the family and physician decided to not use the Air Mattress. During a review of the TAR 6/23/25 at 9:23 AM it was discovered that the order for the Air Mattress was discontinued on 6/20/25. 2. During a medical record review on 6/18/25 at 10:54 AM it was discovered that Resident #46 had a physician order for Resident to be out of bed Mon-Wed-Fri for 1-2 hours that was placed on 6/09/25. During a continued review of the Resident's medical records it was discovered that the order did not transfer to the Resident's Treatment Administration Record (TAR). During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/20/25 at 2:45 PM she confirmed the order should appear on the TAR for nursing staff to see and sign off as completed. She reported the order wasn't put in correctly so it didn't transfer to the TAR and advised we will have to do some training on putting in orders. During a Record review on 6/23/25 at 11:29 AM it was found that the order was corrected and appeared on the TAR on 6/20/25. 3. During a medical record review for Resident #61 on 6/23/25 at 9:47 AM it was discovered that a Nursing Progress note was written on 6/21/25 at 7:17 AM which stated, Pain meds was given at 6:30 am. During a continued review of the Resident's medical records, it was discovered that the Medication Administration Record (MAR) had no documentation of any medications being administered during that time. The MAR showed the only medication administered for Resident #61 on the morning of 6/21/25 was Lorazepam at 9:00 AM and Morphine was given at 10:08 AM. During an interview with the Unit Manager from [NAME] Oak on 6/26/25 at 2:51 PM she reported medications should be signed off in the Medication Administration Record immediately after given. She confirmed there was no documentation of medications being given on 6/21/25 at 6:30 AM in the MAR for Resident #61. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 6/26/25 at 3:01 PM she confirmed medications should be documented in the MAR when given and was unable to determine what medications were given to Resident #61 on 6/21/25. During a review of the Controlled Drug Receipt/Record/Disposition Form on 6/30/25 at 11:13 AM it was revealed that Resident #61 had a sign off sheet for Morphine and for Lorazepam. The Morphine Form showed the last two administrations were at 10:00 PM on 6/20/25 and at 9:00 AM on 6/21/25. The Lorazepam form showed the last 2 administrations were on 6/02/25 at 8:00 PM and 6/21/25 at 8:10 AM. There was no documentation for medication being administered at 6:30 AM on 6/21/25.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration. This was evident in 1 (Resident #40) of 5 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration. This was evident in 1 (Resident #40) of 5 residents observed during medication administration. The findings include: A review of Resident #40's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Hypertension and Myocardial Infraction. On 06/16/2025 at 09:45 AM during a medication administration observation, the surveyor observed Registered Nurse (RN) #2 take Resident #40's Blood Pressure. RN #2 reported the Blood Pressure as 137/80 then walked to the medication cart and wrote the Blood Pressure down on paper. RN #2 unlocked the medication cart and proceeded to dispense the resident's medication without performing hand hygiene. The surveyor intervened and asked about hand hygiene. RN #2 then performed hand hygiene using hand sanitizer solution. Later, at around 09:50 AM while RN #2 was dispensing medications, a visitor walked up to the medication cart. RN #2 conversed and shook hands with the visitor. After the conversation, RN #2 went back to the medication cart and continued to dispense medications without performing hand hygiene. When the surveyor pointed out the need for hand hygiene, RN #2 reached for a bottle of hand sanitizer which was on the medication cart and sanitized her hands. In an interview on 06/16/2025 during the medication pass, RN #2 confirmed the surveyor's observations, apologized and stated that she should have performed hand hygiene before handling the medications and after shaking the visitor's hands. On 06/26/2025 at 07:52 AM in an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding the process for medication pass, the DON stated that staff members are required to perform hand hygiene before and after taking care of a resident and after leaving a resident's room. Also, staff members are required to perform hand hygiene before touching the medication cart to dispense medications. In addition, hand hygiene should have been performed by the staff member after shaking the visitor's hand. The DON was notified of the surveyor's findings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a functional and sanitary environment. This was found evident in 1 out of 2 dining areas observed during th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a functional and sanitary environment. This was found evident in 1 out of 2 dining areas observed during the survey. The findings include: During observations on 6/16/25 at 8:14 AM it was discovered that a non-operating ice and water dispenser was on top of the counter in the Sycamore Café. Further observation revealed the cabinet below the dispenser was missing the handle to the right door. The floor inside the cabinet was broken into pieces and crumbled in the center. The interior of the cabinet had brownish stains running down the walls and on the broken flooring. A broken pipe was found inside the cabinet. During an observation and interview with the Director of Maintenance on 6/17/25 at 2:12 PM he reported that he had been employed with the facility for about four and a half months. He advised he was not aware of the damaged cabinet and described the crumbled flooring as pressed wood. During an interview with the Administrator on 6/17/25 at 2:21 PM she advised the cabinet had been like that for a while. She added we are planning on fixing it, it's a process, it's a big expenditure. During an observation on 6/30/25 at 8:47 AM it was discovered that the cabinet floor had been replaced, and the interior of the cabinet had been cleaned. The non-operating dispenser remained on the cabinet, the doors to the cabinet were lopsided and the handle to the right door remained absent.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews with staff and Residents and surveyor record review it was determined that the facility failed to develop an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews with staff and Residents and surveyor record review it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for Residents. This finding was found to be evident for 4 (Resident #21, #51, #54, and #61) out of 7 Residents reviewed for the development and implementation of comprehensive care plans. The findings include: 1. In an interview with Resident #51 on 6/16/2025 at 11:49 AM, the Resident stated that he/she had one fall in the bathroom a few weeks ago. The Resident stated that he/she had pain in both knees and received pain patches for the knee pain. The surveyor conducted a record review of Resident #51's medical record on 6/18/2025 at 11:15 AM. Record review revealed a progress note that Resident #51 had a fall on 5/27/2025 at 4:00 PM when Resident attempted to transfer self from toilet to wheelchair and lost balance. Additionally, review of Resident #51's care plan revealed that Resident did not have a comprehensive care plan developed or implemented for the actual fall on 5/27/2025, however, there was a plan of care for at risk for falls. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) at 1:40 PM on 6/18/2025 the surveyor conveyed that Resident #51 had a fall on 5/27/2025 and the incident report and the fall investigation that were provided by the DON substantiated the fall on 5/27/2025. Further review of Resident #51's care plan on 6/23/2025 at 11:00 AM revealed that a plan of care time stamped 6/18/2025 at 2:28 PM for an actual fall was now included in Resident's comprehensive care plan after surveyor intervention. 2. The surveyor conducted a record review of Resident #54's medical record on 6/23/2025 at 11:05 AM. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 7:43 PM for short term rehabilitation. Review of the medical record revealed that Resident #54 had physician orders for two medications Furosemide (Lasix) which was a diuretic medication and Quetiapine (Seroquel) which was an anti-psychotic medication. Further review of the Resident #54's medical record revealed that the care plan was not reflective of the Resident receiving these two medications. Resident #54 had been receiving Seroquel at home and Lasix was ordered on 6/5/2025 at the facility. There was not a plan of care developed or implemented for Lasix and Seroquel for Resident #54. In an interview with the RN MDS Coordinator #3 at 12:15 pm on 6/24/2025 the surveyor asked who was responsible for the development/implementation of comprehensive care plans for the Residents and the RN MDS Coordinator stated that the nursing staff were responsible for the Resident care plans. The surveyor conveyed to the RN MDS Coordinator that Resident #54 had physician orders for Seroquel and Lasix but there were no care plans to address either of these two medications. The RN MDS Coordinator acknowledged the surveyor and stated that she would share this information with the staff. At 3:45 PM on 6/26/2025 the surveyor reviewed the care plan concerns with the Regional Nurse, Director of Nursing (DON) and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator/Executive Director (LNHA/ED) and they acknowledged the surveyor. No additional information was provided by the facility. 3. A nasal cannula is a device used to deliver oxygen to a resident, it consists of a flexible tube that is placed under the nose and has two prongs that go inside the nostrils to deliver oxygen. During an observation on 6/16/25 at 11:11 AM Resident #61 was observed lying in bed with oxygen being administered by a nasal cannula. During a medical record review for Resident #61 on 6/16/25 at 12:45 PM it was discovered he/she was admitted on [DATE] and required oxygen to assist with breathing. The initial orders for the resident after being admitted to the facility included Oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula every shift and Observe for any symptoms of SOB or trouble breathing every shift. During a continued review of the Resident's medical records, it was discovered that the Resident had an order for Eliquis, an anticoagulant, to be taken twice daily. The Resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that Eliquis had been administered twice daily since 6/05/25. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) is a complete assessment of the resident which provides the facility information necessary to develop a plan of care, provide the appropriate care and services to the resident, and to modify the care plan based on the resident's status. A care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess, and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident's care. During a review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #61 it was found that based on the Assessment Reference Date of 6/08/25 the Resident was identified as having shortness of breath or trouble breathing with exertion, when sitting at rest and when lying flat. It also identified the resident required oxygen and had been taking an anticoagulant. During further review of the Resident's medical records, it was determined that Oxygen and anticoagulant medication had not been included in the Resident's Care Plan. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/17/25 at 1:28 PM she reviewed the chart for Resident #61 and confirmed that oxygen and Eliquis were not included in the Resident's Care Plan. She agreed they should have been included in the Care Plan. During a review of the Care plan for Resident #61 on 6/17/25 at 3:26 PM it was discovered that the Care Plan was updated on 6/17/25 at 1:38 PM with the Resident requires oxygen therapy related to COPD and Potential for complications related to anticoagulant therapy. 4. During a review of the Medical Records for Resident #21 on 6/23/25 at 12:10 PM it was discovered that he/she had a history of diabetes. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the Resident was taking insulin for diabetes, the medications included a Novolog Flexpen Insulin which was started on 12/26/24 and an Insulin Glargine insulin pen which was started on 2/04/25. It was also found that the Resident was taking Clopidogrel, an anticoagulant, which was started on 4/30/25. A Care Plan is used in nursing facilities to summarize a resident's health conditions and care needs. It is used to ensure resident's needs are met and consistent care is provided to the resident based on those needs. During a continued review of the Resident's medical records on 6/23/24 at 2:46 PM it was determined that Diabetes, Insulin administration and anticoagulant medication were not included in Resident #21's Care Plan. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 6/23/25 at 2:50 PM she confirmed diabetes, insulin and the anticoagulant were not in Resident #21's care plan but should've been and advised it's not updated. She reported, We need some work on care plans. During a medical record review for Resident #21 on 6/24/25 at 7:51 AM it was discovered that the Care Plan was updated on 6/23/25 with Resident is taking clopidogrel for prevention of thrombotic events, placing them at increased risk for bleeding and Resident has insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus related to impaired glucose metabolism.
Sept 2022 23 deficiencies 1 IJ
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.
Dec 2018 6 deficiencies
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 medical record review, staff and responsible party interviews, it was determined the nursing staff failed to notify the designated responsible party of changes in Resident # 47's condition du...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, staff and responsible party interviews, it was determined the nursing staff failed to notify the designated responsible party of changes in Resident # 47's condition during a hospital transfer. This was evident in 1 out of 29 residents reviewed during the survey process. The findings include: The facility admission record face sheet is a document that provides the facility staff with contact information about who to contact in the event of any change in physical or mental conditions involving each resident, in the event of a medical emergency. Surveyor's review of Complaint #MD00134006 revealed concerns that Resident #47's Responsible Party (family member) alleged that he/she was not notified by the facility of the physical changes in the resident's condition in a timely manner. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility with an advanced directive which listed that the medical power of attorney /responsible party (POA/RP) was to make medical and financial decisions for Resident #47. Review of the medical record revealed that Resident #47 was transferred on 11/19/18 out of the facility to an acute hospital for a change in condition after experiencing a fall with injury while at the nursing facility. The facility failed to document when the POA/Responsible Party was notified of the change in condition involving the resident. On 12/17/18 at 12:10 P.M. the surveyor conducted an interview with the Complainant (Responsible Party) who revealed that his/her mother had fallen multiple times at the facility and that he/she was not notified of the fall which occurred on 11/19/18. On 12/17/18 at 12:30 P.M., during the Surveyor's interview with the Director of Nursing it was acknowledged that staff did not notify the Responsible Party about the resident's change in condition in a timely manner. The Administrator with the Director of Nursing were made aware of the findings prior to the survey exit.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The finding include: 3). On 12/13/18 at 9:30 A.M. during a medical record review for Resident#61, it was documented that resident was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses which included bu...

Read full inspector narrative →
The finding include: 3). On 12/13/18 at 9:30 A.M. during a medical record review for Resident#61, it was documented that resident was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses which included but not limited to epilepsy with muscle weakness. Continued record review revealed that on 11/15/18 Resident #61 had an unplanned change in condition and was transferred out of facility to an acute care hospital for medical evaluation. 4). On 12/13/18 at 10:15 A.M. during a medical record review for Resident #47, it was revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses which included but was not limited to surgical after care on the digestive system and cognitive communication deficit. Continued record review revealed that on 11/19/18 Resident #47 had an unplanned change in condition and was transferred out of facility to an acute care hospital for medical evaluation Review of the nurse's transfer progress note revealed that the resident's Responsible Party (RP) was called and given an update on the resident's status and that residents #61 and #47 were being transferred out to the emergency room (ER). Continued medical record review failed to reveal any documentation that written notification was mailed out to the RP's notifying them for the hospital transfer, with a rationale for the transfer. On 12/14/18 at 1:30 P.M. during staff interview with the Admissions Director, the surveyor was informed that the facility did not provide written letters to either RP of Resident # 61 or Resident # 47 for the facility hospital transfers. All findings were discussed with the Administrator and Director of Nursing prior and during the survey exit. 2). Resident # 63 was noted with post surgical hip infection with copious pus drainage, with a fever of 101.7 and tachycardia. The physician (Dr.) was made aware and ordered the resident to be sent out to the hospital. Resident #63 was in the hospital from 6/14-6/16, and 7/2-7/10. The resident did not get a transfer notice in writing of why he/she was sent out to the hospital, nor did the Responsible Party. This notice was not sent out according to the Director of Admissions (Staff # 2) who's responsibilities include sending out the notices. The Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) were made aware of this deficient practice. Based on the medical record, the facility staff failed to provide written notice to Resident #40, #63, 61 and 47 or the resident's Responsible Party, of a transfer out of the facility. This was evident for 4 out of 4 residents investigated for hospitalizations during the survey process. The findings include: 1). On 12/13/18 at approximately 12:15 PM, Resident #40's medical record was reviewed for a recent hospitalization. On 11/12/18 the resident was transferred to a community hospital's emergency room (ER) to rule out sepsis (a life-threatening condition that arises when the body's response to infection causes injury to its own tissues and organs); due fever, increased heart rate, increased breathing rate, and confusion Per the doctor, the resident was extremely difficult to arouse. The resident unable to verbalize due to slurring of speech and patient immediately closes eyes after opening them. The resident was sent to the ER for escalation of care. During further review of the medical record, it was noted that there was no documentation of a written notice given to the resident, or the resident's Responsible Party, in which the facility is required to do.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Base on chart review and interview with the Admissions Director, The facility failed to send out a bed hold policy to the Responsible Party of Resident # 63. This was evident for 1 out of 3 resident m...

Read full inspector narrative →
Base on chart review and interview with the Admissions Director, The facility failed to send out a bed hold policy to the Responsible Party of Resident # 63. This was evident for 1 out of 3 resident medical records reviewed as transferred to the hospital. The findings include: Resident # 63 went out to the hospital on 6/14/18 through 6/16/18, and 7/2/18 through 7/10/18 and did not get a bed hold policy or notification in writing of the discharge according to the Director of Admissions Staff # 2.
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 medical record review and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to revise and update the care plan for Resident #47 after a change in condition. This was evident 1 out o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to revise and update the care plan for Resident #47 after a change in condition. This was evident 1 out of 23 resident's involving Resident #47 during the survey process. The findings include: The care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident's care. Medical record review revealed that Resident #47 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but was not limited to surgical aftercare with muscle weakness and other chronic health conditions which require ongoing treatment. Continued record review revealed that on 11/19/18 Resident #47 had experienced a fall as a change in condition. The resident was transferred to an acute care hospital for further evaluation. Medial record review revealed a fall care plan with an admission/initiation date of 11/02/018 which included goals and interventions for fall preventions. Further review of the medical record revealed that the facility failed to update and revise the care plan that addressed the resident's falls which occurred on 11/19/18. On 12/14/18 at 2:00 P.M. the surveyor conducted an interview with the Director of Nursing who acknowledged that the fall care plan for Resident #47 was not updated. All findings were discussed with the Administrator and Director of Nursing prior to and during the survey exit.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on investigations of the medication storage areas, it was determined the facility staff failed to dispose of out dated med...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on investigations of the medication storage areas, it was determined the facility staff failed to dispose of out dated medical supplies and label another. This was evident for 1 out of 2 medication storage rooms inspected during the survey, and 1 out of 3 medication carts inspected. The findings include: On 12/17/18 around 3:20 PM, while inspecting the medication storage room on the [NAME] Oak Uunit, the following items were noted: 1. [NAME] 0.9% Sodium Chloride Inj USP 1000 ML- Labeled Discard 11/29/18 2. [NAME] 0.45% Sodium Chloride Inj UPS 1000 ML- Labeled Discard 11/24/18 3. [NAME] 5% Dextrose & 0.9% Sodium Chloride -Labeled Discard 9/10/18 4. [NAME] 5% Dextrose & 0.9% Sodium Chloride -Labeled Discard 5/17/18 5. [NAME] 5% Dextrose & 0.45 % Sodium Chloride -Labeled Discard 5/17/18 In the medication cart: 1. Latanoprost Ophthalmic 0.005% Solution was opened, not dated. The above stated items were given to staff #4
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on medical records and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to do a monthly medication review on Resident #3 and Resident #6's medications. This was evident for 2 out of 5 residents inves...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical records and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to do a monthly medication review on Resident #3 and Resident #6's medications. This was evident for 2 out of 5 residents investigated for unnecessary medications during the survey process. The findings include: On 12/17/18 around 02:47 PM, Resident #3's medication orders were reviewed for unnecessary medications. It was noted that there were no pharmacy reviews documented for October, November, and December 2018. The Sycamore Unit nurse stated that the Pharmacist was in the facility in December. There was no documentation related to the visit. On 12/17/18 around 04:19 PM, the writer reviewed Resident #6's medical record for unnecessary medications. It was, also, noted that there were no monthly medication reviews documented since the month of September 2018.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Maryland facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 41 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 43/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Restore Health Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns RESTORE HEALTH REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Maryland, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Restore Health Rehabilitation Center Staffed?

CMS rates RESTORE HEALTH REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the Maryland average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 58%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Restore Health Rehabilitation Center?

State health inspectors documented 41 deficiencies at RESTORE HEALTH REHABILITATION CENTER during 2018 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 40 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Restore Health Rehabilitation Center?

RESTORE HEALTH REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 80 certified beds and approximately 62 residents (about 78% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WHITE PLAINS, Maryland.

How Does Restore Health Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Maryland Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Maryland, RESTORE HEALTH REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (56%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Restore Health Rehabilitation Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Restore Health Rehabilitation Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, RESTORE HEALTH REHABILITATION CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Maryland. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Restore Health Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at RESTORE HEALTH REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the Maryland average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 58%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Restore Health Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?

RESTORE HEALTH REHABILITATION CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Restore Health Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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