THE CENTER AT ADVOCATE

111 ORIENT AVENUE, EAST BOSTON, MA 02128 (617) 569-2100
For profit - Limited Liability company 190 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#328 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

The Center at Advocate has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #328 out of 338 in Massachusetts, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and is the lowest-ranked option in Suffolk County. While the facility is reportedly improving-reducing issues from 29 in 2024 to 14 in 2025-there are still serious concerns, including a substantial total of 63 deficiencies found during inspections, with three being critical incidents. For example, there was a failure to provide adequate mental health support, leading to a resident's suicide attempt after expressing suicidal thoughts. Staffing ratings are below average, with a turnover rate of 41%, and the facility has incurred $84,292 in fines, which is concerning compared to other facilities in Massachusetts. On a positive note, the facility does have average RN coverage, which can help address potential issues that other staff may overlook.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Massachusetts
#328/338
Bottom 3%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
29 → 14 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% turnover. Near Massachusetts's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$84,292 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Massachusetts. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
63 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 29 issues
2025: 14 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (41%)

    7 points below Massachusetts average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Massachusetts average (2.9)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near Massachusetts avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $84,292

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 63 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening 4 actual harm
Jun 2025 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure grievances were filed and resolved in a timely manner for one Resident (#48) out of a total sample of 30 residents. Findings include...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure grievances were filed and resolved in a timely manner for one Resident (#48) out of a total sample of 30 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident and Family Grievances, dated as revised 2/2023, indicated the following: -Policy: It is the policy of this facility to support each resident's and family member's right to voice grievances without discrimination, reprisal or fear of discrimination or reprisal. -Definitions: Prompt efforts to resolve include facility acknowledgment of a complaint/grievance and actively working toward resolution of that complaint/grievance. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility in March 2024 and has diagnoses that include major depressive disorder and mild neurocognitive disorder without behavioral disturbance. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/26/25, indicated that on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam Resident #48 scored a 7 out of a possible 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 9:00 A.M., Resident #48 stated that his/her roommate constantly blares the television at night when he/she is trying to sleep and that even though he/she complains about it to staff, no one does anything. Review of Resident #48's clinical progress notes indicates the following notes written by Nurse #2: -5/7/25: Resident expressing to writer that roommate TV is too loud not able to sleep especially at night, and that would like intervention, its just annoying. Writer requested roommate to try accommodate his/her peer however stated that that doesn't concern him/her whatsoever. (sic) -5/10/25: c/o (complain of) not wanting to be in the same room with roommate because roommate has his/her TV on all night and that makes him/her can't sleep, patient wants to be in a different room and will speak to the Unit Manager. (sic) Review of the facility's grievance log book failed to indicate that a grievance was filed regarding Resident #48's complaint on 5/7/25 or 5/10/25. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 12:22 P.M., with Nurse #2 he said that when Resident #48 complained about the roommates TV blaring at night he took the following action: -he spoke to the roommate; and -he did not file a grievance but rather reported the complaint to the Unit Manager and she took it from there. Nurse #2 said that he thinks that the situation has improved and was not aware that the Resident continued to have concerns regarding the roommates television. The Unit Manager was not available during the survey. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 1:13 P.M., with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) she said that anyone can file a grievance and that when they do the facility will try to fix the problem immediately. The NHA said that they will write up both the complaint and the resolution to the grievance on the grievance form. The NHA could not say why a grievance, that included a resolution to Resident #48's ongoing concern, was not completed. The NHA said that if the Resident were offered a room change it would be documented in Resident's medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive resident centered care plan was developed for one Resident (#118) out of a total sample of 30 Residents. Specifical...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive resident centered care plan was developed for one Resident (#118) out of a total sample of 30 Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop an individualized comprehensive resident centered care plan related to the monitoring and care of a pacemaker. Findings include: Review of the facility policy title Use of Pacemaker, undated, indicated the following: -All residents with a pacemaker will be monitored according to standard protocol and plan of care. -All documentation about the pacemaker will be placed in the residents' chart and part of their permanent record. Resident #118 was admitted to the facility in February 2025 with diagnoses including bradycardia and presence of a pacemaker. Review of Resident #118's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/15/25, indicated the Resident scored a 5 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam, indicating severe cognitive impairment Review of the care plan, dated as initiated 2/26/25, indicated the following: Resident has a pacemaker related to cardiac dysrhythmia and is at risk for activity intolerance, pacemaker failure and altered cardiac output. Intervention: Monitor vital signs as ordered or per facility protocol and record. Notify physician of significant abnormalities from baseline values. Review of Resident #118's current physician orders failed to indicate a pacemaker setting rate, serial number and cardiologist information. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:00 A.M., Nurse #4 said the pacemaker setting should be in the physician orders and that the nurses check the Resident's heart rate and would report any abnormal rate. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:18 A.M., Nurse #3 said the pacemaker setting should be in the physician orders. The setting would guide the nurses to know how low or high the pacemaker is set to. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:47 A.M., the Director of Nursing said the physician orders should have the pacemaker setting and all the details in regards to the pacemaker.
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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility to ensure that services provided met professional standards for one Resident (#10), out of a total sample of 30 residents. Specifical...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility to ensure that services provided met professional standards for one Resident (#10), out of a total sample of 30 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to complete a physician order for weekly skin check and failed to identify bruises for three days. Findings include: Review of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Nursing Advisory Ruling on Nursing Practice, dated as revised April 11, 2018, indicated the following: - Nurse's Responsibility and Accountability: Licensed nurses accept, verify, transcribe, and implement orders from duly authorized prescribers that are received by a variety of methods (i.e., written, verbal/telephone, standing orders/protocols, pre-printed order sets, electronic) in emergent and non-emergent situations. Licensed nurses in a management role must ensure an infrastructure is in place, consistent with current standards of care, to minimize errors. Review of the facility policy titled Skin Assessment, undated, indicated the following: -A full body, or head to toe, skin assessment will be conducted by a licensed or registered nurse upon admission/re-admission, daily for three days, and weekly thereafter. The assessment may also be performed after a change of condition or after any newly identified pressure injury. -Documentation of skin assessment-document if resident refused assessment and why. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility in April 2025 with diagnoses including dementia and chronic long-term use of anticoagulants (medications used for thinning blood). Review of Resident #10's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/14/25, indicated the Resident scored 3 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated that Resident #10 is dependent for all activities of daily living (ADLs). On 6/3/25 at 9:03 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #10 lying in his/her bed. Resident #10's right arm was on top of the covers with a deep purplish yellowish fading bruise on the back and forearm. On 6/4/25 at 7:24 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #10 lying in his/her bed. Resident #10's right arm had purplish/yellowish bruising to the back and forearm. On 6/5/25 at 7:31 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #10 lying in his/her bed. Resident #10's right arm had purplish/yellowish bruising to the back and forearm. Review of Resident #10's current physician orders indicated the following: -Skin check weekly on Wednesday 3-11 shift I=intact, O=open, and complete skin assessment on Universal Design for Assessment (UDA) every shift every Wednesday for skin check. Review of Resident #10's anticoagulant care plan, dated as initiated 5/1/25, indicated: -Resident is currently taking an anticoagulant related to Atrial Fibrillation. Interventions: -Daily skin inspection report abnormalities to the nurse. -Monitor/document /report to medical doctor (MD) as needed, signs and symptoms of anticoagulant complications: blood tinged or frank blood in urine, black tarry stools, dark or bright red blood in stools, sudden severe headaches, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle joint pain, lethargy, bruising, blurred vision, shortness of breath, loss of appetite, sudden changes in mental status, significant or sudden changes in vital signs. Review of Resident #10's weekly skin evaluations dated 5/7/25, 5/14/25, 5/21/25, and 5/28/25 failed to indicate bruising to the right arm. Review of Resident #10's medical record failed to indicate a weekly skin evaluation was completed on 6/4/25 as ordered. Review of Resident #10's nursing progress notes failed to indicate bruising to right hand/forearm had been identified. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 7:33 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 said she saw the bruise on the Resident's right arm on Tuesday (6/3/25) but did not tell the nurse about it. She said when giving care, if a bruise is identified, the CNAs are supposed to report it to the nurse immediately. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 7:38 A.M., Nurse #5 said skin checks are completed weekly and should identify any bruises, skin tears and pressure injuries. She said the CNAs are responsible for reporting to the nurses immediately if they observe any skin alterations. Nurse #5 further said any bruises on a resident should be documented in the progress notes. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:20 A.M., Nurse #3 said skin checks should be completed weekly, and any skin alterations are documented in the progress notes and the weekly skin evaluation. Nurse #3 further said a skin check should have been completed yesterday as per the orders. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:47 A.M., the Director of Nursing said skin checks should be completed weekly per the physician orders, daily with care and any bruises should be documented in the medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for one dependent Resident (#111) out of a tota...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure nursing staff provided assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for one dependent Resident (#111) out of a total sample of 30 residents. Specifically, for Resident #111 the facility failed to provide assistance with the removal of facial hair. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), undated, indicated the following: Policy -The facility will, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and consistent with the resident's needs and choices, ensure a resident's abilities in ADL's do not deteriorate unless deterioration is unavoidable. -Care and services will be provided for the following activities of daily living: bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral hygiene. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: -A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Resident #111 was admitted to the facility in March 2024 with diagnoses including displaced fracture of the greater trochanter of the right femur, fracture of T7-T8 vertebrae, malignant neoplasm of the upper lobe of the right lung, and contracture of right hand. Review of Resident #111's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/13/25, indicated the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status exam score of 13 out of a possible 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS further indicated Resident #111 required substantial/maximal assistance for self-care activities. During an interview on 6/3/25 at 8:45 A.M., Resident #111 said he/she normally does not have facial hair and would like it removed but needs assistance. On 6/3/25 at 8:45 A.M., and 3:31 P.M., 6/4/25 at 7:41 A.M., 12:29 P.M., and 4:12 P.M., and 6/5/25 at 7:39 A.M., Resident #111 was observed with upper lip, chin, and neck hair. Review of Resident #111 personal hygiene care card (documentation indicating level of care provided for combing hair, shaving, applying make-up, and washing/drying face and hands), indicated Resident #111 required substantial/maximal assistance to complete personal hygiene. Review of Resident #111's nursing progress notes failed to indicate he/she refused ADL care. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:10 A.M., Nurse #6 said the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's) normally shave residents during morning care with their permission. Nurse #6 said Resident #111 required assistance of one to two people for self-care, would only refuse care if he/she was in pain and it should be documented in the medical record if a resident refused care. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:35 A.M., CNA #2 said we shave residents with their permission, and if they refuse, we will try again later and if they continue to refuse, we notify the nurse. CNA #6 said she does not have Resident #111 today but does assist him/her with shaving when he/she is assigned to her. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:40 A.M., the Administrator said she would expect facial hair to be removed with the resident's permission during routine care and any refusals should be documented in the medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents at risk for developing pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents at risk for developing pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice for two Residents (#2 and #61) out of a total sample of 30 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to follow physician orders for air mattress settings. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Use of Support Surfaces, undated, indicated the following: 7. For powered devices, or those requiring air, the licensed nurse will check each shift and prn (as needed) for proper functioning, and/or inflation. 1. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in December 2000 with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis and diabetes. Review of Resident #2's most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) assessment, dated 5/27/25, indicated the Resident scored a 15 out of possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam, indicating intact cognition. The MDS further indicated that Resident #2 required a pressure reducing device and was at risk of developing pressure ulcers/injuries. On 6/4/25 at 1:08 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #2 lying in his/her bed with an air mattress setting at 125 lbs (pounds). On 6/5/25 at 7:08 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #2 lying in his/her bed with an air mattress setting at 125 lbs. Review of the medical record indicated the following physician orders, dated 8/22/24: -Air mattress to bed setting at 150 (resident request) check setting and function q shift for wound prevention. -Right hip: clean with normal saline, cover with foam dressing change every three days for protection every day shift. Review of Resident #2's weekly skin evaluation, dated 6/1/25 indicated the following : -Blanchable area with no visible drainage noted to the right hip. Review of Resident #2's skin care plan, dated as revised on 5/27/25, indicated the following focus: -At risk for a pressure injury related to poor mobility, decreased range of motion, diagnosis of diabetes, bowel incontinence, left below the knee amputation, history of pressure areas, noncompliant with repositioning side to side and psoriasis. -Intervention: Air mattress to bed setting at 150 per resident request, check function and setting every shift. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:48 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 said she adjusts Resident #2's air mattress setting to firm when she is performing activities of daily. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:00 A.M., Nurse #4 said nurses are responsible for checking air mattress settings. Nurse #4 further said air mattresses are checked every shift and settings are listed in the physician order. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:02 A.M., Nurse #3 said air mattresses are set by weight, nurses are responsible for checking air mattresses every shift, and that Resident #2's air mattress should be set to 150 pounds. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:50 A.M., the Director of Nursing said nurses should have checked the air mattress for the correct setting every shift and the expectation is to follow the physician order. 2. Resident #61 was admitted to the facility in August 2023 with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis and pressure ulcer of sacral region stage 3. Review of Resident 61's most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) assessment, dated 4/18/25, indicated the Resident scored a 14 out of possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam, indicating intact cognition. The MDS further indicated that Resident #61 required a pressure-reducing device, had a pressure ulcer/injury and a non removable dressing/device. On 6/4/25 at 7:54 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #61 lying in his/her bed, the air mattress was set at 340 Lbs (pounds). The resident also had a wound vacuum (a medical procedure that uses negative pressure to promote wound healing). On 6/4/25 at 1:11 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #61 lying in his/her bed, the air mattress was set at 340 Lbs (pounds). On 6/5/25 at 7:11 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #61 lying in his/her bed, the air mattress set at 340 Lbs (pounds). Review of the medical record indicated the following physician orders: -Air mattress to bed. Setting on 160. Check functioning of mattress every shift. Check for proper setting every shift, dated 8/21/24. -Continuous Negative Pressure wound Vacuum to sacrum, dated 6/3/25. Review of Resident #61's skin care plan revised on 4/30/25 indicated the following interventions: -Sacral wound pressure stage three. -Air mattress to bed. Setting on 160. Check functioning of mattress every shift. Check for proper setting every shift. -Evaluate need for alternating pressure mattress and adhere to manufacturer guidelines to ensure settings are correct, check function every shift of mattress when in place. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:48 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 said she adjust the air mattress setting to firm when she is performing activities of daily. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:00 A.M., Nurse #4 said nurses are responsible for checking air mattress settings. Nurse #4 further said air mattresses are checked every shift and settings are listed in the physician order. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:02 A.M., Nurse #3 said air mattresses are set by weight, nurses are responsible for checking air mattresses every shift, and that Resident #61's air mattress should be set to 160 pounds. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:50 A.M., the Director of Nursing said nurses should have checked the air mattress for the correct setting and the expectation is to follow the physician order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, policy review and interview the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive plan of care was developed for Trauma Informed Care for one Resident (#78) out of a total sample of 30...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, policy review and interview the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive plan of care was developed for Trauma Informed Care for one Resident (#78) out of a total sample of 30 residents. Specifically, for Resident #78, who had a history of trauma, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive trauma care plan, with individualized triggers. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Trauma Informed Care, undated, indicated the following: Policy Statement -It is the policy of this facility to provide care and services which, in addition to meeting professional standards, are delivered using approaches which are culturally competent, account for experiences and preferences, and address the needs of trauma survivors by minimizing triggers and/or re-traumatization. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: -The facility will collaborate with resident trauma survivors, and as appropriate, the resident's family, friends, the primary care physician, and other health care professionals (such as psychologists and mental health professionals) to develop and implement individualized care plans and interventions. -The facility will identify triggers which may re-traumatize residents with a history of trauma. Trigger specific interventions will identify ways to decrease the resident's exposure to triggers which re-traumatize the resident, as well as identify ways to mitigate or decrease the effect of the trigger on the resident and will be added to the resident's care plan. -The facility will evaluate whether the interventions have been able to mitigate (or reduce) the impact of the identified triggers on the resident that may cause re-traumatization. The resident and/or his or her family or representative will be included in this evaluation to ensure clear and open discussion and better understand if interventions must be modified. -In situations where trauma survivors are reluctant to share their history, the facility will still try and identify triggers which may re-traumatize the resident and develop care plan interventions which minimize or eliminate the effect of the trigger on the resident. Resident #78 admitted to the facility in November 2023 with diagnoses that included Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), vascular dementia, and anxiety. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/25/25, indicated the Resident was assessed by staff to have moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated Resident #78 has an active diagnosis of PTSD. Review of Resident #78's medical record failed to indicate a plan of care for PTSD with identified triggers. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:10 A.M., Nurse #6 said she believed the social workers complete the trauma assessments and develop the PTSD care plans, and she would expect triggers to be identified to better care for the residents. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 8:28 A.M., Unit Manager #1 said the entire team works together to develop the PTSD care plan and she would expect triggers to be identified so we know how to best care for the residents. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 9:35 A.M., the Administrator said the social worker would initiate the trauma informed assessment and psych services would be consulted. The Administrator said it was a team effort, and she would expect a PTSD care plan to be developed with identified triggers. The Social Worker was not availabe for interview.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff stored all drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff stored all drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to properly secure a medication cart on 1 of 5 units (2 West). Findings include: On 6/4/25 at 9:02 A.M., on the 2 [NAME] unit the surveyor observed an unlocked and unattended medication cart. The surveyor was able to open and access the cart. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:04 A.M., Nurse #1 returned to her cart. She closed and locked the medication cart and said that the cart should be locked when unattended. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:46 A.M., with the Director of Nursing she said that it is the expectation that the medication cart be locked when not attended.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. On 6/4/25 at 9:47 A.M., during the medication pass in the 3 [NAME] unit corridor, Nurse #9 left the medication cart to find medications in the medication room. Nurse #9 left the laptop computer scr...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 6/4/25 at 9:47 A.M., during the medication pass in the 3 [NAME] unit corridor, Nurse #9 left the medication cart to find medications in the medication room. Nurse #9 left the laptop computer screen open. While Nurse #9 was away, several staff and two residents passed the open screen, and they were able to see a resident's name and their Medication Administration Record. Nurse #9 then returned to the medication cart. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:51 A.M. Nurse #9 said she had forgotten to close the laptop screen before leaving for the medication room. Nurse #9 said the screen showing resident medical information should be closed when the laptop is unattended. Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain confidential resident information (medication administration information) on 2 of 5 resident units (2 [NAME] and 3 West). Findings include: 1. On 6/4/25 at 9:02 A.M., on the 2 [NAME] unit, the surveyor observed an unattended medication cart. The laptop computer on top of the cart was a open and displaying a resident's name and their Medication Administration Record. The laptop screen was visible to residents and staff in the corridor. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 9:04 A.M., Nurse #1 returned to the medication cart. She shut the laptop computer screen, said that it should not be open and should be in a private setting when the cart is unattended. During an interview on 6/5/25 at 10:46 A.M., with the Director of Nursing she said that it is the expectation that the laptop computer screen by covered or in a private setting when it is open to a resident's medical record.
Apr 2025 6 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of five sampled residents (Resident #1), who was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, which included turning, repositioning and incontinence ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of five sampled residents (Resident #1), who was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, which included turning, repositioning and incontinence care, the Facility failed to ensure his/her was provided with the necessary level of staff supervision and/or assistance, when on 03/02/25, Resident #1 was positioned onto his/her side during care, the staff member left the room to get supplies, leaving him/her unattended and when staff member returned he/she was found on the floor after falling out of bed. Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED) where he/she was diagnosed with multiple bone fractures and was admitted for care. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Incidents and Accidents, dated as last revised 11/01/24, indicated that an accident refers to any unexpected or unintentional incident, which results or may result in injury or illness to a resident. The Policy further indicated that the purpose of incident reporting can include the following; -Assuring that appropriate and immediate interventions are implemented and corrective actions are taken to prevent reoccurrences and improve the management of the resident's care; -Conducting root cause analysis to ascertain causative/contributing factors as part of the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) to avoid further occurrences; and -Alert risk management and/or administration of occurrences that could result in claims of further reporting requirements. Review of the report submitted by the Facility via Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated 03/10/25, indicated that Resident #1 was found on the floor and sent to the Hospital Emergency Department for evaluation. The Report further indicated that at approximately 12:25 A.M., Resident #1 put his/her call light on, Nurse #1 responded and that Resident #1 asked to be changed. Nurse #1 said that she informed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1, who went to Resident #1's room to provide care. The Report indicated that CNA #1 went into Resident #1's room, asked him/her what was needed and stepped out of the room to get supplies to change Resident #1. The Report indicated that when CNA #1 returned to Resident #1's room, he/she was found on the floor. Review of Resident #1's Hospital ED report, dated 03/02/25, indicated he/she suffered a left scalp abrasion, left superior and inferior pubic ramus (part of the pelvic bone) fracture, left scapular (shoulder blade) fracture and a left clavicle (collar bone) fracture. The Report indicated Resident #1 was admitted and remained in the Hospital for six days. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in February 2025, diagnoses included but was not limited to Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) with bilateral foot gangrene, diabetic neuropathy, Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) in remission, chronic pain and chronic urinary retention with an indwelling catheter in place. Review of Resident #1's Physical Therapy Evaluation, dated 02/17/25, indicated he/she was totally dependent for bed mobility and does not attempt to initiate. Review of Resident #1's Care Plan, titled ADL-Self-Care deficit, dated 02/18/25, indicated he/she was totally dependent on staff for all ADL's, including all transfers (mechanical lift required), repositioning, and toileting/incontinent care. Review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 02/21/25, indicated that Resident #1 required total physical assistance from staff members for toileting needs, bed mobility and repositioning. Review of Resident #1's Occupational Therapy (OT) Note, dated 02/26/25, indicated that OT was working on bed mobility exercises to increase functional skills. The Note indicated Resident #1 required maximum assistance to position self towards the center of the bed due to severe right lateral lean when in bed. During a telephone interview on 04/23/25 at 2:52 P.M., Resident #1 said that on 03/02/25 at approximately 12:30 A.M., he/she put his/her call light on and told Nurse #1 that he/she needed to be changed. Resident #1 said two male CNA's (exact names unknown) came into the room to change him/her, turned and rolled him/her onto his/her side toward the window, left him/her on the bed like that and then they both walked away to go get some supplies for incontinent care. Resident #1 said he/she then rolled right off the bed and landed on concrete ledge on the floor that was below his/her window. Resident #1 said there was no bed rail on his/her bed to grab onto to help him/herself hold on. During a telephone interview on 04/24/25 at 9:27 A.M., Nurse #1 said she answered Resident #1's call light early in the morning on 03/02/25, toward the beginning of the night shift and he/she asked to be changed. Nurse #1 said she told CNA #1 that Resident #1 needed to be changed. Nurse #1 said she did not see how many CNA's entered Resident #1's room to provide him/her care. Nurse #1 said she went to go do something and CNA #1 came back to her and said Resident #1 was on the floor. Nurse #1 said that when she entered the room, Resident #1 was lying up against the concrete ledge that extended out from the floor under the window and they had to move the bed away from the window in order for her to assess Resident #1 for potential injuries. Nurse #1 said that Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation once she saw his/her face begin to bruise. During an interview on 04/28/25 at 12:06 P.M., CNA #1 said that around 12:15 A.M., Nurse #1 informed him that Resident #1 was wet and needed to be assisted with incontinent care. CNA #1 said he went to Resident #1's room, asked him/her what he/she needed and said Resident #1 told him that he/she needed to be changed. CNA #1 said he did not touch (reposition) Resident #1 to start care, but left the room to go get supplies first, that were needed to assist with care. CNA #1 said when he returned to the room approximately 2-3 minutes later, Resident #1 was on the floor. CNA #1 said there was no other CNA in the room helping him that night. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 1:07 P.M., the Certified Occupational Therapist Assistant (COTA) said that Resident #1 was bed bound and could use his/her hands to some extent, for example grasping his/her drink and he/she was working on self-feeding. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 1:39 P.M., the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) said that she did not remember talking about Resident #1 being able to utilize side rails for mobility and said he/she was not assessed by the rehabilitation department for the use of side rails. The DOR said that Resident #1 was totally dependant for bed mobility, positioning, and incontinent care and said she was not certain who decides how many staff, one versus two should be providing a resident's care. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 4:16 P.M., CNA #5 said Resident #1 was difficult to reposition if the staff were unaware of his/her abilities. CNA #5 said Resident #1's body would slip (tilt) to one side and if he/she was not positioned correctly, he/she could have an accident. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 12:34 P.M., the Director of Nurse (DON) said that she does not know how Resident #1 ended up being found on the floor. The DON said that the Facility's expectation is to provide a safe environment for all residents and provide the necessary service and care needs that each resident requires. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 11:51 A.M., the Administrator said in the morning of 03/02/25 is when she learned of Resident #1 being found on the floor after requesting to be cleaned and changed earlier in the shift. The Administrator said she only knew the circumstances as they were reported to her.
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 F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for three of five sampled resident (Resident #2, #4, and #5), the Facility failed to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for three of five sampled resident (Resident #2, #4, and #5), the Facility failed to ensure that the resident and/or his/her family member or legal representative participated in the development and implementation of their person-center care plans, when the residents and/or their legal representatives were not invited to attend an interdisciplinary care plan meeting following the completion of their Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated as last revised 11/01/24, indicated that comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the IDT after each comprehensive and quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS) Assessment. The Policy further indicated that the IDT includes, however, not limited to; -The Attending Physician; -A Registered Nurse; -A Certified Nurse Aide; -A member of the food and nutrition services staff; -The Resident and the resident's representative, to the extent practicable; and -And other appropriate staff or professionals in disciplines as determined by the resident's needs. 1) Resident #2 was admitted to the Facility in November 2024, diagnoses include status post multiple back surgery, diabetes mellitus, bipolar disorder, and acute on chronic pain. Review of Resident #2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated , 02/17/25, indicated that he/she was alert, oriented and had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 (score of 13-15 indicated cognitively intact). During an interview on 04/22/25 at 3:27 P.M., Resident #2 said he/she has never attended a comprehensive care plan meeting. Resident #2 and said that the staff has not invited him/her to attend a care plan meeting with the team to talk about his/her goals and interventions since he/she has been admitted . Review of Resident #2's Medical Record indicated that there was no documentation to support that the facility scheduled and conducted a comprehensive care plan meeting after the completion of his/her admission and/or quarterly MDS. 2) Resident #4 was admitted to the Facility in March 2024, diagnoses included atrial fibrillation, neurocognitive disorder, peripheral vascular disease and depression. Review of Resident #4's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], indicated that he/she was alert and had a BIMS score of 7/15 (score or 8-12 indicates moderate cognitive impairment). Review of Resident #4's Medical Record indicated that there was no documentation to support he/she had been invited or attended a comprehensive care plan meeting after completion of his/her latest annual MDS. 3) Resident #5 was admitted to the Facility in March 2025, diagnoses included anemia, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, and a history of falls. Review of Resident #5's admission MDS, dated [DATE] indicated that he/she was alert and had a BIMS score of 11/15 (score of 8-12 indicates moderate cognitive impairment). Review of Resident # 5's Medical Record indicated that there was no documentation to support that the facility scheduled, conducted and invited him/her to the care plan meeting. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 1:17 P.M., the Director of Social Services said that the MDS Nurse generates the Care Plan Meeting Schedules, and that the Receptionist is responsible for sending out invitations to the resident and/or their responsible party. The Director of Social Services said she had not invited Resident #2 to the latest care plan review and said that she did not see a care plan note for his/her latest comprehensive care plan meeting. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 10:00 A.M., the MDS Nurse said that the receptionist was responsible for inviting the Resident and/or the Resident Representative to attend the comprehensive Care Plan Meetings. The MDS Nurse said that each resident has the right to attend their own care plan meetings. During a telephone interview on 04/28/25 at 12:06 P.M., the Support MDS Nurse said that she reviews the new admissions every morning and puts the resident on a MDS and care plan schedule for the building. The MDS Nurse said that she does not know how Resident # 5 was missed and said that it is expected that all residents and their representatives are invited to attend all comprehensive care plan meetings. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 12:24 P.M., the Director of Nurses said that it is the Facility's expectation that all residents and families are to be invited to the care plan meetings, that the care plan meetings are completed in a timely manner and in accordance with the completion of a residents' MDS.
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 F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, for one of five sampled residents (Resident #1) who had requested bed rails be placed on his/her bed for repositioning and safety reasons, the Facility failed to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, for one of five sampled residents (Resident #1) who had requested bed rails be placed on his/her bed for repositioning and safety reasons, the Facility failed to ensure his/her request was adequately addressed when bed rails were not provided and was told he/she did not need them. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Resident Rights, dated 11/01/24, indicated that each resident has the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with the access to people and services inside and outside the facility. The Policy further indicated that the resident has the right to be informed of, participate in his or her treatment. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in February 2025, diagnoses included but not limited to Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) with bilateral foot gangrene, diabetic neuropathy, Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) in remission, chronic pain and chronic urinary retention with an indwelling catheter in place. Review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 02/21/25, indicated he/she was alert, oriented, was his/her own decision maker, and had scored a 15/15 on his/her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Assessment (0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired cognition, and 12-15 suggests a resident is cognitively intact). Review of Resident #1's Physician's Order, for February 2025, indicated he/she had a new Physician's Order dated 2/14/25, to place two (2) quarter (1/4) bed rails on his/her bed. Review of Resident #1's admission Bed Rail Assessment, dated 02/14/25, indicated that he/she had not been consulted regarding the use of the bed rails. During a telephone interview on 04/22/25 at 12:02 P.M., Family Member #1 said that on 02/21/25, he told Nurse #7 that he was worried about Resident #1's safety because he/she did not have bed rails on his/her bed. Family Member #1 said that Resident #1 had bed rails on his/her hospital bed both at home and while in the Hospital and said he/she (Resident #1) felt more comfortable and safer with the bed rails on the bed. During a telephone interview on 04/23/25 at 2:52 P.M., Resident #1 said that no one at the facility ever asked if he/she wanted bed rails on his/her bed. Resident #1 said that he/she had requested them, but was only told that he/she did not need them. Resident #1 said bed rails were not put on his/her bed during his/her stay at the facility. During a telephone interview on 04/23/25 at 3:24 P.M., Nurse #2 said that she does not remember doing Resident #1's bed rail assessment upon admission. Nurse #2 said that residents sign a bed rail consent form upon admission and then nursing informs maintenance department staff when they need to place bed rails on the residents' bed. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 12:50 P.M., the Nurse Manager said that she was not aware that the staff had not consulted with Resident #1 regarding the use of bed rails. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 1:39 P/M., the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) said that she did not remember talking about Resident #1 being able to utilize bed rails for mobility and said he/she was not assessed by the rehabilitation department for the use of bed rails. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 12:34 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that she was not aware that Resident #1 was not consulted on the use of bed rails. The DON said that the Facility's expectation to assess each resident for bed rails upon admission, obtain consent, and then have maintenance install the side rails to the bed if the Resident requests them for safety and security.
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 F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed, interviews, and observation for three of five sampled residents (Resident #3, #4 and #5), who had all been assessed as being their own person, the Facility failed to ensure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed, interviews, and observation for three of five sampled residents (Resident #3, #4 and #5), who had all been assessed as being their own person, the Facility failed to ensure that 1) Resident #3 was assessed for the use of bed rails and that his/her physicians order was for bed rails, and 2) after Resident #4 and #5 underwent a room change, that the bed rails were provided on their new beds, per their physicians orders. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Proper Use of Bed Rails, dated as last revised 11/01/24, indicated that the facility is to utilize a person-centered approach when determining the use of bed rails. The Policy further indicated that a proper assessment, informed consent, and a physician's order must be obtained prior to utilizing bed rails. 1) Resident #3 was admitted to the Facility in April 2025, diagnoses include status post left total knee replacement, bipolar disorder, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and obesity. Review of Resident #3's Informed Consent for Use of Bed Rails, dated 04/18/25, indicated he/she had consented to the use of bilateral quarter bed rails. Review of Resident #3's Physician's Order, dated 04/18/25, indicated to provide two grab bars (not bed rails) for bed mobility and positioning. Review of Resident #3's admission Bed Rail Assessment, dated 04/18/25, indicated the form was blank, and that a bed rail assessment had not been completed upon admission or by the date of survey. During an observation on 04/22/25 at 2:00 P.M., the Surveyor observed bilateral quarter bed rails attached to his/her bed. 2) Resident #4 was admitted to the Facility in March 2024, diagnoses included atrial fibrillation, neurocognitive disorder, peripheral vascular disease, and depression. Review of Resident #4's Informed Consent for Use of Bed Rails, dated 03/02/24, indicated that he/she consented to the use of bed rails. Review of Resident #4's Quarterly Bed Rail Assessment, dated 02/28/25, indicated the use of two quarter bed rails may be used on his/her bed. During an observation on 04/22/25 at 4:44 P.M., the Surveyor observed Resident #4's bed, however there were no bed rails installed on it. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 4:44 P.M., Resident #4 said that he/she did not know why there were no bed rails on his/her bed and said that he/she used to have them on his/her bed before he/she changed rooms. Resident #4 said that he/she used the bed rails to help move him/herself in bed. Review of the Facility Room Change Summary Report, dated 04/23/25, indicated that on 03/04/25, Resident #4 had undergone a room change. 3) Resident #5 was admitted to the Facility in March 2025, diagnoses included anemia, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, and a history of falling. Review of Resident #5's Informed Consent for Use of Bed Rails, dated 03/24/25, indicated that he/she consented to the use of Bed Rails. Review of Resident #5's admission Bed Rail Assessment, dated 03/24/25, indicated the use of bed rails had been assessed to be used on his/her bed. Review of Resident #5's Physician's Order, dated 03/24/25, indicated to provide two quarter grab bars for bed mobility and positioning. During an observation on 04/23/25 at 10:00 A.M., the Surveyor observed Resident #5's bed, however there were no bed rails installed on it. Review of the Facility Room Change Summary Report, dated 04/23/25, indicated that on 03/27/25, Resident #5 had undergone a room change. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 10:44 A.M., the Director of Maintenance said that he was not aware that two residents (#4 and #5, who had orders for and previously had bed rails in place on the beds), had their rooms changed, and therefore was not aware that bed rails needed to be installed on their new beds. The Director said nursing staff will inform the maintenance department when bed rails are to be installed or removed from a bed and if a resident moves to a different room nursing must inform them if the bed rails need to be removed from the residents original bed and installed on the resident's bed in the new room. The Director said each time before bed rails are installed to a bed, the maintenance worker will complete an entrapment assessment to ensure proper placement. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 11:05 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said that when a resident is admitted , the nurse doing the admission needs to complete the admission Bed Rail Assessment, obtain informed consent from the Resident, obtain a physician's order, and inform maintenance that they need to install bed rails to the bed. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 12:34 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that it is the Facility's expectation that upon admission nursing completes a bed rail assessment, obtain informed consent from the resident and/or representative if being used, obtain a physician's order, and inform maintenance to install or remove bed rails after the appropriate steps have been taken for the use of bed rails.
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 F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of five sampled residents (Resident #2) whose Physician's Orders included the administration of a narcotic medication for pain, the Facility failed to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of five sampled residents (Resident #2) whose Physician's Orders included the administration of a narcotic medication for pain, the Facility failed to ensure the resident was free from a significant medication error due to omission, when Resident #2 missed two consecutive doses of scheduled pain medication because nursing staff could not gain access to the facility's Emergency Medication Dispensing System (EMDS, electronic kiosk system that requires a security code to be entered by nursing staff in order to access and dispense stored medications). Finding include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Medication Errors, dated as last revised 11/01/24, indicated that the Facility is to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by ensuring residents receive care and services safely in an environment free of significant medication errors. The Policy further indicated that all medications shall be administered as follows; -According to a Physician's Order, including medication omissions; -Per Manufacturer's specifications regarding the preparation, and administration of the drug or biological; and -In accordance with the accepted standards and principles which apply to professionals providing services. Resident #2 was admitted to the Facility in November 2024, diagnoses included status post multiple back surgery, diabetes mellitus, bipolar disorder, and acute on chronic pain. Review of Resident #2's Physician's Orders, dated 01/23/25, indicated to administer Hydromorphone (Dilaudid, narcotic/pain medication) 2 milligrams (mg), give 2 tablets every four hours for pain, hold for sedation. Review of Resident #2's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 03/28/25, indicated he/she was not administered his/her scheduled doses of Dilaudid at 6:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 3:27 P.M., Resident #2 said that he/she was unable to get two doses of his/her pain medication because the medications were not ordered in a timely manner to be delivered from the pharmacy and was told by nursing that only the Director of Nurses (DON) could override the Emergency Medication Dispensing System (EMDS) to retrieve the pain medication from their emergency supply. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 2:20 P.M., Nurse #3 said that Nurse #4 (who was assigned to Resident #2 on 03/28/25) was an agency nurse and did not have security code access to the EMDS, so she was tried to help obtain Resident #2's medication from the EMDS for her. Nurse #3 said when she went to obtain the 6:00 P.M. dose for Nurse #4 to administer to Resident #2, the EMDS displayed a error code, stating that there was not enough medication to fill the request and the EMDS would not unlock for them. Nurse #3 said that the only person who could unlock the EMDS was the DON and she (DON) was not able to come into the Facility to unlock the EMDS and release the medication. During a telephone interview on 05/01/25 at 1:43 P.M., Nurse #4 said that she was Resident #2's nurse on the evening (3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M.) shift on 03/28/25 when the medication error of omission occurred. Nurse #4 said that she did not have access to the Facility's EMDS and Nurse #3 tried to help her obtain the medication for Resident #2, however, the EMDS had an error code and would not dispense the medication. Nurse #4 said that she was told only the Director of Nurses (DON) could override the error code in the EMDS and was unable to get to the Facility to do so. Nurse #4 said that the omission of the two doses of pain medication was considered a medication error. During a telephone interview on 05/01/25 at 1:22 P.M., the Pharmacy Representative for the Facility said that both the DON and Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) have administrative access and were able to override error message issues in the EMDS. The Pharmacy Representative said that there was a miss count earlier in the day with the EMDS, so when the nurse tried to re-access the medication it locked her out from obtaining that specific medication, and also said there had been alternative medications available. The Pharmacy Representative said that either the DON or ADON could have accessed the medication if needed and if there had not been enough doses, the original order should have been placed STAT, and a representative from the pharmacy could have delivered the doses needed. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 12:34 P.M., the DON said she was not aware if the nursing staff had called the pharmacy on 03/28/25 for help, but said if the staff had called the pharmacy to help override the error, that the pharmacy could have helped with the lock out issue. The DON said that it is the Facility's expectation is that all prescribed medications should be ordered timely. The DON said that if a medication is needed from the EMDS and an error occurs, the nurse must call the pharmacy for additional guidance to gain access to the appropriate medication to prevent a medication error. On 04/23/25, the Facility was found to be in Past Noncompliance and presented the Surveyor with a plan of correction (with an effective date of 03/29/25) that addressed the area(s) of concern as evidenced by: A) Resident #1 was administered all other pain medication as ordered, and was monitored for effectiveness. B) On 03/29/25, the DON investigated the incident with the pharmacy to resolve the override issues and lockouts. C) On 03/29/25, the Director of Nurses (DON) educated the licensed nurses on ordering medications form the pharmacy, obtaining medications form the EMDS, and what actions to take if a medication is unavailable. D) On 03/29/25, the DON began an audit of controlled substance medications and ensured medications needed were on hand or ordered from the pharmacy. E) On 03/29/25, The DON educated all licensed nurses on obtaining a physician's order to hold a missed medication and possibly provide an asked for alternative medication until issues resolved. F) Results of all audits and observations will be brought to and reviewed at Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings for the next three months or until compliance is achieved. G) The DON and or Designee are responsible for overall compliance.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of five sampled residents, (Resident #1), the Facility failed to ensure they maintained complete and accurate medical/clinical records, when documentation on his/her Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Flow Sheets that were to be completed daily by Certified Nurse Aides (CNA's), was often left blank. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Documentation in the Medical Record, dated as last revised 11/01/24, indicated that each resident's medical record shall contain an accurate representation of the actual experiences of the resident and include enough information to provide a picture of the resident's progress through complete, accurate, and timely documentation. The Policy further indicated the following; -Licensed staff and Interdisciplinary Team Members (IDT) shall document all assessments, observations, and services provided in the resident's medical record in accordance with state law and facility policy; and -Documentation shall be completed at the time of service, but no later the shift in which the assessment, observation, or care service occurred. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in February 2025, diagnoses included but not limited to Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) with bilateral foot gangrene, diabetic neuropathy, Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) in remission, chronic pain and chronic urinary retention with an indwelling catheter in place. Review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #1 required total physical assistance from staff members to transfer (with a mechanical lift device), total physical assistance from staff members for toileting needs, bed mobility, and repositioning. Review of Resident #1's Care Plan, titled ADL-Self-Care deficit, dated 02/18/25, indicated he/she was totally dependent on staff for all ADL's, including all transfers (mechanical lift required), repositioning, and toileting/incontinent care. Review of Resident #1's ADL Flow Sheets, completed by CNA's, dated 02/14/25 through 02/28/25, indicated the for the following shifts, documentation on the flow sheets were incomplete. -7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.- 10 days (out of 15) all ADL care areas were left blank. -3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.- 11 days (out of 15) all ADL care areas were left blank. -11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.- 13 days (out of 15) all ADL care areas were left blank. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 12:16 P.M., CNA #6 said that documentation for the resident's ADL's needed to be completed before the end of their shift. During an interview on 04/22/25 at 12:50 P.M., the Unit Manager said that all ADL documentation done by the CNA must be completed by the end of their shift. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 12:34 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that all CNA documentation on the residents ADL's must be completed accurately and in a timely manner.
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 F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose Hospital Discharge (DC) Summary i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose Hospital Discharge (DC) Summary indicated he/she had a scheduled appointment with a Urologist in the community for a consult, the Facility failed to ensure nursing provided care and services that met professional standards of quality, when Resident #1 missed the Urology Consult appointment because nursing overlooked the appointment when reviewing his/her Hospital DC Summary, and transportation was never booked. Findings include: Standard Reference: Standard of Practice Reference: Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L), chapter 112, individuals are given the designation of registered nurse and practical nurse which includes the responsibility to provide nursing care. Pursuant to the Code of Massachusetts Regulation (CMR) 244, Rules and Regulations 3.02 and 3.04 define the responsibilities and functions of a registered nurse and practical nurse respectively. The regulations stipulate that both the registered nurse and practical nurse bear full responsibility for systematically assessing health status and recording the related health data. They also stipulate that both the registered and practical nurse are incorporated into the plan of care and implement prescribed medical regimens. The rules and regulations 9.03 defined standards of Conduct for Nurses where it is stipulated that a nurse licensed by the Board shall engage in the practice of nursing in accordance with accepted standards of practice. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in March 2024, diagnoses included cognitive decline, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety, depression, history of renal cancer, and urinary retention. Review of Resident #1's Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated that he/she was to have an outpatient Urology Consult on 5/13/24 due to urinary retention. Review of Resident #1's Nurse Practitioner #1's Progress Notes, dated 4/10/24 through 8/18/24 (which included approximately 10 visits), indicated that he/she had a appointment for a Urology Consult scheduled for 5/13/24. Review of Resident #1's Nurse Progress Note, dated 04/18/24, indicated that he/she was having urinary retention and required to be straight catheterized (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine, one-time or at intermittent intervals) and an indwelling catheter (tube that remains in the bladder for a period of time to drain urine). Review of Resident #1's Physician's Orders, dated 04/18/24, indicated to insert an indwelling catheter secondary to urinary retention. Review of the Resident Appointment book, dated 5/13/24, indicated that there was no scheduled appointments for Resident #1 with a community based provider. During an interview on 11/04/24 at 2:16 P.M., the Patient Coordinator/Medical Records Assistant said that she does not remember getting any information regarding Resident #1 needing transportation to a Urology Consult on 05/13/24. The Patient Coordinator said that when a new resident is admitted or readmitted , the nurse will give me or my coworker the hospital paperwork and let us know if there are any appointments to be scheduled or appointments that residents need to get to and then she scans the paperwork directly into the Resident's electronic medical record. During an interview on 11/04/24 at 2:52 P.M., Nurse #4 said that she had been the nurse that admitted Resident #1 and said that she was only the medication cart nurse and that administered his/her medications and completed his/her assessments. Nurse #4 said she was unaware that Resident #1 had a Urology Consult scheduled for 5/13/24. Nurse #4 said that the supervisor is the one that reads the discharge summary, looks for any appointments needed and will notify the Patient Coordinator to schedule an appointment or transportation as needed. During an interview on 11/12/24 at 11:05 A.M., Nurse Practitioner (NP) #1 said he recalled that Resident #1 was supposed to have an Urology Consult, after his/her admission to the Facility, however the NP said he was unaware that Resident #1 had never gone to the scheduled urology consult on 05/13/24. NP #1 said that he does not know how he missed that Resident # 1 had never gone to his/her appointment and said it had been an oversight. During an interview on 11/04/24 at 3:39 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that she was not aware that Resident #1 had a scheduled appointment on 05/13/24 for a Urology Consult and said Resident #1 missed the appointment. The DON said it is the Facility's expectation that when a resident is admitted or readmitted to the Facility, the Hospital DC Paperwork is to be reviewed by nursing staff and said if an appointment is scheduled or in need of scheduling the Patient Coordinator/Medical Records Staff will be promptly notified and arrangements will be made according to the physician's orders.
Jun 2024 28 deficiencies 3 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3a. Resident #64 was admitted to the facility in February 2024 with diagnoses including major depression. Review of Resident #6...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3a. Resident #64 was admitted to the facility in February 2024 with diagnoses including major depression. Review of Resident #64's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated Resident #64 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of a possible 15, which indicated he/she was cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated Resident #64 was independent with daily functional tasks. Review of Resident #64's record indicated he/she completed the PHQ-9 (an assessment of depression) upon admission and scored a 0, which indicated he/she was displaying no symptoms of depression. Review of the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner note on 4/4/24 indicated the following: - Resident is very withdrawn, limited interaction with peers, upon assessment resident with limited communication ability, (he/she) uses one word response, unable to express (him/herself). Present with flat affect. Review of Resident #64's record indicated he/she completed the PHQ-9 (an assessment of depression) again on 5/10/24 and scored a 12, which indicated he/she was displaying symptoms of moderate depression. Review of the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner note on 5/10/24 indicated the following: - Resident reports; Little interest in doing things for several days. Feeling depressed for more than half the days. Having trouble falling and staying asleep for more than half the days. Having little energy for more than half the days. Denies having poor appetite/overeating. Feeling bad about (him/herself) for several days. Trouble with concentration for several days. Moving slowly nearly every day. Denies any thoughts/plans of hurting (him/herself)/or others. PHQ-9 score 12-moderate depression. Review of Resident #64's mood care plan last revised 5/9/24, indicated the following intervention: -Behavioral Health Services as ordered and treat as indicated. Review of Resident #64's medical record failed to indicate the Resident received any additional behavioral health services after the PHQ-9 indicated an increasing level of depression. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 9:36 A.M., the Social Services Assistant said that he is not a social worker or licensed for social work or counseling services. He said that the facility had a contract company that has since closed. He said that if a Resident expressed an increase in depression the facility would make a referral to support services and the social worker would check in with these residents. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 10:38 A.M., the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (Psych NP) said she reviews all of the referrals for behavioral health given by the nurses. She said the referrals are either given verbally or kept in a folder on the floors. The Psych NP said she provides medication management and will briefly talk to the residents, if necessary, but said she does not provide talk therapy. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 11:15 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the Psych NP does medication management and the facility has social services and emotional therapy support would be provided by a psychiatric provider. She said there is a psychologist that comes into the building, and she would expect all available options of behavioral health services to be involved with anyone expressing increased levels of depression. The DON said that Resident's with depression should have behavioral monitoring that would pick up a change in status like not engaging, or not attending activities, more isolation, etc. The DON said that she would want those residents to have therapy beyond medications. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 7:36 A.M., Physician #1 said that he believes that Residents would benefit from counseling services and non-pharmacological interventions, but that he feels the facility needs more support to provide those services. 3b. Resident #73 was admitted to the facility in February 2024 with diagnoses including depression. Review of Resident #73's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated Resident #73 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of a possible 15, which indicated he/she was cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated Resident #73 required substantial assistance with daily functional tasks. Review of Resident #73's record indicated he/she completed the PHQ-9 (an assessment of depression) on 2/16/24 and scored a 14, which indicated he/she was displaying symptoms of moderate depression. Review of the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner note on 4/4/24 indicated the following: - Resident is very withdrawn, limited interaction with peers, upon assessment resident with limited communication ability, (he/she) uses one word response, unable to express (him/herself). Present with flat affect. Review of Resident #73's record indicated he/she completed the PHQ-9 (an assessment of depression) again on 5/13/24 and scored a 15, which indicated he/she was displaying symptoms of moderately severe depression, an increase from the previous PHQ-9. Review of the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner note dated 4/8/24 indicated Resident #73 was at risk for worsening mood and behavior. Review of the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner note dated 5/10/24 indicated the following: - Resident reports; little interest in doing things for more than half the days. Feeling depressed nearly every day. Having trouble falling and staying asleep for more than half the days. Having little energy for more than half the days. Poor appetite for more than half the days. Feeling bad about (him/herself) for several days. Denies having trouble with concentration. Moving slowly nearly every day. Denies any thoughts plans of hurting (him/herself)/others. PHQ-9 score 15 - moderately severe depression. Review of the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner note dated 5/13/24 indicated the following: - Resident reports having poor sleep in the past weeks. (He/she) reports (he/she) can't sleep more than 2 hours straight, (he/she) has poor sleep and depressed mood. -Resident #73's anti-depressant was increased at this time. Review of Resident #73's psychotropic medication care plan last revised 5/28/24, indicated the following intervention: -Behavioral Health Services PRN (as needed). Review of Resident #73's medical record failed to indicate the Resident received any additional behavioral health services after the PHQ-9 indicated an increasing level of depression. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 9:36 A.M., the Social Services Assistant said that he is not a social worker or licensed for social work or counseling services. He said that the facility had a contract company that has since closed. He said that if a Resident expressed an increase in depression the facility would make a referral to support services and the social worker would check in with these residents. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 10:38 A.M., the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (Psych NP) said she reviews all of the referrals for behavioral health given by the nurses. She said the referrals are either given verbally or kept in a folder on the floors. The Psych NP said she provides medication management and will briefly talk to the residents, if necessary, but said she does not provide talk therapy. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 11:15 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the Psych NP does medication management and the facility has social services and emotional therapy support would be provided by a psychiatric provider. She said there is a psychologist that comes into the building, and she would expect all available options of behavioral health services to be involved with anyone expressing increased levels of depression. The DON said that Resident's with depression should have behavioral monitoring that would pick up a change in status like not engaging, or not attending activities, more isolation, etc. The DON said that she would want those residents to have therapy beyond medications. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 7:36 A.M., Physician #1 said that he believes that Residents would benefit from counseling services and non-pharmacological interventions, but that he feels the facility needs more support to provide those services. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide behavioral health services for four Resident's (#192, #91 #64, and #73) with a history of suicidal ideation (SI) and/or depression, out of a total universe of 67 residents. Specifically, 1. Resident #192 expressed suicidal ideation and the facility failed to provide the appropriate services, which resulted in staff finding Resident #192 with a tightly tied plastic bag around his/her head during an attempted suicide, 2. the facility failed to provide behavioral health services timely for Resident #91, 3. failed to provide behavioral health services after an increase in depression scores for Resident #64 and #73. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Suicide Prevention, dated 8/1/23, indicated the following: - Suicidal Ideation is defined as self-reported thoughts about engaging in suicide-related behaviors. - All staff members will immediately report any suicidal ideation to the resident's charge nurse and facility social worker. - Immediately notify the resident's physician if the resident presents with suicidal ideation, even if he or she isn't specific about a plan or intent. - Objectively and thoroughly document the resident's mood and behaviors, as well as actions taken, in the medical record. - All staff will be trained annually on risk factors and warning signs of suicide, as well as how to respond to a resident with suicidal ideation. Review of the facility policy titled Suicide Assessment, revised February 2023, indicated the following: - Residents will be assessed for suicide risk upon admission and as indicated. The facility social worker or designee will conduct and medical record review and then interview the resident regarding any risk factors that have been identified. Protective factors will be explored with the resident as well. - Risk factors include, but are not limited to: * History of prior suicide attempts or self-injurious behavior * Current or past psychiatric disorders and/or recent change in psychiatric treatment * Symptoms such as hopelessness, helplessness, anxiety/panic, and impulsivity * Triggering events that lead to despair such as the loss of a relationship, health decline, chronic pain, death of a loved one, family turmoil/chaos .etc. - If the assessment indicates the resident is having suicidal thoughts, specific discussions about thoughts, plans, behaviors, and intent will occur. Review of the facility policy titled Behavioral Health Services, revised February 2023, indicated the following: - It is the policy of this facility to ensure all residents receive the necessary behavioral health services to assist them in reaching and maintaining their highest level of mental and psychosocial functioning. - Behavioral health encompasses a resident's whole emotional and mental well-being, which includes, but is not limited to, the prevention and treatment of mental and substance use disorders, psychosocial difficulty, and trauma or post-traumatic stress disorders. - The facility will ensure that necessary behavioral health care services are person-centered and reflect the resident's goals for care, while maximizing the resident's dignity, autonomy, privacy, socialization, independence, choice, and safety. - The facility utilizes the comprehensive assessment process for identifying and assessing a resident's mental and psychosocial status and providing person-centered care . Staff will: * Complete PASARR (pre-admission screening and resident review) * Obtain history from medical records, the resident, and as appropriate the resident's family and friends * Monitor the resident closely for expressions or indications of distress * Assess and develop a person-centered care plan for concerns identified in the resident's assessment. - Facility staff will implement person-centered care approaches designed to meet the individual goals and needs of each resident, which includes non-pharmacological interventions. - The Social Services Director shall serve as the facility's contact person for questions regarding behavioral health services provided by the facility and outside sources such as physician, psychiatrist, or neurologist. Review of the facility assessment, revised 3/19/24, indicated the facility is able to manage the medical conditions and medication-related issues causing psychiatric symptoms and behavior, identify and implement interventions to help support individuals with issues such as dealing with anxiety, care of someone with cognitive impairment, care of individuals with depression, trauma/PTSD, other psychiatric diagnoses, intellectual or developmental disabilities. On average, the facility manages about 50 residents with behavioral health needs at a time. Resident #192 was admitted in December 2023 with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, depression, schizoaffective disorder, and generalized anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #192 scored a 10 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the Resident's hospital discharge paperwork given to the facility upon admission and dated 12/1/23, indicated the following note from the psych team: - Pt now endorsing SI. Told Case Mgmt that he/she wants to end his/her life. I spoke with patient and he/she states that he/she has thought about suicide for a while and wishes he/she could end his/her life, but states 'he/she is not allowed'. Denies prior suicide attempts or access to firearms, but states if I did have access to firearms, I would kill myself and states I have nothing to live for. Endorses multiple prior psychiatric hospitalizations. Will place on Section 12, consult APS (Acute Psychiatric Stay). Per review of prior records, did note this during his/her prior hospital admission as well. Review of the PASARR Unit for Department of Mental Health, dated 11/29/23, indicated that Resident #192 had a PASARR Level II completed and was appropriate for a provisional emergency admission to a nursing facility that cannot exceed 7-calendar days. The PASARR (Pre-admission screening and resident review) evaluation indicated the following: - Upon admission to a nursing facility, it is the responsibility of the nursing facility to contact the PASARR authority in the event of a significant change in resident status, including: * Improvement or decline in condition, or * If the nursing facility newly identifies a condition that may impact the individual's PASARR disability status, appropriateness of nursing facility placement and/or specialized services, to determine whether a new PASARR evaluation is needed. At time of admission, a psychosocial well-being care plan was developed for Resident #192 and indicated the following: Focus: This resident is at risk for altered psychosocial well-being related to Adjustment to new environment/rehab setting, decline in functional/medical status, dx Schizoaffective d/o Bipolar 1, anxiety/panic d/o, depression, FTT (failure to thrive) in adult (initiated 12/2/23) Interventions: - Activities to meet with this resident to develop and activity plan (initiated 12/2/23) - Behavioral health services as ordered and needed (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage family members/residents representatives to be involved as allowed by resident to also participate in this plan to be able to provide direct support (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage the resident to make their own decisions when able (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage the resident to see a positive view of themselves (initiated 12/2/23) - Following up with responses to concerns brought up (initiated 12/2/23) - Medications as ordered to help manage their mood and behaviors (initiated 12/2/23) - Monitor and document mood and behaviors (12/2/23) - Provide 1:1 to allow this resident to verbal feeling/concerns (12/2/23) - Provide the resident praise for all their efforts made (initiated 12/2/23) - Remind this resident of their goals and reassure them on progress made (12/2/23) Review of Resident #192's other comprehensive care plans failed to indicate a care plan was developed for the Resident's history of suicidal ideation (SI). Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation and Consultation note, dated 12/4/23, indicated Resident #192 has felt depressed since childhood and has had multiple hospitalizations related to SI. The note also indicated: Resident was admitted to unit with SI, aware of resident's verbalizing SI. The note indicated that Resident #192 was on an established medication regimen to manage his/her mood, depression, and anxiety. The psychiatric consultation note recommendations indicated the following: Monitor resident for safety, provide medications as prescribed, encourage resident to participate in unit activities. Continue to monitor acute changes in behaviors, nutrition status, and sleep patterns. Redirect when possible, maintain adequate safety precautions, appropriately use diversionary activities on the unit, and provide positive encouragement. Patient would benefit from continued treatment to promote mental wellness and emotional stability. Review of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) (an assessment of depression), dated 12/4/23, indicated Resident #192 scored a 23 out of a possible 27 points, indicating severe depression. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 9:26 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant CNA #4 said that if a resident had changes in their mood or behaviors, staff would document the changes on the behavior sheets. CNA #4 remembered Resident #192. CNA #4 said that Resident #192 could be mean to staff, but did not say that he/she refused care. Review of the progress notes, behavior monitoring sheets, and medication administration record (MAR) failed to indicate that the facility was monitoring for any change in Resident #192's daily mood and depression. Review of the progress note, dated 1/8/24, indicated the following: Resident stated that he/she wanted to die. Social Worker (SW) went to talk to Resident #192. Resident #192 stated he/she was afraid of a woman and that she will kill him/her. SW asked to describe the woman. Resident stated she worked here and gave the description of the CNA that is working with him/her. SW informed unit manager and DON (Director of Nursing). Review of the psych progress note, dated 1/8/24, indicated Resident #192 denied SI, but reported low mood. The progress note indicated that Resident #192 was on an established medication regimen with moderately severe depression. Review of the clinical record failed to indicate any changes had been made to Resident #192's plan of care, care plan, or that notification to the physician had occurred after the Resident had expressed suicide ideation. Review of the physician note, dated 1/9/24, did not indicate that the physician addressed Resident #192's suicidal ideation. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 9:29 A.M., Nurse #4 said that if a resident had changes in their mood or behavior, nursing staff would document the changes in the clinical record and leave a note for the Nurse Practitioner. Review of the clinical record indicated on 1/24/24, Resident #192 was sent to the hospital for a planned procedure. Resident #192 returned to the facility on 1/31/24. Review of the hospital discharge paperwork, dated 1/31/24, indicated Resident #192 reported suicidal ideation in the hospital and was provided a one on one sitter and was placed on a section 12 (an involuntary hospitalization if assessed to be a danger to self or others). During an interview on 6/10/24 at 8:52 A.M., the Director of Nursing said that the hospital discharge paperwork is reviewed by the clinical liaison team and the admitting nurse will review any discharge paperwork. The Director of Nursing said that the next day the whole team reviews discharge paperwork. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 9:24 A.M., the Director of Nursing said she wasn't notified of the section 12 that took place in the hospital. The Director of Nursing said that hospital discharge paperwork is reviewed by a clinical liaison team and the admitting nurse and then the full discharge summary is reviewed the next morning by the clinical team, which she is a part of. Review of the clinical record failed to indicate that, upon readmission to the facility, Resident #192's plan of care was reviewed or updated, despite Resident #192's vocalization of suicidal ideation in the hospital and a section 12. Review of the PHQ-9, dated 2/2/24, indicated Resident #192 scored a 19 out of 27, indicating moderately severe depression. There was no indication that Resident #192 was evaluated or seen by psych services, social services, or any behavioral health interventions were updated between 2/2/24 - 2/16/24. Review of the progress notes, behavior monitoring sheets, and medication administration record (MAR) failed to indicate that the facility was monitoring for any change in Resident #192's daily mood and depression. Review of the communication log from January 2024 through February 2024 for the 2nd floor unit failed to indicate any information related to Resident #192 or changes in his/her mood or behavior were communicated to psych services. Review of the progress note, dated 2/16/24, indicated the following: - Resident section 12'd 2:20 pm after acting oddly this morning refusing to talk and refusing therapy which continued after lunch. Resident was covering his/her face with his/her hands and refusing to speak but did eat lunch. Call placed to nurse practitioner to report and was given order to send to ED. When this nurse went back in to resident room he/she was found with a clear plastic bag tied around his/her head full of condensation. Bag [sic] removed and resident was attempting to take plastic bag from nurse. Awake, alert but still refusing to speak. Resident taken to nurses station for 1:1 monitoring and psych in the building section 12'd him/her. EMS notified and resident transferred to hospital [sic] for psych eval. Review of the psych note, dated 2/15/24, indicated the following: - Resident is AOx3 (alert and oriented), he/she was found by nursing staff with a plastic bag over his/her head. Resident has an extensive hx of SI but with no past activity. Resident section 12A to hospital d/t safety concern, further evaluation. Review of the hospital paperwork, dated 2/19/24, indicated the following: - Presents from his/her SNF(Skilled Nursing Facility) after staff there reportedly found him/her with a plastic bag over head in an attempt to self-harm. At that time he/she stated he/she felt like he/she 'wasn't being listened to' there and has made passive SI statement since then without much other detail . During an interview on 6/7/24 at 9:31 A.M., Nurse #5 said that Resident #192 was quiet and did not complain. She said that Resident #192 did not have a lot of issues and that he/she did not want to be here at the facility. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 8:38 A.M., the Activities Director said that Resident #192 was quiet and kept to himself/herself. The Activities Director said that Resident #192 was encouraged to leave his/her room but he/she declined and would not participate in activities. The Activities Director said that Resident #192 was upset because he/she did not want to be in the facility and felt that his/her family had left him/her here. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 9:36 A.M., the Social Services Assistant said that he is not a social worker or licensed for social work or counseling services. He said that the facility had a contract company that has since closed. He said that if a Resident expressed SI then he would contact the LICSW (Licensed Social Worker) from the company to do an evaluation via telehealth. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 8:31 A.M., Social Services Assistant #1 said that Resident #192 had some cognitive issues, but engaged the best that he/she could. Social Services Assistant #1 said that there was an adjustment period that he/she struggled with slightly due to his/her family and brother. Social Services Assistant #1 said that if a Resident verbalizes a recent SI, then that Resident should be followed on a regular basis and seen daily or once a shift to make sure they are feeling safe. Social Services Assistant #1 said that the care plan should be updated and supportive care in place During an interview on 6/6/24 at 10:38 A.M., the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (Psych NP) said she reviews all of the referrals for behavioral health given by the nurses. She said the referrals are either given verbally or kept in a folder on the floors. The Psych NP said she provides medication management and will briefly talk to the residents if necessary, but said she does not provide talk therapy. The Psych NP said that when a Resident expresses suicidal ideation, she would section 12 the Resident if they were actively suicidal. The psych NP said that she would consider SI was active if there was a plan behind the statement. The psych NP said that Resident #192 has an extensive and complex history and that he/she was supposed to be in the facility on respite. She said she didn't want to change the Resident's medications because he/she was supposed to be in the facility short-term. The psych NP said that even if Resident #192 made a passive statement of SI, she would expect something to be put in place like 15-minute checks or moving his/her room closer to the nurses station for monitoring. The psych NP said that Resident #192 was alert and oriented and knew everything that was going on and felt like his/her brother was keeping him/her in the facility. The psych NP said that Resident #192 would have benefited from ongoing supportive talk therapy services because of his/her history, but that those services are provided by another provider. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 11:15 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that anyone with a history of SI should have a care plan developed and implemented and that the interventions are related to the safety of the Resident. The DON said the Psych NP does medication management and the facility has social services and emotional therapy support would be provided by a psychiatric provider. She said there is a psychologist that comes into the building and said if there was a recent expression of SI from a resident, she would expect all available options of behavioral health services to be involved. The DON said that Residents with depression should have behavioral monitoring that would pick up a change in status like not engaging, or not attending activities, more isolation, etc. The DON said that she would want those residents to have therapy beyond medications. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 7:36 A.M., Physician #1 said that he believes that Residents would benefit from counseling services and non-pharmalogical interventions, but that he feels the facility needs more support to provide those services. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 11:47 A.M., the psych NP said that she was not made aware of Resident #192's suicidal ideation during his/her hospital stay and would have seen him/her upon return to the facility. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 11:47 A.M., the Director of Nursing said that the facility was never made aware of the Resident's suicidal ideation expressed during the most recent hospital stay on 1/31/24 and, if she had known, the facility wouldn't have taken Resident #192 back to the facility. 2. Resident #91 was admitted in December 2023 with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #91 scored a 4 out of a possible 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the progress note, dated 12/28/2023, indicated the following: Note Text: This nurse was notified by speech, that pt voiced to her that he/she was depressed and mentioned SI. This nurse went to speak with pt voiced he/she hated his/her sister for putting him/her here, that there is no need for him/her to be here. Pt went on to say more about living with his/her sister, getting a job but his/her sister dropped him/her off here Resident said he/she was going to take care of the situation by killing him/her self, asked pt if he/she had a plan, he/she stated yes he/she did. Asked him/her what it was, he/she said he/she was just going to do it and isn't telling me how. Asked pt if he/she felt suicidal now, he/she stated yes because he/she is so upset and hates his/her sister. DON notified. Safety maintained. Review of the clinical record failed to indicate that Resident #91's suicidal ideation was addressed by psych or social services. Review of the care plan for Resident #91 indicated the following: Focus: The resident exhibits behaviors putting themselves, by making suicidal statements and/or others at risk for potential injury R/T choosing to not participate or allow care to be completed. History of physical abuse toward others, History of withdrawal from usual daily activities (group or independent), refusal of care (initiated 12/28/23). Interventions: - Administer medication as ordered (initiated 12/28/23) - Behavioral health services as ordered and treat as indicated (initiated 12/28/23) - Encourage attendance to activities (initiated 12/28/23) - Identify and implement nonpharmacological interventions (identify what these are for this resident): _________ (initiated 12/28/23) - Keep resident representative informed of changes or continued behaviors impacting the residents care (initiated 12/28/23) - Monitor and document behaviors for further review (initiated 12/28/23) - Social worker to provide routine visits and provide support as needed (initiated 12/28/23) Review of the care plan failed to indicate that a suicidal ideation care plan was developed with appropriate interventions for the Resident's safety. Review of the care plan failed to indicate that any interventions were carried out after Resident #91 verbalized suicidal ideation. Review of the psych Nurse Practitioner note, dated 1/8/24, 11 days after the initial suicidal ideation, indicated Resident #91 presented with low mood and was upset about his/her sister not visiting while at the facility. The progress note did not mention Resident #91's suicidal ideation. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 11:47 A.M., the psych NP said that she is aware of Resident #91's suicidal ideation expressions and that his/her story changes because of memory issues. The psych NP said that Zoloft (a medication used to treat depression) was started on 12/29/23, but it takes 2 weeks for that medication to take effect. The psych NP could not say if she assessed Resident #91.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0742 (Tag F0742)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the appropriate treatment and services for one Resident (#1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the appropriate treatment and services for one Resident (#192), with a known history of mental disorders, suicidal ideation, and adjustment difficulty. Specifically, the facility failed to develop, implement, and update the plan of care, resulting in an attempted suicide after the vocalization of suicidal ideation. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Suicide Prevention, dated 8/1/23, indicated the following: - Suicidal Ideation is defined as self-reported thoughts about engaging in suicide-related behaviors. - All staff members will immediately report any suicidal ideation to the resident's charge nurse and facility social worker. - Immediately notify the resident's physician if the resident presents with suicidal ideation, even if he or she isn't specific about a plan or intent. - Objectively and thoroughly document the resident's mood and behaviors, as well as actions taken, in the medical record. - All staff will be trained annually on risk factors and warning signs of suicide, as well as how to respond to a resident with suicidal ideation. Review of the facility policy titled Suicide Assessment, revised February 2023, indicated the following: - Residents will be assessed for suicide risk upon admission and as indicated. The facility social worker or designee will conduct and medical record review and then interview the resident regarding any risk factors that have been identified. Protective factors will be explored with the resident as well. - Risk factors include, but are not limited to: * History of prior suicide attempts or self-injurious behavior * Current or past psychiatric disorders and/or recent change in psychiatric treatment * Symptoms such as hopelessness, helplessness, anxiety/panic, and impulsivity * Triggering events that lead to despair such as the loss of a relationship, health decline, chronic pain, death of a loved one, family turmoil/chaos .etc. - If the assessment indicates the resident is having suicidal thoughts, specific discussions about thoughts, plans, behaviors, and intent will occur. Review of the facility policy titled Behavioral Health Services, revised February 2023, indicated the following: - It is the policy of this facility to ensure all residents receive the necessary behavioral health services to assist them in reaching and maintaining their highest level of mental and psychosocial functioning. - Behavioral health encompasses a resident's whole emotional and mental well-being, which includes, but is not limited to, the prevention and treatment of mental and substance use disorders, psychosocial difficulty, and trauma or post-traumatic stress disorders. - The facility will ensure that necessary behavioral health care services are person-centered and reflect the resident's goals for care, while maximizing the resident's dignity, autonomy, privacy, socialization, independence, choice, and safety. - The facility utilizes the comprehensive assessment process for identifying and assessing a resident's mental and psychosocial status and providing person-centered care . Staff will: * Complete PASARR screening * Obtain history from medical records, the resident, and as appropriate the resident's family and friends * Monitor the resident closely for expressions or indications of distress * Assess and develop a person-centered care plan for concerns identified in the resident's assessment. - Facility staff will implement person-centered care approaches designed to meet the individual goals and needs of each resident, which includes non-pharmalogical interventions. - The Social Services Director shall serve as the facility's contact person for questions regarding behavioral health services provided by the facility and outside sources such as physician, psychiatrist, or neurologist. Review of the facility assessment, revised 3/19/24, indicated the facility is able to manage the medical conditions and medication-related issues causing psychiatric symptoms and behavior, identify and implement interventions to help support individuals with issues such as dealing with anxiety, care of someone with cognitive impairment, care of individuals with depression, trauma/PTSD, other psychiatric diagnoses, intellectual or developmental disabilities. On average, the facility manages about 50 residents with behavioral health needs. Resident #192 was admitted in December 2023 with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, depression, schizoaffective disorder, and generalized anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #192 scored a 10 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the Resident's hospital discharge paperwork given to the facility upon admission and dated 12/1/23, indicated the following note from the psych team: - Pt now endorsing SI. Told Case Mgmt that he/she wants to end his/her life. I spoke with patient and he/she states that he/she has thought about suicide for a while and wishes he/she could end his/her life, but states 'he/she is not allowed'. Denies prior suicide attempts or access to firearms, but states if I did have access to firearms, I would kill myself and states I have nothing to live for. Endorses multiple prior psychiatric hospitalizations. Will place on Section 12, consult APS (Acute Psychiatric Service). Per review of prior records, did note this during his/her prior hospital admission as well. At time of admission, a psychosocial well-being care plan was developed for Resident #192 and indicated the following: Focus: This resident is at risk for altered psychosocial well-being related to Adjustment to new environment/rehab setting, decline in functional/medical status, dx Schizoaffective d/o Bipolar 1, anxiety/panic d/o, depression, FTT (failure to thrive) in adult (initiated 12/2/23) Interventions: - Activities to meet with this resident to develop and activity plan (initiated 12/2/23) - Behavioral health services as ordered and needed (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage family members/residents representatives to be involved as allowed by resident to also participate in this plan to be able to provide direct support (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage the resident to make their own decisions when able (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage the resident to see a positive view of themselves (initiated 12/2/23) - Following up with responses to concerns brought up (initiated 12/2/23) - Medications as ordered to help manage their mood and behaviors (initiated 12/2/23) - Monitor and document mood and behaviors (12/2/23) - Provide 1:1 to allow this resident to verbal feeling/concerns (12/2/23) - Provide the resident praise for all their efforts made (initiated 12/2/23) - Remind this resident of their goals and reassure them on progress made (12/2/23) Review of Resident #192's other comprehensive care plans failed to indicate a care plan was developed for the Resident's history of suicidal ideation (SI) or any interventions related to the safety of Resident #192. Review of the progress note, dated 1/8/24, indicated the following: Resident stated that he/she wanted to die. Social Worker (SW) went to talk to Resident #192. Resident #192 stated he/she was afraid of a woman and that she will kill him/her. SW asked to describe the woman. Resident stated she worked here and gave the description of the CNA that is working with him/her. SW informed unit manager and DON. Review of the psych progress note, dated 1/8/24, indicated Resident #192 denied SI, but reported low mood. The progress note indicated that Resident #192 was on an established medication regimen with moderately severe depression. Review of the clinical record failed to indicate any changes had been made to Resident #192's plan of care, care plan, or that notification to the physician had occurred after the Resident had expressed suicide ideation. Review of the clinical record indicated on 1/24/24, Resident #192 was sent to the hospital for a planned procedure. Resident #192 returned to the facility on 1/31/24. Review of the hospital discharge paperwork, dated 1/31/24, indicated Resident #192 reported suicidal ideation in the hospital and was provided a one on one sitter and was placed on a section 12 (an involuntary hospitalization if assessed to be a danger to self or others). During an interview on 6/10/24 at 8:52 A.M., the Director of Nursing said that the hospital discharge paperwork is reviewed by the clinical liaison team and the admitting nurse will review any discharge paperwork from the hospital. The Director of Nursing said that the next day, when she is in the facility, the whole interdisciplinary team, including her, reviews the discharge paperwork. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 9:24 A.M., the Director of Nursing said she wasn't notified of the section 12 that took place in the hospital. The Director of Nursing said that hospital discharge paperwork is reviewed by a clinical liaison team and the admitting nurse and then the full discharge summary is reviewed the next morning by the clinical team. Review of the clinical record failed to indicate that, upon readmission to the facility, Resident #192's plan of care was reviewed or updated, despite Resident #192's vocalization of suicidal ideation in the hospital and a section 12. Review of the progress note, dated 2/16/24, indicated the following: - Resident section 12'd 2:20 pm after acting oddly this morning refusing to talk and refusing therapy which continued after lunch. Resident was covering his/her face with his/her hands and refusing to speak but did eat lunch. Call placed to nurse practitioner to report and was given order to send to ED. When this nurse went back in to resident room he/she was found with a clear plastic bag tied around his/her head full of condensation. Bag [sic] removed and resident was attempting to take plastic bag from nurse. Awake, alert but still refusing to speak. Resident taken to nurses station for 1:1 monitoring and psych in the building section 12'd him/her. EMS notified and resident transferred to hospital [sic] for psych eval. Review of the psych note, dated 2/15/24, indicated the following: - Resident is AOx3 (alert and oriented), he/she was found by nursing staff with a plastic bag over his/her head. Resident has an extensive hx of SI but with no past activity. Resident section12A to hospital d/t safety concern, further evaluation. Review of the hospital paperwork, dated 2/19/24, indicated the following: - Presents from his/her SNF(Skilled Nursing Facility) after staff there reportedly found him/her with a plastic bag over head in an attempt to self-harm. At that time he/she stated he/she felt like he/she 'wasn't being listened to' there and has made passive SI statement since then without much other detail . During an interview on 6/6/24 at 11:15 A.M., the Director of Nursing said when a resident is admitted with a history of suicidal ideation, a care plan should be developed with interventions to keep the Resident safe and supportive services would be put in place, including psych and social services. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 10:38 A.M., the Psych Nurse Practitioner said she would consider someone with a history of SI who has recently expressed SI to be put on 15 minute checks or moved closer to the nursing station. The Psych NP said she was not notified of Resident #192's return from the hospital with a verbalization of SI. The psych NP said that Resident #192 had some issues with being at the nursing facility and with his/her brother placing him/her here. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 9:36 A.M., the Social Services Assistant (SSA) #1 said that he is not a social worker, but at the time Resident #192 was admitted , an outside contract service provided social worker support as needed. SSA #1 said he would expect a care plan to be developed for suicidal ideation and if a Resident expressed suicidal ideation then the Resident should be seen immediately. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 8:30 A.M., SSA #1 said that if a resident expressed SI then that Resident should be checked in on daily from social services to make sure they are safe. SSA #1 said that Resident #192 was having a difficult time adjusting to the facility and his/her brothers decision to keep him/her at the facility. Review of the clinical record did not indicate that any interventions were put in place or updated after return from the hospital, between 1/31/24 - 2/16/24, for Resident #192 with a known history of suicidal ideation and adjustment difficulty.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled the facility to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled the facility to use its resources effectively to attain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, the facility administration failed to ensure the appropriate behavioral health services were in place for one Resident (#192) who attempted suicide after verbalizing suicidal ideation. Findings Include: During the survey process it was identified that the Administration's failure to ensure adequate behavioral health services were provided for residents with mental health disorders. Out of a total universe of 67 residents identified with depression disorder, 7 residents were not provided the behavioral health services after an identification of decreased mood through the PHQ-9 (personal health questionnaire-9) (a tool used to measure depression). Review of the facility assessment, revised 3/19/24, indicated the facility is able to manage the medical conditions and medication-related issues causing psychiatric symptoms and behavior, identify and implement interventions to help support individuals with issues such as dealing with anxiety, care of someone with cognitive impairment, care of individuals with depression, trauma/PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), other psychiatric diagnoses, intellectual or developmental disabilities. On average, the facility manages about 50 residents with behavioral health needs. Review of the Behavioral Health Service Agreement, dated December 2022, indicated the following services were provided to the facility: - Provide psychiatric evaluations at the request of the attending physician for the purpose of assessing the specific needs of residents of the facility with psychiatric symptomology and recommending therapeutic interventions. - Perform psychopharmacological consults and monitoring; and psychotherapeutic services. - Act as a liaison for emergency situations in the event of a psychiatric crisis - Maintain certain that all residents that have a referral for behavioral health management services receive an evaluation within 10 days. Resident #192 was admitted in December 2023 with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, depression, schizoaffective disorder, and generalized anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #192 scored a 10 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the Resident's hospital discharge paperwork given to the facility upon admission and dated 12/1/23, indicated Resident #192 verbalized that he/she would kill him/herself if he/she had a gun in the hospital. The Resident was placed on a section 12 (an emergent mental health measure to prevent a patient from harming themselves) and cleared prior to admission. Review of the clinical record did not indicate that any SI (suicide ideation) care plan had been developed or any interventions for safety were put into place following admission. Review of the progress note, dated 1/8/24, indicated Resident #192 verbalized SI and was subsequently evaluated by the behavioral health services (Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner) for immediate safety. No changes were made to the Resident's plan of care. Review of the clinical record failed to indicate any changes had been made to Resident #192's plan of care, care plan, or that notification to the physician had occurred after the Resident had expressed suicide ideation. Review of the clinical record indicated on 1/24/24, Resident #192 was sent to the hospital for a planned procedure. Resident #192 returned to the facility on 1/31/24. Review of the hospital discharge paperwork, dated 1/31/24, indicated Resident #192 reported suicidal ideation in the hospital and was provided a one on one sitter and was placed on a section 12 hospitalization. Review of the clinical record failed to indicate that, upon readmission to the facility, Resident #192's plan of care was reviewed or updated, despite Resident #192's vocalization of suicidal ideation in the hospital and a section 12. There was no indication that Resident #192 was evaluated or seen by behavioral health services, social services, or any additional behavioral health interventions were updated between 2/2/24 - 2/16/24. Review of the record indicated, on 2/16/24, Resident #192 attempted suicide by placing a bag tightly over his/her head. Resident #192 was subsequently sent to the hospital and never returned to the facility. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 10:38 A.M., the psych NP said that she does not provide talk therapy to residents and that the other provider within her contract company should be utilized. The psych NP said she primarily focuses on medication management and checking in with residents. The psych NP said that Resident #192 would have benefited from talk therapy given everything that was going on with him/her. The psych NP also said that if a Resident is expressing suicidal ideation then certain safety measures should be put in place and a care plan should be developed to keep the Resident safe. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 9:21 A.M., the Administrator said that he brought supportive care services on board when the facility opened a behavioral health unit (around September 2023) to provide oversight and the Psychiatric NP is in a couple of times per week. The Administrator said that the psych NP is a consultant and sometimes meets with the residents to provide support and make recommendations to the doctor. He said he is unsure what she does when she sees them, but would assume she goes in to meet and talk with the residents. The Administrator said that social workers would be providing talk therapy to the residents, but that he doesn't differentiate the difference between talk therapy and when the psych NP goes to meet with residents. The Administrator said that if a Resident expresses suicidal ideation then the interdisciplinary team should be involved (department heads), as well as, psych services. The Administrator was not aware that the psych NP was not providing talk therapy services and just providing medication management. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 11:15 A.M., the Director of Nursing said emotional therapy and support would be provided by a contract provider that comes in (a psychologist), but could not say why Resident #192 had not been provided those services. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 11:54 A.M., the Director of Nursing said that she came on board last year and the social services department needs some work. She said she was never made aware of Resident #192's SI in the hospital and would not have taken him/her back if she knew. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 7:36 A.M., Physician #1 said that he believes that Residents would benefit from counseling services and non-pharmalogical interventions, but that he feels the facility needs more support to provide those services. The Administrator or Director of Nursing were unable to provide evidence throughout survey that the behavioral contract services were meeting the facilities expectations for behavioral health services provided to residents.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) For Resident #16, the facility failed to implement a physician's order for a left hand resting splint. Review of the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) For Resident #16, the facility failed to implement a physician's order for a left hand resting splint. Review of the facility policy titled 'Prevention of Decline in Range of Motion', revised 2/2024, indicated: -The facility will provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This includes, but is not limited to: ii. Appropriate equipment (braces or splints). Resident #16 was admitted to the facility in March 2014 with diagnoses including with a left hand contracture and a history of traumatic brain injury. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/24/2024, indicated that Resident #16 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 out of 15. This MDS also indicated Resident #16 was dependent on staff for dressing, transfers, and mobility. Review of the physician's order, dated 10/30/23, indicated: - Patient to wear resting hand splint on left hand in am and removed at bed, every day and evening shift *-*** kept in bedside drawer****** Review of the plan of care related to need for assistance with ADLS, dated 5/16/24, indicated - (L) resting hand sprint on in AM, off in PM. On 6/4/24 at 8:33 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #16 in bed eating breakfast. Resident #16 did not have a resting hand splint on his/her left hand. On 6/4/24 at 12:10 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #16 in bed eating lunch. Resident #16 did not have a resting hand splint on his/her left hand. Resident said staff need to help put it on his/her left hand, but when he/she asks staff says they can't do it. The surveyor also made the following observations of Resident #16 without his/her left resting hand splint: - On 6/4/24 at 2:38 P.M., Resident #16 said staff had not offered the resting hand splint today. - On 6/5/24 at 8:12 A.M. - On 6/6/24 at 10:01 A.M., Resident #16 said staff had not offered the resting hand splint today and asked surveyor to put it on. On 6/6/24 at 10:07 A.M., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #10 said Resident #16 is supposed to have a carrot (a device used for hand contractures) in his/her left hand but that sometimes staff can't find it, but that he/she does not refuse it. CNA #10 took a carrot out of Resident #16's drawer and applied it to Resident #16's left hand. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 11:30 A.M., Unit Manager #2 said Resident #16 should be wearing a left resting hand splint. Unit Manager #2 said Resident #16 should not be wearing a carrot because it is not a replacement for a left resting hand splint. Unit Manager #2 entered Resident #16's room and located a left resting hand splint and asked Resident #16 if he/she would like it on, and the Resident said yes. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 12:09 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said Resident #16 should be wearing a left resting hand splint and that a carrot is not a replacement for this device. The DON said if Resident #16 had refused to wear the left resting hand splint that it should be documented in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) or progress notes. Review of TAR and progress notes failed to indicate Resident #16 had refused to wear the left resting hand splint. Based on observations, record review, policy review and interviews, the facility failed to 1) prevent a worsening of range of motion with new contracture development for one Resident (#125) and 2) failed to implement interventions for contracture management for one Resident (#16) out of a total sample of 38 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Prevention of Decline in Range of Motion, dated 2/2024 indicated the following: -Residents who enter the facility without limited range of motion will not experience a reduction in range of motion unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrated that a reduction in range of motion is unavoidable. -The facility in collaboration with the medical director, director of nurses and as appropriate, physical/occupational consultant shall establish and utilize a systemic approach for prevention of decline in range of motion, including the assessment, appropriate care planning, and preventative care. -Licensed nurses will assess resident's range of motion (such as current extent of movement of his/her joints and identification of limitations) on admission/readmission, quarterly, and upon a significant change. -Residents who exhibit limitations and range of motion, initially and thereafter, will be referred to the therapy department for a focused assessment of range of motion. -Staff will be educated on the risk factors for a decline in range of motion. These include but are not limited to: limbs or digits immobilized because of injury or surgical procedures, immobilization (e.g. Bed rest), deformities arising out of neurological deficits, pain, spasms, and immobility associated with arthritis, late stage Alzheimer's disease or other conditions. 1. Resident #125 was admitted to the facility in December 2023 with diagnoses including dementia and diabetes. Review of Resident #125's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated the Resident was unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam and staff had assessed him/her to have severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated Resident #125 was dependent on staff for all functional tasks. Section GG of the MDS indicated the Resident did not have any impairments in range of motion. On 6/4/24 at 8:31 A.M., Resident #125 was observed lying in bed with both hands in a fisted position. When asked, the Resident was unable to open his/her hands. On 6/7/24 at 11:30 A.M., Resident #125 was observed lying in bed with both hands in a fisted position. When asked, the Resident was unable to open his/her hands. Review of Resident #125's full list of medical diagnoses failed to indicate a neurological diagnosis that would lead to a contracture. Review of the discharge summary from the hospital prior to admission indicated Resident #125 had bilateral lower extremity contractures but failed to indicate contractures of the Resident's upper extremities were present upon admission. The hospital paperwork also recommended staff complete ROM (range of motion) exercises with the resident. Review of Resident #125's admission nursing assessment dated [DATE], failed to indicate the Resident had an impairment of range of motion to his/her upper extremities. Review of the Occupational Therapy evaluation dated 12/27/23 indicated Resident #125's muscle tone was normal and failed to indicate the Resident had an upper extremity contracture. Review of the Nursing assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #125 had an impairment in range of motion to both upper extremities, a change from the assessment 3 months prior. Review of Resident #125's medical record failed to indicate a referral was made to rehabilitation at this time as a change in range of motion is first noted. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 11:35 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 said she was unaware if Resident #125 had a decline in range of motion of his/her hands. CNA #3 entered Resident #125's room and attempted to open the Resident's hands. On both hands, CNA #3 was only able to straighten the Resident's first two fingers but the third, fourth and fifth fingers were bent in a fisted position and CNA #3 could not straighten these fingers. As CNA #3 was attempting to straighten Resident #125's fingers, the Resident pulled his/her arms away wincing in pain. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 11:37 A.M., Nurse #3 said she was never told about a decline in Resident #125's range of motion. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 11:46 A.M., Unit Manager #2 said he was unaware of a decline in range of motion to Resident #125's hands. Unit Manager #2 then entered the Resident's room and attempted to straighten the fingers on both of Resident #125's hands. Unit Manager #2 could straighten the first two fingers on both hands but was unable to straighten the third, fourth and fifth fingers of each hand. As Unit Manager #2 was attempting to straighten the Resident's fingers, the Resident winced in pain and pulled his/her arm back. Unit Manager #2 said Resident #125 definitely had contractures of both hands. Unit Manager #2 said staff should be doing basic range of motion exercises during basic care and report any changes in range of motion to him so he could make a referral to the therapy department. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 12:03 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said staff should be able to identify changes in range of motion and would be expected to report any changes to the nurse. The DON said the nurse would need to communicate any changes in range of motion to the therapy department so an evaluation could be completed. The DON said she was unaware Resident #125 had bilateral hand contractures. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 8:14 A.M., the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) said all residents in the facility are screened quarterly to see if there have been any changes to the Resident's functional status. The DOR said a potential decline in range of motion is also looked at during the screening process. The DOR said she would also expect a referral from the nursing department if the nursing staff noticed a decline in range of motion for any of the residents in the facility. The DOR and surveyor looked through the screening logbook and the nursing referral book together. Both books failed to indicate a quarterly screen had been completed for Resident #125 since admission or that a referral was made to the therapy department in March 2024 when the decline in range of motion was indicated in the nursing assessment. The DOR said she was unaware Resident #125 had two new hand contractures and that the positioning of Resident #125's hands were a change and it would be appropriate for the Resident to have an occupational therapy evaluation.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to assure sufficient social services were provided to meet the needs o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to assure sufficient social services were provided to meet the needs of one Resident (#192), out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, Resident #192 did not receive social support after verbalizing suicidal ideation (SI), resulting in an attempted suicide. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Social Services, revised February 2023, indicated the following: - The facility, regardless of size, will provide medically-related social services to each resident, to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. - Any need for medically-related social services will be documented in the medical record. - Services to meet the resident's needs may include: * Assisting residents in voicing and obtaining resolution to grievances about treatment, living conditions, visitation rights and accommodation of needs. * Making referrals and obtaining needed services from outside entities * Providing or arranging for needed mental and psychosocial counseling services * Identifying and seeking ways to support residents' individual needs through the assessment and care planning process. * Identifying and promoting individualized, non-pharmacological approaches to care that meet the mental and psychosocial needs of each resident. * Meeting the needs of residents who are grieving from losses and coping with stressful events. - The facility should provide social services or obtain services from outside entities during situations that include: * Expressions or indications of distress that affect the resident's mental and psychosocial well-being, resulting from depression * Difficulty coping with change or loss * Need for emotional support - The resident's plan of care will reflect any ongoing medically-related social service needs, and how those needs are being addressed. - The Social Worker, or social services designee, will monitor the resident's progress in improving physical, mental, and psychosocial functioning. Review of the facility assessment tool, dated 3/19/24, indicates the facility provides pscyho/social/spiritual support including supporting emotional and mental well-being and helpful coping mechanisms. Resident #192 was admitted in December 2023 with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, depression, schizoaffective disorder, and generalized anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #192 scored a 10 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the Resident's hospital discharge paperwork given to the facility upon admission and dated 12/1/23, indicated the following note from the psych team: - Pt now endorsing SI. Told Case Mgmt that he/she wants to end his/her life. I spoke with patient and he/she states that he/she has thought about suicide for a while and wishes he/she could end his/her life, but states 'he/she is not allowed'. Denies prior suicide attempts or access to firearms, but states if I did have access to firearms, I would kill myself and states I have nothing to live for. Endorses multiple prior psychiatric hospitalizations. Will place on Section 12, consult APS. Per review of prior records, did note this during his/her prior hospital admission as well. At time of admission, a psychosocial well-being care plan was developed for Resident #192 and indicated the following: Focus: This resident is at risk for altered psychosocial well-being related to Adjustment to new environment/rehab setting, decline in functional/medical status, dx Schizoaffective d/o Bipolar 1, anxiety/panic d/o, depression, FTT (failure to thrive) in adult (initiated 12/2/23) Interventions: - Activities to meet with this resident to develop and activity plan (initiated 12/2/23) - Behavioral health services as ordered and needed (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage family members/residents representatives to be involved as allowed by resident to also participate in this plan to be able to provide direct support (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage the resident to make their own decisions when able (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage the resident to see a positive view of themselves (initiated 12/2/23) - Following up with responses to concerns brought up (initiated 12/2/23) - Medications as ordered to help manage their mood and behaviors (initiated 12/2/23) - Monitor and document mood and behaviors (12/2/23) - Provide 1:1 to allow this resident to verbal feeling/concerns (12/2/23) - Provide the resident praise for all their efforts made (initiated 12/2/23) - Remind this resident of their goals and reassure them on progress made (12/2/23) Review of Resident #192's other comprehensive care plans failed to indicate a care plan was developed for the Resident's history of suicidal ideation (SI). Review of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) (an assessment of depression), dated 12/4/23, indicated Resident #192 scored a 23 out of a possible 27 points, indicating severe depression. Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation and Consultation note, dated 12/4/23, indicated Resident #192 has felt depressed since childhood and has had multiple hospitalizations related to SI. The note also indicated: Resident was admitted to unit with SI, aware of resident's verbalizing SI. The note indicated that Resident #192 was on an established medication regimen to manage his/her mood, depression, and anxiety. The psychiatric consultation note recommendations indicated the following: Monitor resident for safety, provide medications as prescribed, encourage resident to participate in unit activities. Continue to monitor acute changes in behaviors, nutrition status, and sleep patterns. Redirect when possible, maintain adequate safety precautions, appropriately use diversionary activities on the unit, and provide positive encouragement. Patient would benefit from continued treatment to promote mental wellness and emotional stability. Review of the clinical record did not indicate that social services were provided for Resident #192 between his/her admission date and 1/8/24. Review of the Social Worker progress note, dated 1/8/24, indicated the following: Resident stated that he/she wanted to die. Social Worker (SW) went to talk to Resident #192. Resident #192 stated he/she was afraid of a woman and that she will kill him/her. SW asked to describe the woman. Resident stated she worked here and gave the description of the CNA that is working with him/her. SW informed unit manager and DON. Review of the clinical record indicated on 1/24/24, Resident #192 was sent to the hospital for a planned procedure. Resident #192 returned to the facility on 1/31/24. Review of the hospital discharge paperwork, dated 1/31/24, indicated Resident #192 reported suicidal ideation in the hospital and was provided a one on one sitter and was placed on a section 12 (an involuntary hospitalization if assessed to be a danger to self or others). Review of the clinical record did not indicate that social services were provided for Resident #192 between 1/31/24 and 2/16/24. Review of the clinical progress note, dated 2/16/24, indicated Resident #192 was found with a plastic bag tied around his/her neck in an attempted suicide and was sent to the hospital for evaluation. Review of the hospital paperwork, dated 2/19/24, indicated the following: Presents from his/her SNF(Skilled Nursing Facility) after staff there reportedly found him/her with a plastic bag over head in an attempt to self-harm. At that time he/she stated he/she felt like he/she 'wasn't being listened to' there and has made passive SI statement since then without much other detail . During an interview on 6/10/24 at 8:31 A.M., Social Services Assistant (SSA) #1 said that Resident #192 had some cognitive issues, but engaged the best that he/she could. Social Services Assistant #1 said that there was an adjustment period that he/she struggled with slightly due to his/her family and brother. Social Services Assistant #1 said that if a Resident verbalizes a recent SI, then that Resident should be followed on a regular basis and seen daily or once a shift to make sure they are feeling safe. Social Services Assistant #1 said that the care plan should be updated and supportive care in place During an interview on 6/6/24 at 9:36 A.M., the Social Services Assistant #1 said that he is not a social worker, but at the time Resident #192 was admitted , an outside contract service provided social worker support as needed. Social Services Assistant #1 said he would expect a care plan to be developed for suicidal ideation and if a Resident expressed suicidal ideation then the Resident should be seen immediately. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 8:30 A.M., Social Services Assistant #1 said that if a resident expressed SI then that Resident should be checked in on daily from social services to make sure they are safe. Social Services Assistance #1 said that Resident #192 was having a difficult time adjusting to the facility and his/her brothers decision to keep him/her at the facility.
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 observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain one Resident's (#94) dignity by ensuring his...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain one Resident's (#94) dignity by ensuring his/her clothing covered sensitive body parts, out of a total sample of 38 residents. Findings include: Resident #94 was admitted to the facility in September 2021 with diagnoses including major depression and schizophrenia. Review of Resident #94's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of a possible 15, which indicated he/she had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated Resident #94 required supervision with bathing and dressing tasks. On 6/4/24 from approximately 8:00 A.M., to 8:50 A.M., Resident #94 was observed walking up and down the hallway barefoot. The Resident was wearing black sweatpants, and the right side of the pants were ripped open, exposing the Resident's buttocks. During this time, the Resident walked past a nurse several times and stopped to speak with a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). Review of Resident #94's Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care plan last revised on 5/14/24, indicated the following intervention: -Dressing: maximal assistance Review of the CNA documentation for 6/4/24 indicated Resident #94 required substantial assistance from staff for lower body dressing on 6/4/24. During an interview on 6/4/24 at 2:36 P.M., the Director of Nursing DON) said staff should have observed the Resident's ripped pants and encouraged him/her to put pants on that covered his/her buttocks. The DON said Resident #94 will often put on clothes that staff have changed him/her out of but she would still expect staff to encourage the Resident to change his/her clothes. The ADL care plan was updated to add an intervention regarding Resident #94 making poor choices in clothing after the interview with the DON.
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 interview, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment, specifically, the facility failed to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment, specifically, the facility failed to address a chirping fire alarm. Findings Include: During an observation on 6/4/24 at 11:13 A.M., the surveyor observed a fire alarm in room [ROOM NUMBER] chirping repeatedly. During an observation on 6/5/24 at 6:50 A.M., the surveyor observed a fire alarm in room [ROOM NUMBER] chirping repeatedly. During an observation on 6/6/24 at 7:00 A.M., the surveyor observed a fire alarm in room [ROOM NUMBER] chirping repeatedly. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 9:56 A.M., the Maintenance Director said that he is usually told about any issues in the building via maintenance logbooks that are kept on all nursing units or staff call his direct phone line for any issues. The Maintenance Director said he was not aware or told of the chirping fire alarm in room [ROOM NUMBER].
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed their abuse/neglect policy related to residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed their abuse/neglect policy related to resident to resident abuse for one Resident (#37) out of a total of 38 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy dated February 2023 indicated: Definitions: Abuse means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish, which can include staff to resident abuse and certain resident to resident altercations. Verbal abuse means the use of oral, written or gestured communications or sounds that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families or within hearing distance regardless of their age, ability to comprehend or disability. Investigation of alleged abuse, neglect and exploitation: An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur. Reporting/Response: The facility will have written procedures that include: reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and all other required agencies within specified timeframes; immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation is made if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury.The Administrator will follow up with government agencies during business hours to confirm the initial report was received and to report the results of the investigation when final within 5 working days of the incident as required by state agencies. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility in September 2023 with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury, schizophrenia and traumatic hemorrhage of the cerebrum. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #37 scored 6 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam, indicating he/she is severely cognitively impaired. Review of of the nurse progress note dated 1/22/2024 at 1:04 P.M., indicated: Pt (patient) sent out 911, section 12 (involuntary hospitalization). Made homicidal comments, social worker & psych NP (nurse practitioner) made aware. Facilitated section, police arrived, pt resisted, restrained on stretcher. Review of the Psychiatric NP note dated 1/22/24 indicated Resident #37 had become agitated and shouted when she attempted to meet with Resident #37's roommate. Resident #37 threatened to hurt someone like a dog. Review of the hospital paperwork, dated 1/30/24, indicated: [Resident #37] threatened to strangle his/her roommate like a dog while he/she is sleeping. Review of the state agency's reporting system failed to indicate the facility reported the incident per their policy. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 9:40 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said she thought the incident was reported to the state agency and was unaware it had not been.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff reported a resident to resident altercations for one R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff reported a resident to resident altercations for one Resident (#37) out of a total of 38 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy dated February 2023 indicated: Definitions: Abuse means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish, which can include staff to resident abuse and certain resident to resident altercations. Verbal abuse means the use of oral, written or gestured communications or sounds that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families or within hearing distance regardless of their age, ability to comprehend or disability. Investigation of alleged abuse, neglect and exploitation: An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur. Reporting/Response: The facility will have written procedures that include: reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and all other required agencies within specified timeframes; immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation is made if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury.The Administrator will follow up with government agencies during business hours to confirm the initial report was received and to report the results of the investigation when final within 5 working days of the incident as required by state agencies. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility in September 2023 with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury, schizophrenia and traumatic hemorrhage of the cerebrum. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #37 scored 6 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam, indicating he/she is severely cognitively impaired. Review of of the nurse progress note dated 1/22/2024 1:04 P.M., indicated: Pt (patient) sent out 911, section 12. Made homicidal comments, social worker & psych NP (nurse practitioner) made aware. Facilitated section, police arrived, pt resisted, restrained on stretcher. Review of the Psychiatric NP note dated 1/22/24 indicated Resident #37 had become agitated and shouting when she attempted to meet with Resident #37's roommate. Resident #37 threatened to hurt someone like a dog. Review of the hospital paperwork, dated 1/30/24, indicated: [Resident #37] threatened to strangle his/her roommate like a dog while he/she is sleeping. Review of the state agency's reporting system failed to indicate the facility reported the incident as required. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 9:40 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said she thought that the incident was reported to the state agency and was unaware it had not been.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain an updated Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASA...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain an updated Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for one Resident (#192) out of a total sample of 38 residents. Findings include: Resident #192 was admitted in December 2023 with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, depression, schizoaffective disorder, and generalized anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #192 scored a 10 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident #192 received a PASARR Level II (a screening for individuals with serious mental illness, intellectual disability, developmental disability, or other related condition requiring specialized services). The PASRR indicated the following: - Your PASARR level II has been completed. It has been determined that you are appropriate for a Provisional Emergency admission to a Nursing Facility that cannon exceed 7-calendar days. Should the length of your stay in the nursing facility need to exceed the 7-calendar day approval of the Provisional Emergency, the nursing facility must submit a request on your behalf for an additional Level II Resident Review by the 2nd calendar day after your admission. The facility failed to provide evidence that an additional PASRR Level II was compled for Resident #192, whose stay exceeded 7-calendar days.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

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 revise the behavioral health care plan for one Reside...

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 revise the behavioral health care plan for one Resident (#192) after a comprehensive assessment and suicidal ideation. Findings include: 1. Resident #192 was admitted in December 2023 with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, depression, schizoaffective disorder, and generalized anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #192 scored a 10 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the hospital discharge paperwork indicated Resident #192 reported suicidal ideation (SI) during his/her hospital stay, stating if I did have access to firearms, I would kill myself and I have nothing to live for. At time of admission, a psychosocial well-being care plan was developed for Resident #192 and indicated the following: Focus: This resident is at risk for altered psychosocial well-being related to Adjustment to new environment/rehab setting, decline in functional/medical status, dx Schizoaffective d/o Bipolar 1, anxiety/panic d/o, depression, FTT (failure to thrive) in adult (initiated 12/2/23) Interventions: - Activities to meet with this resident to develop and activity plan (initiated 12/2/23) - Behavioral health services as ordered and needed (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage family members/residents representatives to be involved as allowed by resident to also participate in this plan to be able to provide direct support (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage the resident to make their own decisions when able (initiated 12/2/23) - Encourage the resident to see a positive view of themselves (initiated 12/2/23) - Following up with responses to concerns brought up (initiated 12/2/23) - Medications as ordered to help manage their mood and behaviors (initiated 12/2/23) - Monitor and document mood and behaviors (12/2/23) - Provide 1:1 to allow this resident to verbal feeling/concerns (12/2/23) - Provide the resident praise for all their efforts made (initiated 12/2/23) - Remind this resident of their goals and reassure them on progress made (12/2/23) Review of Resident #192's other comprehensive care plans failed to indicate a care plan was developed for the Resident's history of suicidal ideation (SI). On 1/8/24, review of the progress notes indicated Resident #192 expressed wanting to die. On 1/31/24, Resident #192 was re-admitted to the facility after a planned hospitalization with suicidal ideation that was stated in the hospital. Resident #192 was placed on a section 12 in the hospital and cleared to come back. Review of the record failed to indicate Resident #192's care plan was revised or reviewed after re-admission to the facility and with a verbalization of suicidal ideation. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 8:31 A.M., Social Services Assistant #1 said that Resident #192 had some cognitive issues, but engaged the best that he/she could. Social Services Assistant #1 said that there was an adjustment period that he/she struggled with slightly due to his/her family and brother. Social Services Assistant #1 said that if a Resident verbalizes a recent SI, then that Resident should be followed on a regular basis and seen daily or once a shift to make sure they are feeling safe. Social Services Assistant #1 said that the care plan should be updated and supportive care in place. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 10:38 A.M., the psych NP said that if a Resident is expressing suicidal ideation then certain safety measures should be put in place and a care plan should be developed to keep the Resident safe. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 11:15 A.M., the Director of Nursing said when a resident is admitted with a history of suicidal ideation, a care plan should be developed with interventions to keep the Resident safe and supportive services would be put in place, including psych and social services.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to specifically provide required assistance with acti...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to specifically provide required assistance with activity of daily living for one Resident (#287) out of a total sample of 38 residents. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled 'Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), reviewed February 2023 indicated the following but not limited to: -A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Resident #287 was admitted to the facility in May 2024 with diagnoses including, bipolar disorder and depression. Review of Resident #287's Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated he/she did not participate in a Brief Interview of Mental Status Exam. On 6/4/24 at 9:19 A.M., Resident #287 was observed sitting in his/her room, the Resident was observed with long thick bushy chin hairs. The Resident said he/she would like assistance with removing the facial hair. On 6/5/24 at 11:43 A.M., Resident #287 was observed in his/her room, the Resident had long thick bushy chin hair. Resident #287 said no one had offered to clean his/her facial hair. Review of Resident #287 medical record indicated the following: A care plan initiated 5/19/24 for ADLs require assistance: indicated the following interventions personal hygiene extensive assist. Further review of medical record failed to indicate that Resident #287 refused care. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 11:44 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 said she did not offer Resident #287 to remove facial hair. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 11:48 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2 said the CNA's are to offer facial removal when providing ADL care. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 12:05 P.M., Nurse #2 said the Resident was recently admitted to the facility and has not shown any behaviors of refusing care. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 9:27 A.M., the Director of Nursing said chin hair removal is part of the ADL care, and if a resident refused it would be documented and care planned.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free of hazards for one Resident (#37) o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free of hazards for one Resident (#37) out of a total of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop and implement interventions addressing Resident #37's behaviors of hoarding hazardous items, such as razors. Findings include: Resident #37 was admitted to the facility in September 2023 with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury, schizophrenia and traumatic hemorrhage of the cerebrum. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #37 scored 6 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam, indicating he/she is severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #37's clinical nurse progress notes indicated: On 1/22/2024 at 1:04 P.M., Pt (patient] sent out 911, section 12 (an emergent hospital transfer to keep a Resident safe from self-harm or harm to others). Made homicidal comments, social worker & psych NP (Nurse Practitioner) made aware. Facilitated section, police arrived, pt resisted, restrained on stretcher. On 1/22/2024 at 12:00 P.M., Pt was found having belonings (sic) that weren't [his/hers] hidden in [his/her] closet and draw (sic) in [his/her] room. Pt had about 20 razors, shaving cream, [and] other various supplies stashed in [his/her] room. Pt stole another patients belongings and cell phone, hid under a blanket in closet. These items were found while the pt was out on a MLOA (medical leave of absence). Review of Resident #37's care plans and physicians orders from January 2024 through April 15, 2024 failed to indicate interventions were implemented upon his/her return to the facility to monitor his/her behaviors of hazardous items including razors. Additional review of the nursing progress notes indicated: On 4/15/2024 at 2:18 P.M., This RN (registered nurse) obtained new wanderguard band and re-applied to pts R ankle. Pt cut old wanderguard band and fastened it together with string from a surgical mask. Pt verbally upset when this RN put new band on. Attending aide translated that pt stated [he/she] was going tocut it off Staff reminded pt that wanderguard was for safety. This RN looked in pt's room for scissors. While looking, 2 previous wandergaurd devices were found, nail clippers and a plastic bag full of metal silverware. Items removed from room. Review of Resident #37's physicians orders indicated: 4/16/24; Safety check daily in [his/her] room for hoarding utensils (knives, forks, scissors, nail clippers, etc) call staff for assistance every day shift for hoarding and cutting safety bracelet. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 8:00 A.M., Nurse # 13 said that Resident #37 is behavioral and can escalate easily. Nurse #13 said that there is a physician's order for nurse staff check his/her room daily for razors and other hazardous items. During an interview on 6/10/25 at 9:40 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that after the incident where Resident #37 had threatened to kill his/her roommate, staff started routine searches of his/her rooms. The Director of Nursing was not aware that the searches were not initiated or completed until 4/16/24; after he/she was noted to be cutting off his/her wander guard.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed maintain professional standards in the managing and care for urinary catheter devices for one Resident (#27), out...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed maintain professional standards in the managing and care for urinary catheter devices for one Resident (#27), out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the urinary catheter drainage bag and tubing were not placed directly on the floor. Findings include: Resident #27 was admitted to the facility in January 2024 with diagnoses including obstructive uropathy and chronic kidney disease. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/24/24, indicated Resident #27 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of 15. This MDS also indicated Resident #27 was dependent on staff for assistance with toileting hygiene and had an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident #27's physician's order, dated 5/16/24, indicated: - Indwelling Three way Foley Catheter 22 Fr (french units) with a 10cc (cubic centimeters) balloon to CD (catheter drainage) bag or leg bag in place check patency. Review of the plan of care related to indwelling foley catheter, revised 5/18/24, indicated Resident #27 was at risk for infection related to the presence of an indwelling foley catheter. On 6/4/24 at 8:14 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #27 in bed asleep with his/her bed with his/her urinary catheter drainage bag attached to the bed frame. The urinary catheter drainage bag and tubing was directly touching the floor. The surveyor made the following additional observations of Resident #27 in bed: -On 6/4/24 at 12:07 P.M., Resident #27's urinary catheter drainage bag attached to the bed frame and was directly touching the floor. -On 6/5/24 at 6:11 A.M., Resident #27's urinary catheter drainage bag attached to the bed frame and was directly touching the floor. - On 6/6/24 at 7:25 A.M., Resident #27's urinary catheter drainage bag not attached to the bed frame. The urinary catheter drainage bag and tubing are lying flat on the floor. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 7:35 A.M., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #6 said Resident #27 is totally dependent on staff for bed mobility and is unable to adjust the height of the bed himself/herself. CNA #6 visualized the urinary catheter drainage bag and tubing on the floor and said the urinary catheter drainage bag and tubing should never touch the floor. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 8:08 A.M., Nurse Supervisor #1 said urinary catheter drainage bags and tubing should never be on the floor. Nurse Supervisor #1 said Resident #27 had a history of throwing his/her urinary catheter drainage bag if it is near him/her, but said that was not the case if it was attached to the bedframe. Nurse Supervisor #1 said Resident #27 is unable to adjust the height of the bed, and staff must lower the bed for him/her. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 2:45 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said urinary catheter drainage bags and tubing should not touch the floor. The DON said if the Resident's bed was lowered she would expect staff to put a barrier between the urinary catheter drainage bag and tubing and the floor to prevent them from touching the floor to prevent infection.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards for one Resident (#55) who required renal dialysis (a life ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide care and services consistent with professional standards for one Resident (#55) who required renal dialysis (a life sustaining treatment that helps your body remove extra fluid and waste products from your blood when the kidneys are not able to) out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that clamps exchanging blood between a patient and a hemodialysis machine were at the bedside. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled 'Hemodialysis' reviewed February 2023, indicated the following but not limited to: -This facility will provide the necessary care and treatment, consistent with professional standards of practice, physician orders, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences, to meet the special medical nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs of residents receiving hemodialysis. 1. Resident #287 was admitted to the facility in May 2024 with diagnoses including acute kidney failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease. Review of Resident #287's medical record indicated the following orders: -Clamps at bedside as all times for emergency use every shift. -If bleeding coming from the central venous catheter for dialysis (CVCD) use the clamps (kept and bedside) to clamp the line and call 911 as needed. Review of care plan date initiated 5/19/24 for hemodialysis had the following intervention: If bleeding coming from the CVCD use the clamps (kept at the bedside) to clamp the line and call 911 as needed. On 6/4/24 at 9:19 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #287 lying in his/her bed. The surveyor did not locate emergency clamps or pressure dressing by Resident's bedside. On 6/5/24 at 6:52 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #287 lying in his/her bed. The surveyor did not locate emergency clamps or pressure dressing by Resident's bedside. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 11:36 A.M., Unit Manager #1 said the Resident should have clamps and pressure dressing by bedside. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 11:39 A.M., Nurse #2 said the emergency clamp and pressure dressing should be in the Resident's room. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 9:38 A.M., the Director of Nursing said emergency clamp and pressure dressing should be kept by patient bedside.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

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 ensure a plan of care was developed for trauma-informe...

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 ensure a plan of care was developed for trauma-informed care for one Resident (#101), who was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), out of a total sample of 38 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled 'Trauma Informed Care' reviewed February 2023, indicated the following, but not limited to: -It is the policy of this facility to provide care and services which, in addition to meeting professional standards, are delivered using approaches which are culturally competent, account for experiences and preferences, and address the needs of trauma survivors by minimizing triggers and /or re-traumatization. -Collaboration - an emphasis on partnering between residents and/or his or her representative, and all staff and disciplines involved in the resident's care in developing the plan of care. -Trauma-specific care plan interventions will recognize the interrelation between trauma and symptoms of trauma such as substance abuse, eating disorders, depression, and anxiety. These interventions will also recognize the survivors' need to be respected, informed, connected, and hopefully regarding their own recovery. Resident #101 was admitted to the facility in June 2021 with diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder. Review of Resident #101's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated the Resident scored a 3 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating he/she was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS further indicated the Resident had an active diagnosis of PTSD. Review of Resident #101 medical record failed to indicate a care plan for PTSD had been developed or implemented. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 9:26 A.M., the Director of Nursing said social services are responsible for creating and implementing the PTSD care plans and any resident with a diagnosis of PTSD should have a PTSD care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, records reviewed, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5% when 2 out of 3 nurses observed made 4...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, records reviewed, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5% when 2 out of 3 nurses observed made 4 errors out of 28 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 14.29%. Those errors impacted two Residents (#87 and #91), out of four residents observed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled 'Medication Administration', revised 2/2023, indicated, but was not limited to: Policy: Medication are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician. 10. Ensure that the six rights of medication administration are followed: b. Right drug c. Right dosage 1.) For Resident #87, the nurse attempted to administer the incorrect dosage of a medication and the incorrect medication. Resident #87 was admitted to the facility in September 2021 with diagnoses including hypertension and venous ulcers. Review of Resident #87's physician's orders indicated: - Metoprolol (a medication used to treat high blood pressure) 25 milligrams (mg) , Give 0.5 (12.5mg) tablet orally two times a day. - Tab-a-vite (a dietary supplement that is specially formulated for those on dialysis), Give 1 tablet orally one time a day. On 6/6/24 at 8:38 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #14 began to prepare to administer medications to Resident #87 including: - two metoprolol half tablets, 12.5 mg each. - one Rena Vite tablet. On 6/6/24 at 9:05 A.M., Nurse #14 said he was going to administer the above medications and crossed the threshold into Resident #87's room. The surveyor intervened and requested Nurse #14 clarify the metoprolol order. Nurse #14 said he was going to administer two tablets of 12.5 mg half tablets of metoprolol because the resident needed a total dose of 25 mg twice a day. Nurse #14 said he was supposed to administer tab-a-vite, but since he did not have tab-a-vite in his cart, he was going to substitute it for Rena Vite. Nurse #14 said he had never worked in this facility before and was not oriented to the facility including where the correct dosage is listed in the medication administration software or the process for obtaining medications that were not available. On 6/6/24 at 9:07, Nurse #16 said she would clarify the orders for Nurse #14. Nurse #16 said the order clearly reads to administer one half tablet of a 25 mg metoprolol tablet because the dose is 12.5 mg, not two half tablets. Nurse #16 said she could get a bottle of tab-a-vite from the medication room and that Rena Vite should not be given as a substitute because it requires a different physician's order. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 2:35 P.M., The Director of Nursing (DON) said medications should be administered following the physician's order. The DON said Nurse #14 should have given one half tablet, which is 12.5 mg, not two half tablets. The DON said Rena Vite should not be given as a substitute because it requires a different physician's order. 2.) For Resident #91, the nurse failed to administer the correct dosage of two medications. Resident #91 was admitted to the facility in December 2023 with diagnoses including dementia and depression. Review of Resident #91's physician's orders indicated: - Olanzapine (an antipsychotic medication) 2.5 mg, Give 5 mg by mouth one time a day. - Zoloft (an antidepressant medication) Oral Tablet, Give 100 mg by mouth on time a day. On 6/06/24 at 9:37 A.M. the surveyor observed Nurse #15 prepare and administer medications to Resident #91 including: - one olanzapine 2.5 mg tablet. - three zoloft 25 mg tablets. During an interview on 6/6/24, Nurse #15 said she gave the order based off what it said on the medication card, not the order in the computer. Nurse #15 checked the physician's order in the computer and said she should have administered 5 mg of olanzapine and 100 mg of zoloft, and that was an error. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 2:35 P.M., The Director of Nursing (DON) said medications should be administered following the physician's order in computer, not on the medication card.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#87), was free from significant medication errors, out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#87), was free from significant medication errors, out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, the nurse prepared to administer double the prescribed dose of the medication metorolol (which is a medication that lowers blood pressure and heart rate). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled 'Medication Administration', revised 2/2023, indicated, but was not limited to: Policy: Medication are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician. 10. Ensure that the six rights of medication administration are followed: c. Right dosage. Resident #87 was admitted to the facility in September 2021 with diagnoses including hypertension. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/13/24, indicated that Resident #87 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. Review of Resident #87's active physician's orders indicated: - Metoprolol (a medication used to treat high blood pressure) 25 milligrams (mg), Give 0.5 (12.5mg) tablet orally two times a day. On 6/6/24 at 8:38 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #14 began to prepare to administer medications to Resident #87 including: - two metoprolol half tablets, 12.5 mg each. On 6/6/24 at 9:05 A.M., Nurse #14 said he was going to administer the prepared medications and crossed the threshold into Resident #87's room. The surveyor intervened and requested Nurse #14 clarify the metoprolol order. Nurse #14 said he was going to administer two tablets of 12.5 mg half tablets of metoprolol because the resident needed a total dose of 25 mg twice a day. Nurse #14 said he had never worked in this facility before and was not oriented to the facility including where the correct dosage is listed in the medication administration software or the process for obtaining medications that were not available. On 6/6/24 at 9:07, Nurse #16 said she would clarify the orders for Nurse #14. Nurse #16 said the order clearly reads to administer one half tablet of a 25 mg metoprolol tablet because the dose is 12.5 mg, not two half tablets. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 2:35 P.M., The Director of Nursing (DON) said medications should be administered following the physician's order. The DON said Nurse #14 should have given one half tablet, which is 12.5 mg, not two half tablets.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the correct ordered therapeutic diet for two ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the correct ordered therapeutic diet for two Residents (#40 and #45) out of a total sample of 38 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Therapeutic Diets, dated Reviewed / Revised 2/2023, indicated the following: -Therapeutic Diets including mechanically altered diets where appropriate will be based on the residents' individual needs as determined by the resident assessment. -All diet orders are to be communicated to the dietary department in accordance with facility procedures-dietary and nursing staff are responsible for providing therapeutic diets in the appropriate form and or the appropriate nutritive content as prescribed. -Therapeutic diet is a diet ordered by a physician or delegated registered or licensed dietitian as part of treatment for a disease or clinical condition. -Mechanically altered diet is one in which the texture or consistency of food is altered to facilitate oral intake. Examples include soft foods, puree foods, ground meat, and thickened liquids. 1. Resident #40 was admitted to the facility in June 2021 with diagnoses including dysphagia, dementia, communication deficit, and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #40's most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of a possible 15, indicating he/she has severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated Resident #40 required a mechanically altered diet and required a change in texture of food or liquids. Review of Resident #40's physician orders indicated the following orders: -Diet Order: Regular diet ground texture, regular consistency, plastic utensils all meals. Dated 11/1/23. During an observation on 6/4/24 at 8:45 A.M. Resident #40 was observed sitting in bed eating breakfast. He/she had regular textured toast on his/her plate. During an observation on 6/4/24 at 12:41 P.M., Resident #40 was observed sitting on the edge of the bed eating lunch. He/she had a fruit cup containing whole grapes and chopped meat. During an observation on 6/6/24 at 8:42 A.M., Resident #40 was observed sitting up in bed and had regular textured toast on his/her plate. During an observation on 6/7/24 at 8:19 A.M., Resident #40 was observed sitting up in bed eating scrambled eggs, regular textured toast and had two sausage links broken into chunks on his/her plate. Review of Resident #40's nutritional care plan indicated the following: - Difficulty chewing/swallowing, requires mechanically altered diet for maintenance. Revised 4/9/24. -Diet as ordered: regular, ground texture, thin liquids. No caffeine or MSG. Date Initiated: 11/29/2023. - Monitor texture tolerance Date Initiated: 11/29/23. - Supplements and enhanced foods as ordered: house supplement 8 oz PO (by mouth) QD (everyday). Date Initiated: 11/29/23. - Registered Dietician to consult on meal and texture. Date Initiated: 3/15/24 -SLP evaluation and treat as indicated. Date Initiated: 3/15024 Review of Resident #40's meal ticket for the days of the survey indicated the following: Diet Order: Ground, Regular Diet Regular Liquids. Review of Resident #40's dietary progress note dated 4/5/24, indicated, Regular diet, ground consistency, thin liquids. Review of the Speech Therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE], indicated the following: Minimal close supervision, mechanical soft/ground textures thin liquids. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 8:31 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #8 said Resident #40 eats breakfast alone in his/her room and is on a regular diet. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 8:42 A.M., Nurse #11 said Resident #40 requires a ground diet and Nurse #11 reviewed the active dietary orders with the surveyor and said Resident #40 requires a ground diet due to dysphagia. Nurse #11 reviewed the diet slip located on the Residents breakfast tray and said Resident #40 should not cut up sausage links and requires a ground diet. Nurse #11 said Resident #40's diet slips should have been checked by staff. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 9:04 A.M., Supervisor #2 said Resident #40 does not have trouble swallowing and said Resident #40 can have sausages if they are chopped up. Supervisor #2 said Resident #40 is followed by speech services and has a diet order for ground foods. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 9:33 A.M., the Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) said Resident #40 should have ground foods with his/her meal. The (SLP) said Resident #40 is on a mechanical soft ground textured diet with thin liquids and he/she should not be eating whole grapes, whole toast, or cut up sausages as those foods are not part of a ground textured diet. During an interview on 6/7/24 11:21 A.M., The Director of Nursing (DON) said all meal trays need to be checked by a nurse prior to giving it to a resident to ensure the correct textured diet is provided and said diet slips should match the diet order. The DON said dietary orders are expected to be followed and said Resident #40 requires a ground diet and should not be eating whole toast, whole grapes, or cut sausages on a mechanically altered diet. 2. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility in October 2023 with diagnoses including dementia, alzheimers, and heart failure. Review of Resident #45's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated he/she had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 out of a possible 15, which indicated the Resident had severe cognitive impairment. During an observation on 6/4/24 at 8:45 A.M., Resident #45 was observed sitting in bed, eating breakfast alone in his/her room. He/she had regular textured toast on his/her plate, and a box of opened dry cereal. During an observation on 6/6/24 at 8:42 A.M., Resident #45 was observed sitting in bed eating breakfast alone in his/her room. He/she had regular textured toast on his/her plate, one whole blueberry muffin, and a box of opened dry cereal. During an observation on 6/7/24 at 8:19 A.M., Resident #45 was observed sitting in bed eating breakfast alone in his/her room. He/she had regular scrambled eggs, textured toast, and two whole sausage links, on his/her plate. Review of Resident #45's physician orders indicated the following order: -Ground texture, Regular consistency, GROUND SOLIDS + NSP (Non-starch polysaccarides), dislikes coffee and milk. Dated 5/9/24. Review of Resident #45's nutritional care plan indicated the following: -Diet as ordered: HCC (House Consistent Carb) +NSP /ground/Thins. Revised on 6/7/24. -Monitor texture tolerance. Dated 11/27/23. -Registered Dietician consult as needed. Dated 11/27/23. -Speech Therapy Eval and Treat as indicated. Dated 1/4/24. Review of Resident #45's meal ticket for the days of the survey indicated the following: -Diet Order: Ground, HCC, Regular Liquids. Notes: NSP, No Dairy, Milk/Ice cream) Cut Up Pizza when served. -Standing Orders: ½ cup choice of cereal, 1 slice whole wheat toast-buttered. Review of Resident #45's physician progress note dated 5/8/24 indicated the following: - Patient has been having difficulty swallowing medications. Eating with applesauce. Review of Resident #45's medical record indicated a nursing to therapy communication form dated 5/8/24, indicate the following: -Change has been noted in the following areas: Difficulty swallowing. -Evaluate swallowing and aspiration. Review of Resident #45's speech therapy evaluation and plan of treatment dated 5/9/24 indicated the following: -Resident referred by nursing for suspected swallowing difficulty. -Diet downgrade to ground solids for efficiency of oral phase. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 8:42 A.M., Nurse #11 said Resident #45 had difficulty swallowing foods and was placed on a ground diet after he/she was evaluated by speech therapy. Nurse #11 reviewed the active dietary orders with the surveyor and said Resident #45 has an order for a ground diet. Nurse #11 reviewed the diet slip located on the Residents breakfast tray and said Resident #45 should not be eating whole sausage links and requires a ground diet. Nurse #11 said Resident #40's diet slips should have been checked by staff. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 8:59 A.M., Supervisor #2 said Resident #45 was on a regular diet but was observed by speech therapist having difficulty swallowing so he/she was downgraded to a ground diet on 5/9/24. The supervisor said Resident #45 is followed by speech therapy and said the Resident is observed during lunch when the speech therapist sits with Resident #45 to monitor swallowing difficulties. The Supervisor said whole sausages are not part of a ground diet. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 9:19 A.M., the Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) said Resident #45 is not followed by speech therapy and she does not sit with Resident #45 during meals. The (SLP) said Resident #45 was evaluated and downgraded to a ground diet on 5/9/24 due to swallowing difficulties, should not be eating whole sausages, blueberry muffin,whole toast, and certain cereals depending on size. The (SLP) said Resident #45 requires distant supervision, and should not eat alone. The (SLP) said the diet slip and orders should reflect a ground diet. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 11:18 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said all meal trays need to be checked by a nurse prior to giving it to a resident to ensure the correct textured diet is provided. The DON then observed Resident #45's diet order and said the Resident is supposed to have ground foods and said that he/she should not be eating whole sausages and foods not approved on a ground diet.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and review of the facility assessment, the facility failed to accurately evaluate their resident population and identify the resources needed to provide the necessary care and serv...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and review of the facility assessment, the facility failed to accurately evaluate their resident population and identify the resources needed to provide the necessary care and services of the resident population related to behavioral health services. Findings include: Review of the facility assessment, revised 3/19/24, indicated the facility is able to manage the medical conditions and medication-related issues causing psychiatric symptoms and behavior, identify and implement interventions to help support individuals with issues such as dealing with anxiety, care of someone with cognitive impairment, care of individuals with depression, trauma/PTSD, other psychiatric diagnoses, intellectual or developmental disabilities. On average, the facility manages about 50 residents with behavioral health needs. It was determined during survey that out of a total universe of 68 residents identified with depression disorder, 6 residents were not provided the behavioral health services after an identification of decreased mood through the PHQ-9 (personal health questionnaire-9) (a tool used to measure depression).
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for one Resident (#16), out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, the nurses d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for one Resident (#16), out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, the nurses documented in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) that they had applied a resting hand splint to Resident #16's left hand when they had not. Findings include: Resident #16 was admitted to the facility in March 2014 with diagnoses including with a left hand contracture and a history of traumatic brain injury. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/24/2024, indicated Resident #16 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 out of 15. This MDS also indicated Resident #16 was dependent on staff for dressing, transfers, and mobility. Review of the physician's order, dated 10/30/23, indicated: - Patient to wear resting hand splint on left hand in am and removed at bed, every day and evening shift *-*** kept in bedside drawer****** Review of the plan of care related to need for assistance with ADLS (activities of daily living), dated 5/16/24, indicated: - (L) resting hand sprint on in AM, off in PM. Review of Resident #16's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) indicated the order for Patient to wear resting hand splint on left hand in am and removed at bed, every day and evening shift *-*** kept in bedside drawer****** was documented as administered on 6/4/24, 6/5/24, and 6/6/24. On 6/4/24 at 8:33 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #16 in bed eating breakfast. Resident #16 did not have a resting hand splint on his/her left hand. On 6/4/24 at 12:10 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #16 in bed eating lunch. Resident #16 did not have a resting hand splint on his/her left hand. Resident said staff need to help put it on his/her left hand, but when he/she asks, staff says they can't do it. The surveyor also made the following observations: - On 6/4/24 at 2:38 P.M., Resident #16 in bed without his/her left resting hand splint. Resident #16 said staff had not offered the resting hand splint today. - On 6/5/24 at 8:12 A.M., Resident #16 in bed without his/her left resting hand splint. - On 6/6/24 at 10:01 A.M., Resident #16 in bed without his/her left resting hand splint. Resident #16 said staff had not offered the resting hand splint today and asked surveyor to put it on. On 6/6/24 at 10:07 A.M., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #10 said Resident #16 is supposed to have a carrot (a device used for hand contractures) in his/her left hand but that sometimes staff can't find it, but that he/she does not refuse it. CNA #10 gets a carrot out of Resident #16's drawer and applies it to Resident #16's left hand. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 11:30 A.M., Unit Manager #2 said Resident #16 should be wearing a left resting hand splint. Unit Manager #2 said Resident #16 should not be wearing a carrot because it is not a replacement for a left resting hand splint. Unit Manager #2 enters Resident #16's room and locates a left resting hand splint and asks Resident #16 if he/she would like it on, and the Resident says yes. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 12:09 P.M., the Director of Nursing said Resident #16 should be wearing a left resting hand splint and that a carrot is not a replacement for this device. The DON said if Resident #16 had refused to wear the left resting hand splint that it should be documented in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) or progress notes. Review of TAR and progress notes failed to indicate Resident #16 had refused to wear the left resting hand splint.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

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 ensure the call light was accessible for one Resident ...

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 ensure the call light was accessible for one Resident (#79) out of a total of 38 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's Call lights: Accessibility and Timely Response policy, dated February 2023 indicated: Staff will ensure the call light is within reach of resident and secured as needed. The call system will be accessible to residents while in their bed or other sleeping accommodations within the resident's room. Resident #79 was admitted to the facility in December 2021 with diagnoses including dementia, cerebrovascular accident (stroke) and depression. Review of Resident #79's Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated he/she scored 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview of Mental Status Exam indicating intact cognition. The MDS also indicated that Resident #79 requires assistance with bathing, dressing and transfers. On 6/4/24 at 8:52 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #79 laying in bed with his/her call light inaccessible and out reach, on the floor behind his/her bed. On 6/4/24 at 12:19 P.M., and 1:36 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #79 laying in bed with his/her call light inaccessible and out of reach on the floor behind his/her bed. On 6/6/24 at 2:02 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #79 laying in bed. Resident #79 said he/she did not have a way to call out of help or assistance if he/she needed it. The surveyor observed Resident #79's call light inaccessible and out of reach on the floor behind his/her bed. Review of Resident #79's fall care plan, dated 3/15/24, indicated an intervention to be sure Resident #79's call light is within reach. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 2:05 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said call lights should be within reach and accessible for all residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) Resident #62 was admitted to the facility in September 2023 with diagnoses including a stoke with left-sided hemiparesis (we...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) Resident #62 was admitted to the facility in September 2023 with diagnoses including a stoke with left-sided hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body). Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/6/2024, indicated that Resident #62 was rarely/never understood and had severely impaired cognition. This MDS also indicated Resident #62 required assistance that ranged from substantial/maximal to totally dependent with all activities of daily livings. Review of Resident #62's progress note, dated 3/4/24, indicated: - Pt (patient) always biting his/her hands if he/she does not have his/her mouth toy. Pt bites really hard. pt chewed away his/her last toy. Pt does not express pain. PRN (as needed) given and a new toy was brought in by the family. Review of Resident #62's progress note, dated 3/6/24, indicated: - Was behavioral yesterday and kept spitting out his/her meds no matter what this nurse tried. PRN given but pt spit it out and tried to bite the nurse multiple times. Gave him/her a new chew item yet cant [sic] not find it now. Pt bites his/her hand constantly really hard making indents and discoloration. On 6/10/24 at 10:03 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #62 with a palm guard in his/her left hand and he/she was holding a blue chewing stick, which he/she was chewing on, in his/her right hand. CNA #7 said Resident #62 has a palm guard for his/her left hand and uses a chewing stick. Review of Resident #62's comprehensive care plan, physician orders, and [NAME] failed to indicate the presence of chewing behaviors, presence of the risk of choking on items in his/her hands, or any interventions used for the chewing behavior to prevent choking. Review of Resident #62's plan of care related to risk for aspiration (when food, liquid, or saliva that's intended to be swallowed enters the trachea, airway or lungs), dated 6/7/24, indicated he/she was a risk for aspiration, however, failed to indicate his/her behaviors of chewing non-food items and risk for choking on those items. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 11:16 A.M., Unit Manager #2 said Resident #62 has a behavior of near constant chewing of any item in his/her hands which puts him/her at risk for choking. Unit Manager #2 says Resident #62 uses a chewing stick to decrease the risk of choking on other items. Unit Manager #2 said Resident #62 should not have a palm guard because he/she would try to eat it and they fear he/she will choke on it, but the agency nurse must have seen one in his/her room and applied without knowing. Unit Manager #2 said he would expect something to be in the care plan or orders indicating interventions to prevent the risk of choking, such as the chewing stick, and why the palm guard, or other items, should not be within reach. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 11:52 A.M., the Director of Rehab said Resident #62 used to have a palm guard, but it was discontinued because he/she kept trying to chew it and was at risk for choking on it. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 12:55 P.M., the Regional Nurse said she would expect interventions that are used to prevent the risk for Resident #62 choking, such as the chewing stick and not using a palm guard, to be documented in the care plan or the orders. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement the plan of care for 2 Residents (#192 and #62) out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to 1. develop a suicidal ideation care plan and 2. develop a care plan for a behavior of chewing on any items in his/her hands which puts him/her at risk for choking. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans, revised 2/2023, indicated: - It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident. - The physician, other practitioner, or professional will inform the resident and/or resident representative of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment, and treatment alternatives/options. The facility will attempt alternate methods for refusal of treatment and services and document such attempts in the clinical record, including discussions with the resident and/or resident representative. 1. Resident #192 was admitted in December 2023 with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, depression, schizoaffective disorder, and generalized anxiety. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #192 scored a 10 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the hospital discharge paperwork indicated Resident #192 reported suicidal ideation (SI) during his/her hospital stay, stating if I did have access to firearms, I would kill myself and I have nothing to live for. On 1/8/24, review of the progress notes indicated Resident #192 expressed wanting to die. On 1/31/24, Resident #192 was re-admitted to the facility after a planned hospitalization with suicidal ideation that was stated in the hospital. Resident #192 was placed on a section 12 in the hospital and cleared to come back. Review of the record failed to indicate that a care plan was developed for suicidal ideation after admission with a known history of suicidal ideation, verbalization on 1/8/24, and after re-admission to the facility on 1/31/24. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 8:31 A.M., Social Services Assistant #1 said that Resident #192 had some cognitive issues, but engaged the best that he/she could. Social Services Assistant #1 said that there was an adjustment period that he/she struggled with slightly due to his/her family and brother. Social Services Assistant #1 said that if a Resident verbalizes a recent suicidal ideation, then that Resident should be followed on a regular basis and seen daily or once a shift to make sure they are feeling safe. Social Services Assistant #1 said that the care plan should be updated and supportive care in place. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 10:38 A.M., the psych NP said that if a Resident is expressing suicidal ideation then certain safety measures should be put in place and a care plan should be developed to keep the Resident safe. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 11:15 A.M., the Director of Nursing said when a resident is admitted with a history of suicidal ideation, a care plan should be developed with interventions to keep the Resident safe and supportive services would be put in place, including psych and social services.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure agency nursing staff were provided with an orientation to the facility's day-to-day operations including medication ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure agency nursing staff were provided with an orientation to the facility's day-to-day operations including medication administration procedure. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Orientation, revised 2/2023, indicated, but was not limited to: - It is the policy of this facility to develop, implement, and maintain an effective orientation process for all individuals providing services under a contractual arrangement consistent with their expected roles. - General orientation must be completed prior to the employee's formal contact with facility residents. Review of the facility assessment, dated 12/13/22, indicated, but was not limited to: - Are agency staff sufficiently trained to address needs of resident population? Review of the facility assessment, dated 12/13/22, failed to indicate how the facility ensures agency staff are sufficiently trained to address needs of the resident population. On 6/6/24 at 9:05 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #14 prepare medication for a resident and attempted to administer an incorrect medication and the incorrect dose of another medication. Nurse #14 said it was his first day at this facility and did not receive an orientation, including orientation to their medication administration software, medication administration process, process of how/where to obtain missing medications, or general tour of the unit. Nurse #14 said he walked in and was given keys and a log-in and started administering medications. During an interview 06/6/24 at 9:52 A.M., Nurse #14 said he was presented with an orientation checklist after the surveyor notified the facility of the medication error. Nurse #14 said if they had gone over this orientation checklist, which included the medication administration process, before medication administration he would have been better prepared and not made the errors. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 10:00 A.M., the Staff Development Nurse said each agency nurse should receive an orientation checklist the first time they enter the building before they are given keys to a medication cart. She said agency nurses should receive a general orientation including emergency code process, location of emergency code carts, and medication administration process, but that it may not be happening because she only works two days a week and she is not sure who is responsible for it when she is not working. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 10:20 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) she expects every agency nurse to receive a general orientation and receive and sign the orientation checklist. The DON said there was a breakdown in the process this morning and Nurse #14 did not receive the orientation checklist or receive a general orientation, but should have. Review of a sample of six agency nurse orientation checklists that were completed indicated five out of six agency orientation checklists were not completed fully and were missing either signatures of the agency nurse, signatures of the preceptor, or had competencies not signed off as reviewed with the agency nurse. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 9:47 A.M., the DON said the expectation is for orientation checklists to be completed with a preceptor and signed by agency nurses and the preceptor. The DON said it is the expectation that the orientation checklist be complete and that the facility keep the signed copies of agency orientation checklists readily available. Review of the agency nurse orientation checklists indicated that four of six agency nurses, who worked on 6/4/24 and/or 6/5/24, did not have an orientation checklist on file with the facility at the time they worked on 6/4/24 or 6/5/24. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 9:47 A.M., the DON said they had no record of an orientation being completed for the four agency nurses who worked on 6/4/24 and 6/5/24.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, policy reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications with short expiration dates were dated when opened, failed to ensure medication carts, cabinets were secu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, policy reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications with short expiration dates were dated when opened, failed to ensure medication carts, cabinets were securely locked when unattended and medications were securely locked, refrigerated medications were stored correctly. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled 'Medication Storage' last revised in February 2023, indicated the following but not limited to: -It is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on our premises will be stored in the pharmacy and/ or medication rooms according to the manufacturer's recommendations and sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, light, ventilation, moisture control, segregation, and security. -All drugs and biologicals will be stored in locked compartments, i.e. medication carts, cabinets, drawers, refrigerators, medication rooms, under proper temperature controls. -All medications requiring refrigeration are stored in refrigerators located in the pharmacy and at each medication room. -Unused medications the pharmacy and all medication rooms are routinely inspected by the consultant pharmacist for discontinued, outdated, defective, or deteriorated medications with worn, illegible, or missing labels. These medications are destroyed in accordance with our destruction of unused drugs policy. On 6/5/24 at 6:40 A.M., the surveyor observed the following in the first-floor west medication cart: -Two fluticasone propionate 50 mcg (microgram) opened and undated. -One ipratropium bromide nasal solution 0.03% opened and undated. -One box of refresh eye drops opened and undated. -One bottle of prostat (nutritional supplement) opened and undated. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 6:45 A.M., Nurse #6 said medications with short expiration dates should be dated when opened. On 6/5/24 at 6:55 A.M., the surveyor observed the following in the second-floor west medication cart: -Latanoprost 0.005% eye drop unopened on the packaging it indicated refrigerated. -One box genteal eye drops opened and undated -One box incruse ellipta 62.5 mcg opened and undated. -Fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder 500/ 50 mcg opened and undated. -One box Advair diskus 250/50 mcg opened and undated. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 7:05 A.M., Nurse #7 said inhalers should be dated when opened, medications that require refrigeration should be kept in the refrigerator. On 6/5/24 at 7:13 A.M., the surveyor observed the following in the second-floor east medication cart: -Two fluticasone nasal sprays 50 mcg opened and undated. -One albuterol/budesonide 90/80 mcg opened and undated. -One Advair 250/50 mcg opened and undated. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 7:20 A.M., Nurse #8 said the inhalers should be dated when they first open them. On 6/5/24 at 7:30 A.M., the surveyor observed the following in third-floor medication cart: -Two incuse ellipta 62.5 mcg inhalers opened and undated. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 7:30 A.M., Nurse #9 said inhalers are dated when opened. On 6/5/24 at 12:10 P.M., the surveyor observed the medication cart on the first floor open unlocked and unattended. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 12:15 P.M., Nurse #2 said the medication cart should be locked while unattended. On 6/7/24 at 6:12 A.M., the surveyor observed a medication on the second-floor open and unattended, there was a resident walking by the medication cart. The nurse was in a resident room not within the view of the cart. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 6:15 A.M., Nurse #12 said medication carts should be locked when left unattended. On 6/7/24 at 11:46 A.M., the surveyor observed the medication cabinet behind the second-floor nurses station opened and unattended. During an interview on 6/7/24 at 11:47 A.M., Unit Manager #3 said the medication cabinet should always be locked. During an interview on 6/6/24 at 9:31 A.m., the Director of Nursing said all medications with short expirations dates should be dated when opened, medications should be stored per the pharmacy directions, medications carts and medication cabinets should be locked when left unattended. Medication carts should be wiped down clean inside and outside.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The Facility failed to conduct site-specific infection control surveillance and risk assessments including provide surveillan...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The Facility failed to conduct site-specific infection control surveillance and risk assessments including provide surveillance data, documentation of follow-up activity in response to active varicella outbreak that required airborne precautions to be implemented. Review of the facility policy titled, Infection Surveillance undated, indicated the following: -A system of infection surveillance serves as a core activity of the facility's infection prevention and control program. Its purpose is to identify infections and to monitor adherence to recommended infection prevention and control practices in order to reduce infections and prevent the spread of infections. -Infection surveillance refers to an ongoing systemic collection analysis interpretation and dissemination of infection related data. -Outcome measure is a mechanism for evaluating outcomes or results such as tracking specific infection events. -Process measure is a mechanism for evaluating specific steps in a process that lead either positively or negatively to a particular outcome metric also known as performance monitoring a process measure is used to evaluate whether infection prevention and control practices are being followed. -Surveillance activities will be monitored facility wide and may be broken down by department or unit depending on the measure being observed a combination of process and outcome measures will be utilized. -The RN's (Registered Nurse) and (Licensed Practical Nurse) LPN's participate in surveillance through assessment of residents and reporting changes in condition to the resident's physicians and management staff, per protocol for notification of change and in- house reporting of communicable diseases and infections: a. Resident develops signs and symptoms of infection. b. A resident is started on antibiotic c. A microbiology test is ordered d. A resident is placed on isolation precautions, whether empirically or by physician order. -An annual infection control risk assessment will be used to prioritize surveillance efforts, as documented in the facility's Infection Surveillance Action Plan. In turn, surveillance data will provide information for subsequent infection control risk assessments. - The Infection Preventionist serves as the leader in surveillance activities, maintains documentation of incidents, findings, and any corrective actions made by the facility and report surveillance findings to the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee, and public health authorities when required. -All resident infection will be tracked. Separate, site-specific measures may be tracked as priorities from the infection control risk assessment. Outbreaks will be investigated. -Data to be used in the surveillance activities may include but are not limited to: Rounding observation data. Review of the infection control line listings for May 2024 and June 2024 did not include monitoring, tracking, analyzing of infections, surveillance activities or implementation of an outbreak investigation. During the course of the survey, the facility was unable to provide an infection control site specific risk assessment, documentation of follow-up activity in response to active varicella outbreak investigation documentation, or on-going surveillance plan that required airborne precautions to be implemented. Review of the infection control line listings during the month of May 2024 did not include surveillance data and documentation of follow-up activity in response to active Shingles virus (Shingles is a painful rash illness. People get shingles when the varicella-zoster virus (VZV), which causes chickenpox, reactivates in their bodies after they have already had chickenpox). Review of the infection control line listings during the month of June 2024 failed to include ongoing surveillance data and documentation of follow-up activity in response to active VZV outbreak that required airborne precautions to be implemented for one Resident. During an interview on 6/4/24 at 4:42 P.M., Supervisor #1 said Residents who test positive for Varicella-zoster virus must be placed on airborne precautions and wear full PPE and N95 mask because the virus is highly contagious. Supervisor #1 said he did not conduct any symptom surveillance on the unit, check for symptoms of other residents or review immunity of the other residents on the unit because there was no need to. Supervisor #1 said he didn't know what to do or what should be done or offered to other Residents. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 11:03 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said she updated the monthly line listing, and that the facility did not conduct or implement any additional surveillance data or follow-up activity during the months of May 2024 or June 2024. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 1:04 P.M., the Regional Nurse said she was aware of the chickenpox diagnoses in the building and said she is the regional nurse for this facility but could not speak to the specific infection prevention program or surveillance of infections in the building. 3. The Facility failed to report a communicable disease timely to the local and or state health department when a communicable disease, varicella-zoster virus, was diagnosed on [DATE]. Review of the facility policy titled Infection Outbreak Response and Investigation dated as revised 2/2023, indicated the following: -The facility promptly responds to outbreaks of infectious diseases within the facility to stop transmission of pathogens and prevent additional infections. -Prompt recognition of an outbreak: A single case of a rare or serious infection (i.e. invasive group A strep, foodborne pathogens, active TB (Tuberculosis), acute hepatitis, Legionella, chickenpox, measles, COVID-19. -An outbreak will be reported to the local and or state health department in accordance with the state's reportable disease website. Review of the Health Care Facility Reporting System report, dated 6/3/23 to 6/10/24, failed to include documentation to support the facility reported the communicable disease to the state agency as required. During an interview on 6/4/24 at 4:47 P.M., Supervisor #2 said the DON is covering the infection control tasks in the building and that one Resident was placed on airborne precautions due to active chickenpox on 6/3/24 with open pustules all over his body. Supervisor #2 said airborne precautions are required and the Resident needs a negative pressure room, but the facility does not have one. During an interview on 6/4/24 at 2:13 P.M., the Administrator said he was not aware if the DON reported the chickenpox and said less than three cases is not an outbreak and does not need to be reported. During an interview on 6/4/24 01:47 P.M., the DON said one case of chicken pox does not need to be reported to the local board of health or state agency because it is not a cluster of three or more. Reference F882 Based on observations, record review, policy review and interviews, the facility failed to 1.) maintain airborne precautions for one Resident (#94) who was diagnosed with chicken pox, 2.) conduct site-specific infection control surveillance and risk assessments including surveillance data and documentation of follow-up activity in response to active varicella outbreak that required airborne precautions to be implemented, and 3.) failed to report a communicable disease timely to the local and or state health department when a communicable disease was diagnosed on [DATE]. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Transmission Based (Isolation) Precautions, dated May 2024 indicated the following: -it is our policy to take appropriate precautions to prevent transmission of pathogens, based on the pathogens' modes of transmission. -Airborne precautions refer to measures that are intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the resident or the resident's environment. -Residents on transmission-based precautions should remain in their rooms except for medically necessary care. -an order for transmission-based precautions/isolation will specify the type of precaution and reason for the transmission-based precaution. The duration will depend upon the infectious agent or Organism involved. -The order for transmission-based precautions/isolation will specify the type of precaution and reason for the transmission-based precaution. The duration will depend upon the infectious agent or Organism involved. -Signage that includes instructions for the use of specific PPE (personal protective equipment) will be placed in a conspicuous area location outside of the resident's room, wing, or facility wide. Additionally, either the CDC category of transmission-based precautions (e.g. contact, droplet, or airborne) or instructions to see the nurse before entering will be included in the signage. -Airborne precautions- *a. Airborne precautions prevent transmission of pathogens that remain infectious over long distances when suspended in air *b. The preferred placement for patients who require airborne precautions is in a airborne infection isolation room (AIIR). *c. This facility does not have an airborne infection isolation room; Therefore, residents who have confirmed infection requiring airborne precautions will be transferred to an acute care hospital that has an available AIIR. *d. If unable to transfer resident to an AIIR room, as in the case of COVID-19 infection, the facility will follow CDC guidance as to cohorting, private room accommodations and or designated units and staff will wear a fit tested N-95 or higher-level respirator and other appropriate PPE while delivering care to the resident. Review of the Facility Assessment, updated and reviewed with QAPI Committee dated, March 2024, indicated the following: -Special Treatments and Conditions: Isolation or Quarantine for Active Infectious Disease. -Resident support /care needs. General care infection prevention and control. Identification and containment of infections, prevention of infections, track and trend of infections, antibiotic stewardship. -Staff members, other health care professionals, and medical practitioners that are needed to provide support and care for residents: Infection Control and Preventionist. -Infection Control- hand hygiene, isolation, standard universal precautions. The facility identifies and implements precautions that are individualized dependent upon type of precaution and identified prior to entry. The facility utilizes the Center for Disease Control (CDC) for proper signage and use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). -The facility evaluates our infection prevention and control program on a routine basis and as needed. The interdisciplinary team includes but is not limited to SDC (Staff Development Coordinator), DNS (Director of Nursing Services), ADNS (Assistant Director of Nursing), Administrator, Medical Director and lab. Effective systems for this team ensure the facility is preventing, identifying, reporting, investigating, and controlling infections and communicable diseases for all residents, staff, volunteers, visitors, and other individuals providing services under a contractual arrangement, that follow accepted national standards and local standards. 1. Resident #94 was admitted to the facility in September 2021 with diagnoses including major depression and schizophrenia. Review of Resident #94's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of a possible 15, which indicated he/she had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated Resident #94 required supervision with bathing and dressing tasks. Review of the nursing note dated 6/3/24, indicated the following: - Resident found to have multiple raised blisters covering areas on (his/her) body. (He/she) denies pain or discomfort. Seen by N.P. (nurse practitioner) new order for (a medication used to treat the symptoms of chickenpox, shingles and herpes virus infections) 800 mg (milligram) by mouth 4 times daily for 5 days. calamine lotion every 6 hours PRN (as needed), Benadryl 25 mg tab twice daily for itching for 14 days. Isolation and contact precautions maintained. Review of the nurse practitioner note dated 6/3/24 indicated the following: -Varicella (a herpes virus that causes chicken pox) zoster infection on client with rashes over the body. Alert and responsive and in no acute distress. No sob/resp distress noted. Client will continue on precautions. Varicella without complication. Review of Resident #94's physician orders indicated the following order initiated on 6/3/24: -Isolation precautions: airborne and contact precautions, until resolved due to varicella (chickenpox) every shift. On 6/4/24 at approximately 8:00 A.M., a sign was observed outside of Resident #94's room that indicated Airborne Precautions. The Resident was not in his/her room and the door to the room was open. On 6/4/24 from approximately 8:00 A.M., to 8:50 A.M., Resident #94 was observed walking up and down the hallway barefoot. The Resident was wearing black sweatpants, and the right side of the pants were ripped open, exposing the Resident's buttocks. During this time, the Resident walked past a nurse several times and stopped to speak with a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). A significant rash was observed on Resident #94's buttocks and bilateral arms. At no point did the staff members encourage Resident #94 to return to his/her room. On 6/4/24 at approximately 8:56 A.M., Resident #94 was observed sitting in a chair in his/her room with the door open. On 6/4/24 at 1:29 P.M. Resident #94 was observed in his/her room with the door to the room wide open. On 6/5/24 at 7:05 A.M., the Maintenance Director was observed entering Resident #94's room without a N-95 or other PPE on. When observed leaving the room, he is not observed washing his hands. At 7:06 A.M., the Maintenance Director told a CNA If you see (Resident #94) in the hall (he/she) has to go back. (Resident #94) is on precautions and is contagious. On 6/5/24 at 7:43 A.M., a CNA entered Resident #94's room without any PPE or N-95 mask. On 6/10/24 at 7:49 A.M., a staff member was observed leaving Resident #94's room wearing full PPE (gown, gloves, and mask) and began walking down hallway. The social service assistant stopped the aid in the hallway and told her the PPE cannot be worn in the hallway after being inside the room. During an interview on 6/4/24 at 1:32 P.M., Unit Manager #2 and Nursing Supervisor #1 said Resident #94 was diagnosed with the chickenpox on 6/3/24 and was immediately put on airborne and contact precautions. Both Unit Manager #2 and Nursing Supervisor #1 said staff had been educated on the necessary precautions and should be making all attempts to ensure the precautions are in place at all times. Unit Manager #2 said due to the Resident's cognition and behaviors, it will be difficult for him/her stay in his/her room, however, the staff are expected to encourage him/her to always follow the precautions and if he/she is seen in the hallway the staff should ask him/her to return to his/her room and close the door. During interviews on 6/4/24 at 1:47 P.M., and 2:36 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said Resident #94 was diagnosed with chickenpox and was immediately put on airborne and contact precautions. The DON said these precautions meant that the Resident needed to be isolated in his/her room and the staff need to wear a N-95 mask, gown, and gloves when entering the Resident's room. The DON said all staff had been educated on these precautions and are expected to follow them and encourage the Resident to follow them as well. The DON said this would include the staff closing Resident #94's door if opened and encouraging the Resident to return to his/her room if observed outside of the room.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on employee personnel record review and interview, the facility failed to complete annual reviews for five out of five employees reviewed. Findings include: On 6/5/24 at 12:30 P.M., the surveyor...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on employee personnel record review and interview, the facility failed to complete annual reviews for five out of five employees reviewed. Findings include: On 6/5/24 at 12:30 P.M., the surveyor reviewed five employee personnel records. All records failed to indicate an annual review was completed for any of the five employees in 2023. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 1:49 P.M., the Director of Nursing said she is responsible for annual reviews being completed for the employees at the facility and said no annual reviews were completed this past year.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0882 (Tag F0882)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interviews and review of the Facility Assessment, the facility failed to designate one or more individuals as the infection preventionist who are responsible for the facility's infection prev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and review of the Facility Assessment, the facility failed to designate one or more individuals as the infection preventionist who are responsible for the facility's infection prevention and control plan. Specifically, the facility failed to have a qualified infection preventionist with completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. Findings include: Review of the Facility Assessment, updated and reviewed with QAPI Committee, dated, March 2024 indicated the following: -Facility resources need to provide competent support and care for our resident population every day and during emergencies. -Infection Control and Preventionist. -Staff training / education and competencies programs are reviewed and revised to ensure we provide the level and types of support and care needed for our resident population. Include staff certification requirements as applicable. -The facility evaluates our infection prevention and control program on a routine basis and as needed. The interdisciplinary team includes but is not limited to SDC (Staff Development Coordinator), DNS (Director of Nursing Services), ADNS (Assistant Director of Nursing), Administrator, Medical Director and lab. Effective systems for this team ensure the facility is preventing, identifying, reporting, investigating, and controlling infections and communicable diseases for all residents, staff, volunteers, visitors, and other individuals providing services under a contractual arrangement, that follow accepted national standards and local standards. During an interview on 6/4/24 at 4:21 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said she understands the importance of the infection prevention program and has been covering this role since the end of April 2024. The DON said she does not have the required infection control certification and the facility does not have an approved infection preventionist working in the facility. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 10:11 A.M., the Medical Director said he expects the facility to have an infection preventionist in the building managing the infection control program During an interview on 6/5/24 at 1:25 P.M., the Administrator said he was aware that the facility did not have an infection preventionist in the building. During an interview on 6/10/24 at 1:04 P.M., the Regional Nurse said she was the regional nurse for this facility but could not speak to the specific infection prevention program in the building. The Regional Nurse said they do not currently have an infection preventionist in the building.
Apr 2023 20 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. For Resident #45, the facility failed to prevent an elopement from the facility. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. For Resident #45, the facility failed to prevent an elopement from the facility. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility in December 2018 with diagnoses including dementia. Review of Resident #45's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicates the Resident was unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and staff had assessed him/her to have moderately impaired cognition. The MDS also indicates the Resident requires limited assistance from staff for activities of daily living. Review of the incident report dated 6/4/22 indicated the following: *On Saturday 6/4/22, at approximately 1:30 P.M., (the Resident) received visitors (spouse) and (daughter). (The Resident) had been out to the nurses' station requesting afternoon medication. (The Resident) was noted to be dressed and had his/her purse. (The Resident) returned to his/her room after receiving medication and then was witness a few minutes later at [NAME] elevator with visitors. Nurse approached (the Resident) and visitors, siting that he/she could not go out without authorization. (The Resident) stated he/she was not going anywhere, wanted some sun, and that (the Resident) and his/her family would return in ten minutes. Nurse walked outside with them and stayed with them. She then asked the receptionist to contact the supervisor to come down for assistance, as she needed to return to the unit. Supervisor was notified and the nurse returned to the floor. After approximately 10 minutes, nurse was returning to[the] visit when [the] receptionist notified her that there was no one outside. At which time, facility grounds [were] searched, police, guardian and management team notified. Review of an admission social work note dated 12/13/18, indicated the following: *This writer spoke to (the Resident's) guardian who clarified some of the dynamics with her role, the family, and previous issues. She stated that she is supportive of family visits but not allowing (the Resident) to leave the unit with family. She said that she plans to be in to visit next week and will speak to the team then further in depth. Review of a social services not on 12/14/18, indicated the following: *(The Resident) had previously been in another facility, where he/she was removed by his/her husband, and their adopted daughter. (The Resident) was brought home and the police were involved after the guardian had contacted them. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 12:43 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said the staff were aware of Resident #45's family dynamics when admitted and he/she was never to have unsupervised visits with family. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 11:06 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said the staff were aware upon Resident #45's admission that there was a difficult family situation, and that the Resident was not to be unsupervised during visits with the family and was not allowed out of the facility with the family. The ADON said nursing should not have taken the Resident off the unit with the family and should not have left him/her alone outside with the family. 3. For Resident #100, the facility failed to complete fall assessments after 3 falls. Review of the facility policy titled, Falls Management, dated April 2015, indicated the following: *A fall risk evaluation will be conducted on each resident/patient upon admission, with the quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) cycle, when a significant change in status occurs, annually and following a fall. *A fall risk evaluation will be conducted by the nurse on duty/supervisor on any resident/patient sustaining a fall with or without injury. Resident #100 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses of diabetes. Review of Resident #100's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicates the Resident has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 out of a possible 15 indicating the Resident has severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicates Resident #100 requires extensive assistance from staff for all daily functional tasks. Review of Resident #100's medical record indicated the following: *A nursing note dated 9/20/22 indicating the Resident was found kneeling next to bed. The record failed to indicate a fall assessment was completed after this fall. *A nursing note dated 10/2/22 indicating the Resident fell at 4:00 A.M. resulting in a hematoma to the right eye. The facility was unable to provide an incident report with an investigation into the cause of the fall and the medical record failed to indicate a fall assessment was completed after the fall. *A nursing note dated 11/11/22 indicating the Resident fell at 11:30 A.M. in the day room. The facility was unable to provide an incident report with an investigation into the cause of the fall and the medical record failed to indicate a fall assessment was completed after the fall. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 12:13 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing said after a resident falls the physician or nurse practitioner needs to be notified, a falls assessment needs to be completed and an incident report investigating the cause of the fall needs to be completed. The Assistant Director of Nursing said she was unable to find incident reports for the falls on 10/2/22 and 11/11/22 as well as fall assessments for all 3 falls. Further review of Resident #100's medical record failed to indicate the physician or nurse practitioner were notified of the Resident's falls on 10/2/22 and 11/11/22. Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to 1.) implement fall care plan interventions to prevent a fall resulting in an injury for 1 Resident (#7) 2.) failed to prevent an elopement from the facility for 1 Resident (#45) and 3.) failed to complete fall assessments and fall investigations for 1 Resident (#100) out of 28 sampled Residents. Findings include: 1. For Resident #7, the facility failed to implement fall care plan interventions (non-skid strips and a fall mat), resulting in a fall with soft tissue laceration over his/her right frontal scalp, requiring sutures (a stitch made to close a wound). Resident #7 was admitted to the facility in August 2022, with diagnoses including dementia without behavioral disturbances, anxiety, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Assessment Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 out of possible 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #7's care plan for falls dated 9/8/22, indicated the following interventions: - non-skid strips (a device used to improve traction and reduce slips) at bedside to resident floor in his/her new room, dated 11/2/22 - fall mat (a device used to reduce risk of injury from impact) on the floor, dated 11/21/22 - every 15 minute observational check, dated 11/21/22 - bed in lowest position to the floor, dated 11/21/22. - bed cradle to prevent bed sheet entanglement, dated 11/21/22. Review of resident #7's fall assessment dated [DATE] indicated a score of 11 and he/she is at high risk for falls. On 4/26/23 at 7:50 A.M., the surveyor entered Resident #7's bedroom and observed there were no non-skid strips on Resident #7's floor, as indicated in the care plan to prevent falls. Review of the facility incident report dated 3/21/23, indicated that Resident #7 was found on the floor next to his/her bed. The report also indicated Resident #7 sustained a laceration to his/her right frontal head. Resident #7 was transferred to a Hospital Emergency Department for further evaluation. Review of the Hospital report indicated Resident #7 sustained a soft tissue laceration on his/her right frontal scalp from a fall, and required suturing. During an interview with Nurse (#2) on 4/26/23 at 8:45 A.M., she said she was the nurse on duty on 3/21/23, when Resident #7 fell in his/her room and sustained the head laceration. Nurse #2 said she found Resident #7 on the floor next to his/her bed. She said that Resident #7 told her that he/she got out of bed and fell. The surveyor asked Nurse #2 if there were non-skid strips on the floor and a fall mat next to Resident #7's bed at the time of his/her fall, and she answered no. During an interview with Unit Manager (UM) #3, he acknowledged that currently there were no non-skid strips on the floor at Resident #7's bed side.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to obtain consent for the use of psychotropic medications for 1 Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to obtain consent for the use of psychotropic medications for 1 Resident (#66), out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: Resident #66 was admitted to the facility in October 2021 with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance and depression. Review of Resident #66's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicates the Resident has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicates he/she is cognitively intact. The MDS also indicates Resident #66 requires extensive assistance from staff for functional daily tasks. Review of Resident #66's physician orders indicated the following orders: *Ativan (an anti-anxiety medication), .5 mg (milligrams), once a day, written 10/29/21 *Buspirone (an anti-anxiety medication), 15 mg twice a day written 1/19/21. *Buspirone, 10 mg, once a day, written 1/19/21. *Fluoxetine (an anti-depressant medication) 40 mg once a day, written 10/29/21. Review of Resident #66's medical record indicated psychotropic consent forms were last signed in 2021. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 8:42 A.M., Unit Manager #2 said she was unable to find updated consent forms for Resident #66. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 2:01 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing said psychotropic consents should be obtained upon admission and renewed yearly.
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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change of status for 1 Resident (#66), o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change of status for 1 Resident (#66), out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: Resident #66 was admitted to the facility in October 2021 with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance and depression. Review of Resident #66's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicates the Resident has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicates he/she is cognitively intact. The MDS also indicates Resident #66 requires extensive assistance from staff for functional daily tasks. Review of a nursing note written on 12/29/22 indicated the following: *this writer spoke with resident about finding a lump in breast (the Resident) stated (the Resident) never had a mammogram and is concerned, I told her I would reach out to NP (nurse practitioner), for consult to breast center or family gynecologist for referral to have a mammogram. Further review of the medical record, including all nurse practitioner and physician notes since December 2022, failed to indicate the physician was made aware of the breast lump found and that a mammogram had been scheduled. In addition, there were no notes regarding how to monitor the breast lump. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 8:34 A.M., Resident #66 said he/she never had a mammogram and is concerned. Resident #66 said he/she feels it is a preventative exam that is normal for people his/her age to have regularly and would like to have a mammogram to ensure everything is okay. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 2:01 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing said a new breast lump would be a change in status she would expect the physician to be notified.
CONCERN (D)

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to prevent Resident abuse when physical intimate touch occurred betwee...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to prevent Resident abuse when physical intimate touch occurred between Resident #101 and Resident #17 out of a total of 28 sampled Residents. Resident #101 lacks capacity to consent. Findings include: Review of the facility's Abuse Mistreatment and Neglect policy, undated, indicated: *Sexual abuse includes, but is not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual coercion or sexual assault. Resident #101 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, and depression. Review of his/her most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated he/she scored 3 out of possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam indicating severe cognitive impairment and requires assistance with bathing, dressing and grooming. Review of Resident #101's clinical record indicated his/her Health Care Proxy was activated on 5/19/22 indicating Resident #101 is not his/her own decision maker. Review of Resident #101's behavioral care plan dated 5/18/22 indicated he/she has inappropriate behaviors of being overly friendly and flirtatious, exhibits disinhibited behaviors of kissing males with interventions of 15 minute checks while awake, limit setting, and to re-direct as needed. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility November 2021 with diagnoses including Parkinson's, and vascular dementia. Review of his/her most recent MDS dated [DATE] indicated a total score of 6 out of possible 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment and requires assistance with bathing, transfers and ambulation. Review of the facility's incident report to the state agency indicated: on 2/8/23 at 1:30 P.M., Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) #4 informed staff he observed Resident #97 in the activity room reaching for and touching Resident #101's chest area. CNA #4 verbally redirected Resident #101 away from Resident #97 and prompted him/her to TV room .CNA #4 requested a CNA from 3rd floor to come and bring Resident #97 back to his/her unit. Both Residents have a diagnosis of dementia and Resident #101 has an activated healthcare proxy. Review of Resident #97's Social Work Progress note dated 2/13/23 indicated that Resident #97's family had brought him/her off his/her unit and left him/her in the activity room. Review of Resident #101's 15 minute checks form dated 2/8/23 failed to indicate his/her 15 minute checks were completed from 7:45 A.M. through 2:45 P.M. Review of Resident #97's 15 minute checks form dated 2/8/23 had a line drawn through the afternoon and was signed by Nurse #1. During an interview with Nurse #1 on 4/25/23 at 12:52 she said when a Resident is on 15 minute checks and leaves the unit for activities she does not leave the unit to perform 15 minute checks. Nurse #1 said it is the responsibility of the activity department to continue to perform the checks and alert staff if there are any concerns. She said that she was not aware that Resident #97 had an incident on 2/8/23 where/she was touching another Resident's chest on another unit. During an interview with the Administrator on 4/26/23 at 9:53 A.M., the surveyor shared that 15 minute checks were not completed on 2/8/23 for Resident #101 and Resident #17. The facility failed to prevent touching that was sexual in nature between Resident #101 and Resident #17. Resident #101 does not have the capacity to consent.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to investigate allegations of abuse for 2 Residents (#97, #101) and di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to investigate allegations of abuse for 2 Residents (#97, #101) and discharged Resident (#1) out of 28 Sampled Residents Review of the Facility's Abuse, Mistreatment and Neglect policy, undated, indicated: *The Director of Nursing coordinates the investigation of alleged violations. *Nursing or Social Service personnel will conduct interviews with subject (if possible) the accused, potential witnesses and supervisory personnel as needed. *The completed standardized incident form is reviewed for additional data. 1. Resident #101 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, and depression. Review of his/her most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated he/she scored 3 out of possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam (BIMS) indicating severe cognitive impairment and requires assistance with bathing, dressing and grooming. Review of Resident #101's clinical record indicated his/her Health Care Proxy was activated on 5/19/22 indicating Resident #101 is not his/her own decision maker. Review of Resident #101's behavioral care plan dated 5/18/22 indicated he/she had inappropriate behaviors of being overly friendly and flirtatious with males, exhibits disinhibited behaviors of kissing males with interventions of 15 minute checks while awake, limit setting, and to re-direct as needed. Resident #97 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with diagnoses including dementia and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Review of his/her most recent Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated he/she scored 9 out of a possible 15 on the BIMS indicating moderate cognitive impairment and requires assistance with transfers, dressing and toileting. Review of Resident #97's clinical record indicated his/her health care proxy was activated on 6/7/22, indicating he/she is not his/her own decision maker. Review of Resident #101's progress note dated 11/6/23 written by Nurse #3 indicated: The patient was sitting on [Resident #97's] bed when I entered the room. The patient removed his/her hand from [Resident #97's] pelvic area. The diaper is opened and [Resident #97's genitals] were exposed. When the patient is told to move from the room, the patient states 'what'. The patient is redirected by the writer a number of times. During an interview with the Administrator on 4/26/23 at 9:53 A.M. the Administrator said he investigated the incident and the surveyor requested a copy of the investigation. On 4/26/23 at approximately 10:30 A.M. the surveyor was given a typed statement by the Administrator. There was no formal investigation completed including interviews, witness statements, or standardized forms included per facility policy. 2. The facility failed to investigate an allegation of abuse for discharged Resident #1. Review of the grievance log indicated a grievance dated 10/5/22 indicating discharged Resident #1 reported that a staff person threw his/her legs around in the bed and that he/she did not feel safe. During an interview with the Administrator on 4/26/23 at 9:34 A.M. he said that the grievance should have been investigated as an abuse allegation and not as a grievance.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #71 was admitted to the facility in October 2022 with diagnoses including, adult failure to thrive, cognitive communica...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #71 was admitted to the facility in October 2022 with diagnoses including, adult failure to thrive, cognitive communication deficit, unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility. Review of most Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #71 scored a 9 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Further review of MDS indicated Resident #71 has no behaviors, did not reject of care and requires total dependennce of 1 assist for care. Review of facility policy titled 'Falls Management' dated April, 2015 indicated the following: The interdisciplinary team will develop, initiate and implement an appropriate individualized care plan based on the fall risk evaluation score. Review of Resident #71's medical record indicated the Resident had a fall with fracture to right hip on 3/26/23. A care plan dated 10/6/2022 with the problem fall, with an approach dated 3/30/23, 15-minute checks upon admission. Further review of medical record indicated a physician order dated 3/30/23 for 15 minutes checks three times a day. Review of the 15 minute check binder failed to indicate that 15 minute checks were conducted for Resident #71. During an interview on 5/25/23 at 1:43 P.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 said he has not done 15 minutes checks on Resident #71. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 2:00 P.M., Nurse #1 said they have not been documenting the 15 minutes check in the binder, she further said they should have completed the 15 minutes check. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 1:34 P.M., Unit Manager #3 acknowledged the 15-minute checks were not done for Resident #71. He further said the physician order and the care plan should have been followed. Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to 1) develop person centered care plans for 3 Residents (#45, #100 and #98) and 2) failed to implement a falls care plan for 1 Resident (#71) out of a total sample of 71 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility in December 2018 with diagnoses including dementia. Review of Resident #45's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicates the Resident was unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and staff had assessed him/her to have moderately impaired cognition. The MDS also indicates the Resident requires limited assistance from staff for activities of daily living. Review of the incident report dated 6/4/22 indicated the following: *On Saturday 6/4/22, at approximately 1:30 P.M., (the Resident) received visitors (husband) and (adopted daughter). (The Resident) had been out to the nurses' station requesting afternoon medication. (The Resident) was noted to be dressed and had his/her purse. (The Resident) returned to his/her room after receiving medication and then was witness a few minutes later at [NAME] elevator with visitors. Nurse approached (the Resident) and visitors, siting that he/she could not go out without authorization. (The Resident) stated he/she was not going anywhere, wanted some sun, and that (the Resident) and his/her family would return in ten minutes. Nurse walked outside with them and stayed with them. She then asked the receptionist to contact the supervisor to come down for assistance, as she needed to return to the unit. Supervisor was notified and she returned to the floor. After approximately 10 minutes, nurse was returning to visit when receptionist notified her that there was no one outside. At which time, facility grounds searched, police, guardian and management team notified. Review of an admission social work note dated 12/13/18, indicated the following: *This writer spoke to (the Resident's) guardian who clarified some of the dynamics with her role, the family, and previous issues. She stated that she is supportive of family visits but not allowing (the Resident) to leave the unit with family. She said that she plans to be in to visit next week and will speak to the team then further in depth. Review of a social services not on 12/14/18, indicated the following: *(The Resident) had previously been in another facility, where he/she was removed by his/her husband, and their adopted daughter. (The Resident) was brought home and the police were involved after the guardian had contacted them. Review of Resident #45's care plans indicated a care plan regarding family dynamics and risk of them taking him/her from the facility had not been developed until 6/13/22. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 12:43 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said the staff were aware of Resident #45's family dynamics when admitted and he/she was never to have unsupervised visits with family. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 11:06 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said the staff were aware upon Resident #45's admission that there was a difficult family situation, and that the Resident was not to be unsupervised during visits with the family and was not allowed out of the facility with the family. The ADON said she would have expected a care plan to have been initiated regarding this upon admission. 2. Resident #100 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses of diabetes. Review of Resident #100's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicates the Resident has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 out of a possible 15 indicating the Resident has severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicates Resident #100 requires extensive assistance from staff for all daily functional tasks. Review of Resident #100's physician orders indicate the following orders: *Insulin Gargline, 12 units, once a day *insulin Lispro, 100 unit/ml (milliliters), three times a day. *Januvia (an anti-diabetic medication) 100mg (milligrams), once a day. Review of Resident #100's care plans failed to indicate a care plan addressing the Resident's diagnosis of diabetes or dependence of insulin. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 2:01 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing said she would expect any resident with the diagnosis of diabetes and taking insulin to have a diabetic care plan or insulin care plan.3. For Resident #98 the facility failed to develop and implement a care plan for the risk for aspiration. Resident #98 was admitted to the facility in March 2022 and has diagnoses that includes cognitive communication deficit, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, and dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing). Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 1/25/23 indicated Resident #98 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score of 15 out of 15 indicating he/she was cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS, indicated Resident #98 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, independent with eating with set up, and required a mechanically altered diet. Review of the medical record indicated in a nursing progress note dated 4/15/23 that Resident #98 returned from an acute care hospital, with diagnosis of aspiration (aspiration occurs when food, or drink are breathed into the airway) and (is) on a ground diet and thick liquids. Review of Resident's 98's physician's orders indicated the following order, dated 4/15/23, dietary: regular, nectar thick, ground. On 4/23/23 the surveyor made the following observation: *At approximately 1:00 P.M., a nurse was present with Resident #98. Resident #98 was observed and heard to be coughing continuously. On 4/24/23 at 11:09 A.M. review of a nursing progress note in Resident #98's medical record indicated the following: resident had episode strong coughing at almost end of lunch while eating. Noticed by this writer while during around at meals time. Pt was in bed with HOB up but slightly leaning towards his/her right side. Repositioned and coughing beside. Afebrile and sat (oxygen saturation) remains 95 96 aspiration precautions maintained. He refused OOB this am shift, encourage but refused. Foley with 400 ml yellow urine. On 4/24/23 the surveyor made the following observations: *At 8:13 A.M., Resident #98 was lying in bed eating his/her breakfast. A plastic cup of water, thin, not thickened was on the tray table next to the breakfast tray. The coffee was thin and did not present thickened. Resident #98 was asked about the water, and said he/she said he might need it. * At 8:42 A.M., Resident # 98 was observed in bed, with the bed positioned at approximately 30-40 degrees, and he/she coughed a little. *At 12:44 P.M., Resident #98 was sitting in a wheelchair with a tray table in front of him/her. Resident #98 had a carton of milk, with a straw and said he/she had been drinking it. Family Member #1 said staff gave it to him/her and said it was okay to have and that it was not thickened. *At 5:46 P.M., Resident #98 was in bed, positioned at approximately 40 degrees and leaning to his/her right side, with a partially consumed supper tray in front of him/her. The meal had partially consumed soup consisting of thin broth with noodles and vegetables. On 4/24/23 at 5:50 P.M., The Speech Therapy Pathologist (SLP) and the surveyor observed Resident #98's meal tray in the Resident's room. The SLP verified by using a spoon to stir the broth that it was a thin liquid and said it should not have been served to the Resident. The SLP said soup is more challenging to eat because of the thin liquid and food together. The speech therapist said Resident # 98's bed was in a 40 to 50 degree positioning and ideally it should be at 80 degrees. The SLP said she has Resident #98 on program and has seen him twice. The SLP said although the Resident can eat on his/her own, He/she should be in good position, should receive the correct diet and needs monitoring because he/she is at risk for aspiration. Review of Resident #98's care plans indicted the following: *No care plan for risk for aspiration. *A nutritional status care plan. Resident is at nutritional risk secondary to elevated weight, and history of significant weight changes-now stable. He/she also requires a mechanically altered diet for dysphagia, dated as edited 4/20/23. Approach included: Provide diet as ordered, dated 5/17/2022. The care plan did not have interventions for the risk for aspiration. *An Activities of Daily living Care plan, Resident requires assist to perform ADL care r/t (related to) decreased activity tolerance, decreased strength and endurance, decreased motivation, easily fatigued, decreased attention span, easily distracted d/t (due to) CVA, recent fall, dated as edited 1/7/23. Approach: eating independent. No approaches related to risk of aspiration was on the care plans.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to provide assistance during meals for 3 Residents (#...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to provide assistance during meals for 3 Residents (#41, #63 and #82) out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #41 was admitted to the facility in November 2021 with diagnoses including stroke and dysphagia. Review of Resident #41's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicates the Resident has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8 out of a possible 15 indicating he/she has moderate cognitive impairment. On 4/23/23 at 8:31 A.M., Resident was observed lying in bed eating breakfast. The privacy curtain was drawn, and the Resident was not visible from the hallway. There were no staff present to provide supervision, cueing or assistance if needed. On 4/24/23 at 8:33 A.M., Resident was observed lying in bed eating breakfast. The privacy curtain was drawn, and the Resident was not visible from the hallway. There were no staff present to provide supervision, cueing or assistance if needed. On 4/24/23 at 12:39 P.M., Resident was observed lying in bed eating lunch. The privacy curtain was drawn, and the Resident was not visible from the hallway. There were no staff present to provide supervision, cueing or assistance if needed. On 4/25/23 at 8:36 A.M., Resident was observed lying in bed eating breakfast. The privacy curtain was drawn, and the Resident was not visible from the hallway. There were no staff present to provide supervision, cueing or assistance if needed. On 4/25/23 at 12:15 P.M., Resident was observed lying in bed eating lunch. The privacy curtain was drawn, and the Resident was not visible from the hallway. There were no staff present to provide supervision, cueing or assistance if needed. Review of Resident #41's activity of daily living care plan last revised 4/12/23 indicated the Resident requires cueing as needed for self-feeding tasks. Review of the occupational therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE] indicated the following: *Recommendations: Pt. (patient) requires cues to initiate, follow through for PO (oral) intake and needs repositioning assist (assistance) occ-intermittently during meals to maintain functional positioning vs. lateral lean and tends to try to place BLE (bilateral lower extremities) off bed at times. SBA (stand by assistance) all times recommended to staff during all meals bed-level. Appears to be new baseline fxn (function). Review of Resident 412's [NAME] (a form detailing the level of assistance needed) indicated the Resident requires cueing as needed from staff for self-feeding. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 10:38 A.M., Unit Manager #2 said she was unaware of the Resident's new status since discharged from occupational therapy and did not realize the Resident needed staff with him/her while he/she ate. 2. Resident #63 was admitted to the facility in January 2018 with diagnoses including lung cancer and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Review of Resident #63's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicates the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3 out of a possible 15, which indicated he/she has severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated Resident #63 requires extensive assistance from staff for self-feeding tasks. On 4/23/23 at 8:30 A.M., a Certified Nursing Assistant was observed bringing Resident #63 his/her breakfast. The breakfast was left on the side table, out of reach of the Resident. The Resident was attempting to reach his/her food and could not. At 8:36 A.M., Resident #63's roommate closed the bedroom door, leaving staff unable to observe the Resident during the meal. At 8:50 A.M., the surveyor entered the room and Resident #63 could still not reach his/her meal, 20 minutes later. When asked if he/she was hungry, the Resident said yes. During an interview on 4/23/23 at 8:56 A.M., CNA #2 said Resident #63 could independently feed him/herself. CNA #2 was unaware that Resident #63's food was out of reach and that he/she needed assistance. On 4/23/23 at 12:26 P.M. Resident #63 was observed lying in bed eating lunch. The Resident was not visible from the hallway. There were no staff present to provide supervision or assistance if needed. Review of Resident #63's Activity of Daily Living care plan last revised 3/14/23 indicated the Resident requires assistance of 1 staff for eating. Review of Resident #63's [NAME] (a form detailing the level of assistance needed) indicated the Resident requires assistance of 1 staff for self-feeding tasks. Review of the occupational therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE] indicated Resident #63 requires moderate assistance from staff for self-feeding tasks. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 2:01 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said she expects staff to follow the [NAME] and care plan and provide the level of assistance listed on both forms. 3. Resident #92 was admitted to the facility in August 2021 with diagnoses including frontal temporal neurocognitive disorder. Review of Resident #92's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated the Resident was unable to participate in the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and the staff assessed him/her to have moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicates the Resident requires extensive assistance from staff for self-feeding tasks. On 4/23/23 at 8:25 A.M., Resident #92 was lying in bed with his/her breakfast in front on him/her. There were no staff present in the room to provide supervision or assistance if needed. The door to the Resident's room was slightly closed and the Resident was not visible in the hallway. On 4/24/23 at 8:41 A.M., Resident #92 was lying in bed with his/her breakfast in front on him/her. There were no staff present in the room to provide supervision or assistance if needed. The Resident had spilled the entire glass of milk over the tray and was staring at his/her meal but not initiating eating the food. On 4/24/23 at 1:26 P.M., Resident #92 was lying in bed with his/her lunch in front on him/her. There were no staff present in the room to provide supervision or assistance if needed. The door to the Resident's room was slightly closed and the Resident was not visible in the hallway. On 4/25/23 at 8:27 A.M., Resident #92 was lying in bed with his/her breakfast in front on him/her. There were no staff present in the room to provide supervision or assistance if needed. At 8:37 A.M. the main plate of food was still untouched, and the Resident was scooping an empty bowl of oatmeal. Review of Resident #92's activity of daily living care plan last revised 11/7/22 indicated the following intervention: *EATING: Assist of 1 to continuous close supervision 1:8. Review of Resident #92's [NAME] (a form detailing the level of assistance needed) indicated the Resident requires assistance of 1 staff for self-feeding tasks. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 2:01 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said she expects staff to follow the [NAME] and care plan and provide the level of assistance listed on both forms.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to obtain physician orders for treatment of a skin tear fo...

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 obtain physician orders for treatment of a skin tear for 1 Resident #76 out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled 'Skin Management Program' updated 4/18 indicated the following: Policy and Procedure: *3. Skin will be monitored routinely. Certified Nursing Assistant (C.N.A) observe skin daily and are to report any redness or other concerns to the Nursing Manager. The licensed staff is to assess the area and implement either preventative or actual treatment approaches as per house protocol and MD order. New skin areas/wounds are reported to DON (Director of Nursing) RD (Registered Dietician) MDS coordinator, SDC (Staff Development Coordinator) and Unit Manager. Resident #76 was admitted to the facility in May 2021 with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, bipolar, pseudobulbar affect, and dementia. Review of most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #76 was severely cognitively impaired based on staff assessment. The MDS further indicated the Resident did not have behaviors and did not reject care. Resident #76 requires extensive assist of one for personal care. On 4/23/23 at 10:45 A.M., Resident #76 was observed laying in his/her bed with his/her left arm with a dressing dated 3/20/23 3-11. On 4/23/23 at 1:34 P.M., Resident #76 was observed lying in his/her bed. An approximately one centimeter linear skin tear, dark in color was observed on his/her forearm. Review of Resident #76's medical record failed to indicate the Resident had a skin tear. The medical record further failed to indicate physician orders for skin tear treatment and monitoring. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 10:30 A.M., Unit Manager #3 said the nurse who identifies the skin tear is responsible for completing the incident report and obtain physician orders for treatment. Unit Manager #3 acknowledged there was no physician orders for skin tear treatment for Resident #76. During an Interview on 4/24/23 at 2:05 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing said for any skin tear finding, the nurse would complete an investigation report and obtain orders for further treatment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide services to maintain adequate hearing for 1 Resident (#66...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide services to maintain adequate hearing for 1 Resident (#66) out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: Resident #66 was admitted to the facility in October 2021 with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance and depression. Review of Resident #66's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicates the Resident has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicates he/she is cognitively intact. The MDS also indicates Resident #66 requires extensive assistance from staff for functional daily tasks. During an interview on 4/23/23 at 8:07 A.M., Resident #66 said his/her hearing aides have been broken for along time and he/she has been trying to get staff to help him/her get them fixed. The Resident said he/she is very upset that no one has helped him/her with this yet. Review of Resident #66's clinical record indicated the following: *Resident #66 requested audiology services on a written consent form on 10/10/22. *A nursing note written 2/13/22 indicating the Resident's hearing aids were not functioning and a message was left for the social worker. *A nurse practitioner note dated 4/4/23 indicating Resident #66 requested to be seen by an outside audiologist. *A hearing impairment care plan initiated on 10/10/2022 with an intervention for ENT/Audiologist consult PRN (if ordered) to evaluate for progression of deteriorating hearing loss. The medical record failed to indicate Resident #66 was ever seen by audiology at the facility or that an outside appointment had been scheduled. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 12:29 P.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 said he has worked at the facility for a year and Resident #66's hearing aids have never functioned well that whole time. CNA #1 said nursing and social work are both aware of the Resident's need to have his/her hearing aids fixed. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 8:42 A.M., Unit Manager #2 said Medical Records Director handles setting up the appointments for residents to be seen by the audiologist and it is the nurse's responsibility to let the Medical Records Director know when someone needs to be seen. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 8:55 A.M., the Medical Records Director said the audiologist had been to the facility 3 times since Resident #66 had requested services, however the Resident was never seen. The Medical Records Director said she was informed to add Resident #66 to the audiology list on 3/27/23, 5 months after the Resident's request and over a month after nursing was aware the Resident's hearing aids had stopped working.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility, failed to ensure professional standards of practice were adhered to for the care, and prevention of infection for 1 Resident (#321), wit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility, failed to ensure professional standards of practice were adhered to for the care, and prevention of infection for 1 Resident (#321), with a urinary catheter, out of total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy, titled Catheter Care, dated as revised February 2022 indicated the following: * Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections. * Preparation: Review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident. * Maintaining Unobstructed Urine Flow. 1. Check the resident frequently to be sure he or she is not lying on the catheter and to keep the catheter and tubing free of kinks. 2. Unless specifically ordered, do not apply a clamp to the catheter. 3. The urinary drainage bag must be held or positioned lower than the bladder at all times to prevent the urine in the tubing and drainage bag from flowing back into the urinary bladder. * Infection Control b. Be sure catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor. Resident #321 was admitted to the facility in April 2023 with the diagnosis of retention of urine, unspecified. Review of the Nursing admission Observation document indicated Resident #321 was admitted with an indwelling (urinary) catheter. Review of Resident #321's medical record indicated the following: *A physician's order, dated 4/11/23, Foley Catheter Care, assess catheter for blockage, if (blocked) flush as needed utilize PRN (as needed) flush order. *A care plan with a problem start date as 4/12/23, category: indwelling catheter, Resident requires a Foley catheter secondary to obstructive uropathy. Approaches: Keep catheter off the floor, leg bag for privacy. On 4/23/23 the surveyor made the following observations: *At 8:44 A.M., Resident #321 was resting on his/her bed. The urinary catheter drainage bag was on the floor. *At 12:41 P.M., Resident #321 was resting on his/her bed. Resident #321 said he/she had a leg bag on. Resident #321 leg was not positioned below the bladder. *At 2:27 P.M., Resident #321 was on his/her bed lying flat and his/her leg was not positioned below the bladder. On 4/24/23 at 7:49 A.M. Resident #321 was observed resting on his/her bed. Resident #321 pointed and touched his/her leg and said he had a leg bag. His/her leg was not positioned below the bladder. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 10:23 A.M. Unit Manager #1 said urinary drainage bags should be changed to a regular drainage bag when a resident is in bed, to keep the urine from flowing back and to keep the drainage bag below waist level to prevent urinary tract infection. Unit Manager #1 went with the surveyor to Resident #321's room and said the Foley catheter system in use did not prevent urine from flowing back into the urinary bladder.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interview the facility failed to provide correct setting for oxygen administration for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interview the facility failed to provide correct setting for oxygen administration for 1 Resident (#170) out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled 'Oxygen Administration -Simple Mask' undated indicated the following: Policy: To deliver moderate flow oxygen through nose and mouth, per the physician's order (generally 5-10 LPM (liters per minute and 40%- 60% concentration) via simple face mask. Procedure: *Set the oxygen liter flow to the prescribed liter flow per minute Resident #170 was admitted to the facility in April 2023 with diagnoses including asthma, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of Resident #170 most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #170 scored a 12 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating that he/she had moderately impaired cognition. The MDS further indicated Resident #71 did not have behaviors and did not reject care. On 4/23/23 at 9:27 A.M., Resident #170 was observed in his/her bed wearing oxygen via nasal cannula, oxygen was set at 3 liters per minute. On 4/24/23 at 7:22 A.M., Resident #170 was observed in his/her bed wearing oxygen via nasal cannula, oxygen was set at 3 liters per minute. On 4/24/23 at 12:40 P.M., Resident #170 was observed sitting in his/her room wearing oxygen via nasal cannula, oxygen was set at 3 liters per minute. Review of Resident #170's current physician's order dated 4/6/23 indicated the following: - Oxygen at 2 liters per minute continuous via nasal cannula, assess for shortness of breath every shift. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 12:40 P.M., Nurse #4 said Resident #170 is supposed to be on 2 liter of oxygen per minute. Nurse #4 acknowledged that the oxygen was at the wrong setting. She further said it is the nurses responsibility to ensure residents oxygen are at the proper setting.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

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 provide adequate pain management for approximately 4 months, which ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate pain management for approximately 4 months, which resulted in the increased use of PRN (as needed) pain medication for 1 Resident (#103) out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: Resident #103 was admitted to the facility in June 2022, with diagnoses including cerebral infractions, hemiplegia, and chronic pain syndrome. Review of Resident #103's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 out of possible 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS also indicated Resident #103 reported occasional pain and received PRN pain medications in the past 5 days. On 4/25/23 at 10:00 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #103 in bed. Resident #103 told the surveyor that he/she always has pain on his/her bilateral lower legs, but the pain felt worse within the last month. Resident #103 told the surveyor that for pain management he/she is on scheduled Tylenol and gabapentin and PRN oxycodone administered every 8 hours. Resident #103 told the surveyor that staff have administered the PRN oxycodone when he/she needed it, but that having to wait 8 hours for his/her next PRN oxycodone was too long. He/she told the surveyor that his/her pain became intolerable before he/she could receive the next PRN oxycodone. Resident #103 said staff often tell him/her that 8 hours has not yet passed, and they cannot yet administer the oxycodone. Resident #103 said that this waiting period often results in him/her experiencing intolerable pain before the next dose becomes available. Resident #103 said he/she told the nurses that he/she needed better pain medication coverage, but no changes have been made to his/her medications. Review of Resident #103 's most recent pain assessment dated [DATE], indicated the following: - pain scale level of 7 out of 10 - pain duration that comes and goes - pain limits daily activities - pain made it difficult to sleep at night. Review of Resident #103's physician orders indicated the following: - Tylenol 325 milligrams (mg) 2 tablets (650 mg), twice a day. - Gabapentin (a medication that can be used to treat nerve pain) 300 mg, three times a day. - Oxycodone (a medication used to treat moderate to severe pain) 5 mg, three times a day PRN, dated 12/7/22. Review of Resident #103's Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) indicated the following: -During January 2023, Resident #103 requested and received PRN oxycodone 42 times. -During February 2023, Resident #103 requested and received PRN oxycodone 40 times. -During March 2023, Resident #103 requested and received PRN oxycodone 43 times. -From April 1, 2023, through April 25, 2023, Resident #103 requested and received PRN oxycodone 39 times. During an interview with Unit Manager (UM) #2 on 4/25/23 at 10:13 A.M., he acknowledged that Resident #103 typically received PRN oxycodone for pain twice or three times a day. He told the surveyor that nursing staff had not notified the Nurse Practitioner (NP) regarding Resident #103's experience of pain and frequent use of PRN oxycodone. Review of Resident #103's nursing and NP notes, from January 2023 to the present date, indicated there was no reference to staff notifying the NP that Resident #103's pain was not well managed on the PRN oxycodone. During an interview with the NP on 4/25/23 at 10:19 A.M., he told the surveyor that nursing staff had not informed him they had been administering to Resident #103 PRN oxycodone two to three times per day over the past 4 months, or that the PRN oxycodone was not adequately treating his/her pain.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that 1 Resident (#98) was free of unnecessary medication, out...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that 1 Resident (#98) was free of unnecessary medication, out of a total sample of 28 residents. Specifically, Resident #98 continued to be administered Aspirin 325 milligrams QD (once a day), after the physician reviewed and agreed with the pharmacist recommendation to change the order to Aspirin to 81 mgs PO (by mouth) daily. Findings include: Resident #98 was admitted in March 2022 and has diagnoses that includes cognitive communication deficit, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, and dysphagia. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #98 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score of 15 out of 15 indicating he/she was cognitively intact. Review of a document entitled Consultant Pharmacist Recommendation to Physician, dated as printed 10/5/23, in Resident #98's medical record indicated the following: Dear (Named) physician, this resident (#98) is taking several drugs that are irritating to the GI lining and/or system, including aspirin 325 mg QD. Clinical studies indicate that Aspirin 81 mg is just as effective as 325 mg, for antiplatelet effect, suggest we consider changing the to 81 mg QD to lower the negative GI side effects. Response: Change Aspirin as follows, Aspirin 81 mg po daily, signed by the physician/prescriber, dated 10/14/22. Review of the following Medication Administration Record (MAR) history indicated the following: * MAR dated 10/1/2022 through 10/31/22 indicated, aspirin (OTC) 325 mg: 1 tablet, oral once a day was administered 10/15/22 through 10/31/22 * MAR dated 11/1/22 - 11/30/22 indicated, aspirin (OTC) 325 mg was administered 11/1/22 through 11/5/23. Record review indicated Resident #98 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. A total of 22 doses of 325 mg of aspirin were administered after the prescriber response to change aspirin as follows, aspirin 81 mg PO daily. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 8:01 A.M., Unit Manager #1 reviewed the pharmacist recommendation and said if the prescriber agrees to the recommendation the order should be changed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide dental services as needed for 1 Resident (#8...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide dental services as needed for 1 Resident (#89) out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: Resident #89 was admitted to the facility in November 2021 with diagnoses including dementia. Review of Resident #89's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicates the Resident has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of a possible 15, indicating he/she has severe cognitive impairment. During an interview on 4/23/23 at 12:05 P.M., Resident #89 said he/she needed to see the dentist. Resident #89 said he/she has been missing his/her upper teeth for a long time and would really like to have dentures so I can eat like I should. The surveyor observed Resident #89 to have several missing bottom teeth and no upper teeth. Review of Resident #89's dental care plan last revised 1/31/23, indicated the Resident is at risk for altered dentition due to his/her natural teeth are missing. Review of the speech therapy evaluation, dated 6/28/22, indicated Resident #89's diet needed to be downgraded to a ground diet due to his/her edentulous (lacking teeth) status. Review of Resident #89's dental visit dated 8/18/22 indicated the following: *Resident has lost dentures. Resident has requested new dentures. *Recommend fabrication of CUD (complete upper denture) to improve patient's ability to chew and quality of life. *Recommend fabrication of RPD (removable partial denture) to replace missing teeth, improving patient's ability to chew and quality of life. *Recommend FMX (dental x-rays) for insurance approval. *Discussed steps of fabrication with patient. Review of Resident #89's medical chart failed to indicate a nursing note regarding fabrication of new dentures. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 10:38 A.M., Unit Manager #2 said all recommendations from the dentist are read by the nurses and expected to be followed up on. Unit Manager #2 said she could not find any information indicating dentures had been fabricated for Resident #89.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0808 (Tag F0808)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide a therapeutic diet as ordered by the physician for 1 Resident (#98) out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide a therapeutic diet as ordered by the physician for 1 Resident (#98) out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: Resident #98 was admitted to the facility in March 2022 and has diagnoses that includes cognitive communication deficit, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, and dysphagia. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 1/25/23 indicated Resident #98 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score of 15 out of 15 indicating he/she was cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS, indicated Resident #98 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, independent with eating with set up, and required a mechanically altered diet. Review of the medical record indicated in a nursing progress note dated 4/15/23 that Resident #98 returned from an acute care hospital, with diagnosis of aspiration (aspiration occurs when food, or drink are breathed into the airway) and (is) on a ground diet and thick liquids. Review of Resident's 98's physician's orders indicated the following order, dated 4/15/23, dietary: regular, nectar thick, ground. On 4/24/23 the surveyor made the following observations: *At 8:13 A.M., Resident #98 was lying in bed eating his/her breakfast. A plastic cup of water, thin, not thickened was on the tray table next to the breakfast tray. The coffee was thin and did not present thickened. Resident #98 was asked about the water, and he/she said he might need it. *At 12:44 P.M., Resident #98 was sitting in a wheelchair with a tray table in front of him/her. Resident #98 had a carton of milk, with a straw and said he/she had been drinking it. Family Member #1 said staff gave it to him/her and said it was okay to have and that it was not thickened. * At 5:46 P.M., Resident #98 was in bed with a partially consumed supper tray in front of him/her. The meal had partially consumed soup consisting of thin broth with noodles and vegetables. On 4/24/23 at 5:50 P.M., The Speech Therapy Pathologist (SLP) and the surveyor observed Resident #98's meal tray in the Resident room. The SLP verified by using a spoon to stir the broth that it was a thin liquid and should not have been served to the Resident. The SLP said soup is more challenging to eat because of the thin liquid and food together. When told of the observations of Resident #98 observed with unthickened coffee, water, and milk, the SLP said all liquids should be thickened per the physician order because the Resident is at risk for aspirating on thin liquids.
CONCERN (E)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement its abuse policies and procedures as evidenced by 1.) fai...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement its abuse policies and procedures as evidenced by 1.) failing to report allegations of abuse to the state agency as required and 2.) failing to investigate allegations of abuse for 4 Residents (#17, #79, #101, discharged Resident (#1) out of a total of 28 Sampled Residents. Findings include: Review of the Facility's Abuse Mistreatment and Neglect policy, undated, indicated: *Any incident affecting the health or safety of the resident is reported to the Director of Nursing Services, the Administrator, the attending physician and next-of-kin or legal representative. *If the Director of Nursing Services and/or the Administrator have reasonable cause to believe that any resident may have been abused, mistreated, exploited or neglected, then an immediate report of the incident will be sent to the Department of Health with a completed report to follow. The report is sent no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. *The Director of Nursing coordinates the investigation of alleged violations. *Nursing or Social Service personnel will conduct interviews with subject (if possible) the accused, potential witnesses and supervisory personnel as needed. *The completed standardized incident form is reviewed for additional data. 1.) The facility failed to report Resident to Resident abuse between a.) Resident #101 and Resident #17 on 2/8/23 and within 2 hours and b.) failed to report and investigate possible abuse between Resident #101 and Resident #97 on 11/6/23. a. Resident #101 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, and depression. Review of his/her most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated he/she scored 3 out of possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam (BIMS) indicating severe cognitive impairment and requires assistance with bathing, dressing and grooming. Review of Resident #101's clinical record indicated his/her Health Care Proxy was activated on 5/19/22 indicating Resident #101 is not his/her own decision maker. Review of Resident #101's behavioral care plan dated 5/18/22 indicated he/she had inappropriate behaviors of being overly friendly and flirtatious with male staff, exhibits disinhibited behaviors of kissing males with interventions of 15 minute checks while awake, limit setting, and to re-direct as needed. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility November 2021 with diagnoses including Parkinson's, and vascular dementia. Review of his/her most recent MDS dated [DATE] indicated a total score of 6 out of possible 15 on the BIMS indicating severe cognitive impairment and requires assistance with bathing, transfers and ambulation. Review of the facility incident report dated 2/13/23 indicated that on 2/8/23 Resident #17 was found touching Resident #101's chest area by CNA #4. CNA #4 separated the two Resident's and arranged for Resident #17 to return to his/her unit. The incident was not reported to the state agency until 2/13/23. During an interview with the Administrator on 4/26/23 at 9:34 A.M. he said that incidents of abuse should be reported immediately to the state agency. B. Resident #97 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with diagnoses including dementia and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Review of his/her most recent MDS dated [DATE] indicated he/she scored 9 out of a possible 15 on the BIMS indicating moderate cognitive impairment and requires assistance with transfers, dressing and toileting. Review of Resident #97's clinical record indicated his/her health care proxy was activated on 6/7/22, indicating he/she is not his/her own decision maker. Review of Resident #101's progress note dated 11/6/23 written by Nurse #3 at 9:44 P.M. indicated: The patient was sitting on [Resident #97's] bed when I entered the room. The patient removed his/her hand from [Resident #97's] pelvic area. The diaper is opened and [Resident #97's genitals] were exposed. When the patient is told to move from the room, the patient states 'what'. The patient is redirected by the writer a number of times. During interviews with Nurse #3 on 4/25/23 at 2:56 P.M. and 4/26/23 at 7:19 A.M. he said that when he observed Resident #101 in Resident #79's room he/she was pulling Resident #97's diaper down. Nurse #3 could not recall if he informed a nurse supervisor the day of the incident. Review of the Health Care Facility Report System (HCFRS) for November 2022 failed to indicate that facility reported the allegation to the state agency. During an interview with The Administrator on 4/26/23 at 9:53 A.M., he said he was not aware about the incident until the next day on 11/7/23. The Administrator said that the incident was not reported to the state agency because he felt that there was no malicious intent and when he followed up with Resident #97 on 11/7/23, he/she said that Resident #101 did not touch his/her genitals. The Administrator said he investigated the incident and the surveyor requested a copy of the investigation. On 4/26/23 at approximately 10:30 A.M. the surveyor was given a typed statement by the Administrator. There was no formal investigation completed including interviews, witness statements, or standardized forms per facility policy. 2. The facility failed to investigate an allegation of abuse for discharged Resident #1. Review of the grievance log included a grievance dated 10/5/22 indicating discharged Resident #1 reported that a staff person threw his/her legs around in the bed and that he/she did not feel safe. During an interview with the Administrator on 4/26/23 at 9:34 A.M. he said that the grievance should have been investigated as an abuse allegation and not as a grievance.
CONCERN (E)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report abuse allegations as required for 4 Residents (#17, #79, #10...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report abuse allegations as required for 4 Residents (#17, #79, #101) and discharged Resident (#1) out of 28 sampled Residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's Abuse, Mistreatment and Neglect policy undated, indicated: *Any incident affecting the health or safety of the resident is reported to the Director of Nursing Services, the Administrator, the attending physician and next-of-kin or legal representative. *If the Director of Nursing Services and/or the Administrator have reasonable cause to believe that any resident may have been abused, mistreated, exploited or neglected, then an immediate report of the incident will be sent to the Department of Health with a completed report to follow. The report is sent no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. 1.) The facility failed to report Resident to Resident abuse between a.) Resident #101 and Resident #17 on 2/8/23 within 2 hours and b.) failed to report potential abuse between Resident #101 and Resident #97 on 11/6/23. a. Resident #101 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, and depression. Review of his/her most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated he/she scored 3 out of possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam (BIMS) indicating severe cognitive impairment and requires assistance with bathing, dressing and grooming. Review of Resident #101's clinical record indicated his/her Health Care Proxy was activated on 5/19/22 indicating Resident #101 is not his/her own decision maker. Review of Resident #101's behavioral care plan dated 5/18/22 indicated he/she had inappropriate behaviors of being overly friendly and flirtatious with male staff, exhibits disinhibited behaviors of kissing males with interventions of 15 minute checks while awake, limit setting, and to re-direct as needed. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility November 2021 with diagnoses including Parkinson's, and vascular dementia. Review of his/her most recent MDS dated [DATE] indicated a total score of 6 out of possible 15 on the BIMS, indicating severe cognitive impairment and requires assistance with bathing, transfers and ambulation. Review of the facility incident report dated 2/13/23 indicated that on 2/8/23 Resident #17 was found touching Resident #101 chest area by CNA #4. CNA #4 separated the two Resident's and arranged for Resident #17 to return to his/her unit. The incident was not reported to the state agency until 2/13/23. During an interview with the Administrator on 4/26/23 at 9:34 A.M. he said that incidents of abuse should be reported immediately to the state agency. B. Resident #97 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with diagnoses including dementia and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Review of his/her most recent MDS dated [DATE] indicated he/she scored 9 out of a possible 15 on the BIMS indicating moderate cognitive impairment and requires assistance with transfers, dressing and toileting. Review of Resident #97's clinical record indicated his/her health care proxy was activated on 6/7/22, indicating he/she is not his/her own decision maker. Review of Resident #101's progress note dated 11/6/23 written by Nurse #3 at 9:44 P.M. indicated: The patient was sitting on [Resident #97's] bed when I entered the room. The patient removed his/her hand from [Resident #97's] pelvic area. The diaper is opened and [Resident #97's genitals] were exposed. When the patient is told to move from the room, the patient states 'what'. The patient is redirected by the writer a number of times. During interviews with Nurse #3 on 4/25/23 at 2:56 P.M. and 4/26/23 at 7:19 A.M. he said that when he observed Resident #101 in Resident #79's room he/she was pulling Resident #97's diaper down. Nurse #3 could not recall if he informed a nurse supervisor the day of the incident. Review of the Health Care Facility Report System (HCFRS) for November 2022 failed to indicate that facility reported the allegation to the state agency. During an interview with The Administrator on 4/26/23 at 9:53 A.M., he said he was not aware about the incident until the next day on 11/7/23. The Administrator said that the incident was not reported to the state agency because he felt that there was no malicious intent and when he followed up with Resident #97 on 11/7/23, he/she said that Resident #101 did not touch his/her genitals. 2. The facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the state agency. Review of the grievance log indicated a grievance dated 10/5/22 indicating discharged Resident #1 reported that a staff person threw his/her legs around in the bed and that he/she did not feel safe. Review of the Health Care Facility Report System (HCFRS) for October 2022 failed to indicate that facility reported the allegation to the state agency. During an interview with the Administrator on 4/26/23 at 9:34 A.M. he said that all allegations of abuse should be reported immediately to the state agency.
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to 1.) ensure that food items were accurately labeled and dated to determine an expiration/use by date and 2.) failed to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to 1.) ensure that food items were accurately labeled and dated to determine an expiration/use by date and 2.) failed to ensure staff followed proper sanitation and food handling during meal service to prevent the potential outbreak of foodborne illness. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Food Storage, dated 9/13/16, indicated the following: *Purpose: to service safe food and demonstrate safe food handling at all times in compliance with local, state, and federal guidelines. *Refrigerated, ready to eat, potentially hazardous food opened or prepared shall be clearly marked at the time of preparation to indicate the date of preparation. Ready to eat food items shall not be consumed after 72 hours. *Ready prepared leftovers shall be discarded within 72 hours of the date originally prepared. On 4/23/23 at 7:13 A.M., the following was observed in the kitchen refrigerator: *1 container of pureed food not labeled or dated. *2 containers of pasta and meat not dated. *1 package of turkey cold cuts dated 4/18/23 and 1 package of ham cold cuts dated 4/19/23. During an interview on 7:20 A.M., the Assistant Food Service Director said all food is to be labeled once open or made and discarded after 3 days of the date on the label. 2. Review of the facility polity titled, Handwashing - Glove, dated 9/14/20, indicated the following: *When gloves are used, hand washing must occur prior to putting on gloves and whenever gloves are changed. Gloves must be changed as often as hands need to be washed. Gloves may be used for one task only. On 4/23/23 at 7:23 A.M., the following was observed in the main kitchen of the facility kitchen during the breakfast meal line: *The cook put on a pair of gloves without first washing her hands. She then opened a box of syrup and touched the countertop with both hands, potentially contaminating her gloves. The cook then served the French toast onto the plates using her gloved hands. On 4/25/23 at 7:29 A.M., the following was observed in main kitchen of the facility kitchen during the breakfast meal line: *The cook put on a pair of gloves without first washing her hands. She then touched plates, bread packaging, the microwave, serving utensils, other food packages, a thermometer, and the plate warming lids, potentially contaminating her gloves. The cook then touched 2 pieces of cheese, 12 pieces of toast, 4 pancakes, and 11 English muffins. *The Food Service Director (FSD) washed her hands. She then opened a package of bread then without putting on gloves or washing her hands, she touched two pieces of bread and placed them in the oven. Once the bread was toasted, she opened the oven door and with the same hand, took the bread out and placed it on a plate to serve to a resident. During an interview on 4/25/23 at 7:41 A.M., the FSD and Assistant FSD said there have not been any in-services on safe food handling in a few months. The FSD said the staff need to wash hands prior to putting on gloves and then if gloves become contaminated by touching items other than food, the gloves must be changed, and hands washed again.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide the required transfer/discharge notices to 3 residents, (#3,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide the required transfer/discharge notices to 3 residents, (#3, #71, #98) out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled 'Notice Requirements before Transfer/Discharge' February 2020 indicated the following: *It is the policy of the facility to notify the resident, representative and or their legal guardian before transfer and or discharge according to state and federal regulations. 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in February 2007 with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury, quadriplegia. Review of most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated a staff assessment for cognition was complete. Resident #3 was severely cognitively impaired. Further the MDS indicated Resident #3 requires total assist for care. Review of Resident #3's medical record indicated on 2/22/23 Resident #3 was transferred to the hospital. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate that a notice of transfer/discharge was sent with the resident or to his/her representative. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 2:15 P.M., Unit Manager #3 said the nurse who is in charge of sending the resident to the hospital is responsible for sending the paperwork. He further acknowledged that he could not find the transfer notice paperwork in Resident #3's medical record. 2. Resident #71 was admitted to the facility in October 2022 with diagnoses including chronic diastolic heart failure, cognitive communication deficit. Review of most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicted Resident #71 scored a 9 out of possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating he/she had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #71's medical record indicated that he/she was sent to the hospital on the following dates, 11/5/22 and 3/26/23. Further review of medical record failed to indicate that notices of transfer/discharge were sent with the resident or to his/her representative. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 2:15 P.M., Unit Manager #3 said the nurse who is in charge of sending the resident to the hospital is responsible for sending the paperwork. He further acknowledged that he could not find the transfer notice paperwork in Resident #71's medical record. 3. Resident #98 was admitted to the facility in March 2022 and has diagnoses that includes cognitive communication deficit, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, and dysphagia. Review of Resident #98's Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) indicated a discharge return anticipated assessment dated [DATE]. Review of Resident #98's medical record indicated the following: *A nursing progress note dated 4/8/23 indicated that Resident #98's provider ordered to have the resident sent to the hospital for evaluation. * No documentation that a Transfer/Discharge notice was provided to the Resident or Resident Representative. On 4/24/23 at 1:08 P.M., Unit Manager #1 said the Transfer/Discharge notice is part of the paperwork sent with a resident when transferred to the hospital and a copy is left in the record. UM #1 was unable to locate the copy of the Transfer/Discharge notice.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #71 was admitted to the facility in October 2022 with diagnoses including chronic diastolic heart failure, cognitive...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #71 was admitted to the facility in October 2022 with diagnoses including chronic diastolic heart failure, cognitive communication deficit. Review of most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicted Resident #71 scored a 9 out of possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating he/she had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #71's medical record indicated that he/she was sent to the hospital on the following dates, 11/5/22 and 3/26/23. Further review of medical record failed to indicate that bed hold notices were sent with the Resident or to his/her representative. During an interview on 4/24/23 at 2:15 P.M., Unit Manager #3 said the nurse who is in charge of sending the resident to the hospital is responsible for sending the paperwork, including the bed hold policy. He further acknowledged that he could not find the bed hold notices paperwork in Resident #71's medical record Based on records reviewed and interview the facility failed to ensure the bed hold notice was provided for 2 Residents (#98, #71) out of a total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #98 was admitted to the facility in March 2022 and has diagnoses that includes cognitive communication deficit, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, and dysphagia. Review of Resident #98's Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) indicated a discharge return anticipated assessment dated [DATE]. Review of Resident #98's medical record indicated the following: *A nursing progress note dated 4/8/23 that indicated Resident #98's provider ordered to have the resident sent to the hospital for evaluation. * No documentation that the Bed Hold notice was provided to the Resident or Resident Representative. On 4/24/23 at 1:08 P.M., Unit Manager #1 said the Bed Hold notice is part of the paperwork sent with a resident when transferred to the hospital and a copy is left for the record. UM #1 was unable to locate the copy of the Bed Hold notice.
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
  • • 41% turnover. Below Massachusetts's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), 4 harm violation(s), $84,292 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 63 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $84,292 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Massachusetts. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is The Center At Advocate's CMS Rating?

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

How is The Center At Advocate Staffed?

CMS rates THE CENTER AT ADVOCATE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at The Center At Advocate?

State health inspectors documented 63 deficiencies at THE CENTER AT ADVOCATE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 4 that caused actual resident harm, 54 with potential for harm, and 2 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 The Center At Advocate?

THE CENTER AT ADVOCATE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 190 certified beds and approximately 158 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in EAST BOSTON, Massachusetts.

How Does The Center At Advocate Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, THE CENTER AT ADVOCATE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Center At Advocate?

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 The Center At Advocate Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, THE CENTER AT ADVOCATE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 The Center At Advocate Stick Around?

THE CENTER AT ADVOCATE has a staff turnover rate of 41%, 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 The Center At Advocate Ever Fined?

THE CENTER AT ADVOCATE has been fined $84,292 across 3 penalty actions. This is above the Massachusetts average of $33,922. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is The Center At Advocate on Any Federal Watch List?

THE CENTER AT ADVOCATE 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.