MAPLEWOOD CENTER

6 MORRILL PLACE, AMESBURY, MA 01913 (978) 388-3500
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
0/100
#296 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Maplewood Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns about care quality. It ranks #296 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, placing it in the bottom half, and #39 out of 44 in Essex County, meaning there are very few better options nearby. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 24 in 2024 to 30 in 2025. Staffing is a major concern, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 64%, which is significantly above the state average. Additionally, the facility has incurred $314,533 in fines, higher than 97% of Massachusetts facilities, indicating serious compliance issues. There are troubling incidents reported, including one resident not receiving proper treatment for a serious pressure ulcer and another case where the facility failed to protect a resident from potential abuse, with allegations not being reported or investigated as required. While it is important to note the facility's serious deficiencies, it is also critical to consider these factors when making decisions about care for your loved one.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Massachusetts
#296/338
Bottom 13%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
24 → 30 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$314,533 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 12 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Massachusetts. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
70 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 24 issues
2025: 30 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Massachusetts average (2.9)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 64%

17pts above Massachusetts avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $314,533

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Staff turnover is elevated (64%)

16 points above Massachusetts average of 48%

The Ugly 70 deficiencies on record

5 actual harm
Jun 2025 26 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. For Resident #69 the facility failed to a. ensure that treatment provided to a stage 4 left heel pressure ulcer was implement...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. For Resident #69 the facility failed to a. ensure that treatment provided to a stage 4 left heel pressure ulcer was implemented in accordance with the wound consultant, and b. failed to ensure treatment to a deep tissue injury to Resident #69's left heel was provided in accordance with the physician's orders. Resident #69 was admitted to the facility in November 2024 with diagnoses that include but not limited to paralytic gait, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, unspecified severe protein-calorie malnutrition, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of Resident #69's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/16/25 indicated Resident #69 scored a 4 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam, indicating he/she as having severe cognitive impairment, requires partial/moderate assistance with self-care activities including bathing, toileting and dressing. Further, review of the MDS indicated Resident #69 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers and had 1 stage 4 pressure ulcer (Stage 4: Full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle). Review of Resident #69's MDSs dated 11/17/24 indicated 1 unstageable suspected deep tissue injury in evolution, and the MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #69 had 1 unstageable pressure ulcer due to coverage of wound bed by slough and/or eschar. On 6/3/25 at 12:17 P.M., Resident#69 was observed in the main dining room with a slipper sock on his/her left foot. On 6/4/25 at 8:34 A.M., Resident #69 was observed in the dining room in a wheelchair with his/her legs resting on the floor. He/she was wearing a red slipper sock on his/her left foot with a white dressing observed just above the top of the red slipper sock. Review of Resident #69's physician's orders indicated the following: -wound consult for left heel and right shin, dated 3/10/25. Review of the care plan with the focus Resident was admitted with a pressure (sic) to his/her left heel dated initiated 11/23/24, revision on 6/3/25. Interventions/Tasks included but not limited to, Administer treatments as ordered and monitor of effectiveness, date initiated 11/23/24. Follow the facility policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown, date initiated 11/23/24. Review of Resident #69's clinical record indicated he/she was being seen by the wound consultant weekly beginning in 11/27/24. The 11/27/24 note indicated a pressure ulcer to the left heel, unstageable tissue type 100 % eschar (dead tissue). The wound consultant follow-up notes dated 12/2/24 indicated unstageable pressure ulcer left heel, Treatment recommendations: Wash with wound wash/cleanser. Pat dry. Apply skin prep to peri skin. Cover wound with Santyl/Ca (calcium) Alginate. Cover with ABD dressing and wrap with kerlix QD (once a day) and PRN (as needed). Review of wound consultant notes dated 12/9/24, 12/16/24, 12/27/24, 12/30/24, 1/6/25, 1/13/25, 1/26/25, 1/31/25, 2/3/25, 2/10,25, 2/18/25, 2/24/25, 3/3/25, 3/20/25, 4/7/25 indicated the left heel pressure ulcer as unstageable and had the same treatment recommendation; Wash with wound wash/cleanser. Pat dry. Apply skin prep to peri skin. Cover wound with Santyl/Ca (calcium) Alginate. Cover with ABD dressing and wrap with kerlix QD (once a day) and PRN (as needed). Review of the wound consultant follow-up note dated 4/14/25 indicated: Debridement (a removal of dead, damaged or infected tissue) performed today which patient tolerated well. There is healthy exposed muscle in wound base, making this a stage 4 pressure injury. Discussed on going treatment with nurse. Wounds: Pressure ulcer heel left stage 4, Plan: Treatment Recommendations: instruction: wash with wound wash/cleanser, pat dry, skin prep to peri skin. Apply medihoney, cover with ABD with kerlix wrap. Review of the wound consultant follow-up progress notes dated 4/21/25, 4/28/25, 5/5/25 and 5/12/25 all indicated the left heel ulcer as a stage 4 and the treatment recommendation instruction: wash with wound wash/cleanser, pat dry, skin prep to peri skin. Apply medihoney, cover with ABD with kerlix wrap. Review of the Medication Administration Record dated 4/1/25-4/30/25 did not indicate any treatment orders. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated 4/1/25 through 4/30/25 indicated the following treatment as administered: Pressure ulcer heel Left: Wash with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply skin prep to peri wound, apply Santyl to necrotic skin calcium alginate to wound, cover with ABD pad wrap with Kerlix daily, every day shift for wound care, start date 3/26/25. The TAR failed to indicate the wound consultant recommendation dated 4/14/25, for the Stage 4 pressure ulcer to Resident #69's left heel was provided as indicated. The TAR indicated the order to treat the unstageable pressure ulcer to Resident #69's left heel continued. Review of the Treatment Administration Record dated 5/1/25 through 5/13/25 indicated Pressure Ulcer Heel Left: wash with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply skin prep to peri wound, apply Santyl to necrotic skin calcium alginate to the wound, cover with ABD pad wrap with Kerlix daily was signed off as administered 5/1/25- 5/13/25 with the omission of 5/3/25. This treatment was for the unstageable pressure ulcer and not the treatment recommended by the wound consultant for the stage 4 pressure ulcer on Resident #69's left heel. Review of the MAR/TAR for April 2025 and May 2025 failed to indicate the treatment order for the stage 4 pressure ulcer to Resident #69's left heel was implemented until 5/14/25, resulting in 29 days without the recommended treatment by the wound consultant for Resident #69's stage 4 left heel pressure ulcer. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:00 A.M., Nurse #2 said Resident #69 had a pressure ulcer on his/her left heel and is seen weekly by the wound consultant. Nurse #2 said the nurse caring for the resident will do the wound rounds with the wound consultant. Nurse #2 said recommendations for treatment is made by the wound consultant and the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) or DON (Director of Nursing) obtain the order from the doctor or nurse practitioner (NP) and the treatment is entered as an order. Nurse #2 said the doctor and NP always agree with the recommendations made by the wound consultant, especially for Resident #69. Nurse #2 said treatments are completed as ordered and signed off on either the MAR or TAR after the treatment is done. Nurse #2 said Resident #69 does not refuse treatments but sometimes will take off the dressing and that is why she coverers it with a slipper sock. Nurse #2 said in April (2025) the wound consultant changed the treatment to Resident's #69's left heel pressure ulcer after it was debrided. Nurse #2 reviewed the TAR and MAR and said the treatment order stayed the same and was not changed in April as recommended. Nurse #2 said she knew the treatment was changed to medihoney. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:38 P.M., the DON said Resident #69 is followed by the wound consultant. The DON said any recommendation made by the wound consultant should be placed in the physician's orders and completed as ordered. The DON said the nurses who round with the wound consultant do not realize they are able to get an order from the doctor or NP and place the order in the medical record. The DON said the wound consultant is the person who assesses and knows how to treat a pressure ulcer and if orders are not followed or implemented there could be a potential for the wound to worsen. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 2:59 P.M. the wound consultant said she is a nurse practitioner and wound care specialist. The wound consultant said she rounds weekly on wounds and the nurse on the floor caring for the resident rounds with her most times. The wound consultant said when recommendations are made, she tells the nurse verbally, then I provide a note with who I have seen, and recommendations made and give it to the Director Nursing at the end of my rounding and the next day my full note would be uploaded in the electronic medical record. The wound consultant said she would expect the recommendations to be entered as physician's orders. The wound consultant said there are many factors on how a wound can heal and the dressing is the cherry on top. The wound consultant said off-loading, chronic conditions are factors for a wound to heal or worsen. The wound consultant said when she first met Resident #69 around the end of March 2025 or April 2025 the wound was unstageable and covered with necrotic tissue. The wound consultant said she then debrided the wound and determined the appropriate staging after the debridement of the left heel as a stage 4 pressure ulcer. The wound consultant said she changed the treatment at that time to treat the stage 4 open area on Resident #69's left heel. The wound consultant said the treatment for the unstageable pressure ulcer was Santyl which is an enzymatic to breakdown necrotic tissue and the calcium to manage any drainage from the wound. The wound consultant said once the wound was opened and clean the wound no longer needed Santyl, but the Santyl would not breakdown healthy skin. The wound consultant said she changed the treatment to medihoney as treatment for the left heel stage 4 pressure ulcer and was not aware that the treatment to the stage 4 left heel pressure ulcer was not implemented for nearly a month. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 4:22 P.M., Resident #69's nurse practitioner said the wound consultant has the expertise, not me to make recommendations for pressure ulcer treatments. The NP said she would follow the recommendations and expect the treatment to be entered as an order and provided by the nurse caring for Resident #69. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:57 A.M., the Medical Director, who is Resident #69's physician said orders are to be implemented after the wound provider rounds and makes recommendations. The MD said this has been identified as a problem at the facility with staff not following through. The MD said he would 100% follow the wound consultant recommendations for Resident #69's pressure ulcer on his/he left heel, as this is their area of knowledge. The MD said the risk of not implementing the wound consultant recommendations could lead to infection, worsening or neglect. The MD said the wound consultant notes are sent to him for review and that he was not aware the treatment recommendation was not implemented as an order for Resident #69's left heel stage 4 pressure ulcer. 4b. Review of Resident #69's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated 2/1/25 through 2/28/25 indicated the following order: Pressure Ulcer Heel left, wash with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply skin prep to peri skin, calcium alginate to wound, cover with ABD pad wrap with Kerlix daily and PRN (as needed). Further, review of the TAR indicated the treatment was not signed off as competed on 2/3/25, 2/4/25, 2/6/25, 2/17/25, 2/19/25, 2/20/25, 2/24/25, and 2/27/25. Eight pressure ulcer treatments were not documented as provided out of 28. Review of the clinical record indicated progress notes dated 2/15/25 and 2/22/25 that Resident #69 refused the treatment. These dates did not correspond with the days that were left blank on the TAR. There were no progress notes dated for the eight blank days on the TAR. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:00 A.M., Nurse #2 said nurses provide wound treatments, date and sign the dressing, them sign off in the TAR as completed. Nurse #2 said if for any reason the treatment is not provided then a progress note should be written. Nurse #2 said the TAR should not be left blank. Nurse #2 reviewed the February TAR and said 8 treatments were blank and not signed off as completed. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:38 P.M., the Director of Nursing said if the TAR is blank then there is no documentation to support the treatment was completed. 5. Resident #21 was admitted to facility in October 2018 with diagnoses including stroke, and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #21 is severely cognitively impaired and totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. On 6/3/25 at 7:38 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #21 resting in bed on an air mattress (a specialty mattress utilized to reduce pressure to the body.) Resident #21 appeared thin, frail and was unable to engage in the interview process. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident #21 had pressure injuries on his/her left hip and sacrum and was being followed by the Wound Consultant. Review of the Wound Consultant note dated 5/26/25 indicated: Patient laying in bed. Seen with nurse today. Patient has new DTI (deep tissue injury) to gluteal cleft (the groove between the buttocks that runs from just below the sacrum to the perineum,) and left hip pressure injury has re-occurred. Patient unable to provide history. Nurse does not recall seeing these wounds a few days ago when last caring for patient. Treatment Recommendations: Instruction: Wash with wound cleanser, cover with bordered foam dressing. Change daily and PRN. Review of Resident #21's physician orders failed to indicate any treatment order related to his/her newly developed DTI on his/her gluteal cleft. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 11:50 A.M., Nurse #3 said that Resident #21 has pressure injuries on his/her sacrum and hip. Nurse #3 did not say Resident #21 had a wound to his/her gluteal cleft. During an interview on 6/4/25 at approximately 8:15 A.M., Nurse #1 said that Resident #21 has wounds on his/her hip, sacrum and possibly on his/her heel but it may have healed at this point. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:54 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 said that she is assigned to care for Resident #21 and he/she needs two staff for assistance with turning and positioning. CNA #1 said that Resident #21 has two pressure areas and pointed to the left and right hip. On 6/4/25 at 10:01 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #1 (with the assistance of Nurse #2) complete Resident #21's wound treatments. Nurse #1 said that Resident #21 has two areas; one on the right hip which requires skin prep and an unstageable area to his/her sacrum which required cleansing with calcium alginate with silver and to cover with a border foam dressing. At 10:04 A.M. Nurse #1 checked the orders and returned with supplies to perform the dressing changes. During the treatment, Resident #21's gluteal cleft was observed to be red, fragile, and did not have a dressing on it. Nurse #1 said that there was no treatment in place for that area and Nurse #2 said that the area had been open in the past for Resident #21, although it was not currently an open area. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 10:21 A.M., Nurse #1 said that the recommended treatment made by the Wound Consultant for Resident #21's gluteal cleft should have been implemented. Nurse #1 said she was not sure who is responsible for reviewing the wound treatment recommendations and entering them into the computer as the unit does not currently have a Unit Manager. Nurse #1 said that when treatment recommendations are not implemented, there is a risk of a wound worsening and infection. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:18 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that the Wound Consultant rounds weekly with the floor nurses who are then responsible for inputting the treatment recommendations into the electronic health record as orders. The DON said that the Wound Consultant notes are automatically uploaded to the resident record and she will also review them and input the treatment orders if they are missing. The DON was not aware a treatment and dressing was not in place for Resident #21 newly acquired DTI at the time of the surveyor's observation. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:52 A.M., the Medical Director said that he was not aware that recommendations from the wound consultant were not being implemented by the facility. He said that his expectation is that recommendations are reviewed with the attending providers and implemented as recommended. He said that he would not go against the recommendations of the wound consultant because they are the experts in wounds, and he is not. He said that not implementing treatment recommendations as ordered could result in infection, sepsis, and worsening wounds. He said wounds are a big risk factor for residents and that nurses and medical staff need to stay on top of them and ensure proper treatment. Refer to F726, F867 Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure five Residents (#24, #61, #30, #69 and #21) with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing, out of a total sample of 24 Residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #24 the facility failed to implement recommendations from the Wound Consultant over a three-month period resulting in the deterioration of a pressure wound from a stage 2 pressure wound to an unstageable pressure wound. 2. For Resident #61 the facility failed to implement recommendations from the Wound Consultant for the treatment of a pressure ulcer. 3. For Resident #30 the facility failed to implement recommendations from the Wound Consultant for the treatment of a pressure ulcer. 4. For Resident #69 the facility failed to a. ensure that treatment provided to a stage 4 left heel pressure ulcer was implemented in accordance with the wound consultant recommendation, and b. failed to ensure treatment to a deep tissue injury to Resident #69's left heel was provided in accordance with the physician's orders. 5. For Resident #21 the facility failed to implement recommendations from the Wound Consultant for the treatment of a pressure ulcer. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Pressure Ulcers/ Skin Breakdown- Clinical Protocol, Revised October 2010, indicated the following: -The nursing staff and Attending Physician will assess and document an individual's significant risk factors for developing pressure sores; for example, immobility, recent weight loss and a history of pressure ulcer(s). -The physician will authorize pertinent treatment orders related to wound treatments, including pressure reduction surfaces, wound cleaning and debridement approaches, dressings (occlusive, absorption, etc.) and application of topical agents. 1. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility in January 2023 with diagnoses that included fusion of spine, cervical region, protein calorie malnutrition and iron deficiency anemia. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 5/26/25, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, indicating that the Resident is cognitively intact. The MDS further indicated that the Resident has one stage 1 pressure ulcer, and one unstageable pressure ulcer, neither of which were present on admission. The MDS dated [DATE] did not assess for behaviors, however, review of an MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated that the behavior of rejection of care was not present. Review of the most recent Norton Assessment (an assessment to determine risk for skin breakdown), dated 5/28/25, indicated a risk score of 18, indicating low risk for skin breakdown. Review of Resident #24's active risk for skin breakdown care plan indicated the following, dated as revised 5/11/23: Skin: [Resident] has OCC. (occasional) incontinence r/t (related to) Confusion, Impaired Mobility, Physical limitations, with a goal that indicated, [Resident] will remain free from skin breakdown due to incontinence and brief use through the review date. Review of the wound consultant note, dated 2/24/25, indicated the following: -With facility-acquired pressure ulcers. PU2 (pressure ulcer) to proximal lower back and distal lower back over the vertebrae. No other areas of concern. The patient denies pain. No signs or symptoms of infection were noted. Tx (treatment) plan is added. -Treatment recommendations for both areas: #3 Pressure ulcer Lower Back proximal and #4 Pressure ulcer Lower Back distal -Measurements for Pressure ulcer to the lower back proximal were 0.8 centimeters (cm) x 0.6 cm x 0.1 cm in depth, and for the pressure ulcer to the lower back distal were indicated as 1 cm x 2.2 cm x 0.1 cm in depth. Instruction: Wash with wound cleanser. Pat dry. Skin prep to peri skin. Cover with Xeroform, Silicone bordered dressing QD (daily) and PRN (as needed). Frequent repositioning. Off Load pressure Q2hrs (every two hours). *Recommend Vitamin C 500mg, Zinc 50mg and protein supplement. Review of active and discontinued physician's orders failed to indicate that recommendations were implemented as indicated in the wound consultant note, and indicated the following orders: -Santyl (a prescription medication that removes dead tissue from wounds) Ointment 250 unit/gm (gram) (Collagenase) Apply to Proximal lower back topically every day shift related to pressure ulcer of unspecified site, stage 2, Cleanse wound with wound cleanser. Rinse wound with normal saline. Pat dry. Apply skin barrier to peri wound skin. Apply Santyl then normal saline to the wound base. Cover with Xeroform then silicone bordered dressing daily & PRN AND Apply to proximal lower back topically every 24 hours as needed for dislodgement or soiled dressing, cleanse wound with wound cleanser. Rinse wound with normal saline. Pat dry. Apply skin barrier to peri wound skin. Apply Santyl then normal saline to the wound base. Cover with Xeroform then silicone bordered dressing, dated as active from 2/26/25 through 3/21/25. [sic] -Santyl Ointment 250 unit/gm (Collagenase) Apply to distal lower back topically every day shift related to pressure ulcer of unspecified site, stage 2, cleanse wound with wound cleanser. Rinse wound with normal saline. Pat dry. Apply skin barrier to peri wound skin. Apply Santyl then normal saline to the wound base. Cover with Xeroform then then silicone bordered dressing. Change daily and PRN AND Apply to distal lower back topically every 24 hours as needed for dislodgement or soiled dressing Cleanse wound with wound cleanser. Rinse wound with normal saline. Pat dry. Apply skin barrier to peri wound skin. Apply Santyl then normal saline to the wound base. Cover with Xeroform then silicone bordered dressing, dated as active from 2/26/25 through 3/21/25. [sic] Review of the medical record failed to indicate that the recommendations for offloading the wounds, Vitamin C or Zinc were implemented. The medical record further indicated that the Resident was already receiving protein supplementation, prior to the recommendation. Review of the medical record failed to indicate that the care plan was updated to indicate actual skin breakdown and that new interventions for repositioning or offloading were implemented in the plan of care for Resident #24. Review of the wound consultant note, dated 3/20/25, indicated the following: -#4 Pressure ulcer Lower Back distal- stage 2 (stage 2 pressure ulcer) -Measurement: 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.1 cm in depth. Instruction: Wash with wound cleanser. Pat dry. Skin prep to periskin. Cover with Xeroform, Silicone bordered dressing QD and PRN. Frequent repositioning. Off Load pressure Q2hrs. *Recommend Vitamin C 500mg, Zinc 50mg and protein supplement. [sic] Review of the medical record failed to indicate that any recommendations were implemented following the Wound Consultant visit. Review of discontinued physician's orders indicated the following: -Cleanse unstageable wound lower spine with NS. Pat dry. Apply skin prep every shift May apply ABD over lower spine wound for comfort, dated 3/21/25, and active until 4/17/25, (which did not match the recommendations from the Wound Consultant). Review of the wound consultant note, dated 3/31/25, indicated the following: -PU2 to lower distal back is improving to this week. PU2 to lower proximal back has resolved. -Treatment plan is updated. Nursing aware of wound assessment and treatment plan. No new skin concerns were noted. The patient denies pain. No signs or symptoms of infection were noted. -#4 Pressure ulcer Lower Back distal- Stage 2 -Measurement: 1.7 cm x 0.5 cm x .01 cm in depth. Instruction: Wash with wound cleanser. Pat dry. Skin prep to periskin. Cover with Xeroform, Silicone bordered dressing QD and PRN. Frequent repositioning. Recommend: Vitamin C 500mg, Zinc 50mg and protein supplement. [sic] Review of discontinued physician's orders indicated the following: -Cleanse unstageable wound lower spine with NS. Pat dry. Apply skin prep every shift May apply ABD over lower spine wound for comfort, dated 3/21/25, and active until 4/17/25, (which did not match the recommendations from the Wound Consultant). Review of the wound consultant note, dated 4/28/25, indicated the following: -Patient is being seen for evaluation and treatment recommendation regarding lower back pressure injuries. -Patient was seen with nurse today. He/She denies concerns. The proximal pressure injury to his/her lower back has reopened since the last visit. He/She denies pain to the site and tells me that the wound comes and goes because the curvature of his/her spine. He/She reports that offloading helps. There are no signs or symptoms of infection. The distal pressure injury to the low back is improved. No other concerns noted. Discussed ongoing treatment plan with nurse. #3 Pressure ulcer Lower Back proximal (re opened)- stage 2 -Measurements: 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm in depth. Instruction: Wash with wound cleanser. Pat dry. Skin prep to intact skin. Cover with silicone foam dressing. Change QD and PRN. Frequent repositioning to offload bony prominence. Recommend: Vitamin C 500mg, Zinc 50mg and protein supplement. -#4 Pressure ulcer Lower Back distal- stage 2 measurement: 1.2 cm x 0.6 cm x 0.1 cm in depth- moderate serous drainage. Instruction: Wash with wound cleanser. Pat dry. Skin prep to intact skin. Cover with silicone foam dressing. Change QD and PRN. Frequent repositioning. Recommend: Vitamin C 500mg, Zinc 50mg and protein supplement. [sic] Review of the medical record failed to indicate that any recommendations were implemented from the Wound Consultant visit. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate that any dressing changes or wound care were provided, beginning on 4/17/25. Review of the wound consultant note, dated 5/19/25, indicated the following: -Patient is being seen for evaluation and treatment recommendation regarding lower back pressure injuries. -Patient seen sitting in WC. He/She denies pain or concerns related to wound care. Wounds are improving. No new areas of concern. Treatment plan updated and discussed with nurse. -#3 Pressure ulcer Lower Back proximal- stage 2 -Measurement: 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm in depth. Instruction: Wash with wound cleanser. Pat dry. Skin prep to intact skin. Apply single layer xeroform to wound. Cover with bordered gauze dressing. Change QD and PRN. Frequent repositioning to offload bony prominence. Recommend: Vitamin C 500mg, Zinc 50mg and protein supplement. [sic] -#4 Pressure ulcer Lower Back distal- stage 2 measurement: 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm in depth. Instruction: Wash with wound cleanser. Pat dry. Skin prep to intact skin. Apply single layer xeroform to wound. Cover with bordered gauze dressing. Change QD and PRN. Frequent repositioning. Recommend: Vitamin C 500mg, Zinc 50mg and protein supplement. Review of the medical record failed to indicate that any recommendations were implemented from the Wound Consultant visit. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate that any dressing changes or wound care were provided, beginning on 4/17/25. Review of the wound consultant progress note, dated, 5/26/25 indicated the following: -Pressure ulcer to distal lower back is deteriorating while pressure ulcer to proximal lower back continues to improve. Stage 2 PU to distal lower back has changed into unstageable PU. Patient denies pain. No new areas of concern or s/s (signs and symptoms) of infection. Treatment plan updated and discussed with nurse. -#3 Pressure ulcer Lower Back proximal- stage 2 -Measurement: 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm in depth. Instruction: Wash with wound cleanser. Pat dry. Skin prep to intact skin. Apply single layer xeroform to wound. Cover with bordered gauze dressing. Change QD and PRN. Frequent repositioning. Recommend: Vitamin C 500mg, Zinc 50mg and protein supplement. -#4 Pressure ulcer Lower Back distal- unstageable pressure ulcer measurement: 2 cm x 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm in depth- moderate serous drainage. 90% Slough (in wound bed). Instruction: Wash with wound cleanser. Pat dry. Skin prep to intact skin. Apply santyl to wound followed by cut-to-fit piece of moist gauze. Cover with bordered foam dressing. Change QD and PRN. Frequent repositioning to offload bony prominence with pillow behind back on wheelchair. Recommend: Vitamin C 500mg, Zinc 50mg and protein supplement. Review of the May 2025 Medication Administration Record and Treatment Administration Record failed to indicate that the treatments for either pressure ulcer were initiated and implemented as per the recommendations from the wound consultant. Further review of the medical record indicated that the Zinc 50 mg recommendation was not implemented until 5/31/25, 96 days after it was initially recommended to aid in wound healing. Review of active physician's orders as of 6/3/25 indicated the following: -Zinc 220 mg daily, dated 5/31/25, initially recommended in wound recs on 2/24/25, 96 days after it was recommended to aid in wound healing. -Cleanse wound on back with NS (Normal saline) and apply skin prep and optifoam dressing daily, dated 3/31/25. (This order was entered as ancillary and was not scheduled on any Medication or Treatment Administration Record, therefore there is no sign off to indicate that the order was completed or implemented. Review of nursing progress notes also failed to indicate that the treatment was provided). Review of active and discontinued physician's orders failed to indicate that Vitamin C, offloading of the pressure areas and frequent repositioning were ever initiated or monitored per the Wound Consultant recommendations beginning 2/24/25. Review of the medical record failed to indicate that from 4/17/25 to 6/3/25 a wound treatment order was completed or implemented as recommended by the wound consultant. Review of the medical record from 5/19/25 through 5/26/25, when the pressure ulcer to the distal lower back was documented as deteriorated and now assessed as an unstageable wound by the Wound Consultant, failed to indicate that any treatments were in place or implemented, and failed to indicate refusal of any skin wound treatments. Review of the medical record also failed to indicate that the recommendations from 5/26/25 were implemented until 6/4/25 when the surveyor brought it to the attention of the facility. During an interview and observation on 6/3/25 at 12:35 P.M., Resident #24 said he/she has a wound on his/her back, but they are no longer providing treatments to it. The surveyor requested to observe the wound, and the Resident declined for today. The surveyor asked if they could return tomorrow and re-address and the Resident said that would be fine but that at this time, he/she wants to lay down. During this observation, the resident was lying in bed, on his/her back, without any offloading measures in place. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 7:34 A.M., Nurse #5 said that she often takes care of Resident #24. She said Resident #24 has no wounds and no orders for any dressings or offloading/ repositioning measures. She said she has not completed any wound treatment or dressing changes on Resident #24 recently. She reviewed the medical record and confirmed, there are no ordered treatments on the Treatment Administration Record. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 7:45 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide #2[TRUNCATED]
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of a refusal of a medication for one Resident (#55), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of a refusal of a medication for one Resident (#55), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to notify the physician of Resident #55's refusals of his/her ordered furosemide (a medication that removes fluid). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Administering Medications, dated as revised December 2012, indicated: Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. 18. If a drug is withheld, refused, or given at a time other than the scheduled time, the individual administering the medication shall initial and circle the Medication Administration Record (MAR) space provided for that drug and dose. Review of the facility policy titled, Notification of Changes, dated August 2024, indicated notification to the resident's attending physician will be made with a need to alter treatment significantly or to commence a new form of treatment. Resident #55 was admitted to the facility in May 2025 with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Pulmonary Hypertension, and Congestive Heart Failure. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/9/25, indicated Resident #55 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status assessment score of 15 out of a total possible 15 indicating he/she was cognitively intact. Review of the physician's order, dated 5/24/25, indicated: - Furosemide Oral Tablet 40 MG (Furosemide). Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for pulmonary hypertension. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated May 2025 and June 2025, indicated on 5/25/25, 5/26/25, 5/27/25, 5/29/25, 5/30/25, 6/1/25, and 6/2/25 at 6:00 A.M., Resident #55 refused his/her physician's ordered furosemide. Further review of the clinical record failed to indicate his/her physician was made aware of the medication refusal. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:46 A.M., Nurse #5 said that she was not aware that Resident #55 refused his/her furosemide. Nurse #5 said that Resident #55's physician should have been notified of the refusal. She said that Resident #55 should be educated about potential adverse effects of refusing furosemide including fluid overload and cardiac arrest. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:30 P.M., the Director of Nursing said that the physician should have been notified of Resident #55's refusal of furosemide, and he/she should be educated about potential adverse effects of refusing this medication that include fluid overload and hospitalization. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 11:42 A.M., the Nurse Practitioner said she was not made aware that Resident #55's refused his/her dose of furosemide for seven of the past ten days, but she should have been notified. She said that Resident's refusal of furosemide put him/her at risk for potential respiratory distress like he/she had been hospitalized for previously.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of the resident's adm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of the resident's admission for one Resident #224 out of a sample of 24 residents. Specifically, (i) the facility failed to develop a substance use history base-line care plan, (ii) a suicide attempt history base-line care plan within 48 hours of the resident's admission. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled 'Care Plans-Baseline' with a revision date December 2016 indicated the following: -A baseline plan of care to meet the resident's immediate needs shall be developed for each resident within forty-eight (48) hours of admission. -The interdisciplinary team will review the health care practitioner's orders and implement a baseline care plan to meet the resident's immediate care needs including but not limited to: Social Services. -The baseline care plan will be used until the staff can conduct the comprehensive assessment and develop an interdisciplinary person-centered care plan. -The resident and their representative will be provided a summary of the baseline care plan that includes but is not limited to: The initial goals of the resident. Resident #224 was admitted to the facility in May 2025 with diagnoses including psychoactive substance induced disorder, depression and anxiety. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] failed to indicate a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score. A review of the social services progress note dated 6/2/25 indicated the Resident is alert and oriented to time, place and person. A review of the hospital discharge paperwork dated 5/25/25 indicated the following psychiatry initial consult: -Resident has a history of opioid use disorder (suboxone maintenance). -Treatment history: history of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization in 02/25. -Suicidal history: Suicide attempts/aborted or interrupted suicide attempts, history of making suicidal statements. Further review of the hospital discharge paperwork dated 5/28/25 indicated the following social history: -Drug Use: Not currently. -Types-Heroin. -Comment-clean since 2004. A review of Resident #224's base line care plan failed to indicate a person centered suicide attempt history and a history of heroin use. During an interview and record review on 6/5/25 at 7:35 A.M., the Social Worker said she completes the social service section of base line care plans in the electronic health record within 48 hours of the Resident's admission. The Social Worker reviewed the hospital discharge paperwork with the surveyor and said she should have included the Resident's suicide attempt history and history of heroin use in the base line care plan. The Social Worker said the Resident is a risk for relapse and a baseline care plan should have been developed with personalized interventions. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:13 A.M., the Director of Nurses said social services is responsible for completing their department's baseline care plans. The DON said she expects a resident with a suicide attempt history and a history of using heroin to have personalized baseline care plans developed within 48 hours of admission. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 12:45 P.M., the MDS coordinator said 48-hour meetings should include all interdisciplinary staff. The MDS coordinator said the social worker schedules the meetings with the interdisciplinary team, runs the meetings and offers a copy of the base line care plan to the resident or representative. The MDS coordinator said all base line care plans are completed in the electronic health record. The MDS coordinator said she completes the Nurse's section of the base line care plans but all other departments including social services are responsible for completing their department's baseline care plans within 48 hours.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for one Resident (#24) out of a total sample of 24 Residents. Specifically, the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for one Resident (#24) out of a total sample of 24 Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop a plan of care after Resident #24 developed pressure ulcers to his/her back. Findings include: Resident #24 was admitted to the facility in January 2023 with diagnoses that included fusion of spine, cervical region, protein calorie malnutrition and iron deficiency anemia. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 5/26/25, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, indicating that the Resident is cognitively intact. The MDS further indicated that the Resident has one stage 1 pressure ulcer, and one unstageable pressure ulcer; neither of which were present on admission. Review of the medical record indicated the following: -A wound consultant note, dated 2/24/25, that initially indicated that Resident #24 had two stage 2 pressure ulcers, one to the proximal and one to the distal lower back. -Wound consultant notes, dated 3/20/25, 3/31/25, 4/28/25, 5/19/25 and 5/26/25, that indicated ongoing pressure injurie(s) to Resident #24's back. Review of Resident #24's plan of care failed to indicate a plan of care for actual skin breakdown and the development of two pressure ulcer injuries with indivulized interventions was developed. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 12:00 P.M., the Director of Nurses said that Resident #24 should have had a plan of care in place to address the ongoing pressure injuries that he/she had. The Director of Nurses said that a plan of care was developed for actual skin breakdown on 6/4/25; after the concern surrounding pressure injuries was brought to the facilities attention.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services related to sh...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services related to showers for one resident (#37), in a total sample of 24 residents. Findings include: Resident #37 was admitted to the facility in May 2020 with diagnoses including diabetes and congestive Heart Failure. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of 15. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 7:57 A.M., Resident #39 said that he/she had not received a shower in about 12 weeks. Resident #39 said that he/she would like to have a shower. He/she said that it's not that he/she refuses, but that they aren't offering a shower to him/her. He/she said that it depends on who's working or how much staff they have. During an interview, on 6/4/25 at 8:05 A.M., Resident #39 said that he/she still had not received a shower. Resident #39 said that he/she would like to have a shower. He/she said that it's not that he/she refuses, but that they aren't offering a shower to him/her. Resident #39 said his/her showers are scheduled for Wednesday and Saturday evenings. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 12:41 P.M., Certified Nuring Aide (CNA) #2 stated that scheduled shower days are on the shift assignment beside each residents' names, as well as a paper for CNA's to document that they gave the shower or if the resident refused and then taken to the nurse to sign so that she is aware. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 1:01 P.M., Nurse #5 said CNA's will let her know if a resident refused shower and she will also ask them if they would like at another time. She said that the nurses and CNA's document any refusals in the electronic medical record. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:56 A.M., Nurse #5 said residents are scheduled for showers two times per week. She said that sometimes the resident will refuse, and CNA would document if refused and pass along to nurse so she can document in the electronic medical record. Nurse #5 said showers should still be given even if they are short staffed. Review of shower check lists attached to CNA assignment sheets on 4/24/25, 4/28/25, and 4/30/25 indicated no showers- only 2 CNA's. Review of all CNA documentation and nurses' progress notes from 4/6/25- 6/3/25, failed to indicate that Resident #39 had a shower or that he/she refused a shower. Review of CNA assignment sheets and shower check list documentation from 4/6/25-6/3/25, failed to indicate that Resident #39 had received a shower. During an interview, on 6/4/25 at 9:56 A.M., Nurse #5 said that she was unable to provide any documentation from nurses' progress notes or CNA flow sheets that Resident #39 refused showers. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:47 P.M., the Director of Nursing said the only thing she knows about showers is that the schedules are on assignment sheets. Refer to F867.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, were provided for one Resident (#55) out of sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to include a physician's order for the use of oxygen in the medical record. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration dated as revised October 2010, indicated to verify there is a physician's order for the administration of oxygen before applying. Further review indicated to review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident. Resident #55 was admitted to the facility in May 2025 with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Congestive Heart Failure. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #55's cognition is cognitively intact as evidenced by a scored 14 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status assessment. Further review indicated that Resident #55 used oxygen. On 6/3/25 at 7:37 A.M. and 6/4/25 at 7:45 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #55 laying in bed receiving oxygen (O2) via nasal cannula at 4 L/min (liters per minute). Review of the physician's orders dated June 2025 failed to indicate an order for the administration of oxygen. Review of the care plan failed to indicate a care plan was developed for the use of oxygen. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:46 A.M., Nurse #5 said Resident #55 should have had a physician's order and a care plan developed for the use of oxygen. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:30 P.M., the Director of Nursing said that there should be a physician's order, and a care plan developed for the use of oxygen.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0712 (Tag F0712)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician visits were completed as required upon admission f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician visits were completed as required upon admission for two residents (#50 and #66) out of a total of 24 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Physician Services, dated April 2013, indicated: 1. The Resident's attending physician participates in the resident's assessments and care planning, monitoring changes in resident's medical status, providing consultation or treatment when called by the facility and overseeing a relevant plan of care for the resident. 1. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility in October 2024 with diagnoses including schizophrenia. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #14 was cognitively intact evidenced by a score of 14 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam. Review of Resident #50's physician and nurse practitioner visits since October 2024 indicated Resident #50 was seen by the nurse practitioner on 10/4/24, 4/10/25, and was seen by the attending physician once on 11/30/24. (Resident #50 had behavioral health nurse practitioner visits related to medication reviews and mental health follow up on 12/6/24, 3/18/25, 3/25/25, and 4/21/25). During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:16 P.M., the Director of Nursing said that residents should be seen by the nurse practitioner or physician every 60 days and was unsure about the alternating frequency but would follow up on that. The DON was not aware of the requirement to be seen every 30 days for the first 90 days upon admission During an interview on 6/5/25 at 11:20 A.M., Physician #1 said that residents should be seen every 60 days. Physician #1 said that after a resident is admitted , the Nurse Practitioner sees the resident the next day and he will come in within 2-3 business day after that. 2. Resident #66 was admitted to the facility in September 2024 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #66 is severely cognitively impaired evidenced by a score of 00 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam. Review of Resident #66's nurse practitioner and physician notes indicated he/she had been seen by the nurse practitioner on 9/19/24, 10/21/24, and 5/30/25 and then seen by the physician on 11/30/24, 3/5/25, and 4/30/25, (Resident #66 had behavioral health nurse practitioner visits related to medication reviews and mental health follow up on 12/3/24, 1/2/25, and 2/4/25.) During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:16 P.M., the Director of Nursing said that residents should be seen by the nurse practitioner or physician every 60 days and was unsure about the alternating frequency but would follow up on that. The DON was not aware of the requirement to be seen every 30 days for the first 90 days upon admission During an interview on 6/5/25 at 11:20 A.M., Physician #1 said that residents should be seen every 60 days. Physician #1 said that after a resident is admitted , the Nurse Practitioner sees the resident the next day and he will come in within 2-3 business day after that.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide behavioral health services for one Resident, (#68) out of a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide behavioral health services for one Resident, (#68) out of a total of 24 sampled Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure ongoing psychotherapy/talk therapy was provided for Resident #68 and failed to develop and implement a care plan related to Resident #68's diagnosis of depression and anxiety. Findings include: Resident #68 was admitted to the facility in September 2024 with diagnoses including vascular dementia, hemiplegia, and anxiety disorder and depressive disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #68 is moderately cognitively impaired evidenced by a score of 10 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 8:07 A.M., Resident #68 said that he/she had not been offered any counseling or therapy services while residing in the facility and that he/she was very interested in talking to someone. Review of Resident #68's care plans indicated a care plan addressing Resident #68's depression/anxiety was initiated on 6/3/25, (approximately nine months after his/her admission to the facility): Focus: Resident my have distressed mood related to his/her diagnosis of MDD (major depressive disorder), anxiety, sadness/depression. Goals: Resident will demonstrate improved mood state, a happier demeanor and less anxious feelings through next review. Resident will demonstrate the ability to seek out staff support when feeling frustrated or provoked by next review. Resident will express his/her feelings of such fears by next review. Interventions: Allow time for expression of feelings with empathy and reassurance. Allow time for vervalization (sic) of feelings/needs and attempt to resolve area of being upset. Encourage resident to seek staff support when fearful. Encourage activities of choice. Evaluate the need for psych/behavioral health consult. Monitor for worsening signs/symptoms or worsening sadness/depression. Review of Resident #68's Behavioral Health services note dated 10/1/24 indicated: Target Symptoms: Anger, Anxiety, Depression Clinical Assessment: Initial exam, pt (patient) a&ox3 (alert and oriented to person, place and time).Pt with anger, shouting, demanding, intense, paranoia. Recommending to continue with the same plan of care and treatment as writer is new to the patient and needing extra assessment with the patient. Starting therapy due to patient past trauma. Plan/Recommendations: Psychotherapy 1-2 times per month. Continue to monitor. Review of the clinical record failed to indicate Resident #68 had received psychotherapy services after the initial visit on 10/1/24. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 7:50 A.M., the Social Worker said she believed Resident #68 had been receiving counseling services in the fall of 2024. The Social Worker was not sure if a care plan addressing Resident #68's depression and anxiety was implemented prior to 6/3/25. During interviews on 6/4/25 8:28 A.M., and 6/5/25 at 11:56 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that she had spoken with Behavioral Health Services and was informed that Resident #68 had not received psychotherapy services and the agency could not say why. The DON reviewed Resident #68's careplans and did not see one specific to depression and anxiety prior to 6/3/25.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#13), out of 5 applicable residents, out of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#13), out of 5 applicable residents, out of a total sample of 24 residents, that monthly pharmacy medication regimen review recommendations were implemented in accordance with the physician/nurse practitioner response to the recommendations. Findings include: Resident #13 was admitted to the facility in September of 2020 and has diagnoses that include but are not limited to neurocognitive disorder with Lewy Bodies, unspecified dementia, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #13 scored a 9 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam indicating he/she as having moderately impaired cognition and requires partial/moderate assistance for self-care activities. Review of Resident #13's medical record indicated the consulting pharmacist provided recommendations during the Monthly Medication Regimen Review on 2/24/25 and 4/10/25. The medical record failed to indicate the consulting pharmacist finding/referrals for 2/24/25 and 4/10/25. Review of the documents provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the following: -A Consultant Pharmacist Recommendation dated 2/24/25. Resident is currently receiving Gabapentin in dose exceeding 300 mg a daily with estimated CrCI (a creatinine clearance laboratory test to see how well your kidneys are working) below 15ml/min. To decrease the risk of central nervous system adverse effects including ataxia, dizziness, and drowsiness consider taper Gabapentin to 100 mg 3 times daily, if appropriate Physician Prescriber Response: Agree; Will do, signed and dated 5/9/25 (74 days after the recommendation was made). -A Consultant Pharmacist Recommendation dated 4/10/25. Resident #13 is currently receiving Gabapentin in dose exceeding 300mg daily with and estimated CrCI below 15 ml/min. Of note, resident with recent falls documented in PCC (electronic medical record) To decrease the risk of central nervous system adverse effects including ataxia, dizziness, and drowsiness consider taper Gabapentin to 100 mg 3 times daily, if appropriate. Physician/Prescriber response indicated Agree; Will do 'Duplicate', dated 4/10/25. Review of Resident #13's Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Gabapentin 300 mg three times a day was administered to Resident #13 each of the following months: 2/1/25-2/28/25, 3/1/25-3/31/25, 4/1/25-4/30/25, 5/1/25-5/31/25 and 6/1/25-6/4/25. Therefore, the pharmacy recommendation was not implemented per the NPs response to the consultant pharmacist recommendation dated 2/24/25 and 4/10/25. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:51 P.M., the DON said she identified that pharmacy recommendations were behind in being addressed. The DON said that after the recommendations are reviewed and signed by the physician or nurse practitioner they should have been implemented. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 4:12 P.M., the Nurse Practitioner said she reviews the consultant pharmacist recommendations and if in agreement with the recommendation she would expect the recommendations to be implemented. The Nurse Practitioner said they were catching up on some of the pharmacy recommendations from a few months ago. The Nurse Practitioner reviewed orders and said Resident #13 continues on gabapentin 300 mg 3 times a day and the order should have been changed per the recommendation from the consulting pharmacist. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 11:08 A.M., the facility Medical Director (Resident #13's attending physician), said when they get pharmacy recommendations, and they agree with the recommendation the order should be placed in the medical record by the facility nurse.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. For Resident #60 the facility failed to ensure accuracy of the MDS related to documentation from the physician that a gradual...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. For Resident #60 the facility failed to ensure accuracy of the MDS related to documentation from the physician that a gradual dose reduction of administered antipsychotic medication was documented as clinically contraindicated. Resident #60 was admitted to the facility in November 2023 and has diagnoses that include but are not limited to unspecified dementia, encephalopathy, and bipolar disorder. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated a staff assessment of mental status indicated Resident #60 as having severe cognitive impairment, and he/she is dependent on staff for self-care including toileting, bathing and dressing. Review of the MDS dated [DATE] indicated under Section N, High-Risk Drug classes that Resident #60 is taking antipsychotic medication, the physician documented a GDR (gradual dose reduction) as clinically contraindicated. The physician documented the GDR as clinically contraindicated in a note dated 12/3/24. Review of the Nurse Practitioner note dated 12/3/24 failed to indicate that a GDR of the antipsychotic medication as clinically contraindicated. The MDS dated [DATE] under section N, High-Risk Drug classes indicated Resident #60 is taking antipsychotic medication, the physician documented a GDR (gradual dose reduction) as clinically contraindicated. The physician documented the GDR as clinically contraindicated in a note on 3/4/2025. Review of the Nurse Practitioner note dated 3/4/25 failed to indicate that a GDR of the antipsychotic medication as clinically contraindicated. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 3:03 P.M., the MDS Nurse said when she does the MDS, the date she uses to support documentation for a GDR to be clinically contraindicated is documented by the psychiatric nurse practitioner who reviews residents for psychotropic medications use. Review of the notes with the MDS nurse, written and dated 12/3/24 and 3/4/25 by the psychiatric nurse practitioner, failed to indicate a GDR was clinically contraindicated. The MDS nurse said those notes should not have been used to complete the MDS, and she would need to modify the MDS to be accurate. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS') to be coded accurately for three Residents (#68, #21, #60) out of a total of 24 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #68 was admitted to the facility in September 2024 with diagnoses including vascular dementia, hemiplegia, and anxiety disorder and depressive disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #68 is moderately cognitively impaired evidenced by a score of 10 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam. Additional review of the MDS' dated 4/4/25, 1/2/25 and 10/3/24 failed to indicate Resident #68's diagnoses of anxiety and depression were coded on the MDS. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 11:42 A.M., the MDS Nurse said that MDS' should be coded accurately. The MDS nurse said that she was not aware of Resident #68's diagnoses. 2. Resident #21 was admitted to facility in October 2018 with diagnoses including stroke, and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #21 is severely cognitively impaired and totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. Additional review of the MDS indicated Resident #21 has two pressure injuries that were present upon admission. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident #21 developed pressure injuries to his/her sacrum and hip while residing at the facility. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 11:42 A.M., the MDS Nurse said that MDS' should be coded accurately. The MDS Nurse said that Resident #21's MDS was coded inaccurately.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2b. For Resident #9 the facility failed to ensure skin assessments were implemented in accordance with the medical plan of care....

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2b. For Resident #9 the facility failed to ensure skin assessments were implemented in accordance with the medical plan of care. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility in August 2012 and has diagnoses that include but are not limited to metabolic encephalopathy, bipolar disorder, moderate protein malnutrition, and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #9 scored a 7 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Stats exam which indicated he/she as having severe cognitive impairment, requires partial/moderate assistance for self-care activities including bathing and dressing. Further review of the MDS indicated Resident #9 is at risk for developing pressure ulcers/injuries. Review of Resident #9's medical record indicated a Norton Scale for Predicting Risk of Pressure Ulcers, dated 10/22/24 as high risk. Review of the physician's order dated 3/14/23 indicated: -Weekly skin assessment on TUESDAY 3-11 shift. Document on PCC (electronic medical record) under assessment. Review of Resident #9's clinical record indicated weekly skin assessments were performed on the following dates: 12/3/24, 12/17/24, 3/25/25, 4/7/25, 4/8/25, 4/22/25, 5/13/25, 5/20/25. There were no additional weekly skin checks for Resident #9. Review of the clinical record indicated from 12/1/24 through 6/3/25, Resident #9 had only 8 weekly skin assessments performed, out of 27 weeks. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 12:45 P.M., Nurse #2 said each resident should have a weekly skin check completed on an assessment in the medical record. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that she was aware that the facility had been having issues with nursing obtaining skin checks weekly. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards of practice for six residents (#8, #68, #66, #55, #39, and #47) out of a total of 24 sampled residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #8, the facility failed to ensure a physicians order was implemented for a newly developed skin injury. 2. For Resident #68, #66, #9, and #47 the facility failed to ensure weekly skin checks were completed as ordered. 3. For Resident #39 the facility failed to ensure pre and post skin checks were completed when donning and doffing a right wrist splint. Findings include: Review of [NAME], Manual of Nursing Practice 11ed, dated 2019 indicated the following: - The professional nurse's scope of practice is defined and outlined by the State Board of Nursing that governs practice. Review of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Nursing Advisory Ruling on Nursing Practice, dated as revised April 11, 2018, indicated the following: Nurse's Responsibility and Accountability: Licensed nurses accept, verify, transcribe, and implement orders from duly authorized prescriber that are received by a variety of methods (i.e., written, verbal/telephone, standing orders/protocols, pre-printed order sets, electronic) in emergent and non-emergent situations. Licensed nurses in a management role must ensure an infrastructure is in place, consistent with current standards of care, to minimize error. 1. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in October 2017 with diagnoses including dementia, cognitive communication deficit, and unsteadiness on feet. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #8 is severely cognitively impaired evidenced by a score of 5 out a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam. On 6/4/25 7:11 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #8 in bed waiting for morning care. There was a dressing on Resident #8's lower right leg initialed by staff and dated 6/3. Review of Resident #8's progress notes and physician's orders failed to indicate any injury to Resident #8's leg or treatment orders. On 6/4/25 at 7:55 A.M. the surveyor observed Resident #8 seated in the dining room wearing shorts which exposed his/her lower right leg and dressing dated 6/3. The surveyor inquired with Nurse #4 who said she was not aware of any treatment or injury to Resident #8. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:58 A.M., Nurse #2 said that Resident #8 had a dressing on his/her right leg but was not sure what had happened. Nurse #2 said that Resident #8 often bumps his/her legs into things. Nurse #2 said that there should be a physicians order for Resident #8's leg. Nurse #2 reviewed Resident #8's physicians orders and said that there was no order for treatment. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:26 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that when a resident sustains a skin injury, the expectation is for an investigation and skin assessment to be completed, the physician to be alerted and for treatment orders to be obtained. The DON said she had been made aware today (6/4/25) that Resident #8 had a dressing placed on a skin injury without an order. 2a. Resident #68 was admitted to the facility in September 2024 with diagnoses including vascular dementia, hemiplegia, and anxiety disorder and depressive disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #68 is moderately cognitively impaired evidenced by a score of 10 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam. Review of Resident #68's physicians orders indicated two orders for weekly skin checks: Weekly skin assessment to be completed Thursday on the 7am-3pm shift. Document Findings under the assessment tab NSG: Skin Assessment, dated 4/24/25. Weekly skin check on Thursday 3-11 shift, dated 9/27/24. Review of Resident #68's clinical record indicated skin checks were performed on the following dates: 1/2/25, 3/15/25, 4/28/25, 5/1/25, 5/8/25 and 5/22/25. Review of Resident #68's care plans indicated: Resident has a potential for pressure ulcer development r/t (related to) immobility, left sided There were no additional skin checks completed for Resident #68. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that she was aware that the facility had been having issues with nursing obtaining skin checks weekly. 2b. Resident #66 was admitted to the facility in September 2024 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #66 is severely cognitively impaired evidenced by a score of 00 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam. Review of Resident #66's physicians orders indicated two orders related to skin checks: Weekly skin check, dated 9/25/24. Weekly skin assessment to be completed Monday on the 3pm-11pm shift. Document Findings on under the assessment tab NSG: Skin Assessment, dated 4/28/25 Review of the clinical record indicated skin checks for Resident #66 were completed on; 12/25/24, 1/1/25, 25, 3/25/25, 4/23/35, 4/30/25 and 5/7/25. No other skin checks completed. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that she was aware that the facility had been having issues with nursing obtaining skin checks weekly. 2c. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility in October 2020 with diagnoses that included dementia, type 2 diabetes and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #30's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated, 3/21/25, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 10 out of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated that the Resident requires partial to moderate assistance for bed mobility and had not exhibited rejection of care. The MDS also indicated that the Resident is at risk for pressure ulcer development. Review of Resident #30's active physician's orders indicated: -Weekly skin assessment to be completed Tuesday on the 7am-3pm shift. Document Findings on [Electronic Medical Record (EMR)] under the assessment tab NSG: Skin Assessment., dated 4/28/25. Review of Resident #30's discontinued physician's orders indicated: -Weekly skin assessment on TUESDAYS 7-3 shift. Document on [EMR] under assessment., in place from 3/21/23 through 4/28/25. Review of the most recent Norton Assessment (an assessment to determine risk for pressure ulcer development), dated 2/19/25, indicated a risk score of 7, which indicates high risk for skin breakdown. Review of Resident #30's active skin care plan, dated as revised 9/28/23, indicated Skin: [Resident] is at risk for skin breakdown as evidenced by: Shear/friction risks. Review of the Electronic Medical Record indicated that the NSG: Skin Assessment was completed on the following dates over the last six months: 12/3/24, 12/12/24, 12/20/24, 2/21/25, 4/29/25, 5/8/25, 5/16/25 and 6/3/25. Review of progress notes from 12/1/24 through 6/3/25 failed to indicate any skin checks were completed that were not documented in a Skin Assessment and failed to indicate that the Resident had refused a skin assessment or skin check. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 12:37 P.M., Nurse #5 said that until recently there has not been a regular Director of Nurses at the facility to oversee that skin checks are being completed. She said that the expectation is that physician's orders are followed to complete skin checks weekly. She said that completing the skin check includes opening the assessment and entering whether the resident has any skin concerns or not. Nurse #5 said that not assessing a resident's skin weekly could lead to new wounds forming that are not known about that could worsen or become infected. During an interview on 6/4/25 1:25 P.M., The Director of Nurses said that she would expect that skin checks are completed weekly based on physician's orders, including completing the Skin Assessment in the EMR. 2d. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility in August 2020 with diagnoses including diabetes, anxiety, and depression. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #47 is moderately cognitively impaired evidenced by a score of 12 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam. Review of Resident #47's physicians orders, dated 5/4/25, indicated: Weekly skin assessment to be completed Sunday on 7am-3pm shift. Document findings in electronic medical record under skin assessment tab. Review of Resident #47's clinical record indicated skin checks were performed on the following dates: 1/19/25, 4/7/25, and 5/11/25. There was no additional skin checks completed for Resident #47. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that she was aware that the facility had been having issues with nursing obtaining skin checks weekly. 3. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility in May 2020 with diagnoses including Diabetes and Congestive Heart Failure. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #39 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a score of 15 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam. Review of Resident #39's physicians orders, dated 4/28/25, indicated: [NAME] right wrist brace in morning, doff at night related to right hand osteoarthritis and gout per orthopedic recommendations. Complete as tolerated and complete skin check pre and post wear. Review of Resident #39's clinical record failed to indicate any documentation of skin checks pre and post wear of right wrist brace. Review of Resident #39's weekly skin checks, dated 5/8/25, 5/16/25, and 5/29/25 failed to indicate any reference to skin under right wrist brace. During an interview 6/4/25 at 7:31 A.M., Resident #39 said he can remove and replace the splint independently. He said that nursing does not check the skin under his/her splint. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 10:01 A.M., Nurse #5 said that nurses need to do skin check before and after use of splint, even if resident dons and doffs independently. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that she was aware that the facility had been having issues with nursing obtaining skin checks weekly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in locked compartments on one nursing unit. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Stora...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in locked compartments on one nursing unit. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Storage of Medications, dated as revised April 2007, indicated: The facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. -Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes.) containing drugs and biologicals shall be locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others. -Only persons authorized to prepare and administer medications shall have access to the medication room, including keys. On 6/4/25 at 9:14 A.M., the surveyor observed the medication storage room was unlocked and unattended on the first floor Unit 1. The surveyor was able to open the door and gain access into the medication storage room. There were no staff present in or around the medication storage room. Residents were observed walking around the unit. On 6/4/25 at 10:08 A.M., the surveyor observed the medication storage room was unlocked and unattended on the first floor Unit 1. The surveyor was able to open the door and gain access into the medication storage room. There were no staff present in or around the medication storage room. Residents were observed walking around the unit. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 10:58 A.M., Nurse #7 said the medication storage room must be locked at all times and said she is not sure how it got unlocked. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:48 A.M., the Director of Nursing said medication storage rooms must always remain locked and said no one should have access to the medication rooms except the nursing staff who have the keys to unlock the doors to gain access.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the Quality Assurance Committee developed and implemented an effective Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), including a correct...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the Quality Assurance Committee developed and implemented an effective Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), including a corrective action plan with effective monitoring for Pressure ulcers, infection control surveillance plan, adequate Nursing staffing, and annual wound competencies. Specifically, (i) the facility failed to develop and implement an action plan after Nursing staff failed to implement recommendations for treatment received from the wound consultant, resulting in the deterioration of a wound for one Resident, #24 (ii) develop and implement an action plan for infection control surveillance planning for identifying, tracking, monitoring, reporting infections, and communicable diseases (iii) failed to develop and implement and action plan ensuring there was sufficient and qualified staff at all times to provide Nursing and related services to meet the resident's needs safely in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental and psychosocial well-being (iv) failed to develop and implement an action plan ensuring nursing staff were trained and demonstrated the competencies and skills necessary to identify, assess, evaluate, intervene and respond to pressure ulcers. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled 'Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Plan' with a revision date of 11/2019 indicated the following: -To maintain an effective, interdisciplinary, comprehensive, data-driven QAPI program that focuses on systems of care, outcomes of this care, improvements in quality of care, evaluations of changes made to resident care, and optimal resident quality of life. -The QAPI program consists of data collection, benchmarking, root cause analysis, data analysis, trending, and evaluation for selected performance indicators. The performance indicators to be examined are categorized into the following areas: -Clinical Indicators-Pressure Ulcers. -Resident Experience-Resident Care and Grooming. -Special performance improvement projects-These are performance indicators to be selected based on the identified needs of the facility. A review of the QAPI binder indicated the following quarterly meetings were conducted and dated 10/15/24,1/21/25, and 4/15/25. The monthly QAPI meeting summaries attached to each meeting failed to indicate the specific action plans for implementing recommendations from the wound consultant, implementing the infection control surveillance plan which include the Antibiotics stewardship program and line listing, having sufficient and qualified staff to provide nursing and related services to meet the resident's needs, and ensuring nursing staff were trained and had annual competencies and skills necessary to identify, assess, evaluate, intervene and respond to pressure ulcers. Further review of the QAPI Sign-In Sheet dated 1/21/25, reviewed for the months of October 2024 - December 2024, failed to indicate an Assistant Director of Nurses/Staff Development Coordinator, and Infection Preventionist, (ADON/ SDC/ IP, attended the meeting and the signatures section was left blank. Further review of the QAPI Sign-In Sheet dated 10/15/24, Reviewed for the months of July 2024 - September 2024, failed to indicate an Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) / Staff Development Coordinator (SDC)/ Infection Preventionist (IP), attended the meeting and the signatures section was left blank. During a telephone interview on 6/6/25 at 4:04 P.M., the Director of Nurses said she started working at the facility in April 2025, she said she was aware of the wound concerns in the facility, she said she identified the root cause as a culture in the facility where the nurses believe they should not be adding the new wound recommendations made by the wound consultant to the physicians orders. The DON provided a copy of a PIP she started dated 5/1/25 that addressed wound recommendations not being added to the physician's orders and education to nursing staff regarding this PIP dated 5/9/25. The DON said this PIP will be introduced in the next QAPI meeting on 6/10/25. The DON said there were no PIPs for wound recommendations, implementing infection control surveillance plan for identifying, tracking, monitoring or reporting infections, sufficient staffing and annual wound competencies that had been initiated prior to her start date. The DON said the expectation is for systemic issues to be identified by the interdisciplinary team and brought to QAPI so action plans can be initiated to identify the root causes and fix the issues. During a telephone interview on 6/9/25 at 10:05 A.M., the Administrator said he started working in the facility in August 2024. The Administrator said he has been present in the facility for three quarters and has managed three quarterly meetings, dated 10/15/24, 1/21/25, and 4/15/25. The Administrator said that during his first 90 days, he was aware of wound care issues, staffing issues that included a lack of an Infection Preventionist (IP), whose other role would include Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) and Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON). The Administrator said he did work on getting a new wound care provider, a new Medical Director (MD), and started an aggressive new hiring process. The Administrator said he did not initiate PIPs for the specific wound care concerns where nursing staff were not adding wound recommendations made by the wound consultant to the physicians orders, sufficient staffing to provide nursing services on the units, implement an infection control surveillance plan to track, monitor and report infections, and making sure nursing staff received annual wound care competencies because he was not aware of these specific concerns. The Administrator said he did have a permanent DON in October 2024, November 2024, December 2024, January 2025, February 2025, and March 2025, with an interim DON who filled in until April 2025 when the current DON started. The Administrator said the DON did not inform him of these specific issues. The Administrator said the expectation is that these issues are identified by the interdisciplinary team, then brought to QAPI so an action plan can be initiated. The Administrator said he had an IP employee who would also have had the title of SDC and ADON for a short while and not the majority of the time in his first 90 days. The Administrator said he was not aware of the lack of an infection control surveillance plan for identifying and tracking infections as expected by the regulations, and staff annual wound competencies not being completed. The Administrator said if he was aware, he would have initiated an action plan in QAPI to fix these systemic issues.
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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to offer the COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease) vaccine to three out of a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to offer the COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease) vaccine to three out of a sample of five employees. Specifically, the facility failed to offer COVID-19 vaccinations during the new hire orientation. Findings include: Review of the Facility assessment dated [DATE], indicated the following: -Infection prevention and control. COVID-19 Response - Follow all CDC and DPH Guidelines. A review of five employee health records indicated three out of the five employees had not been vaccinated for COVID-19. During an interview and record review on 6/5/25 at 8:32 A.M., the Human Resources Director said she will request copies of COVID-19 vaccination cards and notify the Director of Nurses if a staff member does not have one and said she does not keep track of vaccinations and does not know if staff have been offered the COVID-19 vaccination during their new hire orientation. During an interview on 6/25/25 at 8:55 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said all immunizations are received by Human Resources and said she does not track immunizations in the building and expects the information to be tracked. The DON said she does not know who is tracking vaccinations in the facility. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:58 A.M., the Administrator said he expects the vaccinations to be tracked, monitored upon hire and documentation kept on file and said vaccines should be offered to all staff members. The Administrator said he was not sure who was tracking the vaccination status and said they do not have an Infection Preventionist at this time. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 12:54 P.M., the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations said the facility has been without an Infection Preventionist and said they had a staff member helping with the role but is no longer here.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on document review and interview, the facility failed to maintain records of Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) trainings for continuing competency that included no less than 12 hours of mandatory train...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on document review and interview, the facility failed to maintain records of Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) trainings for continuing competency that included no less than 12 hours of mandatory trainings per year for each CNA employed by the facility for two out of five CNAs reviewed. Findings include: During an interview on 6/5/25 at 1:48 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said all staff education is tracked by the Human Resource Director (HR) to ensure the education is completed. On 6/4/25 at 10:14 A.M., the survey team requested proof of 12 hours of CNA training time for five employees. Review of the education records, for CNA #2 failed to indicate education had been completed and documented as required. Review of the education records, for CNA #3 failed to indicate education had been completed and documented as required. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:39 A.M., the DON said she was unable to provide the surveyor with additional education records for CNA #2 or CNA #3. The DON said she would expect any education and training to be kept in the employee folders. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:24 A.M., the Human Resource Director (HR) said she manages the onboarding and policy training for staff during orientation and the DON completes the clinical training for staff and makes the determination as to what she educates them on. The HR Director said she does not know what is required and could provide no additional education records for CNA #2 or CNA #3.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and records reviewed, the facility failed to have sufficient qualified nursing staff available at all times to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs safe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and records reviewed, the facility failed to have sufficient qualified nursing staff available at all times to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs safely and in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, the facility failed to maintain sufficient staffing according to the facility assessment and facility staffing requirements. Findings include: Review of the Facility Assessment Tool, dated and reviewed by the facility in May 2024, indicated the following staffing ratios for Nurses and Certified Nursing Aides (CNA's): -4 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) / Registered Nurses (RN) Full time days - weekdays and weekends. -4 LPN / RN Full time evening - weekdays and weekends. -2 LPN / RN Full time nights - weekdays and weekends. -8 CNA's Full time days - weekdays and weekends. -8 CNA's Full time evenings - weekdays and weekends. -4 CNA's Full time nights - weekdays and weekends. During the recertification survey the surveyors' observed concerns with showers not being provided and low staffing reports from staff and residents. During the initial tour of the facility on 6/3/25, there were multiple concerns reported to the surveyors by residents who expressed concerns about needing more staff in the building. Some of these interviews included: - One resident said, They don't have enough staff and I haven't had a shower in weeks. - One resident further said There is not enough staff, especially on the weekends. There is no help. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 7:57 A.M., Resident #39 said that he/she had not received a shower in about 12 weeks. Resident #39 stated that it's not that he/she refuses, but that they aren't offering a shower to him/her. He/she said that it depends on who's working or how much staff they have. During the Resident Group meeting held on 6/4/25 at 3:30 P.M., residents said they do not always have enough staff. Residents said they know this because it takes longer to get someone to help with answering call lights. The residents reported concerns with all shifts and they need to wait to be assisted to the bathroom or other needs including showers. Ten out of 17 residents in attendance said they often wait over 25 minutes to get the assistance they need. Review of the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report submitted by the facility for fiscal year (FY) Quarter 1, 2025 (October 1, 2024 - December 31, 2024) was reviewed. The facility's report triggered the following: Review of the PBJ Staffing Data Report, submitted by the facility for fiscal year (FY) Quarter 1: Dated 2025 (October 1 - December 31), indicated the following: -One Star Staffing Rating Triggered = Star Staffing Rating Equals 1. -Excessively Low Weekend Staffing Triggered = Submitted Weekend Staffing data is excessively low. -No RN Hours Triggered = Four or More Days Within the Quarter with no RN Hours. Review of the weekend staff schedule, dated October 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024, indicated that the facility was staffed below their determined minimum necessary for Licensed Nurses and CNA's for seven weekends. The weekend staff schedules indicated the following staffing during this quarter: Review of the actual daily schedule report for Saturday 10/19/24 indicated the following: -4 LPN / RN Day shift: Only 3 Nurses scheduled. -4 LPN / RN Evening shift: Only 2 Nurses scheduled. -8 CNA's Day shift: Only 6 CNA's scheduled. -8 CNA's Evening shift: Only 5 CNA's scheduled. Review of the actual daily schedule report for Saturday 11/2/24 indicated the following: -4 LPN / RN Day shift: Only 3 Nurses scheduled. -4 LPN / RN Evening shift: Only 2 Nurses scheduled. -8 CNA's Day shift: Only 7 CNA's scheduled. -8 CNA's Evening shift: Only 6 CNA's scheduled. Review of the actual daily schedule report for Sunday 11/3/24 indicated the following: -4 LPN / RN Day shift: Only 3 Nurses scheduled. -8 CNA's Evening shift: Only 6 CNA's scheduled. Review of the actual daily schedule report for Saturday 11/9/24 indicated the following: -8 CNA's Evening shift: Only 5 CNA's scheduled. Review of the actual daily schedule report for Sunday 11/10/24 indicated the following: -8 CNA's Day shift: Only 7 CNA's scheduled. -8 CNA's Evening shift: Only 6 CNA's scheduled. -4 CNA's Nights shift: Only 3 CNA's scheduled. Review of the actual daily schedule report for Sunday 12/1/24 indicated the following: -4 LPN / RN Evening shift: Only 3 Nurses scheduled. -8 CNA's Evening shift: Only 5 CNA's scheduled. Review of the actual daily schedule report for Sunday 12/15/24 indicated the following: -8 CNA's Evening shift: Only 5 CNA's scheduled. Further review of the weekend staff schedules continued to indicate the facility was staffed below their determined minimum necessary of Licensed Nurses and CNA's on four weekends. The weekend staff schedules indicated the following staffing: Review of the actual daily schedule report for Saturday 5/24/25 indicated the following: -4 LPN / RN Day shift: Only 1 Nurse scheduled. -4 LPN / RN Evening shift: Only 1 Nurse scheduled. -2 LPN / RN Night shift: Only 1 Nurse scheduled. -8 CNA's Day shift: Only 5 CNA's scheduled. -8 CNA's Evening shift: Only 5 CNA's scheduled. Review of the actual daily schedule report for Saturday 5/25/25 indicated the following: -4 LPN / RN Day shift: Only 2 Nurses scheduled. -4 LPN / RN Evening shift: Only 1 Nurse scheduled. -2 LPN / RN Night shift: Only 1 Nurse scheduled. -8 CNA's Day shift: Only 5 CNA's scheduled. -8 CNA's Evening shift: Only 4 CNA's scheduled. Review of the actual daily schedule report for Saturday 5/31/25 indicated the following: -4 LPN / RN Day shift: Only 2 Nurses scheduled. -4 LPN / RN Evening shift: Only 1 Nurse scheduled. -2 LPN / RN Night shift: Only 1 Nurse scheduled. -8 CNA's Day shift: Only 4 CNA's scheduled. -8 CNA's Evening shift: Only 5 CNA's scheduled. Review of the actual daily schedule report for Sunday 6/1/25 indicated the following: -4 LPN / RN Day shift: Only 3 Nurses scheduled. -4 LPN / RN Evening shift: Only 1 Nurse scheduled. -2 LPN / RN Night shift: Only 1 Nurse scheduled. -8 CNA's Day shift: Only 7 CNA's scheduled. -8 CNA's Evening shift: Only 5 CNA's scheduled. During an interview on 6/04/25 at 8:17 A.M., a staff member on the second floor unit said, there is not enough staff, and they only have three CNA's scheduled. If one CNA goes on break and the other two are assisting a resident with transfers, then there is no one. The staff member said sometimes care/showers don't get completed because there is not enough staff. The staff member said the schedule will look good and staffed appropriately but it's not accurate of the number of staff in the building. During a telephone interview on 6/4/25 at 9:43 A.M., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #2 said the facility has been short staffed often during the days and on the evening shift for a long time. CNA #2 said it is hard to find help to get residents up and showered because residents might need two or three staff to assist them. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:46 A.M., Nurse #7 said they are very short staffed and not enough CNA's are scheduled to care for the Residents that need help with showers, and care and said there is not enough staff to help with transfers. Nurse #7 said weekend shifts often run with 2-3 CNA's and said she had to stay late after a double shift because staff did not come in and no one came in to relieve her. Nurse #7 said she is always late with her medications because she needs to stop and help with care needs to keep the Residents safe. Nurse #7 said when staff go on break the Residents are left with 1-2 CNA's. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:24 A.M., the Human Resources Director who is also the Scheduler said she manages the schedule for the two units in the facility, and each unit requires 2 Nurses and 4 CNA's during the day shift, 2 Nurses and 4 CNA's during the evening shift, and 1 Nurse and 2 CNA's during the night shift. The Staff Scheduler said there have been staffing issues and said they have been running low and asking staff to pick up extra shifts to cover the staffing needs. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:50 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said she expects the facility to be staffed appropriately and said a lot of staff will work double shifts or pick up shifts if we are low. The DON said they have been working on recruiting and having to use agency staff because they are running low. The DON said she has discussed the concerns with Administration. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:54 A.M., a staff member on the second-floor unit said there is not enough staff and only three CNA's are scheduled on the unit; (been like that for a couple months). When we only have three, we can't everything done, can't give showers if they're scheduled or requested. The residents aren't getting the care they need. Couldn't give any showers yesterday because there was not enough staff. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 12:04 P.M., a staff member on the second-floor unit said, there is not enough staff and things aren't getting done, management does not listen and thinks we are okay but we need more CNA's. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 11:26 A.M., the Administrator said it is his expectation that the building is staff appropriately as indicated in the facility assessment and said they have been facing staffing issues for quite some time. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 11:19 A.M., the Medical Director said the facility is understaffed and overworked and said he would like to see more seasoned nurses here and that they are doing the best they can. The Medical Director said there have been multiple Director of Nurses that have come and gone and its been a top priority for him to fix but change in leadership it keeps falling through. Refer to F726, F727, F730, F732, F867.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the nursing staff were trained and demonstrated the competencies and skill sets necessary to provide the level and types of care an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the nursing staff were trained and demonstrated the competencies and skill sets necessary to provide the level and types of care and services needed as outlined in the Facility Assessment. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure licensed nursing staff were trained and demonstrated competency to identify, assess, evaluate, intervene, and respond to change in condition of a wound and implement treatment recommendations, for 5 Residents (#24, #61, #30, #69, and #21), out of a total sample of 24 Residents. As a result of these failures, for Resident #24 the facility failed to implement recommendations from the Wound Consultant over a three-month period resulting in the deterioration of a pressure wound from a stage 2 pressure wound to an unstageable pressure wound. 2. Ensure that seven out of seven staff education records reviewed, had education and competencies and were completed and documented annually, per the Facility Assessment. Findings include: According to the Board of Registration in Nursing, 244 CMR 9.00 &10.00: Standards of Conduct, Definitions and Severability; a competency is defined as the application of knowledge and the use of affective, cognitive, and psychomotor skills required for the role of a nurse licensed by the Board and for the delivery of safe nursing care in accordance with accepted standards of practice. -Competency is a measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics that an individual needs to perform work roles or occupational functions successfully. -Competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs includes but is not limited to competencies and training in areas as indicated in the facility assessment: - Activities of Daily Living (ADL's): Bathing, showers, oral/denture care, dressing, eating, support with needs related to hearing/vision/sensory impairment, supporting resident independence in doing as much of these activities by himself/herself. - Mobility and fall/fall with injury prevention: Transfers, ambulation, restorative nursing, contracture prevention/care, supporting resident independence in doing as much of these activities by him or herself. - Skin Integrity: Pressure injury prevention and care, skin care, wound care, surgical and other skin wounds. - Infection Prevention and Control: Identification and containment of infections, prevention of infections. - Management of Medical Conditions: Assessment, early in identification of problem/deterioration, management of medical and psychiatric symptoms and conditions such as heart failure, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gastroenteritis, infections such as UTI and gastroenteritis, pneumonia, hypothyroidism. Review of the Facility Assessment, dated as reviewed with the QAA/QAPI committee, in May 2025, indicated the following: Staff training/education and competencies -Considerations: Training's will be conducted based on regulation, facility need and acuity or admissions. -Infection Control: Conducted on hire, annually and retraining as needed based on CDC (Center for Disease Control) and DPH (Department of Public Health) updates for COVD-19 [SIC] and other infections. Staff Competencies: Staff Type and Timing (on hire, annually, PRN (as needed), on demand) -Person Centered Care: All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Activities of Daily Living All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Infection Control: Hand Hygiene, Universal Precautions, Protective Equipment. -As needed with updates from DPH, CMS (Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services) and CDC regarding COVID-19 following all CDC guidelines. -Medication Administration: All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Measurements - Vitals and intake and output: All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Resident Assessment: All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Caring for Residents with dementia, Alzheimer's, and Cognitive Impairments. 8 hours of training upon hire and 4 hours upon annual recertification. -Caring for Residents with Mental and Psychosocial Disorders: All appropriate staff upon hire, annually and as needed. -Non-Pharmacological Management of Responsive Behaviors: All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Caring for Residents with Trauma/PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder): All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Clinical Competencies: All staff on hire, annually and as needed/As COVID-19 protocols change. -Evaluation of Infection Prevention and Control Program: Individuals are tracked and monitored on the line listings. Line listing review identifies trends. All staff is educated on infection control standards. The facility partners with vendors who educate and uphold infection control standards. Review of seven personnel files of actively working clinical nursing staff in the facility on 6/5/25 indicated the facility failed to conduct training that included an evaluation of demonstrated competencies necessary to provide the level and types of care needed for the resident population as required per the facility assessment. Further review of the education files indicated licensed clinical staff did not have the necessary skills and competency to evaluate, document, or recognize a change in condition related to skin integrity and proper wound management. Competencies reviewed included Skin and Wound Care. There was no documented evidence that licensed clinical staff had the required clinical training or that competencies were completed as indicated in the facility assessment. Seven out of seven employee records did not have the necessary training and clinical competencies on file upon hire or annually related to ADL', Falls, Change in Condition, Skin Integrity, Infection Control, Required Dementia Training and Medication Administration. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:52 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said training and clinical competencies must be completed upon hire, annually and said she expects staff to have been checked off as passing a wound care competency and training before coming off orientation. The DON said she has not completed any training or competencies with clinical staff and said clinical staff should have the required clinical competences on file and annually including those listed in the facility assessment. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:38 A.M., the Administrator said it is his expectation that the clinical staff are trained appropriately and have the required completed clinical competencies and training on file according to the facility assessment. The Administrator said they have been without an Assistant Director of Nursing or Staff Educator since last fall and said they had a staff member helping out but she went on leave and he is not sure what training system is in place. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 11:19 A.M., the Medical Director said he would expect the facility is maintaining and keeping up with required trainings upon hire and annually as required and completing clinical competencies for all clinical staff. During an interview on 6/05/25 at 12:36 P.M., the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations said staff must have mandatory education and demonstrated clinical competencies completed upon hire and annually and said they know they need to improve and have not been able to complete the required training. REF F 867
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and records reviewed, the facility failed to utilize the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week, as required placing all r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and records reviewed, the facility failed to utilize the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week, as required placing all residents at risk for not having their clinical needs met either directly by the RN or indirectly by the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) or Certified Nurses Aides (CNA) that the RN was responsible for overseeing with provision of resident care. Specifically, the facility failed to provide the services of a RN for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week when no staffing waivers were in place for seven days for the period of 10/1/24 to 12/31/24. Findings include: 1. Review of the PBJ Staffing Data Report, dated Quarter 1: 2025 (October 1 - December 31), indicated the following: -One Star Staffing Rating Triggered = Star Staffing Rating Equals 1. -Excessively Low Weekend Staffing Triggered = Submitted Weekend Staffing data is excessively low. -No RN Hours Triggered = Four or More Days Within the Quarter with no RN Hours. Review of the as worked nursing schedule provided by the facility failed to indicate that a Registered Nurse worked for eight hours in the facility on the following days: -10/19/24 -11/2/24 -11/3/24 -11/9/24 -11/10/24 -12/1/24 -12/15/24 The facility failed to provide evidence through timecards or payroll information that an RN was onsite for 8 consecutive hours on the dates noted on the PBJ Staffing Data Report. Further review of the staff schedules continued to indicate the facility failed to provide evidence through timecards or payroll information that an RN was onsite for 8 consecutive hours on the following days: -5/24/25 -5/25/25 -5/31/25 -6/1/25 During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:35 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said she was not employed at the facility at the time of the PBJ Staffing report and said she would expect RN coverage to be provided as indicated per the regulation. The DON said on occasion she will come in if they need help on the weekends but said the facility does not have a staff RN always scheduled and said the facility continues to have staffing issues. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:37 A.M., the Administrator said the facility does not have any staffing waivers and said there should be an RN working at least 8 hours every day.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and records reviewed, the facility failed to complete annual Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) performance reviews for 3 out of 3 eligible sampled CNA's. Findings include: During review of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and records reviewed, the facility failed to complete annual Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) performance reviews for 3 out of 3 eligible sampled CNA's. Findings include: During review of 3 CNA employee records, the Surveyor was unable to locate annual performance reviews for 3 out of 3 eligible CNA's. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:27 A.M., the Human Resource Director said the annual reviews were not completed and said she does not manage that process as the former Director of Nursing handled the reviews. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 1:49 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said annual reviews must be completed yearly and documented in the employee record. The DON said she has not conducted any performance reviews since starting in the facility in April 2025.
CONCERN (F)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure it provided appropriate administrative oversight in a manner that enabled the facility to use its resources effectively to attai...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure it provided appropriate administrative oversight in a manner that enabled the facility to use its resources effectively to attain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, the facility administration failed to ensure orientation, education and training was provided to all staff to provide competent, safe, and effective resident care as well as ensuring the governance and leadership members sustain a sufficient Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program during transitions in leadership and staffing. Specifically, the facility administration failed to: 1. Ensure effective systems were in place for education, and training for licensed staff to ensure competent, safe, and effective resident care related to wound management, and communication with consulting providers; 2. Establish and maintain an IPCP (Infection Prevention Control Program) designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent development and transmission of disease and infection. 3. Implement a system for preventing, identifying, reporting, investigating, and controlling infections and communicable diseases for all residents, staff, volunteers, visitors, and other individuals providing services under a contractual arrangement, based on the facility assessment. 4. Develop an Antibiotic Stewardship program that promotes the appropriate use of antibiotics and includes a system of monitoring to improve resident outcomes and reduce antibiotic resistance. 5. Ensure that the IPCP was overseen by a qualified individual and has the appropriate knowledge and skills to care for the IPCP needs of the facility's resident population and to be responsible for the IPCP. 6. Ensure sufficient staffing according to the facility assessment and facility staffing requirements. Findings include: During the survey process it was identified that the Administration's failure to orient and educate staff on policies and procedures specifically related to residents' care and services that resulted in residents who required wound management and oversight and did not have the clinical competencies on file to provide wound assessment and wound dressing changes, resulting in the deterioration of a wound for one Resident. In addition, the facility failed to implement or maintain Enhanced Barrier Precautions and hand hygiene during a wound dressing treatment. During the survey process it was identified that the Administration's failure to implement an infection control program for identifying, tracking, monitoring and/or reporting of infections, communicable diseases and outbreaks among residents and staff resulted in the facility's failure to document information related to tracking and reporting of infections in the facility. The facility failed to document, monitor and report infections and document information for the months of August 2024, September 2024, October 2024, November 2024, December 2024, January 2025, February 2025, March 2025, April 2025, May 2025, June 2025. This included the failure to develop and implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program, The facility failed to ensure an Infection Control Program was overseen by a qualified individual the has the appropriate knowledge and skills to care for the Infection Control Program needs of the facility's resident population and to be responsible for the Infection Control Program. The facility did not have a qualified Infection Preventionist working in the facility. Review of the facility staffing requirements indicated the facility was staffed below their determined minimum necessary for Licensed Nurses and CNA's and failed to provide the services of a RN for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week when no staffing waivers were in place. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:57 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said training and clinical competencies must be completed upon hire and annually and said she expects staff to have been checked off as passing clinical competencies before coming off orientation. The DON said she has not completed any training or competencies with clinical staff and said she has voiced her concerns to Administration as well as the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations regarding the oversight and help needed. The DON said the facility does not have an Assistant Director of Nursing, Unit Managers or a full-time Infection Preventionist or Staff Development Coordinator at this time and said they have staff issues that need to be addressed. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:39 A.M., the Administrator said it is his expectation that the clinical staff are trained appropriately and have the required completed clinical competencies on file according to the facility assessment. The Administrator said he could not speak of what education had been done at the facility and did not know if any new hires had been oriented, educated, assessed for competency, or had dementia training. The Administrator said they have been without key management roles since he started in August 2024, including an Assistant Director of Nursing or a Staff Educator since last fall and said they had a staff member helping out but she is no longer here. The Administrator said the facility does not have an Infection Preventionist at this time and said he is unaware of who is managing the Infection Control Program. The Administrator said the Director of Nursing position had changed multiple times since his arrival to the building in August 2024 and said that he could provide no documentation of clinical concerns brought to the QAPI meetings including infection control measures, clinical competent staffing and training/education, and quality of care or quality of life that was comprehensive and measurable with goals. The Administrator said they have been facing staffing challenges and working on hiring more staff. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 11:19 A.M., the Medical Director said he would expect that the facility implements the required training and competencies for all staff to care for the needs of the residents in the facility. During an interview on 6/05/25 at 12:36 P.M., the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations said the facility must provide the care and services that are outlined and offered per the facility assessment and said staffing has been a challenge for the facility. Despite the Nursing Home Administrator voicing knowledge that there had not been an Assistant Director of Nursing, Staff Educator, or a dedicated qualified Infection Preventionist in the building since August 2024, and that new staff hires in that time frame were not provided with orientation, or assessed for competency, the facility's administrative team failed to develop a plan to ensure the facility could safely provide the services to meet the needs of the residents. Further review indicated, the facility Administration failed to make efforts to identify areas of concern, such as sufficient staffing, Infection Control Program including implementing an Antibiotic Stewardship and make attempts to improve the quality-of-care delivery.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on Facility Assessment review and staff interview, the facility failed to identify resources based on the resident population to determine the necessary care, support services, and educational r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Facility Assessment review and staff interview, the facility failed to identify resources based on the resident population to determine the necessary care, support services, and educational resources (in-servicing) needed to care for residents. Specifically, the facility failed to address sufficient staffing, education resources and include a competency-based approach, including competencies necessary upon orientation and/or annually, to determine the knowledge and skills required among staff to ensure residents are able to maintain or attain their highest practicable physical, functional, mental, and psychosocial well-being and meet current professional standards of practice. In addition, The facility failed to implement an infection control surveillance plan for identifying, tracking, monitoring and/or reporting of infections, communicable diseases and outbreaks among residents and staff and failed to have a qualified Infection Preventionist with completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. Findings include: Review of the Facility Assessment, dated as reviewed with the QAA/QAPI committee, in May 2025, indicated the following: Staff training/education and competencies -Considerations: Training's will be conducted based on regulation, facility need and acuity or admissions. -Infection Control: Conducted on hire, annually and retraining as needed based on CDC (Center for Disease Control) and DPH (Department of Public Health) updates for COVD-19 [SIC] and other infections. Staff Competencies: Staff Type and Timing (on hire, annually, PRN (as needed), on demand) -Person Centered Care: All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Activities of Daily Living All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Infection Control: Hand Hygiene, Universal Precautions, Protective Equipment. -As needed with updates from DPH, CMS (Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services) and CDC regarding COVID-19 following all CDC guidelines. -Medication Administration: All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Measurements - Vitals and intake and output: All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Resident Assessment: All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Caring for Residents with dementia, Alzheimer's, and Cognitive Impairments. 8 hours of training upon hire and 4 hours upon annual recertification. -Caring for Residents with Mental and Psychosocial Disorders: All appropriate staff upon hire, annually and as needed. -Non-Pharmacological Management of Responsive Behaviors: All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Caring for Residents with Trauma/ PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder): All staff on hire, annually and as needed. -Clinical Competencies: All staff on hire, annually and as needed/ As COVID-19 protocols change. -Evaluation of Infection Prevention and Control Program: The facility looks at infection control through its morning clinical review. Individuals are tracked and monitored on the line listings. Line listing review identifies trends. Information is sent to the lab. This information is reviewed by the lab and processed on an infection control report which is returned to the facility. Infection control is reviewed monthly and quarterly at QAPI meetings and as needed through ad-hoc meetings if trends are identified. The infection control review includes nursing, administration, medical director and lab/X-ray provider. All staff is educated on infection control standards. The facility partners with vendors who educate and uphold infection control standards. -Staffing ratios for Nurses and Certified Nursing Aides (CNA's): -4 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) / Registered Nurses (RN) Full time days - weekdays and weekends. -4 LPN / RN Full time evening - weekdays and weekends. -2 LPN / RN Full time nights - weekdays and weekends. -8 CNA's Full time days - weekdays and weekends. -8 CNA's Full time evenings - weekdays and weekends. -4 CNA's Full time nights - weekdays and weekends. -Staff type/Plan: Infection Control and Prevention. 1 Full time Infection Control/ADON -weekdays and weekends if needed. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:52 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said training and clinical competencies must be completed upon hire and annually according to the facility assessment and said she has not completed any training or competencies with clinical staff and is covering the role of infection preventionist and educator since she started. The DON said she does not have training or clinical competencies on file as required by all staff and was unable to locate any during survey. The DON said the facility needs to have a designated Infection Preventionist to monitor and implement the program and said staffing has been an issue. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:38 A.M., the Administrator said it is his expectation that the clinical staff are trained appropriately and have the required completed clinical competencies on file according to the facility assessment. The Administrator said he is not aware of what competencies are required and said the Staff Educator or Assistant Director manages that process and continued to say the facility does not have an Assistant Director or Staff Educator employed at this time. The Administrator said a qualified Infection Preventionist is not assigned to the building at this time and said it is the expectation that residents receive the care and services outlined in the facility assessment and that sufficient staffing needs are met.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident # 63 was admitted to the facility in [DATE] with diagnoses including hypertension. A review of the most recent Minim...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident # 63 was admitted to the facility in [DATE] with diagnoses including hypertension. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated [DATE] failed to indicate a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score. A review of Resident #63's care plan initiated [DATE] indicated that Resident #63 makes his/her own health decisions. A review of Resident #63's [DATE] physician's orders indicated the following: -Incision right hip. Start date [DATE]. -Wound vacuum settings 125 mmhhg (milliliters of mercury), change Monday-Wednesday-Friday. Start date [DATE]. -Cefazolin Sodium injection solution, use 2 grams intravenously every 8 hours for surgical incision until [DATE]. Start date [DATE]. On [DATE] at 8:46 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #63 in bed. There was no Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) signage and a Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) cart prior to room entry. On [DATE] at 8:04 A.M., 9:25 A.M., and 2:15 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #63 in bed. There was no Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) signage and a Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) cart prior to room entry. On [DATE] at 4:58 P.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #6 hanging the intravenous (IV) line. Nurse #6 was wearing gloves only, no other PPE. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:58 P.M., Nurse #6 said the Resident has a (Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter) PICC line and does not require any precautions. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:22 A.M., the Director of Nurses said EBP signage and a PPE cart should be available prior to entering the Resident's room because he/she has a PICC line and a right hip surgical incision with a wound vacuum. She said EBPs should be in place to prevent infections.3. Review of the facility policy titled Infection Control Policy and Procedure, undated, indicated the following: -To help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection in the Facility and to ensure that the Facility: I. Develops and implements an ongoing infection prevention and control program (IPCP) to prevent, recognize, and control the onset and spread of infection to the extent possible and reviews and updates the IPCP annually and as necessary. This would include revision of the IPCP as national standards change. II. Designates one or more individual(s) as the Infection Preventionist (IP) who are responsible for the facilities IPCP. Establishes Facility wide systems for the prevention, identification, investigation, and control of infections of residents, staff (which includes employees, consultants, contractors, volunteers, caregivers who provide care and services to residents on behalf of the facility, and students in the facilities nurse aid training programs or from affiliated academic institutions) and visitors. This includes an ongoing system of surveillance designated to identify possible communicable diseases or infections before they can spread to other persons in the Facility and procedures for reporting possible incidents of communicable diseases or infections. -An antibiotic Stewardship Program that includes antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use. -A system for recording incidents identified under the Facility's IPCP and the corrective actions taken by the Facility. III. Infection Preventionist -IPCP should develop and implement IPCP with leadership support and accountability via the participation of the medical director consulting pharmacist nursing and administrative leadership utilizing and working collaboratively with these team members. The IP should review and approve infection prevention and control training topics and content as well as ensure facility staff are trained on the IPCP. Review of the Facility assessment dated [DATE], indicated the following: Diseases /conditions, physical and cognitive disabilities. -Infectious Diseases: COVID-19, Skin and Soft Tissue Infections, Respiratory Infections, Tuberculosis, Urinary Tract Infections, Infections with Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms (MDRO), Septicemia, Viral Hepatitis, Clostridium difficile, Influenza, Scabies, Legionella's. -Resident Support/Care Needs: Infection prevention and control. Identification and containment of infections, prevention of infections. COVID-19 CDC/DPH (Center of Disease Control / Department of Public Health) protocols. Management and preventions of MDRO's. Consult with LBOH (Local Board of Health) and MA (Massachusetts) Epidemiology when required and as needed. -Management of Medical Conditions: Assessment, early identification of problems/deterioration, management of medical and psychiatric symptoms and conditions such as heart failures, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gastroenteritis, infectious such as UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) and gastroenteritis, pneumonia and hypothyroidism. -Evaluation of Infection Prevention and Control Program: The facility looks at infection control through its morning clinical review. Individuals are tracked and monitored on the line listings. Line listing review identifies trends. Information is sent to the lab. This information is reviewed by the lab and processed on an infection control report which is returned to the facility. Infection control is revived monthly and quarterly, at QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Plan) meetings and as needed through ad-hoc meetings if trends are identified. The infection control review includes nursing, administration, medical director, and lab/x-ray provider. All staff is educated on infection control standards. The facility partners with vendors who educate and uphold infection control standards. During the survey period the surveyor requested infection control program information for tracking infections, including line listings and reporting data. The facility failed to have any documented information related to tracking and reporting of infections in the facility. Further review indicated the facility failed to have any documented information for the months of [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], February 2025, [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE]. During the course of the survey the facility was unable to provide surveillance data and documentation of follow-up activity in response to the active antibiotic use in the facility. Review of the electronic Antibiotic Order Listing report dated [DATE], indicated the following prescribed antibiotics for the following infections: [DATE] Antibiotics for skin infections. [DATE] Antibiotics for leg wound infections, Eye infections, Urinary Tract Infections, Pneumonia, Skin infections. [DATE] Antibiotics for Clostridium difficile (C.diff.)- (severe diarrhea that is highly contagious), Right Hip wound infection, Head Lice infection, Urinary Tract Infections, Pneumonia, Hand infection, Bullous Pemphigoid (blisters and itching on skin). [DATE] Antibiotics for Wound infections, Eye infection, Urinary Tract Infections, Skin abscess. February 2025 Antibiotics for Pneumonia, Abscess, Bacterial Infections. [DATE] Antibiotics for Pneumonia, Bacterial Infections, Cellulitis, COVID-19, Urinary Tract Infections. [DATE] Antibiotics for skin rashes, Pneumonia. [DATE] Antibiotics for wound infections. [DATE] Antibiotics for Urinary Tract Infections, Skin Infections. [DATE] COVID +, C.diff +, Right Toe infection, Urinary Tract Infections, Pneumonia. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:15 A.M. the Director of Nurses (DON) said infections and surveillance of infections should be tracked, monitored, documented and reported and said the facility does not have an active Infection Preventionist in place and said she does not have any line listings in place. The DON said she does not know the rate of infections and said she has no data available and relies on what is reported to her by nursing staff. The DON said she is new to the facility and started in [DATE] and said she is unaware of the infections and has no information available regarding tracking, surveillance or outbreak information available. The DON said she does not have any training or certification completed and was unable to provide the surveyors with proof of certification of anyone overseeing the program. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:56 A.M., the Administrator said the Infection Control program should be implemented and followed and said he is not aware of the infections in the building and said he hires staff specialized in clinical areas to manage those issues and expects the requirements to be followed. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:50 P.M., the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations said the facility has been without an Infection Preventionist and said she did not conduct any infection control tracking, reporting, surveillance or follow-up activity within the facility and said it is her expectation that the Infection Prevention and Control program is managed daily. The [NAME] President of Clinical Operations said they do not have an infection preventionist in the building. 4. Review of the facility policy titled, Legionella Water Management Program to Reduce Growth and Spread dated [DATE], indicated the following: -The Facility will identify and manage hazardous conditions that support growth and spread of Legionella. -Water Management Program Team will include the facility Infection Prevention, Director of Maintenance, Administrator and other members of the safety committee. The Facility must conduct a risk assessment to identify where the Legionella and other opportunities for waterborne pathogens could grow and spread in facility water system and assess how much risk the hazardous condition in those water system pose. -Review the elements of the water management program at least once a year to make sure the program is running as designed and is effective. -Refer to flow diagram: Areas where Legionella could grow and spread. Review of the Water Management documents submitted during survey, failed to include an assessment to identify where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens could grow and spread and did not contain measures to prevent the growth of opportunistic waterborne pathogens (also known as control measures), and how to monitor them. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:59 P.M., the Maintenance Director said he has no involvement with the Legionella program and said it is managed by the Regional Maintenance Director. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:49 P.M., the Administrator said the facility is required to have a program in place to monitor for Legionella and said he expects it to be implemented and followed. The Administrator said he does not have any information regarding the program and said it is managed by the Regional Maintenance Director. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:13 P.M., the Regional Maintenance Director said they follow the facility policy and test if needed and said he is not aware of any flow diagram and said the Facility has not had any issues. Based on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two Residents (#21 and #63) out of a total sample of 24 Residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #21 the facility failed to implement or maintain Enhanced Barrier Precautions and hand hygiene during a wound dressing treatment. 2. For Resident #63 the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions. 3. The facility failed to implement an infection control surveillance plan for identifying, tracking, monitoring and/or reporting of infections, communicable diseases and outbreaks among residents and staff. 4. The facility failed to have a documented water management program. Findings include: Review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website indicated the following, dated [DATE]: -Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) are an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in nursing homes. Enhanced Barrier Precautions involve gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities for residents known to be colonized or infected with a MDRO as well as those at increased risk of MDRO acquisition (e.g., residents with wounds or indwelling medical devices). 1. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility in [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction and need for assistance with personal care. Review of Resident #21's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated [DATE], indicated that the Resident was unable to participate in the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam and was assessed by staff to have severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the MDS indicated that the Resident has one or more unhealed pressure ulcer. The Resident is coded as having one stage 3 and one stage 4 pressure ulcer that were both present on admission. Review of Resident #21's active physician's orders indicated the following: -Unstageable pressure ulcer sacrum: Cleanse wound and peri-wound area with wound cleanser, pat and dry. Apply Calcium alginate with silver. Cover with bordered Form dressing. Daily And PRN (as needed), dated [DATE]. -left hip dry scab: apply Skin prep Topically every day and evening shift, dated [DATE]. Review of Resident #21's most recent wound consultant note, dated [DATE], indicated the following: -A stage 4 pressure ulcer to the sacrum, measuring 3 centimeters (cm) x 3.9 cm x 0.2 cm in depth. -A stage 3 pressure ulcer to the gluteal cleft, measuring 6 cm x 4 cm x 0.1 cm in depth. During a wound dressing observation on [DATE] at 10:01 A.M., Nurse #1 entered Resident #21's room. There were no signs on the doorway or door to the Resident's room indicating a need for any EBP. Nurse #1 and the assisting nurse both washed their hands and applied gloves upon entering the room. Neither nurse donned a gown. Nurse #1 removed a dressing from Resident #21's left hip. Nurse #1 then removed her gloves and without performing hand hygiene donned a new pair of gloves. She applied skin prep to the area of the wound, removed her gloves, and again, without performing hand hygiene, applied another pair of gloves to apply the covering over the wound. Nurse #1 then changed her gloves without performing hand hygiene and performed the treatment to Resident #21's sacrum. Nurse #1 removed the old dressing, changed her gloves without performing hand hygiene and then completed the wound dressing. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:21 A.M., Nurse #1 said that residents who have wounds should be on EBP. She said she should have worn a gown to change the dressing on Resident #21, but she did not. She said that the Infection Preventionist is responsible for managing who is on EBP, and residents on EBP would have a sign on the door or doorway of their room and a physician's order to utilize them. She also said that she should have sanitized her hands in between all her glove changes, but she did not. She said that not implementing EBP places the resident at risk for infection. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:37 P.M., the Director of Nurses (who is also covering as the Infection Preventionist at this time) said that she would expect that a resident who has wounds is on EBP. She said she would expect that when nurses are providing wound care, they are wearing a gown and gloves. She said that not implementing EBP would pose a risk for infection. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:15 A.M., the Medical Director said that he was not aware that EBP were not being implemented and would expect that to prevent the spread of infections, staff would implement EBP and other infection control procedures.
CONCERN (F)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program to promote and monitor the appropriate use of antibiotics. Findings include: Review of the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program to promote and monitor the appropriate use of antibiotics. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship, dated as revised December 2016 indicated the following: -Antibiotics will be prescribed and administered to residents under the guidance of the facilities antibiotic stewardship program. -The purpose of our Antibiotics Stewardship Program is to monitor the use of antibiotics in our residents. -Orientation, training and education of staff will emphasize the importance of Antibiotic Stewardship and will include how appropriate use of antibiotics affects individual residents and the overall community. -Training and education will include emphasis on the relationship between antibiotic use and: a. Gastrointestinal disorders; b. Opportunistic infections (e.g., C.difficile, candida albicans, etc.). c. Medication interactions; and d. The evolution of drug resistant pathogens. During the survey period the surveyor requested infection control line listings and antibiotic stewardship information. The facility failed to have any documented information related to tracking, follow up or review with the physician or nurse practitioner following the initiation of the antibiotics for 7 out of 7 active physician antibiotic orders prescribed. Further review indicated the facility failed to have any documented information for the months of August 2024, September 2024, October 2024, November 2024, December 2024, January 2025, February 2025, March 2025, April 2025, May 2025, June 2025. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:12 A.M. the Director of Nurses (DON) said antibiotics should be tracked, documented and reported and said the facility does not have an active Infection Preventionist in place and said she is told in morning meeting if someone is on an antibiotic but has not been tracking or monitoring specific data regarding the antibiotic stewardship program. The DON said she does not have any line listings in place. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:52 A.M., the Administrator said the Infection Control and Antibiotic Stewardship program should be tracked and followed and said the facility has been without an Infection Preventionist and said he had a staff member helping but not full time and said she is no longer here.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0882 (Tag F0882)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and review of the Facility Assessment, the facility failed to designate one or more individuals as the infec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and review of the Facility Assessment, the facility failed to designate one or more individuals as the infection preventionist who are responsible for the facility's infection prevention and control plan. Specifically, the facility failed to have a qualified infection preventionist with completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Infection Control Policy and Procedure, undated, indicated the following: -To help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection in the Facility and to ensure that the Facility: -Designates one or more individual(s) as the Infection Preventionist (IP) who are responsible for the facilities IPCP. Establishes Facility wide systems for the prevention, identification, investigation, and control of infections of residents, staff (which includes employees, consultants, contractors, volunteers, caregivers who provide care and services to residents on behalf of the facility, and students in the facilities nurse aid training programs or from affiliated academic institutions) and visitors. This includes an ongoing system of surveillance designated to identify possible communicable diseases or infections before they can spread to other persons in the Facility and procedures for reporting possible incidents of communicable diseases or infections. -Infection Preventionist a. IPCP should develop and implement IPCP with leadership support and accountability via the participation of the medical director consulting pharmacist nursing and administrative leadership utilizing and working collaboratively with these team members. The IP should review and approve infection prevention and control training topics and content as well as ensure facility staff are trained on the IPCP. Review of the Facility assessment dated [DATE], indicated the following: Staff type/Plan: Infection Control and Prevention. 1 Full time Infection Control/ADON -weekdays and weekends if needed. Review of the facility document titled Designation of Infection Preventioninst undated, failed to include any information and was left blank. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:10 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said she started in this role at the end of April 2025. The DON said she does not have the required infection control certification, and the facility does not have an approved Infection Preventionist working in the facility. The DON said she discussed this with the Administrator and [NAME] President of Clinical Operations and said she is trying her best to monitor the infections. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:56 A.M., the Administrator said he was aware that the facility did not have an infection preventionist in the building. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 12:54 P.M., the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations said the facility has been without an Infection Preventionist and said they had a staff member helping with the role but is no longer here.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to issue a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNF ABN) (a form issued by SNFs to notify Medicare beneficiar...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to issue a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNF ABN) (a form issued by SNFs to notify Medicare beneficiaries of potential financial liability for certain services) for 2 out of a sample of 3 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to issue SNF ABN notices after skilled services ended. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled 'Beneficiary Notice Policy and Procedure' indicated the following: -The facility shall inform the beneficiary about potential non-coverage and the option to continue services with the beneficiary accepting financial liability for those services. A review of two Notices of Medicare Non-coverage issued for the two residents who remained in the facility after skilled services ended on 1/17/25 and 3/17/25, respectively failed to indicate that SNF ABN notices were issued. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:20 A.M., the Director of Nurses said the expectation for residents who remain in the facility after skilled services ending is to get a SNF ABN notice informing them of potential financial liability for certain services. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:35 A.M., the Administrator said the SNF ABN notices were not issued for the two residents after their skilled services ended. He said SNF ABN notices should have been issued outlining financial liability for specific services.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to post nursing staff data daily, at the start of each shift, as required. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure they consistently poste...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to post nursing staff data daily, at the start of each shift, as required. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure they consistently posted the staffing as required. Findings include: During the survey the surveyor was unable to locate the staffing posting that is required to be available for residents and visitors to view. On 6/4/25 at 8:20 A.M., the surveyor observed a blank single sheet of white paper in the clear plastic document holder, located on the wall near the receptionist desk. During an observation and interview on 6/4/25 at 8:21 A.M., the Receptionist said staffing information and schedules are posted down the hall near the employee time clock and not located at the receptionist desk. The Receptionist said Residents and families do not have access to this employee area. The Receptionist said staffing schedules and data is not kept at the entrance or front receptionist area and said the employee time clock is where the information is posted. On 6/5/25 at 7:24 A.M., and 10:22 A.M., the surveyor observed a blank single sheet of white paper in the clear plastic document holder, located on the wall near the receptionist desk. During an observation and interview on 6/5/25 at 12:32 P.M., [NAME] President of Clinical Operations said the staffing schedule/data must be posted and visible to families and residents and said it should be located near the receptionist desk. During an observation of the clear plastic document holder on the wall, a staffing data sheet dated 6/4/25 was located behind a blank white piece of paper and was not visible. The [NAME] President of Clinical Operations said the staffing information must be posted, visible and updated daily and in a location accessible and visible to residents and visitors. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 12:44 P.M., the Administrator said the staffing data must be visible and updated daily.
May 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled Residents (Resident #2), the Facility failed to ensure they ma...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled Residents (Resident #2), the Facility failed to ensure they maintained a complete and accurate Medical Record, when on 04/09/25 there was no Nursing documentation related to his/her acute Hospital transfer or return to the Facility. Findings include: The Facility's Policy titled Resident Assessment Policy and Procedure, dated 2025, indicated the Facility shall maintain supporting documentation for all diagnoses in a residents medical record to verify the accuracy of the resident assessment. The Policy indicated supporting documentation shall include, but is not limited to the following; - Evaluations of the resident's physical, behavioral, mental, and psychosocial status. - Indications of distress. - Changes in Functional status and - Resident complaints, behaviors, and symptoms. Resident #2 was admitted to the Facility in 12/2024, diagnoses included Parkinson's Disease (a disorder of the Central Nervous System that affects movement), Atrial Fibrillation (an irregular, often rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow), Asthma, Depression, Anxiety Disorder, Paranoid Disorder (an unrealistic distrust of others or a feeling of being persecuted), muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, and lack of coordination. Review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly Assessment, dated 02/20/25, indicated he/she was cognitively intact. Review of a report submitted via Health Care Facility Reporting System, (HCFRS), dated 04/09/25, indicated that Resident #1 was transported to the Hospital after 911 was called and was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] after being medically cleared. Review of Resident #2 Medical Record indicated there was no documentation to support Nursing had assessed Resident #2 for a change of condition, notified the Physician, that he/she had been transferred to the Hospital and returned to the Facility later that same day. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 12:35 P.M., Resident #2 said he/she panics a lot, has Atrial Fibrillation (irregular, often rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow) which runs in his/her family. Resident #2 said on 04/09/25, that he/she felt one of his/her arms were weaker than the other, was numb, he/she was concerned, so he/she called Emergency Medical Services (EMS-911) requested and was transferred to the Hospital. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 4:00 P.M., Nurse #1 said she on 04/09/25, she was unaware Resident #2 had called 911 around 5:30 A.M., because she was on a different floor when 911 arrived at the Facility. Nurse #1 said that when she arrived on the Unit, Resident #2 had already been transferred to the Hospital. Nurse #1 said on 04/09/25, she was unable to assess Resident #2 prior to his/her transfer, did not speak to the Emergency Medical Services staff or provide Resident # 2's medical status to them. Nurse #1 said under the circumstances she did not have time to write a Progress Note, did not document what had occurred with Resident #2, but did say Resident #2's documenation should have been completed prior to end of shift. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 3:32 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said it is her expectation Nurse #1 would have document in Resident #2's Medical Chart that he/she had been transferred to the Hospital and who she had informed regarding the transfer. The DON said Nursing should also write a Progress Note on the day the resident returns from the Hospital that indicates the status of the resident.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on records reviewed, interviews and observation for one of two resident care units, the Facility failed to ensure the food/beverage items served to the residents were safe and at an appetizing t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed, interviews and observation for one of two resident care units, the Facility failed to ensure the food/beverage items served to the residents were safe and at an appetizing temperature. Findings include: Review of the Resident Council Minutes indicated the following: - On 02/24/25, the residents were concerned about receiving the food being cold upon delivery by staff. - On 03/04/25, the residents continued to be concerned about the food being cold upon delivery by staff. - On 04/01/25, the residents said the kitchen was inconsistent with food temperatures, the food continued to be cold, and the Facility needed a plan to prevent the food from being cold upon delivery. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 4:10 P.M., President of Resident Council said residents continue to share with at meetings and with him/her that food meant to be hot is cold and the food was awful. The President said the Facility's food temperatures have been inconsistent when staff deliver the meal trays. Review of the Meal Delivery Times indicated the Breakfast carts are delivered on the units from 7:45 A.M. to 8:05 A.M. During an observation on 05/08/25 at 8:00 A.M., in the Facility's Kitchen, the Surveyor observed the Kitchen Aides during the Breakfast tray line service (assembly where workers at various stations add specific components to the trays as they move along a continuous line). The Surveyor observed the Kitchen staff having a difficult time keeping the individual plate covers over the food and getting the top cover to fit correctly with the bottom part. The Surveyor observed the plate covers slide off when the Kitchen Aide placed the resident's meals onto the Meal Cart and several of the covers stayed off, not covering the plate of food when the meal was placed in the Meal Cart for delivery. This Surveyor observed the Kitchen Aides use two plate bottoms over the residents' meals or only a single cover was placed over the residents' food plate and then placed on the Meal Cart for delivery. On 05/08/25 at 8:17 A.M., a Kitchen Aide delivered the Meal Cart to Main 2 Unit, the Surveyor observed staff passing out breakfast trays to residents. On 05/08/25 at 8:29 A.M., the Food Service Director (FDS), in the presence of the surveyor, took the temperatures of the last two Breakfast trays on the Main 2 Unit food truck. The temperature checks were as follows: Breakfast Tray #1: -eggs scrambled registered at 97 degrees Fahrenheit (F). -small plastic glass of milk registered at 44.8 degrees F. -coffee registered at 150.0 degrees F. -muffin registered at 90.0 degrees F. Breakfast Test Tray #2: -eggs scrambled registered at 93.9 degrees F. -small glass of milk registered at 47.5 degrees F. -small glass of apple juice registered at 54.1 degrees F. -oatmeal registered at 105.9 degrees F. -coffee registered at 147.7 degrees F. -muffin registered 86.5 degrees F. The FSD said the beverage and food items for the Breakfast Test trays were not the correct temperatures, and the danger zone was 42.0 degrees F. to 134.0 degrees F. The FSD said the temperatures needed to be: -cold beverage temperatures no higher than 36.0 degrees, -hot beverages temperatures 135.0 degrees F, -eggs are difficult to keep at a consistent temperature and needed to be 135.0 degrees F, -Oatmeal needed to be above 135.0 degrees F. The FSD, along with the Surveyor, reviewed the Test Tray Evaluation Form, dated 05/08/25 which indicated Breakfast Kitchen temperatures (taken before the cart left the kitchen). - Eggs registered at 165.0 degrees F. - Cold Beverage 36.0 degrees F. (did not indicate if the temperature was the milk or apple juice). - Oatmeal registered at 170.0 degrees F. - Apple Juice registered at 36.0 degrees F. - Coffee 160.0 degrees F., and - Muffin registered at 163.0 F. The FSD said the Facility does not have enough food covers for the residents plates and the Kitchen Aides have been using two plate bottom covers to delivery the food to the residents. Review of the Meal Delivery Times indicated the Lunch carts times were 11:55 A.M. to 12:25 P.M. During an observation on 05/08/25 at 12:05 P.M., in the Facility's Kitchen, the Surveyor observed the Kitchen Aides during the Lunch tray line service. The Surveyor observed the Kitchen staff continuing to have a difficult time keeping the individual plate covers over the food and getting the top to fit correctly with the bottom cover. The Surveyor observed the plate covers slide off when the Kitchen Aide placed the residents' meal onto the Meal Cart and several of the covers stayed off of the plate of food when the meal was placed in the Meal Cart for delivery. On 05/08/25 at 12:30 P.M., Kitchen Aide delivered the Meal Cart to Main 2 Unit, the Surveyor observed staff passing out Lunch trays to residents. On 05/08/25 at 12:30 P.M., the FSD in the presence of the Surveyor, took the temperature of the last two Lunch trays on Main 2 Unit food truck. The temperature checks were as follows: Lunch Tray #1: -cottage cheese registered at 58.1 degrees Fahrenheit (F). -small plastic glass of milk registered at 45.5 degrees F. -cup of fruit cocktail 54.3 degrees F. -corn bread registered at 88.5 degrees F. Lunch Test Tray #2: -cottage cheese registered at 61.0 degrees Fahrenheit (F). -small plastic glass of milk registered at 44.0 degrees F. -cup of fruit cocktail 53.2 degrees F. -water for tea 133.6 degrees F. -corn bread registered at 88.5 degrees F. The FSD said the beverage and food items were not the correct temperatures, but the temperatures were not in the danger zone of not be able to be consume. Review of the Test Tray Evaluation Form, dated 05/08/25, indicated Lunch Kitchen Temperatures were as follows; - Cottage Cheese, Milk and Fruit cocktail registered at 35.0 degrees F. - Coffee 160.0 degrees F., - Corn Bread and Cake registered at room temperature. - The FSD said the temperature of the hot water (for hot beverages) was not taken in the kitchen, was overlooked, but said the coffee was okay. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 4:45 P.M., the Administrator and Director of Nursing said they are aware of the meal covers and bottoms not fitting properly during delivery mealtimes and had been informed the beverage and food items were not the correct temperatures upon delivery. The Administrator said they are working on keeping the food warm and awaiting approval for new meal covers and bottoms.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, for two of two Nourishment Kitchenettes (Main 1 and Main 2), the Facility f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, for two of two Nourishment Kitchenettes (Main 1 and Main 2), the Facility failed to ensure that food items prepared and served to residents were done safely, securely, were properly labeled and had not expired. Findings include: Review of the Facility's Policy titled, Nourishment Kitchen Procedure, undated, provided by the Facility indicated the following: - All beverages need to be labeled with the date they are brought in, and use-by date, which includes milk, ginger ale, cola and all pitchers of juice/ice-tea-iced coffee, applesauce and bread. - All food/beverages that are not labeled need to be thrown out by staff when they are stocking and cleaning. - The Dietary staff is responsible for ensuring the fridges and cabinets are clean and tidy, using sanitizer and a clean towel. Review of the Facility's Policy titled, Labeling Procedure, undated, provided by the Facility indicated the following: - Items placed in the refrigerators must have a name and a date. - Things only last three days in the refrigerator and anything after three days will be tossed. Review of the Policy titled, Food Items Procedure, updated 08/30/34, indicated that no staff personal food items in refrigerator and only for residents' use. The Facility's Policy titled, Safe Food Handling from Visitors Policy, dated, indicated daily monitoring for refrigerated storage duration and to discard any food items that have been stored for greater than to equal to three days, frozen foods or shelf stable may be retained for greater than to equal seven days, and refrigerator cleaned daily. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 8:38 A.M., the Food Service Director (FSD) said she had asked staff earlier this morning to ensure the Nourishment Kitchenettes were clean, updated and stocked. The FSD said the Diet Aides are responsible twice a day to clean and discard any food that is outdated in the Unit Kitchenettes refrigerators and to refill the snacks for the residents. The FSD said she performs weekly random audits to ensure the staff are cleaning, discarding expired food and restocking the Kitchenettes. On 05/07/25 at 9:00 A.M., the Surveyor accompanied by the FSD, toured the Facility's Nourishment Kitchenette on Main 2, and observed the following: - Inside the Nourishment Kitchenette, there was trash on the floor and counters. - One Box of Ensure (nutritional supplement) beverage located on top of the refrigerator (which gets warm). - One serving plate/cover located on top of the refrigerator (contained a dirty plate). - Three, One-Fluid Ounce packets of syrup were also left on top of the refrigerator. Freezer (interior) Compartment Observations: - Inside of the freezer there was a sticky substance on the walls and on the freezer door. - Two large cups with ice, no name or date written on the cup. - One large cup of frozen lemonade beverage, no name or date written on the cup. Refrigerator (interior) Compartment Observations: - there was visible dirt with a yellow, pink and white sticky substance on the shelving, walls and door shelves. - One large cup, half full of a beverage, no name or date written on the cup. - One yellow pre-made mixture (prepared by Kitchen) lemonade (large pitcher), dated to be removed 04/19/25 (expired by 18 Days). - One pink pre-made mixture (prepared by Kitchen) lemonade (large pitcher), dated to be removed 05/02/25 (expired by 5 Days). - One medium size insulated lunch bag, no name or date written on the bag. On 05/08/25 at 9:15 A.M., the Surveyor accompanied by the Food Service Director toured the Facility's Nourishment Kitchenette on Main 1, and observed the following: - Inside Nourishment Kitchenette, there was trash on the floor and counters. - One pre-made souffle (a small clear plastic cup with a clear lid) cup of peanut butter (prepared by Kitchen), on the counter, with no date written on the lid. Freezer (interior) Compartment Observations: - there was a sticky substance on the walls and on the freezer door. - One piece of a raw wild catch cod skinless fillet in an opened bag, with no name or date written on the bag, without a tight package seal. - A Resident's Box of fruit pies, without a tight package seal, with no date written on the box and manufactured expired date, February 1, 2025 (expired by 95 Days). - Two, Three Fluid-Ounces Hoodies Ice Cream Cups, refrozen, with no name or date written on the bag. - Three little corns on the cob, with no name or date written on the corn packaging, without a tight package seal. - A Resident's ice cream, from an activity, with no date written on the package and located in the freezer. - A Resident's [NAME] Roasted Pine Nuts, manufactured expired date, April 21,2025 (expired by 16 Days). Refrigerator (interior) Compartment Observations: - there was visible dirt with a sticky substance on the shelving's, walls and door shelves. - Three pre-made souffle cups of vanilla pudding (prepared by kitchen), with no date written on the lid. - Two pre-made souffle cups of vanilla pudding (prepared by Kitchen), dated 05/04/25 (expired by three days). - Two pre-made souffle cups of vanilla pudding (prepared by Kitchen), dated 05/05/25 (expired by two Days). - Four, 72-Ounces Yogurt Yoplait Original cups, written date on package 03/15/25. - One, 46 Fluid Ounces Thicken Apple Juice, manufactured expired date, February 18, 2025 (expired by 78 Days). - One, 46 Fluid Ounces Thicken Water, manufactured expired date, [DATE] (expired by 114 Days). - One, 16 Fluid Ounces, Classic Catalina Salad Dressing, with no name or date written on the bottle, manufactured expired date, April 23, 2025 (expired by 14 Days). - One, Eight Fluid Ounces, Ranch Dressing, with no name or date written on the bottle. - One, 12 Fluid Ounces, Polar Seltzer Passion Fruit, with no name or date written on the bottle. - One, 20 Fluid Ounces, Vitamin Water, with no name or date written on the bottle. - One store purchased a Fruit Cup, with no name or date written on the cup. - One, pre-made 1.47 Pounds of Market Basket Meatball with Penne and Marinara Sauce, packaged on 04/28/25 and sell by date of 05/03/25. - Six 16 Ounces of Classic Ranch Dressing packets, Three One Ounce of [NAME] Sweet and Sour portion cups, Three single serving Ketchup packets and One Ounce Breakfast Syrup, with no name or date written on the packaging and scattered throughout the refrigerator. At 9:34 A.M. (on Main 1) this Surveyor observed Certified Nurse Aide #1 (CNA) attempting to place her personal beverage in the refrigerator. CNA #1 said staff did not have a refrigerator on Main 1 and she forgot she was not supposed to use the resident's refrigerator. The FSD said it is her expectation that Kitchen staff ensure the Kitchenettes are clean, food that has expired is to be discarded and snacks be restocked. The FSD said the name and date written on the food items needed to be clear and readable. The FSD said the expectation is that staff do not use the residents Kitchenette for their personal food/beverage items. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 3:52 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that it is her expectation the Kitchenettes are clean, food that is expired is discarded and staff do not use the resident's refrigerator. The DON said Kitchen Staff are responsible for cleaning the kitchenettes, to restock items as needed and Nursing to oversee the process. The DON said a couple of weeks ago, she had performed an audit when she started at the Facility as the DON, but has not performed a Facility Kitchenette audit since.
Feb 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, for three of three sampled Employee Personnel Files (Nurse #1, Nurse #4, and Certified Nurse Aide #3), the Facility failed to ensure they completed and followed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, for three of three sampled Employee Personnel Files (Nurse #1, Nurse #4, and Certified Nurse Aide #3), the Facility failed to ensure they completed and followed abuse prohibition procedures as defined in their policy when Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry background checks were not conducted prior to hire. Findings include: Review of the Facility's Policy and Procedure titled Employee Background Checks, Reporting Requirements, and Prevention of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation of Residents, not dated, indicated the Facility shall be thorough in its investigations of the histories of prospective staff. The Policy indicated the Facility shall check the state nurse aide registry. The Policy indicated the Facility shall screen potential employees for a history of abuse, neglect, and exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property in order to prohibit abuse. neglect, and exploitation of resident property which includes checking registries. Review of Nurse #1's Personnel File indicated she was hired on 12/18/24. Further review of the file indicated there was no documentation to support that Nurse #1 had a Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry background check conducted by the Facility before hire. Review of Nurse #4's Personnel File indicated she was hired on 02/05/25. Further review of the file indicated there was no documentation to support that Nurse #4 had a Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry background check conducted by the Facility before hire. Review of Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #3's Personnel File indicated she was hired on 01/21/25. Further review of the file indicated there was no documentation to support that CNA #3 had a Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry background check conducted by the Facility before hire. During an interview on 02/26/25 at 4:10 P.M., the Human Resource Director (in the presence of the Administrator and Director of Nurses) said since her hire in August 2024, she was responsible for conducting all pre-hire background checks on prospective employees. The Human Resource Director said she was not trained to conduct Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry background checks. The Human Resource Director said since she was not familiar with the Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry checks, she had not been conducting them. The Human Resource Director said she was unable to provide documentation to support that Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry background checks were conducted for Nurse #1, Nurse #4 and CNA #3.
Jun 2024 24 deficiencies 4 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe environment free from abuse for one R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe environment free from abuse for one Resident (#41) out of a sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide an environment free from physical, sexual and mental abuse. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled 'Clinical Services, Subject: Abuse' with a revision date of March 2023 indicated the following: It is the policy of the facility that each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect and misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. It is the philosophy of the facility to encourage an environment that recognizes the special qualities of our residents and provides them with a safe environment. Definitions: -Abuse-means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. -Willful means that the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. -Sexual abuse means non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. Sexual abuse included but is not limited to sexual harassment, sexual coercion or sexual assault. -Physical abuse includes hitting, slapping, pinching and kicking. It also included controlling behavior through corporal punishment. -Mental abuse- includes but is not limited to humiliation, harassment and threats of punishment or deprivation. Prohibited includes agitating a resident to solicit a response. Resident #41 was admitted to the facility in April 2024 with diagnoses including Hodgkin's lymphoma, anxiety, depression and pain in an unspecified shoulder. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of a possible 15 indicating intact cognition. Further review of the MDS indicated the following: -Shower/bathe self-Partial/moderate assistance. -Sit to lying-Supervision/touch assistance: helper provided verbal cues or touching/steadying assistance as resident completes activity. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 9:45 A.M., Resident #41 said that on 6/7/24, Certified Nurse's Assistant (CNA#1) ripped him/her aggressively from a sitting position and threw him/her on the bed. Resident #41 said he/she was sleeping on his/her knees while sitting on the side of the bed. He/she said this is a comfortable position for him/her to sleep in. Resident #41 said his/her shoulder hurts as a result of being thrown on the bed in a forceful manner. The Resident said approximately three weeks ago, CNA #1 bathed him/her roughly during a shower, he/she said CNA #1 forcefully spread his/her legs, scrubbed him/her aggressively between his/her legs. Resident #41 said CNA #1 did not listen to him/her when he/she told him he/she wanted to wash himself/herself with supervision. Resident #41 said he/she told the Director of Nurses (DON) about these concerns. Resident #41 said he/she also told his/her family members who also reported the concerns to the DON. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 10:03 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said they were aware of both of the concerns the Resident told to the surveyor regarding CNA #1 washing the Resident roughly and CNA #1 throwing the Resident on the bed aggressively. The ADON said they have already reached out to the Resident's family members and managed these concerns as a customer service issue. The ADON then said the facility has also provided education to staff, including CNA #1. The ADON said the only new concern that she was not aware of was the pain the Resident was reporting on his/her shoulder. The ADON provided the surveyor with a list of handwritten concerns dated 5/29/24. The list indicated showers and waking up aggressive as concerns. [sic] The ADON provided an inservice she instructed, dated 5/29/24, signed off by staff. The list of staff did not include CNA #1. Review of the 5/29/24 staff schedule indicated CNA#1 called out. The inservice's subject was Resident #41. The detailed instruction of the inservice indicated the following: -When giving Resident showers, do not touch Resident, just give Resident face cloths and allow Resident to wash himself/herself. -When helping Resident at midnight, please do not yell, talk in low voice before assisting Resident. During an observation and interview on 6/12/24 at 8:00 A.M., Resident #41 was observed sitting on his/her bed, he/she did not give any eye contact to the surveyor, he/she looked down during the whole interview. Resident #41 said he/she was in so much pain this morning, he/she rated his/her pain at an 8 out of a possible 10. The Resident said his/her body is already in pain from his/her neuropathy and cancer diagnosis. He/she said since CNA #1 threw him/her on the bed, his/her pain level has increased on his/her shoulder, he/she said he/she is in pain when he/she breathes in and out. The Resident said when CNA #1 was in the shower with him/her, he/she felt violated by him, especially after he/she offered to clean himself/herself, the CNA refused and then proceeded to forcefully spread his/her legs and began scrubbing between his/her legs, turning him/her around to reach between his/her legs. The Resident said he/she felt as if he/she was getting a private parts wash. The Resident said he/she has never been touched by a staff member in that way, he/she felt his/her boundaries were violated, he/she said both incidents keep replaying in his/her head. Resident #41 said no one in the facility has sat down to talk to him/her about the incidents. Resident #41 said he/she would like to speak to a therapist to work through both incidents with a professional. During a telephone interview on 6/11/24 at 12:17 P.M., the Resident's family members said Resident #41 told them about two concerns regarding CNA #1. The Resident's family members said the first concern happened approximately three weeks ago, they said Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 was helping him/her take a shower. Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 was washing him/her in a rough manner. Resident #41 told them that he/she told the CNA he/she could shower himself/herself. The CNA told Resident #41 that he/she was not doing a good job. The CNA then proceeded to kick the Resident's legs open and began scrubbing between his/her legs in a rough manner. Resident #41 told his/her family members that he/she felt like he/she was being sexually assaulted. Resident #41 told his/her family members that he/she had reported the concern to the DON. The Resident told the DON that he/she did not want the CNA caring for him/her again. The family members said they filed a formal complaint with the DON about this concern as well. The family members said the CNA was assigned to work with the Resident again because another incident involving CNA #1 and their father/mother occurred. They said they believed this was retaliation from the first incident. They said that on 6/7/24, Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 grabbed their father/mother, who was sleeping on his/her knees while sitting at his/her bedside, and threw him/her on the bed vigorously. The Resident's family members said their father's/mother's shoulders have been gone for years, they said staff should know not to move him/her with force. The family members said their father/mother injured his/her shoulder during this transfer. The Resident's family members said they told the facility's DON about this incident on 6/7/24. The Resident's family members said they have not heard from the facility with any follow up on how the two incidents were being addressed. A review of Resident #41's May 2024 Shower/Bathe self-tasks signed off by CNA #1 indicated the following: -Partial/Moderate Assistance, helper does less than half of the effort, helper lifts, holds or supports trunk or limbs but provides less than half of the effort. -Supervision/Touching Assistance, helper provided verbal cues and or touching, steadying or contact guard assistance. Assistance may be provided throughout or intermittently. -Evening Shift: -5/18-Supervision/Touching assistance, 5/20-Supervision/Touching assistance, 5/21-Partial/Moderate assistance, 5/24-Partial/Moderate assistance. -Night Shift: -5/4-Partial/Moderate assistance,5/6-Partial/Moderate assistance,5/7-Partial/Moderate assistance, 5/13-Partial/Moderate assistance, 5/21-Partial/Moderate assistance, 5/23-Partial/Moderate assistance, 5/28-Partial/Moderate assistance. A review of Resident #41's June 2024 Sit to Lying tasks signed off by CNA #1 indicated the following: Evening Shift: -6/1-Supervision/Touching assistance, 6/3-Supervision/Touching assistance, 6/4-Supervision/Touching assistance, 6/7-Supervision/Touching assistance. -Night Shift: 6/2-Supervision/Touching assistance, 6/5-Partial/Moderate assistance, 6/8-Supervision/Touching Assistance. During a telephone interview on 6/14/24 at 10:10 A.M., CNA #1 said he has never provided care to Resident #41 because he/she is able to provide his/her own Activities of Daily Living. CNA #1 said Resident #41 is able to shower/bathe and transfer himself/herself. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 1:11 P.M., the Administrator said he was not aware of any concerns reported by the Resident. He said he expects to be made aware of any abuse allegations made by residents. The ADON and DON said they managed the concerns as customer service with the family members so they did not report them to the Administrator. The DON and ADON said the facility expectation is, all allegations of abuse should be reported to the Administrator so an investigation can be initiated. The Administrator, ADON and DON said allegations of abuse should be thoroughly investigated. They said documentation of the investigations was not completed by initiating incident reports after Resident #41 made abuse allegations. They said they did not obtain statements from identified potential witnesses, they did not complete necessary evaluations and they did not maintain a timeline of the events. The Administrator, ADON and DON said allegations of abuse should be reported to the state agency and local law enforcement within two hours.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy for one Resident (#41) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy for one Resident (#41) out of a sample of 24 residents. Specifically, 1. The Director of Nurses (DON) and Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) failed to notify the Administrator about allegations of physical, sexual and mental abuse, 2. Keep Resident #41 safe by suspending the staff member involved in the abuse allegations, 3. Failed to report and investigate the abuse allegations as required, and 4. Failed to report the allegations to the state agency (SA) and law enforcement. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled 'Clinical Services, Subject: Abuse' with a revision date of March 2023 indicated the following: It is the policy of the facility that each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect and misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. It is the philosophy of the facility to encourage an environment that recognizes the special qualities of our residents and provides them with a safe environment. Definitions: -Abuse-means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. -Willful means that the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. -Sexual abuse means non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. Sexual abuse included but is not limited to sexual harassment, sexual coercion or sexual assault. -Physical abuse includes hitting, slapping, pinching and kicking. It also included controlling behavior through corporal punishment. -Mental abuse- includes but is not limited to humiliation, harassment and threats of punishment or deprivation. Prohibited includes agitating a resident to solicit a response. Procedure for Abuse Investigation: Identification: -Any complaint of, observation of, or suspicion of resident abuse, mistreatment or neglect is to be thoroughly investigated and reported. Action: -Immediately protect Resident from alleged abuse. -Immediately notify your administrative staff or nursing supervisor on duty of abuse allegation. -The Administrative staff/Nursing supervisor will immediately report all allegations to the Administrator and Director of Nurses. -Immediately suspend employee pending investigation. -The facility will notify the Department of Public Health and Local law enforcement no later than two hours after abuse allegation was received. Resident #41 was admitted to the facility in April 2024 with diagnoses including Hodgkin's lymphoma, anxiety, depression and pain in an unspecified shoulder. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of a possible 15 indicating intact cognition. Further review of the MDS indicated the following: -Shower/bathe: self-Partial/moderate assistance. -Sit to lying-Supervision/touch assistance: helper provided verbal cues or touching/steadying assistance as resident completes activity. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 9:45 A.M., Resident #41 said that on 6/7/24, Certified Nurse's Assistant (CNA#1) ripped him/her aggressively from a sitting position and threw him/her on the bed. Resident #41 said he/she was sleeping on his/her knees while sitting on the side of the bed. He/she said this is a comfortable position for him/her to sleep in. Resident #41 said his/her shoulder hurt as a result of being thrown on the bed in a forceful manner. The Resident said approximately three weeks ago, CNA #1 bathed him/her roughly during a shower, he/she said CNA #1 forcefully spread his/her legs, scrubbed him/her aggressively between his/her legs. Resident #41 said CNA #1 did not listen to him/her when he/she told him he/she wanted to wash himself/herself with supervision. Resident #41 said he/she told the DON about these concerns. Resident #41 said he/she also told his/her family members who also reported the concerns to the DON. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 10:03 A.M., the ADON said they were aware of both of the concerns the Resident told to the surveyor regarding CNA #1 washing the Resident roughly and CNA #1 throwing the Resident on the bed aggressively. The ADON said they have already reached out to the Resident's family members and managed these concerns as a customer service issue. The ADON provided the surveyor with a list of handwritten concerns dated 5/29/24. The list indicated showers and waking up aggressive as concerns. [sic] During a telephone interview on 6/11/24 at 12:17 P.M., the Resident's family members said their parent told them about two concerns regarding CNA #1. The Resident's family members said the first concern happened approximately three weeks ago. They said Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 was helping them take a shower. Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 was washing him/her in a rough manner. Resident #41 told them that he/she told the CNA he/she could shower himself/herself. The CNA told Resident #41 that he/she was not doing a good job. The CNA then proceeded to kick the Resident's legs open and began scrubbing between his/her legs in a rough manner. Resident #41 told his/her family members that he/she felt like he/she was being sexually assaulted. Resident #41 told his/her family members that he/she had reported the concern to the DON. The Resident told the DON that he/she did not want the CNA caring for him/her again. The family members said they filed a formal complaint with the DON about this concern as well. The family members said the CNA was assigned to work with the Resident again because another incident involving CNA #1 and their father/mother occurred. They said they believed this was retaliation from the first incident. They said that on 6/7/24, Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 grabbed their parent, who was sleeping on his/her knees while sitting at his/her bedside and threw him/her on the bed vigorously. The Resident's family members said their parent's shoulders have been gone for years, they said staff should know not to move him/her with force. The family members said their father/mother injured his/her shoulder during this transfer. The Resident's family members said they told the facility's DON about this incident on 6/7/24. The Resident's family members said they have not heard from the facility with any follow up on how the two incidents were being addressed. During a telephone interview on 6/14/24 at 10:10 A.M., CNA #1 said he has never provided care to Resident #41 because he/she is able to provide his/her own Activities of Daily Living. CNA #1 said Resident #41 is able to shower/bathe and transfer himself/herself. A review of Resident #41's May 2024 Shower/Bathe self-tasks signed off by CNA #1 indicated the following: -Partial/Moderate Assistance, helper does less than half of the effort, helper lifts, holds or supports trunk or limbs but provides less than half of the effort. -Supervision/Touching Assistance, helper provided verbal cues and or touching, steadying or contact guard assistance. Assistance may be provided throughout or intermittently. -Evening Shift: -5/18-Supervision/Touching assistance, 5/20-Supervision/Touching assistance, 5/21-Partial/Moderate assistance, 5/24-Partial/Moderate assistance. -Night Shift: -5/4-Partial/Moderate assistance,5/6-Partial/Moderate assistance,5/7-Partial/Moderate assistance, 5/13-Partial/Moderate assistance, 5/21-Partial/Moderate assistance, 5/23-Partial/Moderate assistance, 5/28-Partial/Moderate assistance. A review of Resident #41's June 2024 Sit to Lying tasks signed off by CNA #1 indicated the following: Evening Shift: -6/1-Supervision/Touching assistance, 6/3-Supervision/Touching assistance, 6/4-Supervision/Touching assistance, 6/7-Supervision/Touching assistance. -Night Shift: 6/2-Supervision/Touching assistance, 6/5-Partial/Moderate assistance, 6/8-Supervision/Touching Assistance. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 7:21 A.M., the Unit Manager said all abuse allegations made by residents should be reported to the ADON, DON and Administrator. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 1:11 P.M., the Administrator said he was not aware of any concerns reported by the Resident. He said he expects to be made aware of any abuse allegations made by residents. The ADON and DON said they managed the concerns as customer service with the family members, so they did not report them to the Administrator. The DON and ADON said the facility expectation is, all allegations of abuse should be reported to the Administrator so an investigation can be initiated. The Administrator, ADON and DON said allegations of abuse should be thoroughly investigated. They said documentation of the investigations was not completed by initiating incident reports after Resident #41 made abuse allegations. They said they did not obtain statements from identified potential witnesses, they did not complete necessary evaluations and they did not maintain a timeline of the events. The Administrator, ADON and DON said allegations of abuse should be reported to the state agency and local law enforcement within two hours.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse for one Resident (#41)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse for one Resident (#41) out of a sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to report allegations of physical abuse, sexual abuse and mental abuse to the (SA) state agency. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled 'Clinical Services, Subject: Abuse' with a revision date of March 2023 indicated the following: It is the policy of the facility that each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect and misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. It is the philosophy of the facility to encourage an environment that recognizes the special qualities of our residents and provides them with a safe environment. Definitions: -Abuse-means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. -Willful means that the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. -Sexual abuse means non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. Sexual abuse included but is not limited to sexual harassment, sexual coercion or sexual assault. -Physical abuse includes hitting, slapping, pinching and kicking. It also included controlling behavior through corporal punishment. -Mental abuse- includes but is not limited to humiliation, harassment and threats of punishment or deprivation. Prohibited includes agitating a resident to solicit a response. Procedure for Abuse Investigation: Identification: -Any complaint of, observation of, or suspicion of resident abuse, mistreatment or neglect is to be thoroughly investigated and reported. Action: -Immediately protect Resident from alleged abuse. -Immediately notify your administrative staff or nursing supervisor on duty of abuse allegation. -The Administrative staff/Nursing supervisor will immediately report all allegations to the Administrator and Director of Nurses. -Immediately suspend employee pending investigation. -The facility will notify the Department of Public Health and Local law enforcement no later than two hours after abuse allegation was received. Resident #41 was admitted to the facility in April 2024 with diagnoses including Hodgkin's lymphoma, anxiety, depression and pain in an unspecified shoulder. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of a possible 15 indicating intact cognition. Further review of the MDS indicated the following: -Shower/bathe: self-Partial/moderate assistance. -Sit to lying-Supervision/touch assistance: helper provided verbal cues or touching/steadying assistance as resident completes activity. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 9:45 A.M., Resident #41 said that on 6/7/24, Certified Nurse's Assistant (CNA#1) ripped him/her aggressively from a sitting position and threw him/her on the bed. Resident #41 said he/she was sleeping on his/her knees while sitting on the side of the bed. He/she said this is a comfortable position for him/her to sleep in. Resident #41 said his/her shoulder hurts as a result of being thrown on the bed in a forceful manner. The Resident said approximately three weeks ago, CNA #1 bathed him/her roughly during a shower, he/she said CNA #1 forcefully spread his/her legs, scrubbed him/her aggressively between his/her legs. Resident #41 said CNA #1 did not listen to him/her when he/she told him he/she wanted to wash himself/herself with supervision. Resident #41 said he/she told the Director of Nurses (DON) about these concerns. Resident #41 said he/she also told his/her family members who also reported the concerns to the DON. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 10:03 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said they were aware of both of the concerns the Resident told to the surveyor regarding CNA #1 washing the Resident roughly and CNA #1 throwing the Resident on the bed aggressively. The ADON said they have already reached out to the Resident's family members and managed these concerns as a customer service issue. The ADON provided the surveyor with a list of handwritten concerns dated 5/29/24. The list indicated showers and waking up aggressive as concerns. [sic] During a telephone interview on 6/11/24 at 12:17 P.M., the Resident's family members said Resident #41 told them about two concerns regarding CNA #1. The Resident's family members said the first concern happened approximately three weeks ago, they said Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 was helping them take a shower. Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 was washing him/her in a rough manner. Resident #41 told them that he/she told the CNA he/she could shower himself/herself. The CNA told Resident #41 that he/she was not doing a good job. The CNA then proceeded to kick the Resident's legs open and began scrubbing between his/her legs in a rough manner. Resident #41 told his/her family members that he/she felt like he/she was being sexually assaulted. Resident #41 told his/her family members that he/she had reported the concern to the DON. The Resident told the DON that he/she did not want the CNA caring for him/her again. The family members said they filed a formal complaint with the DON about this concern as well. The family members said the CNA was assigned to work with the Resident again because another incident involving CNA #1 and their father/mother occurred. They said they believed this was retaliation from the first incident. They said that on 6/7/24, Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 grabbed their father/mother, who was sleeping on his/her knees while sitting at his/her bedside and threw him/her on the bed vigorously. The Resident's family members said their father's/mother's shoulders have been gone for years, they said staff should know not to move him/her with force. The family members said their father/mother injured his/her shoulder during this transfer. The Resident's family members said they told the facility's DON about this incident on 6/7/24. The Resident's family members said they have not heard from the facility with any follow up on how the two incidents were being addressed. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 7:21 A.M., the Unit manager said all allegations of abuse reported by residents should be reported to the state agency and law enforcement within two hours. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 1:11 P.M., the Administrator, ADON and DON said allegations of abuse should be reported to the state agency and local law enforcement within two hours. A review of the Health Care Facility reporting system (HCFRS) did not indicate any abuse allegations were reported in May 2024 and prior to June 10, 2024.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to investigate allegations of abuse for one Resident (#...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to investigate allegations of abuse for one Resident (#41) out of a sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to investigate allegations of physical, sexual and mental abuse. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled 'Clinical Services, Subject: Abuse' with a revision date of March 2023 indicated the following: It is the policy of the facility that each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect and misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. It is the philosophy of the facility to encourage an environment that recognizes the special qualities of our residents and provides them with a safe environment. Definitions: -Abuse-means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. -Willful means that the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. -Sexual abuse means non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. Sexual abuse included but is not limited to sexual harassment, sexual coercion or sexual assault. -Physical abuse includes hitting, slapping, pinching and kicking. It also included controlling behavior through corporal punishment. -Mental abuse- includes but is not limited to humiliation, harassment and threats of punishment or deprivation. Prohibited includes agitating a resident to solicit a response. Procedure for Abuse Investigation: -Any complaint of, or suspicion of resident abuse shall be thoroughly investigated. -Facility investigation will be completed within 72 hours of the incident, documentation of investigation to be completed by initiating an incident and accident report, obtaining statements from identified potential witnesses, completing necessary evaluations (i.e. skin/body checks, pain evaluation), and maintaining a timeline of events. Resident #41 was admitted to the facility in April 2024 with diagnoses including Hodgkin's lymphoma, anxiety, depression and pain in an unspecified shoulder. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of a possible 15 indicating intact cognition. Further review of the MDS indicated the following: -Shower/bathe: self-Partial/moderate assistance. -Sit to lying-Supervision/touch assistance: helper provided verbal cues or touching/steadying assistance as resident completes activity. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 9:45 A.M., Resident #41 said that on 6/7/24, Certified Nurse's Assistant (CNA #1) ripped him/her aggressively from a sitting position and threw him/her on the bed. Resident #41 said he/she was sleeping on his/her knees while sitting on the side of the bed. He/she said this is a comfortable position for him/her to sleep in. Resident #41 said his/her shoulder hurts as a result of being thrown on the bed in a forceful manner. The Resident said approximately three weeks ago, CNA #1 bathed him/her roughly during a shower, he/she said CNA #1 forcefully spread his/her legs, scrubbed him/her aggressively between his/her legs. Resident #41 said CNA #1 did not listen to him/her when he/she told him he/she wanted to wash himself/herself with supervision. Resident #41 said he/she told the Director of Nurses (DON) about these concerns. Resident #41 said he/she also told his/her family members who also reported the concerns to the DON. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 10:03 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said they were aware of both of the concerns the Resident told to the surveyor regarding CNA #1 washing the Resident roughly and CNA #1 throwing the Resident on the bed aggressively. The ADON said they have already reached out to the Resident's family members and managed these concerns as a customer service issue. During a telephone interview on 6/11/24 at 12:17 P.M., the Resident's family members said Resident #41 told them about two concerns regarding CNA #1. The Resident's family members said the first concern happened approximately three weeks ago, they said Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 was helping them take a shower. Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 was washing him/her in a rough manner. Resident #41 told them that he/she told the CNA he/she could shower himself/herself. The CNA told Resident #41 that he/she was not doing a good job. The CNA then proceeded to kick the Resident's legs open and began scrubbing between his/her legs in a rough manner. Resident #41 told his/her family members that he/she felt like he/she was being sexually assaulted. Resident #41 told his/her family members that he/she had reported the concern to the DON. The Resident told the DON that he/she did not want the CNA caring for him/her again. The family members said they filed a formal complaint with the DON about this concern as well. The family members said the CNA was assigned to work with the Resident again because another incident involving CNA #1 and their father/mother occurred. They said they believed this was retaliation from the first incident. They said that on 6/7/24, Resident #41 told them that CNA #1 grabbed their father/mother, who was sleeping on his/her knees while sitting at his/her bedside and threw him/her on the bed vigorously. The Resident's family members said their father's/mother's shoulders have been gone for years, they said staff should know not to move him/her with force. The family members said their father/mother injured his/her shoulder during this transfer. The Resident's family members said they told the facility's DON about this incident on 6/7/24. The Resident's family members said they have not heard from the facility with any follow up on how the two incidents were being addressed. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 7:21 A.M., the Unit manager said she manages all the units in the facility. She said she was a part of an abuse/neglect in-service on 5/29/24 presented by the ADON. She said she was not aware of the details but was aware abuse allegations had been made by a resident on the first floor. She said all allegations of abuse made by residents should be investigated. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 1:11 P.M., the Administrator, ADON and DON said allegations of abuse should be thoroughly investigated. They said documentation of the investigations was not completed by initiating incident reports after Resident #41 made abuse allegations. They said they did not obtain statements from identified potential witnesses, they did not complete necessary evaluations and they did not maintain a timeline of the events.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident issues brought forth to staff during the Resident Council Meeting were responded to and a resolution provided. Findings in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident issues brought forth to staff during the Resident Council Meeting were responded to and a resolution provided. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Grievances dated revised March 2021, included but was not limited to the following: The Facility will support each resident's right to voice grievances and to ensure after a grievance has been received, the Grievance Official (Administrator or designee) will collaboratively work with team members to resolve the issue and provide written grievance decisions to the resident and/or the residents family. Procedure: 9. The Resident Council is an additional forum within the facility for voicing complaints/grievances. Complaints/grievances received from the Council will be acted upon in accordance with this procedure. Review of the Resident Council Meeting Agenda dated 3/6/24 indicated the following as New Business; Resident comments/Concerns/Recommendations: Quality of Care issues: 1. No condiments on tray. 2. Pepper and ketchup with breakfast sandwich. 3. Milk not supplied one night. 4. Left alone 20 minutes in the shower 5. Call light not answered in the middle of the night. On 6/13/24 at 9:35 A.M., review of the logged grievances for March 2024 failed to indicate the above concerns were presented and acted upon. Review of the Resident Council Agenda dated 4/3/24, indicated old business issues from the last meeting and how they are being resolved: (Section was blank). New Business included: 1. Meals don't look good. Action taken: Told Kitchen staff and FSD (Food Service Director). [sic] 2. The aide shut off the call light and didn't help the resident. Action taken: Told nursing. There was no Resident Council Agenda dated for May 2024. During the resident group meeting on 6/10/24 at 2:07 P,M., with the surveyor, the residents in attendance said they do not get condiments with their meals, and call lights are not answered timely and there is not enough staff. One Resident said, I don't get showers if there are only 2 CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants). The residents in attendance said these issues are brought up during meetings and they do not know how they get addressed. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 9:26 A.M., the Activity Director said she assists the residents in conducting their meetings. She said they did not have a meeting in May 2024 because the elevator was not working. The Activity Director said when the residents bring up concerns, she tells the specific department head, and they try to resolve the situation. The Activity Director said then the concerns will be discussed in the next meeting. The Activity Director reviewed the April Resident Council Meeting Agenda and said it was not reviewed. The Activities Director said she has not written out the concerns on a grievance form and just tells the department head or nursing staff directly.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set Assessment for two Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set Assessment for two Residents (#42 and #71) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #42 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including morbid obesity, heart disease and anemia. Review of the medical record indicated that Resident #42 sustained a significant weight loss of 10.63% between 12/2/23 and 1/1/24. Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] (less than five months since the significant weight loss occurred) indicated that Resident #42 did not sustain a significant weight loss in the prior 6 months. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 10:49 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing said that she would expect the MDS to be accurate. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 10:50 A.M. the MDS Nurse said that she looks at the documented weights in the medical record to obtain the information she uses to document on the MDS. She then said that she made a mistake and should have documented that the Resident had an unplanned weight loss. 2. Resident #71 was admitted to the facility in January 2024 with diagnoses including multiple fractures, cerebrovascular disease and anxiety disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #71 scored a 10 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam indicating moderate cognitive impairment. On 6/10/24 at 7:40 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #71 to have teeth missing, broken and carious teeth. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 7:40 A.M., Resident #71 said that he/she had many issues with his/her teeth and needed them to be fixed. Review of the medical record failed to indicate that an oral assessment had been completed since admission. Review of the MDS dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #71 did not have any broken, missing or carious teeth. During an interview on 6/11/24, at 1:44 P.M. the Assistant director of Nursing said that she expects that the MDS would be accurate. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 10:58 A.M. the MDS Nurse said that she made a mistake and should have documented that the Resident had broken, carious teeth on the MDS and not that the Resident had a full broken denture.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and records reviewed, the facility failed to develop care plans for one Resident (#27) out of a sample of 24...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and records reviewed, the facility failed to develop care plans for one Resident (#27) out of a sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop care plans related to a history of suicidal ideations and a history of alcohol abuse. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled 'Care Plans-Comprehensive' with a revision date of July 2023 indicated the following: -All individualized comprehensive care plans that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, emotional and psychological needs is developed for each resident. -Each resident's care plan is designed to: (a) Incorporate identified problem areas. (b) Incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems. (c) Reflect treatment goals timetables and objectives in measurable outcomes. Resident #27 was admitted to the facility in November 2023 with diagnoses including depression. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 12 out of a possible 15 indicating moderately impaired cognition. A review of Resident #27's behavioral services therapy note dated 6/5/24 indicated the following: -Chief Complaint: Depression -Target Symptoms: Irritability History of Present Illness (HPI): -Problem: History of mood disorder and can have angry impulsive outbursts. -Severity: Severe. -Timing / Frequency: Episodic; Duration: Months. -Triggers: Coping with health complications.; Institutional Living. -Associated Symptoms: Behavioral disturbance. -Modifying Factors: Behavior management recommendations; May benefit from supportive counseling. -Inpatient Services Details: He/she reports being sent to (local) hospital and had a 2 week in-pt stay because he/she was saying he/she would kill himself/herself. He claims he/she told the psychiatrist he/she didn't mean it and didn't have a plan, so they returned him/her to the facility. -History of SI/SA/SIB: No. - Substance Use / Addiction History: past use of ETOH (alcohol abuse), sober for 10 years. A review of Resident #27's care plan did not indicate personalized care plans for a history of suicidal ideation and a history of alcohol abuse. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 8:31 A.M., the Licensed Mental Health Counselor said the Resident has a history of suicidal ideations based on her notes. She said the Resident does not have a history of suicide attempts or a history of self-injurious behavior. She said she expects the facility to develop a personalized history of suicidal ideation care plan. The Licensed Mental Health Counselor also said the Resident has a history of alcohol abuse based on her notes, she said even though Resident #27 has been sober for 10 years, the facility should develop a personalized history of alcohol abuse care plan for the Resident. During an interview on 06/12/24 at 10:57 A.M., the Director of Nurses and Assistant Director of Nurses said a history of suicidal ideations care plan and a history of alcohol abuse care plan should have been developed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure hearing services were provided for one Resident (#4) out of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure hearing services were provided for one Resident (#4) out of a total of 24 sampled Residents. Findings include: By end of survey the facility had not produced a policy for audiology consults, per surveyor request. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility in June 2022 with diagnoses including hearing loss, dementia and adult failure to thrive. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #4 has moderate difficulty hearing, and the speaker has to raise their voice and speak distinctly to be heard. Review of the doctor's progress note dated 1/29/24, indicated that Resident #4 was seen on 1/29/24 secondary to the family's concern of decreased hearing. Further review indicated that the ear canal was clear and without obstruction. Further review indicated that Resident #4 was unable to pass the whisper test with hearing aides in place and that a request for an audiologist evaluation of the patient and hearing aides will be made. Review of the doctor's progress note dated 3/12/24, indicated that Resident #4 was seen on 3/12/24 secondary to the family's concern of decreased hearing. Further review indicated that the ear canal was clear and without obstruction. Further review indicated that a request for an audiologist evaluation of the patient and hearing aids will be made. Review of the doctor's orders failed to indicate an order for an audiology appointment. Review of the medical record failed to indicate an audiology appointment was made. During an interview on 6/12/24, at 8:39 A.M., the Assistant director of Nursing said that no audiology consult has been made.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview for one Resident (#38), out of a total sample of 24 residents, the facility fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview for one Resident (#38), out of a total sample of 24 residents, the facility failed to ensure risk assessments and skin evaluations were implemented for the prevention for developing pressure ulcer/injuries. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Pressure Injury Risk Assessment, not dated indicated; The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the structured assessment and identification of residents at risk of developing new pressure injuries or worsening of existing pressure injuries. General Guidelines: The Risk Assessment should be conducted as soon as possible after admission, but no later than eight hours after the admission is completed. Repeat the risk assessment weekly for the first four weeks, if there is a significant change in condition, or as often as required based on the resident's condition. Resident #38 was admitted to the facility in May 2024 with diagnoses that include chronic atrial fibrillation, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #38 scored an 11 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam indicating he/she as having moderately impaired cognition, is dependent on staff for bathing, toileting and transfers, and is at risk for developing pressure ulcers. On 6/10/24 at 10:00 A.M., Resident #38 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in the activity/dining room. Review of Resident #38's medical record indicated the following: -A Norton Scale for Predicting Risk of Pressure Ulcer, dated 5/2/24 with a score of 10.0 High risk. The medical record failed to have any further skin risk assessments. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 7:55 A.M., Nurse #2 said Resident #38 is at risk for developing pressure areas. Nurse #2 said all residents have weekly skin assessments. Nurse #2 said that skin checks are put in as a physician's order, so the skin check will pop up to be completed by the nurse on the TAR (treatment administration record). Nurse #2 reviewed Resident #38's medical record and said he did not see that any skin checks were done for the Resident. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 8:30 A.M., the Director of Nursing said all residents are to have orders for weekly skin checks and for Resident #38 the weekly skin checks should have been entered as a physician's order on admission. Review of Resident #38's medical record indicated five weeks of weekly skin checks were not implemented.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided appropriate care and services for one Resident (#40) with a Gastrostomy tube (G-tube: a tube that is placed directly into the stomach through an abdominal incision for administration of nutrition, fluids, and medications), out of 24 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff labeled the enteral formula bag and water flush bag with the Resident's name, the formula used, the administration rate, duration, and initials of the staff member hanging them. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Enteral Tube Feeding via Continuous Pump and undated, indicated that, on the formula label document initials, date and time formula was hung/administered, and initial that the label was checked against the order. Resident #40 was admitted to the facility in February 2024 with diagnoses including dysphagia, encephalopathy and legal blindness. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #40 scored a 14 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam indicating intact cognition. Further review of the MDS indicated that Resident #40 requires feeding by tube and is not able to take anything by mouth. Review of the doctor's orders dated June 20224 indicated an order for nothing by mouth. Further review indicated an order for Glucerna 1.5 Cal liquid nutritional supplements give 50 ml (milliliters) via G-tube every shift for nutrition continuous feeding x 24 hours for a total volume of 1200 ml. and 150 ml every 4 hours of water for a total of 900 ml x 24 hours. On 6/10/24 at 9:44 A.M. the surveyor observed Resident #40 sitting next to his/her bed in a wheelchair with a G-tube feeding attached and running at 50 ml (milliliters) per hour. The surveyor observed the G-tube feeding bag and the water flush bag to be without a label containing the Resident's name, the contents of the bag, the date and time formula was hung/administered, or initialed that the label was checked against the order. On 6/11/24 at 7:35 A.M., the surveyor observed the tube feeding bag and the water flush bag dated 6/11/24 and time hung at 6 P.M. The surveyor also observed the G-tube feeding bag and the water flush bag to be without a label containing the Resident's name, the contents of the bag or initialed that the label was checked against the order. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 11:30 A.M., Nurse #6 said that the contents of the tube feeding bag should be indicated on the bag. Nurse #6 then said that the bag containing water should also be labeled with its contents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #46 was admitted to the facility in December 2023 with diagnoses including Dementia with agitation and delusional di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #46 was admitted to the facility in December 2023 with diagnoses including Dementia with agitation and delusional disorders. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 out of possible 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. A review of a document titled 'Medication Regimen Review, Psychoactive Medication Use Recommendations' dated 6/5/24 indicated the following: -Resident has an active order for Quetiapine PRN with a duration of 100 days. Please note that CMS (Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services) guidelines do not allow maintaining orders for PRN antipsychotics for greater than 14 days on medication profiles. Please evaluate and consider discontinue Quetiapine PRN or correcting duration to be for 14 days or less if appropriate. *THIRD REQUEST*. The Physician/ Prescriber agreed to the recommendation and stated will do. [sic] A review of the Resident's June 2024 physician's orders indicated the following: -Seroquel oral tablet (Quetiapine Fumarate) give 25 milligrams by mouth every 6 hours as needed for delusions/inability to redirect for 100 days. Start date 3/12/24 End Date 6/20/24. A review of the June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the following: - Seroquel 25 milligrams was administered as needed on 6/9/24 and 6/11/24. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 9:38 A.M., the Physician said he agreed with the pharmacy recommendations because psychotropic medications should not be prescribed as needed beyond fourteen days. He said the facility should follow up on pharmacy recommendations he has agreed to within twenty four hours. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 1:04 P.M., the Director of Nurses said recommendations made by the pharmacist and agreed upon by the physician should be put in place as soon as possible. Based on record review, policy review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure psychotropic medications were re-evaluated after 14 days of use for two Residents (#34 and #46) out of a total sample of 24 Residents. Findings include: By end of survey the facility had not produced a policy for the use of as needed antipsychotic drug use, per surveyor request. 1. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility in January 2023 with diagnoses including diabetes, high blood pressure and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #34 scored a 13 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam indicating intact cognition. Further review indicated that Resident exhibited verbal behaviors directed towards others 4 to 6 days a week and refused care one to two days a week. Review of the care plan dated 1/23/23, indicated a focus of; Resident #34 uses psychotropic medications related to behavior management. Further review indicated an intervention to discuss with doctor reason ongoing need for use of the medication. Review of the doctor's order dated 5/3/24, indicated an order for the antipsychotic Seroquel oral tablet 25 MG (milligrams) by mouth as needed. Further review indicated no stop date for the medication. Review of the Pharmacist Consultant monthly drug regimen review dated 5/6/24, indicated the following: Currently has an active order for Quetiapine PRN (as needed) with a duration of 30 days. Please note the CMS (Centers for Medicaid and Medicare) guidelines do not allow maintaining orders for PRN antipsychotics for greater than 14 days on medication profiles. Please evaluate and consider discontinue Quetiapine PRN or correcting duration to be for 14 days or less if appropriate. Further review indicated that the doctor signed the recommendation on 5/6/24 to discontinue. Review of the doctor's orders dated May 2024 failed to indicate an order to discontinue the PRN antipsychotic Seroquel. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated May 2024 indicated that Seroquel 25 MG was administered 5/24/24 and 5/31/24, after the 14 day limit without review by the doctor. Review of the MAR dated June 2024 indicated that Seroquel 25 MG was administered on 6/2/24, after the 14 day limit without review by the doctor. During an interview on 6/12/24, at 12:00 A.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) said that PRN antipsychotic use must be evaluated by the doctor every 14 days, otherwise the medication must be stopped.
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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5% when two out of three nurses observed made 2 errors out of 3...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5% when two out of three nurses observed made 2 errors out of 30 opportunities resulting in a medication error rate of 6.67 %. Those errors impacted two Residents (#39 and #37), out of 5 residents observed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications, undated, indicated that medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders. 1. For Resident #39, Nurse #3 gave the wrong dose of an ordered medication. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility in May 2023 with diagnoses including gastro-esophageal reflux disease, osteoarthritis and dementia. During medication pass on 6/11/24 at 7:49 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #3 give Resident #39 two tablets of Calcium Carbonate 750 mg (milligrams). Review of the doctors orders dated June 2024 indicated an order for Calcium Carbonate 500 mg give one tablet at 9:00 A.M. During an interview on On 6/11/24 at 9:45 A.M., Nurse #3 said that she gave the wrong dose of the Calcium Carbonate. 2. For Resident #37, Nurse #7 crushed an extended release medication and administered the medication. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility in October 2023 with diagnoses including high blood pressure and stroke. Review of the doctor's orders dated June 2024 indicated an order for Oxybutynin Chloride 24 hour extended release 24 hour tablet (used to treat over active bladder), give 5 mg (milligrams) by mouth one time a day. Further review failed to indicate an order to crush the medication. During medication pass on 6/11/24 at 8:27 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #7 pour and crush all scheduled medications for Resident #37. Nurse #7 placed the medications in pudding, including an Oxybutynin Chloride 24 hour extended release 5 mg tablet and handed the medication to the Resident. The surveyor then stopped the Resident from taking the medication and asked Nurse #7 to take the medications from the Resident and speak with the surveyor privately. Nurse #7 said that she had crushed the extended release medication and should not have.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, policy review and interview the facility failed to 1. ensure medications and biologicals were stored in a safe and secure manner in one of two medication carts, 2. failed to ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, policy review and interview the facility failed to 1. ensure medications and biologicals were stored in a safe and secure manner in one of two medication carts, 2. failed to ensure medications were properly labeled in two of two medication carts observed, and 3. failed to ensure medication carts were locked when unattended. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Storage of Medications and not dated indicated that the facility stores all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure and orderly manner. Further review indicated that medications are not to be stored on top of the medication cart and open medication carts are to be within view of the nurse at all times. 1. On 6/11/24 at 8:09 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #3 leave six cards of prescription medications on top of the medication cart, walk down the hall and enter a resident's room. The surveyor observed that Nurse #3 was not in eyesight of the medication cart for two minutes. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 8:09 A.M., Nurse #3 said that she should not have left the medication on top of the medication cart unsupervised. 2. On 6/11/24 at 9:48 A.M., the surveyor observed the following in the first-floor medication cart: Two bottles of artificial tears ophthalmic solution open, without a date One bottle of Atropine Sulfate ophthalmic solution open, without a date Two bottles of Brimonidine Tartrate ophthalmic solution open, without a date One bottle of Dorzolamide ophthalmic solution open, without a date One bottle of Timolol Maleate ophthalmic solution open, without a date One vial of Insulin Aspart open, without a date One Glargine Insulin pen open, without a date One Lantus Insulin pen open, without a date During an interview on 6/11/24 at 9:48 A.M., Nurse #3 said that the eye drops should have been dated as they expire 30 days after opening. Nurse #3 then said that all of the insulin should be dated when opened as well. On 6/11/24 at 10:00 A.M., the surveyor observed the following in the second-floor medication cart: One bottle of liquid protein open and without a date. According to the manufacturer's directions the liquid protein is only good for 3 months after opening.3. On 6/10/24 at 7:04 A.M., two of two medications carts on the first-floor unit, were observed unattended, unlocked and able to be opened. The Director of Nursing entered the unit from the stairwell, went to the cart and said they should not be left unlocked. The DON said one of the carts is not easily locked and after a few tries was able to lock the medication cart.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide dental services for one Resident (#71) out ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide dental services for one Resident (#71) out of a total of 24 residents. Findings include: By end of survey the facility had not produced a dental services policy per surveyor request. Resident #71 was admitted to the facility in January 2024 with diagnoses including multiple fractures, cerebrovascular disease and anxiety disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #71 scored a 10 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam indicating moderate cognitive impairment. On 6/10/24 at 7:40 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #71 to have teeth missing, broken and carious teeth. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 7:40 A.M., Resident #71 said that he/she had many issues with his/her teeth and needed them to be fixed. Review of the medical record failed to indicate that an oral assessment had been completed since admission. Further review failed to indicate that Resident #71 had been seen by a dentist or that a dental services appointment had been made. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 11:10 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that Resident #71 should have been seen by a dentist.
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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to: 1. store food under sanitary conditions and 2. failed to prevent cross contamination evidenced by staff not performing hand...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to: 1. store food under sanitary conditions and 2. failed to prevent cross contamination evidenced by staff not performing hand hygiene before donning and doffing gloves. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled 'Food Storage' with no revision date indicated the following: -Perishable food such as vegetables must be stored in the refrigerator immediately after receipt to assure nutritive value and quality. A review of the facility policy titled 'Hand hygiene' with no revision date indicated the following: -All staff shall use the hand hygiene techniques as set forth in the following procedure: (a) Before applying sterile gloves. (b)Always after removing gloves. 1. On 6/10/24 at 7:23 A.M., the surveyor observed two boxes of cabbages placed on top of the milk refrigerator. The cabbages appeared wilted, with yellow leaves, some of the cabbages appeared rotten, the leaves appeared decayed and slimy. The boxes had a receiving date of 5/29/24, there was no use by date on the boxes. On 6/11/24 at 11:23 A.M., the surveyor observed two boxes of cabbages placed on top of the milk refrigerator. The cabbages appeared wilted, with yellow leaves, some of the cabbages appeared rotten, the leaves appeared decayed and slimy. The boxes had a receiving date of 5/29/24, there was no use by date on the boxes. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 11:25 A.M., the Food Services Director said cabbages should not be stored out in the open, they should be stored in the refrigerator. She said a use by date on the cabbage boxes should be handwritten on the boxes after the deliveries are made. 2. On 6/11/24 at 11:53 A.M., the surveyor observed Dietary Staff #1 managing the tray line for lunch. The Dietary Staff #1 was observed wearing gloves, he stepped away from the tray line, removed the gloves and without performing hand hygiene, picked up a whisk and started to make gravy. Dietary staff #1 then went to the walk-in refrigerator, walked out with bread, picked up a wipe and started to clean the tray line surface. He then proceeded to put on a pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene. He then started serving lunch. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 11:58 A.M., Dietary staff #1 said he should have performed hand hygiene after removing gloves and before putting on gloves. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 12:01 P.M., the Food Services Director said dietary staff are supposed to perform hand hygiene, after removing gloves and before wearing gloves.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain professional standards of nursing practice for four Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain professional standards of nursing practice for four Residents, (#63, #69, #27 and #54) out of a sample of 24 residents. Specifically: For Residents #63, Resident #69 and Resident #27, the records failed to indicate that medications were administered as ordered. For Resident #54, the facility failed to follow physician's orders to re-evaluate a temporarily invoked health care proxy. Findings include: 1. Resident #63 was admitted to the facility in October 2023 with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, complications with kidney transplant, anemia, major depressive disorder, and delusional disorders. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] did not indicate a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score. Further review of the medical record indicated a behavioral therapy note dated 6/5/24 indicating Resident #63 is alert and oriented to time, place and person. A review of the nurse's progress notes, admit/readmit date d 6/4/24 indicated Resident #63 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of the medical record indicated the Resident returned to the facility on 6/4/24 after medical leave. A review of the June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the following: -Amiadorone HCI oral tablet 200 milligrams, give 200 milligrams by mouth one time a day related to unspecified Atrial Fibrillation. The medication was not administered on June 6 2024 at 6:00 AM. -Aspirin 81 Oral Tablet chewable, give 1 tablet by mouth 1 time a day related to hypertension. The medication was not administered on June 6 2024 at 6:00 AM. -Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet 20 milligrams, give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime related to complications of kidney transplant. The medication not administered on June 5 2024 at 9:00 PM. -Famotidine oral tablet, give 20 milligrams by mouth at bedtime for GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease). The medication was not administered on June 5 2024 at 8:00 PM. -Ferrous Sulfate tablet 325 milligrams, give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for supplementation related to Anemia. The medication was not administered on June 6 2024 at 6:00 AM. -Flomax oral capsule, give 0.4 milligrams by mouth one time a day for BPH (benign prostate hyperplasia). The medication was not administered on June 5 2024 at 8:00 PM. -Seroquel oral tablet, give 50 milligrams by mouth at bedtime related to delusional disorders. The medication was not administered on June 5 2024 at 9:00 PM. -Sertraline oral tablet 50 milligrams, give 3 tablets by mouth one time a day related to major depressive disorder. The medication was not administered on June 6 2024 at 6:00 AM. -Tacromilus oral capsule, give 1 milligram by mouth one time a day related to kidney transplant status. The medication was not administered on June 6 2024 at 6:00 AM. -Tacrolimus Oral capsule, give 2 milligrams by mouth at bedtime related to kidney transplant status. The medication was not administered on June 5 2024 at 8:00 PM. -Magnesium gluconate oral tablet 1000 milligrams, give 1000 by mouth two times a day for hypomagnesemia. The medication was not administered on June 5 2024 at 8:00 PM and June 6 at 6:30 AM. -Mycophenolate sodium oral tablet delayed release, give 180 milligrams by mouth two times a day to prevent organ rejection due to kidney transplant. The medication was not administered on June 5 at 8:00 PM and June 6 2024 at 6:30 AM. -Gabapentin oral capsule 100 milligrams, give 2 capsules by mouth three times a day for neuro pain. The medication was not administered on June 5 2024 at 10:00 PM and June 6 at 6:00 AM. Review of the progress notes did not indicate any Nurses' progress notes indicating why the resident was not administered the above medications as ordered. During an interview and medical record review on 6/12/24 at 10:21 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses and Director of Nurses reviewed the Medical Administration Record (MAR) with the surveyor. They confirmed that Resident #63 was back in the facility from a medical leave on 6/4/24 at 10:14 P.M., they both said Resident #63's MAR had holes (blank spaces where Nurses should sign off after administering medications) in the above listed dates and time. They said Nurses should sign off in the MAR after they administer medications. 2. Resident #69 was admitted to the facility in November 2023 with diagnoses including hyperlipidemia. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 14 out of a possible 15 indicating intact cognition. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 9:44 A.M., Resident #69 said he/she has not been getting his/her cholesterol medication as ordered especially at night. A review of the June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the following: -Atorvastatin Calcium oral tablet, give 40 milligrams one time a day for hyperlipidemia. The medication was not administered on June 2 2024 at 8:00 PM. A review of the Nurse's progress notes did not indicate why the medication was not administered. During an interview and medical record review on 6/12/24 at 10:21 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses and Director of Nurses reviewed Resident's #69's Medical Administration Record (MAR) with the surveyor. they both said Resident #69's MAR had a hole (blank spaces where Nurses should sign off after administering medications) on June 2nd at 8:00 PM. They said nurses should sign off in the MAR after they administer medications. 3. Resident #27 was admitted to the facility in November 2023 with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus and epilepsy. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of a possible 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 9:23 A.M., Resident #27 said he/she has not been getting his/her medications at night. A review of the June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the following: -Dilantin oral capsule 100 milligrams, give 300 milligrams by mouth at bedtime related to epilepsy. The medication was not administered on June 2 2024 at 8:00 PM. -Insulin Glargine solution 100 Unit/Milliliters, inject 10 units subcutaneously at bedtime for diabetes. The medication was not administered on June 2 2024 at 8:00 PM. A review of the Nurses progress notes did not indicate why the medications were not administered. During an interview and medical record review on 6/12/24 at 10:21 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses and Director of Nurses reviewed Resident's #27's Medical Administration Record (MAR) with the surveyor. They both said Resident #27's MAR had holes (blank spaces where Nurses should sign off after administering medications) on June 2 at 8:00 PM. They said Nurses should sign off in the MAR after they administer medications. 4. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility in November 2023 with diagnoses including major depressive disorder. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of a possible 15 indicating intact cognition. Review of the June 2024 physicians' orders indicated the following: -Patient healthcare is temporarily invoked pending re-evaluation in one week. [sic] start date 5/9/24. A review of the medical record did not indicate a re-evaluation to determine if the health care proxy should remain invoked was completed. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 9:35 AM., the Physician said he temporarily ordered Resident # 54's health care proxy to be invoked because he/she was confused. He said he wanted a MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) to be completed so he could determine if the health care proxy needed to be invoked. He said the facility did not follow through with the re-evaluation as he ordered. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 11:05 A.M., the Director of Rehab said she was an Occupational Therapist, but she was not certified to complete MoCA assessments, she said to get accurate answers about the Resident's cognition he/she would need to see a neurologist. The Director of Rehab said the Resident has not been seen by a neurologist.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing levels were maintained to provide resident care on two of two units. Findings include: Review of the Facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing levels were maintained to provide resident care on two of two units. Findings include: Review of the Facility Assessment Tool, with the date(s) of assessment or update as 1/3/2024 and date assessment reviewed with the QAA/QAPI (Quality Assurance and Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) as 1/3/2024, indicated: Part 3 Facility Resources Needed to Provide Competent Support and Care for Our Resident Population Every Day and During Emergencies. 3.1 identify the type of staff members, other health care professionals, medical practitioners that are needed to provide support and care for residents. Further review of the facility assessment failed to indicate the staffing plan was filled out for Nurses' Aides and Licensed nurses providing direct care. Review of the facility's Payroll-Based Journal Staffing Data Report for Quarter 2 January 1, 2024, through March 31, 2024, indicated the facility triggered as having excessively low weekend staffing. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 11:17 A.M. a resident on the second-floor unit said there are not enough staff here to answer his/her call light. The resident said this happens frequently on the evening shift (3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M.) The resident said he/she has told staff but maybe not the right staff. The resident said he/she uses his/her call bell for something to drink or to be changed. The resident said he/she has waited over an hour. During a Resident group meeting on 6/10/24 at 2:07 P.M., with the surveyor, ten residents actively participating said the following: *On the first floor the staff do not answer the call lights and we wait a long time. *There is not enough help when we need help. *Weekends are more difficult with having enough staff. *I do not get showers if they only have two aids (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) on my floor. During an interview on 6/11/24 at 4:33 P.M., Nurse #7 said many weekends they work with only two CNAs, when there should be at least three or four on the second floor. Nurse #7 said with two CNAs it is tough but that if they (CNA) are experienced and nurses pitch in, they get resident care completed. Nurse #7 it impacts getting medications out timely. Nurse #7 said the residents complain to her about not enough staff to help them. Nurse #7 said the resident's sense when they are down staff. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 8:01 A.M., Nurse #2 said weekends are hard when staff call out and they cannot get staff to fill in. Nurse #2 said for nursing the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) or DON (Director of Nursing) will come in to help. Nurse #2 said the second floor has many residents with memory loss. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 12:20 P.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 said she typically works on the first-floor unit, and it is typically staffed to have three CNAs for the day shift. CNA #1 said there have been times with only two CNAs which makes it difficult to provide care, but that knowing the residents' routines they do the best they can to get the residents needs met. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 3:42 P.M., CNA #2 said she works full time. CNA #2 said if a CNA calls out then they work with only two CNAs. CNA #2 said they are not able to fill the hole especially on the weekends. CNA #2 said the last time she worked with only two CNAs was last week and because they worked together, they were able to take care of the residents. CNA #2 said it is hard and takes time, but we do not complain. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 10:57 A.M., the facility scheduler said she has worked at the facility since 10/2023. The scheduler said the facility is staffed is as follows: First Floor Unit: 7:00 A. M.- 3:00 P.M. 2 nurses, 3 CNAs, 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. 2 nurses and 3 CNAs, 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. 1 nurse and 2 CNAs. Second Floor Unit: 7:00 A. M.- 3:00 P.M. 2 nurses, 4 CNAs 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. 2 nurses and 3 CNAs 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. 1 nurse and 2 CNAs. Further the scheduler said the facility was short staff a few months ago and is better now. The scheduler said they did not have staff to cover shifts, or no one was available. The scheduler said they even reached out to a sister facility to cover shifts in April. The scheduler said the second floor is staffed with four CNAs and sometimes they only have three and if there are only 2 CNAs it is because of a call out that could not be filled. The scheduler said staff do get angry about working short or when staff call out last minute. Review of the working schedule for April 2024 indicated the following: First floor Unit: *2 CNAs worked 9 out of 30 days on the 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M. day shifts. *2 CNAs worked 7 out of 30 days on the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. shifts. Second Floor Unit: *2 CNAs worked 3 out of 30 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M. day shifts. *2 CNAs worked 2 out of 30 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. shifts. Review of the working schedule for May 2024 indicated the following: First floor unit: *2 CNAs worked 3 out of 31 days on the 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M., shift. *2 CNAs worked 6 out of 31 days on the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. shifts. Review of the working schedule for June 2024 indicated the following: First floor Unit: *2 CNAs worked 5 out of 10 days on the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. shifts. Second Floor Unit: *2 CNAs worked 2 out of 10 days on the 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M. day shifts. *2 CNAs worked 1 out of 10 days on the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. shifts.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staffing included the services of a Registered Nurse for a minimum of eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week as required a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staffing included the services of a Registered Nurse for a minimum of eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week as required and failed to ensure the Director of Nursing did not act as a charge nurse. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility's 'Payroll-Based Journal Staffing Data Report 1705D', for Quarter 2 January 1, 2024, through March 31, 2024, indicated the facility triggered as a one-star staffing rating. Review of the document 'Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality/Quality, Safety and Oversight Group Ref: QSO-18-17-NH DATE: April 06, 2018' indicated the following: Requirement for registered nurse (RN) staffing - We are reminding nursing homes of the importance of RN staffing and the requirement to have an RN onsite 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. Nursing homes reporting 7 or more days in a quarter with no RN hours will receive a one-star rating in the staffing domain, which will drop their overall (composite) star rating by one star for a quarter. This action will be implemented in July 2018, after the May 15, 2018, submission deadline for data for 2018 Calendar Quarter 1, 2018 (January -March 2018) data. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 1:38 P.M., the Administrator said he started work at the facility in late April 2024 and was not aware the facility did not provide RN coverage as required. 2. During the entrance conference on 6/10/24 at 9:04 A.M., the Director of Nursing and Administrator said the facility did not have any nursing staffing waivers. Review of the actual working schedule provided by the facility administrator indicated the Director of Nursing Services worked the following shifts: *Thursday May 9, 2024, 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. shift. Census: 78 *Sunday May 19, 2024, 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M., and 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. Census: 74 *Monday May,20, 2024 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M., Census 74 *Tuesday June 4, 2024, 11:00 PM-7:00 A.M., Census 75 *Wednesday June 5, 2024, 7:00 A.M-3:00 P.M Census 75 *Thursday June 6, 2024,11:00 PM-7:00 A.M. Census 74 *Saturday June 8, 2024, 11:00 PM-7:00 A.M. Census 74 *Sunday June 9, 2024, 11:00 PM-7:00 A.M. Census 74 On 6/10/24 at 7:00 A.M., the Director of Nursing was observed working on the floor and said she had also worked the 11 P.M. to 7 A.M. shift. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 11:32 A.M., the Director of Nursing said she has worked as a nurse on the floor for a couple of night shifts this month and has covered other shifts since she began working as the Director of Nursing. The Director of Nursing said she is responsible for the nursing services and has no choice but to cover the shifts to care for residents. The DON said it makes it hard because she has other duties as a Director of Nursing.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #46 was admitted to the facility in December 2023 with diagnoses including Dementia with agitation and delusional di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #46 was admitted to the facility in December 2023 with diagnoses including Dementia with agitation and delusional disorders. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 out of possible 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. A review of a document titled 'Medication Regimen Review, Psychoactive Medication Use Recommendations' dated 6/5/24 indicated the following: -Currently receiving Quentiapine (Seroquel) 100 milligrams in the morning, 100 milligrams in the afternoon and 50 milligrams at bedtime for agitation without recent attempt to taper. Please evaluate current dosing, consider trial taper to 100 milligrams in the morning, 50 milligrams in the afternoon and 50 milligrams at bedtime, or document inability to do so. The Physician/Prescriber agreed with the recommendation and wrote, will do. A review of the June 2024 physician's orders indicated the following: -Quentiapine Fumarte Oral tablet 50 milligrams, give 2 tablets (100 milligrams) by mouth in the morning for acute agitation. Start date 1/3/24. -Quentiapine Fumarte Oral tablet 50 milligrams, give 2 tablets (100 milligrams) by mouth in the afternoon for acute agitation. Start date 1/3/24. -Quentiapine Fumarte Oral tablet 50 milligrams, give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for acute agitation. Start date 1/2/24. A review of the June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the following: - Quentiapine Fumarte Oral tablet 50 milligrams, give 2 tablets (100 milligrams) by mouth in the afternoon for acute agitation was administered on 6/6/24, 6/8/24, 6/9/24 ,6/10/24 and 6/11/24. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 9:38 A.M., the Physician said after he agrees with the Pharmacist's recommendations, the facility should put them in place as soon as possible, within twenty-four hours. He said any inability to do so should be documented. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 1:04 P.M., the Director of Nurses said recommendations made by the pharmacist and agreed upon by the physician should be put in place as soon as possible. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure recommendations from the Monthly Medication Review conducted by the pharmacist were addressed and acknowledged by the physician in a timely manner for three Residents (#34, #59 and #46) out of a total sample of 24 Residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Documentation and Communication of Consultant Pharmacist Recommendations dated revised 7/2023 indicated that the consultant pharmacist works with the facility to establish a system whereby the consultant pharmacist observations and recommendations regarding resident's medication therapies are communicated to those with authority and/or responsibility to implement the recommendations, and are responded to in an appropriate and timely fashion. 1. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility in January 2023 with diagnoses including diabetes, high blood pressure and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #34 scored a 13 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam indicating intact cognition. Further review indicated that Resident #34 exhibited verbal behaviors directed towards others 4 to 6 days a week and refused care one to two days a week. Further review failed to indicate a diagnosis of psychosis to support the use of an antipsychotic. Review of the care plan dated 1/23/23, indicated a focus of; Resident #34 uses psychotropic medications related to behavior management. Further review indicated an intervention to discuss with doctor reason ongoing need for use of the medication. Review of the Pharmacist Consultant monthly drug regimen review dated 3/5/24 indicated a recommendation to clarify diagnosis on quetiapine (seroquel) order as current diagnosis does not support use. Further review indicated the doctor signed the recommendation without comment on 3/12/24. Review of the diagnoses list indicated that the diagnosis of unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition was not added until 5/7/24, 2 months later. Review of the doctor's order dated 5/3/24, indicated an order for the antipsychotic Seroquel oral tablet 25 MG (milligrams) by mouth as needed. Further review indicated no stop date for the medication. Review of the Pharmacist Consultant monthly drug regimen review dated 5/6/24, indicated the following: Currently has an active order for Quetiapine PRN (as needed) with a duration of 30 days. Please note the CMS (Centers for Medicaid and Medicare) guidelines do not allow maintaining orders for PRN antipsychotics for greater than 14 days on medication profiles. Please evaluate and consider discontinue Quetiapine PRN or correcting duration to be for 14 days or less if appropriate. Further review indicated that the doctor signed the recommendation on 5/6/24 to discontinue. Review of the doctor's orders dated May 2024 failed to indicate an order to discontinue the PRN antipsychotic Seroquel. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated May 2024 indicated that Seroquel 25 MG was administered 5/24/24 and 5/31/24, after the 14 day limit without review by the doctor. Review of the MAR dated June 2024 indicated that Seroquel 25 MG was administered on 6/2/24, after the 14 day limit without review by the doctor. During an interview on 6/12/24, at 12:00 A.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) said that pharmacist consultant monthly review recommendations should be followed up with in a timely manner. The DON then said that a recommendation for a change to an antipsychotic medication should be followed through with within 24 hours. 2. Resident #59 was admitted to the facility in April 2023 with diagnoses including bipolar disorder and dementia. Review of the Review of the Pharmacist Consultant monthly drug regimen review dated 3/5/24, indicated the following: (Currently receiving Divalproex (Depakote). Unable to locate recent serum level in chart. Recommended 2 weeks after start then every 6 months thereafter. Please consider ordering.) Further review indicated labs done 4/17/24; over a month after the recommendation was documented. Review of the facility document titled Lab Results Report dated 4/17/24 indicated results for a serum blood level of Depakote. During an interview on 6/12/24, at 12:00 A.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) said that pharmacist consultant monthly review recommendations should be followed up with in a timely manner. The DON then said that she would expect that the lab would have been drawn within a week of the recommendation.
CONCERN (F)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff implemented standards of practice by failing to do the controlled substance count (a control measure...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff implemented standards of practice by failing to do the controlled substance count (a control measure to safeguard and maintain accurate dispensing and inventory of controlled substances), at the time of a change in shift, on one of two resident care units. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, not titled or dated, indicated the following: The facility complies with all laws, regulations and other requirements related to handling, storage, disposal, and documentation of controlled medications. Policy interpretation 1. Only authorized licensed nursing and or pharmacy personnel have access to controlled drugs maintained on premises. 8. Controlled substances are reconciled upon receipt, administration, disposition, and the end of each shift. 12. At the end of each shift: a. Controlled medications are counted at the end of each shift. The nurse coming on duty and the nurse going off duty determine the count together. b. Any discrepancies in the controlled substance count are documented and reported to the director of nursing services immediately. c. The director of nursing services investigates all discrepancies in controlled medication reconciliation to determine the cause, identify any responsible parties, and reports findings to the administrator. d. The director of nursing service consults with the provider pharmacy and the administrator to determine whether legal action is indicated. On 6/10/24 at 8:20 A.M., Nurse #2 said he worked the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M., and 11:00 P.M. -7:00 A.M., and was waiting for the day shift nurses to come in. Nurse #2 said that one (nurse) called out and the other (nurse) was running late. On 6/10/24 at 8:32 A.M., twelve minutes after the interview with Nurse #2, Nurse #2 was observed wearing a backpack and leaving the floor through the staircase. The second floor was observed to have two medication carts. Observation of the controlled substance logbook on cart #1, on the page titled SHIFT COUNT, revealed the following: shift date: 6/10/24, time AM/PM: 7 A.M. was written in, Status of count Yes/No was blank, name of the coming on duty nurse was blank, and nurse going off duty was signed. Observation of the controlled substance logbook on cart #2, on the page titled SHIFT CHANGE, revealed all areas to be blank except for the signature for 'Nurse Going Off Duty' During an interview on 6/10/24 at 9:00 A.M., Nurse #1 said at shift change the nurses coming on shift receive report and do the narcotic (controlled substance) count and both nurses sign and document in the controlled substance logbook. Nurse #1 said report was given, said they counted, that the log was not filled out in its entirety, and that she began to do the medication pass. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 3:27 P.M., Nurse #2 said he left the floor after giving report and did not do the narcotic count with Nurse #1. Nurse #2 said the narcotic count is required for the control substance medications to keep an accurate count. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 11:32 A.M., the Director of Nursing said that the two nurses are to do the controlled substance count and document in the controlled substance log during shift change.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, menu review and interview the facility failed to ensure meals provided to residents on two of two resident care units for two of two meals tested, were palatable, attractive and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, menu review and interview the facility failed to ensure meals provided to residents on two of two resident care units for two of two meals tested, were palatable, attractive and at appetizing temperatures. Findings include: During the resident group meeting conducted with the surveyor on 6/10/24 at 2:07 P.M., the residents said the food is an on-going issue. Residents said: It is not good and I would not feed it to my dog. We don't know what we are eating many times. I think we had chili over cabbage. Hot food items are not hot. Coffee is never hot. There are no condiments for food. The residents said this has been brought up to staff and they are aware. Eight of ten residents actively participating in the meeting said hot food is not served hot. During the initial screening process on 6/10/24 starting at 7:30 A.M. 10 out of 27 residents said that the food was not good and the temperatures of the food were either to cold or to warm. Review of the menu posted on the second floor on 6/11/24 indicated the following: *Tuna Noodle Casserole *Lettuce and tomato salad *Choice of dressing *Baked apple slices *Condiments On 6/11/24 at 12:25 P.M., the second meal truck arrived at the first floor unit. The Nurse began checking the trays and the staff began passing the meal trays to residents. On 6/11/24 at 12:40 P.M. the surveyor received the last tray on the meal truck. The Surveyor recorded the following findings for the test tray: *The tuna noodle casserole recorded at 134 F (degrees Fahrenheit), did not look appetizing, with the noodles, tuna and peas all together. The tuna casserole was warm to taste, mushy and bland with no discernable flavor. *Sliced carrots recorded at 125 F, warm not hot to taste and were mushy and watery without flavor. *Sliced apples recorded at 50.2 F, had a cinnamon flavor, were cool to taste, were crisp and had a grainy texture. *Apple Juice was 55 F and cool not cold to taste. *Coffee recorded at 120.2 F, luke warm and bitter to taste. There was no cream or sugar on the tray. *There were no condiments served with the meal. On 6/11/24 at 1:00 P.M., the second meal truck arrived at the 2nd floor unit. The Nurse began checking the tray and the staff began passing the meal trays to residents. On 6/11/24 at 1:05 P.M. the surveyor received the last tray on the meal truck. The dial on the facility thermometer failed to move when inserted onto the food, therefore no temperatures were recorded. The Surveyor had the following findings for the test tray: *The tuna noodle casserole did not look appetizing, with the noodles, tuna and peas all mushed together. The tuna casserole was hot to taste, mushy and bland with no discernable flavor. *Sliced carrots were warm not hot to taste and were mushy and watery. *Sliced apples had a cinnamon flavor, were cool to taste, were crisp and had a grainy texture. *Coffee warm and bitter to taste. There was no cream or sugar on the tray. *There were no condiments served with the meal. On 6/12/24 review of the menu posted on the wall indicated the following: *Pork Loin *Apple gravy *Cauliflower with parsley *Sweet potato casserole *Frosted yellow cake On 6/12/24 at 12:16 P.M., the second meal truck was delivered to the 1st floor unit. Nursing began checking the trays and staff began passing the meal trays to the residents. On 6/12/24 the surveyor received the last meal tray on the truck at 12:30 P.M. and recorded the following: *Pork loin with gravy was 125 degrees Fahrenheit (F), was warm to taste and had flavor. No discernible apple flavor in the gravy. *Sweet potatoes mashed, recorded 122 F was warm to taste and were sweet with an after taste that was sour. *Green beans recorded at 110 F, were lukewarm and had no flavor. * Milk recorded at 62.2 F was warm not cold to taste. *Coffee black was 116.2 F and was luke warm and bitter to taste. *Apple Juice was 61.2 F and cool not cold to taste. No dessert on the tray *There were no condiments on the tray. On 6/12/24 at 12:51 P.M., the second meal truck was delivered to the 2nd floor unit. Nursing began checking the trays and staff began passing the meal trays to the residents. On 6/12/24 the surveyor received the last meal tray on the truck and recorded the following: *The thermometer provided by the facility did not work and the surveyor used her food thermometer. *Pork loin with gravy was 100 degrees Fahrenheit, was warm to taste and had flavor. No discernible apple flavor in the gravy. *Sweet potatoes mashed, recorded 100.9 degrees Fahrenheit, were warm to taste and were sweet with an after taste that was sour. *Green beans recorded at 80 degrees Fahrenheit, were lukewarm and bland to taste. * Milk recorded at 58 degrees Fahrenheit, was cool not cold to taste. *Coffee black was 100 degrees Fahrenheit and was warm and bitter to taste. *Apple Juice was 60 degrees Fahrenheit and cool not cold to taste. *Chocolate pudding was cool to taste and had flavor. *There were no condiments on the tray. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 1:32 P.M., The food service manager said the menu posted is typically what is served with the possibility of substitute items. The FSD said the food served to residents should be palatable and hot food hot and cold foods cold.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement their Quality Assurance Performance Improvement plan during a transition of leadership to ensure practices to support quality of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement their Quality Assurance Performance Improvement plan during a transition of leadership to ensure practices to support quality of care were implemented. Specifically, the facility failed to identify, and develop a plan for services provided by Registered Nurses and failed to identify and develop a plan to ensure the Director of Nursing was not working as a charge nurse. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Plan (QAPI), not dated indicated the following: The QAPI plan had been developed to allow our facility to achieve its mission: to provide better care, compassion and solutions to the communities we serve. The facility will effectively identify, collect and use data and information from all departments and the facility assessment. Our facility will conduct Performance Improvement Projects (PIPs) that are designated to take systemic approach to revise and improve care or services in areas that we identify as needing attention. We will conduct PIPs that will lead to changes, guide corrective actions in our systems, and have impact on the quality of life and quality of care for residents living in our community. Review of the facility's 'Payroll-Based Journal Staffing Data Report 1705D', for Quarter 2 January 1, 2024, through March 31, 2024, indicated the facility triggered as a one-star staffing rating. Review of the document 'Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality/Quality, Safety and Oversight Group Ref: QSO-18-17-NH DATE: April 06, 2018' indicated the following: Requirement for registered nurse (RN) staffing - We are reminding nursing homes of the importance of RN staffing and the requirement to have an RN onsite 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. Nursing homes reporting 7 or more days in a quarter with no RN hours will receive a one-star rating in the staffing domain, which will drop their overall (composite) star rating by one star for a quarter. This action will be implemented in July 2018, after the May 15, 2018, submission deadline for data for 2018 Calendar Quarter 1, 2018 (January -March 2018) data. Review of the actual working schedule provided by the facility administrator indicated the Director of Nursing Services worked the following shifts: *Thursday May 9, 2024, 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. shift. Census: 78 *Sunday May 19, 2024, 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M., and 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. Census: 74 *Monday May,20, 2024 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M., Census 74 *Tuesday June 4, 2024, 11:00 PM-7:00 A.M., Census 75 *Wednesday June 5, 2024, 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M. Census 75 *Thursday June 6, 2024,11:00 PM-7:00 A.M. Census 74 *Saturday June 8, 2024, 11:00 PM-7:00 A.M. Census 74 *Sunday June 9, 2024, 11:00 PM-7:00 A.M. Census 74 During an interview on 6/13/24 at 12:04 P.M., the Administrator said he started late April 2024 and reviewed the QAPI plan and meeting minutes for the April 2024 meeting. The Administrator said he conducted the May QAPI meeting. He said the QAPI plan involves reviewing trending areas by reviewing data and information provided from their compliance consultant report as well as other sources. The Administrator said the hiring and turnover of staff is reviewed as part of the QAPI meeting and that no other staffing concerns have been identified or PIP developed. The Administrator said the trigger for lack of services provided by an RN has not been identified, nor has a PIP been implemented. The Administrator said he reviews the staffing schedule on Wednesdays and gets a report daily, he also said he knew the Director of Nursing has worked as a nurse on the unit one or two times and did not know it was more and would need a PIP.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the potential transmission of communicable diseases and infec...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections within the facility. Specifically the facility failed to 1. track and trend infections in the facility and 2. failed to ensure a water management program was implemented to minimize the risk of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in building water systems by having a documented water management program. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled Infections - Clinical Protocol, not dated, failed to indicate a process for the monitoring and trending of infections in the building. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 2:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that she was responsible the implementation and monitoring of the infection control monitoring program. The DON then said that she did not complete the monitoring, tracking and trending of infections for the months of March 2024, April 2024 and May 2024. She then said that she could not find a policy for the tracking and trending of infections in the building. 2. Review of the facility policy titled, Water Management Program For Building Water Systems , dated May 1, 2018, indicated the following: - the purpose of a program is to reduce the risk from Legionella bacteria and other opportunistic pathogens that may contaminate building water systems, which can present an environmental and health related risk if not properly managed. Further review indicated that the facility must describe the potable and non-potable water systems with text at a minimum and, as necessary, with simple water system process flow diagrams and should include supply sources and services entrances, water treatment systems and control measures, water processing steps and water outlets. During an interview on 6/13/24 at 10:00 A.M., the Maintenance Director said the facility has not implemented it's water management program, implemented measures, or conducted any water assessments.
CONCERN (F)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to implement their Antibiotic Stewardship Program to promote and monitor the appropriate use of antibiotics. Findings include: ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to implement their Antibiotic Stewardship Program to promote and monitor the appropriate use of antibiotics. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship - Review and Surveillance of Antibiotic Use and Outcomes, not dated, indicated the following: Antibiotic usage and outcome data will be collected and documented using a facility-approved antibiotic surveillance tracking form. The data will be used to guide decisions for improvement of individual resident antibiotic prescribing practices and facility-wide antibiotic stewardship. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. As part of the facility antibiotic stewardship program, all clinical infections treated with antibiotics will undergo review by the infection Preventionist, or designee. 2. The IP, (infection Preventionist) or designee, will review antibiotic utilization as part of the antibiotic stewardship program and identify specific situations that are not consistent with the appropriate use of antibiotics. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 2:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that she was responsible the implementation and monitoring of the facility antibiotic stewardship program. The DON then said that she did not complete the monitoring, tracking and trending of antibiotic use in the facility per their policy.
Apr 2023 13 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

2. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility in March 2023 with diagnoses including Adult Failure to Thrive, Cerebral Infarction, and Type 2 Diabetes. Review of Resident #56's most recent Minimum Data...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility in March 2023 with diagnoses including Adult Failure to Thrive, Cerebral Infarction, and Type 2 Diabetes. Review of Resident #56's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/10/23, indicated he/she scored a 5 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated Resident #56 was independent for eating. During an observation on 4/24/23 at 7:02 A.M., Resident #56 was observed asking a staff member for coffee. The staff member responded and said you have to wait for breakfast. During an observation on 4/24/23 at 7:36 A.M., Resident #56 was observed asking multiple staff members for coffee. Staff responded by saying you have to wait for your breakfast tray. During an observation on 4/24/23 at 7:44 A.M., Resident #56 was observed asking multiple staff members for coffee. Staff responded by saying you have to wait for your breakfast tray that is on the second food truck. During an observation on 4/24/23 at 7:45 A.M., the Regional MDS Nurse instructed a staff person that breakfast trays need to passed in the order they are in the food truck and that she could not get Resident #56 his/her coffee until they reach his/her tray. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 7:49 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said that staff had been in the kitchen for hours and that coffee was available. The ADON said it is the expectation that staff provide the coffee when Resident #56 requested it and that he/she should not have waited for nearly an hour for a cup of coffee. Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure 1. a dignified dining experience for one Resident (#57) and 2. a dignified existence for one Resident (#56) out of a total 27 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Quality of Life Dignity, dated 3/21, indicated each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity, respect, and individuality. 1. Resident #57 was admitted to the facility in July 2020 and had diagnoses that included fronototemporal neurocognitive disorder and dementia. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/2/23, indicated that he/she was assessed by staff to have severely impaired cognition. The MDS further indicated Resident #57 was dependent on staff for eating. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 8:05 A.M., Resident #57 was observed in bed. There was a staff person sitting on the bed beside him/her, feeding Resident #57 breakfast. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 12:20 P.M., Resident #57 was observed in bed. There was a staff person standing over Resident #57, feeding him/her lunch. While feeding Resident #57 the staff person did not speak to the Resident and just repeatedly put spoonful after spoonful of food in his/her mouth. During an interview with Resident #57's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2 on 4/24/23 at 12:52 P.M., she said that Resident #57 requires total care, including to be fed. CNA #2 said that it is the expectation that staff be seated while feeding residents and that there is a folding chair available in Resident #57's room for that purpose. During an interview with Resident #57's Nurse (#1) on 4/24/23 at 12:56 P.M., she said that it was the expectation that staff be seated at eye level when feeding a resident and that the staff should never be seated on a resident's bed while feeding them.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#57) was assessed for the use of a restraint out of a total 27 sampled residents. Findings ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#57) was assessed for the use of a restraint out of a total 27 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Use of Restraints, dated March 2017, indicated the following: * Restraints shall only be used to treat the resident's medical symptom(s) and never for discipline or staff convenience, or for the prevention of falls. * Physical Restraints are defined as any manual methods or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove, which restricts freedom of movement or restricts normal access to ones body. * Restraints shall only be used upon the written order of a physician and after obtaining consent from the resident and/or representative (sponsor). * Care plans for residents in restraints will reflect interventions that address not only the immediate medical symptom(s), but the underlying problems that may be causing the symptom(s). Care plans shall also include the measures taken to systematically reduce or eliminate the need for restraint use. * Documentation regarding the use of restraints shall include: a. Full documentation of the episode leading to the use of the physical restraint. This includes not only the resident symptoms but also the conditions, circumstance, and environment associated with the episode; b. A description of the resident's medical symptoms (i.e., an indication or a characteristic of a physical or psychological condition) that warranted the use of restraints; c. How the restraint use benefits the resident by addressing the medical symptom; d. The type of the physical restraint used; e. The length of effectiveness of the restraint time; and f. Observation, range of motion and repositioning flow sheets. Resident #57 was admitted to the facility in July 2020 and had diagnoses that included fronototemporal neurocognitive disorder and dementia. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/2/23, indicated that Resident #57 was assessed by staff to have severely impaired cognition. The MDS further indicated Resident #57 did not utilize restraints. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 6:54 A.M., Resident #57 was observed in bed. The bed was in the low position with fall mats on each side of the bed. On the left side of the bed Resident #57 had pillows tucked snuggly under the covers alongside his /her body. On the right side of the bed there was a half rail up in the center of the bed. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 7:43 A.M., Resident #57 was observed in bed. The bed was in the low position with fall mats on each side of the bed. On the left side of the bed Resident #57 had pillows tucked snuggly under the covers alongside his /her body. On the right side of the bed there was a half rail up in the center of the bed. During a record review on 4/23/23 at 9:46 A.M., the following was indicated: * A current falls care plan dated as revised 3/31/22. The care plan indicated Resident #57 had poor safety awareness r/t (related to) advancing dementia and was often observed by staff sitting him/her self on the floor. He/she likes to turn him/herself sideways in bed against rail * The care plan failed to indicate the use of a restraint, nor was there any indication in the care plan that the bolster cushion and pillows were utilized for any other reason. * The most recent quarterly restraint assessment was completed 1/13/23. The assessment failed to indicate the use of a restraint. * The current physician orders failed to indicate an order for a restraint. * The record failed to indicate a consent had been obtained for the use of a restraint. * The clinical progress notes failed to indicate any documentation regarding why a restraint was implemented. During an observation on 4/24/23 at 7:00 A.M., Resident #57 was observed in bed. The bed was in the low position with fall mats on each side of the bed. On the right side of the bed there was a half rail up in the center of the bed with a bolster cushion tucked under the fitted sheet snuggly alongside Resident #57's body. During an observation and interview on 4/25/23 at 7:30 A.M., the surveyors observed Resident #57 in bed. The bed was in the low position with fall mats on each side of the bed. On the right side of the bed there was a half rail up in the center of the bed with a bolster cushion tucked under the fitted sheet snuggly alongside Resident #57's body as well as a pillow tucked in between the Resident, bolster cushion and the side rail. The surveyor requested Nurse (#3) and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) observe the Resident with the surveyors. The following occurred: * Nurse #3 stated she was not certain why a bolster cushion was tucked under the fitted sheet snuggly alongside Resident #57's body and a pillow tucked in between the Resident, bolster cushion and the side rail. * The ADON said that this was a new bed for Resident #57 and she had never seen the half side rail, in the middle of the bed, but that it should not be there. She exited the room briefly to request Resident #57's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #4 join the conversation. * CNA #4 observed Resident #57 with bolster cushion tucked under the fitted sheet snuggly alongside Resident #57's body as well as a pillow tucked in between the Resident, bolster cushion and the side rail and said we put that there so he/she doesn't get out of bed and fall. CNA #4 said that the staff were trying to keep Resident #57 safe and were worried that he/she would place his/her body through the side rails and get hurt or fall out of bed because he/she often moves his/her body that way. * The ADON stated none of those items should be in place. She added that in order to restrain a resident the process first required a restraint assessment, a Physician's order and consent from the responsible party. During an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on 4/25/23 at 9:13 A.M., she said a restraint assessment should have been completed before any of the interventions in place were implemented.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one Resident (#23) out of a total sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Resident #23 was admitted to the facility in April 2020 with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury, psychotic disorder with delusions and dementia. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 9:51 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #23 to have carious and missing teeth. Review of the facility document titled Dental Group, dated 7/29/22, indicated that resident #23 has only 8 remaining teeth and those teeth require extraction secondary to decay. Review of the MDS dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #23 did not have any broken or carious teeth. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 12:00 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said that the MDS should accurately reflect the condition of the residents teeth.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0646 (Tag F0646)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to notify the physician of increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the blood (a potentially life threatening condition) for one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to notify the physician of increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the blood (a potentially life threatening condition) for one Resident (#26) out of a total sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and heart disease. Review of the nurse's admission summary note dated 1/28/23, indicated that Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on oxygen (O2) at 1 liter/minute via nasal cannula. Review of the doctor's orders indicated an order dated 3/28/23, for O2 continuous to maintain a sat (a measure of O2 in the blood) greater than 90%. Review of the discontinued doctor's orders failed to indicate a discontinuation order for O2 on admission. Review of the facility document titled Laboratory: 2/15/2023 14:55 Basic Metabolic Panel/NT-ProBNP/Complete Blood Count (CBC) w/Auto Differential/PT/INR / CALL BACK RESULTS indicated that the CO2 (carbon dioxide level in the blood) was 38 mmol/L (millimoles per liter) (normal 22-33). Review of the Nurse practitioner notes dated 3/17/23, 3/20/23, 3/23/23 indicated Chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia -Continue baseline O2 2L nasal cannula. Further review failed to indicate knowledge of the elevated CO2 blood level. Review of the facility document titled Laboratory: 3/29/2023 12:06 Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP)/Uric Acid, Serum, indicated a CO2 level of 40 mmol/L. Review of the facility document titled Laboratory: 4/19/2023 15:07 Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP)/TSH (3rd Generation, indicated a CO2 level of 42 mmol/L. Review of the facility document titled Laboratory: 4/21/2023 13:47 Basic Metabolic Panel/PT/INR/CALL BACK RESULTS, indicated a CO2 level of 42 mmol/L. Review of the medical record failed to indicate that arterial blood gasses (ABG's) (measures the balance of oxygen and CO2 levels in the blood as well as the blood's PH balance) were obtained. Further review failed to indicate that nursing informed the doctor or nurse practitioner of the abnormal CO2 levels. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 1:52 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said that she was not aware that Resident #26 had labs indicating a rising CO2 level. The ADON also said that she did not know that a resident with COPD and receiving oxygen, could retain CO2 and develop respiratory acidosis (a potentially life threatening condition). During an interview on 4/24/23 at 1:57 P.M., Nurse Practitioner #1 said that the expectation is that nursing inform him of significant changes in a resident's condition. Nurse Practitioner #1 said that rising CO2 blood levels is a significant change and that he had not been informed of the rising CO2 blood levels for Resident #26. Nurse Practitioner #1 then said that he would be very concerned about the potential for respiratory acidosis and would have ordered arterial blood gasses (ABG's) immediately had he known.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) for one Resident (#21) out of a total sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Resident #21 was admitted to the facility in October 2022 with diagnoses including dementia, need for assistance with personal care and cancer. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #21 requires an extensive assist with grooming. Further review indicated that Resident #21 scored a 5 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating Resident #21 is severely cognitively impaired. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 10:36 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #21's upper lip, chin and cheeks to have significant amounts of long dark hair. During an interview on 4/23/23 at 8:05 A.M., Resident #21 said that he/she does not like facial hair and wants it removed. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 12:49 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #21's upper lip, chin and cheeks to have significant amounts of long dark hair. During observations on 4/24/23 at 8 :42 A.M., and 11:00 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #21's upper lip, chin and cheeks to have significant amounts of long dark hair. Review of the care plan failed to indicate that Resident #21 refused care. Review of the nurse's notes failed to indicate Resident #21 refused care. Review of the Certified Nurse's Aide's (CNAs) activities of daily living flow sheet dated 4/24/23, indicated that CNA #1 completed personal hygiene at 9:32 A.M Further review failed to indicate that Resident #21 had refused care. During an interview on 4/24/23, at 11:55 A.M., CNA #1 said that she had shaved Resident #21's face a few minutes earlier, CNA #1 said that when she approached Resident #21 earlier in the morning, Resident #21 refused to allow her to shave her/his face. When asked why she had documented that she had completed the care at 9:32 A.M., and did not document that Resident #21 refused care, CNA said that she was not aware that shaving was part of the personal hygiene documentation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility in November 2019, and had diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary dis...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility in November 2019, and had diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (acute) exacerbation, pulmonary fibrosis (damaged and scared lung tissue), unspecified, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure and personal history of pneumonia. Review of Resident #18's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/16/23, indicated that on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam Resident #18 scored a 12 out of a possible 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS further indicated Resident #18 requires extensive assist of one person for all self-care activities. Review of the medical record on 4/24/23 at 7:34 A.M., indicated a Physician's order, initiated 9/30/22, for Resident #18's oxygen tubing to be changed 1 x weekly - label each piece of tubing with date when changed. Must be in bag when not in use, every day shift every Wednesday related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation. During an observation and interview on 4/23/23 at 8:38 A.M., Resident #18 was observed sitting in his/her wheelchair and wearing oxygen at 1.5 liters per minute (L/min) via nasal cannula. The oxygen tubing was labeled and dated 3/11/23. Resident #18 said he/she could not remember the last time the tubing was changed. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 10:40 A.M., Resident #18 was observed sitting in his/her wheelchair and wearing oxygen at 1.5 L/min via nasal cannula. The oxygen tubing was labeled and dated 3/11/23. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 7:16 A.M., Nurse #2 said oxygen tubing should be changed, labeled and dated by the nurse weekly, on Sundays on the 11 PM to 7 AM shift, as ordered by the physician. 3. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility in April 2018 with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, and Type 2 Diabetes. Review of Resident #36's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated he/she scored 14 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating intact cognition. The MDS further indicated Resident #36 was dependent on two staff for transfers and required an extensive assist of two staff for bed mobility. Review of Resident #36's April 2023 Physician Orders, indicated Wipe down the BIPAP machine with a damp cloth weekly. The filter at the back of your machine should be washed with tap water weekly. Simply rinse the filter under running water, squeezing the filter to make sure that all dust is eliminated Clean once weekly with warm soapy water and rinse thoroughly. Every Evening Shift Every Tuesday. Further review of the Physician Orders, indicated Call 1800-847-0745 every 90 days to have BIPAP parts changed. one time a day every 3 month(s) starting on the 7th for 1 day(s) for BIPAP supplies. During an interview on 4/23/23 at 7:52 A.M., Resident #36 said he/she has used a Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) machine for many years, Resident #36 said that staff at the facility never clean the machine or his/her mask and said his/her tubing has not been changed in a long time. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 7:53 A.M., the surveyor observed a Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) machine on Resident #36's nightstand. The machine had dust build up on top of the machine as well as dried substances. The tubing was observed to have dried substances in it and the tubing was without a date. The BiPAP filter was observed to have dust build up. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 12:25 P.M., the surveyor observed a BiPAP machine on Resident #36's nightstand, the machine had dust build up on top of the machine as well as dried substances. The tubing was observed to have dried substances in it and the tubing was without a date. The BiPAP filter was observed to have dust build up. During an observation on 4/24/23 at 7:14 A.M., the surveyor observed a BiPAP machine on Resident #36's nightstand, the machine had dust build up on top of the machine as well as dried substances. The tubing was observed to have dried substances in it and the tubing was without a date. The BiPAP filter was observed to have dust build up During an observation and interview with Nurse #1 on 4/24/23 at 9:18 A.M., Nurse #1 acknowledged Resident #36's BiPAP machine was covered in dust and had dried substances on the machine and tubing. Nurse #1 said we need to change that filter as soon as possible there is no way it got that dirty in a weeks time because they are suppose to clean the whole machine and mask every week. Nurse #1 said she thinks that the tubing is supposed to be changed weekly. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 11:45 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said the expectation is that the nurses will observe the BiPAP machine every shift to see if it needs cleaning and said it is very important to keep the whole system clean for infection control purposes. The ADON said she called the facility's oxygen company to obtain new supply's for the BiPAP machine as they do not have a new mask or tubing in house for Resident #36's BiPAP. During an observation on 4/25/23 at 7:34 A.M., the surveyor observed a BiPAP machine on Resident #36's nightstand, the machine had dust build up on top of the machine as well as dried substances and the BiPAP tubing had dried substances in the tubing. The BiPAP filter was observed to have dust build up. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 7:35 A.M., Resident #36 said no one has come in to change his tubing on the oxygen concentrator or to clean his/her BiPAP machine, BiPAP tubing or BiPAP filter. Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure staff provided care consistent with professional standards, related to replacing, dating oxygen tubing for two Residents (#26 and #18) and failed to ensure staff cleaned and maintained a Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) machine for 1 Resident (#36). Findings include: 1. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and heart disease. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 7:51 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #26 receiving oxygen at 2 liters/minute via nasal cannula. The oxygen tubing was labeled and dated 3/19/23. Review of the doctor's orders failed to indicate an order to change the oxygen tubing. Review of the care plan, dated 3/6/23, indicated to change oxygen tubing per policy. Review of the policy titled Oxygen administration and dated revised 3/2021, failed to indicate how often oxygen tubing is to be changed. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 8:21 A.M., Nurse #1 said that she didn't know how often oxygen tubing was supposed to be changed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide dental services to one Resident (#23) out of a total sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Resident #23 was ad...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide dental services to one Resident (#23) out of a total sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Resident #23 was admitted to the facility in April 2020 with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury and dementia. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 9:51 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #23 to have carious and missing teeth. During an interview on on 4/23/23 at 9:51 A.M., Resident #23 said that his/her teeth need to come out. Review of the dentist note dated 7/29/22, indicated that Resident #23 has multiple missing, broken and carious teeth. Review of the dentist note dated 2/13/23, indicated that Resident #23 has rampant tooth decay and needed to have all of teeth extracted and a set of full dentures fabricated. Review of the nurse's note dated 2/13/23, indicated that Resident #23 was seen that day by the dentist. Further review indicated that the dentist reported that Resident #23's teeth require extraction and would have to have procedure out of facility, but would fit him/her for dentures, at Maplewood, once healed. Review of the medical record failed to indicate an appointment had been made with an oral surgeon for teeth extraction. During an interview on 4/24/23,at 7:30 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said that she was not aware of any up coming medical/dental appointments for Resident #23. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 12:00 P.M., the ADON said that she had read Resident #23's medical record and discovered the recommendation, by the dentist, to have Resident #23's teeth extracted. The ADON then said that she texted a picture of the dentist's recommendation document to the previous Director of Nursing (DON). The ADON then said that the previous DON told her that the oral surgeon appointment was made for 9/7/2023. During an interview on 4/24/23, at 11:52 A.M. Office Scheduler #1, at the oral surgeon's office, said that the appointment was made today, 4/24/23, at 8:46 A.M. During an interview on 4/24/23, at 12:00 P.M., the ADON said that the appointment for Resident #23 to his/her teeth extracted was made that day. The ADON said that she would not have known about the need for the appointment if the surveyor had not asked about an appointment.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete Comprehensive (Annual and Admission) Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments in a timely manner for 5 Residents (#65, #321, #2, #64, and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete Comprehensive (Annual and Admission) Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments in a timely manner for 5 Residents (#65, #321, #2, #64, and #8) out of a total sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Review of the undated facility policy, titled Electronic Transmission of the MDS (Minimum Data Set), indicated the following: *MDS electronic submissions shall be conducted in accordance with current OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) regulations governing the transmission of such data. Review of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) regulations indicate that a comprehensive (Annual or Admission) Assessment should be completed within a year of the previous Comprehensive Assessment. 1. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility in March 2022 with diagnoses including hemiplegia. Review of Resident #65's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments indicated the following: An Annual Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/17/23, was completed 4/6/2023, 20 days after the ARD and over a year after the admission Assessment. 2. Resident #321 was admitted to the facility in March 2023 with diagnoses including Diabetes. Review of Resident #321's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments indicated the following: An admission Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/26/2023, was completed 4/23/2023, 28 days after the ARD. 3. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in July 2003 with diagnoses including Dementia. Review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments indicated the following: An Annual Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/26/23, was completed 3/20/23, 53 days after the ARD and over a year after the previous Annual Assessment. 4. Resident #64 was admitted to the facility in October 2021 with diagnosis including encephalopathy. Review of Resident #64's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments indicated the following: An Annual Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/28/22, was completed 12/19/22, 52 days after the ARD and over a year after the admission Assessment. 5. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in May 2018 with diagnoses including convulsions. Review of Resident #8's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments indicated the following: An Annual Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/29/22, was completed 2/3/23, 36 days after the ARD and over a year after the most recent Annual Assessment. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 8:32 A.M., the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator said the MDS Assessments should be completed within 14 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) and that she was aware that many MDS assessments had not been completely timely for at least 6 months.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments in a timely manner for 4 residents (#65, #20, #64, and #8) out of a total sample of 27...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments in a timely manner for 4 residents (#65, #20, #64, and #8) out of a total sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Review of the undated facility policy, titled Electronic Transmission of the MDS (Minimum Data Set), indicated the following: *MDS electronic submissions shall be conducted in accordance with current OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) regulations governing the transmission of such data. Review of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) regulations indicate that a Quarterly Assessment must be completed within 92 days of the previous Quarterly Assessment. 1. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility in March 2022 with diagnoses including hemiplegia. Review of Resident #65's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments indicated the following: A Quarterly Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/22/22, was completed 12/1/22, 70 days after the ARD and 156 days after the previous Quarterly Assessment. 2. Resident #20 was admitted to the facility in September 2020 with diagnoses including psychosis. Review of Resident #20's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments indicated the following: A Quarterly Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/26/23, was completed 3/10/23, 43 days after the ARD and 134 days after the previous Quarterly Assessment. 3. Resident #64 was admitted to the facility in October 2021 with diagnosis including encephalopathy. Review of Resident #64's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments indicated the following: A Quarterly Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/19/23, was completed 2/18/23, 30 days after the ARD and 113 days after the previous Quarterly Assessment. 4. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in May 2018 with diagnoses including convulsions. Review of Resident #8's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments indicated the following: A Quarterly Assessment with and Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/29/22, was completed 12/1/22, 63 days after the ARD and 174 days the previous Quarterly Assessment. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 8:32 A.M., the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator said the MDS Assessments should be completed within 14 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) and that she was aware that many MDS assessments had not been completely timely for at least 6 months.
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** 5. Resident #52 was admitted to the facility in February 2020, and diagnoses including traumatic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident #52 was admitted to the facility in February 2020, and diagnoses including traumatic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #52's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #52 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam score of 12 out of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #52's care plan on 4/24/23 at 9:46 A.M., failed to indicate a care plan that included personalized interventions for triggers for his/her diagnosis of PTSD. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 9:32 A.M., Social Worker #1 said that all residents with a diagnosis of PTSD should have an individualized care plan that included specific triggers and interventions to prevent those triggers. Social Worker #1 said she was unaware that Resident #52's had a diagnosis of PTSD. Based on observation, record review an interview the facility failed to implement the plan of care for three Residents (#7, #21 and #23), failed to develop a dental care plan for one Resident (#23), and failed to develop a comprehensive trauma informed care plan for 2 Residents (#9 and #52) out of a total sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Care Plans- Comprehensive and dated as revised 12/7/21, indicated that an individualized comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, emotional and psychological needs is developed for each resident. Further review indicated that assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the resident's condition changes. 1. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility in October 2019 with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), dementia and Schizoaffective disorder. Review of the care plan dated as revised 2/27/23, indicated that Resident #7 is to be supervised at all meals secondary to dysphagia. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 8:00 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #7 eating breakfast in his/her room without continual supervision. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 12:40 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #7 eating lunch in his/her room without continual supervision. During an observation on 4/24/23 8:10 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #7 eating breakfast in his/her room without continual supervision. During an observation on 4/24/23 12:20 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #7 eating lunch in his/her room without continual supervision. During an observation on 4/25/23 at 8:09 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #7 eating breakfast in his/her room without continual supervision. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 8:09 A.M., Certified Nurse's Aide (CNA) #3 said that Resident #7 is independent with eating. CNA #3 then said that for anyone that requires supervision and eats in their rooms, she goes in and out of their rooms during the meal to check on them. 2. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility in October 2022 with diagnoses including dementia, Review of the care plan dated 12/30/23, indicated that Resident #21 requires supervision with eating. Further review indicated that Resident #21 had a history of unintended weight loss related to inadequate oral intake secondary to dementia. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 8:05 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #21 eating breakfast alone in her/his room. There were no staff present to supervise the meal. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 12:00 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #21 eating lunch in her/his room. There were no staff present to supervise the meal. 3. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility in April 2020 with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury, psychotic disorder with delusions and dementia. Review of the care plan dated revised 2/27/23, indicated that Resident #23 requires continual supervision with eating. A. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 12:40 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #23 eating breakfast in his/her room. There were no staff present to provide supervision. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 8:27 A.M., Nurse #1 said that all residents requiring supervision with dining should either be in the dining room or have a staff member with them in their room. B. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 9:51 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #23 to have carious and missing teeth. During an interview on on 4/23/23 at 9:51 A.M., Resident #23 said that his/her teeth need to come out. Review of the nurse's note dated 2/13/23, indicated that resident #23 was seen today by dentist. The dentist reported that Resident #23's teeth require extraction and would have to have procedure out of facility, but would fit him for dentures, at Maplewood, once healed. Review of the dentist note dated 7/29/22, indicated that Resident #23 has multiple missing, broken and carious teeth. Review of the dentist note dated 2/13/23, indicated that Resident #23 has rampant tooth decay and needed to have all of teeth extracted and a set of full dentures fabricated. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 12:00 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said that a plan of care should have been developed for Resident #23's dental needs. 4. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility in December 2019 with diagnoses including post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), schizophrenia and major depression. Review of the care plan indicated a problem for having a history of trauma throughout life and indicated the following 2 interventions: 1. Allow Resident #9 time to express past traumatic episodes 2. Allow Resident #9 to have a quiet space, and alone time, especially in the afternoon/evening. Further review failed to indicate personalized, individualized, interventions including what might trigger an episode of PTSD, what helps to diminish an active episode of PTSD and how is an episode of PTSD is manifested by Resident #9. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 9:32 A.M., Social Worker #1 said that all residents with a diagnosis of PTSD should have an individualized care plan that included specific triggers and interventions to prevent those triggers.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on schedule review and interview, the Facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) provided services for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week at the facility, as required. Findings include: Review ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on schedule review and interview, the Facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) provided services for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week at the facility, as required. Findings include: Review of the staffing schedule from 4/11/23 through 4/25/23 failed to indicate that a Registered Nurse (RN) was present in the facility for 4 of the 15 days reviewed. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 11:46 A.M., the Director of Nursing acknowledged that there was no Registered Nurse present on 4 of 15 days, when there should have been.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure up-to-date and daily staffing was posted and readily accessible to residents and visitors on 2 of 3 days of survey. Findings include: ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure up-to-date and daily staffing was posted and readily accessible to residents and visitors on 2 of 3 days of survey. Findings include: During an observation on 4/23/23 at 6:52 A.M., the surveyors entered the facility and observed the daily staffing posted at the front of building was dated 4/21/23. During an observation on 4/23/23 at 9:52 A.M., the daily staffing posted at the front of building was dated 4/21/23 and management had been in building for several hours. During an observation on 4/24/23 at 7:24 A.M., the daily staffing posted at the front of building was dated 4/21/23. During an interview with the Staffing Coordinator on 4/24/23 at 9:00 A.M., she said that she is responsible for posting the staffing at the front of the building Monday through Friday. She explained that on Friday she prints out the postings for Saturday through Monday and that the weekend receptionist is responsible to ensure they are posted Saturday and Sunday. The staffing coordinator said that the weekend receptionist is new and must have forgotten to place the postings she had left.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide 3 out of 3 residents, who had been taken off of their Medicare Part-A benefit, with the appropriate Skilled Nursing Facility Advanc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide 3 out of 3 residents, who had been taken off of their Medicare Part-A benefit, with the appropriate Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN). Findings include: The SNFABN provides information to residents/beneficiaries so they can decide if they wish to continue receiving the skilled services that may not be paid for by Medicare and assume financial responsibility. If the skilled nursing facility provides the beneficiary with SNFABN, the facility has met its obligation to inform the beneficiary of his or her potential liability for payment and related standard claim appeal rights. During review of 3 resident's records, who had been taken off of their Medicare Part-A benefit and either discharged or remained at the facility, it was found that all 3 residents were not provided with complete Advanced Beneficiary Notices to inform the Resident or their representative in writing of their potential financial liability for payment for the non-covered services prior to coming off of their benefit. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 10:38 A.M., Social Worker #1 said she was unaware that she needed to provide cost of services on the Advanced Beneficiary Notices (ABNs), and has not been doing so. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 11:18 A.M., the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse said she completes Advance Beneficiary Notices (ABNs) if the Social Worker is unable to. The MDS Nurse said that all ABNs should have a page included that outlines cost of services, and acknowledged that this page does not exist for the sampled ABNs.
Mar 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2), the Facility failed to ensure that he/she was provided with adequate supervision to prevent an incident of el...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2), the Facility failed to ensure that he/she was provided with adequate supervision to prevent an incident of elopement, when on 2/19/23 at approximately 4:45 P.M., Resident #2 left the Facility unbeknownst to staff. Facility staff were unaware Resident #2 had eloped from the facility until approximately 9:00 P.M., (more than four hours later) when nursing went to administer his/her nighttime medications and noted he/she was missing. Resident #2 returned to the facility the next day, with no apparent injuries. Findings Include: Review of the Facility's Internal Investigation, dated 02/20/23, indicated that at approximately 9:00 P.M., (on 2/19/23) Nurse #1 attempted to administer Resident #2 his/her evening medications and noticed Resident #2 was missing. The Investigation indicated a search of the Facility inside and outside grounds proved to be negative, and that Resident #2's spouse was contacted, and it was determined Resident #2 was not with his/her spouse. The Investigation indicated that on 02/19/22, Resident #2 had eloped from the Facility. The Investigation indicated that Resident #2 was observed by staff at approximately 4:40 P.M., sitting in the lobby after a scheduled smoking break, and that Resident #2 told staff that he/she was waiting for his/her spouse. The Investigation indicated Resident #2 was not noted to be missing by staff until 9:00 P.M. (approximately four and half hours later), and that Resident #2's whereabouts were unknown until the next morning, 02/20/23. Resident #2 was admitted to the Facility in July 2021; diagnoses included pneumonia, dysphagia, acute respiratory failure, dementia, and cognitive deficit. Review of Resident #2's medical record indicated his/her Health Care Proxy (HCP) had been invoked in August of 2022, due to cognitive impairment and dementia with behaviors. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 12/22/22, indicated Resident #2 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMs (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 8 out of 15 (score of 0-7 indicates severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate impairment, 13-15 cognitively intact), ambulates independently with a walker and requires physical assistance with Activities Daily Living (ADL) care. During an interview on 03/07/23 at 2:45 P.M., Resident #2 said he/she had never left the Facility without his/her spouse accompanying him/her. Resident #2 said on that evening (2/19/23), his/her spouse was not coming to visit him/her, but he/she still wanted to leave and go out, so he/she called a friend and arranged for the friend to come pick him/her up at the building. Resident #2 said he/she waited until he/she detected that none of the staff members would notice if he/she left, then took the chance and left. During an interview on 03/07/23 at 3:00 P.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 said on 2/19/23, Resident #2 was not on his assignment, but that he took Resident #2 out for the scheduled smoke break before dinner, and when they came back in around 4:40 P.M., Resident #2 stayed in the lobby. CNA #2 said that Resident #2 told him that his/her spouse was coming to pick him/her up, so he left Resident #2 sitting in the lobby. CNA #2 said all the staff on Resident #2's unit, including himself, knew that Resident #2's spouse always came to the unit to get him/her and that the spouse always signs the Book at the nursing station when taking him/her out. During an interview on 3/07/23 at 3:20 P.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #3 said that on 2/19/23, during dinner, she asked CNA #2 if he knew where Resident #2 was, and that CNA #2 told her the Resident #2 was in the lobby waiting for his/her spouse. CNA #3 said she assumed Resident #2's spouse had already come to the unit to sign him/her out. Despite Resident #2's usual routine to remain on the unit and wait until his/her spouse came to sign him/her out in the Book, even after being aware that Resident #2 was sitting in the lobby to wait for his/her spouse, which was new for him/her, neither CNA #2 or CNA #3 checked the Book or with his/her nurse that night to ensure Resident #2's spouse had come to facility and to the unit to sign him/her out. During an interview on 03/16/23 at 2:37 P.M., Nurse #1 said that at 9:00 P.M., she went to administer Resident #2 his/her nighttime medications when she discovered that Resident #2 was not in his/her room, and not on the unit. Nurse #1 said she checked the Sign In/Out Book and noticed he/she was not signed out. Nurse #1 said she called Resident #2's spouse, who informed her that Resident #2 was not with him/her. Nurse #1 said a search of the Facility was initiated inside and outside on the grounds, but Resident #2 was not found. Nurse #1 said she was unsure how Resident #2 eloped from the Facility. During an interview on 03/07/23 at 1:51 P.M., the Administrator said the staff on Resident #2's unit knew that Resident #2 always leaves the Facility with his/her spouse, who comes to the unit to get Resident #2 and signs the Book at the nursing station when taking him/her out. The Administrator said on 2/19/23, when staff noticed Resident #2 sitting in the lobby and he/she told them that he/she was waiting there for his/her spouse to pick him/her up, that staff assumed Resident #2's spouse had gone up to the unit and signed him/her out in the book, and then left Resident #2 unattended in the lobby. On 03/07/23, the Facility was found to be in Past Non-Compliance and presented the Surveyor with a Plan of Correction which addressed the area of concern as evidenced by: A. On 2/20/23, Resident #2 was physically assessed by the nursing staff upon his/her return to the Facility, staff re-assessed his/her risk for elopement, and updated his/her Plan of Care. B. Upon return, Resident #2 and his/her spouse agreed to a room change, and he/she was moved to the second floor, which has a wanderguard alert system in place for increased resident safety. C. 02/19/23 through 02/23/23, residents who triggered for an elopement risk and/or expressed the desire to take social leaves of absences, were re-assessed by nursing management for safety and elopement risk, as an effort to maintain resident safety. D. 02/19/23 through 02/23/23 re-education was provided to all staff by Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON) and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on the following: - Safety of Residents - To ensure that no residents will remain unattended in the lobby area. - Responsible Person must sign residents out on their unit. - Education related to elopement risk and prevention In addition to the above, Staff were educated to make sure and review that all residents on leave of absence must have a responsible party come to the unit and sign them out in the Book on the floor they reside. E. On 2/20/23, The Incident was discussed at the weekly Risk meeting, and the Facility will continue to follow up with the Risk meeting team, as necessary. F. During February 2023 QAPI meeting, the area of concern was reviewed, and the QAPI committee will continue to review the issue to ensure substantial compliance. G. The Administrator and/or Director of Nursing are responsible for overall compliance.
Dec 2022 2 deficiencies
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled employee personnel records (Activity Director), the Facility failed to ensure a Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) background che...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled employee personnel records (Activity Director), the Facility failed to ensure a Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) background check was conducted upon hire, in accordance with their Policy related to Abuse and Neglect prevention. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Abuse and Neglect, dated April 2017, indicated all prospective employees of this facility submit to background check as a part of the hiring process. Review of the Activity Director's Personnel File indicated she was hired to work at the Facility on 05/03/21. Further review of the Activity Director's personnel file indicated there was no documentation to support that the Facility conducted a NAR background check on the Activity Director upon hire and prior to her providing services for residents in the Facility. During an interview on 12/22/22 at 3:35 P.M., the Administrator said the Facility was unable to locate any documentation to support that a NAR background check was conducted for the Activity Director, upon hire.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), the Facility failed to ensure that a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and records reviewed, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), the Facility failed to ensure that allegations of suspected abuse were reported to the Department of Public Health (DPH) per required timeframe in accordance with Facility Policy and Federal regulations. On 11/14/22, the Administrator (now former) was made aware of an incident in which the Activity Director allegedly abused Resident #1 on 11/13/22, and on 11/25/22 the Administrator was then made aware of an additional allegation that the Activity Director also allegedly abused Resident #1 sometime in March 2022, however neither of these allegations were reported to the Department of Public Health until 11/29/22, two weeks after the Administrator was initially made aware of the allegations. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Abuse and Neglect, dated April 2017, indicated witnessed or alleged abusive action to a resident will be reported within two hours to the DPH by the Administrator, Director of Nursing, or designee. Review of Resident #1's clinical record indicated his/her diagnoses included Anxiety Disorder and Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility. Review of Resident #1' Smoking Agreement, dated 06/21/21, indicated all residents must be supervised while smoking. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 10/06/22, indicated he/she had severe cognitive impairment based on a Brief Interview for Mental Status; used a wheelchair and required limited assistance with a one person physical assist for locomotion off the unit. Review of Resident #1's Care Plan, dated 02/23/22, indicated he/she had verbal outbursts, accusatory behavior toward staff members and poor impulse control. Resident #1's Care Plan indicated if he/she becomes combative or resistive, to postpone activity and allow time for him/her to regain composure. During an interview on 12/21/22 at 11:00 A.M., Resident #1 said that on 11/13/22 at approximately 9:30 A.M., the Activity Director took a hold of the armrests of his/her wheelchair to push him/her out of the lobby and slapped the left side of his/her face. Resident #1 said he/she reported the incident the following day (11/14/22) to the former Administrator and to his/her family member. Resident #1 said that the local Police were notified (exact date unknown). Resident #1 said during the family meeting he/she reported that the Activity Director had slapped his/her face in the past for touching a rack of clean clothing in the laundry area. Review of the local Police Department Incident Report, dated 11/18/22, indicated after receiving a report that Resident #1 may have been assaulted by the program director (Activity Director) on 11/13/22, the Police Detective came to the facility on [DATE] at 12:27 P.M., to conduct a welfare check on Resident #1 and spoke to the Administrator at that time. During an interview on 01/05/23 at 2:30 P.M., the Social Worker said on 11/25/22, the Administrator (now former Administrator) told her that they were having a meeting with Resident #1's family that day to discuss an allegation that the Activity Director pushed Resident #1. The Social Worker said she asked the (former) Administrator if the alleged incident was reported to the DPH, and said the (former) Administrator told her he had not reported the alleged incident of abuse to the DPH. The Social Worker said she asked the (former) Administrator if he was aware that the allegations of abuse needed to be reported to the DPH within two hours, and said the (former) Administrator responded that he did not. The Social Worker said during the family meeting, Resident #1 provided additional information not previously reported to them, that sometime in March 2022 the Activity Director had allegedly slapped his/her face after he/she had gotten into the facility laundry area. The Social Worker said sometime after the meeting (exact date unknown) she again asked the (former) Administrator again if he reported the alleged incidents of abuse to DPH. The Social Worker said the (former) Administrator did not appear to know how to file a report to the DPH, and said it was unknown if or when a DPH report was filed. During an interview on 01/05/23 at 1:05 P.M., Family Member #1 said on 11/25/22 the (former) Administrator, the Social Worker and Assistant Director of Nurses attended a meeting at the family's request to discuss an allegation that on 11/13/22 Resident #1 was abused by the Activity Director. Family Member #1 said that during the meeting, Resident #1 stated he/she was slapped across the face by the Activities Director in the lobby area on 11/13/22, and also reported that sometime in March 2022 when he/she was looking for missing clothing in the clean laundry area, the Activity Director had slapped him/her after finding him/her there. During an interview on 01/05/23 at 12:40 PM., the Corporate Nurse said on 11/29/22 the (former) Administrator told her there was an allegation Resident #1 was abused by the Activity Director on 11/13/22 during an attempt to leave the lobby to go out to smoke. The Corporate Nurse said the (former) Administrator told her local Police came to the Facility (on 11/17/22), and a meeting with Resident #1's family was held (on 11/25/22) to discuss the allegation. The Corporate Nurse said the investigative material provided by the (former) Administrator also indicated that Resident #1 alleged he/she was slapped by the Activity Director in March 2022. The Corporate Nurse said the (former) Administrator told her that he had not notified the DPH. The Corporate Nurse said on 11/29/22 upon becoming aware of the allegations of abuse, she immediately reported to the incidents to the DPH. Review of the report submitted by the Facility via Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated 11/29/22 and time stamped 4:12 P.M., indicated that the report was submitted approximately 15 days after the Facility initially became aware on 11/14/22 of the alleged incident that Resident #1 was abused by the Activity Director on 11/13/22.
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

  • "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
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 5 harm violation(s), $314,533 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 70 deficiencies on record, including 5 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $314,533 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Massachusetts. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Maplewood Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns MAPLEWOOD CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Massachusetts, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Maplewood Center Staffed?

CMS rates MAPLEWOOD CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 64%, which is 17 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 90%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Maplewood Center?

State health inspectors documented 70 deficiencies at MAPLEWOOD CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 5 that caused actual resident harm, 61 with potential for harm, and 4 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Maplewood Center?

MAPLEWOOD CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 120 certified beds and approximately 74 residents (about 62% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in AMESBURY, Massachusetts.

How Does Maplewood Center Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, MAPLEWOOD CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (64%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Maplewood Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Maplewood Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MAPLEWOOD CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Maplewood Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at MAPLEWOOD CENTER is high. At 64%, the facility is 17 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 90%. 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 Maplewood Center Ever Fined?

MAPLEWOOD CENTER has been fined $314,533 across 2 penalty actions. This is 8.7x the Massachusetts average of $36,224. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Maplewood Center on Any Federal Watch List?

MAPLEWOOD 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.