CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed for one Resident (#100), to ensure the Resident was assessed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for the self-ad...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed for one Resident (#100), to ensure the Resident was assessed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for the self-administration of medications, out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Self-Administration of Medications, dated February 2019, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- In order to maintain the residents' highest level of independence, residents who desire to self-administer medications are permitted to do so if the facility's IDT has determined that the practice would be safe for the resident and other residents of the facility and there is a prescriber's order to self-administer.
- If the resident desires to self-administer medications and an assessment by the IDT indicates it is appropriate, this is documented in the appropriate place in the resident's record;
- For those residents assessed, the IDT determines the resident has the ability to self-administer and the skills to self-administer medications. Such as, removal of the medication from the package and/or operating the medical device, the purpose of the medication, reading the label scheduling of the medications and storing of the medication.
- If the resident demonstrates the ability to safely self-administer medications, a further assessment of the safety of bedside medication storage is conducted.
- Bedside storage is permitted only when it does not present a risk to other residents.
Resident #100 was admitted to the facility in November 2019 with diagnoses including lung cancer.
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/28/22, indicated Resident #100 was alert and oriented, and he/she was cognitively intact.
On 6/21/22 at 11:00 A.M., the surveyor observed the prescription medication, Symbicort (budesonide-fumarate dihydrate- a combination of a steroid and a long-acting bronchodilator used to prevent bronchospasm in the lungs) laying on its side, on top of Resident #100's nightstand. The medication was prescribed to Resident #100.
On 6/21/22 at 2:04 P.M., the surveyor observed the Symbicort laying on its side on Resident #100's nightstand. While in the room speaking with Resident #100, the surveyor observed Nurse #1 enter the room and stand directly in front of the nightstand and medication. The Nurse left the Resident's room and failed to take the medication from the room and/or secure the medication safely.
Review of the Physician's Order indicated:
- Symbicort, HFA aerosol inhaler; 160-4.5 micrograms (mcg) / actuation, administer 2 puffs, twice a day by mouth, rinse mouth after each use, store medication upright and discard after 3 months.
During both observations of the Symbicort on 6/21/22, the medication was not stored in an upright position.
Record review on 6/21/22 at 2:30 P.M., failed to indicate the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) had evaluated and determined the Resident appropriate to self-administer any medications. There were no Physician's orders for the Resident to self-administer medications and there was no evidence the IDT conducted an assessment for the safety of bedside medication storage.
On 6/22/22 at 11:30 A.M., the surveyor observed the Symbicort on the Resident's nightstand. The medication was laying on its side, not upright as ordered.
During an interview with Resident #100 on 6/24/22 at 11:52 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #18 in Resident #100's room leave a small clear cup with one pill in it on the Resident's tray table. The surveyor asked the Resident if the medication that was in the cup were medications he/she self-administered and how did he/she store medications. Resident #100 said, No, but he/she did have medication in his/her room. Resident #100 said he/she had Symbicort and nasal spray in the nightstand drawer and he/she had it because the facility staff could never find it when it was supposed to be administered. The surveyor asked how the facility staff were informed when he/she administered the medications. Resident #100 said generally no one asked, but sometimes a facility staff would ask about taking the medications. The surveyor asked if anyone had asked if he/she had taken the medication today and he/she said no. The surveyor observed the medications in the unlocked, top drawer of the nightstand and the Symbicort was laying on its side, not upright as ordered.
During an interview on 6/24/22 at 12:10 P.M., Nurse #18 said he was aware the Resident had the medication Symbicort in his/her room. The Nurse said he was unaware Resident #100 had nasal spray and said there were no current Physician's orders for the nasal spray and was unaware of any orders or an assessment for the self-administration of medications. He said that to sign off the administration of the Symbicort, he would have to ask the Resident if he/she had taken the medication twice a day.
During an interview on 6/24/22 at 2:18 P.M., Unit Manager #1 said she had spoken with Nurse #18 and had not found IDT assessments for self-administering of medication or for safe storage of medications. She said there was no orders for self-administering medications and there was no order for the nasal spray.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that the right to personal privacy was maintained for one Resident (#154).
Findings include:
On 06/24/22 from 1:00 P.M. through ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that the right to personal privacy was maintained for one Resident (#154).
Findings include:
On 06/24/22 from 1:00 P.M. through 1:20 P.M., Surveyors #1 and #2 observed the facility's consultant Psychologist interviewing Resident #154 in his/her room. The consultant Psychologist was seated at the end of the Resident's bed and directly in front of the open doorway. The Psychologist asked Resident #154 questions specific to memory, in a voice easily heard by the two surveyors. The surveyors could hear the Resident answering the Psychologist's questions. The Resident's voice was hesitant, shaky and he/she stuttered. The Resident could be heard asking for reassurance that he/she was answering the questions correctly.
During the observation from 1:00 P.M. through 1:20 P.M. on 6/24/22, the surveyors observed Nurse #18 (seated at the nurses' station), a dietary aide, and a certified nursing assistant outside the Resident's room, as well as Unit Manager #1 walking by the Resident's room twice, while the consulting Psychologist interviewed the Resident at the doorway. The Psychologist could be clearly heard by staff who were in the hallway and at the nurses' station. The surveyors did not observe staff intervening to ensure the Resident the right to privacy.
On 6/24/22 at 1:20 P.M., Unit Manager #1 approached the surveyors and the Resident's room. She said she had just realized what was occurring. She said the Resident's sessions with the consultant Psychologist should be private.
On 6/24/22 at 2:35 P.M., Unit Manager #1 said the Psychologist said he was trying to maintain a comfortable and safe environment and that was why he had left the door of the Resident's room open during his evaluation. The Unit Manager said the unit had other locations available that would have provided a comfortable, safe, and private environment.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (#189 and #203), out of 35 sampled residents, were free from Velcro seat belt restraint...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (#189 and #203), out of 35 sampled residents, were free from Velcro seat belt restraints.
Findings include:
Review of the Physical Restraints Policy, dated April 2022, indicated the following restraint procedures:
-identify specific medical symptoms that require the use of restraints
-obtain a physician order
-restraints will be removed for 10 minutes every two hours to allow for activities of daily living
1. Resident #189 was admitted to the facility in August 2020 with a diagnosis of dementia.
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/31/22, indicated Resident #189 scored a 4 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) which indicated a severe cognitive impairment.
Review of the current Physician's Orders included an order dated 4/21/22 indicating Resident #189 had a Velcro alarm belt on the wheelchair and to monitor the times the Resident intentionally removed the alarm belt when out of bed; with special instructions indicating this was not a restraint because the Resident could intentionally remove the safety belt.
Review of a Fall/Safety Care Plan indicated Resident #189 had a history of falling related to muscular skeletal changes, medications, and cognitive loss secondary to dementia, having poor sense of directions, destination and poor safety awareness due to poor cognition and there were times the Resident was unpredictable. The interventions on the care plan included a Velcro alarm belt.
On 6/21/22 at 11:20 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #189 seated in a wheelchair with a Velcro alarmed seat belt across his/her lap. The Resident was in the unit dining, with staff present and the seatbelt was intact.
On 6/23/22 at 8:57 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #189 in the unit dining room, in a wheelchair with an intact Velcro seat belt across his/her lap. The Resident was seated with his/her eyes closed and was not attempting to get up.
On 6/28/22 at 9:34 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #189 seated in the unit dining room in his/her wheelchair with an intact seat belt on his/her lap. The Therapeutic Activity Director, at the request of the surveyor, asked Resident #189 to release his/her Velcro seat belt. The Resident looked at the surveyor and the Therapeutic Activity Director and mumbled incoherent words. The Resident was asked in several ways (release seat belt, open seat belt, make the alarm sound) and lightly touches the belt. The Resident did not release the seat belt. The Therapeutic Activity Director said she was not sure the Resident understood the question due to dementia.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 9:40 A.M., Nurse #10 said the staff had never asked Resident #189 to release the seat belt. She said she did not think Resident #189 knew what the seat belt was for. She said in the afternoons, Resident #189 would get anxious and pull on the red tab of the Velcro seat belt. She said the Resident did not know what he/she was pulling on and Nurse #10 said she could not say the Resident was removing the seat belt with intention.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 9:45 A.M., Unit Manager #5 said she felt Resident #189 could release the Velcro intentionally because he/she had done it in the past. She said staff monitor the intentional release of the Velcro seat belt. She said the staff do not ask the Resident to release the Velcro seat belt because he/she would not understand the question due to his/her dementia. She said the device was not considered a restraint because the Resident was able to do the act of physically releasing the device.
Review of the Restraint/Adaptive Equipment Use assessment, dated 3/16/22, indicated an alarmed Velcro seat belt was on the wheelchair and was not a restraint because Resident #189 could intentionally remove the belt. The sections titled functional factors, other factors, and evaluation were not completed. The assessment ended with a plan to continue the plan of care.
Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2022 indicated an order to twice per day monitor how many times the Resident intentionally removed the Velcro seat belt. The MAR indicated Resident #189 did not remove the seat belt for 22 out of the 54 shifts reviewed.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 9:30 A.M., Unit Manager #5 said if Resident #189 went a couple of days without removing the Velcro belt, then the staff would re-assess to see if the belt was now a restraint. She said there was no policy in place to determine how many times/shifts the Resident would not release the belt in order to re-assess. She said she was unable to tell if the Resident knew he/she had to release the Velcro seat belt prior to standing up. She said the Resident performed the action of releasing the seat belt but could not say it was intentional. She said the Case Manager holds meetings regarding adaptive equipment to review their use.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 11:50 A.M., the Case Manager said the facility held monthly meetings regarding adaptive equipment to ensure their proper use. She said Resident #189 could intentionally remove the seat belt because he/she has physically done the act. She said they no longer asked residents to remove seat belts because it was no longer indicated in the MDS manual. She said the facility determines intent based on if the resident can remove the device with their own hands and not based on if the resident was removing the device with an understanding of purpose.
2. Resident #203 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with a diagnosis of dementia. Resident #203 was Portuguese speaking.
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 6/7/22, indicated Resident #203 was unable to complete the BIMS and a staff assessment was completed. The staff assessment indicated the Resident had short term and long-term memory problems and the cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired, never or rarely making a decision.
Review of the current Physician's Orders, included an order, dated 4/21/22, indicating Resident #203 had a Velcro alarm belt on the wheelchair and to monitor the times the Resident intentionally removed the alarm belt when out of bed; with special instructions indicating this was not a restraint because the Resident could intentionally remove the safety belt.
Review of a Fall/Safety Care Plan indicated the Resident had a history of falling related to muscular skeletal changes, medications, and cognitive loss secondary to dementia, having poor sense of directions, destination and there were times the Resident was unpredictable. The interventions on the care plan included a Velcro alarm belt.
On 6/21/22 at 12:04 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #203 seated in the hallway, in a wheelchair with a Velcro alarmed seat belt across his/her lap. At 12:23 P.M., the surveyor observed the Resident being fed lunch by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and the seat belt remained intact while he/she ate lunch.
On 6/24/22 at 11:48 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #203 in his/her wheelchair in the hallway with an intact Velcro seat belt across his/her lap. The Resident was observed to be using his/her hands to follow along the seat belt to where it attached on the wheelchair, behind him/her. The Resident was observed to be pulling the straps of the belt from where they connected to the chair (not where the belt should be released).
On 6/28/22 at 12:25 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #203 in the unit hallway, sitting in his/her wheelchair with a Velcro seat belt intact across his/her lap. At the request of the surveyor, CNA #4 asked Resident #203, in Portuguese, to release his/her Velcro seat belt. The Resident responded verbally, and the CNA said the Resident was not making any sense and the responses were not related to the question of releasing the seat belt. She said the Resident did not know what the seat belt was for and would play with the seat belt because it was on his/her lap and that was how the Resident released the seat belt.
Review of the Restraint/Adaptive Equipment Reduction assessment, dated 4/21/22, indicated an alarmed Velcro seat belt was on the wheelchair and to monitor the number of times the Resident intentionally removed the belt. The assessment indicated a previous trial reduction on 4/8/22 with a different type of wheelchair. The plan of care indicated the Velcro seat belt was not considered a restraint secondary to the Resident's intentional removal.
Review of the MAR for June 2022 indicated an order to twice per day monitor how many times the Resident intentionally removed the Velcro seat belt. The MAR indicated Resident #203 did not remove the seat belt for 33 out of the 55 shifts reviewed.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 9:44 A.M., Unit Manager #5 said Resident #203 was reviewed for a different wheelchair in April 2022, where he/she would not have to use the seat belt but was unable to self-propel in the wheelchair and the family wanted him/her to be able to move around on his/her own. She said at that time it was determined the continued need for the Velcro seat belt. She said the staff do not ask the Resident if he/she can release the seat belt due to his/her dementia. She said the Resident was able to perform the act of releasing the seatbelt, but she was unsure if it was intentional. She said the process was to re-evaluate if the device was a restraint if the resident went a couple of days without self-releasing the device, but there was no policy on the amount of days to monitor. She said the Case Manager held a monthly meeting to discuss the use of adaptive equipment to ensure they were not restraints.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 11:50 A.M., the Case Manager said the facility held monthly meetings regarding adaptive equipment to ensure their proper use. She said Resident #203 did not have any safety awareness due to cognition and that was why the Velcro seat belt was needed. She said they no longer asked residents to remove seat belts because it was no longer indicated in the MDS manual. She said the facility determined intent based on if the resident could remove the device with their own hands and not based on if the resident was removing the device with an understanding of purpose.
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
Based on policy review, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that staff implemented written policies and procedures for allegations of abuse for one Resident (#197), out of 35 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that staff implemented written policies and procedures for allegations of abuse for one Resident (#197), out of 35 sampled residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Resident Abuse, Mistreatment, and Neglect, undated, indicated but was not limited to:
-The resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation.
-Mental abuse is defined as, but not limited to, humiliation, harassment, threats of punishment, or withholding of treatment or services.
-Employees are obligated to report immediately to their supervisors or their administrator, any observed or suspected incidents of abuse. This reporting is necessary in order that the nursing home can inform the alleged violations to DPH prior to preliminary investigation as required.
-Upon reporting of any alleged abuse, the administrator must ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including misappropriation of resident property are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. If the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the Administrator of the facility and to other officials in accordance with State law.
Resident #197 was admitted to the facility in September 2019 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and anxiety.
Review of the 6/1/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated Resident #197 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 out of 15.
Review of the medical record indicated Resident #197 received one to one (1:1) psychotherapy provided by the facility's psychiatric consultant.
Review of the 7/23/21 Case Opening Interview note written by the Psychotherapist indicated Resident #197 told the clinician an aide yelled at him/her that morning and said if he/she falls again, he/she would just leave me there.
Review of the 12/3/21 Case Opening Interview note indicated Resident #197 told the clinician that when he/she asked Nurse #5 about an upcoming appointment with an eye doctor, she told him/her that she already told him/her about it five times already. The Resident told the clinician the nurse has no right to talk to me that way, I am sick of it, and I won't take it anymore. The Resident told the clinician the nurse treats me like an idiot, and likes to make me look like a fool.
Review of the Health Care Facility Reporting System (a web-based system that health care facilities must use to report incidents and allegations of abuse, neglect, and misappropriation) on 6/24/22 at 10:00 A.M., failed to indicate the allegations of verbal abuse reported to the consultant psychiatric clinician on 7/23/21 and 12/3/21 were reported to DPH as required.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 8:34 A.M., the surveyor reviewed the psychiatric clinician's notes with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator. They said all incidents related to Resident #197 were reviewed, and they found no reports or investigations for allegations of verbal abuse. They said the allegations should have been investigated and reported per the facility abuse policy.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with a diagnosis of dementia.
Review of the Nursing Progress Notes indicated on 4/20/22 Resident #65 was heard to say, Hey, don't do that ...
Read full inspector narrative →
2. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with a diagnosis of dementia.
Review of the Nursing Progress Notes indicated on 4/20/22 Resident #65 was heard to say, Hey, don't do that again. Resident #21 was observed to be walking away from Resident #65. Resident #65 then said Resident #21 hit him/her on the back of the head with his/her hand, that he/she was not hurt, but that's not the point. The nursing note indicated the families were called, both Residents were placed on 15-minute checks and a message was left for the nurse manager.
Review of the Nursing Progress Note, dated 4/21/22, indicated the social worker and nurse manager met with Resident #65 and their spouse. The note indicated the Resident was able to recall the event of being struck with an open hand to the back and that the slap hurt.
Review of the Nursing Progress Note, dated 4/21/22 at 11:00 P.M., indicated Resident #65 was afraid to sleep. The note indicated that on this day at 7:00 P.M. Resident #21 walked up to Resident #65 looked at his/her slippers and said, What is that? Resident #65 became anxious and said he/she did not know what he/she did to upset Resident #21.
On 6/28/22 at 2:00 P.M., the surveyor reviewed the incident reports provided by the Director of Nurses. The documentation did not include any information to indicate the incident had been reported within two hours or that the results of the investigation were reported within 5 working days to the state agency.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 2:04 P.M., the Director of Nurses said the incident was not reported to the state agency because both Residents had dementia. She said the facility policy did indicate that resident to resident altercations were considered abuse, but Resident #65 was not hurt, so it was not reported.
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff reported two allegations of verbal abuse within two hours to the Department of Public Health (DPH) for two Residents (#197 and #65), out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Resident Abuse, Mistreatment, and Neglect, undated, indicated but was not limited to:
-The resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation.
-Mental abuse is defined as, but not limited to, humiliation, harassment, threats of punishment, or withholding of treatment or services.
-Employees are obligated to report immediately to their supervisors or their administrator, any observed or suspected incidents of abuse. This reporting is necessary in order that the nursing home can inform the alleged violations to DPH prior to preliminary investigation as required.
-Upon reporting of any alleged abuse, the administrator must ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including misappropriation of resident property are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. If the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the Administrator of the facility and to other officials in accordance with State law.
1. Resident #197 was admitted to the facility in September 2019 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and anxiety.
Review of the 6/1/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated Resident #197 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 out of 15.
Review of the medical record indicated Resident #197 received one to one (1:1) psychotherapy provided by the facility's psychiatric consultant.
Review of the 7/23/21 Case Opening Interview note written by the Psychotherapist indicated Resident #197 told the clinician an aide yelled at him/her that morning and said if he/she falls again, he/she would just leave me there.
Review of the 12/3/21 Case Opening Interview note indicated Resident #197 told the clinician that when he/she asked Nurse #5 about an upcoming appointment with an eye doctor, she told him/her that she already told him/her about it five times already. The Resident told the clinician the nurse has no right to talk to me that way, I am sick of it, and I won't take it anymore. The Resident told the clinician the nurse treats me like an idiot, and likes to make me look like a fool.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 8:34 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator said the allegations of verbal abuse were not reported to DPH as required.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with a diagnosis of dementia.
Review of the nursing progress notes indicated on 4/20/22 Resident #65 was heard to say, Hey, don't do that ...
Read full inspector narrative →
2. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with a diagnosis of dementia.
Review of the nursing progress notes indicated on 4/20/22 Resident #65 was heard to say, Hey, don't do that again. Resident #21 was observed to be walking away from Resident #65. Resident #65 then said Resident #21 hit him/her on the back of the head with his/her hand, that he/she was not hurt, but that's not the point. The nursing note indicated the families were called, both Residents were placed on 15-minute checks and a message was left for the nurse manager.
Review of the Nursing Progress Note, dated 4/21/22, indicated the social worker and nurse manager met with Resident #65 and their spouse. The note indicated the Resident was able to recall the event of being struck with an open hand to the back and that the slap hurt.
Review of the Nursing Progress Note, dated 4/21/22 at 11:00 P.M., indicated Resident #65 was afraid to sleep. The note indicated that on this day at 7:00 P.M. Resident #21 walked up to Resident #65 looked at his/her slippers and said, What is that? Resident #65 became anxious and said he/she did not know what he/she did to upset Resident #21.
On 6/28/22 at 2:00 P.M., the surveyor reviewed the incident reports provided by the Director of Nurses. The documentation did not include any information to indicate the results of the investigation were reported to the state agency within five working days.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 2:04 P.M., the Director of Nurses said the completed investigation was not reported to the state agency within five days because both Residents had dementia. She said the facility policy did indicate that resident to resident altercations were considered abuse, but Resident #65 was not hurt, so it was not reported.
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff thoroughly investigated and reported the results of an allegation of abuse for two Residents (#197 and #65), out of a total sample of 35 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to:
1. For Resident #197, investigate an allegation of verbal abuse; and
2. For Resident #65, report the results of a completed investigation of resident-to-resident abuse to the Department of Public Health within five days.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's Abuse Prohibition Policy & Procedure, undated, and Incident Reporting Policy and Procedure, undated, included but was not limited to:
It is the policy of the Diocesan Health Facilities that abuse prohibition is comprehensively enforced, as defined Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (42 Code of Federal Regulations 483.12)
-All Resident allegations of abuse must be investigated according to DPH policy.
1. Resident #197 was admitted to the facility in September 2019 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and anxiety.
Review of the 6/1/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated Resident #197 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 out of 15.
Review of the 7/23/21 Case Opening Interview note written by the Psychotherapist indicated Resident #197 told the clinician an aide yelled at him/her that morning and said if he/she falls again, he/she would just leave me there.
Review of the 12/3/21 Case Opening Interview note indicated Resident #197 told the clinician that when he/she asked Nurse #5 about an upcoming appointment with an eye doctor, she told him/her that she already told him/her about it five times already. The Resident told the clinician the nurse has no right to talk to me that way, I am sick of it, and I won't take it anymore. The Resident told the clinician the nurse treats me like an idiot, and likes to make me look like a fool.
During an interview on 2/23/22 at 2:36 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator said there were no reports or investigations for allegations of verbal abuse for Resident #197. They said the allegations should have been investigated according to the facility abuse policy.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0620
(Tag F0620)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Physician's order for admission was obtained according to facility policy for two Residents (#211 and #212), out o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Physician's order for admission was obtained according to facility policy for two Residents (#211 and #212), out of three closed records reviewed, from a total sample of 35 residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's admission Procedure policy, last reviewed in March 2022, included but was not limited to:
-Residents shall be admitted on ly on the written order of a Physician, Physician Assistant or Nurse Practitioner.
1. Resident #211 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and cerebral infarction.
On 6/3/22, the Resident was discharged home with services.
Review of the medical record failed to indicate an order to admit Resident #211 to the facility.
2. Resident #212 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 for a five-day respite stay and received Hospice services. The Resident had diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease. The Resident was transferred to the hospital on 5/12/22 and did not return to the facility.
Review of the medical record failed to indicate an order to admit Resident #212 to the facility for a respite stay on Hospice services.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 12:19 P.M., the surveyor and Medical Records Coordinator reviewed Resident #211 and Resident #212's medical records. The Medical Records Coordinator was unable to find a Physician's order to admit Resident #211 to the facility according to facility policy.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 12:28 P.M., the surveyor and Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed Residents #211's and #212's medical records, and she confirmed there were no Physician's orders to admit Residents #211 and #212 to the facility according to facility policy.
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 observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that individualized, comprehensive care plans were developed and consistently implemented for two Residents (#74 an...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that individualized, comprehensive care plans were developed and consistently implemented for two Residents (#74 and #71), out of a total of 35 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed
1. For Resident #74, to develop and implement the care plan for weekly weights and record percentage of meals consumed, per the physician's orders; and
2. For Resident #71, to implement the care plan and provide mealtime assistance and cueing.
1. Resident #74 was admitted to the facility in October 2021 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/14/22, indicated Resident #74 had moderate cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 out of 15. The MDS indicated the Resident was not on a physician-prescribed weight loss plan.
Review of the June 2022 Physician's Orders included the following orders initiated 10/24/21:
- CNA [certified nursing assistant] to record breakfast and lunch intake.
- CNA to record dinner intake.
- House snack offered: at bedtime, 15:00 (3:00 P.M.) and 23:00 (11:00 P.M.); and
- Weight: Check and record weekly unless otherwise indicated.
Review of the Comprehensive Care Plans included but was not limited to:
-Focus: Resident had a nutritional problem with eating and drinking due to uncoordinated movements/tremors secondary to Parkinson's disease. Resident can feed him/herself at times but need assistance with setting up tray and opening small containers; At risk for dehydration r/t impaired cognition secondary to dementia, at risk for aspiration secondary to dysphagia
- Approach: Start Date 5/10/22
- Dental evaluation and intervention as needed
- Diet- House
- Eating - Assist
- Follow OT/ST (Occupational and Speech Therapy)
- Insert dentures prior to meals
- Monitor and report if Resident had any coughing episodes while eating, congestion, increased temperature, difficulty swallowing or chewing.
Goal: Resident will be well hydrated and well nourished
The care plan failed to include the following approach: CNA to record breakfast and lunch intake; and CNA to record dinner intake; House snack offered: at bedtime, 15:00 (3:00 P.M.) and 23:00 (11:00 P.M.) Weight: weekly and as needed; Weight: Check and record weekly unless otherwise indicated.
Review of the CNAs Flow Sheet for the month of June 2022 did not include the percentage of breakfast, lunch, and dinner consumed.
Further review of the clinical record indicated the weights were obtained monthly, as opposed to weekly per the physician's order:
1/5/22- 115.4 pounds (lbs.)
4/12/22- 104.8 pounds
6/6/22- 108.2 pounds
During an interview on 06/29/22 at 12:11 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said the Resident's weekly weight was not being obtained.
2. Resident #71 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with medical diagnoses including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance and dementia with Lewy bodies.
Review of the January 2022 MDS assessment indicated Resident #71 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a BIMS score of 04 out of 15. The MDS indicated Resident #71 required extensive assistance for all activities of daily living.
Review of the Resident's Nutritional Care Plan, dated 4/27/22, indicated the following:
Focus: Resident enjoy eating in his/her room
Intervention:
-Set the Resident meal tray so that he/she can feed him/herself.
-Provide the Resident with reminders to eat because sometimes his/her mind may wander
On 6/21/22 the surveyor made the following observations:
-At 8:45 A.M., the Resident was sitting in his/her room with the breakfast tray in front of him/her yelling, Hey!. The Resident said he/she needed help with breakfast and wanted something to drink. The Resident was observed struggling to open his carton of juice.
-At 9:42 A.M., CNA #7 came by the Resident's room; the surveyor told her the Resident was yelling for help and something to drink. The CNA left the room without assisting the Resident.
-At 9:50 A.M., the Resident was struggling to peel his/her egg from the shell. CNA #7 came back and asked the Resident if he/she was done eating. The surveyor intervened and said the Resident had not begun and needed assistance. The CNA said he/she likes to do it alone and said to the Resident she would be right back.
On 6/21/22 at 12:30 P.M., the surveyor observed the Resident's lunch tray on the bedside table in front of him/her. The tray had not been set up. The surveyor observed the Resident becoming frustrated because he/she had difficulty reaching all the items on the tray. The Resident started yelling, Hey! The surveyor informed CNA #5 the Resident needed help.
During an interview on 6/21/22 at 12:35 P.M., CNA #5 said she did not know the Resident needed his/her meals set up, so she left the tray in the room. In addition, the CNA said she did not know to provide directional cues to the Resident when eating.
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** 2. Resident #84 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis and dementia.
Review of th...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #84 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis and dementia.
Review of the 4/20/22 MDS assessment indicated Resident #84 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a BIMS score of 13 out of 15 and required extensive assistance of two staff for all activities of daily living.
Review of the medical record indicated the following Physician's Order:
-Bilateral heel off boots on at all times, remove for care and replace (initiated 9/29/21)
Review of Comprehensive Care Plans included but was not limited to:
-Problem: Integumentary- I am dependent for repositioning and have a stage 4 pressure wound on my right ischium and am incontinent (last updated 5/16/22)
-Goal: My skin will remain intact and be well moisturized (5/16/22)
-Approach: I use a cushion for pressure reduction when in chair (5/16/22); I use a pressure relieving/low air loss mattress for pressure reduction when in bed (5/16/22); Use a pillow to offload and relieve pressure on my heels when in bed (5/16/22)
Further review of the medical record failed to indicate that the comprehensive care plan was updated to reflect the physician's order for the use of bilateral heel off boots initiated 9/29/21.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 1:14 P.M., the surveyor and Unit Manager #3 reviewed Resident #84's comprehensive care plans. She said the care plan should have been updated to reflect the use of bilateral booties.
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to evaluate for effectiveness and revise the comprehensive care plan for two Residents (#112 and #84), out of a total sample of 35 residents. Specifically, the facility failed
1. For Resident #112, to revise the care plan for the use and monitoring of psychotropic medications; and
2. For Resident #84, to revise the care plan for skin to reflect the Resident's intermittent behavior of removing booties prescribed by the physician as an intervention to prevent to development of pressure injuries to his/heels.
Findings include:
1. Resident #112 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 and diagnosed with dementia.
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #112 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03 out of 15, the MDS indicated the Resident received psychotropic medications.
Review of the Comprehensive Care Plans included but was not limited to:
-Focus: Resident had mood/behaviors- At risk for behaviors and/mood issues secondary to dementia, anxiety, and depression.
-Approach: Monitor for episodes of yelling, swearing, crying, or hitting staff or my peers
Goal: Resident will not harm others secondary to physically abusive behavior. Resident will accept assistance without becoming verbally and physically abusive.
Review of the June 2022 Physician's Orders indicated:
-Sertraline (used to improve mood and decrease depression) 50 Milligram (MG) tablets; Give one tablet orally at 08:30 A.M.
-Seroquel (decrease psychosis) 25 MG tablets; Give one tablet orally at 08:30 A.M.
Further review of the clinical record indicated a Pharmacy Recommendation dated 2/16/22 with the following instructions:
Resident was admitted to the facility with current order of Seroquel 37.5 MG daily, for behavioral or psychological symptoms of dementia, start to decrease Seroquel 25 MG daily re-evaluate in two weeks. The clinical record failed to include that this medication was re-evaluated in two weeks to evaluate the effectiveness of the lower dosage.
The Resident's comprehensive care plan, dated 3/11/22, was not implemented to accurately reflect the Resident receives psychotropic medications and that they were being monitored to reflect if dosages were being increased or decreased.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 12:08 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said there was no recent changes made in the Resident's medication. Unit Manager #2 said the Resident was currently stable.
CONCERN
(D)
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** 2. Review of [NAME] NURSING PROCEDURES, 8th edition
Applying topical medications-
Documentation:
Document the name of the medica...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of [NAME] NURSING PROCEDURES, 8th edition
Applying topical medications-
Documentation:
Document the name of the medication, the dose, and the date and time of administration in the patient's medication administration record. Include the route and site used. Document the appearance and integrity of the skin before administration. Record the presence or absence of adverse effects; if adverse effects occur, note the name of the practitioner notified, if applicable. Document the patient's response to and tolerance of therapy.
Resident #99 was admitted to the facility in January 2021 with diagnoses including cerebrovascular insufficiency.
Review of the 4/25/22 Nursing Progress Note indicated Resident #99's family member called the facility to report that he/she was in to visit the Resident and his/her feet were extremely red and seemed in bad shape. The family member requested the Nurse Practitioner (NP) evaluate the Resident and report back.
There was no documentation in the medical record to reflect that Resident #99 had redness to his/her left foot.
Review of a 4/25/22 Patient Progress Note indicated the NP evaluated Resident #99 and noted the distal left foot was red with white crust in-between and diagnosed the condition as Tinea. The NP indicated a treatment plan to wash the foot, dry thoroughly, and apply Ketoconazole (antifungal cream) twice daily until resolved. The NP was not specific in the description of the reddened area or the location of the white crust on the foot.
Review of the current Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to:
-Inspect feet every shift for redness, new blisters report issues to NP/Physician (10/2/21)
-Ketoconazole cream 2%, wash left foot, dry thoroughly and in between toes. Apply cream evenly and re-evaluate in 7 days (4/25/22)
Review of April 2022 and May 2022 Medication/Treatment Administration Records (MAR/TAR) indicated Ketoconazole cream was applied as ordered. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate any documentation of the appearance and integrity of the reddened skin and white crust on the foot while being treated with the prescribed treatment according to professional standards of practice.
Review of a 5/23/22 Nurse Practitioner's Note indicated the Resident was seen for follow up for Tinea. The NP documented that nursing previously reported that the Resident's left foot was red and warm and was subsequently treated with antifungal cream. Upon evaluation, the NP found the Resident's left foot to have no swelling, no redness, and had no warmth or drainage. The NP ordered to discontinue the antifungal treatment, and initiate Aquaphor (topical moisture ointment) twice daily.
Review of the May 2022 and June 2022 MAR/TAR indicated Aquaphor was applied to the Resident's feet as ordered. Staff documented that the Resident's feet had no new areas, were within normal limits, and/or had no redness.
On 6/23/22 at 12:33 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #99 reclining in a Broda chair (positioning chair) in his/her room. The Resident had a soft bootie on his/her left foot and was not wearing a sock, which exposed the top of the foot. The distal foot was red extending from the great toe to the little toe.
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 2:00 P.M., the surveyor and Unit Manager #3 observed Resident #99 reclining in a Broda chair in his/her room. The surveyor asked Unit Manager #3 to describe the appearance of the Resident's left foot. She said that it appeared reddened and extended across his/her toes. She said staff should document a description of the Resident's foot to determine if the area has a changed, and therefore would need to be evaluated by the Physician.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 10:42 A.M., the surveyor informed the Wound Nurse of the reddened area on Resident #99's left foot. She said she was not aware of the reddened area but wanted to check it out. She said typically, she will receive a voicemail or email from staff with any changes to residents' skin, and she will follow up. She said she knew about the area on the Resident's left foot identified in April and treated with antifungal cream, and it was followed by the NP. The Wound Nurse said staff should be documenting a description of the area so when they do a skin check, they can accurately assess the area and determine if there are any changes so they can be addressed promptly.
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed for two Residents (#100 and #99), out of a total sample of 35 residents. Specifically, the facility failed:
1. For Resident #100, to ensure nursing staff did not leave medications at the bedside; and
2. For Resident #99, to complete ongoing comprehensive skin assessments.
Findings include:
1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medications, dated February 2019, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Only licensed nurses, pharmacy personnel, and those lawfully authorized to administer medications are permitted to access medications.
Resident #100 was admitted to the facility in November 2019 with diagnoses including a primary admission diagnoses of treated lung cancer and irritable bowel syndrome.
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/28/22, indicated Resident #100 was alert and oriented.
On 6/21/22 at 11:00 A.M. and at 2:00 P.M., the surveyor observed the medication Symbicort (a combination of a steroid and a long-acting bronchodilator used to prevent bronchospasm in the lungs) on the Resident's nightstand.
During an interview on 6/24/22 at 11:52 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #18 in Resident #100's room and leave a small clear cup with one pill on the Resident's tray table. Resident #100 said the pill was left by Nurse #18, because he/she was not ready to take it. The surveyor asked if the Nurse had offered to take back the medication and have him/her call when you were ready. The Resident said no the Nurse had not. The surveyor inquired about other medications seen on the nightstand and Resident #100 said that he/she had Symbicort and nasal spray in the unlocked drawer of his/her nightstand. The Resident said he/she had the medications because the facility staff could not find the medications and therefore it was available to him/her.
Record review indicated there was no specific order for medications to be left at the bedside.
During an interview on 6/24/22 at 12:10 P.M., Nurse #18 said, yes, he had left medication at the Resident's bedside. He said the Resident said he/she would take the medication later. Nurse #18 said that he probably should not have left them, but the medication was only an over-the-counter medication called Simethicone. He said the medication helped the Resident with pain and discomfort caused by excessive gas. The surveyor asked if he was aware of two other medications at the bedside, and he said he knew about the Symbicort, but not the nasal spray. He said that he was unaware of any specific orders to leave medications at the bedside and that there was no Physician's order for the nasal spray. The surveyor asked if it was the facility's practice to leave medications at the bedside. Nurse #18 said no it was not the practice and said he should have taken responsibility in ensuring the medication was administered safely. He said he was not sure what to do about the Symbicort and nasal spray.
During an interview on 6/24/22 at 2:18 P.M., Unit Manager #1 said she had spoken with Nurse #18 and said it was not the facility's practice to leave medication at the bedside. She said the Resident did not have Physician specifics orders to do so.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assist one Resident (#85), out of a total sample of 35 residents, in obtaining an alternative or replacement hearing device in a timely man...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assist one Resident (#85), out of a total sample of 35 residents, in obtaining an alternative or replacement hearing device in a timely manner upon discovering the Resident's hearing aids were lost.
Findings include:
Resident #85 was admitted to the facility in January 2022.
Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/20/22, indicated the Resident was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. The MDS further indicated in Section B the Resident had moderate difficulty with hearing and hearing aids were used.
During an interview on 6/21/22 at 9:36 A.M., Resident #85 said he/she is hard of hearing (HOH) and does not have hearing aids.
Review of the Communication Care Plan indicated, but was not limited to, the following under approaches to be used with Resident #85:
- I am HOH and may miss part of what you are saying to me especially in a noisy busy environment
- I am HOH and wear bilateral hearing aids. Please insert them daily so that I can hear you
On 6/22/22 at 11:21 A.M., the surveyor observed two sealed over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aid packages in the bottom drawer of Nurse #12's medication cart. Nurse #12 said the facility keeps these OTC devices on hand for use by residents who may lose their hearing aids or are awaiting replacement devices; the ones in her cart are not for anyone in particular.
During an interview on 6/24/22 at 8:34 A.M., Resident #85 required repeat questions and an elevated volume to hear and understand the surveyor. He/she said his/her hearing aids have been missing for approximately three to four weeks. He/she said the staff did search for the hearing aids, but they were not found and he/she does not know if there is any plan to replace them, but they would like them replaced as the Resident said he/she is having difficulty following conversations and enjoying attending mass and feels lost when he/she is trying to communicate.
Review of the medical record for Resident #85 indicated on the June 2022 medication administration record (MAR), the hearing aids had been missing since 6/2/22. The record lacked any information on a potential replacement device or any temporary assistive devices to try to help the Resident maintain adequate hearing.
During an interview on 6/24/22 at 11:19 A.M., Nurse #20 said the Resident has been missing his/her hearing aids for a few weeks according to the MAR. She said she is unaware of any follow up or additional information because she could not find anything in the medical record to indicate any action had been taken.
During an interview on 6/24/22 at 11:31 A.M., Unit Manager #4 said she was aware the Resident's hearing aids were missing but doesn't believe the Resident was asked if he/she wants them replaced and doesn't know if the family was notified as she could not find any information in the medical record. She said to the best of her knowledge the Resident does not have an appointment booked with audiology and she is unsure who the Resident uses for an audiologist or where the Resident got the hearing aids from.
During a follow up interview on 6/24/22 at 11:55 A.M., Resident #85 said he/she has not been made aware of any follow up on his/her missing hearing aids and have not been offered any alternative devices since his/her hearing aids have been missing. He/she said they would really like something as he/she is having difficulty and struggles to hear all the important pieces of mass, which he/she indicated is his/her favorite activity.
During an interview on 6/24/22 at 12:49 P.M., the Administrator said she notified the family of the missing hearing aids and reached out to the supplier for replacements but does not have an estimated time of replacement. She said she has not had contact with the audiologist since 6/9/22. She said she thought she notified the Resident of the follow up but does not have any documentation of that on the lost items report. She said the facility has not offered the Resident any alternative assistive listening devices in the interim of the hearing aids being replaced.
During a follow up interview on 6/28/22 at 10:20 A.M., the Administrator said Resident #85 had an appointment and was fitted for replacement hearing aids at his/her audiologist on 6/27/22, after the surveyor inquiry.
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 interview, observation, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure existing interventions to promote healing and/or prevent worsening of a pressure ulcer and prevent skin breakdown on t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure existing interventions to promote healing and/or prevent worsening of a pressure ulcer and prevent skin breakdown on the heels (air mattress; and bilateral heel off booties and a pillow to offload heels, respectively) were followed for one Resident (#84), out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policies for Wound & Skin Care Protocol Policy (undated) and Low Air Loss Mattress (undated), included, but were not limited to:
Purpose: Identify outcomes-based approaches for the care of residents identified at-risk and those with existing wounds. Treat and prevent wounds by facilitating blood circulation and decreasing pressure of each tissue's contact area.
Procedure:
-Interventions must be care planned and implemented during the admission process and revised as needed;
-Check the resident's weight and adjust the low air loss mattress accordingly. This should be done weekly with the weekly weights and documented.
Resident #84 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with three Stage 3 pressure ulcers.
Review of the 4/20/22 Minimum Data Set assessment indicated Resident #84 had one Stage 4 pressure ulcer and received pressure ulcer treatment including a pressure reducing mattress.
Review of the June 2022 Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to:
-Pressure relieving/reducing air mattress, check accuracy of weight (9/29/21)
-Bilateral heel off boots on at all times, remove for care and replace (9/29/21)
Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan for Skin included, but was not limited to:
-Problem: Integumentary- I am dependent for repositioning and have a stage 4 pressure wound on my right ischium and am incontinent (last updated 5/16/22)
-Goal: My skin will remain intact and be well moisturized (5/16/22)
-Approach: I use a cushion for pressure reduction when in chair (5/16/22); I use a pressure relieving/low air loss mattress for pressure reduction when in bed (5/16/22); Use a pillow to offload and relieve pressure on my heels when in bed (5/16/22)
Review of Resident #84's weight record indicated on 6/2/22, the Resident weighed 165.4 pounds (lbs.).
During an interview on 6/22/22 at 8:15 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #84 sitting upright in bed on an air mattress. The air mattress box was on, and the weight setting was set to 340 lbs. The outline of the Resident's feet was visible through the sheet and there were no booties in place on his/her feet. The Resident said that he/she could not remember the last time staff put booties on his/her feet or elevated his/her feet on pillows.
On 6/27/22 at 12:20 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #84 reclining in bed sleeping. The air mattress control box was on and set to 340 lbs. The Resident's feet were visible through the sheet and there were no booties in place on his/her feet, and no pillows in place to offload his/her heels.
Review of June 2022 Medication/Treatment Administration Records (MAR/TAR) indicated staff signed off that bilateral heel off boots were in place and the pressure relieving/reducing air mattress was set according to the Resident's weight at the time of the surveyor's observations. There was no documentation to indicate the use of a pillow to offload and relieve pressure on the Resident's heels was in place as indicated in the care plan.
On 6/27/22 at 1:14 P.M., the surveyor and Unit Manager #3 observed Resident #84 sitting upright in bed awake. The Unit Manager confirmed that no booties were on the Resident's feet, there was no pillow in place to offload his/her heels, and the air mattress was on and set too high at 340 lbs. and is supposed to be set to the Resident's weight. She said that staff should not document that interventions are in place when they are not, and had no information about the pillow to offload the Resident's heels.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to provide the necessary respiratory care...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to provide the necessary respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#99), out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Findings include:
Review of [NAME] NURSING PROCEDURES, 8th edition
-oxygen .all oxygen delivery systems should be checked at least once each day
-verify the practitioner's order for the oxygen therapy, because oxygen is considered a medication or therapy and should be prescribed
-monitor the patient's O2 saturation level by pulse oximetry to assess response to O2 therapy
-assess the patient frequently for signs and symptoms of hypoxia, such as restlessness, decreased level consciousness, increased heart rate, arrhythmias, perspiration, dyspnea, use of accessory muscles, yawning or flared nostrils, cyanosis, and cool, clammy skin, obtain vital signs, as needed.
DOCUMENTATION record the date and time of oxygen administration, the type of delivery device, the oxygen flow rate, the patient's vital signs, skin color, respiratory effort, and breath sounds.
Review of the facility's policy titled Use of Oxygen Concentrators, undated, included but was not limited to:
-Adjust liter flow to the proper setting.
Resident #99 was admitted to the facility in January 2021 with diagnoses including acute respiratory disease.
Review of June 2022 Physician's Orders indicated the following orders initiated 10/2/21:
-Oxygen, 1 to 5 Liters (L) every shift to maintain an oxygen saturation (O2 sat) greater than or equal to above 90%
-Monitor O2 saturation every shift
Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the O2 saturations were monitored on the Day (7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.), Evening (3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.) and Night (11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) shifts.
Further review of the medical record failed to indicate the liter flow of oxygen (between 1 and 5 liters) that corresponded to the oxygen saturation measurement.
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 3:45 P.M., the surveyor and Unit Manager #3 reviewed Resident #99's medical record. Unit Manager #3 said physician's orders for oxygen therapy used to be specific to liter flow but were changed at some point. She said there is no way to determine what liter flow Resident #99 was receiving when the oxygen saturation measurement was obtained, and therefore unable to determine what liter flow is effective.
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 3:50 P.M., the surveyor and Respiratory Therapist reviewed Resident #99's medical record. The Respiratory Therapist said because there is no documentation of what liter flow the Resident is using when the oxygen saturation is measured, there is no way to determine what oxygen liter flow is effective.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to effectively manage one Resident's (#170) pain, out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Findings include:
Resident #170 was adm...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to effectively manage one Resident's (#170) pain, out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Findings include:
Resident #170 was admitted to the facility in May 2021 with medical diagnoses including displaced intertrochanteric fracture of left femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, encounter for orthopedic aftercare, unspecified fall subsequent encounter, difficulty in walking and other lack of coordination.
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/23/22, indicated Resident #170 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99; the MDS indicated the Resident required extensive assistance for all activities of daily living.
Review of the Comprehensive Care Plans included but was not limited to:
-Focus: Resident does not have a history of complaints of pain. Monitor the Resident for any behaviors that indicate the Resident had pain such as moaning, increased restlessness, grimacing or guarding and report to his/her physician for pain management.
- Approach: Start Date 5/31/21
Provide the Resident with non-pharmacological interventions such as 1:1 visits, repositioning, and distraction.
Goal: Resident to feel comfortable so he/she can enjoy activities of daily living.
Review of the June 2022 Physician's Orders included an order dated 2/14/22 as follows:
-Acetaminophen (used for pain management) 325 MG tablets administer two tablets (650 MG) orally, special instructions included scheduled three times a day at 06:00, 14:00 and 22:00 (06:00 A.M., 02:00 P.M., and 10:00 P.M.).
Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the Resident received Acetaminophen 650 MG as scheduled for pain three times a day.
On 6/22/22 at 11:30 A.M., the surveyor observed the Resident sitting up in a chair leaning over to the left side. The surveyor asked the Resident if he/she was okay, and the Resident said, I am in pain. The surveyor told Nurse #4.
On 6/22/22 at 11:45 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #4 administer Acetaminophen 325 MG tablets, two tablets (650 MG) to the Resident.
During an interview on 6/22/22 at 1:30 P.M., Nurse #4 said she did ask the Resident about his/her pain rate before administering the Acetaminophen but did not go back to assess the effectiveness.
On 6/23/22 at 09:45 A.M., the surveyor observed the Resident sitting in bed grimacing. The surveyor asked the Resident if he/she was okay, and the Resident replied, his/her lower back hurts. The surveyor notified Nurse #12, and she said she would give him/her something for pain as soon as she was able.
On 6/23/22 at 10:00 A.M., Nurse #12 brought two Acetaminophen tablets 325 MG each and administered to the Resident without inquiring about the Resident's pain level at the time.
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 10:40 A.M., Nurse #12 said she forgot to ask the Resident for his/her pain rate; she knows the Resident was receiving Acetaminophen 325 MG two tablets for pain and did not have a chance to return to the Resident's room to reassess him/her.
Further review of the Physician's Orders failed to indicate Acetaminophen 325 MG tablets Give two tablets (650 MG) as needed.
Nurse #12 failed to verify the Resident's scheduled Acetaminophen was the only order available. In addition, Nurse #12 failed to inform the physician that the Resident needed additional PRN (as needed) medication to manage his/her pain.
During an interview on 06/29/22 at 12:28 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said the Resident was on scheduled Acetaminophen 325 MG, give two tablets to equal to 650 MG three times a day, but their pain was not being managed.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0742
(Tag F0742)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on document review, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that for two Residents (#139 and #197), out of a sample of 35 residents, the facility's psychiatric consulta...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on document review, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that for two Residents (#139 and #197), out of a sample of 35 residents, the facility's psychiatric consultant, who provided one to one (1:1) psychotherapy, developed a treatment plan which identified individualized, person-centered, and measurable goals of treatment.
Findings include:
Review of the Behavioral Health Service Agreement, signed on 3/18/19, included, but was not limited to:
-Meet with medical and professional personnel of the facility to assist in treatment planning and behavioral management
1. Resident #139 was admitted to the facility in February 2020 with diagnoses including dementia and schizophrenia.
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/11/22, indicated Resident #139 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15.
Review of the Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to:
-May have psychiatric evaluation and treat (initiated on 9/28/21)
Review of the medical record indicated Resident #139 received weekly visits from the consultant Psychotherapist. Review of the Therapy Progress Note indicated the following therapeutic interventions/techniques were utilized during each session:
-Symptom management
-Empathic responding
-Reflective listening
Further review of the consultant Psychotherapist's documentation failed to indicate a treatment plan had been developed which identified a rationale for treatment, individualized, person-centered, measurable goals and specific therapeutic interventions to reach these goals.
2. Resident #197 was admitted to the facility in September 2019 with diagnoses including depression and anxiety.
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 6/1/22, indicated Resident #197 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a BIMS score of 14 out of 15.
Review of the Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to:
-May have 1:1 psychotherapy (initiated on 10/2/21)
Review of the medical record indicated Resident #197 received weekly visits from the consultant psychotherapist beginning 1/15/21. Review of the Therapy Progress Note indicated the following therapeutic interventions/techniques were utilized during each session:
-Symptom management
-Empathic responding
-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
-Problem solving
-Reflective listening
Further review of the consultant Psychotherapist's documentation failed to indicate a treatment plan had been developed which identified a rationale for treatment, individualized, person-centered, measurable goals and specific therapeutic interventions to reach these goals.
During an interview on 6/24/22 at 11:45 A.M., the Social Worker said the consultant Psychiatric Therapist meets with Residents #139 and #197 weekly. She said she did not know what behavioral techniques were being taught to the Residents and did not know what the goals of treatment are. She said the consultant psychotherapist does not develop treatment plans for any Residents he sees in the facility, and the Residents' treatment is not incorporated into the plan of care, there is no collaboration, and staff are unaware of any useful interventions.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to provide the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychos...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to provide the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of one Resident (#112) with dementia, out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Resident #112 was admitted to the facility in January 2022.
Review of a Psychiatric Evaluation, 2/23/22, indicated Resident #112 had cognitive impairment and dementia.
Review of the clinical record indicated the facility did not address the Resident's diagnosis of dementia until 3/11/22 (2.5 weeks later).
Review of Resident #112's Care Plan for Mood/Behaviors,
Episodes of: yelling, screaming, swearing, crying, or hitting staff or my peers, included the following interventions:
-Administer medications as ordered, monitor and record effectiveness. Report adverse side effects.
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 4/28/22, indicated Resident #112 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a BIMS score of 03 out of 15. The MDS indicated no non-pharmacological resident centered care techniques were in use.
On 6/22/22 at 09:30 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #112 in his/her room, on Unit 2. The Resident appeared withdrawn and sad. The surveyor approached the Resident and he/she started crying.
During an interview on 6/22/22 at 9:32 A.M., CNA #6 said she did not know what to do to console the Resident; she does not know what the Resident's preferences were. CNA #6 then left the room without assisting the Resident.
On 6/23/22 at 10:30 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #112 in his/her room; the Resident appeared depressed with a flat affect. CNA #4 was present and did not engage with the Resident.
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 1:30 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said there is not much to do on Unit #2 for Residents with dementia. She said Resident #112 is not residing on the dementia special care unit (DSCU).
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure medication irregularities identified during the Pharmacist's Drug Regimen Review were reported and acted upon for one Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure medication irregularities identified during the Pharmacist's Drug Regimen Review were reported and acted upon for one Resident (#198), out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Findings include:
Resident #198 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with diagnoses which included anxiety.
Review of the Pharmacy Drug Regimen Review, dated 6/8/22, indicated two irregularities as noted below:
1. Nsg (nursing) rec (recommend) Cipro Tx (treatment) requires stop-date or clarification.
2. Nsg (nursing) rec (recommend) PRN (as needed) Ativan orders require 14-day limit.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 11:45 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said she was not sure if the recommendations had been addressed, or acted upon, by the facility. The DON explained that the facility process for pharmacist recommendations is, the pharmacy recommendations are e-mailed to her, she gives them to the secretary who places them in each of the nursing unit managers' mailboxes. And, then it is the Unit Managers' (UM) responsibility to act upon the recommendations by contacting the appropriate provider (physician or nurse practitioner) to address the recommendation.
The DON further stated she was not sure if UM #4 had acted upon or addressed the pharmacist recommendations from 6/8/22 with the provider.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 11:55 A.M., UM #4 said she was not aware of the pharmacist's recommendations and said, This is the first time I've seen them.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
4. Resident #173 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with diagnoses including: unspecified cerebral infarction (stroke), type 2 diabetes, and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Review of the medical...
Read full inspector narrative →
4. Resident #173 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with diagnoses including: unspecified cerebral infarction (stroke), type 2 diabetes, and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Review of the medical record for Resident #173 indicated June 2022 Physician's Orders for
-Eliquis (an anticoagulant) 5 milligrams (mg) twice a day.
Further review of the June 2022 MAR indicated the Resident received this medication as ordered twice daily. The record failed to indicate any monitoring of signs and symptoms (s/s) of potential side effects, such as bleeding.
Review of the Care Plan, dated 5/20/22, indicated the Resident was on anticoagulation therapy with a goal to be free from signs and symptoms of active bleeding and approaches including:
- monitor for s/s of bleeding
- protect from injury
- labs and meds as ordered
- monitor bowel movements for black, tarry stools
Review of an updated Care Plan, dated as edited 6/2/22, indicated the Resident was a bleeding risk and was on both aspirin and anticoagulant therapy with a goal to remain free from bleeding complications. Approaches included:
- observe for signs of active bleeding (nose bleeds, bleeding gums, hematoma, blood in urine or stool, abdominal pain, elevated temp, painful joints)
During an interview on 6/22/22 at 3:59 P.M., Unit Manager #4 said it is not the typical practice of the facility or the nurses to monitor for signs and symptoms of bleeding without a physician's order to do so. She reviewed the MAR and said the Resident did not have an order to monitor him/her for side effects such as bleeding. She reviewed the care plan and said there is nowhere the staff document the monitoring for active bleeding.
During an interview on 6/24/22 at 10:50 A.M., Nurse #1 said the Resident is on Eliquis and at risk for bleeding. On review of the care plan she said a task should have been added to the record for the nurses to document and monitor for s/s of bleeding but there is nothing in the record at this time that indicated the Resident is being monitored for this side effect.
Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to monitor for signs/symptoms of adverse consequences (i.e., side effects) and the effectiveness of an anti-coagulant agent prescribed for four Residents (#59, #99 #139, and #173), out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Anticoagulation Therapy Policy and Procedure, undated, included, but was not limited to:
-Anticoagulation therapy is the administration of certain drugs that reduce the tendency of the blood to coagulate, thus reducing the risk of thrombosis (clotting of the blood). Anticoagulation is indicated for a variety of conditions, including prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (blood clot) and the prevention of systemic embolism.
-Observe for signs of bleeding:
Blood in urine or stool
Bleeding of gums, nose
Small purplish, hemorrhagic spots on the skin
Excessive and easy bruising
Confusion, changes in mental status
1. Resident #59 was admitted to the facility in December 2021 with diagnoses including a pulmonary embolism.
Review of the June 2022 Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to:
-Eliquis 2.5 mg twice daily (4/25/22)
Review of April 2022 through June 2022 Medication Administration Records (MAR) indicated Eliquis was administered as ordered by the physician.
Further review of the medical record failed to indicate staff monitored the Resident for signs of bleeding as required.
2. Resident #99 was admitted to the facility in January 2021 with diagnoses including cerebrovascular insufficiency.
Review of the June 2022 Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to:
-Xarelto 20 mg once a day (8/18/21)
Review of the April 2022 through June 2022 MARs indicated Xarelto was administered as ordered by the physician.
Further review of the medical record failed to indicate staff monitored the Resident for signs of bleeding as required.
3. Resident #139 was admitted to the facility in February 2020 with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation.
Review of the June 2022 Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to:
-Xarelto 15 mg every day
Review of April 2022 through June 2022 MARs indicated Xarelto was administered as ordered by the physician.
Further review of the medical record failed to indicate staff monitored the Resident for signs of bleeding as required.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
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 develop an integrated, person-centered hospice care plan identifyi...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop an integrated, person-centered hospice care plan identifying coordination of care between the facility and the hospice provider for one Resident (#185), out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Findings include:
The facility did not have a separate Hospice policy available for review by the surveyor.
Review of the contract agreement between the facility and the consultant Hospice provider, signed as effective 3/19/14, indicated but was not limited to:
Responsibilities of the Nursing Facility:
-In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, all applicable Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) condition of participation. Nursing Facility shall consult with Hospice regarding the development and/or modification of a Plan of Care for each eligible resident.
-The Plan of Care must identify the care and services that are needed and specifically identify which provider is responsible for performing the respective functions that have been agreed upon and included in the Plan of Care.
Resident #185 was admitted to Hospice in May 2022 with a terminal diagnosis of [NAME]-[NAME] disease (also called spinocerebellar ataxia type 3), a rare hereditary ataxia, meaning loss of control and coordination of the muscles we can willingly move.
Review of the Physician's Telephone Orders, dated 5/25/22, indicated Resident #185 was referred to Hospice for Evaluation including admission to Hospice, if appropriate.
Review of the clinical record indicated Resident #185 was evaluated for Hospice services and admitted on [DATE] for services.
Further review of the clinical record indicated the facility failed to develop a care plan for hospice that identified the care and services that are needed, and specifically identify which provider is responsible for performing the respective functions that have been agreed upon to maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
During an interview on 06/29/22 at 12:27 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said the facility did not develop an integrated hospice care plan that outline services provided by the hospice staff such as nursing, CNA, social work, and spiritual support.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure standards of infection prevention practices were maintained during a dressing change for one Resident (#74), out of a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure standards of infection prevention practices were maintained during a dressing change for one Resident (#74), out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Findings include:
1. Review of the facility's policy titled Dressing Changes and Changing a Clean Dressing, dated 11/2021, indicated but was not limited to the following:
It is the policy of the facility to promote wound healing.
Procedure:
-Perform hand hygiene.
-Apply disposable gloves.
-Provide counter traction on skin, loosen tape, and pull ends toward the wound removing the dressing. Discard in plastic bag.
-Cleanse and rinse wound as ordered. If wound appears abnormal or infected, always notify Nurse Manager or Supervisor.
-Remove gloves and discard in plastic bag.
-Washing hands.
-Set up dressing supplies and open packages on clean surface.
-Apply clean exam gloves.
-Pick up dressing holding it by corners.
-Center dressing over wound/cover with secondary dressing if ordered.
-Tape dressing securely in place, date and initial.
-Discard gloves and all used supplies in bag and discard in the appropriate receptacle.
-Document procedure and patient tolerance.
-Wash hands with alcohol gel.
On 6/28/22 at 10:06 A.M., the surveyor and Unit Manager #2 observed Nurse #8 perform a dressing change. Nurse #8 did not perform hand hygiene before creating a clean field. Nurse #8 was observed removing the old dressing and discarding it in the trash can in the Resident's room; Nurse #8 cleansed the wound. Nurse #8 removed her gloves without performing hand hygiene and proceeded with the wound dressing. Nurse #8 applied a new pair of gloves before applying the wound dressing. When she was about to secure the wound dressing with adhesive tape, she removed her gloves and placed them on the Resident's bed with the outer part on the Resident's bed sheet. Nurse #8 documented the procedure and the patient tolerance. Thereafter, Nurse #8 gathered all the used supplies, performed hand washing, and carried the rest of the supplies with her.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 11:04 A.M., the surveyor reviewed her observations of the dressing change and the breech in infection control technique with Nurse #8. Nurse #8 said she did not perform hand hygiene at the time of the dressing change and did not maintain good infection control techniques throughout the dressing change observations. Nurse #8 said she did place the dirty gloves on the Resident's bed, dispose of the old dressing in the Resident's trash can, and should not have done that.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 03:30 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said she did observe the lack of infection control practices during the dressing change and added that Nurse #8 failed to follow the policy for a dressing change.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement their Antibiotic Stewardship Program policy to ensure that a stop date or a clinical rationale for continued use ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement their Antibiotic Stewardship Program policy to ensure that a stop date or a clinical rationale for continued use was included in the order for one Resident (#198), out of a total sample of 35 residents, being prescribed an antibiotic.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's Antibiotic Stewardship Program (ASP) Policy, the Antibiotic Stewardship Program Team will be established to be accountable for stewardship activities. The ASP Team consists of a Medical Director, Administrator, Director of Nursing, Infection Preventionist (IP), pharmacy consultant, and laboratory representative. Their duties, as a team included:
-Review infections and monitor antibiotic usage patterns on a regular basis.
Resident #198 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with diagnoses which included hepatic cancer and anxiety.
Review of the Pharmacy Drug Regimen Review, dated 6/8/22, indicated the consultant pharmacist identified the following irregularity:
-6/8/22, Nsg (nursing) rec (recommend) Cipro Tx (treatment) requires stop-date or clarification.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 11:45 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said, I don't know if they [pharmacy consultant's recommendations] have been addressed. The DON explained the pharmacy recommendations are e-mailed by the pharmacist to her, she gives them to the secretary who places them in each of the nursing Unit Managers' mailboxes. Then, it is the Unit Managers' responsibility to act upon the recommendations by contacting the appropriate provider (physician/nurse practitioner) to address the recommendation.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 11:55 A.M., Unit Manager (UM) #4 said she was not aware of the Pharmacist's recommendations and said, This is the first time I've seen them. She said she knew that antibiotics needed a stop date, or rationale for continuing an antibiotic indefinitely.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 3:45 P.M., the DON and the Administrator said they did not know why the ASP Team was not aware of the Resident's daily use of Cipro without a stop date, and without documented clinical justification, and why the ASP policy was not followed.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
6. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, and depression.
A review of the medical record for Resident #65 included Physician's Orders, wr...
Read full inspector narrative →
6. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, and depression.
A review of the medical record for Resident #65 included Physician's Orders, written on 1/6/22 for
-Paxil (a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor antidepressant, SSRI) 30 mg at bedtime
-Effexor XR (extended release) (a Serotonin Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitor antidepressant, SNRI) 37.5 mg once per day.
Review of the Subsequent Psychopharm Note, from the psychiatric nurse practitioner (NP) consultant, dated 1/25/22, indicated Resident #65 was adjusting well to the new environment with a future plan to discontinue one of the antidepressants (SNRI/SSRI), when more stable.
Review of the Pharmacy Medication Recommendation, dated 1/12/22, indicated Resident #65 was on Paxil, which could be considered a potentially inappropriate medication for use in geriatric patients due to the side effects. The recommendation was declined by the physician on 1/28/22 with a note indicating Resident #65 was new to the facility, to hold off on changes and follow up with psychiatric services.
A review of the medical record and the Psychiatric Communication Binder on the unit, failed to include any further psychiatric NP visits for Resident #65 after 1/25/22.
Review of the Physician's Progress Notes for Resident #65 indicated the following:
-3/22/22: mood disorder, on Paxil and Effexor, stable
-4/21/22: mood disorder, on Paxil and Effexor, stable
-6/13/22: no mention of instability with mood disorder
Review of the electronic medical record including Point of Care (POC) tasks for Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) failed to indicate any instability of mood.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 12:00 P.M., Unit Manager #5 said the facility did not currently have a credentialed psychiatric NP or psychiatrist to review psychotropic medications and that was why the last visit for Resident #65 was on 1/25/22. She said Resident #65 had adjusted well to the facility and his/her mood had been stable. She said the Social Worker would know more about the psychiatric services.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 10:40 A.M., the Social Worker said the consultant psychiatric NP had resigned from the consultant company in March 2022 and the consultant psychiatric company had been working with the facility on credentialing a new provider. She said the plan while the facility did not have a credentialed psychiatric pharmacological consultant was for the primary physicians and NPs of the facility to review the psychiatric medications. She said Resident #65 had adjusted to the facility, had good family support, and had maintained a stable mood. She said the psychiatric NP recommendation, made five months prior, should have been addressed by now.
Review of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs policy, reviewed May 2022, indicated residents who use antipsychotic drugs will receive gradual dose reductions in an effort to discontinue these drugs.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 12:45 PM., the Administrator said there was no policy to indicate psychotropic drugs would also be reviewed for gradual dose reductions.
Based on record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that for six Residents (#84, #99, #139, #197, #198, and #65), out of a total sample of 35 residents, that each Resident's drug regimen was free of unnecessary drugs. Specifically, the facility failed
a. For Residents #84, #99, #139, and #197 to ensure that an appropriate diagnosis was identified, targeted behaviors/signs and symptoms were monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of psychotropic medication, and/or potential side effects were identified and monitored to promote or maintain the Residents' highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being, per the facility policy;
b. For Resident #198, to ensure the PRN (as needed) psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days; and
c. For Resident #65, to re-evaluate for a gradual dose reduction of psychotropic medications as recommended by the psychiatric Nurse Practitioner.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Psychopharmacologic Drugs (undated), included, but was not limited to:
-Diocesan Health Facilities ensures that each resident's drug regimen will be free from unnecessary drugs.
-These drugs will be monitored closely in conjunction with the drug regimen review for desired responses and adverse consequences by the facility staff.
-A record will be maintained of the administration of the drug, the route of administration, side effect monitoring, a description of the behavior, mood or mental status, the effect of the drug on the behavior, mood and mental status of the resident, and any other change in behavior, mood, mental status or adverse drug reaction which occur with the administration of the drug.
1. Resident #84 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses including depression and anxiety.
Review of the 4/20/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated Resident #84 received psychotropic medication daily.
Review of the June 2022 Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to:
-Divalproex (used as a mood stabilizer) 125 milligrams (mg), give two tablets for a total dose of 250 mg twice daily for adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct (7/14/21)
-Lorazepam (anti-anxiety) 0.5 mg three times a day for anxiety disorder (7/15/21)
-Paroxetine (antidepressant) 50 mg every day for major depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms (7/14/21)
The Physician's Orders failed to include monitoring of potential side effects of the medication as required.
Review of the medical record failed to indicate that potential side effects for the use of Divalproex, Lorazepam and Paroxetine were monitored as required.
2. Resident #99 was admitted to the facility in January 2021 with diagnoses including anxiety.
Review of the 4/27/22 MDS assessment indicated Resident #99 has severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 out of 15 and received psychotropic medication daily.
Review of the June 2022 Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to:
-Sertraline (antidepressant) 25 mg, give three tablets for a total dose of 75 mg every day (7/16/21)
-Trazodone (antidepressant) 50 mg at bedtime as needed for insomnia, re-evaluate in 90 days on 8/11/22 (5/12/22)
The Physician's Orders failed to include monitoring insomnia for the use of Trazodone, and potential side effects of Sertraline and Trazodone as required.
Review of the medical record failed to indicate that potential side effects for the use of Sertraline and Trazodone were monitored as required.
3. Resident #139 was admitted to the facility in February 2020 with diagnoses including vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance and schizophrenia.
Review of the 5/11/22 MDS assessment indicated Resident #139 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 and received antipsychotic and antidepressant medication daily.
Review of the June 2022 Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to:
-Quetiapine (antipsychotic) 50 mg at bedtime for schizophrenia (3/30/20)
-Trazodone (antidepressant) 50 mg at bedtime for major depressive disorder (11/9/20)
-Clonazepam (antianxiety) 1 mg at bedtime for anxiety disorder (3/25/21)
-Venlafaxine (antidepressant) 150 mg once daily (3/23/22)
The Physician's Orders failed to include a diagnosis for the use of Venlafaxine and failed to include monitoring potential side effects of Quetiapine, Trazodone, Clonazepam and Venlafaxine as required.
Review of the medical record failed to indicate that potential side effects for the use of Quetiapine, Trazodone, Clonazepam and Venlafaxine were monitored as required.
4. Resident #197 was admitted to the facility in September 2019 with diagnoses including anxiety.
Review of the 6/1/22 MDS assessment indicated Resident #197 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a BIMS score of 14 out of 15 and received psychotropic medication daily.
Review of the June 2022 Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to:
-Trazodone (antidepressant) 50 mg at bedtime for insomnia (2/5/20)
-Duloxetine (antidepressant) 90 mg every day for depression (7/24/20)
-Bupropion (antidepressant) 100 mg twice daily for depression (4/21/21)
-Mirtazapine (antidepressant) 5 mg at bedtime for appetite (7/21/21)
-Valium (antidepressant) 2 mg, give two tablets for a total dose of 4 mg at bedtime (3/23/22)
The Physician's Orders failed to include a diagnosis for the use of Valium and failed to include monitoring potential side effects of Trazodone, Duloxetine, Bupropion, Mirtazapine and Valium as required.
Review of the medical record failed to indicate that potential side effects for the use of Trazodone, Duloxetine, Bupropion, Mirtazapine and Valium as required.
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 11:16 A.M., Unit Manager #3 said that staff do not monitor for adverse reactions/side effects of psychotropic medications.
5. Resident #198 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with diagnoses which included anxiety.
Record review indicated Resident #198 was prescribed upon admission an antianxiety (psychotropic) medication:
-Lorazepam Intensol, 2 milligrams/milliliter (mg/ml) 0.5 ml (1mg) by mouth every 4 hours PRN.
Further review of the Lorazepam order indicated the drug was ordered by the Physician on 5/27/22 without a 14-day limit. The order remained active at the time of record review, 32 days following the start date without a documented rationale that it was appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days.
Review of the medical record indicated on 6/8/22, during a Drug Regimen Review, the consultant pharmacist recommended the order for Lorazepam be reviewed due to the requirement that PRN psychotropic drugs be limited to 14 days.
During an interview with Unit Manager (UM) #4 on 6/29/22 at 11:55 A.M., UM #4 said she had not received the recommendation by the pharmacist that indicated the Lorazepam should be limited to 14 days. When the surveyor showed UM #4 the Pharmacist's recommendations, she said, This is the first time I've seen them. As a result, UM #4 said, she had not addressed the recommendation with the provider.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure that three out of six unit medication refrigerators were maintained in safe operating condition to help preserve the...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure that three out of six unit medication refrigerators were maintained in safe operating condition to help preserve the integrity of the medications stored.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medications, dated February 2019, indicated, but was not limited to the following:
-All medications are maintained within the temperature ranges noted in the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) and by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Temperature
-The facility should maintain a temperature log in the storage area to record temperatures at least once a day
-The facility should check the refrigerator or freezer temperature and maintain a log in which medications (but not vaccines) are stored, at least once a day, per USP/NF Guidelines.
The USP (Unites States Pharmacopoeia and National Formulary) guidance from April 28, 2017, indicated the refrigerator temperature for medication storage should be controlled between 36 degrees and 46 degrees Fahrenheit (F).
On 6/23/22 the surveyor observed, during an inspection of the facility's unit medication refrigerators, the following:
Unit 2: (with Nurse #12 and Unit Manager (UM) #2 at 10:20 A.M.)
June 2022 reviewed
-Five days of temperatures below range (32-34 degrees F)
-Freezer with excess frost
-Ophthalmic and Arformoterol Tartrate (treats wheezing and shortness of breath) medications stored inside
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 10:20 A.M., Nurse #12 said there were temperatures out of range, some too low. UM #2 said the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. nurses were responsible for checking and logging the temperatures and, if out of range, were required to notify maintenance or call a supervisor but said that had not been done. She also said the freezer needed to be defrosted.
Unit 3: (with Nurse #14 and UM #3 at 10:49 A.M.)
January 2022 through June 2022 reviewed
-51 days of temperatures below range (18-34 degrees F)
-Dorzolamide HCL 2% ophthalmic solution and four medication emergency kits (glucose, epinephrine, two insulins) stored inside
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 10:49 A.M., Nurse #14 said there were many temperatures documented that were below the 35-46-degree range. UM #3 said the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. nurses were responsible for checking and the temperatures were not being consistently documented. She said the out of range temperatures had not been reported to the Maintenance Director or Supervisor that she knew of and said temperatures below range could affect the integrity of the medications stored.
Unit 4: (with Nurse #15 at 11:11 A.M.)
January 2022 through June 2022 reviewed
-2 days of temperatures below range (34 degrees F)
-Liquid Ativan stored inside
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 11:11 A.M., Nurse #15 said the refrigerator temperatures were supposed to be checked twice a day by the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. shift nurses. He said if temperatures are out of range the supervisor should be notified and the pharmacy notified to ensure the medications stored are still okay.
During an interview on 6/28/22 at 3:59 P.M., the Maintenance Director said he was not made aware by staff that any of the medication refrigerators had temperatures below the range except for one after surveyor intervention. He said staff was supposed to fill out a maintenance slip or have him paged, but this was not done. He said he was not aware of what the nursing responsibility was to monitor temperatures. He further said if he knew that the temperatures were out of range, he would have addressed it immediately.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 8:10 A.M., the Maintenance Director said he was not sure how nursing monitored the temperatures. He said he was not sure if there was a communication maintenance log and said, I just get a call. He said there was no clear process being followed.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 10:07 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. nurses were responsible for checking the medication refrigerator temperatures and should notify maintenance by putting a maintenance slip in if out of range. She said some staff knew where to find the slips, but there was no clear process being followed. The DON said she could not be sure medications stored in the refrigerators would remain safe and effective if temperatures were out of range.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure all medications used in the facility were safely and securely stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure all medications used in the facility were safely and securely stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Specifically, the facility failed to:
1. Properly store controlled drugs in separately locked compartments in three of eight medication carts reviewed;
2. Properly label all medications stored in one of six medication refrigerators and two of eight medication carts;
3. Lock one of seven medication storage cabinets and one of six-unit medication refrigerators when not attended by persons with authorized access; and
4. Store medications at proper temperatures to preserve their integrity for three out of six-unit medication refrigerators and maintain consistent documentation of medication refrigerator temperatures for six out of seven medication refrigerators reviewed.
Findings include:
1. Review of the facility's policy titled Controlled Substances, dated February 2019, indicated, but was not limited to the following:
-All controlled substances, CII-V are stored and maintained in a locked cabinet or compartment
-Accurate accountability of the inventory of all controlled drugs is maintained at all times. When a controlled substance is administered, the licensed nurse administering the medication immediately enters the following information on the accountability record:
-date and time of administration
-amount administered
-remaining quantity
-initials of the nurse administering the dose
-completed after the medication is actually administered
On 6/23/22 at 3:40 P.M., the surveyor reviewed the D-Wing medication cart on Unit 2 with Nurse #13 and observed the controlled substance box located inside the cart unlocked with controlled substances inside. Nurse #13 had not been administering medications at the time of the review. Nurse #13 said she had performed a narcotic count with another nurse earlier and did not lock the box afterwards but should have.
On 6/23/22 at 3:55 P.M., the surveyor reviewed the 4C medication cart on Unit 4 with Nurse #16 and observed the controlled substance box located inside the cart unlocked with controlled substances inside. Nurse #16 had not been administering medications at the time of the review. Nurse #16 said the box should have been locked when it was not in immediate use but was not.
On 6/23/22 at 11:45 A.M., the surveyor reviewed the D-Wing medication cart on Unit 7 with Nurse #17 and observed the controlled substance box located inside the cart unlocked with controlled substances inside. Nurse #17 had not been administering medications at the time of review. Nurse #17 randomly chose two residents to review counts and documentation with the surveyor. The first resident had two medications; Ativan (sedative, class IV drug) and Tramadol (opioid analgesic, class IV drug) that Nurse #17 said she had administered that day but had not documented on the accountability record yet. The 6/23/22 entry was blank for each medication. She said she should have documented on the record immediately after administration but forgot. The second resident had one medication, Ativan, that Nurse #17 said she had administered that day, but had not documented on the record yet for that one either. The 6/23/22 entry was blank for that medication. She said, I didn't get a chance to do it yet. When asked what the process was when there was missing documentation for controlled medications previously administered, Nurse #17 said she did not need to notify anyone saying, I know I gave it, then proceeded to enter her information on the record. Nurse #17 said all the medications should have been documented immediately when administered but were not.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 10:27 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said all controlled substance compartments located inside the medication carts should have been locked if not in immediate use and all information immediately documented on the accountability record when a controlled substance is administered.
2. On 6/23/22 at 10:30 A.M., the surveyor reviewed medication cart 2A on Unit 3 with Nurse #10 and observed a bottle of generic nasal spray with the seal broken and was not labeled with a resident's name. Nurse #10 said the bottle should have been labeled once opened but was not and could not be sure what resident it belonged to.
On 6/23/22 at 10:49 A.M., the surveyor reviewed the Unit 3 medication refrigerator with Nurse #10 and Nurse #14 and observed a bottle of Dorzolamide HCL Ophthalmic Solutions 2% (treats glaucoma) labeled with a resident's name and the seal broken. There was no open date sticker on the medication bottle and/or the new date of expiration as required by facility policy. Nurse #10 said it had been opened and was not labeled but should have been. The surveyor also observed a Glucose e-kit with a bright yellow label stating, Do Not Refrigerate. Nurse #14 said the e-kit should not have been stored in the refrigerator.
On 6/30/22 at 2:35 P.M., the DON said Dorzolamide should have been labeled when opened and included an expiration date of 60 days once opened.
On 6/23/22 at 11:45 A.M., the surveyor reviewed medication cart D-Wing on Unit 7 with Nurse #17 and observed a bottle of Latanoprost (treats glaucoma) ophthalmic eye drops labeled with a resident's name and the seal broken. There was not a date opened sticker on the medication bottle and/or the new date of expiration as required per facility policy. Nurse #17 said she did not know when the bottle was opened or what the facility policy was regarding the expiration once opened.
Review of a facility document titled, Medication Storage Requirements, undated, indicated the expiration date for Latanoprost once opened, per the manufacturer, was 42 days (6 weeks) at room temperature.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 10:07 A.M., the DON said the medications should have been properly labeled.
3. Review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medications, dated February 2019, indicated, but was not limited to the following:
-Only licensed nurses, pharmacy personnel, and those lawfully authorized to administer medications are permitted to access medications. Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked when not attended by persons with authorized access.
-The consultant pharmacist ensures that medication storage conditions are routinely monitored, and corrective action taken if problems are identified.
Expiration Dating
-When the original seal of a manufacturer's container or vial is initially broken, the container or vial will be dated. The nurse shall place a date opened sticker on the medication and enter the date opened and/or the new date of expiration. The date opened and/or the triggered expiration date should be recorded on the label for such purpose affixed to the vial.
-All expired medications will be removed from the active supply and destroyed in the facility, regardless of amount remaining.
On 6/23/22 at 8:27 A.M., the surveyor observed the medication storage cabinet on Unit 1 unlocked and unattended. There were no staff nearby. The surveyor located UM #1 and Nurse #11 who said the cabinet should have been locked when unattended but was not.
On 6/23/22 at 9:23 A.M., the surveyor observed the medication refrigerator on Unit 7 (dementia care unit) unlocked and unattended. There were no staff nearby and there was no barrier preventing residents from accessing the refrigerator. The surveyor located Nurse #17 who said the refrigerator should have been locked but was not. Nurse #17 attempted to lock the refrigerator but said the key is not working requiring approximately three or four attempts before she was successful.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 10:27 A.M., the DON said the medication storage cabinets and medication refrigerators should have been locked when unattended by staff.
4. Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medications, dated February 2019, indicated, but was not limited to the following:
-All medications are maintained within the temperature ranges noted in the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) and by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Temperature
-The facility should maintain a temperature log in the storage area to record temperatures at least once a day
-The facility should check the refrigerator or freezer temperature and maintain a log in which medications (but not vaccines) are stored, at least once a day, per USP/NF Guidelines.
The USP (Unites States Pharmacopoeia and National Formulary) guidance from April 28,2017 indicated the refrigerator temperature for medication storage should be controlled between 36 degrees and 46 degrees Fahrenheit.
On 6/23/22 at 3:30 P.M., the surveyor reviewed the Unit 2E Wing Hall medication storage room refrigerator with Nurse #13. Review of the January 2022 through June 2022 temperature logs indicated 20 days were missing documentation of temperatures. Nurse #13 said the temperature logs should have been consistently checked daily and documented but were not. Medications stored in the refrigerator included Dupixant (reduces inflammation), Latanoprost (treats glaucoma), Insulins (treats diabetes), and Bisacodyl suppositories (laxative).
On 6/23/22 the surveyor observed, during an inspection of the facility's unit medication refrigerators, the following:
Unit 2: (with Nurse #12 and UM #2 at 10:20 A.M.)
-June 2022 reviewed
-Five days of temperatures below range (32-34 degrees F)
-Six days temperatures not documented
-Ophthalmic and Arformoterol Tartrate (treats wheezing and shortness of breath) medications stored inside
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 10:20 A.M., Nurse #12 said there were temperatures out of range, some too low, and were not being consistently documented. UM #2 said the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. nurses were responsible for checking and logging the temperatures and, if out of range, were required to notify maintenance or call a supervisor but said that had not been done. She also said the refrigerator needed to be defrosted.
Unit 3: (with Nurse #14 and UM #3 at 10:49 A.M.)
-January 2022 through June 2022 reviewed
-51 days of temperatures below range (18-34 degrees F)
-19 days temperatures not documented
-Dorzolamide HCL 2% ophthalmic solution and four medication emergency kits (glucose, epinephrine, two insulins) stored inside
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 10:49 A.M., Nurse #14 said there were many temperatures documented that were below the 35-46-degree range. UM #3 said the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. nurses were responsible for checking and the temperatures were not being consistently documented. She said the out-of-range temperatures had not been reported to the maintenance director or supervisor that she knew of and said temperatures below range could affect the integrity of the medications stored.
Unit 4: (with Nurse #15 at 11:11 A.M.)
January 2022 through June 2022 reviewed
-2 days of temperatures below range (34 degrees F)
-6 days temperatures not documented
-Liquid Ativan stored inside, locked
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 11:11 A.M., Nurse #15 said the refrigerator temperatures were supposed to be checked twice a day by the 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. shift nurses. He said if temperatures are out of range the supervisor should be notified and the pharmacy notified to ensure the medications stored are still okay. Nurse #15 said the temperatures were not consistently being documented but should have been.
Unit 5: (with UM #4 at 11:37 A.M.)
January 2022, March 2022 through June 2022 reviewed
-9 days temperatures not documented
-Emergency Insulin kit stored inside
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 11:37 A.M., UM #4 said the temperatures should have been consistently documented but were not.
Unit 7: (with Nurse #17 at 9:23 A.M.)
June 2022 reviewed
-4 days temperatures not documented
-Liquid Ativan and Insulins stored inside
During an interview on 6/23/22 at 9:23 A.M., Nurse #17 said the 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. nurse was responsible for checking the medication refrigerator temperatures, but it was supposed to be done twice a day though no vaccines were stored there. She said the temperatures should have been consistently documented but were not.
During an interview on 6/29/22 at 10:07 A.M., the DON said the 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. nurses were responsible for checking the medication refrigerator temperatures and should have been consistently documenting the temperatures but were not.