CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST

150 UNIVERSITY DRIVE, AMHERST, MA 01002 (413) 256-8185
For profit - Partnership 134 Beds SHIMON LEFKOWITZ Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
16/100
#211 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

The Center for Extended Care at Amherst has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall quality of care. Ranked #211 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, this places it in the bottom half statewide, although it ranks #2 out of 5 in Hampshire County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is showing improvement in some areas, having reduced the number of issues from 13 in 2024 to 7 in 2025, but still faces serious challenges. Staffing is a concern, with only 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 43%, which is close to the state average. Alarmingly, there have been critical incidents, including a resident who died after falling from the bed when staff failed to provide the required two-person assistance, and another resident experienced worsening of a pressure ulcer due to inadequate care. While there are some strengths, such as average quality measures, the overall picture raises significant red flags for families considering this nursing home.

Trust Score
F
16/100
In Massachusetts
#211/338
Bottom 38%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
13 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
43% turnover. Near Massachusetts's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$28,915 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Massachusetts. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
34 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 13 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (43%)

    5 points below Massachusetts average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Massachusetts average (2.9)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 43%

Near Massachusetts avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $28,915

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: SHIMON LEFKOWITZ

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 34 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jun 2025 2 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Someone could have died · 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 #1), who had right sided weakness from a ...

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 #1), who had right sided weakness from a stroke and whose care plan interventions included that he/she required the assistance of two staff members for bed mobility, including turning and repositioning in bed, the Facility failed to ensure that staff consistently implemented and followed interventions from his/her plan of care. When on [DATE] at 1:15 P.M., while attempting to change his/her bed sheets, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 turned and repositioned Resident #1 on his/her left side in bed, without having another staff member present to assist her, Resident #1 rolled out of the bed and landed on his/her knees on the floor. Resident #1 sustained bilateral (right and left) distal femur (lower part of the thigh bone near the knee joint) fractures and was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED) where he/she presented with hemorrhagic shock (major blood loss after trauma) and died the next day. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive-Person Centered, dated as revised [DATE], indicated a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. Review of the Report submitted by the Facility via Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #1, whose Plan of Care identified that he/she required the assistance of two staff members with bed mobility (which included turning and repositioning), received care in bed at 1:15 P.M. from Certified Nurse Aide #1. The Report indicated that CNA #1 rolled Resident #1 (onto his/her left side) without assistance from another staff member, and was changing the bed sheet under him/her when he/she rolled out of bed and landed on his/her knees [on the floor]. The Report indicated that CNA #1 quickly went around the bed and lowered Resident #1 the rest of the way to the floor. The Report indicated a Nurse assessed Resident #1 who reported knee pain, and that no other injuries were identified. The Report indicated that Resident #1 was assisted back to bed via mechanical lift and once in bed he/she reported increased bilateral knee pain. Further review of the Report indicated that STAT (immediate) X-rays were obtained at 3:15 P.M. which identified bilateral distal femur fractures. The Report indicated that Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital ED for evaluation and he/she died on [DATE]. Review of Resident #1's Radiology Report, dated [DATE], indicated he/she had acute femoral fractures, on the left and right. Review of Resident #1's Hospital Discharge Note, dated [DATE], indicated he/she presented to the Hospital ED on [DATE], with bilateral femur fractures related to a fall at his/her nursing facility. The Note further indicated that Resident #1 was in traumatic hemorrhagic shock, transitioned to comfort measures, and passed away at 1:57 A.M. [on [DATE]]. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in February 2025, diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), long term/current use of anticoagulants (blood thinners), osteoarthritis, lack of coordination, need for assistance with personal care and weakness. Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired with a score of 1 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, scores indicate: 0-7 severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate cognitive impairment, and 13-15 cognitively intact). Further review of the MDS indicated Resident #1 was dependent on staff to roll left and right in bed and that he/she had upper and lower extremity limitations that interfered with daily functions or placed him/her at risk of injury. Review of Resident #1's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Care Plan, reviewed and renewed with Quarterly MDS completed [DATE], indicated he/she required assistance of two staff members for bed mobility, which included turning and repositioning during care, and required a mechanical lift with assistance of two staff members for transfers. Review of Resident #1's CNA Care Card (Certified Nurse Aide, reference guide, identifies residents specific care needs, including number of staff required to provide assistance during tasks), dated [DATE], indicated he/she required the assistance of two staff members for bed mobility (which included rolling and repositioning in bed). Review of Certified Nurse Aide #1's Personnel Record, indicated it included a CNA Competency Form, signed and dated by CNA #1 on [DATE], that indicated she had demonstrated competency in following the Fall Prevention Program, utilizing fall preventative measures according to the residents care plan, and reviewing the CNA Care Card. Further review of the Record indicated that on [DATE], CNA #1 completed education on safe patient handling for lifting and positioning. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 4:36 P.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 said she had been a CNA for 15 years, had worked per diem at the Facility since [DATE], and that she had only provided care to Resident #1 on two other occasions prior to [DATE]. CNA #1 said that she was not familiar with the procedure for reviewing the CNA Care Card or the Care Plan to determine the residents' care needs and relied on asking other staff. However CNA #1's statement was inconsistent and contradicted documentation in her personnel record, that was signed and dated by her, which indicated she had been educated and trained on facility procedure and need to review each residents Care Plan and CNA Care Card, prior to providing care. CNA #1 said she did not review Resident #1's Care Plan or CNA Care Card, to determine the level of staff assistance he/she required to provide safe care. CNA #1 said that on [DATE], she was changing Resident #1's bed sheets at 1:15 P.M., while he/she was in bed. CNA #1 said that she rolled Resident #1 onto his/her left side, and he/she held on to the left bedrail while she (CNA #1) went around to the right side of the bed and secured the fitted sheet to the mattress. CNA #1 said the sheet was too small for the mattress, and the mattress curled up on the right side of the bed which then caused Resident #1 to roll out of the left side of the bed. CNA #1 said Resident #1 landed on his/her knees on the floor, with the upper portion of his/her body still on the bed. CNA #1 said that while Resident #1 clung to the bedrail, she reached over the bed, grabbed him/her by the shirt, climbed across the bed, and slowly lowered his/her upper body to the ground. CNA #1 said she supported Resident #1's upper body against her legs while she rang the call light and yelled for help. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 9:01 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 (which also included a review of her written witness statement dated [DATE]) said she reviewed CNA #1's assignment with her at the start of the shift on [DATE] and said she told CNA #1 that Resident #1 required the assistance of two staff members for bed mobility and transfers. CNA #2 said that she offered to assist CNA #1 with Resident #1's care, about 30 minutes before her break, and again at 1:00 P.M., when she was leaving for break. CNA #2 further said that she informed CNA #1 she would be taking her break on the porch nearby and was available to help with Resident #1's care when needed. CNA #2 said CNA #1 never came to get her while she was on break and when she returned to the unit she learned that Resident #1 had fallen out of bed. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:00 A.M., Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) #1 said that during the day shift on [DATE], she was in the hallway on [NAME] 2 when she heard someone in Resident #1's room yelling for help. PTA #1 said that when she entered the room, Resident #1 was sitting on the floor on the left side of the bed, with both knees bent to one side and his/her upper body resting against CNA #1's legs. PTA #1 said no other staff members were present when she arrived, so she immediately went to find Nurse #1. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 3:07 P.M., Nurse #1 (which also included a review of her written witness statement dated [DATE]) said at 1:15 P.M. she responded to a call for help and found Resident #1 sitting on the floor on the left side of his/her bed. Nurse #1 said that Resident #1's knees were slightly tucked underneath him/her like someone in a skirt might sit and his/her back was supported by CNA #1's legs. Nurse #1 said there were no other staff members in the room and that CNA #1 admitted that she moved [turned and repositioned] Resident #1 on her own. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:39 P.M., Unit Manager #1 (which also included a review of her written witness statement dated [DATE]) said that she was called at 1:17 P.M. to come to Resident #1's room because he/she had fallen. Unit Manager #1 said that when she entered Resident #1's room, Nurse #1 and CNA #1 were already there, and Resident #1 was lying on the floor, parallel to the bed, on his/her right side with a pillow under his/her head. Unit Manager #1 said that when she asked Resident #1 what happened, he/she pointed at CNA #1 and said, it's her fault. Unit Manager #1 said that CNA #1 told her that she rolled Resident #1 onto his/her left side, without another staff member present to assist her, and to change the fitted sheet on his/her bed. Unit Manager #1 said CNA #1 reported that the sheet was too small, caused the mattress to buckle, and Resident #1 rolled out of bed and landed on his/her knees on the floor. Unit Manager #1 said that CNA #1 told her that she was on the opposite side of the bed from Resident #1 when this happened and that she had to go around the bed to lower Resident #1's upper body to the floor. Unit Manager #1 further said that when she asked CNA #1 if she was aware that Resident #1 required assistance from two staff members with care, which included bed mobility and repositioning, that CNA #1 remained silent, would not answer the question. Unit Manager #1 said that Resident #1 was transferred back to bed with the help of a mechanical lift and assistance from three staff members. Unit Manager #1 said that Resident #1 was alert and communicated that he/she was experiencing pain in both knees. Unit Manager #1 said Resident #1 was administered medication for pain and a STAT X-ray was ordered by the Physician. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:00 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that Resident #1's X-rays were completed at 3:15 P.M., revealing fractures in both the left and right distal femurs. The DON said Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital ED and comfort measures were initiated, as he/she was not a surgical candidate. The DON said the Facility was later informed that he/she had died in the early hours of [DATE]. The DON said that although CNA #1 was not typically assigned to the [NAME] 2 unit, she had worked several shifts per week at the Facility for nearly a year. The DON said that during CNA #1's orientation, she received training on how to access the CNA Care Card and Care Plan, prior to caring for a resident, to reference and determine the level of staff assistance each resident needed to be safely cared for. The DON further said the Resident Care Plans were regularly updated in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) and the interventions were automatically reflected on the CNA Care Card to ensure it accurately represented each resident's current care needs. The DON said the expectation was for staff to reference the Care Card before providing care. The DON said that Resident #1 required the assistance of two staff members for turning and repositioning in bed. The DON said that on [DATE], CNA #1 had not checked Resident #1's Care Plan or Care Card prior to moving Resident #1 in bed, without assistance from another staff member. On [DATE], the Facility presented the Surveyor with a plan of correction that addressed the areas of concern identified in this survey, the Plan of Correction provided is as follows: A. [DATE], Nursing immediately assessed Resident #1 for injuries, STAT X-rays were ordered, and he/she was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department for evaluation. B. [DATE], CNA #1 was suspended pending investigation and no longer works at the Facility. C. [DATE] through [DATE], the Director of Nurses (DON) and the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) provided re-education and re-trained all nursing staff that provide direct resident care, regarding the requirement to follow the resident's plan of care with every encounter. D. [DATE], a Root Cause Analysis was completed by the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee and an Improvement plan was developed. E. [DATE], the DON and the SDC completed additional staff training with a post education quiz, on providing assistance of two as care planned, with bed mobility and transfers. The training included instructions to get a nurse or therapist if another CNA is not available. F. [DATE], the Facility recognized that all residents have the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice, and the DON completed a facility-wide audit for all residents requiring assistance from two staff members for bed mobility and transfers, which included a review of their Comprehensive Care Plans and CNA Care Cards. G. Effective [DATE] through [DATE], daily visual observation audits by the Nursing Administration were conducted on all three shifts to ensure the resident's care plan interventions were being implemented and followed. H. The areas of concern and data collected, will continue to be presented at the Facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee Meeting monthly, and the Committee will continue to monitor for 60 to 90 days, to ensure substantial compliance. I. The Administrator, the Director of Nursing and/or their designees are responsible for overall compliance.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 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 #1), who had right sided weakness from a ...

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 #1), who had right sided weakness from a stroke and required the assistance of two staff members for turning and repositioning in bed, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with the necessary level of staff assistance to maintain his/her safety and prevent an incident/accident resulting serious injury and death. On [DATE] at 1:15 P.M., while attempting to change his/her bed sheets, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1, without another staff member to assist her, positioned Resident #1 on his/her left side away from her, and Resident #1 rolled out of the bed, landing on his/her knees on the floor. Resident #1 sustained bilateral (right and left) distal femur (lower part of the thigh bone near the knee joint) fractures and was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED) where he/she presented with hemorrhagic shock (major blood loss after trauma) and died the next day. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, dated as revised [DATE], indicated that a fall is defined as unintentionally coming to rest on the ground, floor or other lower level, but not as a result of an overwhelming external force (e.g. a resident pushes another resident). An episode where a resident lost his/her balance and would have fallen if not for another person or if he or she had not caught himself/herself, is considered a fall. Review of the Report submitted by the Facility via Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #1, whose Plan of Care identified that he/she required assistance from two staff members with bed mobility [which included turning and repositioning] received care in bed, at 1:15 P.M. from Certified Nurse Aide #1. The Report indicated that CNA #1 rolled Resident #1, without assistance from another staff member, and was changing the sheet under him/her when he/she rolled out of bed and landed on his/her knees. The Report indicated that CNA #1 quickly went around the bed and lowered Resident #1 the rest of the way to the floor. The Report indicated the Nurse assessed Resident #1 who reported knee pain, that no other injuries were identified, Resident #1 was assisted back to bed via mechanical lift and once in bed he/she reported increased bilateral knee pain. Further review of the Report indicated that STAT (immediate) X-rays were obtained at 3:15 P.M. which identified bilateral distal femur fractures. The Report indicated that Resident #1 was transferred to the ED for evaluation and he/she died on [DATE]. Review of Resident #1's Radiology Report, dated [DATE], indicated he/she had acute femoral fractures, on the left and right. Review of Resident #1's Hospital Discharge Note, dated [DATE], indicated he/she presented to the Hospital ED on [DATE], with bilateral femur fractures related to a fall at his/her nursing facility. The Note further indicated that Resident #1 was in traumatic hemorrhagic shock, transitioned to comfort measures, and passed away at 1:57 A.M. ([DATE]). Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in February 2025, diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), long term/current use of anticoagulants (blood thinners), osteoarthritis, lack of coordination, need for assistance with personal care and weakness. Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired with a score of 1 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, scores indicate: 0-7 severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate cognitive impairment, and 13-15 cognitively intact). Further review of the MDS indicated Resident #1 was dependent on staff to roll left and right in bed, and that he/she had upper and lower extremity limitations that interfered with daily functions or placed him/her at risk of injury. Review of Resident #1's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Care Plan, reviewed and renewed with Quarterly MDS completed [DATE], indicated he/she required assistance of two staff members for bed mobility, which included turning and repositioning, and required a mechanical lift with assistance of two staff members for transfers. Review of Resident #1's CNA Care Card (Certified Nurse Aide, reference guide, identifies residents specific care needs, including number of staff required to provide assistance during tasks), dated [DATE], indicated he/she required the assistance of two staff members for bed mobility (rolling and repositioning in bed). Review of Certified Nurse Aide #1's Personnel Record, indicated there was a CNA Competency Form, signed and dated by CNA #1 on [DATE], that indicated she had demonstrated competency in following, the Fall Prevention Program, utilizing fall preventative measures according to the care plan, and reviewing the CNA Care Card. Further review of the Record indicated that on [DATE] CNA #1 completed additional education on safe patient handling for lifting and positioning. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 4:36 P.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 said she had been a CNA for 15 years, had worked per diem at the Facility since [DATE], and that she had only provided care to Resident #1 on two occasions, prior to [DATE]. Although CNA #1's personnel record contained documenation specific to education and training she received while at the facility, which she dated and signed, CNA #1 said that she was not familiar with the facility procedure for reviewing the CNA Care Card or the Care Plans to determine the residents' care needs and relied on asking the staff. CNA #1 said she did not review Resident #1's Care Plan or CNA Care Card, to determine the level of assistance needed to provide safe care. CNA #1 said on [DATE] she changed Resident #1's bed sheets at 1:15 P.M., while he/she was in bed. CNA #1 said that she rolled Resident #1 onto his/her left side, and he/she held on to the left bedrail while she (CNA #1) went around to the right side of the bed and secured the fitted sheet to the mattress. CNA #1 said the sheet was too small for the mattress, the mattress started curling up on the right side of the bed and caused Resident #1 to roll out of the left side of the bed. CNA #1 said Resident #1 landed on his/her knees on the floor, with the upper portion of his/her body still on the bed. CNA #1 said that while Resident #1 clung to the bedrail, she reached over the bed and grabbed him/her by the shirt, climbed across the bed, and slowly lowered his/her upper body to the ground. CNA #1 said she supported Resident #1's upper body against her legs while she rang the call light and yelled for help. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 9:01 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 (which also included a review of her written witness statement dated [DATE]) said she reviewed CNA #1's assignment with her at the start of the shift and told her that Resident #1 required the assistance of two staff members for bed mobility and transfers. CNA #2 said that she offered to assist CNA #1 with Resident #1's care, about 30 minutes before her break, and again at 1:00 when she was leaving for break. CNA #2 further said that she informed CNA #1 she would be taking her break on the porch nearby and was available to help with Resident #1's care when needed. CNA #2 said CNA #1 never came to get her to assist with Resident #1's care. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:00 A.M., Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) #1 said that during the day shift on [DATE], she was in the hallway on [NAME] 2 when she heard someone in Resident #1's room yelling for help. PTA #1 said that when she entered the room, Resident #1 was sitting on the floor to the left side of the bed, with both knees bent to one side and his/her upper body resting against CNA #1's legs. PTA #1 said no other staff members were present when she arrived, so she immediately went to find Nurse #1. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 3:07 P.M., Nurse #1 (which also included a review of her written witness statement dated [DATE]) said at 1:15 P.M. she responded to a call for help and found Resident #1 sitting on the floor on the left side of his/her bed. Nurse #1 said that Resident #1's knees were slightly tucked underneath him/her like someone in a skirt might sit and his/her back was supported by CNA #1's legs. Nurse #1 said there were no other staff members in the room and that CNA #1 admitted that she moved [turned and repositioned] Resident #1 on her own. Nurse #1 said that Resident #1 required the assistance of two staff members with turning in bed and that CNA #1 did not ask anyone for assistance. Nurse #1 said that CNA #1 told her the fitted sheet she used was too small for Resident #1's mattress and that when she tried to make it fit the mattress buckled. Nurse #1 said she observed that the right side of the mattress was curled up because the fitted sheet was too small for the mattress. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:39 P.M., Unit Manager #1 (which also included a review of her written witness statement dated [DATE]) said that she was called at 1:17 P.M. to come to Resident #1's room because he/she had fallen. Unit Manager #1 said that when she entered Resident #1's room, Nurse #1 and CNA #1 were already there, and Resident #1 was lying on the floor, parallel to the bed, on his/her right side with a pillow under his/her head. Unit Manager #1 said that when she asked Resident #1 what happened, he/she pointed at CNA #1 and said it's her fault. Unit Manager #1 said that CNA #1 told her that she rolled Resident #1 onto his/her left side, without another staff member present to assist her, and changed the fitted sheet on his/her bed. Unit Manager #1 said CNA #1 reported that the sheet was too small, caused the mattress to buckle, and Resident #1 rolled out of bed and landed on his/her knees. Unit Manager #1 said that CNA #1 told her that she was on the opposite side of the bed from Resident #1 when this happened and that she had to go around the bed to lower Resident #1's upper body to the floor. Unit Manager #1 further said that when she asked CNA #1 if she was aware that Resident #1 required assistance from two staff members with care, she remained silent, would not answer the question and later blamed the incident on an ill-fitting sheet. Unit Manager #1 said that after the incident, once Resident #1 was in bed, she observed that there were bariatric sheets (the appropriate size for Resident #1's mattress) readily available in both nearby linen closets. Unit Manager #1 said that Resident #1 was transferred back to bed with the help of a mechanical lift and assistance from three staff members. Unit Manager #1 said that Resident #1 was alert and communicated that he/she was experiencing pain in both knees. Unit Manager #1 said Resident #1 was administered medication for pain and STAT X-rays were ordered by the Physician. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:00 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that Resident #1's X-rays were completed at 3:15 P.M., revealing fractures in both the left and right distal femurs. The DON said Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital ED and the Facility was later informed that he/she had died in the early hours of [DATE]. The DON said that although CNA #1 was not typically assigned to the [NAME] 2 unit, she had worked several shifts per week at the Facility for nearly a year. The DON said that during CNA #1's orientation, she received training on how to use the CNA Care Card and Care Plan to reference the level of assistance each resident needed to be safely cared for. The DON further said the CNA Care Card and Care Plans were regularly updated to reflect each resident's current care requirements. The DON said that Resident #1 required the assistance of two staff members for turning and repositioning in bed, and that on [DATE], CNA #1 rolled Resident #1 in bed without assistance from another staff member and did not seek help from anyone else while providing his/her care. The DON said that although the bed sheet that CNA #1 used was too small, Resident #1's fall from bed would have been prevented if a second staff member had been present to assist as required. On [DATE], the Facility presented the Surveyor with a plan of correction that addressed the areas of concern identified in this survey, the Plan of Correction provided is as follows: A. [DATE], Nursing immediately assessed Resident #1 for injuries, STAT X-rays were ordered, and he/she was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department for evaluation. B. [DATE], CNA #1 was suspended pending investigation and no longer works at the Facility. C. [DATE] through [DATE], the Director of Nurses (DON) and the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) provided re-education and re-trained all nursing staff that provide direct resident care, regarding the requirement to follow the resident's plan of care with every encounter. D. [DATE], a Root Cause Analysis was completed by the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee and an Improvement plan was developed. E. [DATE], the DON and the SDC completed additional staff training with a post education quiz, on providing assistance of two as care planned, with bed mobility and transfers. The training included instructions to get a nurse or therapist if another CNA is not available. F. [DATE], the Facility recognized that all residents have the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice, and the DON completed a facility-wide audit for all residents requiring assistance from two staff members for bed mobility and transfers, which included a review of their Comprehensive Care Plans and CNA Care Cards. G. Effective [DATE] through [DATE], daily visual observation audits by the Nursing Administration were conducted on all three shifts to ensure the resident's care plan interventions were being implemented and followed. H. The areas of concern and data collected, will continue to be presented at the Facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee Meeting monthly, and the Committee will continue to monitor for 60 to 90 days, to ensure substantial compliance. I. The Administrator, the Director of Nursing and/or their designees are responsible for overall compliance.
Jun 2025 4 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to provide care consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent deterioration of a pressure ulcer (localized ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to provide care consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent deterioration of a pressure ulcer (localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device) for one Resident (#41), of five applicable residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care and services, out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, for Resident #41, the facility failed to implement the Physician's order for the use of prophylaxis booties for a Deep Tissue Injury (DTI- pressure induced damage to underlying tissues, including muscles, bones, and subcutaneous layers, while the skin surface may remain intact.) pressure ulcer resulting in the Resident ' s Pressure Ulcer deteriorating with related swelling, redness and severe pain at the Pressure Ulcer location. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised March 2022, included but was not limited to the following: -A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident ' s physical .functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. >Each care plan is consistent with resident rights to participate .including the right to: Receive the services and/or items included in the plan of care. Resident #41 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with diagnoses including Restless Leg Syndrome, Diabetes Mellitus, Difficulty Walking, Dementia and Parkinsons Disease. Review of Resident #41 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 5/6/25, included but was not limited to the following: -The Resident was severely cognitively impaired as evident by the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six out of a total possible score of 15 with the ability to recall after cueing (something to wear). -The Resident required substantial/maximum assistance (helper does more than half the effort) to apply and remove footwear. -The Resident was at risk for Pressure Ulcers. -The Resident had an unhealed DTI Pressure Ulcer. On 6/2/25 at 11:43 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #41 lying in bed, covered by bed linens and a pair of gray booties were observed on a chair positioned at the foot of the Resident ' s bed. During an interview at the time, Resident #41 said those are my boots over there on that chair. Resident #41 said that he/she did not have booties on his/her feet under the bed linens. Resident #41 said he/she had a wound on the left foot and the nurses were treating it. Resident #41 said he/she was unaware if the wound was getting better or not and said his/her left foot had some bad pain. Resident #41 said that he/she should have booties on when in bed, but not all staff remember to put the booties on. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 8:51 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #41 lying in bed and Resident #41 said his/her left foot was hurting. Resident #41 said he/she was not wearing booties and then pointed to the chair at the foot of his/her bed. The surveyor observed a pair of gray booties on the chair at the foot of the Resident's bed. Resident #41 then lifted the bed linens to expose his/her legs and feet, and the surveyor observed the Resident ' s legs and feet and observed no booties to be in place. The Resident ' s left ankle was observed positioned directly against the mattress. The surveyor further observed eight spots of dried light pink substance on the Resident ' s fitted sheet around the area his/her left foot was located. The Resident said he/she was unaware if the skin was open, but the ankle was hurting more than yesterday. On 6/3/25 at 1:53 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #41 seated in a wheelchair at his/her bedside and wearing ankle high socks. The Resident ' s bed was unmade, and the fitted sheet on the Resident ' s bed was observed with multiple areas of dried light pink substance present on the Resident ' s fitted sheet where the Resident ' s feet were located in the previous observation at 8:51 A.M. During an observation and interview on 6/4/25 at 7:51 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #41 lying in bed and a pair of gray booties were located on a chair at the foot of the Resident ' s bed. Resident #41 said that he/she had started the night with the booties on but had used the bathroom and the booties were not put back on. Resident #41 said staff should have at least put a pillow under his/her feet but not everyone does. The Resident then pulled back his/her bed linen and the surveyor observed the Residents' legs and feet. The Residents ' left ankle was observed to be flat against the mattress without booties or a pillow in place. The surveyor then observed a light pink substance on the Residents ' fitted sheet in 12 spots along the foot area. The Surveyor observed Resident #41 from the hallway continuously until 8:42 A.M without evidence of staff entering the room. On 6/4/25 at 8:42 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #41 transferred out of bed and into a wheelchair by Nurse #1 and Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) #1. During an interview at the time, Nurse #1 said Resident #41 should have had booties on when he/she was in bed but did not. Nurse #1 said Resident #41 was at high risk for skin breakdown because of his/her diagnoses of Parkinsons Disease and Diabetes. Nurse #1 said the booties were ordered by the Physician to prevent Resident #41 ' s DTI from getting worse and without the booties on, the Resident ' s wound could worsen. Nurse #1 said the CNAs should know to apply the Resident ' s booties because the booties would be listed in the CNA care Kardex (resident specific information about delivery of care). The surveyor and Nurse #1 observed the CNA care Kardex for Resident #41, which did not indicate evidence for the application of the Resident ' s booties while in bed as a care needed intervention. Nurse #1 said the booties should also be listed in the Point of Care (POC) documentation for the CNA staff. The surveyor and Nurse #1 observed the POC documentation which did not have evidence present that the Resident required booties while in bed as a care need intervention. The surveyor and Nurse #1 observed the gray booties on the chair at the foot of the Residents' bed and Nurse #1 said the gray booties belonged to Resident #41 and should have been on the Resident when he/she was lying in bed. Nurse #1 said if Resident #41 had been out of bed during the night, the staff should have re-applied the booties when the Resident returned to bed. The surveyor and Nurse #1 then observed the Residents fitted sheet which had the pink substance present on the fitted sheet and Nurse #1 said the pink substance looked like wound drainage. The surveyor and Nurse #1 observed Resident #41 ' s left ankle wound. Nurse #1 said that the Resident ' s left ankle wound had dried drainage and appeared to be opened. Nurse #1 said the Resident ' s wound had deteriorated from DTI to an open wound. Review of Resident #41 ' s medical record included but was not limited to: -A Nursing Progress Note, dated 5/1/25 at 23:20 (11:20 P.M.) indicating Resident #41 had a new DTI pressure area to the left outer ankle. -A Physician's order for Skin Prep to the Resident ' s left outer ankle; DTI every shift for left ankle DTI, effective 5/2/25. -A Rehabilitation Screen request, dated 5/2/25 for new DTI to left ankle with a recommendation response to discontinue previous brace and continue booties to bilateral feet. -A Physicians order to apply booties to bilateral feet when in bed, every shift (11:00 P.M.-7:00A.M., 7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M., 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M.) for prophylaxis; Pressure Wound, effective 5/3/25. Review of Resident #41's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for May 2025 and June 2025 indicated: -Ankle brace to the left foot was discontinued, effective 5/2/25. -Booties were applied to bilateral feet as ordered, effective 5/3/25-6/4/25. -Skin Prep was applied to the left outer ankle DTI as ordered, effective 5/1/25- 6/4/25. Review of Resident #41 ' s weekly wound documentation for May 2025 included the following: -On 5/3/25 and 5/10/25 the Resident ' s left ankle DTI was intact, measured 7 mm (millimeters) in length by) 8 mm in width by 0 mm depth. -On 5/17/25 the Resident ' s left ankle DTI was intact, without evidence of measurements present. -On 5/24/25 the Resident ' s DTI was scabbed, improving, and measured 0.5 centimeters (cm). -On 5/31/25 the Resident ' s DTI was scabbed and measured less than 0.5 inch. Further review of Resident #41's medical record failed to indicate any evidence that the scabbed area identified on 5/24/25 and 5/31/25 to the Resident ' s left ankle had reported to the MD and/or the facility ' s wound care nurse and/or assessed as a newly identified skin issue. Review of Resident #41 ' s June 2025 Physician's orders included but was not limited to: -Activated Health Care Proxy (HCP-A person that can make decisions for another when they are unable to do so themselves), effective 4/19/24. -Apply Skin Prep (a liquid applied to the skin that forms a protective film barrier to protect against friction/shearing) to bilateral heels and left outer ankle pink areas to prevent breakdown, every day shift (7:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M.) and evening shift (3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M) for to [sic] prevent skin breakdown, effective 3/27/24 . -Diabetic Foot Care at bedtime (3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M.): note any abnormal findings in nurses note, effective 12/4/24. -Document Behavior Symptoms every shift; 4 = Rejection of care (code all that are observed; write a note for any observed behavior, effective 2/27/23. Review of Resident #41's Person-Centered care plan for Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Performance, revised 2/7/25, indicated: -The Resident had self care deficits. -The Resident required substantial/maximum assistance of one person for dressing. -The Resident required substantial/maximum assistance of one person for bed mobility. Review of Resident #41's Person-Centered care plan for Risk of/and Actual Skin Impairment, revised 5/2/25, indicated: -Resident will maintain or develop clean and intact skin through next review date, 8/6/25. -Administer treatment as ordered. -Report abnormalities, failure to heal .to Medical Doctor (MD). Review of Resident #41 ' s Behavior Monitoring documentation for May 2025 and June 2025 included but was not limited to: -No evidence of documented refusal of care. During an interview and observation on 6/4/25 at 9:08 A.M., Unit Manager (UM) #1 said she was the Wound Care Nurse in the facility and was following Resident #41 for the DTI pressure area of the left ankle. UM #1 said the DTI had been identified on 5/1/25 during evening care and had been thought to be caused by the Resident's previous foot brace, therefore the foot brace had been discontinued, and booties were ordered for protection along with a topical treatment of Skin Prep to the area. UM #1 said she first assessed the Resident ' s wound on 5/2/25 following morning report and the left ankle area was intact, maroon in color and non-blanching (an area of redness that does not fade when pressed on, typically due to bleeding under the skin). UM #1 said the Resident ' s left ankle DTI could get worse without the use of booties in place because the booties provided protection against pressure from the bed surface. UM #1 said the Resident ' s booties should be listed on the CNA Kardex and POC, but they were not. UM #1 said it was important to include the booties on the CNA Kardex and POC so that the CNA staff would know what was required for the care of Resident #41. UM #1 said Resident #41 spends most of the day in bed and the booties were important for protection of the DTI. UM #1 said Resident #41 had a history of refusing care but if the booties were refused the staff should use pillows to offload and float the DTI area to prevent skin breakdown. During that same time the surveyor and UM #1 observed Resident #41 ' s left ankle wound, and UM #1 said the Resident ' s wound had deteriorated, was open, was painful to the Resident when touched, and presented with new swelling. UM #1 further said the Resident ' s wound bed was now open and had drainage. UM #1 said that she should have been contacted sooner by the nurses about the change in the Resident ' s DTI area. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:40 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said Resident #41 did not have evidence of documented refusal of care for the months of May 2025 and June 2025. The DON said the Resident's booties should have been in place as ordered by the Physician. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 11:13 A.M., CNA #1 said she was the CNA providing care to Resident #41 today. CNA #1 said the nurses give report for anything a resident needed for care and that CNA staff could also read the residents ' care Kardex too. CNA #1 said she was aware that Resident #41 was supposed to have booties on when in the bed but had not checked the Resident until 8:42 A.M. for breakfast delivery. CNA #1 said there have been times in the past when CNA #1 came on duty and the Resident ' s booties were not in place from the night before, so she would have to put the booties on. CNA #1 said when she came to the Resident ' s room today to transfer the Resident for breakfast, the booties were not on the Resident but should have been on, to protect the left ankle wound. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 11:35 A.M., UM #1 said she had cleansed and measured the Resident ' s left ankle wound area to be 1 cm long by (x) 0.8 cm wide x 0.1 cm deep, and that the wound had scant serosanguinous (light pink) drainage, redness to the area, swelling and painful to touch. UM #1 said that Resident #41 reported nine out of 10 pain, and the Provider would be seeing the resident later today for examination. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:40 P.M., the DON said Resident #41 ' s intervention for booties were not listed on the CNA Kardex but should have been so that CNA staff would know how care was to be delivered for the Resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services per professional standards of practice related to monitoring the use of Vitamin D (vitamin that hel...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services per professional standards of practice related to monitoring the use of Vitamin D (vitamin that helps regulate calcium and phosphorus in the body, crucial for bone health and immune system) medication for one Resident (#116) out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, for Resident #116, the facility failed to obtain Physician orders to monitor serum laboratory results to determine appropriate decrease of the dosage of Vitamin D medication, when the Resident was administered high doses of Vitamin D medication weekly, putting him/her at risk for adverse effects of the medication. Findings include: Review of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) article titled: Vitamin D, Fact Sheet for Health Professionals, last updated 7/26/24, https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/ indicated the following in part: -Serum (blood) concentration of 25(OH)D is currently the main indicator of Vitamin D status. -Because Vitamin D is fat soluble, its absorption depends on the gut's ability to absorb dietary fat. Fat malabsorption is associated with medical conditions that include some forms of liver disease . -Excess amounts of Vitamin D are toxic. Because Vitamin D increases calcium absorption in the gastrointestinal tract, Vitamin D toxicity results in marked: >hypercalcemia (total calcium greater than 11.1 mg/dL, beyond the normal range of 8.4 to 10.2 mg/dL), >hypercalciuria, and high serum 25(OH)D levels (typically greater than 375 nmol/l [150 ng/mL]). Hypercalcemia, in turn, can lead to nausea, vomiting, muscle weakness, neuropsychiatric disturbances, pain, loss of appetite, dehydration, polyuria, excessive thirst, and kidney stones. -In extreme cases, Vitamin D toxicity causes renal failure, calcification of soft tissues throughout the body (including in coronary vessels and heart valves), cardiac arrhythmias, and even death. -Vitamin D toxicity has been caused by consumption of dietary supplements that contained excessive Vitamin D amounts because of manufacturing errors, that were taken inappropriately or in excessive amounts, or that were incorrectly prescribed by physicians. Resident #116 was admitted to the facility in August 2024, with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, Vitamin D Deficiency, cirrhosis of liver and Dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 5/20/25, indicated Resident #116 was severely cognitively impaired as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 out of a total possible score of 15. Review of Resident #116's June 2025 Physician's Order Summary, indicated: -Ergocalciferol (Vitamin D) Oral Capsule 1.25 milligram (mg) (50000 UT), give 50000 IU by mouth one time a day, every Thursday, related to Hypocalcemia (low calcium in the blood), initiated 8/16/24. Further review of the Physician Order Summary failed to indicate any Physician orders to monitor for Vitamin D toxicity or ongoing orders to monitor and obtain serum laboratory values for Vitamin D levels. Review of the Physician's Progress Note dated 8/19/24, indicated the following relative to Resident #116: -Vitamin D deficiency -Continue Ergocalciferol 50,000 IU weekly x 8 weeks -Recheck Vitamin D level -If Vitamin D level was within Normal limit, convert Vitamin D dose to 2000 IU daily. Review of the Physician's Progress Note dated 9/30/24 indicated: -Vitamin D deficiency -Continue Ergocalciferol 50,000 (International Units) IU weekly x 8 weeks -Recheck Vitamin D level -If Vitamin D level was within Normal limit, convert Vitamin D dose to 2000 IU daily. Further review of the Physician's Progress Note dated 9/30/24, indicated that Vitamin D levels had not been ordered from admission, but had been ordered to be drawn on 10/14/24. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 12:20 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said there was no Physician's order for Vitamin D serum laboratory levels to be obtained for Resident #116. The DON further said Vitamin D serum laboratory levels for Resident #116 had not been ordered by the Physician, and had not been drawn. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 12:45 P.M., the Physician Nurse Practitioner (PNP) said Vitamin D serum laboratory levels for Resident #116 had not been ordered and there was no record that a serum Vitamin D level had been obtained. The PNP said a serum Vitamin D level was needed to monitor for the continued need of the Vitamin D 50,000 IU weekly. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 2:27 P.M., the Pharmacy Consultant said he did not realize Resident #116 was being administered Vitamin D 50,000 IU weekly. The Pharmacy Consultant said Vitamin D 50,000 IU was usually prescribed to be administered monthly and was not aware the Resident had been taking the Vitamin D 50,000 IU weekly for the past 10 months without serum Vitamin D laboratory levels. The Pharmacy Consultant further said Vitamin D 50,000 units being administered to Resident #116 for this length could lead to Vitamin D toxicity. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:08 A.M., the facility's Medical Director said serum Vitamin D laboratory levels for Resident #116 should have been ordered, and obtained and he was not aware that this had not been done.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0809 (Tag F0809)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that resident meal trays were served timely fo...

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 that resident meal trays were served timely for three Units (West 1, [NAME] 2 and Dharma), out of three units observed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that resident meals were delivered timely and coordinated with medication administration times for residents that required meals in order for medications to be appropriately administered. Findings include: Review of the Food Truck Delivery Schedule, undated, indicated the following meal delivery times: >Breakfast: West 2-A: 7:55 A.M. West 2-B: 8:05 A.M. West 1-A: 8:15 A.M. West 1-CDR: 8:25 A.M. West 1-B: 8:30 A.M. Skole (Dharma Unit): 8:35 A.M. Gluckin (Dharma Unit): 8:40 A.M. [NAME] 1 (Dharma Unit): 8:45 A.M. >Lunch: West 2-A: 11:55 A.M. West 2-B: 12:00 P.M. West 1-A: 12:05 P.M. West 1-CDR: 12:20 P.M. West 1-B: 12:30 P.M. Skole (Dharma Unit): 12:35 P.M. Gluckin (Dharma Unit): 12:45 P.M. [NAME] 1(Dharma Unit): 12:50 P.M. >Dinner: West 2-A: 4:50 P.M. West 2-B: 5:00 P.M. West 1-A: 5:10 P.M. West 1-CDR: 5:20 P.M. West 1-B: 5:30 P.M. Skole (Dharma Unit): 5:40 P.M. Gluckin (Dharma Unit): 5:50 P.M. [NAME] 1 (Dharma Unit): 6:00 P.M. On 6/3/25 from 1:30 P.M. to 2:30 P.M., a Resident Council Meeting was held with the surveyor, and the following concerns were relayed: -Resident #8 said when alternate food items were requested, it took 30 minutes for the food to be received. -Resident #86, who resided on [NAME] 1 Unit, said the meals were not delivered timely. Six other residents who were in the meeting agreed. Resident #86 further said that he/she was Diabetic and received Insulin medication prior to meals, and the timing of his/her meals mattered for the medication administration. Resident #86 said his/her breakfast meal tray delivery could range from 8:00 A.M. until 9:30 A.M., lunch meal tray delivery could range from 12:00 P.M. to 1:30 P.M. and dinner tray meal delivery could range from 4:30 P.M. to 6:30 P.M. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 10:05 A.M., Family Member #1, whose family resided on the Dharma Unit, said the times that the resident meals were delivered varied greatly. Family Member #1 said the dinner meal for his/her family could be served at 5:15 P.M. up until 6:30 P.M., which made a difference with when medications were administered and the effect of the medications. Family Member #1 said his/her family received a medication to assist with sleep and if that medication was administered prior to receiving the dinner meal and the meal was late, his/her loved one would be sleepy and would have difficulty consuming the meal. Family Member #1 said when he/she requested an alternate meal/items, there were times when the kitchen would be contacted and no one would respond to attend to the request. Family Member #1 said this occurred mostly on the weekends when staff in the kitchen were not available for meal/food requests, so he/she had been bringing in food from home on the weekends to give to his/her family. Family Member #1 said he/she requested an early dinner meal for 5:00 P.M. on 5/29/25 so he/she could attend a family support meeting at the facility for 6:00 P.M. and the dinner meal did not arrive until 6:15 P.M., so he/she missed the meeting. Review of the Food Truck Delivery Daily Tracking Logs from 5/2/25 through 5/31/25 indicated that on 25 out of 29 days, resident meals were delivered 20 minutes or more from the scheduled meal delivery time indicated. On the following dates/times, the following was observed by the surveyors: -6/3/25 at 8:17 A.M., the [NAME] 2-B Food Truck arrived on the [NAME] 2 Unit (scheduled to arrive at 8:05 A.M.) -6/4/25 at 12:36 P.M., the [NAME] 2-B Food Truck arrived to the [NAME] 2 Unit (scheduled to arrive at 12:00 P.M.) -6/4/25 at 12:38 P.M., the [NAME] 1-A Food Truck arrived to the [NAME] 1 Unit (scheduled to arrive at 12:05 P.M.) -6/4/25 at 12:45 P.M., the [NAME] 1-B Food Truck arrived to the [NAME] 1 Unit (scheduled to arrive at 12:30 P.M.) -6/4/25 at 12:56 P.M., the [NAME] 1-CDR Food Truck arrived to the [NAME] 1 Unit (scheduled to arrive at 12:20 P.M.) -6/4/25 at 1:03 P.M., the Skole Food Truck arrived to the Dharma Unit (scheduled to arrive at 12:35 P.M.) -6/4/25 at 1:12 P.M., the Gluckin Food Truck arrived to the Dharma Unit (scheduled to arrive at 12:45 P.M.) -6/4/25 at 1:20 P.M., the [NAME] Food Truck arrived to the Dharma Unit (scheduled to arrive at 12:50 P.M.) During an interview on 6/4/25 at 2:32 P.M., the surveyor reviewed the concerns about meal delivery times and observations from survey with the Food Service Director (FSD). The FSD said she was made aware by nursing on occasion when resident meals were late, but was not aware that this was a consistent concern. The FSD said when she reviewed the Food Truck Delivery Logs, she saw that there were issues with when resident meals were delivered to the units compared to when they were scheduled to be delivered. The FSD said unless there was a concern expressed, she did not routinely review the Food Truck Delivery Logs, but should have been. The FSD said she understood the concern relative to the resident meal delivery times and that this process needed to be changed. During an interview on 6/04/25 at 3:22 P.M., the Administrator said he was aware and understood that there was an issue with when resident meals were delivered.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -storage for resident food/fluids remaine...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -storage for resident food/fluids remained clean and free of foul odors -shelves that maintained clean pots/pans/dishware used for resident meals were clean and free from debris -fans in the facility kitchen were free of dust/debris Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Sanitation, undated, indicated the following: >Equipment and Utensils: -utensils and food-contact surfaces of equipment shall be cleaned and sanitized -tableware shall be washed, rinsed, and sanitized after each use -non-food-contact surfaces of equipment shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep the equipment free of accumulation of dust, dirt, food particles, and other debris On 6/2/25 from 7:25 through 7:41 A.M., during an initial kitchen tour, the surveyor observed the following: -shelf/tray that house containers of spices were dirty and had debris present -large utility fan in the storage area was thickly covered with dirt/dust. -milk cooler had a strong rancid odor and had puddles of water and milk on the bottom of the cooler. -presence of fruit flies/gnats On 6/4/25 from 11:36 A.M. through 1:15 P.M., the surveyor observed the following in the main facility kitchen: -multi-shelve units that housed clean pots/pans located to the left of the walk-in refrigerator had observable dirt, grease present -clear bins with clean utensils had presence of food particles -lower shelves near the preparation areas which had clean pots/pans present, were visibly dirty and had food particles/debris present -large utility fan located in a preparation and clean dishes area was observed on and was dirty and dust laden. -presence of fruit flies/gnats During an observation and interview on 6/4/25 at 11:56 A.M., the Food Service Director (FSD) said the shelving/bins that had clean pots/pans/utensils were dirty and should be cleaned weekly and as needed. The FSD said this was not currently a task delegated on the kitchen's cleaning schedule and would need to be added. The FSD said the utility fans located in the kitchen were dusty, were maintained by the Maintenance Department and were cleaned when the Dietary staff notified them that they needed to be cleaned. The FSD further said that the sanitization concerns identified in the kitchen were an infection control concern. The FSD said the Maintenance Department were aware of the fruit flies/gnats located in the kitchen. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 4:10 P.M., the Director of Maintenance said there had been an issue with fruit flies/gnats in the facility kitchen for approximately a month and was improving with treatment. The Director of Maintenance further said the utility fans were put in the kitchen to draw out the fruit flies/gnats from the facility kitchen. The Director of Maintenance said there was no routine cleaning of the utility fans and that they would typically not be in the kitchen until the weather was warmer, and that they should not have been in the kitchen if they were dirty.
Apr 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 records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled employee personnel files, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1, the Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed their Abuse pol...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled employee personnel files, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1, the Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed their Abuse policies related to background checks when Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) and Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) checks were not conducted on CNA #1 as required, prior to employment at the facility. Findings include: Review of the Facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program, undated, indicated the Facility will conduct employee background checks and not knowingly employ or otherwise engage any individual who has: a. been found guilty of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of property, or mistreatment by a court of law, b. had a finding entered into the state nurse aide registry concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of their property; or c. a disciplinary action in effect against his or her professional license by a state licensure body as a result of a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of resident property. Review of CNA #1's personnel file indicated CNA #1 was hired by the Facility on 12/20/20, and was a current employee. Further review of CNA #1's personnel file indicated that NAR and CORI checks had not been performed prior to or upon hire. During an interview on 04/15/25 at 12:15 P.M., the Human Resource Director said that the process for hiring new Facility staff included obtaining NAR and CORI checks prior to the start of employment. The Human Resource Director said that she had no documentation to support that NAR or CORI checks had been done on CNA #1 and that she could not speak to the hiring process that was in place prior to her employment October 2024. During an interview on 04/15/25 at 4:30 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that NAR and CORI checks should be completed on all new staff prior to employment. The DON said the Facility had no documentation to support that NAR and CORI checks had been done for CNA #1. The DON said an audit of personnel records had not been completed.
Nov 2024 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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who was severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for care, the Facility failed to ensure he/she w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who was severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for care, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was treated in a dignified and respectful manner, when on 10/13/24 at 9:00 A.M., two staff members witnessed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 directing profanity at Resident #1 and treating him/her in a demeaning, insulting manner during care. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Resident Rights, dated as revised 02/20/21, indicated that employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect and dignity. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in September 2016, diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 10/09/24, indicated Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired with a score of 0 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, scores indicate: 0-7 severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate cognitive impairment, and 13-15 cognitively intact). Further review of the MDS indicated Resident #1 was totally dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and mobility, and he/she rejected care one to three days per week during the assessment reference period. Review of the Facility's Investigation Summary, undated, indicated CNA #2 said that CNA #1 used fowl language while caring for Resident #1 and accused him/her of being difficult. The Report indicated that CNA #3 said she also witnessed CNA #1 use profanity during Resident #1's care, and that CNA #1 had rolled Resident #1 over during care too fast and was rough. The Report indicated the incident was reported to the Nurse Supervisor, upon completion of Resident #1's care, and CNA #1 was suspended pending investigation. During a telephone interview on 11/08/24 at 12:06 P.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 said that on 10/13/24, while she was providing morning care to Resident #1, CNA #2 was providing care to his/her roommate, and CNA #3 arrived a few moments later to help with Resident #1's mechanical lift transfer. CNA #1 said that she may have used profanity when speaking to CNA #2 when she did not help her with Resident #1's care, and that CNA #2 must have misunderstood and thought her swearing was directed at Resident #1. During an interview on 11/07/24 at 11:40 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 (which also included a review of her Written Witness Statement dated 10/13/24) said that while she was providing care to Resident #1's roommate, at 9:00 A.M., CNA #1 was in the room, providing care to Resident #1. CNA #2 said the privacy curtain was drawn and that although she could not see CNA #1, she clearly heard her direct profanity, repeatedly, at Resident #1. CNA #2 said that Resident #1 was calling out during care and that CNA #1 sounded increasingly frustrated. CNA #2 said that Resident #1 had a history of resisting and calling out during care, especially with unfamiliar staff. CNA #2 said that she heard CNA #1 say to Resident #1, [Resident #1] why the fuck are you so difficult?, What the fuck is your problem? and Why won't you fucking roll? CNA #2 said that CNA #1 told her (in the presence of Resident #1) I can't fucking deal with [Resident #1], I don't know why he/she is being so difficult when he/she can fucking help! CNA #2 said that she told CNA #1 that Resident #1 couldn't help his/her behavior. CNA #2 said that she couldn't intervene at that moment because it would have been unsafe to leave the resident she was caring for, so she rang the call light for assistance. CNA #2 said that CNA #3 immediately responded to the call light. Review of Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #3's Written Witness Statement, dated 10/13/24, indicated that she entered Resident #1's room to assist with his/her care and witnessed CNA #1 roll him/her roughly and too quickly. CNA #3 said that CNA #1 said [Resident #1] is too fucking much! During a telephone interview on 11/07/24 at 1:57 P.M., the Nurse Supervisor (which also included a review of her Written Witness Statement dated 10/13/24) said that when she suspended CNA #1, pending investigation of the incident involving Resident #1, she acted aggressively toward staff and tried to find out who reported her, prior to leaving the facility. During an interview on 11/07/24 at 1:30 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that based on witness statements and the Nurse Supervisor's interview with CNA #1, she was suspended pending an internal investigation and was terminated.
Apr 2024 1 deficiency
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who required staff assistance with ambulation and was usually continent, the Facility failed to ensure staff ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who required staff assistance with ambulation and was usually continent, the Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed their Abuse Policy related to the need to immediately report an allegation of abuse to the Administrator and/or designee, when on 03/14/24 at approximately 5:00 A.M., Resident #1 reported to the Nurse Supervisor that a Certified Nurse Aide (later identified as CNA #1) told him/her that he/she was not allowed to get out of bed to use the bathroom until the morning. Although the Nurse Supervisor was made aware of the allegation, Facility Administration was not made aware of the incident until 9:30 A.M. (over four hours later), when the Director of Nurses (DON) discovered a progress note about the allegation, and subsequently CNA #1 also worked through to the end of the shift, for a minimum of two more hours, therefore placing other residents at risk for abuse/neglect. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation - Reporting and Investigating, dated as revised September 2022, indicated all reports of abuse (including injuries of unknown origin), neglect, exploitation, or theft/misappropriation of resident property are reported to local, state, and federal agencies (as required by current regulations) and thoroughly investigated by facility management. Further review of the Policy indicated if resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property or injury of unknown source is suspected, the suspicion must be reported immediately to the administrator, Director of Nursing and to other officials according to state law. The Policy indicated the administrator ensures that the resident and the person (s) reporting the suspected violation are protected from retaliation or reprisal by the alleged perpetrator, or by anyone associated with the facility. The Policy indicated any employee who has been accused or resident abuse is placed on leave with no resident contact until the investigation is complete. Review of the Facility Policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, dated as revised 01/11/23, indicated abuse includes the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of goods and services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The Policy indicated that when a suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur, an investigation is immediately warranted. Once the resident is is cared for and initial reporting has occurred, an investigation should be conducted. Review of the Facility's Investigation Narrative, undated, indicated that during a review of clinical notes during the Facility's morning meeting on 03/14/24, it was noted that Resident #1 told the Nurse Supervisor during the overnight shift, that he/she had a terrible night because someone told him/her that he/she could not get out of bed and use the bathroom until the morning. The Narrative indicated the Social Worker interviewed Resident #1 who further alleged that the staff member pushed him/her back into bed. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in March 2024, diagnoses included left artificial knee and difficulty walking. Resident #1's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 03/05/24, indicated Resident #1 was cognitively intact with a score of 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, scores indicate: 0-7 severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate cognitive impairment, and 13-15 cognitively intact). Further review of the MDS indicated Resident #1 was always continent of urine and required partial/moderate assistance from staff for mobility and activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of Resident #1's Nurse Progress Note (written by the Nurse Supervisor), dated 03/14/24 and time stamped 7:28 A.M., indicated that Resident #1 complained that he/she had a horrible night because someone told him/her that he/she could not get out of bed to use the bathroom until morning. During a telephone interview on 04/24/24 at 12:22 P.M., the Nurse Supervisor said that when he checked Resident #1's vital signs on 03/14/24 at approximately 5:00 A.M., Resident #1 appeared anxious, upset, and slightly confused. The Nurse Supervisor said that Resident #1 told him that a CNA (identified as CNA #1) on the overnight shift told him/her that he/she was not allowed to get out of bed to use the bathroom until morning. The Nurse Supervisor said he documented Resident #1's allegation in his/her medical record, but said he did not report the allegation to Facility Administration. During an interview on 04/24/24 at 1:07 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that on the morning of 03/14/24, at approximately 9:30 A.M., she discovered a progress note in Resident #1's Medical Record that indicated he/she told the Nurse Supervisor that a staff member refused to assist him/her to the bathroom during the overnight shift and had said he/she had to wait until morning. The DON said that Resident #1 had urine-soaked clothing and bedding that morning, which was unusual because he/she did not have a history of urinary incontinence. The DON said that the Nurse Supervisor had not immediately reported the allegation to Facility Administration as required, therefore, the accused (CNA #1) was allowed to work the remainder of her shift, placing other residents at risk for abuse.
Apr 2024 11 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure a dignified existence for the facility resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure a dignified existence for the facility residents in one dining room ([NAME]) out of three dining rooms observed on the Dharma Unit (Dementia Special Care Unit - DSCU). Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that: 1. the staff spoke respectfully of residents. 2. staff were seated while assisting residents with their meals. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Dignity, revised February 2021, indicated the following: -Residents are treated with dignity and respect at all times. -Staff speak respectfully to residents at all times, including addressing the resident by his or her name of choice, and not labeling or referring to the resident by his or her room number, diagnosis, or care needs. Review of the facility policy titled Assistance with Meals, revised March 2022, indicated the following: -Residents who cannot feed themselves will be fed with attention to safety, comfort, and dignity, for example: a. not standing over residents while assisting them with meals b. keeping interactions with other staff to a minimum while assisting residents with meals c. avoiding the use of labels when referring to residents (e.g. feeders) During the initial dining observation on 4/7/24 from 9:55 A.M. to 10:15 A.M., in the [NAME] dining room the surveyor observed the following: -A staff member asked loudly enough for all in the dining room to hear, Are there anymore feeders? -A staff member responded loudly enough for all in the dining room to hear He/she is also a feed, you can do him/her when you are done. During a dining observation at the breakfast meal on 4/8/24 from 9:06 A.M. to 9:25 A.M., in the [NAME] dining room the surveyor observed the following: -A staff member standing at the side of a resident assisting him/her with his/her meal. -The surveyor further observed that there were multiple empty chairs available for the standing staff member to sit while assisting the resident with his/her meal. During a dining observation at the lunch meal on 4/8/24 from 12:47 P.M. to 1:27 P.M., in the [NAME] dining room the surveyor observed the following: -Certified Nurses Aides (CNA) #1 and CNA #2 were seated at a dining room table with multiple residents present, and having a personal conversation in a language that was not fluent for all the residents seated at the table. During an interview on 4/8/24 at 12:49 P.M., Unit Manager (UM) #2 said not all residents who were seated at the table where CNA #1 and CNA #2 were seated, spoke the language the CNA's were speaking. UM #2 said the CNAs should not be having a personal conversation in the dining room while seated at a table with residents. During a dining observation at the breakfast meal on 4/9/24 from 8:53 A.M. to 9:31 A.M., in the [NAME] dining room the surveyor observed the following: -The Dharma Unit Activities Director said loudly enough for all in the dining room to hear He/she (referring to a resident still in the dining room) is a feed. -The Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) was standing while assisting a resident with his/her meal from 9:05 A.M. to 9:10 A.M. -The surveyor further observed that there were multiple empty chairs available for the SDC to sit in while assisting the resident. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 9:10 A.M., the SDC said she should not have been standing over the resident to assist him/her with his/her meal, that she should have been seated next to the resident. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 9:31 A.M., UM #2 said when staff members are assisting residents with their meals, the staff members should be seated at the residents' level. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 1:45 P.M., the Dharma Unit Activities Director said the residents should not be referred to as feeds and wording such as he/she needs assistance should be used instead. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 1:48 P.M., UM #2 said staff should not refer to residents by their level of care needs such as feeders, that staff should utilize the resident's name which is more dignified.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the Physician/Non-Physician Practitioner (NPP/ Nurse Practit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the Physician/Non-Physician Practitioner (NPP/ Nurse Practitioner) of a significant change in condition for two Residents (#54 and #74) out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to notify the Physician/NPP: 1. To determine the need to alter medication treatment when Resident #54 had recurrent seizure activities. 2. When Resident #74 experienced an unplanned, significant weight loss in one month. Findings include: 1. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility in November 2017 with diagnoses including: Idiopathic Epilepsy (a type of epilepsy with a strong genetic basis that affects people of all races and sexes), Epileptic Syndromes (a group of signs and symptoms that tend to occur together in seizure activity) with Seizures (a burst of uncontrolled electrical activity in the brain that cause temporary changes in muscle tone, behaviors, sensations or awareness) of localized onset and Conversion Disorder (functional neurologic system disorder that causes physical and sensory problems that are not caused by the person faking them). Review of Resident #54's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated the Resident was cognitively intact, as evidenced by a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of total possible 15, and that the Resident was independent with activities of daily living (ADLs). During an interview on 4/10/24 at 8:47 A.M., Resident #54 said that he/she had chronic pain related to his/her uncontrolled seizures. The Resident said that most of the time the seizure activity resulted in a fall or hitting part of his/her body on objects in his/her room. Review of the April 2024 Physician's orders for Resident #54 indicated: -Lamotrigine (medication used to treat seizures) 400 milligram (mg) tablet every morning and at bedtime for Epilepticus (medical emergency of seizures), initiated 1/3/2022. Review of the Nursing Progress Notes indicated the following: -On 5/19/23, Resident #54 had a seizure while ambulating in the hallway and was lowered to the floor. The Nursing Progress Note further indicated that Resident #54's seizure lasted approximately 30 seconds and he/she was assisted back into a wheelchair, then into his/her bed. -On 10/15/23, Resident #54 had a seizure that lasted approximately 10 seconds and that the Resident was assisted into his/her bed. -On 11/12/23, Resident #54 had a seizure that lasted 10 to 15 seconds. -On 12/9/23, Resident #54 mentioned to the Nurse that he/she did not feel right, and the Nurse observed that the Resident had a seizure that lasted for 10 seconds. -On 1/7/24, Resident #54 wheeled him/herself in the hallway, had a seizure and was lowered to the floor. The Nursing Progress Note further indicated that the Resident's seizure lasted approximately 15 seconds and he/she was assisted back to bed. -On 3/3/24, Resident #54 had a seizure that lasted approximately 20 seconds and the Resident was assisted back to his/her bed. Further review of Resident #54's Medical Record failed to indicate that the Physician/NPP was notified of Resident #54's seizure activity on: 5/19/23, 10/15/23, 11/12/23, 12/9/23, 1/7/24, and 3/3/24. During an interview on 4/10/24 at 10:47 A.M., Nurse #4 said if a Resident had a seizure, he would perform vital signs and notify the Physician/NPP for further orders. Nurse #4 further said he had not had Resident #54 on his assignment. During an interview on 4/10/24 at 11:00 A.M., Nurse #1 said she had only worked in the facility for a few months, but if she had a resident with seizures, she would perform a physical assessment and notify the Physician/NPP. During an interview on 4/10/24 at 11:15 A.M., the NPP said the facility staff had never informed her that Resident #54 ever had any seizure activity. The NPP said she should have been notified each time Resident #54 had seizure activity and was not notified. The NPP further said there had been concerns about Physicians/NPP not receiving notification from the facility staff about resident change in condition and this was a task being worked on with the facility. During an interview on 4/10/24 at 12:18 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said the facility had no policy on Physician/NPP notification. When the surveyor asked the DON about the Physician/NPP notification process for Resident #54, the DON said the Resident's seizures were not true and if the staff believed they were true seizures the staff would have notified the Physician. 2. Resident #74 was admitted to the facility in February 2024, with diagnoses including urinary tract infection (UTI: bacterial infection of the urinary tract) and fracture of the upper end of the left humerus (the bone of the upper arm, forming joints at the shoulder and the elbow). During an interview on 4/7/24 at 10:25 A.M., Resident #74 said that he/she had lost weight since their admission to the facility. The Resident also said that he/she had discussed the weight loss concerns with staff. Review of Resident #74's weights documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) indicated: -On 2/19/24, the Resident weighed 111.5 lbs. -On 3/13/24, the Resident weighed 104.5 pounds (a 6.28 % significant weight loss in one month). Review of Resident #74's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 2/24/24, indicated the following: -The Resident was cognitively intact as exhibited by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of a total 15 points. -The Resident was not on a Physician prescribed weight loss regimen. Review of Resident #74's care plan for Nutrition Risk, initiated 3/6/24, indicated the following interventions: -to report to Physician significant weight loss: 3 pounds in 1 week, greater than 5% in one month, greater than 7.5% in three months, greater than 10% in six months. -monitor weights and notify the Physician of any significant change. Review of the facility's Risk Meeting Notes indicated that the facility was aware that Resident #74 had triggered for weight loss on 3/7/24. Review of Resident #74's medical record did not indicate that the Physician/NPP had been notified of the significant weight loss. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 12:55 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said when a resident experiences a significant weight loss, the Physician should be notified immediately. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 2:13 P.M., the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) said that she had not been made aware of Resident #74's weight loss and that she should have been notified by the facility staff.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and record review the facility failed to ensure that a homelike environment was maintained for residents in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and record review the facility failed to ensure that a homelike environment was maintained for residents in one dining area ([NAME]) out of three dining areas observed on the Dharma Unit (Dementia Special Care Unit). Specifically, the facility and staff failed to ensure that the dining experience for residents was a homelike environment by adding tablecloths to the dining room tables and removing meals from the meal trays prior to serving the residents. Findings include: On the following days and times: -4/7/24 at 10:15 A.M., -4/8/24 at 9:06 A.M., -4/8/24 at 12:47 A.M., -4/9/24 at 9:00 A.M., the surveyor observed in the [NAME] dining area, multiple residents seated at tables with no tablecloths covering the tables and all resident meals were being served on the delivery trays, that no meals had been removed from the delivery trays before being placed in front of the residents. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 9:31 A.M., Unit Manager (UM) #2 said the dining in the [NAME] dining area would be more homelike if tablecloths were added to the tables. UM #2 further said she was unsure why tablecloths were not utilized in the [NAME] dining area as tablecloths were used on the tables in the other two dining areas on the Dharma Unit. UM #2 also said that staff used to take all items off the delivery trays and set them up in front of the residents, but that had not been done in some time. UM #2 said removing the meal items from the delivery trays would make the dining experience more homelike for the residents.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments were accurately coded...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments were accurately coded for two Residents (#101 and #122), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the MDS Assessment: 1. For Resident #101, was accurately coded relative to receiving hospice services. 2. For Resident #122, was accurately coded relative to the use of antibiotic medications. Findings include: 1. Resident #101 was admitted to the facility in November 2023 with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure (a condition that occurs when the lungs cannot provide enough oxygen to the body or remove enough carbon dioxide from the body, identified with symptoms of trouble breathing and fatigue), Heart Failure (HF: when the heart is unable to pump blood as it should, resulting in fluid buildup in the feet, arms, lungs and other organs) and Multiple Sclerosis (MS: a chronic autoimmune disorder affecting movement, sensation, and bodily functions). Review of Resident #101's care plan, last revised 4/8/24, indicated that the Resident was receiving Hospice (a program that gives special care to people who are near the end of life and have stopped treatment to cure or control their disease) services starting on 3/4/24. Review of Resident #101's Significant Change MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the Resident was not receiving Hospice services. Review of April 2024 Physician's orders for Resident #101 indicated the following: -Admit to Hospice, start date 3/4/24 -Continue with Hospice services, start date 3/4/24 -Notify Hospice of any clinically significant changes, start date 3/15/24 During an interview on 4/8/24 at 10:44 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that the MDS was inaccurately coded and that Resident #101's MDS should have been coded as receiving Hospice services. 2. Resident #122 was admitted to the facility in March 2024 with diagnoses of Retention of Urine (difficulty urinating and completely emptying the bladder), Bacteremia (bacteria in the blood), other specified sepsis (a body's response to infection damaging tissues) and Urinary Tract Infection (UTI: bacterial infection of the urinary tract). Review of the March 2024 Physician's orders for Resident #122 included: -Ampicillin Sodium (an antibiotic medication) Intravenous (IV: administered into a vein) Solution Reconstituted 2 GM (gram), order date 3/1/24. -Ampicillin Sodium, Use 2 gram intravenously every 6 hours for infection until 3/10/2024 [at] 23:59, start date 3/2/24, completed 3/10/24. Review of the Resident's March 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated that the Resident received the intravenous Ampicillin Sodium every 6 hours as ordered, from 3/2/24 until 3/10/24. Review of the Resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the Resident had diagnoses of septicemia (bacteria that poisons the blood) and a UTI. The MDS did not indicate that the Resident was receiving antibiotic medication (Ampicillin Sodium). During an interview on 4/10/24 at 9:51 A.M., the MDS Nurse reviewed the Resident's clinical record and said that the MDS dated [DATE] should have indicated that the Resident was receiving antibiotic medication during the MDS look back period but it did not. The MDS Nurse further said that this was a coding error.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

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 care and services to achieve or maintain blad...

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 care and services to achieve or maintain bladder function for one Resident (#122) out of three applicable residents, out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, for Resident #122, the facility staff failed to obtain Physician's orders for the care and services of an indwelling urinary catheter (a flexible tube inserted into the bladder to allow for urine flow) to prevent complications and urinary tract infections. Findings include: Review of the Facility's Physician's Order Set for the care of Indwelling Urinary Catheters, undated, included: -Foley Catheter (brand name of an indwelling urinary catheter) Care every shift. -Foley Catheter ___F (F/Fr: French - unit of measurement for the size of the diameter of the tubing), ___cc (cubic centimeters a unit of measurement: indicating the capacity of the catheter's balloon/bulb) bulb (Insertion and PRN (as needed) change) Diagnosis: _______ as needed for Occlusion (blockage), Leakage AND one time only for initial insertion or re-insertion for 1 Day. -Flush Foley Catheter with 60 cc (cubic centimeters: indicating the amount of fluid) Normal Saline as needed for Obstruction. -Foley Catheter Privacy Bag every shift. -Change Foley Bag every day shift every 7 day(s). Resident #122 was admitted to the facility in March 2024 with diagnoses of Retention of Urine (difficulty urinating and completely emptying the bladder), Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 2 (CKD - when the kidneys are damaged and cannot filter blood the way that it should) and Urinary Tract Infection (UTI: bacterial infection of the urinary tract). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #122: -was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. -had an indwelling urinary catheter. -required staff assistance with toileting tasks. Review of the April 2024 Physician's orders for Resident #122 included: -Ensure catheter privacy leg bag placed higher to avoid pulling. Every day and evening shift for irritation. -Foley Catheter; 18 Fr, 10 ml (balloon/bulb) -Urine output Q (every) shift -every shift for catheter insitu (in the appropriate place) [catheter placement] Further review of the April 2024 Physician's orders did not indicate: -orders for catheter care every shift. -Instructions for irrigation/flushing of the catheter. -Instructions for replacing the catheter. -Instructions for replacing the bedside drainage bag. -Instructions for the application of an anchoring device. During an observation and interview on 4/10/24 at 10:30 A.M., Nurse #3 confirmed that the Resident's indwelling urinary catheter was size 18 Fr 10 ml, that there was an anchoring device in place on the Resident's right thigh, and that the bedside drainage bag was covered with a privacy bag and had been changed on 4/5/24. Nurse #3 reviewed the Resident's current Physician's orders and said that she thought there should be more orders in place for the care of an indwelling urinary catheter. Nurse #3 said she could not find any current Physician's orders for catheter care every shift, replacement of the catheter, or flushing of the catheter. Nurse #3 said there was usually a set of orders that was put in place for any resident with an indwelling urinary catheter, but she could not find any evidence that this had been done for Resident #122. During an interview on 4/10/24 at 12:00 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that the orders for the care and services of the Resident's indwelling urinary catheter should have been put in place but they were not. The DON said that there was no specific facility policy for the care and services of an indwelling urinary catheter and that the staff just put the Physician's order set in place for residents that have an indwelling urinary catheter. The DON said the Physician's order set was not put in place for Resident #122. The DON said that orders for catheter care each shift, placing a securing device weekly, flushing of the catheter for blockage, and replacment of the drainage bag and catheter were not in place but should have been.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately implement a psychotropic medication (medication that affects brain activity) gradual dose reduction (GDR) as recommended by the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately implement a psychotropic medication (medication that affects brain activity) gradual dose reduction (GDR) as recommended by the Psychiatric Certified Nurse Practitioner (CNP) for one Resident (#94) out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: -For Resident #94, ensure that the recommendation made by the Psychiatric CNP for a GDR of Zyprexa (an antipsychotic medication) morning dose from 5 milligrams (mg) to 2.5 mg was accurately implemented, when the morning dose of Zyprexa was increased back to 5 mg without any further recommendations, thereby cancelling the GDR process. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Psychotropic Medication Use, revised July 2022, indicated the following: -Residents on psychotropic medications receive gradual dose reductions . Resident #94 was admitted to the facility in March 2022, and had diagnoses including anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with daily activities), Alzheimer's Dementia (a progressive disease beginning with mild memory loss and leading to the loss of the ability to carry on a conversation and respond to the environment, that is severe enough to interfere with daily life), and a history of psychosis (when someone loses contact with reality). Review of the Psychiatric CNP note dated 1/9/24, indicated the following recommendation: -Patient with a decrease in cognition, suggest trial GDR. -Suggest discontinue (d/c) Zyprexa 5 milligram (mg) daily at 9:00 A.M. -Suggest Zyprexa 2.5 mg daily at 9 A.M. and Zyprexa 5 mg daily at 5:00 P.M. Review of the March 2024 Physician's Order Summary indicated the GDR recommended for the A.M. dose of Zyprexa by the Psychiatric CNP was implemented as ordered: -Zyprexa 2.5 mg, give 2.5 mg by mouth in the morning with a start date of 1/17/24. Further review of the Physician's Order Summary indicated the Resident continued to receive the evening dose of Zyprexa as evidence by the following order: -Zyprexa 2.5 mg, give 5 mg by mouth in the evening .with a start date of 1/17/24. Review of the January 2024, February 2024, and March 2024 Medication Administration Records (MARs) indicated: -from 1/17/24 through 3/9/24: the Resident received the 2.5 mg prescribed dose of Zyprexa in the morning. -from 1/17/24 through 3/10/24: the Resident received the 5 mg prescribed dose of Zyprexa in the evening. Review of the Psychiatric CNP note dated 3/5/24 indicated the following recommendation: -Suggest reducing HS (hour of sleep or bedtime) Zyprexa dose from 5 mg to 2.5 mg due to Resident decline. Review of the March 2024 Physician's Orders indicated the following orders: -Zyprexa Oral Tablet 2.5 mg, give 5 mg by mouth in the morning .with a start date of 3/9/24 and a discontinued date of 3/11/24. -Zyprexa Oral Tablet 2.5 mg, give 5 mg by mouth in the morning .with a start date of 3/11/24. -Zyprexa Oral Tablet 2.5 mg by mouth in the evening .with a start date of 3/11/24 Review of the March 2024 and April 2024 MARs indicated: -from 3/9/24 through 4/8/24: the Resident received the prescribed 5 mg dose of Zyprexa in the morning and the 2.5 mg dose of Zyprexa in the evening. Further review of the Resident's medical record indicated no documentation that any of the Resident's medical providers had made the recommendation for the Resident's morning dose of Zyprexa to be increased back to 5 mg. During an interview on 4/8/24 at 10:40 A.M., the Psychiatric CNP said she was unsure why the Resident's prescribed morning dose of Zyprexa was increased back to 5 mg. The CNP further said that her recommendation was for the Resident to have 2.5 mg Zyprexa in the morning and to have the evening dose of Zyprexa also reduced to 2.5 mg, and this was not done as recommended. During an interview on 4/8/24 at 4:41 A.M., Unit Manager (UM) #2 said she was unsure why Resident #94's morning dose of Zyprexa was increased back to 5 mg. UM #2 further said the morning dose of Zyprexa should have remained at 2.5 mg and the Psychiatric CNP had recently decreased the Resident's evening dose of Zyprexa down to 2.5 mg and it looked like the doses got swapped and the Resident never had the full GDR completed as recommended.
CONCERN (D)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to re-evaluate a performance improvement plan (PIP) when the identified interventions were no longer making progress toward the identified goa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to re-evaluate a performance improvement plan (PIP) when the identified interventions were no longer making progress toward the identified goal for improving lunch meal tray arrival times for one unit (Dharma Unit) out of three units observed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that an effective system was maintained for implementing changes, monitoring performance, and obtaining feedback from residents and family representatives, related to consistently late lunch time meals. Findings include: Review of the facility Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Plan signed 1/17/24, indicated the following: -Areas of the plan are measures by clinical outcomes, aspects of performance, and resident satisfaction with the goal . -Information gathered is analyzed and compared to set benchmarks. Benchmarks may be adjusted based on the data outcomes. -Current performance improvement projects include Tray arrival time. Review of the PIP titled Dietary Department Improvements dated 1/2/24, indicated the following problem had been identified: Complaints from residents, Ombudsman, and families about food deliveries being late. During an interview on 4/7/24 at 11:44 A.M., Family Member #2 whose family resided on the Dharma Unit said he/she was always at the facility to assist his/her loved one with lunch and the lunch meal is late sometimes, even coming to the unit 30 minutes or more later than the scheduled time on some days. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 1:01 P.M., Family Member #1 whose family resided on the Dharma Unit said he/she was always at the facility to visit with his/her loved one during the lunch meal and that the lunch meal truck is often late and his/her family was always very hungry by the time the meal truck arrived to the unit. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 2:27 P.M., the Food Service Director (FSD) said he was aware of the current problems with the meal trucks getting to the units after the scheduled times. The FSD said the meal trucks should arrive on the unit within 5 minutes of the scheduled meal time. The FSD said the facility was currently completing a PIP for late meal trucks and he felt that the kitchen was short staffed. The FSD further said for the kitchen to run properly and for meals to be delivered on time there needed to be four staff members working in the kitchen. Review of the PIP Plan dated 1/2/24, indicated the following interventions: -Daily recordings of when trays come up and findings brought to QAPI monthly meeting until system improved and tray delivery time gets better. Further review of the PIP Plan dated 1/2/24, indicated no specific parameters for measuring what late meant or that a measurable goal had been set to detemine if interventions were working. Review of the last 14 days of Food Truck Delivery Daily Tracking Log from 3/27/24 through 4/8/24, indicated that on 10 of 15 days the lunch meal was not delivered on the unit per the FSD targeted time frame of five minutes from the scheduled meal time for the Dharma Unit. Further review of the Food Truck Delivery Daily Tracking Log indicated on 3/7/24, 4/3/24, 4/4/24, 4/5/24, 4/6/24, and 4/7/24, the lunch meal was delivered 20 minutes or more late to the Dharma Unit. Review of the Dietary Department QAPI sheet dated 2/1/24, indicated the following: Food Truck Delivery on Units Late: Lunch trays were late two times Review of the Dietary Department QAPI sheet dated 3/13/24, indicated the following: Food Truck Delivery on Units Late: Lunch trays were late six times Further review of the Dietary Department QAPI sheets from February 2024 and March 2024, indicated no documentation: -pertaining to which units the meal trucks were delivered late to. -on which days the meal trucks were late. -as to why the meal trucks were late on those days. -that new interventions were discussed and planned to improve meal truck delivery to the units. During an interview on 4/10/24 at 9:17 A.M., the Administrator said he was unsure why meal trucks continued to be late for the lunch meal on the Dharma Unit. The Administrator further said interventions should have been adjusted when the meal trucks continued to be late to the units over a period of two months and interventions had not been re-assessed at this time. The Administrator said the current intervention was to hire more staff but when he looked at the staffing schedule he was unable to show that there was not enough staff for the kitchen (3/27/24 through 4/8/24 indicated four or more staff members working) to run effectively except for 4/7/24 when there was only three staff members in the kitchen. During a follow-up interview on 4/10/24 at 10:55 A.M., the Administrator said he had no current process implemented to obtain feedback from the Residents and/or Resident Family Members from the Dharma unit to see if meal truck delivery time had improved. The Administrator said the current feedback was obtained only from the facility's other two units (not from the affected Dharma Unit)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the required members were included in the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee meeting...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the required members were included in the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee meetings. Specifically, the facility failed to provide evidence: -that the Infection Preventionist (IP) was a required member of the QAPI committee and the IP attended two out of the four quarterly meetings. -that the Medical Doctor (MD) attended one out of the four quarterly meetings. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI), dated 1/17/24, indicated members of the committee may include but is not limited to: -Administrator -Director of Nursing (DON) -Medical Director Further review of the facility policy failed to indicate that the Infection Preventionist (IP) was a designated member of the QAPI Committee. During a meeting on 4/10/24 at 1:12 P.M., the surveyor reviewed the quarterly QAPI Committee sign-in sheets provided by the facility with the Director of Nurses (DON) and the Administrator. The quarterly QAPI Committee sign-in sheets did not indicate any evidence that the IP had attended the quarterly meetings in April 2023 and October 2023, as required. Further review of the quarterly QAPI Committee sign-in sheet did not indicate any evidence that the MD had attended the quarterly meeting held in July 2023, as required. During an interview on 4/10/24 at 1:19 P.M., the DON said that the IP and the MD were required members of the QAPI Committee. The DON further said that the IP and the MD should have attended all of the four quarterly QAPI meetings as required, but they did not.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintained a clean and sanitary facility kitchen in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specific...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintained a clean and sanitary facility kitchen in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the facility failed to: -ensure that a rinse temperature issue with the facility dish machine was addressed according to professional standards when the minimum temperature and sanitation requirements were not being met as required. -ensure the use of a commercial grade chlorine-based sanitizer and not household bleach was used in the dish machine to sanitize the facility dish ware. Findings include: Review of the facility policies indicated no policy for management of dishware in the event the facility dish machine became compromised. On 4/9/24 at 12:10 P.M., the surveyor observed Dietary Staff #1 loading soiled dishes onto a rack and through the running dish machine. The surveyor observed the temperature gauges on the dish machine with the following readings: -Wash Temperature: 170 degrees -Rinse Temperature: 170 degrees -Final Rinse Temperature: 170 degrees The surveyor further observed signage affixed to the dish machine that read: >Dish Machine Temperature: -Wash Temperature: 160 degrees -Rinse Temperature: 180 degrees - If rinse temperature goes below 180 degrees you must let the Food Service Director (FSD) or the cook supervisor know immediately During an interview at the time of the observation with the FSD, the FSD said that the required rinse temperature for sanitation of the dishes was 180 degrees. The FSD said that the rinse temperature on the dish machine was 170 degrees because the machine had to run for a few cycles before the rinse temperature would reach 180 degrees and staff would re-wash the same dishes repeatedly until the rinse temperature reached 180 degrees. The FSD also said that the dish machine was a high temperature dish machine and that the facility had ordered a booster device to aid the dish machine in reaching the required 180 degrees rinse temperature more easily. On 4/9/24 at 2:07 P.M., the surveyor observed Dietary Staff #1 and Dietary Staff #2 operating the dish machine. The surveyor observed that the temperature gauges on the dish machine reflected a wash temperature of 170 degrees and a rinse temperature of 162 degrees. The surveyor further observed Dietary Staff #2 spray food and debris from soiled dish ware, then placed the dishes onto racks and slide the rack into the dish machine. Dietary Staff #1 then took the rack of dishes from the opposite end of the dish machine, placed the dishes on different racks and removed them from the dish room. When the surveyor asked, Dietary Staff #1 said he took the dishes and put them away for future use. The surveyor asked Dietary Staff #1 to provide the temperature readings on the temperature gauges of the dish machine and Dietary Staff #1 verified that the rinse temperature reading was 162 degrees and not the required 180 degrees. Dietary Staff #1 said the dish machine water temperature had been an issue for the last two months. Dietary Staff #2 then said that the dish machine had been broken for a long time and the facility management had been made aware of the issue. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 2:16 P.M., the FSD said that they were waiting for a booster device to be delivered for the dish machine. The FSD said that the dishes were cleaned and sanitized even though the dish machine was not rinsing at the required temperature of 180 degrees. The FSD further said that dietary staff were using bleach in the dish machine to sanitize the dish ware. During a follow-up observation with the FSD at the time in the dish room, the surveyor noted a strong odor of bleach and observed a gallon bottle of household bleach sitting on the top of the dish machine with a clear plastic hose coming out of the open spout at the top of the bottle. The FSD said that the bottle contained bleach and that the bleach was getting funneled through the wash cycle into the dish machine to sanitize the dish ware. The FSD said that he did not know who recommended the bleach sanitizer. Dietary Staff #1 then said that a dish machine representative had recommended the use of the bleach. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 2:46 P.M., with the Administrator and Consulting Staff #1, the Administrator said that he was unaware that dietary staff were using household bleach in the dish machine to sanitize the dishes and did not know how long the dietary staff had been using the household bleach as a sanitizer. Consulting staff #1 said that the bottle on top of the dish machine was household bleach and that staff should not have been using household bleach to sanitize dish ware. Consulting Staff #1 said that staff were supposed to be using a commercial grade chlorine based sanitizer in the dish machine. Consulting Staff #1 also said that the dish machine vendor was on his way to the facility to install the proper sanitizer solution. Review of an email communication provided by the facility to the Administrator dated 1/23/24, indicated the following: -Vendor representative came and serviced the dish machine and dropped off more test strips. -Staff instructed to use bleach until order arrives. -DO NOT dilute the bleach, use it directly out of the bottle for accurate readings of parts per million (PPM). During a telephone interview on 4/10/24 at 8:42 A.M., Additional Staff #1 said that he worked as a vendor and had been to the facility on the evening of 4/9/24 to install a commercial grade chlorine-based sanitizer to the facility dish machine. Additional Staff #1 said he had been made aware during the visit that the facility staff had been using a gallon bottle of household bleach to sanitize dish ware in the dish machine. Additional Staff #1 also said that he came to the facility on 1/23/24, to drop off test strips to be used to test the chemical balance in the dish machine water while the dietary staff were using the commercial grade chlorine based sanitizer in the dish machine. Additional Staff #1 said he told the dietary staff to order additional commercial grade chlorine-based sanitizer because they were running low, but he did not tell staff to use household bleach to sanitize the dish ware in the dish machine. Additional Staff #1 said that he would never advise the facility to use household bleach to sanitize dish ware in the dish machine because there was no way of accurately measuring the sanitization level of the dish ware or the safest level of bleach for safe human consumption. Additional Staff #1 also said that the commercial grade chlorine-based sanitizer and household bleach are two different chemicals and that the commercial grade sanitizer contains no household bleach. During an interview on 4/10/24 at 11:30 A.M., the Administrator said that the commercial grade chlorine-based sanitizer had been installed in the dish machine on 4/9/24 by the vendor. The Administrator said that the dietary staff would use the commercial chlorine based sanitizer until the dish machine booster arrived and the machine was able to maintain the proper temperatures for sanitization. The Administrator said that the Maintenance Director had tested the chemical balance of the dish machine water this morning and had found the commercial chlorine-based sanitizer level readings to be within range. The Administrator said that dietary staff should not have been using household bleach to sanitize dish ware in the dish machine.
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** 3. Review of facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene revised August 2019, indicated: -All personnel shall follow the han...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene revised August 2019, indicated: -All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors. -Hand washing to be performed before handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze pads, etc. -Handwashing to be performed after handling used dressings, contaminated equipment, etc. -Handwashing is the final step after removing and disposing of personal protective equipment. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility in September 2023 with diagnoses including Unspecified Intellectual Disabilities, Overweight, Cerebral Palsy (a congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone, or posture), Stage 4 Pressure Ulcer of the sacral area (large wound in which the skin is significantly damaged on the buttocks) and Abnormal Posture. Review of Resident #24's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated the Resident was severely cognitively impaired, as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of two out of 15, and that the Resident was at risk of developing pressure ulcers. Review of the Physician's orders dated 3/27/24 indicated: -Pressure injury Stage 4 wound to coccyx - cleanse wound with normal saline (solution of salt and water) -protect peri (area around the wound) wound with skin prep -lightly pack wound with Calcium Alginate (a pad containing calcium used to aid in wound healing) moistened with normal saline -cover with bordered foam dressing every day shift During an observation on 4/8/24 at 11:51 A.M., for a wound dressing change, the surveyor observed the following: -Nurse #1 accompanied by Unit Manager (UM) #1 entered Resident #24's room with gauze, normal saline, Calcium Alginate pad, a pack of cotton swabs and boarded foam pad. -Nurse #1 went to the bathroom, washed hands, and donned (put on) gloves and a gown. -Nurse #1 assisted UM #1 and repositioned Resident #24 to his/her side allowing access to the sacral wound. -Nurse #1 sprayed saline on the wound bed, wiped area off with gauze, and wearing the same gloves, took the scissors, and cut the Calcium Alginate pad to fit the wound bed while being directed by UM #1. -Nurse #1 moistened the Calcium Alginate pad and applied the pad to Resident #24's wound bed. -Nurse #1 applied the protective foam dressing to the wound, then dated the dressing. -Wearing the same gloves that was worn from Nurse #1's entry to the Resident's room, Nurse #1 picked up the remaining clean unused gauze and the pack of opened cotton swabs, exited the room, and placed the items on top of the treatment cart. -Nurse #1 then returned to the room, doffed (removed) the gloves, and washed her hands. During an interview on 4/8/24 at 12:15 P.M., the surveyor asked Nurse #1 if there was any breach (failure to follow established infection control procedures that prevent the transmission of infectious organisms) in infection control during the wound dressing change and Nurse #1 said that she did not have any breach. UM #1 explained to Nurse #1 that she should have removed her gloves after washing the wound bed, and worn new gloves before she applied clean dressings to the wound. UM #1 further explained that after applying the dressing, Nurse #1 should have removed her gloves and washed her hands, but she did not complete handwashing. UM #1 said that Nurse #1 touched the clean gauze and the opened cotton swabs with the same dirty gloves thereby contaminating the clean items. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement infection control practices to prevent contamination and the spread of infection facility wide, and for one Resident (#24) and on one unit (Dharma Unit). Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. perform annual water testing for Legionella according to the facility water management plan. 2. clean and disinfect a vital signs monitoring machine between resident use on the Dharma Unit. 3. change gloves and perform hand hygiene while performing wound care for Resident #24. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility water management plan, last revised 1/23/23, indicated the following: -Legionella Testing: >The facility has a program to annually test the facility water for Legionella growth. >The facility tests the water using OnSite Legionella Testing. >One of the following locations to be selected at random to be tested: Ice Machines, Kitchen Hot Water Holding Tank, Kitchenette Cold Water faucet on [NAME] One Unit, Boiler Hot Water Tank, Resident Sink [NAME] two Unit . During an interview on 4/8/24 at 12:56 P.M., the Maintenance Director said that he performs water temperature checks on Tuesdays in random areas of the building and performs Legionella water testing annually, using an in-house water sampling kit that then gets sent to a lab. During a follow-up interview on 4/8/24 at 1:38 P.M., the Maintenance Director said that he could not provide any evidence that the facility had performed any annual Legionella water testing. The Maintenance Director said he has not performed any water testing for the past two years. The Maintenance Director further said he should have performed the Legionella water testing according to the facility water management plan. 2. Review of the facility policy titled Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident - Care Items and Equipment, revised September 2022, indicated the following: -Reusable items are cleaned and disinfected or sterilized between residents (e.g., stethoscopes, durable medical equipment [DME]). On 4/8/24 at 8:23 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #3 using the portable vital signs machine to obtain measurements from a resident. The surveyor observed Nurse #3 apply the blood pressure cuff to the resident's upper arm and the pulse oximeter (device that measures a person's blood oxygen saturation [the amount of oxygen that is in the blood]) to the resident's finger. Nurse #3 proceeded to obtain the resident's vital signs from the machine. The surveyor observed Nurse #3 take the equipment off the resident and return it to her medication cart without cleaning and/or disinfecting the portable vital sign equipment. On 4/8/24 at 9:50 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #3 using the portable vital signs machine to obtain vital signs on a second resident. Nurse #3 applied the blood pressure cuff to the resident's upper arm and pulse oximeter to the resident's finger and proceeded to obtain the resident's vital signs. The surveyor observed Nurse #3 take the equipment off the resident after obtaining the vital signs and return the equipment to her medication. The surveyor did not observe Nurse#3 cleaning and/or disinfecting the portable vital signs machine after use on a second resident. On 4/8/24 at 10:09 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #3 using the portable vital signs machine to obtain vital signs on a third resident. Nurse #3 applied the blood pressure cuff to a resident's upper arm and pulse oximeter to the resident's finger and proceeded to obtain the resident's vital signs. The surveyor observed Nurse #3 remove the equipment from the resident's body and return the equipment to her medication cart. The surveyor did not observe Nurse #3 cleaning and/or disinfecting the portable vital signs machine after use on a third resident. During an interview on 4/8/24 at 10:13 A.M., Nurse #3 said the portable vital signs machine should be cleaned and disinfected between each resident use. Nurse #3 further said she had not cleaned and/or disinfected the portable vital signs machine between resident use as required.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete an accurate comprehensive assessment, according to the required Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) process, for on...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete an accurate comprehensive assessment, according to the required Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) process, for one Resident (#77) out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to assess Resident #77's cognitive status through the resident interview process and instead proceeded to the staff interview process on three consecutive Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments. Findings include: Resident #77 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with diagnoses including Psychosis (a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD- a mental and behavioral disorder that developed from having experienced a traumatic event, causing flashbacks, nightmares and severe anxiety). Review of Resident #77's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments dated 8/10/23, 11/7/23, and 1/23/24, indicated the following: -The Resident had adequate hearing. -The Resident had clear speech. -The Resident could make him/herself understood. -The Resident understood others. -The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should be attempted with all residents. -The BIMS was not conducted with the Resident and the responses were left blank. -The Staff Assessment for Mental Status had been completed. On 4/7/24 at 9:47 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #77 lying on his/her bed. The surveyor was able to communicate clearly with the Resident, who understood the surveyor's questions that were asked in English during the screening process. During an interview on 4/8/24 at 8:08 A.M., the MDS Nurse said that the staff assessment (to attempt the resident interview) should have been completed as required for the 1/23/24 BIMS, but had not been completed as required. During an interview on 4/8/24 at 8:43 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON and the facility's former MDS Nurse) said that the staff assessments (to attempt the resident interview) should have been completed for all of the BIMS assessments and they had not been.
Nov 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff 1. assessed residents for eligibility to offer a pneumococcal vaccination and 2. administered a pneumococcal vaccination when ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff 1. assessed residents for eligibility to offer a pneumococcal vaccination and 2. administered a pneumococcal vaccination when a resident and/or their resident representative consented to the vaccination for two Residents (#3 and #4) out of five sampled residents. Specifically, 1. for Resident #3 the facility failed to assess the need for additional pneumococcal vaccination once the Resident was one year past their last vaccination per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations and 2. for Resident #4 the facility failed to ensure a requested pneumococcal vaccination was administered. Findings include: Review of the facility's Pneumococcal Policy, reviewed on 9/2023, indicated the following: -Residents admitted to or residing in the facility will be offered the Pneumococcal Polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and re-vaccination (if recommended) based on .the individual's previous vaccination history. -Residents admitted to or residing in the facility will be offered the Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV13, PCV15, or PCV20) based on .the individuals previous vaccination history. -The facility will adhere to the recommendations of CDC .for administration of both pneumococcal vaccines. Review of the CDC website Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults greater than or equal to 65 years (cdc.gov), dated 9/22/23 indicated the following: -For adults 65 and over who have only received the Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine 23 (PPSV23) give one dose of the Pneumococcal 15- Valent Conjugate Vaccine (PCV15) or 20-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV20) at least one year after the most recent PPSV23 vaccination . 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in December 2022 and was over the age of 65. Review of the Resident's Immunization Section in the electronic medical record (EMR) indicated the last pneumococcal vaccination the Resident received was the PPSV23 on 1/15/18. Further review of the Immunization Section in the EMR indicated no documentation the Resident had any other pneumococcal vaccination. Further review of the Resident's EMR indicated no documentation that once the Resident was one year past his/her last dose of the PPSV23 they had been assessed for the need of any additional pneumococcal vaccination. 2. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility in September 2023 and was over the age of 65. Review of the Resident's Immunization Section in the EMR indicated the last pneumococcal vaccination the Resident received was the PPSV23 on 3/31/11. Further review of the Immunization Section in the EMR indicated no documentation the Resident had any other pneumococcal vaccination. Review of the Resident's Adult Vaccine Administration Record-Pneumococcal Vaccine, signed and dated 9/22/23 by the Resident's Representative indicated the Resident's Representative requested that the Resident receive pneumococcal vaccination as needed. Further review of the Resident's EMR indicated no documentation the Resident had been assessed for or administered any additional doses of the pneumococcal vaccine as requested. During an interview on 11/13/23 at 11:14 A.M., the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse who was covering for the Director of Nursing (DON) said for Resident #3, the facility should have assessed at the time of his/her admission if there was a need for an additional dose of pneumococcal vaccination and this had not been done. She said for Resident #4, the facility should assessed and administered the pneumococcal vaccination if appropriate, as requested by the Resident's Representative within one to two weeks of the Resident Representative signing the pneumococcal consent form and this had not been done.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure recommended COVID-19 vaccination was offered to one Staff Member (#1) out of one staff member sampled. Specifically, for Staff Membe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure recommended COVID-19 vaccination was offered to one Staff Member (#1) out of one staff member sampled. Specifically, for Staff Member #1 the facility failed to ensure they maintained documentation that any additional COVID-19 vaccination was offered to the staff member after he/she had received their initial COVID-19 series. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled COVID-19 Vaccine Policy and Procedure, effective 11/6/23, indicated the following: -COVID-19 vaccinations will be offered to all staff and residents (or their representative if they cannot make health care decisions) per CDC and/or FDA guidelines unless such immunization is medically contraindicated, the individual has already been immunized during this period or the individual refuses to receive the vaccine. -All staff and residents/representatives will be educated on the COVID-19 vaccine they are offered, in a manner they can understand, including information on the benefits and risks consistent with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and/or United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) information . -The facility will maintain documentation for all residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination. -Declination statements from personnel must include a statement certifying he or she received information about the risk and benefits of COVID-19 vaccine. Review of the CDC Recommended updated (2023-2024 Formula) COVID-19 vaccines for people who are not moderately or severely immunocompromised, dated 10/13/23, indicated the following: -For those 12 years and older who have received one or more doses of any mRNA vaccine (a vaccine that directs cells to produce copies of a protein on the outside of the coronavirus) recommends receiving one dose of the updated COVID-19 2023-2024 Formula vaccination. Review of Staff Member #1's COVID-19 vaccination card indicated he/she had an initial series of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination on 12/30/2020 and 1/20/2021. Further review indicated no additional COVID-19 vaccination information. During an interview on 11/13/23 at 1:00 P.M., the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse who was covering for the Director of Nursing (DON) said there was no additional documentation that she could provide to show Staff Member #1 had been offered any additional COVID-19 vaccination after he/she had received their initial COVID-19 series or that he/she had declined any additional COVID-19 vaccination. She said it did not appear the facility was tracking contracted staff vaccination, Staff Member #1 was a contracted staff member, and the facility should have been tracking COVID-19 vaccination for all staff members who worked in the building. She further said at the time of survey the facility had not yet implemented a process to make sure staff was up to date on the current recommended COVID-19 vaccination.
Mar 2023 10 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained the dignity during a meal for one Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained the dignity during a meal for one Resident (#264), out of a sample of 25 residents. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Assistance with Meals, revised July 2017, indicated that a resident who cannot feed themselves will be fed with attention to safety, comfort and dignity and gave the example of not standing over residents while assisting them with meals. Resident #264 was admitted to the facility in February 2023. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #264 had severe cognitive impairment and was totally dependent on staff for eating. On 3/9/23 at 8:48 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #264 in the dining room seated in a tilt chair at a table as a staff member stood at the Resident's side and fed him/her. The surveyor observed that there were no chairs in close proximity of the resident for the staff member to sit on while assisting the Resident during feeding. During an observation and interview on 3/9/23 at 8:52 A.M., Rehabilitation Staff Member #2 saw the surveyor observing the staff member standing and feeding the Resident and then instructed the staff member feeding the Resident to save her back and take the seat that another resident had just vacated. She further said that the staff member should have been seated at eye level with the Resident while assisting with the meal. During an observation and interview on 3/13/23 at 8:46 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #264 lying in bed with CNA #3 standing at the side of the bed feeding the Resident his/her breakfast. The surveyor also observed an empty chair in the room that was available for the CNA to be seated. CNA #3 said that she should have been seated to feed Resident #264.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0635 (Tag F0635)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff obtained orders for monitoring an incision site after return from the hospital one Resident (#43), out of a sample of 25 r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff obtained orders for monitoring an incision site after return from the hospital one Resident (#43), out of a sample of 25 residents. Findings include: Resident #43 was admitted to the facility in September 2019. Review of the hospital discharge paperwork dated 2/3/23 indicated the Resident had sustained a fall at the facility, hit his/her forehead, and had a large laceration (deep cut) on his/her forehead, and had been transferred to the hospital emergency room for treatment. Further review indicated the Resident had sutures/stitches placed while in the emergency room to close the laceration on his/her forehead and was discharged back to the facility on 2/3/23. Review of the care instructions included in the hospital discharge paperwork dated 2/3/23 indicated the following: -Keep cut dry for 24 to 48 hours .your doctor will let you know when it is safe to get the cut wet. -If you notice any problems or new symptoms get medical treatment right away -Call your doctor or seek medical care if you have any of the following: new pain, or pain gets worse, skin near the cut is cold or pale or changes color, you have tingling, weakness, or numbness near the cut, the cut starts to bleed or blood soaks through the bandage, you have symptoms of infection such as: increased pain, swelling, warmth, or redness around the cut, red streaks leading from the cut, pus draining from the cut, a fever . Review of the February 2023 Physician's Orders indicated no orders for monitoring the forehead laceration from 2/3/23 - 2/7/23. During an interview on 3/9/23 at 9:29 A.M., Unit Manager (UM) #1 said there should have been orders in place when the Resident returned from the hospital on 2/3/23 to monitor for signs and symptoms of infection and to make sure the site stayed dry. She further said nursing should have taken this information from the hospital discharge paperwork and put an order in the medical record so staff could document this information each shift, and this did not appear to have been done until 2/8/23, five days after the Resident had the sutures placed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the Resident and/or Resident's Representative with a copy of the Resident's baseline care plan for one Resident (#...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the Resident and/or Resident's Representative with a copy of the Resident's baseline care plan for one Resident (#102) out of a sample of 25 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Care Plans-Baseline, Revised December 2016, indicated the following: -The resident and their representative will be provided a summary of the baseline care plan . Resident #102 was admitted to the facility in January 2023. Review of the document titled Baseline Care Plan, effective date 1/19/23 indicated no documentation that the Resident and/or the Resident's Representative was provided with a summary of the Baseline Care Plan. Review of the document indicated there was a signature line for the Resident and the Resident's Representative to sign and date when they had received a copy of the care plan but these sections were left blank. Further review of the Resident's medical record indicated no additional documentation that the Resident and/or the Resident's Representative had been provided with a summary of the Baseline Care Plan. During an interview on 3/15/23 at 10:45 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said she was unsure if a copy of the Baseline Care Plan had been provided to the Resident or the Resident's Representative and that she would need to check with the Unit Manager. During an interview on 3/15/23 at 12:18 P.M., Unit Manager (UM) #1 said the unit manager from each unit should follow up with and provide a copy of the baseline care plan to the Resident and/or Resident's Representative. She further said at the time Resident #102 was admitted to the facility she was out on leave. She also said she reviewed the Resident's medical record and could not find documentation that a summary of the baseline care plan had been provided to the Resident and/or the Resident's Representative, as required.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record, and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided care and services according to accepted standards of clinical practice for one Resident (#...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record, and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided care and services according to accepted standards of clinical practice for one Resident (#38), out of a sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to obtain blood pressure (BP) and pulse/ heart rate (HR) measurements prior to the administration of Metoprolol (a medication used to treat high blood pressure that affects the heart and circulation), as ordered by the Physician and per facility policy. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Administering Medications, dated December 2012, indicated the following: -Medications must be administered in accordance with the Physician's orders. -The following information must be checked/verified for each resident prior to administering medications: vital signs (VS), if necessary. Resident #38 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with diagnoses including Congestive Heart Failure (CHF-a condition in which the heart does not pump as well as it should and blood often backs up in the lungs causing fluid buildup and shortness of breath), Hypertension (HTN-high blood pressure) and Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (an intermittent type of irregular heartbeat). Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated March 2023, indicated an order to administer Metoprolol Tartrate 25 milligrams (mg), give 0.5 tablet by mouth two times a day for Hypertension. Hold if systolic blood pressure (the pressure in arteries when the heart beats) is less than 100 mmHg (millimeters of mercury - unit of measurement) or heart rate is less than 60 bpm (beats per minute). On 3/9/23 at 4:42 P.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #2 administer Metoprolol to Resident #38. During an interview on 3/9/23 at 5:05 P.M., Nurse #2 said Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2 had taken the blood pressure and pulse for her and that she had observed it (the BP and HR readings) on CNA #2's paper prior to giving the medication. During an interview on 3/9/23 at 5:06 P.M., CNA #2 said that she had not taken any VS's, including blood pressure or pulse measurements on any residents that day. On 3/9/23 at 5:07 P.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #2 taking the Resident's blood pressure. Nurse #2 said my bad, I should have taken the blood pressure before I gave the medication. During an interview on 3/9/23 at 5:16 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said blood pressure and pulse measurements should have been taken prior to the administration of the Resident's Metoprolol as ordered by the Physician.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of a facility policy titled Supporting Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), revised March 2018, indicated that residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of a facility policy titled Supporting Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), revised March 2018, indicated that residents who are unable to carry out the activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good grooming . Resident #261 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with a diagnosis of Dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #261 had severe cognitive impairment and needed extensive assistance for ADLs including personal hygiene. On 3/9/23 at 7:15 A.M., the surveyor observed three staff members on [NAME] Two unit: two nurses and one CNA who were on orientation. During an interview at the time of the observation, Nurse #3 said there was one CNA and two nurses on the unit at that time. She further said that there were two agency CNAs on the night shift last night and they both had left the floor already. She said they should not have left the floor before the day shift staff arrived. During an interview on 3/9/23 at 7:20 A.M., Rehabilitation Staff (Rehab) #2 said the unit was frequently short staffed. During an interview on 3/9/23 at 7:23 A.M., CNA #4 said that she usually worked on another unit but was sent to [NAME] Two this morning. She said that she and the orientee were the only CNAs on the unit. She also said there were a bunch of people on the staffing schedule for today, but they didn't show up. During an interview on 3/9/23 at 7:32 A.M., Nurse #4 said the census on [NAME] Two unit was 30 residents. She said there should be at least three CNAs working on the unit on the day and evening shifts. On 3/9/23 at 9:59 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #261 seated in a wheelchair in the unit dining room. The Resident was fully dressed and groomed, but the nails were long and uneven and there was black substance underneath the fingernails of both hands. Resident #261 said that his/her nails were dirty, and he/she wanted them cleaned. During an interview on 3/9/23 at 10:00 A.M., CNA #4 said that she and another CNA provided care to the Resident this morning but had not done nail care because they were too busy. CNA #4 said that nail care was a part of grooming and should have been done. During an interview on 3/9/23 at 9:22 A.M., after looking at the Resident's hands, Nurse #3 said, the nails were dirty, long, and needed to be cleaned and trimmed. She further said that the Resident was dependent on staff to provide grooming and nail care was not done. Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. ensure its staff provided sufficient Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) for its residents, in accordance with the Facility Assessment, (an assessment used by facilities to determine what resources are necessary to competently care for residents during regular operations and emergencies), for three out of three units observed, and 2. provide grooming assistance for one Resident (#261), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the Facility Assessment last reviewed on 1/23/23, indicated the following in part: CNA ratio for [NAME] One: Day shift 1:10 (1 CNA for 10 residents) Evening shift 1:10 (1 CNA for 10 residents) Night shift 1:23 (1 CNA for 23 residents) CNA ratio for [NAME] Two: Day shift 1:10 (1 CNA for 10 residents) Evening shift 1:10 (1 CNA for 10 residents) Night shift 1:19 (1 CNA for 19 residents) CNA ratio for Dharma (Dementia Special Care Unit) Day shift 1:10 (1 CNA for 10 residents) Evening shift 1:13 (1 CNA for 13 residents) Night shift 1:13 (1 CNA for 13 residents) Review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report for the Fiscal Year Quarter 1 2023 (October 1, 2022 - December 31, 2022) indicated that the facility submitted weekend staffing data that indicated excessively low staffing levels. Review of the facility census for 3/10/23 through 3/13/23 indicated the following census for all four days on each unit: -West One had 41 residents -West Two had 30 residents -Dharma had 53 residents During an interview on 3/13/23 at 4:08 P.M., Unit Manager (UM) #1 said that at the time of this interview there were only two CNAs on the Dharma unit, and that a third CNA was scheduled to come in shortly. She additionally said that three CNAs were scheduled for the evening and that the current census on Dharma was 53. Per the facility assessment, 5 CNAs were needed on Day shift and 4 CNAs on evening and night shifts for the current census of 53. During an interview on 3/15/23 at 9:22 A.M., UM #3 and the surveyor reviewed the schedule for 3/13/23 evening shift on [NAME] One. He said that he stayed after working the day shift, to work as a cart nurse (floor/staff nurse) for that evening shift as well. This allowed one of the nurses that was originally scheduled to work on the cart, to work as a CNA. He said that even with this adjustment there were only three CNAs scheduled to work for the evening and that it was not enough staff to fully meet the needs of the residents on [NAME] One. He further said that weekends can be difficult due to call outs. During an interview on 3/15/23 at 9:45 A.M., UM #1 and the surveyor reviewed the Dharma Unit schedule from Friday 3/10/23 through Monday 3/13/23. She said that there were multiple days where there were not enough CNAs on the schedule. She said that the evening shift should have five CNAs scheduled and that three were not enough. She further said that when there were only three CNAs working, it could be difficult for both the staff and the residents. UM #1 also said that the night shift should have four CNAs working to be able to provide care for 53 residents (current census). During an interview on 3/15/23 at 10:15 A.M., the Scheduler said that she utilized the ratios found in the Facility Assessment when scheduling staff. She said that they utilize both in-house staff and agency staff to fill the schedule. She said that when she is unable to fill the holes in the schedule with agency staff, they will disperse the CNAs that are on the schedule throughout the building, to try and meet the needs of each unit. She further said that some staff will work a double shift. She said that it has been a challenge to fill the positions. Together the Scheduler and the surveyor reviewed the schedules for Friday 3/10/23 through Monday 3/13/23 and found that the following shifts did NOT meet the ratios stated in the Facility Assessment: Friday, March 10 -Dharma night shift: three CNAs (ratio of 1:17, the Facility Assessment indicated ratio of 1:13) Saturday, March 11 -Dharma night shift: two CNAs (ratio of 1:26.5, the Facility Assessment indicated a ratio of 1:13) -West Two evening shift: two CNAs (ratio of 1:15, the Facility Assessment indicated a ratio of 1:10) Sunday, March 12 -Dharma night shift: three CNAs (ratio of 1:17, the Facility Assessment indicated a ratio of 1:13) -West One evening shift: three CNAs (ratio of 1:13.5, the Facility Assessment indicated a ratio of 1:10) -West Two day shift: two CNAs (ratio of 1:15, Facility Assessment indicated a ratio of 1:10) -West Two evening shift: two CNAs (ratio of 1:15, the Facility Assessment indicated a ratio of 1:10) Monday March 13 -Dharma evening shift: three CNAs (ratio of 1:17.5, Facility Assessment indicated a ratio of 1:13) -Dharma night shift: two CNAs (ratio of 1:26.5, the Facility Assessment indicated a ratio of 1:13) -West One evening shift: three CNAs (ratio of 1:13.5, the Facility Assessment indicated a ratio of 1:10) -West Two evening shift: two CNAs (ratio of 1:15, the Facility Assessment indicated a ratio of 1:10)
CONCERN (D)

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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure documented evidence that preventative skin treatments and re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure documented evidence that preventative skin treatments and repositioning were consistently implemented to prevent the development of a left heel pressure injury for one Resident (#261), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Prevention of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries, revised July 2017, indicated the following: -staff to inspect the skin daily when performing Activities of Daily Living (ADLs- include all the activities involved in personal care) to identify any new areas, -and reposition the resident as indicated on the care plan. - if a resident refused a treatment, the refusal should be documented in the clinical record along with education provided to the resident, and the family notification and physician notification should also be documented in the note. -an avoidable pressure ulcer means that the resident developed a pressure ulcer and one or more of the following was not completed: implementation of interventions that are consistent with resident needs, goals and professional standards of practice. Resident #261 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with diagnoses of Diabetes and unspecified Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT-a medical condition that occurs when a blood clot forms in a deep vein) of bilateral lower extremities (legs). Review of the Data Collection Admissions assessment dated [DATE], indicated the Resident was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility and had pressure areas on the left buttock and right gluteal fold. There was no indication in the assessment that the Resident had a left heel wound when admitted to the facility. Review of the Norton Plus assessment (tool used to determine a person's risk for developing pressure ulcers), dated 2/17/23 indicated the Resident was at high risk of pressure ulcer development with a score of 7.0 (score 10 or under is high risk). Review of the February 2023 Physician's orders indicated the following orders: -apply skin prep to bilateral heels every day and evening shift, initiated 2/28/23 and discontinued 3/8/23. -elevate heels at all times while in bed, initiated 2/27/23. -weekly skin checks, initiated 2/17/23 Review of the Wound Physician's Progress Note dated 3/2/23, indicated the Resident had a Deep Tissue Injury (DTI- intact skin with areas of deep red, purple or blue discoloration due to damage of underlying soft tissue) on the left heel. The Wound Physician recommended treatment of skin prep (a waterproof liquid that forms a transparent film over the skin to protect it from possible irritation while allowing visual inspection of the skin) to left heel twice a day, cover with dressing, offload (minimize or remove weight on the foot) and reposition frequently and apply heel protectors. Review of the February 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) indicated: -no evidence that skin prep had been applied on the day and evening shifts on 2/28/23. -no evidence the Residents' heels had been elevated on the night shift 2/27 and 2/28, on the day shift 2/28 and on the evening shift 2/28. Review of the ADL Self-Performance Care Plan, initiated 3/2/23, indicated the Resident was non-ambulatory (could not walk) and should be repositioned every two hours. Review of the Potential for Pressure Ulcer Development Care Plan indicated that the Resident should be assisted to shift weight in wheelchair every fifteen minutes and facility policies for the prevention of skin breakdown should be followed. Review of the Weekly skin check dated 3/4/23 indicated the Resident had a blood blister on the left heel. Review of the Wound Physician's Progress Note dated 3/7/23 indicated the heel wound had broken down, was now open and measured 4.0 x 7.0 x 0.1 centimeters (cm- a metric unit of measurement) in size. The Wound Physician recommended treatment of Aquacel Ag (hydrofiber wound dressing integrated with ionic silver) to wound on left heel, cover with dry dressing daily and offload heels. Review of the March 2023 Physician's orders indicated the following orders: -left heel - cleanse with normal saline (NS), apply Aquacel Ag to wound followed by dry, clean dressing every day shift, initiated 3/9/23 -offload heels Review of the March 2023 TAR indicated: -no evidence that skin prep had been applied on the day shift on 3/1, 3/3, 3/6 and 3/8 and on the evening shift on 3/1, 3/2, and 3/3/23. -no evidence that the Resident's heels had been elevated on the day shift on 3/1, 3/3 and 3/6, on the evening shift 3/1, 3/2, and 3/3, and on the night shift on 3/1, 3/2, and 3/3. Review of the Nurses Progress Notes, dated February 2023 and March 2023, showed no evidence that the Resident had refused the left heel treatments, that the treatments could not be done, or that the Physician and family were notified of a change in the Resident's condition. Review of the February 2023 Documentation Survey Report, (part of the clinical record where Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) document the care they provided), indicated no documented evidence that the Resident had been repositioned on 19 out of 142 opportunities. The 19 opportunities that were undocumented occurred between 2/24/23 and 2/28/23. During an interview on 3/15/23 at 11:01 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said when a treatment was ordered it should be completed as ordered and documented in the Medication or Treatment Administration Record (MAR or TAR), and if it cannot be done, there should be a progress note entered into the clinical record by the nurse that indicated why an ordered treatment could not be completed. The DON further stated there was an expectation that residents were turned and repositioned every two hours and that this was documented on the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) flow sheets. She said she could not determine if the treatments for the left heel had been provided. During an interview on 3/15/23 at 11:06 A.M. the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said she could not determine if the treatments for the left heel had been provided, as required.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

b) On the Dharma Unit, in three of the three unit refrigerators the following was found: On 3/13/23 at 4:26 P.M., the surveyor, Nurse #3, and Therapeutic Activities Director observed the dining room ...

Read full inspector narrative →
b) On the Dharma Unit, in three of the three unit refrigerators the following was found: On 3/13/23 at 4:26 P.M., the surveyor, Nurse #3, and Therapeutic Activities Director observed the dining room refrigerator and freezer and the following was observed in the freezer: -A plastic bag of frozen unidentifiable food that was unlabeled and undated -An opened bag of frozen potstickers, unlabeled with a use by date of July 7, 2022. -An opened bag of frozen strawberries, unlabeled with a use by date of May, 2022 During an interview immediately following the observation the Therapeutic Activities Director said she believed the Kitchen Staff were responsible for cleaning out the refrigerator and freezer of items that were unlabeled and undated but was unsure when this was completed. Nurse #3 said she thought the facility policy was to dispose of any food brought in by families after three days if it had not been consumed. During an observation on 3/13/23 at 4:38 P.M., the surveyor and Nurse #3 observed the small refrigerator in the Pantry Room by the center nurse's station and the following was observed in the refrigerator: -an unlabeled and undated container of oatmeal. During an interview at this time, Nurse #3 said she thought the Kitchen Staff maintained the refrigerator, but she was unsure how often they came up to check and remove unlabeled or undated items from the refrigerator, and all items in the refrigerator should be labeled and dated. During an observation on 3/13/23 at 5:30 P.M., the surveyor and the Therapeutic Activities Director observed the refrigerator and freezer in the Pantry Room by the small nurse's station and the following was observed: In the Refrigerator: -a thermal bag labeled with a name but undated. In the Freezer: -an open plastic bag with a frozen pizza, unlabeled and undated. -an open plastic bag with a frozen burrito, unlabeled and undated. During an interview at this time, the Therapeutic Activities Director said items that are unlabeled and undated should not be stored in the refrigerator and freezer. She further said she thought the thermal bag may have been a staff members' food items and she believed staff members food should be stored in the break room not in the unit refrigerators. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff: 1. performed the proper sanitation of kitchen utensils in the main kitchen, and 2. adhered to safe and sanitary food storage practices on two of three units, to prevent the potential for foodborne illness. Specifically, the facility failed to keep the disinfectant level in the disinfecting sink at the manufacturer's recommended guidelines, failed to keep the refrigerators and microwaves clean, and discard unlabeled food brought into the facility per facility protocol for safe and sanitary food storage practices. Findings include: 1. Review of the Santec Eight manufacturer's bulletin, undated, indicated that when the product is used as directed, it is an effective sanitizer at an active quaternary concentration of 200-400 parts per million (ppm) when diluted in water. During the initial tour of the kitchen with Food Service Worker (FSW) #2 on 3/8/23 at 8:01 A.M., the surveyor observed a triple sink (wash/rinse/sanitize) with the third sink filled with sanitizing solution in water that FSW #2 said was ready for use. The surveyor asked FSW #2 to test the sanitizer sink with the test strips and he did, and the test strip read 50 ppm. The surveyor asked what the sanitizing level was supposed to be, and he said it tested at 50 ppm and should been 200 ppm. He said the sink could not be used and the sanitizer feeding mechanism (which determines the amount of solution distributed in the water running into the sink) needed to be adjusted. During a subsequent tour of the kitchen with FSW #2 on 3/13/23 at 2:06 P.M., the surveyor observed pots soaking in the sanitizing sink. FSW #2 said the representative had fixed the sanitizer feed mechanism and the sink was back in use. He used the test strips at the surveyor's request and per FSW #2, the strips read 100 ppm which was not the level it should be to adequately sanitize the dishes washed there. He said that the sink should be emptied, refilled, and the level retested using the test strips. Upon retest, the test strip indicated the level was still below 200 ppm. FSW #2 checked the large bottle of the sanitizing solution under the sink, and it was almost empty. The surveyor then reviewed the clipboard for the testing of the sanitizing sink and there were no entries recorded for 3/12/23 and 3/13/23. FSW #2 said that the undocumented sanitizing sink levels meant he had not been doing his job. He said he was supposed to be checking that the testing had been completed and it had not been done, as required. 2. Review of the facility policy titled Food Brought by Family/Visitors, revised October 2017, indicated food brought in by family/visitors that is left to consume later will be labeled and stored in resealable containers and labeled with the resident's name, the item and a use by date. Staff will discard perishable food by the use by date. a) During an observation of the nourishment kitchen on [NAME] Two unit on 3/13/23 at 3:54 P.M., the surveyor observed the following: -microwave with dry crusted splatter on inner walls and ceiling -refrigerator with build-up of ice over an inch thick, in need of defrosting, and an open, undated container of cranberry juice. The refrigerator temperature was 45 degrees (refrigerator temperatures should be maintained at temperatures at or below 41 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature log indicated it had not been checked since 3/11/23. During an interview on 3/13/23 at 4:01 P.M., Unit Manager (UM) #2 said the refrigerator needed to be defrosted and the microwave cleaned of crusty debris. She said that when a juice container is opened it should be dated and that was not done. She said that she thought it was dietary's responsibility to check refrigerator temperature and clean the kitchenettes including the microwaves and that it had not been done. During an interview on 3/13/23 at 4:22 P.M., FSW #2 said there was a position in the department designated to check the unit kitchenettes, check refrigerator temperatures, restock and discard any items that were outdated, undated and/or unlabeled. In addition, the designee was supposed to notify the maintenance department if a refrigerator or freezer needed to be defrosted or was unable to maintain a safe temperature. FSW #2 said that the position was unfilled and current staff were rotated through to cover that duty until someone is hired. He also said that microwave cleaning had always been an issue, they should be cleaned by housekeeping. During an observation and interview with the Director of Housekeeping (DOH) on 3/13/23 at 5:04 P.M., the DOH observed both the microwaves in the kitchenette and in the resident dining room. The DOH said the common areas of the units including the dining room and the unit kitchenettes were cleaned by housekeeping daily in the morning. She said the cleaning of microwaves was done as part of the common area cleaning. She further said that both microwaves had food splattered inside and did not look as though they had been cleaned. During an observation on 3/13/23 at 5:06 P.M., of the dining room refrigerator and microwave on [NAME] Two unit with Nurse #4, the surveyor observed six containers of food that belonged to a resident, that were undated but had the resident's name on them. Nurse #4 said the facility policy was that food had to be labeled and dated when brought in and if food was not dated it should be discarded and this was not done.
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

2. On the Dharma Unit (the Dementia Special Care Unit-DSCU) the facility failed to ensure soiled and clean linen carts were appropriately secured and stored to prevent access to clean and potentially ...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On the Dharma Unit (the Dementia Special Care Unit-DSCU) the facility failed to ensure soiled and clean linen carts were appropriately secured and stored to prevent access to clean and potentially contaminated linens by one cognitively impaired Resident (#36). Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website titled Infection Control Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities, updated July 2019, indicated the following: - .Contaminated textiles and fabrics in health-care facilities can be a source of substantial numbers of pathogenic microorganisms . - .Contaminated textiles and fabrics are placed into bags or other appropriate containment .these bags are then securely tied or otherwise closed . Resident #36 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. On 3/9/23 at 10:05 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #36 rummaging through an unattended soiled linen cart in the hallway on the Dharma Unit. He/she removed multiple dirty towels from the cart and placed them in his/her walker basket. He/she then proceeded to pull out a pair of dirty pants from the soiled linen cart. During the observation, there were no nursing staff in sight of the Resident. The surveyor was able to ask the Housekeeping Director who had just entered the unit to assist the Resident away from the soiled linen cart. During an interview at this time, the Housekeeping Director said the use of the soiled linen carts was new on the unit. She said there was a laundry chute on the unit that all staff had access to and was she was unsure why there was a need for the soiled linen carts. During an interview on 3/9/23 at 10:15 A.M., Nurse #1 said she was unsure why there were soiled linen carts on the units as there was a laundry chute where dirty laundry could be sent down. She further said staff was aware that Resident #36 had rummaged through the dirty linen carts in the past and staff had recently added a stop sign (in the Resident's native language) on top of the dirty linen cart, but this did not deter the Resident from going into the dirty linen carts. She further said she was unsure of any additional precautions that had been put into place to ensure residents with cognitive impairments were not able to access the soiled linen carts to reduce the risk of residents coming into contact with possible contaminants. On 3/15/23 at 9:55 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #36 rummaging through an unattended clean linen cart in the hallway. At the time of the observation there was no nursing staff observed in the hallway. The Resident proceeded to take out clean gloves from the box of gloves that was stored in the clean linen cart and then proceeded to put them back in the cart. The Resident also proceeded to fill his/her walker basket with clean towels from the cart. During this time Nurse #5 walked down the hallway, passed by the Resident, as the Resident continued to look through the clean linen cart, and Nurse #5 did not redirect the Resident away from the cart. During an interview at this time, Nurse #5 said she saw the Resident going through the clean linen cart as she passed by and did not redirect him/her, as she had been doing this all morning and redirection was not working. She further said she should have tried to redirect him/her again but did not. Nurse #5 said there used to be stop signs in the Resident's native language on the carts but they were gone. She said she was unaware of any additional interventions to deter the Resident from going into the clean linen cart. Lastly, Nurse #5 said the Resident should not be in the clean linen carts as she could not be sure that the Resident had clean hands and this put other residents at risk as Resident #36 could possibly be contaminating the clean linens. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained laundry equipment according to the manufacturer's guidelines, and proper storage of both clean and soiled linens. Specifically, failure to: 1. clean two filters on one out of three washing machines to prevent contamination, and 2. ensure staff stored and secured soiled and clean linen carts to prevent access to clean and potentially contaminated linens by one Resident (#36) on the DSCU. Findings include: Review of the daily maintenance section of the Alliance Laundry System guidelines, undated, for the UniMac washing machine, indicated to remove the foam filter from the cover, wash the filter with warm water and allow to air dry. 1. On 3/13/23 at 11:41 A.M., the surveyor observed one of the three washing machines to have two filters located on the left side of the machine. Both filters were completely full with white lint. At the time of the observation, the Director of Laundry Services said that she was not aware that the filters needed to be cleaned daily but that they clearly needed to be cleaned. During an interview on 3/13/23 at 12:40 P.M., the Director of Maintenance said that cleaning the filters was part of the daily cleaning expectation per the manufacturer guidelines and should have been cleaned, as required.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff identified the need for a Significant Change in St...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff identified the need for a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for one Resident (#104), out of a sample of 25 residents. Findings include: Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual (a guide for how to complete a MDS Assessment), dated October 2019, indicated the following: -The SCSA is a comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed when the interdisciplinary team (IDT) has determined that a resident meets the significant change guidelines for either major improvement or decline -A significant change is a major decline or improvement in a resident's status that: 1. Will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions, the decline is not considered self-limiting, 2. Impacts more than one area of the resident's health status, and 3. Requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision of the care plan. Resident #104 was admitted to the facility in August 2022. Review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated at the time of the assessment, the Resident required supervision for eating and had no known significant changes in weight (loss or gain). Review of the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated at the time of the assessment the Resident required extensive assistance of one staff member to eat and had a significant weight loss. During an interview on 3/13/23 at 11:26 A.M., the MDS Nurse said Resident #104 had declined related to his/her significant weight loss and the significant decline in his/her ability to feed himself/herself and because of these declines the facility staff should have completed a SCSA on 2/22/23 instead of a Quarterly assessment, and this was not done, as required.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #35 was admitted in August 2018. Review of the MDS assessment, dated 1/26/23 indicated the Resident was understood a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #35 was admitted in August 2018. Review of the MDS assessment, dated 1/26/23 indicated the Resident was understood and could understand others and that a BIMS assessment should be completed with the Resident. Further review of the MDS assessment indicated a resident interview for the BIMS assessment was not completed and instead a staff assessment was completed. Review of the Medical Record indicated the BIMS assessment associated with the 1/26/23 MDS assessment was not completed until 2/14/23 which was not during the seven day look back period from 1/26/23, thus was unable to be utilized for coding the 1/25/23 MDS assessment. 4. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in March 2021. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated the Resident sometimes understands and is sometimes understood and a BIMS assessment should be conducted. Further review of the MDS assessment indicated a resident interview for the BIMS assessment was not completed and instead a staff assessment was completed. Review of the Medical Record indicated no evidence a BIMS assessment had been completed since 6/21/22. 5. Resident #53 was admitted to the facility in April 2022. Review of the MDS assessment, dated 1/11/23 indicated the Resident sometimes understands and is sometimes understood and a BIMS assessment should be conducted. Further review of the MDS assessment indicated a resident interview for the BIMS assessment was not completed and instead a staff assessment was completed. Review of the Resident's Medical Record indicated no evidence a BIMS assessment had been completed since 11/10/22. During an interview on 3/15/23 at 11:06 A.M., the MDS Nurse said she was unable to utilize the BIMS assessments for Residents #23, #94, and #35 as they were completed late and did not fall into the required look back period, so she was unable to use the Resident's interviews and had to complete the staff assessment instead. She further said that the BIMS assessments were not completed by nursing staff for Resident #2 and Resident #53, as required. In addition she said if resident interviews were not able to be included in the MDS assessment, it gave an incomplete picture of the residents and affected the quality of the MDS Assessments. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure its staff completed the necessary Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) to accurately convey a resident's level of cognitive function for five Residents (#23, #94, #35, #2, and #53), out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to complete Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS-a tool used to assess cognitive status) assessments within the seven day look back period (period of time facility staff have to complete assessments to be utilized in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment), for Residents who were understood verbally, at least some of the time. Findings Include: 1. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility in June 2022. Review of the Resident's MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated the Resident was sometimes understood and sometimes understands indicating a resident interview for the BIMS assessment should have been completed. Further review of the MDS assessment indicated a resident interview for the BIMS assessment was not completed and instead a staff assessment was completed. Review of the Resident's BIMS assessment associated with the 12/12/22 MDS assessment indicated the BIMS assessment had not been completed until 12/21/22 which was not during the seven day look back period from 12/12/22, thus was unable to be utilized for coding the 12/12/22 MDS assessment. 2. Resident #94 was admitted to the facility in July 2022. Review of the Resident's MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated the Resident was sometimes understood and sometimes understands others indicating a resident interview for the BIMS should have been completed. Further review of the MDS assessment indicated a resident interview for the BIMS assessment was not completed and instead a staff assessment was completed. Review of the Resident's BIMS assessment associated with the 1/25/23 MDS assessment indicated the BIMS assessment had not been completed until 2/10/23 which was not during the seven day look back period from 1/25/23, thus was unable to be utilized for coding the 1/25/23 MDS assessment. During an interview on 3/13/23 at 3:42 P.M., Unit Manager (UM) #1 said nursing staff completed the BIMS assessments for residents. She further said the MDS Nurse provided each unit with a list of due dates for when certain assessments needed to be completed in order for the MDS Nurse to submit the MDS Assessments. She further said she knew assessments such as the BIMS needed to be completed within the seven day look back period but when assessments were not completed within the seven day look back period, she was unsure how that affected the MDS assessment completion. During an interview on 3/13/23 at 4:48 P.M., UM #2 said she was unsure how nursing staff was keeping track of when BIMS assessments should be completed. She said the nurses on the units should have completed the BIMS assessments and the Unit Manager should check that the BIMS assessments were being completed. She further said if a BIMS assessment was not completed within the required timeframe the MDS assessment would not capture a comprehensive picture of the resident during that timeframe.
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

Deficiency F0691 (Tag F0691)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, for one of three residents (Resident #1), who had new nephrostomy (placement of a kidney stent to drain urine from the kidney into a drainage bag outside the bod...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, for one of three residents (Resident #1), who had new nephrostomy (placement of a kidney stent to drain urine from the kidney into a drainage bag outside the body), the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided nephrostomy care and treatment consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with a comprehensive person-centered care plan related to nephrostomy care. Findings include: The Facility's Policy titled Care of the Nephrostomy, dated 2010, indicated the following: - The licensed staff will verify that there is a Physician's Orders for the care of the nephrostomy tube. - To flush (to inject a syringe of saline into a port to keep the tube patent) the nephrostomy tube with 3 milliliters of sterile saline. - To perform a nephrostomy dressing changes every one to three days. Resident #1 was readmitted to the Facility in 8/2022, diagnoses included urosepsis secondary to kidney stone obstruction, with the insertion of a percutaneous nephrostomy tube. The Hospital Discharge Summary Nursing Assessment, dated 8/12/22, indicated that on 8/08/22, Resident #1 had a left nephrostomy, with a # 8 French catheter (a small tube for patency and urine flow) inserted into the left upper abdominal quadrant, and there was a urinary output of 600 milliliters. Review of Resident #1's Nursing Progress Note, dated 8/12/22, indicated that he/she was discharged from the Hospital and re-admitted at approximately 7:00 P.M., and that Resident #1 had a Foley catheter and a left nephrostomy tube drainage bag, the color of the drainage was mixed with blood. Review of Resident #1's Hospital Discharge Summary, indicated there was no documentation to support that there were discharge instructions related to the care of his/her nephrostomy tube. Further review of Resident #1 medical record indicated there was no documentation to support nursing contacted the hospital determine if there were instructions or to obtain orders specific to his/her nephrostomy care. During an interview on 12/14/22 at 12:20 P.M., Unit Manger #1 said there were no hospital discharge instructions for the care of Resident #1's nephrostomy tube. Unit Manager #1 said the Facility did not have a protocol for nephrostomy care that specified instructions for nurses related to nephrostomy tube flushes and dressing changes. Review of Resident #1's physician order, dated 8/13/22, indicated to perform nephrostomy care every shift. Review of Resident #1's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 8/13/2022 through 8/31/2022, indicated nephrostomy care was performed. However, the type of nephrostomy care was not specified. there was no physician's orders related to when and how nurses were to flush the nephrostomy tube (for maintaining patency). There was also no documentation related to the nephrostomy dressing change, including when it was to be performed. The Physician's Note, dated 8/31/22, indicated Resident #1's nephrostomy tube was draining mostly yellow urine and to monitor around the tube for infection. During an interview on 12/14/22 at 12:20 P.M., Unit Manager #1 said there were no physician's orders for flushing Resident #1's nephrostomy tube or dressing changes, prior to 9/15/22. Review of Resident #1's physician's order, dated 9/15/22, indicated to cleanse around the nephrostomy tube with normal saline and to apply a dressing every other day. Review of Resident #1's Physician's Note, dated 10/19/22, indicated that the nephrostomy tube was occluded, the Unit Manager was reaching out to the Renal Providers. Review of Resident #1's medical record indicated there was no documentation to support that the licensed nurses performed nephrostomy flushes from 8/13/22 through 10/19/22. Review of Resident #1's Physician's Note, dated 10/26/22, indicated the nephrostomy tube had no drainage, the Facility was making an appointment for next week for replacement of the non-functioning nephrostomy tube. Review of Resident #1's medical record indicated there was still no documentation to support that the licensed nurses performed nephrostomy flushes from 10/20/22 through 10/26/22. Review of the Nursing Progress Note, dated 11/01/22, indicated Resident #1's nephrostomy continued to have no drainage in the nephrostomy bag. Review of Resident #1's Physician's Note, dated 11/02/22, indicated Resident #1 had an appointment on 11/04/22, for changing the nephrostomy tube. Review of Resident #1's medical record indicated there was still no documentation to support that the licensed nurses performed nephrostomy flushes from 10/26/22 through 11/04/22. Review of Resident #1's Hospital Interventional Radiology Note, dated 11/04/22, indicated the Facility requested an evaluation of his/her non-functional left nephrostomy. The Note indicated that the left indwelling nephrostomy was found to be completely occluded with encrusted material. Review of Resident #1's Care Plans, dated 8/12/22 through 11/04/22, indicated there was no documentation to support nursing developed a plan of care related to his/her nephrostomy tube, which include goals and interventions related care, treatment, and maintenance of the nephrostomy tube. During an interview on 12/14/22 at 11:57 A.M., the Director of Nurses said there was no nephrostomy care plan developed for Resident #1 prior to 11/04/22, and said the expectation would have been to have a nephrostomy care plan in place. During an interview on 12/19/22 at 3:30 P.M., Physician #1 said Resident #1's nephrostomy required daily flushes with 10 milliliters of normal saline and dressing changes every two to three days. During an interview on 12/14/22 at 1:10 P.M., the former Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) , said that residents admitted with a nephrostomy would be an infrequent occurrence for the facility. The former SDC said that nephrostomy care would include the frequency of the dressing site care, and the frequency for flushing the nephrostomy for maintaining its patency. The former SDC said there was no protocol for nephrostomy care at the Facility, and that nursing would need to obtain and follow physician's orders.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had new nephrostomy (placement of a kidney stent to drain urine from the kidney into a drainage bag outsi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had new nephrostomy (placement of a kidney stent to drain urine from the kidney into a drainage bag outside the body), who the Facility failed to ensure that licensed nurses had the specific competencies and skill set necessary to safely care for Resident #1's nephrostomy, as ordered by the Physician. Findings include: The Facility's Policy titled Care of the Nephrostomy, dated 2010, indicated the following: - The licensed staff will verify that there is a Physician's Orders for the care of the nephrostomy tube. - To flush (a syringe of saline is injected to keep the tube patent) the nephrostomy tube with 3 milliliters of sterile saline. - To perform a nephrostomy dressing change every one to three days. Resident #1 was readmitted to the Facility in 8/2022, diagnoses included urosepsis secondary to a kidney stone obstruction, with the insertion of a percutaneous nephrostomy tube. Review of Resident #1's Nursing Progress Note, dated 8/12/22, indicated that he/she was discharged from the Hospital and re-admitted at approximately 7:00 P.M., and that Resident #1 had a Foley catheter and a left nephrostomy tube drainage bag. The Hospital Discharge Summary Nursing Assessment, dated 8/12/22, indicated that on 8/08/22, Resident #1 had a left nephrostomy, with a # 8 French catheter (a small tube for patency and urine flow) inserted into the left upper abdominal quadrant. Review of Resident #1's Hospital Discharge Summary, indicated there was no documentation to support that there were discharge instructions related to the care of his/her nephrostomy tube, including flushes or dressing changes. There was also no documentation to support nursing contacted the hospital or the physician to obtain orders specific to Resident #1's nephrostomy care and treatment needs. During an interview on 12/14/22 at 12:20 P.M., Unit Manger #1 said there were no Hospital discharge instructions for the care of Resident #1's nephrostomy tube when he/she was re-admitted . Unit Manager #1 said the Facility did not have a protocol for nephrostomy care which would specify instructions for the nephrostomy tube flushes and dressing changes. Review of Resident #1's physician order, dated 8/13/22, indicated to perform nephrostomy care every shift. However there were parameters related to flushes or dressing changes. During an interview on 12/14/22 at 12:20 P.M., Unit Manager #1 said there is no educational and/or competency training for the Nurses who provide care and treatment for nephrostomy at the Facility. Review of Resident #1's medical record indicated there was no documentation to support that the licensed nurses performed nephrostomy flushes from 8/13/22 through 11/04/22. Although Resident #1's Treatment Administration Record, dated 8/13/2022 through 11/04/22, indicated nephrostomy care was performed. The type of nephrostomy care was not specified to ensure his/her nephrostomy tube flush (for maintaining patency) was administered or that a nephrostomy dressing change performed. Review of Resident #1's Physician's Note, dated 10/19/22, indicated that the nephrostomy tube was occluded, the Unit Manager was reaching out to the Renal Providers. Review of Resident #1's Physician's Note, dated 10/26/22, indicated the nephrostomy tube had no drainage, the Facility was making an appointment for next week for replacement of the non-functioning nephrostomy tube (on 11/04/22). During an interview on 12/19/22 at 3:30 P.M., Physician #1 said Resident #1's nephrostomy required daily flushes with 10 milliliters of normal saline and dressing changes every two to three days. Review of Resident #1's Hospital Interventional Radiology Note, dated 11/04/22, indicated the Facility requested an evaluation of his/her non-functional left nephrostomy and his/her left indwelling nephrostomy was found to be completely occluded with encrusted material. During an interview on 12/14/22 at 1:10 P.M., the former Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), said that residents admitted with a nephrostomy would be an infrequent occurrence at the facility. The former SDC said that nephrostomy care would include the frequency of the dressing site care, and the frequency for flushing the nephrostomy for maintaining its patency. The former SDC said there was no training offered at the Facility for nephrostomy care.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 43% turnover. Below Massachusetts's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $28,915 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 34 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $28,915 in fines. Higher than 94% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (16/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 16/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Center For Extended Care At Amherst's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Center For Extended Care At Amherst Staffed?

CMS rates CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Center For Extended Care At Amherst?

State health inspectors documented 34 deficiencies at CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 28 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Center For Extended Care At Amherst?

CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by SHIMON LEFKOWITZ, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 134 certified beds and approximately 130 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in AMHERST, Massachusetts.

How Does Center For Extended Care At Amherst Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Center For Extended Care At Amherst?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can 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 Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Center For Extended Care At Amherst Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Center For Extended Care At Amherst Stick Around?

CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for Massachusetts nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Center For Extended Care At Amherst Ever Fined?

CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST has been fined $28,915 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Massachusetts average of $33,368. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Center For Extended Care At Amherst on Any Federal Watch List?

CENTER FOR EXTENDED CARE AT AMHERST 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.