POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER

359 HIGH STREET, GREENFIELD, MA 01301 (413) 774-6318
For profit - Limited Liability company 63 Beds EPHRAM LAHASKY Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
28/100
#235 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

Poet's Seat Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #235 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #2 out of 3 in Franklin County, meaning only one nearby option is rated higher. Although the facility is on an improving trend, with issues decreasing from 7 to 6 over the past year, it still has serious deficiencies, including failing to manage medications and pain properly for residents, which can lead to increased discomfort and distress. Staffing is a significant weakness, with a poor rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 67%, which is concerning compared to the state average of 39%. Additionally, while the facility incurred average fines of $8,525, the serious incidents, such as not notifying a provider about a resident's medication issue and failing to follow up on behavioral health care for another resident, raise serious red flags for families considering this home.

Trust Score
F
28/100
In Massachusetts
#235/338
Bottom 31%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$8,525 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 33 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Massachusetts. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
43 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Massachusetts average (2.9)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 67%

21pts above Massachusetts avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $8,525

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: EPHRAM LAHASKY

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (67%)

19 points above Massachusetts average of 48%

The Ugly 43 deficiencies on record

3 actual harm
May 2025 6 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the Provider was contacted regarding a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the Provider was contacted regarding a significant change in condition relative to a medication and/or the need to alter treatment for one Resident (#13) out of a total sample of 16 residents. Specifically, for Resident #13, the facility failed to notify the Provider (Physician/Nurse Practitioner [NP]/ Physician Assistant [PA]) when the Resident's scheduled Oxycodone (short-acting opioid medication used to treat moderate to severe pain) was unavailable to be administered, resulting in increased pain and psychosocial upset for the Resident. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Orders dated 2006 and revised in January 2018, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Controlled Substance Prescriptions: >The prescriber is contacted for direction when delivery of a medication will be delayed, or the medication is not, or will not be available. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility in July 2024, with diagnoses including dorsalgia (back pain), fibromyalgia (chronic disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain), low back pain, other chronic pain, and polyneuropathy (disease affecting peripheral nerves resulting in various symptoms including pain). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #13: -scored a 15 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, indicating the Resident was cognitively intact. -was prescribed a scheduled pain medication regimen. -had presence of pain almost constantly, which frequently affected his/her sleep. -pain interfered with day-to-day activities frequently. -pain intensity was a seven out of 10. During an interview on 5/23/25 at 10:00 A.M., Resident #13 said he/she had issues getting his/her scheduled Oxycodone. Resident #13 said it had been an issue several times that the Oxycodone pain medication was not always available. Resident #13 said that he/she had gone anywhere from 12 to 18 hours without the pain medication at times. At this time, the Resident began to cry and said when he/she went without the scheduled Oxycodone medication, he/she experienced an increase in pain. Resident #13 said no alternate options to manage his/her pain were discussed or offered to him/her at the times when the Oxycodone medication was not available to be administered. Resident #13 said that he/she did not know whether the Nurses had called the Provider or whether the Provider had recommended alternative medication or treatment for pain management at the times when the scheduled Oxycodone was not available to be administered. During an interview on 5/27/25 at 11:55 A.M., Resident #13's Advocate said the concern related to the unavailability of Oxycodone started on 7/31/24. Resident #13's Advocate provided nine dates that he/she documented between 7/31/24 and 4/13/25 on which the Oxycodone was not available to the Resident. Review of Resident #13's Physician orders between 7/29/24 and 12/31/24 indicated the following: -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 milligrams (mg). Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Start date 7/29/24, end date 10/18/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Start date 7/29/24, end date 8/10/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Give 2 tablets to equal 10 mg dose. Start date 10/19/24, end date 12/3/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 5 mg by mouth every 4 hours as needed (PRN) for moderate pain AND give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Give 2 tablets to equal 10 mg dose. Start date 12/3/24, end date 12/24/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Start date 12/24/24. -Acetaminophen (analgesic [pain-relieving] medication) tablet 325 mg. Give 2 tablets by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain do not exceed 3 grams of Acetaminophen in 24 hours. Start date 7/29/24. -Monitor for pain every shift using standard pain scale 0-10 (tool used to assess pain intensity, where zero indicates no pain, and 10 indicates the worst pain imaginable) every shift for Pain Monitoring. Start date 7/29/24, end date 9/7/24. Review of Resident #13's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated July 2024, and the correlating Controlled Substance Log indicated the following: -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours for pain (scheduled for 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M., and 8:00 P.M.) was not administered at 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., and 8:00 A.M. on 7/31/24 due to the medication not being available. >Resident #13's pain scale was documented as follows on 7/31/24: -At 12:00 A.M. (Resident reported pain level: zero out of 10) -At 4:00 A.M. (Resident reported a pain level of 10 out of 10) -At 8:00 A.M. (Resident reported a pain level of 10 out of 10) -Review of the medical record failed to indicate that the Provider was notified that the Oxycodone medication was unavailable or that any alternative medication or that non-pharmacological intervention was offered to the Resident. -The first dose of Oxycodone medication was administered to the Resident on 7/31/24 at 10:00 A.M. (14 hours after the last administered dose). Review of Resident #13's MAR dated November 2024 and the correlating Controlled Substance Log indicated the following: -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain (scheduled for 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M., and 8:00 P.M.). Give 2 tablets to equal 10 mg dose was not administered at 8:00 P.M. on 11/13/24, and 12:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M. on 11/14/24, due to the medication not being available. >Resident #13's pain scale was documented as follows on 11/13/24 and 11/14/24: -At 8:00 P.M. on 11/13/24 (Resident reported a pain level of zero out of 10) -At 12:00 A.M. on 11/14/24 (Resident reported a pain level of zero out of 10) -At 4:00 A.M. on 11/14/24 (Resident reported a pain level of zero out of 10) -At 8:00 A.M. on 11/14/24 (Resident reported a pain level of 10 out of 10) -Review of the medical record failed to indicate that the Provider was notified that the scheduled Oxycodone medication was unavailable, or that non-pharmacological intervention was offered to the Resident. -The first dose of Oxycodone medication was administered to the Resident on 11/14/24 at 9:15 A.M. (17 hours after the last administered dose). Review of Resident #13's MAR dated December 2024 and the correlating Controlled Substance Logs indicated the following: -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain (scheduled for 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M., and 8:00 P.M.). Give 2 tablets to equal 10 mg dose was not administered at 8:00 A.M. on 12/24/24 due to the medication not being available. >Resident #13's pain scale was documented as follows on 12/24/24: -At 8:00 A.M. (Resident reported a pain level of eight out of 10) -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours for pain (scheduled for 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M., and 8:00 P.M.). was not administered at 12:00 P.M. on 12/24/24 due to the medication not being available. >Resident #13's pain scale was documented as follows on 12/24/24: -At 12:00 P.M. (Resident reported a pain level of nine out of 10) -Review of the medical record failed to indicate that the Provider was notified that the scheduled Oxycodone medication was unavailable, or that non-pharmacological intervention was offered to the Resident. -The first dose of Oxycodone medication was administered to the Resident on 12/24/24 at 4:00 P.M. since the first missed dose at 8:00 A.M. (10 hours after the last administered dose). During an interview on 5/27/25 at 11:51 A.M., Nurse Practitioner (NP) #1 said when a medication was not available to administer as ordered the Nurse should notify the Provider. NP #1 said the Provider can then give an order to hold if appropriate or can provide an order to administer an alternative medication from the emergency supply. NP #1 said she was not aware of a chronic issue regarding the unavailability of Resident #13's prescribed Oxycodone. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 10:35 A.M., the DON said if a scheduled pain medication was not available for administration, the resident should be assessed for pain and asked whether they wanted to wait for the ordered medication to be delivered from the pharmacy or whether they wanted the Nurse to contact the Provider to request an alternative medication. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 11:06 A.M., by the Physician said he did not know if he was notified of Resident #13's scheduled Oxycodone being unavailable. The Physician said that the facility should be notifying the Provider when a medication was not available for administration, and the Nurse should inform the Provider of similar medication that is available on-hand that may be administered alternatively. The Physician said if multiple doses in a row of a scheduled short-acting pain medication were not administered to a resident, he would expect the resident to have increased pain. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 1:10 P.M., Resident #13 said that most of the time, his/her pain level was between a seven and nine out of 10. Resident #13 said when he/she swells it really hurt, and sometimes he/she curled up in a little ball. Resident #13 said he/she was hurting all the time, and that his/her body was in pain from his/her head to his/her feet, that was why he/she needed pain medication every four hours. Resident #13 said it took at least one hour for any pain medication administered to bring down his/her pain level. Please Refer to F697.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided in accord...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided in accordance with the individual goals for care and preferences for one Resident (#13) out of a total sample of 16 residents. Specifically, for Resident #13, the facility failed to administer scheduled Oxycodone (short-acting opioid medication used to treat moderate to severe pain) medication as ordered by the Physician, and failed to provide any other pain relieving measures, resulting in an increase in physical pain and psychological upset for the Resident. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications version 2.1, dated 2001 and revised April 2019, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Policy Statement: >Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. >Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame. >Medications are administered within one (1) hour of their prescribed time, unless otherwise specified . Review of the facility policy titled Pain-Clinical Protocol version 2.2, dated 2001 and revised October 2022, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Assessment and Recognition: <The physician and staff will identify individuals who have pain or who are at risk for having pain. <The nursing staff will assess each individual for pain .whenever there is a significant change in condition, and when there is onset of new pain or worsening of existing pain. -Treatment/Management: <With input from the resident to the extent possible, the physician and staff will establish goals of pain treatment . -The physician will order .medication interventions to address the individual's pain. Review of the facility policy titled Medication Orders, dated 2006 and revised January 2018, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Controlled Substance Prescriptions: >The prescriber is contacted for direction when delivery of a medication will be delayed, or the medication is not, or will not be available. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility in July 2024, with diagnoses including dorsalgia (back pain), fibromyalgia (chronic disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain), low back pain, other chronic pain, and polyneuropathy (disease affecting peripheral nerves resulting in various symptoms including pain). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #13: -was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Assessment score of 15 out of a possible score of 15. -was prescribed a scheduled pain medication regimen. -had presence of pain almost constantly, which frequently affected his/her sleep. -pain interfered with day-to-day activities frequently. -pain intensity was a seven out of 10. During an interview on 5/23/25 at 10:00 A.M., Resident #13 said he/she had issues getting his/her scheduled Oxycodone medication. Resident #13 said it had been an issue that the pain medication was not always available several times. Resident #13 said that he/she had gone anywhere from 12 to 18 hours without the pain medication at times. At this time, the Resident began to cry and said that when he/she went without the scheduled Oxycodone medication, he/she experienced an increase in pain. Resident #13 said no alternate options to manage his/her pain were discussed or offered to him/her at the times when the Oxycodone medication was not available to be administered. Resident #13 also said he/she wanted to receive the Oxycodone medication as prescribed and did not want to experience any more missed doses. During an interview on 5/27/25 at 11:55 A.M., Resident #13's Advocate said the concern related to the unavailability of Oxycodone medication started on 7/31/24. The Resident's Advocate provided nine dates that he/she documented between 7/31/24 and 4/13/25 on which the Oxycodone medication was not available to the Resident. The Resident's Advocate said he/she had attended care plan meetings and had discussed the concern regarding the unavailability of Oxycodone medication with nursing staff. The Resident's Advocate said the most recent care plan meeting during which the concern was discussed was on 2/11/25. The Resident's Advocate said the facility did not state what actions were going to be taken to address the concern regarding the availability of the Resident's Oxycodone medication. Review of Resident #13's current active Care Plans failed to indicate any care plans relative to pain management. Review of Resident #13's Physician Orders between 7/29/24 and 12/31/24 indicated the following: -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 milligrams (mg). Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Start date 7/29/24, End date 10/18/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Start date 7/29/24, End date 8/10/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Give 2 tablets to equal 10 mg dose. Start date 10/19/24, End date 12/3/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 5 mg by mouth every 4 hours as needed (PRN) for moderate pain AND give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Give 2 tablets to equal 10 mg dose. Start date 12/3/24, End date 12/24/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Start date 12/24/24. -Acetaminophen tablet 325 mg. Give 2 tablets by mouth every 4 hours as needed (PRN) for pain. Do not exceed 3 grams of Acetaminophen in 24 hours. Start date 7/29/24. -Monitor for pain every shift using standard pain scale 0-10 (commonly used tool to assess pain intensity, where zero indicates no pain, and 10 indicates the worst pain imaginable) every shift for pain monitoring. Start date 7/29/24, End date 9/7/24. -Monitor for pain every shift using standard pain scale 0-10 every shift for pain monitoring. Start date 7/29/24. Review of Resident #13's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated July 2024 and the correlating Controlled Substance Log indicated the following: -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours for pain (scheduled for 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M., and 8:00 P.M.) was not administered at 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., and 8:00 A.M. on 7/31/24 due to the medication not being available. >Resident #13's pain scale was documented as follows on 7/31/24: -At 12:00 A.M. (Resident reported pain level: zero out of 10) -at 4:00 A.M. (Resident reported a pain level of 10 out of 10) -at 8:00 A.M. (Resident reported a pain level of 10 out of 10) -Review of the medical record failed to indicate that the Provider was notified that the Oxycodone medication was unavailable to administer to Resident #13, or that any non-pharmacological intervention was offered. -The first dose of Oxycodone medication was administered to the Resident on 7/31/24 at 10:00 A.M. (14 hours since the last administered dose). Review of Resident #13's MAR dated September 2024, correlating Controlled Substance Logs, On-call Provider Log, and Nursing Notes indicated the following: -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours for pain (scheduled for 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M., and 8:00 P.M.) was not administered at 8:00 P.M. on 9/20/24, and 12:00 A.M., and 4:00 A.M. on 9/21/24 due to the medication not being available. >Resident #13's pain scale was documented as follows on 9/20/24 and 9/21/24: -At 8:00 P.M. on 9/20/24 (Resident reported a pain level of eight out of 10) -At 12:00 A.M. on 9/21/24 (Resident reported a pain level of 10 out of 10) -At 4:00 A.M. on 9/21/24 (Resident reported a pain level of 10 out of 10) -The facility staff contacted the on-call Provider on 9/20/24 at 10:38 P.M., regarding the need to obtain a new prescription of Oxycodone. The medical record documentation failed to indicate that a discussion occurred with the Provider regarding the Resident's pain assessment or the unavailability of the Resident's scheduled Oxycodone medication at the time the Provider was contacted. -A Nursing Note written on 9/21/24 at 3:30 A.M., indicated that the on-call Provider was to contact the pharmacy to provide an order to obtain the Oxycodone medication from the pyxis (machine that is utilized to dispense an emergency supply of medication). The Nursing documentation failed to indicate that the facility accessed the pyxis at that time and administered the scheduled Oxycodone medication to the Resident. -The first dose of Oxycodone medication was administered to the Resident on 9/21/24 at 9:40 A.M. (17 hours since the last administered dose). Review of Resident #13's MAR dated October 2024, correlating Controlled Substance Logs, and Nursing Notes indicated the following: -The Resident's supply of Oxycodone was exhausted at 8:15 P.M. on 10/17/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours for pain (scheduled for 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M., and 8:00 P.M.) was not administered at 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., and 8:00 A.M. on 10/18/24 due to the medication not being available. >Resident #13's pain scale was documented as follows on 10/18/24: -At 12:00 A.M. (Resident reported a pain level of two out of 10) -At 4:00 A.M. (Resident reported a pain level of five out of 10) -At 8:00 A.M. (Resident reported a pain level of 10 out of 10) -A Nursing Note written on 10/18/24 at 4:44 A.M., indicated the on-call Provider was contacted at that time for a new Oxycodone prescription and pyxis access. (Five hours since the Resident's missed dose of scheduled Oxycodone) -The first dose of Oxycodone medication was administered to the Resident on 10/18/24, and documented for the 8:00 A.M. dose (12 hours since the last administered dose). Review of Resident #13's MAR dated November 2024, and the correlating Controlled Substance Log indicated the following: -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain (scheduled for 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M., and 8:00 P.M.). Give 2 tablets to equal 10 mg dose was not administered at 8:00 P.M. on 11/13/24, and 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., and 8:00 A.M. on 11/14/24 due to the medication not being available. >Resident #13's pain scale was documented as follows on 11/13/24 and 11/14/24: -At 8:00 P.M. on 11/13/24 (Resident reported a pain level of zero out of 10) -At 12:00 A.M. on 11/14/24 (Resident reported a pain level of zero out of 10) -At 4:00 A.M. on 11/14/24 (Resident reported a pain level of zero out of 10) -At 8:00 A.M. on 11/14/24 (Resident reported a pain level of 10 out of 10) -Review of the medical record failed to indicate that the Provider was notified that the scheduled Oxycodone medication was unavailable, or that any non-pharmacological intervention was offered to the Resident. -Acetaminophen 650 mg was administered as needed (PRN) on 11/14/24 at 8:08 A.M. -The first dose of Oxycodone medication was administered to the Resident on 11/14/24 at 9:15 A.M. (17 hours since the last administered dose.) -The Resident reported a pain level of three out of 10 on 11/14/24 at 12:58 P.M. Review of Resident #13's MAR dated December 2024, and the correlating Controlled Substance Logs indicated the following: -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain (scheduled for 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M., and 8:00 P.M.). Give 2 tablets to equal 10 mg dose was not administered at 8:00 A.M. on 12/24/24 due to the medication not being available. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours for pain (scheduled for 12:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 8:00 A.M., 12:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M., and 8:00 P.M.). was not administered at 12:00 P.M. on 12/24/24 due to the medication not being available. >Resident #13's pain scale was documented as follows on 12/24/24: -At 8:00 A.M. on 12/24/24 (Resident reported a pain level of eight out of 10) -At 12:00 P.M. on 12/24/24 (Resident reported a pain level of nine out of 10) -The Resident was offered Acetaminophen as needed (PRN) on 12/24/24 at 10:42 A.M., and declined. -Review of the medical record failed to indicate that the Provider was notified that the scheduled Oxycodone medication was unavailable, or that any non-pharmacological intervention was offered to the Resident. -The first dose of Oxycodone medication was administered to the Resident on 12/24/24 at 4:00 P.M. since the first missed dose at 8:00 A.M. (10 hours since the last administered dose.) During an interview on 5/27/25 at 11:51 A.M., Nurse Practitioner (NP) #1 said when a medication was not available to administer as ordered the Nurse should notify the Provider. NP #1 said the Provider can then give an order to hold if appropriate or can provide an order to administer an alternative medication from the emergency supply. NP #1 said she was not aware of a chronic issue regarding the unavailability of Resident #13's prescribed Oxycodone medication. NP #1 said nursing staff informed NP #1 when the Resident was admitted to the facility that the Resident's pain management interventions were not effective. NP #1 said she discussed with the Resident the option to be prescribed long-acting Oxycodone, but the Resident declined the long-acting Oxycodone order and stated that his/her stomach could not tolerate this medication. NP #1 said the Resident is very particular about what medications he/she wanted and at what time he/she wanted to take the prescribed medications. During an interview on 5/27/25 at 4:30 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said she was not aware of any times that Resident #13 did not have Oxycodone medication available for administration. The DON further said she also found that residents' medications were not always re-ordered timely. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 9:10 A.M., the DON said the expectation is that medications are re-ordered by licensed nursing staff when the medication reached the red line (indicates medication level is running low and should be re-ordered) on the blister pack to allow the pharmacy time to refill the medication so that residents' medications were available to administer as ordered. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 10:35 A.M., the DON said if a scheduled pain medication was not available for administration, the resident should be assessed for pain and asked whether they wanted to wait for the ordered medication to be delivered from the pharmacy or whether they wanted the Nurse to contact the Provider to request an alternative medication. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 11:06 A.M., the Physician said that the facility should be notifying the Provider when a medication was not available for administration. The Physician also said if multiple doses in a row of a scheduled short-acting pain medication were not administered to a resident, he would expect the resident to have increased pain. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 1:10 P.M., Resident #13 said that most of the time, his/her pain level was between a seven and nine out of 10. Resident #13 said when he/she swells it really hurt, and sometimes he/she curled up in a little ball. Resident #13 said he/she was hurting all the time, and that his/her body was in pain from his/her head to his/her feet, that was why he/she needed medication every four hours. Resident #13 said it depended on which Nurse cared for him/her as to whether he/she would be offered as needed pain medications. Resident #13 said it took at least one hour for any pain medication being administered to bring down his/her pain level. Please Refer to F842.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#32) out of a total sample of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#32) out of a total sample of 14 residents, was free from physical restraints. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #32's wheelchair brakes were unlocked while seated in a wheelchair, in front of a counter, restricting his/her ability to move freely when the Resident had a history of attempting to stand up from a seated position. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Use of Restraints, revised 4/2017, indicated the following: -Physical Restraints are defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjusted to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or restricts normal access to ones' body. -Practices that inappropriately utilize equipment to prevent resident mobility are considered restraints and are not permitted: >Placing a resident in a chair that prevents the resident from rising. >Placing a resident who uses a wheelchair so close to the wall that the wall prevents the resident from rising. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility in February 2023, with diagnoses including syncope and collapse and Dementia with behavioral disturbances. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated the following: -Resident's behavior (rejection of care or wandering) had worsened since the prior assessment conducted 9/11/24. -No impairment for upper extremity range of motion. -No impairment for lower extremity range of motion. -Required substantial/maximal assistance to sit to stand (the ability to come to a standing position from sitting in a chair, wheelchair, or on the side of the bed). -Required substantial/maximal assistance to walk 10 feet. -was dependent to wheel 50 feet with two turns while in the wheelchair Review of Resident #32's Fall Care Plan, initiated on 2/24/23, indicated the following interventions: -If Resident is awake, keep him/her in the area of staff for safe monitoring, secondary [sic] if he/she is not tired he/she will attempt to get up independently, updated on 7/14/24. Review of a Nurses' Note dated 4/3/25, indicated Resident #32 continued to stand up and required frequent direction to sit in his/her chair. Review of a Nurses Note dated 4/6/25, indicated in part: - .staff redirecting the Resident from standing up in his/her wheelchair - .Resident attempted to stand up from the wheelchair seven times. -Monitored for safety because he/she would not sit still. Review of the Physical Restraint assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #32: -had a history of being impulsive and impaired safety awareness due to significant cognitive deficits and agitation. On 5/27/25 the surveyor observed the following at 1:22 P.M., 2:18 P.M., 2:57 P.M., 3:03 P.M., 3:12 P.M., 3:26 P.M., 3:30 P.M., and 3:37 P.M.: -Resident #32 to be sleeping in his/her wheelchair located next to the nurses station, with both feet flat on the floor and pushed up to a counter with his/her upper body approximately six inches away from the counters' edge, and the Resident's legs under the counter. -The wheelchair had anti-tippers (a safety accessory attached to the frame of the wheelchair, typically near the rear wheels that extend outward, designed to prevent the wheelchair from tipping backward). -The wheelchair had an anti-rollback (a safety accessory attached to the wheelchair to prevent wheelchair users from rolling backwards in any situation) devices installed. -The wheelchair brakes were engaged, restricting the Resident's mobility and ability to move him/herself away from the counter or to move freely. During an interview on 5/27/25 at 3:03 P.M., with Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) #3 and CNA #2, CNA #3 said she thought Resident #32 might be able to lock and unlock the brakes depending on the day but she was not sure. CNA #3 said the Resident preferred to be seated at the counter and if he/she was not seated there, the Resident would become confused and try to get up from the wheelchair. CNA #3 said when the Resident was anxious or attempted to get up from the wheelchair, the staff would take him/her for a walk or to the bathroom. CNA #3 said Resident # 32's daughter came in for lunch today and sat with the Resident during lunch. CNA #3 said staff had brought the Resident to the bathroom after lunch, placed him/her back at the counter in the hallway near the nurses station where he/she fell asleep shortly after. CNA #3 said if the staff were to put him/her to bed, the Resident would climb out, so CNA #3 felt it was safer for the Resident to be situated where he/she was (at the counter). When the surveyor asked about the wheelchair brakes being engaged, CNA #3 said the brakes should not be on, that the Resident had anti-tippers, and an anti-rollback device on the chair and with his/her energy level today, the Resident would not be able to unlock the brakes him/herself or free him/herself from his/her current position. CNA #2 said she thought the Resident's daughter may have placed the Resident in that position and must have put his/her brakes on when she left. The surveyor observed at the end of the interviews on 5/27/25 at 3:12 P.M., that neither CNA #3 nor CNA #2, unlocked the Resident's wheelchair brakes, leaving Resident #32 pushed up to the nurses station counter with the wheelchair brakes engaged, restricting the Resident to this position and unable to move freely. On 5/27/25 at 3:12 P.M., the surveyor observed a staff member rubbing Resident #32's back. Resident #32 awoke and began to engage with the staff. The staff member provided a baby doll with clothing and a baby doll seat, which the Resident began to engage with. The staff member walked away from the Resident, and the wheelchair brakes remained engaged. During an interview on 5/27/25 at 3:37 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that the Resident preferred to be seated at the counter. The DON said in the Resident's current position, he/she would not be able to independently move him/herself but should be able to. The DON unlocked the wheelchair brakes and said the brakes should not be locked, as the Resident had the anti-rollback wheels and the anti-tippers in place to prevent the wheelchair from tipping backwards or rolling away if he/she should stand up. The DON said the Resident does attempt to stand routinely and felt that the staff most likely thought they were doing the right thing in terms of safety. The DON further said that the Resident's current position with locked brakes did restrict the Resident's movement and the brakes should not have been engaged while the Resident was placed at the counter.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to adequately assess the urinary status for one Resident (#12) of three applicable residents, out a total sample of 16 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to adequately assess the urinary status for one Resident (#12) of three applicable residents, out a total sample of 16 residents, when the Resident was admitted to the facility with an indwelling urinary catheter. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Identify the Resident's indwelling urinary catheter specifications, including size of catheter, type of catheter and size of balloon. -Obtain instructions from the Physician timely to ensure proper care for the Resident's indwelling urinary catheter, putting the Resident at risk for delays in urinary catheter care and urinary catheter associated complications. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Output, Measuring and Recording, dated 2001 and revised October 2010, indicated the following: -The purpose was to accurately determine the amount of urine that a resident excretes in a 24-hour period. -The following information should be recorded . in the resident's medical record: >The date and time the resident's urine output was measured and recorded. >The amount (in mls [milliliters]) of output. Review of the facility's policy titled Catheter Care, Urinary, dated 2001 and revised August 2022, indicated the following: -The purpose was to prevent urinary catheter associated complications. -Catheter irrigation may be ordered to prevent obstruction in residents at risk for obstruction. Review of the Lippincott Manual of Nursing Practice - 12th Edition (2025) Unit VI - Renal, Genitourinary, and Reproductive Health, Chapter 17. Renal and Urinary Disorders Unit VI - Renal, Genitourinary, and Reproductive Health - TDS Health indicated the following: -Oliguira (small volume of urine) is indicated by urinary output of 50 - 500 mls in a 24-hour period. -Oliguria may result from Acute Renal Failure, Chronic Kidney Disease (Stage V), shock, dehydration, fluid and electrolyte imbalance, or obstruction. -Report decrease in output. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility in July 2024, with diagnoses including retention of urine and obstructive and reflux uropathy. Review of Resident #12's Hospital Discharge/Transfer note, dated July 2024, indicated the following: -The Resident had a chronic indwelling Foley catheter. -The Resident was treated for urinary tract infection (UTI). Review of Resident #12's Nursing admission Summary Note, dated July 2024, indicated the following: -The Resident arrived at the facility at approximately 4:30 P.M. -The Resident was alert and oriented. -The Resident arrived with a (urinary) catheter. -The (urinary) catheter was chronic and would remain in place. -The on-call Provider was notified when the Resident arrived at the facility and verified medications. Further review of the admission Summary Note failed to indicate specifications for the Resident's indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident #12's Nursing admission Evaluation, dated July 2024, indicated the following: -The Resident was incontinent of urine. -The Resident had burning, pain, or discomfort with urination. -The Resident had recurrent UTIs. -The Resident's urine was very cloudy or purulent (containing pus). -The Resident was admitted with a Foley (also referred to as an indwelling urinary catheter) catheter. -The Foley catheter size/type was unknown. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 7/10/24, indicated Resident #12: -was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15 total possible points. -was dependent for toilet hygiene. -did not have an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident #12's Care Plan Report indicated the following: -The Resident was totally dependent for toileting (7/6/24). -The Resident had a Foley catheter (7/6/24) >Check for tubing kinks each shift per policy. >Maintain Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). >Monitor and document output as per facility policy. >Observe for/document pain/discomfort due to catheter. >The Resident will be/remain free from catheter-related trauma through next review date (revised 7/28/24). Review of Resident #12's Initial Encounter Summary Provider Progress Note, dated 7/9/24, indicated the following: -The Resident had a chronic indwelling Foley catheter. -The Resident had been treated in the hospital for a UTI. -The Resident continued on treatment for UTI with an antibiotic medication, end date of 7/12/24. -The Resident had chronic retention of urine. Review of Resident #12's July 2024 Physician orders failed to indicate any orders relative to care of the Resident's indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident #12's Nursing Note, written by Nurse #3 on 7/18/24 at 2:37 P.M., indicated the following: -The Resident's output was around 100 cc (cubic centimeters- measurement of volume where one cc is equal to one milliliter) each shift for the last two days (less than 500 mls for each of two consecutive 24-hour periods). -On-call Provider contacted and requested order for flush (irrigation). -Waiting for response. Review of Resident #12's clinical record failed to include: -any evidence that an order to flush the Resident's indwelling urinary catheter had been obtained. -any evidence that instructions had been obtained relative to the Resident's urine output of approximately 100 cc per shift. -any evidence the Resident's urinary output was routinely monitored. Further review of Resident #12's clinical record indicated the following instructions for care of the Resident's indwelling urinary catheter were not obtained until 8/7/24 (more than one month after admission to the facility): -Catheter leg strap or catheter secure device in place every shift. -Change Foley every three months and as needed . -Empty Foley catheter bag every shift. -Foley catheter care every shift for urinary elimination. -Foley catheter size 18 F (French: catheter sizing), balloon size 30 ml. -May irrigate or flush catheter with 60 cc of (normal saline) as needed >Resistance (was there resistance?) >Return (+ or -) >Sediment (was there sediment?) >Color (describe color of return) On 5/22/25 at 8:37 A.M., the surveyor observed the following: -Resident #12 was lying in bed. -The Resident's urinary catheter tubing was visible, extending out from under the Resident's blankets and led to a collection bag that was positioned below the level of the Resident's bladder and covered by a privacy bag. -Clear yellow urine was observed moving through the tube into the collection bag. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 10:05 A.M., Resident #12 said shortly after he/she was admitted to the facility, his/her catheter was not draining properly. Resident #12 said that staff at the facility cleaned the catheter to get it to drain. When the surveyor asked how staff cleaned the catheter, the Resident said the staff used a tube of something and pushed it in. Resident #12 further said after staff cleaned the catheter, the catheter drained properly. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 9:10 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said when Resident #12 was admitted to the facility with an indwelling urinary catheter, the admitting Nurse should have assessed the Resident's catheter in order to identify the type and size of catheter that was in place. The DON said the following orders should have been requested from the Physician and should have been entered into the Resident's electronic health record (EHR) for catheter care and services: -the type and size of the catheter. -the balloon size for the catheter. -frequency for catheter care to be provided. -catheter change frequency. -an as needed (PRN) order to include instructions, including flushing and changing the catheter, to address catheter associated complications. The DON also said that residents with chronic indwelling urinary catheters would not always be monitored for fluid intake and would be routinely monitored for urinary output. The DON said monitoring urinary output was important to ensure the Resident's catheter was functioning properly. During a follow-up interview on 5/28/25 at 10:15 A.M., the DON also said when Resident #12 had 100 cc of urine output, it would indicate a potential complication with the Foley catheter and should have been assessed and reported to the Provider right away to avoid complications such as catheter tube kinking or urine obstruction. The DON said there were no orders in place for care of Resident #12's indwelling urinary catheter when the reduced urine output was identified, and she was unable to identify the intervention provided to address the Resident's low urine output. The DON also said waiting two days to address low urinary catheter output was concerning and that staff should have assessed Resident #12's urinary catheter status sooner and obtained instructions timely to address the low urine output. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 3:33 P.M., Nurse #3 said she could not remember the exact date, but she had worked at the facility with Resident #12 when the Resident experienced reduced urine output for a period of two days. Nurse #3 said she contacted the on-call Provider and that she could not recall whether the on-call Provider had returned her call. Nurse #3 said she could not recall what she did to resolve the Resident's reduced urine output, and that if the on-call Provider had provided instructions, Nurse #3 would have included the instructions in a Progress Note and Physician order in the Resident's clinical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete and ac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete and accurately documented, for one Resident (#13) out of a total sample of 16 residents, resulting in an inaccurate depiction of both pain medication administered and the Resident's pain status, and having the potential to affect the Resident's treatment plan. Specifically, for Resident #13, the facility failed to: 1. Document the administration status of scheduled doses of Oxycodone (short-acting opioid medication used to treat moderate to severe pain) in the Resident's Medication Administration Records (MAR) on 8/7/24, 11/13/24, and 11/21/24. 2. Accurately document the Resident's pain level for one assessment of pain on 5/27/25. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications version 2.1, dated 2001 and revised in April 2019, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Policy Statement: Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. -The individual administering the medication initials the resident's MAR on the appropriate line after giving each medication and before administering the next ones. Review of the facility policy titled Pain-Clinical Protocol version 2.2, dated 2001 and revised in October 2022, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Assessment and Recognition: - .Staff will use a consistent approach and a standardized pain assessment instrument appropriate to the resident's cognitive level. -Treatment/Management: -With input from the resident to the extent possible, the physician and staff will establish goals of pain treatment . -The physician will order .medication interventions to address the individual's pain. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility in July 2024, with diagnoses including dorsalgia (back pain), fibromyalgia (chronic disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain), low back pain, other chronic pain, and polyneuropathy (disease affecting peripheral nerves resulting in various symptoms including pain). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #13: -scored a 15 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, indicating the Resident was cognitively intact. -was prescribed a scheduled pain medication regimen. -had presence of pain almost constantly, which frequently effected his/her sleep. -pain interfered with day-to-day activities frequently. -pain intensity was a seven out of 10 on the standard pain scale 0-10 (commonly used tool to assess pain intensity, where zero indicates no pain, and 10 indicates the worst pain imaginable) Review of Resident #13's Physician Orders between 7/29/24 and 5/28/25 indicated but was not limited to the following: -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for pain. Start date 7/29/24, End date 8/10/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 milligrams (mg). Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Start date 7/29/24, End date 10/18/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Give 2 tablets to equal 10 mg dose. Start date 10/19/24, End date 12/3/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg. Give 5 mg by mouth every 4 hours as needed for moderate pain AND give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Give 2 tablets to equal 10 mg dose. Start date 12/3/24, End date 12/24/24. -Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 10 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth every 4 hours for pain. Start date 12/24/24. -Monitor for pain every shift using standard pain scale 0-10 every shift for pain monitoring. Start date 7/29/24, End date 9/7/24. -Monitor for pain every shift using standard pain scale 0-10 every shift for pain monitoring. Start date 7/29/24. 1. Review of Resident #13's August 2024 and November 2024 MARs, and the correlating Controlled Substance Log and Nursing Notes indicated the following: -8/7/24: The MAR failed to indicate documentation for the scheduled Oxycodone dose at 4:00 A.M. -The Controlled Substance Log indicated that Oxycodone 10 mg was administered to the Resident at 4:55 A.M. on 8/7/24. -11/13/24: The MAR failed to indicate documentation for the scheduled Oxycodone dose at 8:00 P.M. -11/21/24: The MAR failed to indicate documentation for the scheduled Oxycodone dose at 4:00 A.M. -The Controlled Substance Logs indicated that Oxycodone 10 mg was administered to the Resident at 5:35 A.M. on 11/21/24. -Documentation of Nursing Notes failed to indicate the status of administration of the 8:00 P.M. dose of Oxycodone on 11/13/24 and the 4:00 A.M. dose of Oxycodone on 11/21/24. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 8:15 A.M., with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON), the Administrator said the 4:00 A.M. dose on 8/7/24 and the 4:00 A.M. dose on 11/21/24 were not documented in the MARs, and were documented in the Controlled Substance Logs. The Administrator said she was unable to verify whether the 8:00 P.M. dose on 11/13/24 had been administered to the Resident as ordered by the Physician. The DON said when a medication is documented in the Controlled Substance Log, it should be reflected as having been administered in the MAR. 2. On 5/27/25 at 12:09 P.M. surveyor #1 and surveyor #2 observed Nurse #2 administer the 12:00 P.M. dose of scheduled Oxycodone medication to Resident #13. Nurse #2 asked the Resident whether he/she had pain, and the Resident said that he/she did have pain. Nurse #2 was not observed to ask the Resident a pain level according to the standard pain scale (0-10) as ordered. Review of Resident #13's May 2025 MAR, indicated documentation the Resident's pain score was zero out of 10 for the 12:00 P.M. dose of scheduled Oxycodone on 5/27/25. During an interview on 5/28/25 at 7:22 A.M., Nurse #2 said she recalled providing Resident #13 his/her 12:00 P.M. dose of Oxycodone on 5/27/25. Nurse #2 said she recalled the Resident saying at that time that there is always something hurting him/her. Nurse #2 reviewed the May 2025 MAR and said that she documented a zero out of 10 for the Resident's pain at that time. Nurse #2 said she could have asked the Resident what his/her pain score was on the standard pain scale 0-10. Nurse #2 said she should have asked the Resident about his/her pain level but did not ask. Nurse #2 said that it is important to document an accurate pain score because the Provider needs to know the effectiveness of the treatment plan.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to accurately assess the urinary status on one comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for one Resident (#12) of three...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to accurately assess the urinary status on one comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for one Resident (#12) of three applicable residents, out of a total sample of 16 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to accurately code the Resident's comprehensive MDS Assessment to indicate that the Resident had an indwelling urinary catheter when the Resident was admitted to the facility with a chronic indwelling urinary catheter, putting the Resident at risk of not receiving urinary catheter care as required. Findings include: Resident #12 was admitted to the facility in July 2024, with diagnoses including retention of urine and obstructive and reflux uropathy. Review of Resident #12's Hospital Discharge/Transfer note, dated July 2024, indicated the following: -The Resident had a chronic indwelling Foley catheter. -The Resident was treated for urinary tract infection (UTI). Review of Resident #12's admission Summary Note, dated July 2024, indicated the following: -The Resident arrived at the facility with a catheter. -The catheter was chronic and would remain in place. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 7/10/24, indicated Resident #12: -was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15 total possible points. -was dependent for toilet hygiene. -did not have an indwelling urinary catheter. On 5/22/25 at 8:37 A.M., the surveyor observed the following: -Resident #12 was lying in bed. -The Resident's urinary catheter tubing was visible, extending out from under the Resident's blankets and led to a collection bag that was covered by a privacy bag. -Clear yellow urine was observed moving through the urinary catheter tubing into the collection bag. During an interview at the time, Resident #12 said that he/she had an indwelling urinary catheter which had been in place since prior to being admitted to the facility. During an interview on 5/23/25 at 1:30 P.M., the MDS Nurse said she reviewed Resident #12's clinical record and the Resident was admitted to the facility with an indwelling urinary catheter. The MDS Nurse said the indwelling urinary catheter was in place at the time of the comprehensive MDS Assessment, dated 7/10/24. The MDS Nurse said that the MDS was inaccurately coded. The MDS Nurse also said the MDS Assessment should have been coded to indicate the Resident had an indwelling urinary catheter. Please Refer to F690.
Oct 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews, for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was severely cognitively impaired and had a history of disrobing in public and intrusive wandering, and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was severely cognitively impaired and had a history of disrobing in public and intrusive wandering, and (Resident #2) who was severely cognitively impaired and had a history of inappropriate touching, the Facility failed to ensure they developed and implemented a Comprehensive Plan of Care that identified goals, interventions and outcomes related to Resident #1 and Resident #2's behaviors. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated as revised March 2022, indicated a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. The Policy indicated assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the resident's conditions change. Review of the Facility Policy titled Wandering and Elopements, dated as revised March 2019, indicated if identified as a risk for wandering, elopement or other safety issues, the resident's care plan will include strategies and interventions to maintain the resident's safety. Review of the Report submitted by the Facility via the Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated 09/25/24, indicated that on 09/23/24 at approximately 3:45 A.M., Nurse #1 found Resident #1 in Resident #2's bed with his/her pull-up brief around his/her ankles. The Report indicated Resident #2 was standing facing the bed with his/her pants and underwear down around his/her ankles. The Report indicated no physical contact was witnessed between Resident #1 and Resident #2. A) Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in March of 2022, diagnoses included dementia, insomnia and anxiety. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/03/24, indicated Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired with a score of 2 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, scores indicate: 0-7 severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate cognitive impairment, and 13-15 cognitively intact.) The Assessment also indicated Resident #1 ambulated with supervision or touch assistance from staff, and he/she exhibited wandering, physical, verbal and other behaviors 4 to 6 days per week, during the assessment period. Review of Resident #1's Behavior Care Plan, reviewed and renewed with Quarterly MDS completed 07/03/24, indicated he/she exhibited intrusive behavior such as entering other resident rooms. Further review indicated there was no documentation to support that any of Resident #1's care plans addressed goals or interventions specific to his/her intrusive wandering or disrobing in public behaviors. Review of Resident #1's Care Card (Certified Nurse Aide reference guide, identifies residents specific care needs, including number of staff required to provide assistance during tasks), undated, indicated Resident #1 required supervision when ambulating on and off the unit. Review of Resident #1's Behavioral Health Note, dated 07/26/24, indicated that nursing reported that he/she had increased behaviors, including (but not limited to) pacing, wandering and disrobing in public. The Note indicated that the Behavioral Health Provider observed Resident #1 disrobing in public during the evaluation. Review of Resident #1's Behavioral Health Note, dated 08/02/24, indicated that the Social Worker reported he/she had been physically aggressive, disrobing in public, exit seeking, anxious, pacing, wandering and screaming with disruptive sounds and repetitive motions. During an interview on 10/03/24 at 1:20 P.M., Nurse #2 said Resident #1 wandered between both the North and South units and often wandered in and out of other resident rooms. During an interview on 10/04/24 at 8:20 A.M., CNA #2 said that Resident #1 frequently wandered on both units during the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift when he/she could not sleep. CNA #2 said that Resident #1 sometimes disrobed or pulled off his/her urine-soaked incontinent brief at night. During a telephone interview on 10/09/24 at 2:38 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said Resident #1 wandered in and out of all areas of the facility, including other resident's rooms. The DON said she was not aware that Resident #1's Care Plan did not address his/her intrusive wandering and disrobing behaviors. B) Resident #2 was admitted to the Facility in March of 2022, diagnoses included dementia with other behavioral disturbance, and other symptoms and signs involving cognitive functions and awareness. Review of a Facility Investigation Summary, undated, indicated that on 07/25/24 at around 10:45 A.M., Resident #2 was found in another resident's room, and he/she was observed with his/her hand on the incontinent brief of a resident (of the opposite sex) who was in bed. Review of Resident #2's Physician Progress Note, dated 07/29/24, indicated Resident #2 was referred to the physician for inappropriate contact with a resident (of the opposite sex). During an interview on 10/03/24 at 9:30 A.M., the Physician said he was aware of the incident on 07/25/24 when Resident #2 inappropriately touched another resident. The Physician said that Resident #2 had dementia, was very confused, and had the physical ability to roam. The Physician said Resident #2's inappropriate behaviors were related to his/her dementia and would be better managed with staff interventions, like redirection and supervision, rather than pharmacological interventions. During a telephone interview on 10/08/24 at 3:55 P.M., the Behavioral Health Provider said that Resident #2 required supervision from staff due to a history of behaviors including intrusive wandering and inappropriate touching, and said staff needed to ensure they knew his/her whereabouts. Review of Resident #2's Medical Record indicated there was no documentation to support that any of Resident #2's care plans addressed goals or interventions specific to his/her behavior of inappropriately touching other residents. Review of Resident #2's Care Card, undated, indicated Resident #1 required supervision when ambulating on and off the unit. Review of Resident #2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 08/07/24, indicated Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired with a score of 5 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status. The Assessment also indicated Resident #1 ambulated with supervision or touch assistance from staff. During a telephone interview on 10/09/24 at 2:38 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that she was not aware that Resident #2 did not have interventions on his/her care plan to address his/her history of inappropriate touching.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews, for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1, who was known to intrusively wander and disrobed in public areas, and Resident #2 who was known to exhibit in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1, who was known to intrusively wander and disrobed in public areas, and Resident #2 who was known to exhibit inappropriate behaviors to residents of the opposite sex), the Facility failed to ensure Resident #1 and Resident #2 were provided with an adequate level of staff supervision in effort to reduce the potential for a resident to resident altercation. Findings include: Review of the Facility Policy titled Wandering and Elopements, dated as revised March 2019, indicated the Facility will identify residents who are at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the least restrictive environment for residents. The Policy also indicated if identified as a risk for wandering, elopement or other safety issues, the resident's care plan will include strategies and interventions to maintain the resident's safety. Review of the Report submitted by the Facility via the Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated 09/25/24, indicated that on 09/23/24 at approximately 3:45 A.M., Nurse #1 found Resident #1 in Resident #2's bed with his/her pull-up brief around his/her ankles. The Report indicated Resident #2 was standing facing the bed with his/her pants and underwear around his/her ankles. The Report indicated no physical contact, between Resident #1 and Resident #2, was witnessed. A) Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in March of 2022, diagnoses included dementia, insomnia and anxiety. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 07/03/24, indicated Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired with a score of 2 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, scores indicate: 0-7 severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate cognitive impairment, and 13-15 cognitively intact.) The Assessment also indicated Resident #1 ambulated with supervision or touch assistance from staff, and he/she exhibited wandering, physical, verbal and other behaviors 4 to 6 days per week, during the assessment period. Review of Resident #1's Behavior Care Plan, reviewed and renewed with Quarterly MDS completed 07/03/24, indicated he/she exhibited intrusive behavior such as entering other resident rooms. Review of Resident #1's Care Card (Certified Nurse Aide reference guide, identifies residents specific care needs, including number of staff required to provide assistance during tasks), undated, indicated Resident #1 required supervision when ambulating on and off the unit. B) Resident #2 was admitted to the Facility in March of 2022, diagnoses included dementia with other behavioral disturbance, and other symptoms and signs involving cognitive functions and awareness. Review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 08/07/24, indicated Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired with a score of 5 out of 15 on the BIMS. The Assessment also indicated Resident #1 ambulated with supervision or touch assistance from staff. Review of Resident #2's Care Card, undated, indicated Resident #1 required supervision when ambulating on and off the unit. Review of a Facility Investigation Summary, undated, indicated that on 07/25/24 at around 10:45 A.M., Resident #2 was found in another resident's room, and he/she was observed with his/her hand on the incontinent brief of a resident (of the opposite sex) who was in bed. During an interview on 10/03/24 at 9:30 A.M., the Physician said he was aware of the incident on 07/25/24 when Resident #2 inappropriately touched another resident. The Physician said that Resident #2 had dementia, was very confused, and said he/she had the physical ability to roam. The Physician said Resident #2's inappropriate behaviors were related to his/her dementia and would be better managed through staff interventions, like redirection and supervision, than through pharmacological interventions. During a telephone interview on 10/08/24 at 3:55 P.M., the Behavioral Health Provider said that Resident #2 required supervision from staff due to a history of behaviors including intrusive wandering and inappropriate touching, and said staff needed to ensure they knew his/her whereabouts. During a telephone interview on 10/04/24 at 8:20 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 said that when she worked the overnight shift on 09/21/24, she observed Resident #1 sitting in a chair outside the doorway to his/her room and Resident #2 was rubbing his/her back. CNA #2 said she separated and redirected Resident #1 and Resident #2 and communicated her observation with the CNAs on the next (7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.) shift. CNA #2 said that Resident #1 often wandered on both units during the overnight shift when he/she could not sleep. During a telephone interview on 10/04/24 at 11:22 A.M., Nurse #1 said that she worked on 09/22/24 from 3:00 P.M. into 09/23/24 until 7:00 A.M., on the North Unit. Nurse #1 said that during the evening, while she was passing medications, she observed three separate times, Resident #1 wander in and out of Resident #2's room in response to his/her request or invitation, for him/her (Resident #1) to come into his/her (Resident #2's) room. Nurse #1 said she was unable to hear, if anything, what Resident #2 said to Resident #1. Nurse #1 said that she had never observed Resident #2 call Resident #1 into his/her room before, and said she felt his/her (Resident #2) behavior seemed a bit off that evening. Nurse #1 said that although she did not communicate her concern to other staff members, she said that she had planned to watch him/her (Resident #2) closely. Nurse #1 said it was common for Resident #1 to wander between both units during the evening and overnight shifts. During a telephone interview on 10/04/24 at 8:06 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 said he last saw Resident #1 wandering on the unit at approximately 2:45 A.M. on 09/23/24. CNA #1 said he supervised Resident #1 to ensure he/she did not wander into any resident rooms, until he had to assist Resident #1's roommate. CNA #1 said that while he assisted Resident #1's roommate, sometime after 3:00 A.M. (exact time unknown), he observed that Resident #1 was not in his/her bed. CNA #1 said he was in Resident #1's room longer than expected because he had to address a clogged toilet in the bathroom. CNA #1 said that when he exited Resident #1's room, sometime before 3:45 A.M., he became concerned because he did not see Resident #1 in the hallway. CNA #1 said he alerted Nurse #1 that he was unsure of Resident #1's whereabouts, and said he went to check the dining room and the South Unit. CNA #1 said that when he arrived on the South Unit, he heard Nurse #1 call out for assistance. Nurse #1 said that she took a break sometime after 3:30 A.M., at the nurses' station across from Resident #2's room. Nurse #1 said she had only been at the nurses' station for a few minutes when CNA #1 asked if she had seen Resident #1. Nurse #1 said she last saw Resident #1 at approximately 2:00 A.M., sitting in a chair by the nurses' station. Nurse #1 said that she checked Resident #1's room and he/she was not in bed. Nurse #1 said the next room she checked was Resident #2's room, at approximately 3:45 A.M. and found Resident #1 lying in Resident #2's bed. Nurse #1 said that from the doorway of Resident #2's room, she saw him/her standing next to his/her bed with his/her back facing the door. Nurse #1 said Resident #2's jeans and underwear were down around his/her ankles and the lower half of his/her buttocks were exposed below the hem of his/her T-shirt. Nurse #1 said Resident #1 was lying on his/her back, in Resident #2's bed, his/her bedtime garment was lifted up, his/her incontinent brief was wet and pulled down to his/her left ankle, and Resident #1's private area was slightly exposed. CNA #2 said that just before 3:45 A.M. on 09/23/24, CNA #1 asked if she had seen Resident #1. CNA #2 said she then heard Nurse #1 call out for assistance, so she and CNA #1 immediately responded. CNA #2 said that when she got to the North Unit, she found Nurse #1 in Resident #2's room, which was located across from the nurses' station. CNA #2 said that as she entered Resident #2's room, she observed that Resident #1 was lying flat on his/her back on Resident #2's bed, and his/her incontinent brief, which was saturated with urine was pulled down to his/her ankles, but that his/her (Resident #1's) private area was not exposed. CNA #2 said Resident #2 was sitting in a chair next to his/her bed, he/she was fully clothed, and he/she did not appear disheveled. Nurse #1 said that on 09/23/24, CNA #1 was the only staff member that worked with her during the overnight shift on the North Unit. Nurse #1 said one CNA and one nurse were scheduled to float between both units (North ans South) during the overnight shift, but that neither she or and #1 had worked on the South Unit leading up to the incident. Nurse #1 said that prior to the incident, she last saw Resident #2 at midnight in his/her room. CNA #1 said he assisted Resident #1 with his/her incontinent brief at 1:00 A.M. and said he last saw him/her around 2:45 A.M., wandering in the hallway. CNA #2 said she did not see Resident #1 on 09/23/24, prior to the incident. During a telephone interview on 10/09/24 at 2:38 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that both Resident #1 and Resident #2 required supervision by staff due to their behaviors. During an interview on 10/03/24 at 2:50 P.M., the Administrator reviewed the staffing for 09/22/24 and said the 63-bed facility had two nursing units that were staffed for the overnight shift with one nurse and one CNA assigned to each nursing unit (I Nurse and 1 CNA on North, then 1 Nurse and 1 CNA on South) and that an additional nurse and CNA were scheduled to float between both units. The Administrator said it was the responsibility of staff to provide supervision to residents that wandered, especially those that wandered into other resident rooms.
Mar 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and/or a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) we...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and/or a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) were issued for two Residents (#12 and #36) out of a total sample of three residents. Specifically, the facility failed to issue: 1. A NOMNC notice and a SNF ABN notice to Resident #12. 2. A SNF ABN notice to Resident #36. NOMNC notice is issued to a resident who is receiving benefits under Medicare Part A when all covered services end. A resident must be told in advance when changes will occur in their bills, and the facility must fully inform the resident of service-related changes and appeal rights. SNF ABN notice is issued to a resident when a facility determines the beneficiary no longer qualifies for Medicare Part A skilled services and the resident has not used all his/her Medicare benefit days. The SNF ABN provides information to beneficiaries so they can decide if they wish to continue receiving skilled services that may not be paid for by Medicare and the beneficiary assumes financial responsibility. Findings include: 1. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility in January 2024. Review of the SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review, completed by the facility indicated Resident #12 came off (Medicare benefits ended) his/her Medicare benefit on 3/4/24. No NOMNC or SNF ABN notice corresponding with the Resident coming off his/her Medicare benefit on 3/4/24 was provided to the surveyor to review. 2. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility in November 2023. Review of the SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review completed by the facility indicated Resident #36 came off his/her Medicare benefit on 12/4/23. No SNF ABN notice corresponding with the Resident coming off his/her Medicare benefit on 12/4/23 was provided to the surveyor to review. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 2:55 P.M., the Business Office Manager (BOM) said no NOMNC was issued for Resident #12 when he/she came off his/her Medicare benefit on 3/4/24 and one should have been issued at least two days prior to the Resident's last covered day on Medicare. The BOM further said Resident #12 and Resident #36 remained in the facility after their Medicare benefits ended and a SNF ABN was not issued to either Resident. The BOM said a SNF ABN should have been issued to both Residents when their Medicare benefit ended and it was determined they would remain the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide an environment that was free of accide...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide an environment that was free of accidents and hazards for two Residents (#10 and #46) out of a total sample of 15 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. For Resident #10, ensure a fall event was investigated and interventions were implemented to prevent further falls for a Resident who was identified as being at risk of falling. 2. For Resident #46, provide maintenance and testing of a wander guard device (a device worn by the Resident, usually in a bracelet form, which alarms when the Resident attempts to leave a secure area of the facility) for a Resident who was identified as being at risk for elopement. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled Falls-Clinical Protocol, revised March 2018, indicated the following: -The staff will evaluate and document falls that occur while the individual is in the facility; for example when and where they happen, any observations of the events etc. -For an individual who has fallen, the staff and Practitioner will begin to try and identify possible causes within 24 hours of the fall. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility in October 2020, with diagnoses including Fracture of the Right Femur (large bone in the thigh), history of Falls, and Hemiparesis (partial paralysis of one side of the body that can affect arms, legs and facial muscles). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident #10 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of a total possible score of 15. Review of the clinical record progress notes for Resident #10 indicated: -On 2/13/24 at 9:41 P.M., the Resident sustained an unwitnessed fall and hit his/her face on a bedside table and was sent to the hospital. The Resident returned to the facility on 2/14/24 at 1:00 A.M., with a large right sided facial bruise. -On 2/19/24 at 4:40 A.M., the Resident was found sleeping on the floor next to his/her bed. The Resident remained in the facility. -On 2/29/24 at 2:00 A.M., the Resident was found on the floor, with a bump on head his/her head. The Resident was sent to the hospital. The Resident returned to the facility on 2/29/24 at 11:45 A.M. -On 3/1/24 at 7:28 A.M., the Resident sustained a witnessed fall while ambulating in the hallway without assistance. The Resident remained in the facility. Review of the fall investigation reports, provided by the facility and pertaining to Resident #10, indicated no evidence that the unwitnessed fall event that occurred on 2/29/24 had been investigated by the facility staff. Review of the Resident's current care plan relative to Falls initiated 4/20/22, and last revised 3/8/24, indicated no evidence the care plan was updated to include additional interventions for falls safety, to prevent the Resident from falling, were implemented after the Resident sustained an unwitnessed fall on 2/29/24. During an interview on 3/11/24 at 10:52 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that there was no investigation report pertaining to Resident #10's unwitnessed fall that occurred on 2/29/24. The DON said that there was confusion as to whether the fall on 2/29/24 was the same fall that was reported for 3/1/24. The DON said the facility should have investigated the fall that occurred on 2/29/24, and interventions should have been implemented as required. 2. Review of the facility policy titled Wandering and Elopements, revised March 2019, indicated the following: -The facility will identify residents who are at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the least restrictive environment for residents. -If identified as at risk for wandering, elopement, or other safety issues, the resident's care plan will include strategies and interventions to maintain the resident's safety. Resident #46 was admitted to the facility in March 2022 with diagnoses of Vascular Dementia (Dementia associated with disease in the blood vessels of the brain) and Psychotic Disturbances (a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality). Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #46 was severely cognitively impaired as evidenced by a BIMS score of three out of a total score of 15. On 3/6/24 at 10:46 A.M., the surveyor observed a wander guard device that was placed on the Resident's right ankle. On 3/6/24 at 3:44 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #46 ambulating up and down the hallway on the North Unit. The surveyor also observed that the Resident did not require assistance of a device to ambulate, and the Resident had a wander guard device on his/her right ankle. Review of the Nursing Progress Notes in the clinical record, dated 1/5/24, indicated Resident #46 had attempted to leave the facility and the facility staff placed a wander guard device on the Resident after speaking to the Resident's Healthcare Proxy (HCP -the person chosen as the healthcare decision maker when the individual is unable to do so for themself). Further review of the Nursing Progress Notes in the clinical record indicated no evidence that the facility staff had provided scheduled maintenance and testing for the Resident's wander guard device. Review of the March 2024 Physician orders indicated no order for scheduled maintenance and testing for the Resident's wander guard device to ensure proper functioning of the device. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for January 2024, February 2024 and March 2024 indicated no evidence that the facility staff had provided scheduled maintenance and testing for Resident #46's wander guard device. Review of the current care plan, initiated 8/21/23, indicated Resident #46 wanders aimlessly and an intervention was initiated 1/5/24, for the placement of a wander guard device. Further review of the care plan did not indicate an intervention for scheduled maintenance and testing for the wander guard device to ensure proper functioning of the device in preventing accidental elopement from the facility by the Resident. During an interview on 3/11/24 at 8:05 A.M., the DON said that Resident #46 had a wander guard device placed in January 2024 after he/she attempted to leave the facility. The DON said the wander guard devices come with very expensive batteries and sometimes the batteries last a long time and sometimes they do not last a long time. The DON said that the night Nurses used a special tool to test the wander guard every night to make sure the device was functioning properly; and the Nurses documented wander guard maintenance and testing on the Resident's MAR or TAR. The surveyor and the DON reviewed Resident #46's MAR and TAR, and the DON said that there was no documentation regarding the maintenance and testing of the wander guard device. During an interview on 3/11/24 at 11:26 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said that the nursing staff were supposed to test wander guard devices every day and document on the MAR and that there was no documented evidence for the maintenance and testing of Resident #46's wander guard device. The ADON further said that the wander guard device had not been maintained and tested as required but the device should have been maintained and tested.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the breakfast meal was served at a palatable temperature on one Unit (South Unit) out of two units observed. Spe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the breakfast meal was served at a palatable temperature on one Unit (South Unit) out of two units observed. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: -address Resident Council concerns pertaining to meal temperatures. -ensure that breakfast meals on the South Unit were served to the residents at a palatable and appetizing temperature as indicated by test tray tasting completed for breakfast on South Unit. Findings include: During the initial survey resident interviews conducted on 3/6/23 the following information was provided by residents of the South Unit regarding meal temperatures: -Breakfast oatmeal was often cold. -Plates used to keep food warm were not warm so the meals did not stay warm and were cold when received. -The breakfast meal was cold at least once a week. Review of the 12/14/23 Resident Council Meeting Minutes indicated the Residents had a concern that food is cold upon delivery to their rooms. Review of the Activities Communication Sheet (form that provides follow-up to concerns raised in Resident Council), dated 12/15/23, indicated: -the Food Service Director (FSD), provided logs of the initial temperature of the food from the kitchen to show that food left the kitchen at a hot temperature. -no further follow-up was done to indicate that the FSD had assessed the food once it arrived to the Units. On 3/7/24, the surveyor requested a test tray for breakfast on the South Unit. On 3/7/24 at 8:03 A.M., the surveyor observed the South Unit breakfast meal carts arrived on the Unit. On 3/7/24 from 8:06 A.M. through 8:21 A.M., staff on the South Unit passed breakfast trays to Residents in their rooms. On 3/7/24 at 8:21 A.M., the test tray came off the breakfast meal cart and Nurse #1 assisted the surveyor with taste testing and obtaining temperatures of the meal. The following temperatures were obtained and observations were made: -Scrambled Egg: 88 degrees Fahrenheit (F) - Nurse #1 said the eggs were cool to the taste, the surveyor observed the eggs were cool to the taste -Shredded Potatoes: 82 degrees F - Nurse #1 said the shredded potatoes were cool to taste, the surveyor observed the shredded potatoes to be cool to the taste -Oatmeal: 100 degrees F - Nurse #1 said the oatmeal was warm to the taste, the surveyor observed the oatmeal to be warm to the taste During an interview immediately following the test tray tasting, Nurse #1 said she was unsure what temperature food should be when it comes up to the unit. During an interview on 3/7/24 at 12:20 P.M., the surveyor discussed with the FSD, the test tray tasting results for breakfast on the North and South Units and lunch on the South Unit, with findings that the breakfast meal on the South Unit did not meet temperatures that were appetizing and palatable. The FSD said food should come up to the units between 130 -135 degrees F and should be hot to the taste. During a follow-up interview on 3/8/24 at 2:45 P.M., the FSD said he had not conducted any test tray audits recently and the last time test tray audits had been conducted was quite some time ago (the FSD did not provide a time frame of when the last test tray audits were completed). During an interview on 3/11/24 at 12:34 P.M., the Administrator said she was unable to locate any follow-up action or test tray audits that the FSD had completed pertaining to the concerns regarding cold food raised from the 12/14/23 Resident Council Meeting. The Administrator said she would speak with the FSD. The facility did not provide any evidence by end of the survey, that test tray audits or any other action had been done in response to the concerns brought to the facility's attention from the 12/14/23 Resident Council Meeting.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that food served to the residents was prepared...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that food served to the residents was prepared in accordance with professional standards for food service and safety. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure that the microwave, ovens, food mixer, and ice machine equipment in the facility's main kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner, to prevent contamination and the risk of foodborne illnesses. Findings include: Review of the facility's Kitchen Sanitation and Infection Control policy, undated, included but was not limited to: -The Dietary Manager (Food Service Director) is responsible for supervising all sanitation and housekeeping procedures within the Dietary Department. -The Dietary Manager and Consultant Dietitian will develop a cleaning schedule . -A clean department is essential for good sanitation. The department includes equipment, materials that are used, floors, walls . Review of the facility's Cleaning and Sanitizing Dietary Areas and Equipment, undated, included but was not limited to: -All kitchen areas and equipment shall be maintained in a sanitary manner and be free of buildup of food, grease, or other soil. -Procedure for cleaning food mixers: .be sure to wash splash up areas. -Sanitation of ice machine: The ice machine shall be sanitized twice monthly. During an inspection of the main kitchen on 3/7/24 between 7:40 A.M. and 7:50 A.M., the surveyor observed the following: >Microwave Oven: Interior door and interior top of microwave covered with dried-on, splattered food particles. >Two side-by-side ovens: -The interior of the oven on the left side contained multiple large pieces and areas of black and gray debris. The oven door was coated with baked on food residue. -The interior of the oven on the right side contained multiple crumbled pieces of aluminum foil and baked on black residue. The oven door was coated with baked on food residue. The exterior bottom panel covering the pilot light switch for both ovens was missing, revealing exposed copper wire and springs and the entire length of the missing panel was covered with a black/orange substance and strings of dust hanging off the edges of the panel. >Commercial Food Mixer: The hub where the mixer attachment connects (facing the mixing bowl) was covered with a sticky, brownish/black/orange substance, which when touched caused particles to drop into the mixing bowl. During an interview on 3/7/24 at 7:50 A.M., the Food Service Director (FSD) said he was not sure when both ovens and he microwave oven were last cleaned. The FSD said he thought the [NAME] mixer was recently cleaned. The FSD said he did not have a cleaning/maintenance schedule for the kitchen, and to his knowledge, there were no facility policies related to kitchen cleaning and sanitation. During an observation and interview on 3/7/24 at 1:05 P.M., Dietary Staff #1 said the staff did not have a cleaning schedule or checklist of items to clean in the kitchen and that staff just cleaned areas of the kitchen if they noticed the areas needed cleaning. The surveyor and Dietary Staff #1 observed both oven interiors and Dietary Staff #1 said both ovens were overdue for a cleaning. When the surveyor and Dietary Staff #1 observed the exposed bottom panel for both ovens, Dietary Staff #1 said the exposed area was where the pilot light was located, that there used to be a cover over the whole area, and was unsure where the panel cover went. Dietary Staff #1 said the whole bottom panel area was very dirty and needed to be cleaned. During an observation with Dietary Staff #1 and Dietary Staff #2, of the ice machine that was in use for the facility residents and located outside the kitchen door in the main service hallway, the surveyor observed a long piece of plastic attached to the interior top of the ice machine, hanging over the ice when the lid to the ice machine was opened. The surveyor also observed approximately a foot long area that contained a brownish/orange, wet substance with vertical streaks and the substance dripping down into the ice. Dietary Staff #1 said it did not appear that the ice machine had been cleaned in a long time. Dietary Staff #2 said judging from the cleaning log sheet attached to the side of the ice machine, it was last cleaned on 12/10/23 and appeared to have been on a monthly cleaning schedule. Dietary Staff #1 said the Director of Maintenance was responsible for cleaning the ice machine. During an interview on 3/7/24 at 1:42 P.M., the Director of Maintenance said he was the staff person responsible for cleaning the ice machine monthly and he was not sure when he last cleaned it, maybe the beginning of January. The Director of Maintenance further said that he did not know what the dark, wet substance in the ice machine was, that the substance appeared to be dripping into the ice, and the ice machine needed to be cleaned because this could make the residents sick. During an interview on 3/8/24 at 2:45 P.M., the FSD provided a cleaning checklist to the surveyor, however the FSD said the cleaning checklist was not being utilized.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Smoking Policies (Tag F0926)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview, policy, and record review, the facility failed to implement smoking policies as required for one Resident (#49) out of one applicable Resident, out of a total sample of 15 resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, policy, and record review, the facility failed to implement smoking policies as required for one Resident (#49) out of one applicable Resident, out of a total sample of 15 residents, and also failed to ensure that the Resident smoking area was maintained in a safe, clean and sanitary manner. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1. For Resident #49, ensure that smoking assessments and Resident Agreement for safe smoking habits were completed quarterly as required. 2. Establish a cleaning schedule to empty the cigarette disposal receptacles timely and replace a missing cigarette disposal receptable cover to prevent accidental fires and/or burns and unsafe disposal of cigarette butts on the ground in the smoking area. Findings include: 1. Resident #49 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses of nicotine dependence and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD- a chronic lung disease that causes obstructed airflow and breathing problems). Review of the facility policy titled Smoking Policy and Resident Agreement, undated, indicated the following: -A smoking assessment will be completed upon admission, quarterly, when a resident chooses to change their smoking decision, and when it is warranted. Review of the document titled Smoking, provided to the survey team on 3/6/24, as part of the survey entrance indicated Resident #49 was an independent smoker. Review of the Smoking Policy and Resident Agreement, signed by the Resident on 11/23/22 indicated he/she agreed to the facilities policies and procedures surrounding smoking. Review of Resident #49's medical record indicated his/her smoking abilities and habits had been assessed on the Nursing Evaluation .(Admit, Readmit, Quarterly, Change of Condition (COC)-Version (V) 5 only twice in the last year on 9/25/23 and 3/6/24. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 1:46 P.M., Nurse #2 said she was unsure how often residents who smoked should be evaluated for safe smoking habits. During an interview on 3/7/24 at 10:42 A.M., Nurse #3 said she was unsure how often residents who smoked should be evaluated for safe smoking habits. During an interview on 3/7/24 at 11:54 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said residents who smoke should be evaluated quarterly for safe smoking habits. The DON said she had reviewed Resident #49's record and he/she had only been evaluated two times over the past year (from March 2023 until March 2024) on 9/25/23 and 3/6/24, and he/she should have been evaluated quarterly (four times a year) per the facility policy. 2. During an observation on 3/7/24 at 11:12 A.M., the surveyor observed the facility's outdoor smoking area to be littered with cigarette butts which were thrown and scattered on the ground in the smoking area. The surveyor also observed that the cigarette disposal receptacle cover in the smoking area was missing, and the receptable was filled to the brim with cigarette butts. During an observation and interview on 3/7/24 at 11:21 A.M., the surveyor and the Director of Nurses (DON) observed the smoking area. The DON said it did not appear that the smoking area had been cleaned recently. The DON said the cigarette disposal receptacle should not be full and there should be no cigarette butts scattered all around on the ground. The DON further said Maintenance should be maintaining the cleanliness of the area and making sure the cigarette disposal receptable was emptied regularly. During an interview on 3/7/24 at 1:46 P.M., the Maintenance Director said the Housekeeping Department should be cleaning the smoking area regularly but there was no set schedule for cleaning the smoking area. The Maintenance Director further said he had observed the smoking area and that it had not been cleaned in some time and there were cigarette butts scattered on the ground. The Maintenance Director said the cigarette disposal receptacle should have been covered and also should have been emptied regularly.
Aug 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide education, assess for eligibility, and offer Pneumococcal Vaccinations per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide education, assess for eligibility, and offer Pneumococcal Vaccinations per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for one Resident (#3), out of a total sample of five residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccine, revised March 2022, indicated the following: -Prior to or upon admission, residents are assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine series, and when indicated, are offered the vaccine series within (30) days of admission to the facility unless medically contraindicated or the resident has already been vaccinated. -Assessment of pneumococcal vaccination status are conducted within five (5) working days of the resident's admission if not conducted prior to admission. -Before receiving a pneumococcal vaccine, the resident or legal representative receives information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal vaccine. (See current vaccine information statements at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.htlm for educational materials.) Provision of such education is documented in the resident's medical record. -Administration of the pneumococcal vaccines are made in accordance with current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations at the time of vaccination. Review of the CDC website Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults greater than or equal to 65 years (cdc.gov), dated 3/15/23, indicated the following: For adults 65 and over who has had Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine 13 (PCV13) and Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine 23 (PPSV23) and it has been 5 years or greater since the last pneumococcal vaccination, then the patient and the vaccine provider may choose to administer the 20-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV20) . Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in July 2023 and was over the age of 65. Review of the Immunization Section in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) indicated the Resident had received the PCV13 on 2/23/16 and the PPSV23 on 2/18/11. Review of the Resident's Pneumococcal Vaccine Informed Consent indicated he/she was only educated on and given the opportunity to accept or decline the PCV13 and PPSV23, which he/she already had been administered prior to admission to the facility. Further review of the Resident's medical record indicated no documented evidence the Resident was provided education, assessed for eligibility, and/or offered the PCV20, as recommended by the CDC. During an interview on 8/28/23 at 10:54 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said upon admission, all new Residents are asked to complete the Pneumococcal Vaccine Information Consent and their Pneumococcal Vaccine status would be checked in the Massachusetts Immunization Information System (MIIS). The ADON further said she was unsure which Pneumococcal Vaccinations should be offered to a Resident at admission for them to be considered up to date. During an interview on 8/28/23 at 11:08 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said he thought Resident #3 was up to date on his/her Pneumococcal Vaccinations since he/she had the PCV13 and the PPSV23, but that he was unsure if the Resident was actually up to date. The DON further said there was no documentation to show that the Resident had been educated on, assessed for eligibility or offered the PCV20 at the time of admission, as required.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

2. On 8/28/23 at 8:14 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #2 enter a room located on the South Unit with an isolation sign on the outside of the door indicating the following: Staff and Providers must: ...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 8/28/23 at 8:14 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #2 enter a room located on the South Unit with an isolation sign on the outside of the door indicating the following: Staff and Providers must: -Wear a gown, N95 respirator, eye protection, and gloves. The surveyor observed Nurse #2 to be wearing a gown, gloves, eye protection, and a surgical mask, not an N95 mask. During an interview immediately following the observation, Nurse #2 said both residents in the room were positive for COVID-19 and she should have changed out her surgical mask for an N95 mask prior to entering the room. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control guidance to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on two units (North and South), out of a total of two units. Findings include: Review of the Department of Public Heath (DPH) memo titled When Caring for Long-Term Care Residents, including Visitation Conditions, Communal Dining, and Congregate Activities, Appendix A (Personal Protective Equipment Used When Providing Care to Residents in Long Term Care), dated May 10, 2023, indicated the following: -For COVID-19-positive residents: Recommended Staff PPE: Full PPE upon room entry to include fit-tested N95 respirator or alternative, and Face Shield/Goggles. Gown and Gloves if there is any contact with potentially infectious material. Gown and gloves must be changed between residents. Review of the facility's policy titled Coronavirus Disease (COVID -19) - Using Personal Protective Equipment, dated September 2021, indicated when personnel who enter the room of a resident with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID -19) infection adhere to standard precautions and use NIOSH-approved N95 or equivalent or higher-level respirator, gown, gloves and eye protection. 1. On 8/28/23 at 9:05 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #1 enter a room located on the North Unit without donning (putting on) the required PPE. An isolation sign on the door outside of the room indicated the following: Staff and Providers must: -Clean hands when entering and exiting -Wear a gown, N95 Respirator, eye protection, and gloves During an interview immediately following the observation, Nurse #1 said that she was providing care for the resident in the room that recently had COVID-19 but tested negative as of that morning. Nurse #1 said the other resident in the room remained positive. She said that she did not wear the full PPE that was recommended on the signage outside of the room as she was not providing care for the resident who was COVID-19 positive. During an interview on 8/28/23 at 10:00 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that the staff are expected to wear full PPE when entering a COVID-19 positive room even if they were only providing care for the resident who was negative. The DON said when entering a room that is on Isolation, full PPE should be worn.
Nov 2022 28 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provide behavioral health care and services for one Resident (#26), out of 17 sampled residents. Specifically...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provide behavioral health care and services for one Resident (#26), out of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to follow up on behavioral health recommendations for the Resident who was experiencing symptoms of depression. Findings include: Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in September 2021 with diagnoses including Major Depressive disorder (MDD), Anxiety disorder, and Adjustment disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 8/25/22, indicated a Behavioral Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15, indicating he/she was cognitively intact. Review of a Nurses Progress Note, dated 9/29/22, indicated the following in part: -the Resident did not eat dinner or the snacks that were offered -he/she was crying incessantly and was unable to be redirected -PRN (as needed) Ativan (antianxiety medication) was given with very little affect -PRN Ultram (medication for pain) -the Resident continued to cry Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation and Consultation Note, with a service date of 9/29/22, indicated that the chief complaint for the Resident encounter was for agitation, not sleeping and crying. Further recommendations were made, in part; for depression and anxiety, and it was recommended to start Sertraline (antidepressant) 25 milligrams by mouth once a day. Review of the October 2022 Medication Administration Record (MARs) indicated no evidence that the Resident was taking or had been prescribed Sertraline, as recommended by the behavioral health team. Review of the Physician Progress Note, dated 10/10/22, indicated no evidence that the Physician was aware of the recent recommendation(s) made by the behavioral health team. Review of a Nurses Progress Note, dated 10/16/22, indicated the Resident was very anxious and crying and that he/she wanted to go home. During an observation and interview on 10/26/22 at 8:43 A.M., Resident #26 was observed to be fully clothed and was laying in bed, covered by blankets. Two untouched drinks and a banana were on the bed side table. The Resident greeted the surveyor however was very sleepy. When asked if he/she had breakfast, the Resident said that he/she was not hungry. The Resident then closed his/her eyes to indicate he/she was done talking. On 10/31/22 at 11:03 A.M. the surveyor observed Resident #26 to be sleeping in bed. The Resident did not wake when surveyor said hello. During an interview on 10/31/22 at 1:54 P.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #6 said the Resident had been declining recently and that he/she used to come out more during the day. During an observation and interview on 10/31/22 at 2:55 P.M., the surveyor observed the Resident lying in bed, covered by blankets. The room was dark and there was no television (TV) or music on. The Resident said that he/she didn't feel normal today and that maybe tomorrow would be better. He/she further said some days are just like that and that the next day, hopefully will be a little better. The Resident continued to say that he/she was sleepy and did not have an appetite. When asked if he/she would be participating in the Halloween festivities that the facility was having today, he/she said that he/she was not interested in celebrating. The surveyor noted a mood change in the Resident when he/she began talking about horses and traveling. When asked if he/she enjoyed watching TV or listening to music he/she said that he/she did not care much for TV but liked classical music. The surveyor did not observe a TV or radio to be available in the room for the Resident. During an interview on 11/01/22 at 10:10 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that the behavioral health clinician would provide both himself and/or the Administrator a copy of the encounter notes from a resident visit, as well as put one in the Physician's binder. Next, the Physician would let the facility know in person, whether to make the recommended changes made by the behavioral health team. The DON additionally said that the facility staff would receive a list the day the behavioral health team was in the facility, with any recommendations that were made so that they would able to act on them accordingly. At that time, the surveyor requested evidence that the facility received and/or acknowledged the recommendations that were made for Resident #26 by the behavioral health team on 9/29/22. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 10:47 A.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that there was no documented evidence that the facility staff or Physician followed up on the behavioral health recommendations for Resident #26. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 2:35 P.M., the DON said that the recommendations for Resident #26 made by the behavioral health team should have been followed up on and were not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure its staff protected the privacy of one Resident (#48), out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure its staff protected the privacy of one Resident (#48), out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility staff hung a sign containing personal information about the Resident on a wall next to his/her bed in plain view. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Quality of Life - Dignity, revised February 2020, included the following: -Staff protect confidential clinical information, for example: -Signs indicating the resident's clinical status or care needs are not openly posted in the resident rooms unless specifically requested by the resident or family member. Discreet posting of important clinical information for safety reason is permissible (e.g., taped inside a closet door). Resident #48 was admitted to the facility in October 2020 and had suffered a Cerebrovascular Accident (also known as a stroke, which occurs when the supply of blood to the brain is reduced or blocked completely, preventing the brain tissue from getting oxygen and nutrients), causing Dysphagia (impaired swallowing). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 9/22/22, indicated the Resident was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. During an observation and interview on 10/26/22 at 12:10 P.M., the surveyor observed a sign posted next to the Resident's bed that indicated the following: -Resident's Full Name, Swallowing Precautions as of 6/16/22. -Diet: Nectar thick liquids (indicated his/her liquids needed to be artificially thickened to ensure safe swallowing) puree consistency solids. -Precautions: Small bites, alternate liquids and solids, liquids via cup or teaspoon, no straws, sit upright during meal, sit upright after meal, encourage throat clear or cough if his/her voice sounds wet/hoarse. When the surveyor asked the Resident about the sign, he/she said he/she wished the sign was not there. During an interview on 10/28/22 at 11:00 A.M., Nurse #1 said the sign should not be on display next to the Resident's bed and there were other ways to communicate a resident's needs. She further said that the sign was a privacy and HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive health information from being disclosed without the patient's consent or knowledge) concern. During an interview on 10/28/22 at 11:05 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said signage with personal resident information should not be displayed in resident rooms.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff answered a call bell in a timely manner for one Resident (#54) who required physical assistance from staff, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff answered a call bell in a timely manner for one Resident (#54) who required physical assistance from staff, out of 17 total residents sampled. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Call Bell, undated, indicated that providing timely response to residents in need of assistance is essential to ensuring high quality resident outcomes. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility in March 2011. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 10/6/22, indicated the Resident required a one-person physical assist for transfers, and an extensive assist of one person during toilet use. During a resident group meeting on 10/27/22 at 1:46 P.M., Resident #54 said that the facility staff do not always answer call bells in a reasonable time. Resident #54 further said that he/she has waited for an hour at times. When asked how often wait times can be long, he/she replied, frequently. On 10/31/22 at 9:46 A.M., while the surveyor was seated at the South Unit Nurses' Station, a loud, constant beeping (call bell system) was noted. The time the call bell was initiated was unclear. The surveyor observed Resident #54's room number to be lit up on the call light system (opposite end of the facility). From the time the surveyor first noted the beeping, until 10:13 A.M., when the surveyor observed the solid white and red light above the Resident's door to be lit, the beeping sound did not stop. At 10:13 A.M., the surveyor entered the room to interview the Resident and observed the Resident to be seated on the toilet. The surveyor left the room to find assistance. At this time there were no staff in the hallway to notify them that the Resident required assistance. At 10:15 A.M., the surveyor observed the call light above the door to be lit up with a solid red and white light and the Resident to be sitting on the edge of the bed attempting to put a brief on. Resident #54 was visibly upset and said, can someone please help me. The surveyor responded stating that she would locate staff to help. At 10:17 A.M., a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) entered the Resident's room to help. At 10:26 A.M., Resident #54 came out of his/her room visibly upset, while talking to Nurse #1. He/she said, I'm tired of them not answering my lights and began to cry. The Surveyor attempted to interview the Resident, however he/she said that they were too upset and did not want to talk. During an interview on 10/31/22 at 10:32 A.M., Nurse #1 said that the Resident had been waiting for a while but was unable to speak to how long it had been. She said that she did not hear the call bell alarm and did not notice the light lit up above the Resident's door. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 11:29 A.M., the Administrator said she was unable to provide what the expectation was of staff or what a reasonable time frame for a call light to be answered was.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the required transfer documentation to a receiving provider for one Resident (#28), out of a total of 17 sampled ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the required transfer documentation to a receiving provider for one Resident (#28), out of a total of 17 sampled residents, putting the Resident at risk for complications and adverse events upon transfer to the receiving facility. Findings include: Resident #28 was admitted to the facility in April 2022 with a diagnosis of Adult Failure to Thrive (a syndrome of weight loss, decreased appetite and poor nutrition, often accompanied by dehydration). Review of the medical record included a Nursing Progress Note, dated 5/21/22, indicating the following: - Resident was alert with conversation, but very sleepy in between interactions. Received all current lab results during morning report with further elevated and critical sodium level of 169 (normal sodium levels range from 135-145 milliequivalent per liter (mEq/L), a condition called hypernatremia which can led to confusion, muscle twitching, seizures, coma, and death). All labs were called to the attending physician with a new order to send the Resident to the Emergency Department for evaluation and potential admission. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was activated and a report given to Paramedics. The Resident was transferred at 8:30 A.M., the guardian was updated on the Resident's transfer and was in agreement with the current plan of care. Further review of the medical record did not include any documented evidence of required documentation that must be conveyed to the receiving hospital such as: contact information of the practitioner responsible for the Resident's care, Resident Representative contact information, Advance Directive (a written statement of a person's wishes regarding medical treatment) information, any special instructions or precautions for ongoing care, comprehensive care plan goals, diagnoses and allergies, medications (including last received), most recent relevant lab work or other diagnostic results and Resident status, including baseline and current mental behavioral and functional status, reason for transfer and recent vital signs. During an interview on 11/01/22 at 1:44 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said there was no evidence the necessary transfer documentation was in the medical record or that nursing staff contacted the receiving facility notifying them of the transfer and the Resident's medical disposition at the time of transfer, as required.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the required notices of transfer or disch...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the required notices of transfer or discharge to the Resident, his/her Representative (if applicable) and the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for two Residents (#23 and #28), out of a total of 17 sampled residents, as required. Findings include: 1. Resident #28 was admitted to the facility in April 2022. Review of the medical record indicated the Resident was transferred and subsequently admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. Further review of the medical record did not indicate any evidence that the required notice of intent to transfer or discharge the Resident was provided to the Resident and/or his/her representative and the Ombudsman, as required. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 1:15 P.M., Social Worker (SW) #1 said whenever a resident goes out to the hospital, they or their responsible party should receive an intent to transfer/discharge notice as well as a bed hold notice. She further said the only time she completed these forms was when a resident was a planned discharge to the community and that the facility's Receptionist was responsible for providing these notices when a resident was transferred to the hospital. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 1:20 P.M., the Receptionist said she completes the notices of intent to transfer/discharge as well as the bed hold notices and sends them to the resident representatives and the Ombudsman when a resident is transferred to the hospital, however she did not have evidence that these notices were completed for Resident #28. 2. Resident #23 as admitted to the facility in November 2020. Review of the clinical record indicated that Resident #23 was transferred to the hospital on 9/25/22 with no further indication that a written notification had been provided to the Resident/Resident Representative or that the Ombudsman had been notified of the transfer, as required. During an interview on 11/02/22 9:54 A.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that the required documentation was not a part of the clinical record nor was he able to locate the documents elsewhere.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the required notices of bed-hold policy a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided the required notices of bed-hold policy and return to the Resident and/or their Representative (if applicable) for two Residents (#23 and #28), out of a total of 17 sampled residents, as required. Findings include: 1. Resident #28 was admitted to the facility in April 2022. Review of the medical record indicated that Resident #28 was transferred and subsequently admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. Further review of the medical record did not indicate any evidence that the required notice of bed hold policy and return was provided to the Resident and/or his/her representative, as required. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 1:15 P.M., Social Worker (SW) #1 said whenever a resident goes out to the hospital, the resident and/or his/her responsible party should receive a notice of bed hold policy and return. She further said it is the Receptionist's responsibility to issue these notices. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 1:20 P.M., the Receptionist said she completes the notice of bed hold policy and return when a resident is transferred to the hospital and sends the notice to the resident's responsible party. She further said she did not have evidence that the notice of bed hold policy and return was competed or provided to Resident #28 and/or his/her responsible party. 2. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility in November 2020. Review of the clinical record indicated that Resident #23 was transferred to the hospital on 9/25/22 with no further indication that the Resident received the bed-hold policy or bed-hold notice upon transfer, as required. During an interview on 11/02/22 9:54 A.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that the required documentation was not a part of the Resident's clinical record nor was he able to locate it elsewhere.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in November 2021. On 11/2/22 a review of the clinical record was conducted and indic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in November 2021. On 11/2/22 a review of the clinical record was conducted and indicated a Comprehensive MDS Assessment, with ARD of 10/26/22, was seven days overdue. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 2:01 P.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that the MDS Assessment was seven days overdue and should have been completed by 10/26/22, as required. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff completed Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments timely, as required, for two Residents (#1 and #3), out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in February 2022. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident #3 was hospitalized on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of the clinical record indicated a Comprehensive MDS Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/20/22, was in progress. Sections C (Cognitive Patterns), D (Mood) , E (Behavior), Q (Participation in Assessment and Goal Setting), S (Massachusetts State Specific) and V (Care Area Assessment Summary) were not completed. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 10:56 A.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that once a resident was admitted to the facility, the facility staff have 14 days to complete and lock the Comprehensive MDS Assessment. He said that Resident #3 was considered a new admission on [DATE] because he/she was out of the facility for an extended period of time while hospitalized , and said that the Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] should have already been completed and locked by 10/28/22, but it was not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff accurately coded the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments for two Residents (#34 and #44), out of a total sampl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff accurately coded the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments for two Residents (#34 and #44), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Findings include: 1. For Resident #34, the facility staff failed to accurately code the Comprehensive MDS Assessment relative to 1.) antipsychotic medication (used to treat psychosis and other psychotic disorders) administered, 2.) a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR- stepwise tapering of medications), and 3.) his/her dental status during the assessment period. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility in June 2019. Review of the Dental Care Plan, initiated on 4/17/22, indicated Resident #34 had no natural teeth or dentures and was edentulous (without teeth). Review of the Physician's Orders indicated that the Resident was prescribed Olanzepine (antipsychotic medication) 2.5 milligrams (mg) daily at bedtime from 3/31/22 until 8/9/22 when it was discontinued. Review of the 9/2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated there were no prescribed antipyschotic medications administered. Review of the MDS Assessment, dated 9/15/22, indicated Resident #34 received seven days of an antipyschotic medication, received the antipsychotic on a routine basis, did not have a GDR and was not edentulous. On 11/01/22 at 12:27 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #34 seated in the Dining Room with other residents. The lunch was served and the Resident was observed eating. He/she was edentulous. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 9:30 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 said that she had worked with Resident #34 since his/her admission. CNA #2 said that the Resident was edentulous and did not have dentures. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 1:48 P.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that the 9/15/22 MDS Assessment was not coded accurately relative to the Resident's edentulous status. He said that the Resident was no long receiving antipsychotic medications, that it was discontinued in August 2022, so the MDS Assessment should have indicated that no antipsychotic medications were administered and that a GDR had occurred. 2. For Resident #44, the facility staff failed to accurately code a pressure ulcer (injury to the skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure on the skin) on the MDS Assessment. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility in July 2021. Review of the MDS Assessment, dated 9/20/22, indicated Resident #44 had no pressure ulcers. Review of 10/2022 Physician's Orders indicated the following treatment initiated on 9/16/22: - cleanse the left gluteal fold (fold of the buttocks) with normal saline and apply triad (type of medicated paste used for wound healing) to the open area and zinc (ointment used as a skin protectant) to the periwound (area surrounding the open area) daily on every shift. Review of a Nursing Progress Note, dated 9/16/22, indicated Resident #44 had a small open area on his/her left gluteal fold. Review of a Nursing Progress Note, dated 9/21/22, indicated the treatment was administered to the Resident's left gluteal fold as ordered. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 1:53 P.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that the 9/20/22 Assessment was not accurate and that the Resident's pressure ulcer should have been coded.
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

2. For Resident #28, the facility failed to ensure its staff developed a care plan relative to the Resident's impaired mobility and limited range of motion due to his/her contractures (a shortening an...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. For Resident #28, the facility failed to ensure its staff developed a care plan relative to the Resident's impaired mobility and limited range of motion due to his/her contractures (a shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other her tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints), putting him/her at risk for worsening contractures and injury with transfers and positioning. Resident #28 was admitted to the facility in April 2022 with a diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy (is a group of disorders that affect movement and muscle tone and can cause stiff muscles with exaggerated reflexes (spasticity), stiff muscles normal reflexes (rigidity) and variations in muscle tone, such as being too stiff or too floppy (mayoclinic.org)). Review of the Resident's Care Plan did not include evidence a plan of care was developed relative to the Resident's limitations in his/her range of motion or his/her mobility, transfers and positioning. Review of the MDS Assessment, dated 5/2/22, indicated the Resident required extensive assistance and total dependence on staff for all activities of daily living (ADLs) and that the Resident's upper extremities (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand) and lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, foot) were impaired on both sides. Review of the MDS Assessment, dated 6/11/22, indicated the Resident required extensive assistance and total dependence on staff for all ADLs and also indicated the Resident's upper and lower extremities were impaired on both sides. Review of the MDS Assessment, dated 9/8/22, indicated the Resident required extensive assistance and total dependence on staff for all ADLs and also indicated the Resident's upper and lower extremities were impaired on both sides. On 10/26/22 at 8:42 A.M., the surveyor observed the Resident lying in his/her bed holding a stuffed animal in his/her left hand and observed the Resident's right fingers and wrist to be bent towards the underside of his/her forearm (contracted). The surveyor did not observe any devices in the Resident's room used to aid in proper alignment and positioning of his/her right hand and wrist. On 11/01/22 at 3:07 P.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #5 said the Resident was admitted to the facility with contractures to his/her right hand. She further said that in the past, she had applied rolled up washcloths in the Resident's hand, however the Resident would bring his/her hand up to his/her mouth and put the washcloth in his/her mouth. CNA #5 added the Resident never had a splint for the contracted hand, but probably needed one. On 11/01/22 at 4:25 P.M., the DON said there was no care plan developed to address the Resident's contractures and mobility and there should have been one initiated. He further said there have been issues with care plan reviews. 3. For Resident #48, the facility failed to ensure its staff developed a care plan related to his/her mood, bladder incontinence, medical condition of Diabetes, mobility, ADLs, bowel incontinence and pain. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility in October 2020 with diagnoses of Bipolar disorder, Major Depression, Anxiety disorder, Cerebral Infarction, unspecified (stroke), Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), reduced mobility and Dementia. Review of the Resident's comprehensive care plan indicated the following: - Mood Care Plan, initiated 6/22/22: the Resident is at risk for alteration in mood state related to (left blank) with no interventions listed to manage the Resident's mood. - Pain Care Plan, initiated 6/22/22: The Resident is on pain medication related to (left blank) with no interventions listed to manage the Resident's pain. - Diabetes Care Plan, initiated 6/22/22 - no identified goals to manage his/her diabetes. - Bowel Incontinence Care Plan, initiated 6/22/22 - no interventions listed to manage the Resident's bowel incontinence. - ADL Self Care Performance Deficit Care Plan related to (left blank). The ADL interventions were not completed as follows: -Toilet use - did not indicate how many staff members were required to assist the Resident and which tasks the Resident required assistance with related to toileting. - Bathing - did not indicate how many staff members were required to assist the Resident and did not specify the Resident's abilities to perform bathing tasks - Bed Mobility- did not indicate the Resident's abilities related to positioning/turning him/herself in bed, did not specify what type of assistive device, if any the Resident required to reposition and turn in bed. - Oral Care - did not specify the assistance the Resident required with oral care routines, whether he/she needed help with teeth, dentures and/or his/her gums, or whether the Resident required cueing with mouth care. - Morning Routine - did not indicate the Resident's preferences in regards to his/her preferred dressing/grooming routine. - Dressing - did not indicate what the Resident's abilities were related dressing him/herself, did not specify whether he/she needed assistance with choices and did not specify how many staff members were needed to assist the Resident with dressing. - Eating - did not indicate the Resident's abilities to feed him/herself or what staff assistance he/she may need. - Urinary Incontinence Care Plan, initiated 6/22/22 did not include any interventions to manage the Resident's urinary incontinence. On 11/2/22 at 11:30 A.M., the DON said the Resident's Care Plan had not been developed, as required. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff developed and/or implemented the plan of care for three Residents (#2, #28 and #48), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Findings include: 1. For Resident #2, the facility failed to ensure the staff implemented the plan of care relative to obtaining weekly weights as per the Physician's Orders. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in April 2020. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 5/5/22, indicated the Resident had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 out of 15 and required extensive assistance of two staff with transfers. Review of the Dietitian's Note, dated 6/13/22, indicated Resident #2 had a 14 pound (lb.) weight loss over a two month period. Review of the Physician's Orders, dated 6/14/22, indicated an order to weigh the Resident weekly for health monitoring. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 6/2022 through 10/2022 indicated the Resident's weight was not obtained weekly as ordered on seven out of the 20 occurrences. On four of the seven occurrences, the MAR documentation indicated the Resident refused to be weighed. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 4:14 P.M., when the surveyor asked about the seven occurrences when the resident's weights were not obtained, the Director of Nurses (DON) said that the order to obtain the Resident's weights was scheduled for days from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. He said that on occasion the Resident goes to bed at 6:00 P.M. and would not get up until the next morning but that should not affect the Resident from getting weighed. The DON said that if the Resident's weights were not obtained as ordered then the Physician should be notified.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided resident treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided resident treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#44), out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided a daily dressing change as ordered by the Physician. Finding include: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility July 2021. Review of the facility policy titled, Dressings, Dry/Clean, dated September 2013, indicated the following: -verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure -review the resident's care plan, current orders, and diagnosis to determine if there are special resident needs. -check the treatment record Review of the Order Summary Report, dated 11/2/22, indicated the Resident had a skin tear to his/her left outer aspect of the calf with a Physician's Order to cover the Steri-strips (a wound closure tape put across a wound to keep the edges together) with a non-stick dressing daily and as needed (PRN) until resolved. Review of the care plan, initiated on 10/14/22, indicated the Resident had a skin tear and included the following interventions: -monitor/document the treatment of skin tear -report abnormalities, failure to heal, signs and symptoms of infection, maceration . to the Physician Review of the 11/2022 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed no evidence that the left shin wound was to be monitored, or that a dressing change was to be performed. On 11/2/22 at 8:57 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #44 with a dressing on his/her shin dated 10/30/22. During an interview on 11/2/22, at 10:05 A.M., Nurse # 7 reviewed the TAR and said she did not see monitoring of the left shin wound, or a dressing change scheduled for any shift. On 11/2/22 at 11:15 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #7 change the left shin dressing. The wound was observed to be crescent shaped, approximately 3 inches long, wound edges were together, two Steri-strips were in place, and a small amount of dark red, dried drainage was noted on the old dressing. During an interview on 11/2/22, at 11:20 A.M., Nurse #7 said the dressing should have been changed daily as ordered by the Physician. She said the Physician's Order was not entered into the computer system correctly so that the scheduled ordered treatment procedure and the dressing had not been changed since 10/30/22.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided necessary foot care and treatment for one Resident (#36), out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Sp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided necessary foot care and treatment for one Resident (#36), out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to offer podiatry (a branch of medicine devoted to the study, diagnosis and treatment of foot problems and conditions related to the lower legs) services resulting in overgrown toenails and pain when wearing footwear. Review of the facility policy titled, Foot Care, revised March 2018, indicated the following: - Residents will receive appropriate care and treatment in order to maintain mobility and foot health. - Residents will be provided with foot care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility in March 2022. Review of the current Physician's Orders included the following: - May see podiatrist, dentist, audiologist and ophthalmologist, initiated 3/25/22 - Monitor second toenail left foot every shift, initiated 10/23/22 Review of the medical record did not include evidence that the facility provided information and/or consent forms for podiatry treatment through the facility's contracted provider for foot care, eye care and ear care (ancillary services). On 10/27/22 at 12:55 P.M., the Resident said he/she had been told several times the Podiatrist will be coming to see him/her regarding his/her foot problems, but so far nobody had come. On 10/27/22 at 9:25 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the consents for the facility's contracted provider for ancillary services are obtained upon admission by the nursing staff. During an observation and interview on 11/1/22 at 9:40 A.M., the Resident removed his/her socks to show the surveyor his/her feet. The surveyor observed the Resident's left foot had long, thickened toenails with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th toenails that were dark brown in color. The Resident's left foot had thickened, overgrown toenails well past the tips of his/her toes. On 11/1/22 at 11:15 A.M., the Administrator said that nursing usually obtained consents for the contracted ancillary service provider upon admission, however approximately two weeks ago she began an audit because she found some consents were missing and Resident #36 was one of them. She said she should have obtained consent from the Resident as soon as she realized there were none on file for him/her. On 11/1/22 at 11:45 AM, Nurse #3 said the Physician's Order to monitor the Resident's left second toe was due to the fact his/her toenail was torn off because his/her nails were so long they got caught in his/her socks. On 11/02/22 at 9:06 A.M., the Resident said he/she was unable to wear shoes without pain due to his/her long toenails and wore his/her non-skid socks daily in the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided services relative to limited range of motion for one Resident (#28), out of a total of 17 sampled re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided services relative to limited range of motion for one Resident (#28), out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to assess and treat a contracture (a shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other her tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints), to his/her right hand and wrist, putting him/her at risk for increased contractures and pain. Resident #28 was admitted to the facility in April 2022 with a diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy (a group of disorders that affect movement and muscle tone and can cause stiff muscles with exaggerated reflexes (spasticity), stiff muscles normal reflexes (rigidity) and variations in muscle tone, such as being too stiff or too floppy (mayoclinic.org)). Review of the Resident's Care Plan did not include evidence a plan of care was developed relative to the limitations in his/her range of motion or contracture. Review of the Nursing Evaluations, dated 4/25/22, 6/7/22, and 9/7/22, did not include evidence the Resident had a contracture. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments, dated 5/2/22, 6/11/22, and 9/8/22, indicated the Resident's upper extremities (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand) and lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, foot) were impaired on both sides. On 10/26/22 at 8:42 A.M., the surveyor observed the Resident lying in his/her bed holding a stuffed animal in his/her left hand, and observed the Resident's right fingers and wrist to be bent towards the underside of his/her forearm (contracted). The surveyor did not observe any devices in the Resident's room used to aid in proper alignment and positioning of his/her right hand and wrist. On 11/01/22 at 2:07 P.M., the Rehabilitation (Rehab) Director said all new admissions to the facility were screened by Rehab unless they were on Hospice (end of life) care. She further said there was no record that Rehab ever screened Resident #28 and that she was unaware the Resident had a contracture. On 11/01/22 at 3:07 P.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #5 said the Resident had the contracture to his/her right hand when he/she was admitted to the facility. She further said the CNAs provide gentle range of motion (ROM) by opening up the Resident's hand when they are bathing him/her,but if they open up his/her hand too far, the Resident expresses he/she was in pain. CNA #5 said she did not know if the contracture had worsened since the Resident was admitted in April. On 11/1/22 at 3:30 P.M., the Rehab Director said Resident #28 was not screened by their department because he/she came from another long term care facility, they knew he/she was totally dependent for care and would not be a candidate for therapy. When the surveyor expressed concern relative to the Resident's contracture, the Rehab Director said she was unaware of the Resident's contracture and that he/she should be screened. On 11/1/22 at 4:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said there was never a plan of care initiated to address the Resident's contracture.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure the environment remained free of accident hazards relative to smoking for one Resident (#23), out of a total of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure the environment remained free of accident hazards relative to smoking for one Resident (#23), out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident Smoking Policy and Procedure, dated 2020, indicated that the residents were not permitted to have any smoking paraphernalia in their room or on their person and that all smoking paraphernalia should be given to the nursing staff for safe keeping Review of the Resident Smoking List provided by the facility indicated that Resident #23 was an independent smoker. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 6/26/22, indicated the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating he/she was cognitively intact. During an interview on 10/26/22 at 9:52 A.M., Resident #23 said that he/she holds onto his/her lighter and cigarettes because cigarettes are expensive, and the facility had lost them before. Review of the Smoking Care Plan, initiated on 7/18/22, indicated to keep cigarettes' out of Residents reach until smoking time and to hand cigarettes to the patient one at a time. During an interview on 10/31/22 at 9:03 A.M., Nurse #8 said that the cart nurse will hold the cigarettes and lighter in the bottom drawer of the medication cart, however she did not have anything for Resident #23 in the drawer. She said that she knew the Resident completed the evaluation to be an independent smoker, however, did not have cigarettes/lighter for him/her and had not seen him/her smoke in a while. Following the interview, Nurse# 8 met with the Resident, and subsequently notified the surveyor that the Resident was still an active smoker and that she removed his/her cigarettes and lighter in order to store them in the medication cart. She further said that she was not aware that the Resident had been smoking. During an interview on 10/31/22 at 1:27 P.M., the Director of Nursing said that the Resident should not have had the cigarettes or lighter in his/her possession, and they both should have been stored in the medication cart, as required.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff provided appropriate care and services for an indwelling urinary catheter (a device placed into the bladder to allow urine to drain) for one Resident (#32) out of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to 1) ensure the Resident had a urology consultation as scheduled and 2) obtain appropriate Physician's Orders for urinary catheter care. Findings include: Resident #32 was admitted to the facility September 2022 with a diagnosis of Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (enlargement of the prostate gland that can cause urinary difficulty). 1. Review of the Progress Notes indicated Resident #32 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE] with a new diagnosis of a bladder mass. Review of the hospital discharge instructions, dated [DATE], indicated the Resident was to follow-up with the Urologist (a doctor who specializes in treatment of the urinary system) on 10/25/22. Review of the Physician Progress Note, dated 10/26/22, indicated an indwelling urinary catheter had been inserted at the hospital and the Resident had a urology appointment on 10/25/22 at 9:00 A.M. Review of the medical record indicated no documented evidence that Resident #32 had the follow-up urology appointment scheduled for 10/25/22. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 2:05 P.M., Nurse #6 said that she was not aware that Resident #32 had a urology appointment scheduled. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 3:16 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that the Resident missed his/her scheduled urology appointment on 10/25/22. The DON said he became aware of the missed appointment on 11/1/22, when the surveyor asked for the consultation note from the appointment. He said the nurses were responsible for calling the local transportation company to arrange transportation for scheduled appointments, and if a resident was already set up in the transportation company's system, they would schedule the transportation. The DON further said if a resident was not set up in the system, the Business Office would have to send a form for approval. The DON said he did not know if Resident #32 had been approved for transportation. During an interview on 11/3/22 at 11:55 A.M., the Transportation Supervisor for the local transportation company said that Resident #32 became eligible for transportation on 10/11/22 and would remain eligible until 10/11/23. She said that she reviewed her computer records, specifically the profile of events, and found no record that a ride had been scheduled for the Resident's urology appointment on 10/25/22. 2. Review of the policy titled, Foley ( indwelling urinary catheter) Catheter Insertion, dated October 2010, indicated the following equipment and supplies would be necessary when performing the procedure .Foley catheter tray (size specified in the order). Review of the Physician's Order Summary, dated 11/1/22, included the following: -change the Foley every 3 months and as needed. (the catheter tubing size and balloon size were not indicated). Review of the Nursing Evaluation Form, dated 10/19/22, indicated the Resident had a Foley catheter, but the tubing size and balloon size were not indicated. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 2:05 P.M., Nurse #6 said the tubing and balloon size of the catheter should be indicated in the Physician's Orders, but it was not, as required.
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

2. For Resident #48, the facility failed to ensure its staff addressed a Consultant Pharmacist recommendation as well as failed to retain records of monthly medication regimen reviews in the medical r...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. For Resident #48, the facility failed to ensure its staff addressed a Consultant Pharmacist recommendation as well as failed to retain records of monthly medication regimen reviews in the medical record. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility in October 2020 with a diagnosis of Diabetes. Review of the medical record did not include evidence that consultant pharmacist MRRs were completed prior to 6/16/22. On 10/28/22 at 11:54 A.M., the DON said the facility had changed pharmacies in July 2022 and had a different pharmacy from December 2021 through June 2022. The DON provided print outs that were not included in the medical record, indicating medication reviews were completed from December 2021 through June 2022. The DON also provided a recommendation made by the consultant pharmacist dated 1/26/22 that indicated the following: -the Resident is taking Lantus and Novolog (two types of insulin used to treat high blood sugar for people with diabetes). Please obtain A1C (Hemoglobin A1C, a blood test that measures your average blood sugar levels over the past three months) routinely if appropriate. -The recommendation form included a space for the Attending Physician to respond to: obtain A1C level now and every (fill in the blank) months, obtain other labs as follows (fill in the blank) and no lab work at this time as the benefit outweighs the risk. -The form was blank with no response from the Physician. The DON also provided evidence that A1C was not obtained until 3/2/22, two months after the recommendation. During an interview at this time, the DON said there was no way to know whether the consultant pharmacist recommendation form from 1/26/22 was reviewed by the Attending Physician, as required. He further said he was unable to provide evidence that MRRs were performed for the Resident prior to December 2021 because that pharmacy was no longer in business and there was no evidence in the clinical record that monthly reviews had been completed, as required. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Physician and/or Nursing staff addressed pharmacy recommendations timely for two Residents (#3 and #48), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Regimen Review (MRR), dated 8/2020, indicated that the consultant pharmacist performed a comprehensive review of each resident's medication regimen and clinical record at least monthly and all findings were reported to the Director of Nursing (DON), the Attending Physician, the Medical Director, and the Administrator or in accordance with facility policy. The policy also included the following: -recommendations were acted upon and documented by the facility staff and/or prescriber -the prescriber accepts and acts upon recommendations or rejects and provides an explanation for disagreeing. -the DON or designated licensed nurse address and document recommendations that do not require a physician intervention 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in February 2022. Review of the clinical record indicated no documented evidence that MRRs were conducted prior to June 2022. On 11/2/22 at 3:19 P.M., the DON provided the surveyor with the requested evidence that the consultant pharmacist conducted the monthly MRRs. Review of the consultant pharmacist MRRs indicated two recommendations were made on 2/20/22, one which requested nursing to address and another recommendation for the Physician. During a review of the 2/20/22 pharmacy recommendations with the DON, he said that there was no indication that either recommendations were addressed, as required. The DON further said that there was no record of these recommendations in the Resident's clinical record, and that he needed to have the pharmacy send over copies of the recommendations to the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain lab work as ordered by the Physician for one Resident (#34), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Findings include: Review of the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain lab work as ordered by the Physician for one Resident (#34), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Lab and Diagnostic Test Results- Clinical Protocol, revised 11/2018, indicated the following: - the physician will identify and order diagnostic and lab testing based on the resident's diagnostic and monitoring needs -the facility staff will process test requisitions and arrange for tests -the laboratory, diagnostic radiology provider, or other testing source will report the testing results to the facility Resident #34 was admitted to the facility in June 2019. Review of the clinical record indicated a Physician's Order dated 3/22/22 to obtain the following lab work for Resident #34: -Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH), -Complete Blood Count (CBC), -Vitamin B12 level, -Liver Function Tests (LFTs), -Basic Metabolic Panel (BMP), and -Depakote Level Review of the Resident's clinical record indicated no documented evidence that the lab work was completed as ordered by the Physician. On 11/1/22 at 1:49 P.M., the surveyor requested evidence from the Director of Nurses (DON) that the ordered lab work for Resident #34 dated 3/22/22 was completed. During an interview and review of Resident #34's clinical record on 11/02/22 at 9:08 A.M., the DON said that there was no evidence that the lab work dated 3/22/22 was obtained as ordered. He said that he contacted the lab and was told that there were no lab work drawn for Resident #34 in March 2022 or April 2022.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff assisted one Resident (#34) with the process for obtaining dentures, out of a total sample of 17 residents. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff assisted one Resident (#34) with the process for obtaining dentures, out of a total sample of 17 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Dental Services, revised December 2016, indicated that routine and emergency dental services were available to meet the resident's oral health service in accordance with the resident's assessment and plan of care. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility in June 2019. On 11/01/22 at 12:27 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #34 seated in the Dining Room with other residents during the lunch meal. The Resident was feeding him/herself lunch which consisted of cut up meat, mashed potatoes and diced carrots. The surveyor observed that the Resident was edentulous. Review of the 10/2022 Physician's Orders indicated an order initiated on 3/24/22 for the Resident to have dental services as needed (PRN). Review of the Dental Care Plan, initiated 4/17/22, indicated Resident #34 was at risk for difficulty chewing related to his/her edentulous status, and that he/she had no natural teeth or dentures. Review of Nursing Evaluation, dated 6/16/22, indicated the Resident had no teeth and did not have dentures. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 9/15/22, indicated Resident #34 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 out of 15. Review of the Consultant Dental Service Note, dated 2/16/21, indicated the Resident's Responsible Party signed written consent for Resident #34 to have partial or full dentures on 3/2/21. Further review of the consent form indicated instructions indicating that in order to facilitate timely care, once the informed consent was obtained by the Patient (or, as applicable, the Legal Representative), the form was to be faxed to the Consultant Dental Service Group at the designated number. Review of the clinical record did not indicate further information on the status of the requested partial or full dentures for Resident #34. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 9:32 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2 said that she had worked with Resident #34 since admission. CNA #2 said the Resident was edentulous and did not have dentures. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 10:50 A.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that there was no indication that the facility process was followed for obtaining dentures for Resident #34 once signed consent was obtained by the Responsible Party on 3/2/21. During a follow-up interview on 11/02/22 at 12:42 P.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that he contacted the facility's Consultant Dental Services Group about Resident #34's consent for full or partial dentures and that they had no record that the obtained consent was received in order to process the request.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure staff maintained a medical record that included documentation that residents were offered and received the pneumococcal immunization ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure staff maintained a medical record that included documentation that residents were offered and received the pneumococcal immunization (a vaccine used to prevent possible life-threatening pneumonia) and/or did not receive the pneumococcal immunization for two Residents (#21 and #26), out of a total of five sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccine, revised October 2019, indicated the following: -Assessment of pneumococcal vaccination status will be conducted within five (5) working days of the resident's admission if not conducted prior to admission. -Before receiving a pneumococcal vaccine, the resident or legal representative shall receive information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal vaccine .Provision of such education shall be documented in the resident's medical record. -Residents/representative have the right to refuse vaccination. If refused, appropriate entries will be documented in each resident's medical record . -For residents who receive the vaccines, the date of vaccination, lot number, expiration date, person administering, and the site of vaccination will be documented in the resident's medical record. 1. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility in March 2022 Review of the Resident's Immunization Audit Report indicated no documentation that the Resident had received, been offered, or had refused any pneumococcal vaccinations. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 2:19 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said he was unable to locate any documentation that Residents #21 had received, been offered, or had refused any pneumococcal vaccinations at admission. He further said this should be documented in the Immunization Section of the Resident's medical record, and it was not, as required. 2. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in September 2021. Review of the Resident's Immunization Audit Report indicated the Resident had received the Prevnar13 vaccination (PCV13-a pneumococcal vaccination) in 2018. Further review of the Resident's medical record indicated no documentation that the resident had been offered, received, or refused any additional recommended doses of pneumococcal vaccination he/she may have been eligible for. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 2:19 P.M., the DON said he was unable to find any information regarding whether the Resident had received, been offered, or had refused any additional pneumococcal vaccinations that he/she may have been eligible for. He further said that this should have been reviewed at the time of admission and documented in the medical record, and it was not, as required.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to: 1.) Develop a COVID-19 vaccination policy for its residents, and 2.) Maintain a medical record that included documentation that residents w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to: 1.) Develop a COVID-19 vaccination policy for its residents, and 2.) Maintain a medical record that included documentation that residents were offered and received and/or did not receive or refused recommended COVID-19 vaccinations for two Residents (#21 and #31) out of a total of five sampled residents. Findings include: 1. The facility failed to create written policies to address COVID-19 vaccination for residents. During the survey entrance conference on 10/26/22 and on multiple occasions on 11/1/22 and 11/2/22 the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), and Respiratory Therapist (the staff at the facility who were over seeing COVID-19 within the facility) were asked to provide a COVID-19 resident vaccination policy and no policy was ever provided to the surveyor. On 11/2/22 at 12:33 P.M., the Administrator said the facility had not developed any policies related to COVID-19 vaccinations for residents. 2. For Residents #21 and #31 the facility failed to document in the Resident's medical records whether the Residents had received, been offered, or did not receive and/or refused recommended COVID-19 vaccinations. a. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility in March 2022. Review of Resident #21's Immunization Audit Report indicated no documentation that the Resident had been offered and received any recommended COVID-19 vaccinations or did not receive and/or refused any recommended COVID-19 vaccinations. b. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility September 2022. Review of Resident #31's Immunization Audit Report indicated no documentation that the Resident was offered and received any recommended COVID-19 vaccinations or did not receive and/or refused any recommended COVID-19 vaccinations. On 11/2/22 at 2:19 P.M., the DON said he was unable to find any documentation that indicated whether Resident #21 and Resident #31 had been offered and received any recommended COVID-19 vaccinations or had declined and/or refused any recommended COVID-19 vaccinations. He further said this information should be documented in the Resident's medical record, and it was not, as required.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0888 (Tag F0888)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview the facility failed to ensure staff developed written policies related to COVID-19 vaccination for its staff. Findings include: During the survey at the entrance conference on 10/26...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview the facility failed to ensure staff developed written policies related to COVID-19 vaccination for its staff. Findings include: During the survey at the entrance conference on 10/26/22 and on multiple occasions on 11/1/22 and 11/2/22 the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), and Respiratory Therapist (the staff at the facility who were over seeing COVID-19 within the facility) were asked to provide a COVID-19 staff vaccination policy and no policy was ever provided to the surveyor. On 11/2/22 at 12:33 P.M., the Administrator said the facility had not developed any policies for COVID-19 staff vaccination.
CONCERN (E)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews, observations and policy review, the facility failed to ensure its residents knew how to file a grievance (complaint or concern). Findings include: Review of the facility policy t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, observations and policy review, the facility failed to ensure its residents knew how to file a grievance (complaint or concern). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident and Family Concerns and Grievances Policy and Procedure, dated 2020, indicated the following: -Residents or their family members, guardians, or representative may voice a grievance to the facility staff in person, by telephone, or via written communication -The facility will notify residents, individually or through postings in prominent locations through the facility, of the right to file a grievance On 10/27/22 at 2:00 P.M., the surveyor conducted a resident group meeting with nine residents. When asked if they were aware of how to file a grievance, all nine residents stated they were unaware of where to find the grievance form, who to ask to obtain one or what the process was to file a grievance. During an interview on 10/31/22 at 7:49 A.M., the Administrator said that she was the grievance official. She said that often she will receive a complaint from a staff member on behalf of a resident, write up the grievance, check in with the appropriate manager or staff forwarding the complaint and start an investigation. She further said that she follows up with the resident to better understand the concern and then again to review the solution/resolution. Additionally, she said that the grievance forms were kept at the reception area for residents or family. The Administrator provided the grievance binder that had a total of five completed grievances dated from 9/27/21 through 9/6/22. She said they did not have many grievances in the binder because they did not have many submitted. On 10/31/22 at 8:00 A.M., the Surveyor did not observe grievance forms to be readily available near the receptionist area or near the main entrance area of the facility. During an interview on 10/31/22 at 11:11 A.M., the Receptionist said that she was unsure where the grievance forms were kept. During a follow-up interview on 10/31/22 at 1:47 P.M., the Receptionist said that the grievance forms were located in a folder behind her desk. She further said that she was unaware they were there because no one had ever asked her for one before.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

4. Resident #32 was admitted in September 2022. Review of the clinical record did not provide evidence a baseline care plan was written that included the minimum information necessary to properly car...

Read full inspector narrative →
4. Resident #32 was admitted in September 2022. Review of the clinical record did not provide evidence a baseline care plan was written that included the minimum information necessary to properly care the Resident, nor was there evidence that the Resident and/or the Resident's Representative was provided with a summary of the baseline care plan. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 4:15 P.M. the DON said he was not able to provide evidence that the Resident and/or the Residents Representative was provided with a baseline care plan summary, as required. 3. For Resident #39 the facility staff failed to develop a baseline care plan relative to positioning, mobility, and/or level of assistance required during ADLs. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with diagnoses including Cerebral Infarction (stroke), Periprosthetic Fracture around Internal Prosthetic Left Hip Joint (broken bone that happens around or very close to the implants of a hip replacement). A clinical record review indicated a nursing assessment had been completed upon admission and identified the following: -One side stronger than another -Right foot press weak -Range of motion functional limitations of left upper and lower extremities -Contracture of left upper extremity Further review of the record indicated no evidence that a baseline care plan had been developed upon admission to address how to provide care for areas noted during the initial nursing assessment. A clinical record review indicated the following care plans and interventions had been developed seven days after admission: -Obtain physical therapy consult -Turn and reposition every two hours -Assist with all ADL needs. Encourage the Resident to participate as able -Maintain body in functional alignment when at rest -Perform a contracture assessment During an interview on 11/01/22 at 1:41 P.M., the DON said that when a resident was admitted to the facility, the staff complete an initial nursing assessment, at which point they would check specific care plans that should be completed. By selecting specific care plans they will then be prompted to complete a comprehensive care plan which are considered to be the baseline care plans. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 2:01 P.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that an ADL care plan whether baseline or comprehensive should have been developed within 24-48 hours upon admission. The ADL care plan was developed seven days after the Resident's admission and should have been developed sooner, as required. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff developed baseline care plans within 48 hours of admission and/or that the baseline care plans were provided to four Residents (#3, #29, #32 and #39) or their Representatives (if applicable), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Baseline Care Plans, revised December 2016, indicated a baseline plan of care to meet the resident's immediate needs will be developed within forty eight hours of admission. The Interdisciplinary Team will review the healthcare practitioner's orders and implement a baseline care plan to meet the resident's immediate care needs . 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in February 2022. Review of the clinical record indicated no documented evidence that a baseline care plan for Resident #3 was developed within 48 hours of admission, as required. Review of the Resident's current interdisciplinary care plans indicated they were initiated in October 2022 (8 months later). Further review of the care plans indicated no documented evidence of Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and mobility needs. Review of the Care Card did not indicate the Resident's mobility and ADL needs. The Surveyor requested evidence of Resident #3's baseline care plan on 11/02/22 at 10:56 A.M. On 11/02/22 at 11:37 A.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that he was unable to find documented evidence that a baseline care plan was developed for Resident #3 until October 2022 (8 months later). 2. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility in February 2022. Review of the clinical record indicated no documented evidence that a baseline care plan was developed for Resident #29 within 48 hours of admission, as required. Review of the Resident's current interdisciplinary care plans indicated they were initiated in May 2022 (3 months later), including his/her ADL and mobility needs. On 11/02/22 at 8:34 A.M., the surveyor requested evidence of Resident #29's baseline care plan from the Director of Nurses (DON). During an interview on 11/02/22 at 9:33 A.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said that there was no evidence that the baseline care plan was developed within 48 hours, as required.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

4. Resident #32 was admitted in September 2022. Review of the MDS Assessment, dated 9/14/22, indicated the Resident required extensive assistance of one care giver for bed mobility, locomotion, dress...

Read full inspector narrative →
4. Resident #32 was admitted in September 2022. Review of the MDS Assessment, dated 9/14/22, indicated the Resident required extensive assistance of one care giver for bed mobility, locomotion, dressing, toilet use, hygiene, and bathing, required extensive assist of two care givers for transfers, required set-up for eating, and used a wheelchair for mobility. Review of the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Care Plan, initiated 9/7/22, indicated the Resident had an ADL self-care deficit with a goal to improve current level of function by next review, with a target date of 9/27/22. The Resident care plan did not indicate any interventions for how care was to be provided or what level of assistance the Resident required. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 4:15 P.M., the DON said interventions should be documented on the ADL Care Plan, these interventions reviewed at the care plan meeting, and it appeared that this had not been done, as required. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff reviewed and revised the plan of care for six Residents (#2, #3, #15, #28, #32, and #48), out of a total of 17 residents sampled. Findings include: 1. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in April 2020. Review of the medical record indicated that Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments were completed for the Resident on the following dates: 3/18/21, 6/10/21, 9/2/21, 11/5/21, 5/5/22, and 7/28/22. Further review of the medical record did not include any evidence that the care plan was reviewed by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment. On 11/02/22 at 2:39 P.M., the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said there was no evidence there were any interdisciplinary care conferences were held, as required. 2. Resident #28 was admitted to the facility in April 2022. Review of the medical record indicated MDS Assessments were completed on the following dates: 5/2/22, 6/11/22, and 9/8/22. Further review of the medical record did not include any evidence that the care plan was reviewed by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment. On 11/01/22 at 4:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said there have been issues with care plan reviews and care plan meetings and there was no documentation that the care plan was reviewed after each assessment, as required. 3. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility in October, 2020. Review of the medical record indicated that MDS Assessments were completed on the following dates: 4/7/22, 6/30/22 and 9/22/22. Further review of the medical record did not include any evidence that the care plan was reviewed by the interdisciplinary team after April 2022. On 11/2/22 at 11:31 A.M., the Social Worker (SW #1) said interdisciplinary care conferences are timed with the MDS Assessments and there was no evidence the Resident's care plan was reviewed by the interdisciplinary team after April 2022. On 11/2/22 at 1:31 P.M., SW #1 said she was out of town when the Resident's quarterly interdisciplinary care conference was scheduled on 10/6/22 and there was no evidence in the medical record that the care plan review occurred, as scheduled. She further said she was not working in the facility when the Resident should have had his/her care plan reviewed after the 6/30/22 Assessment and could not speak to whether the care plan was reviewed at that time. On 11/02/22 at 2:39 P.M., the the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse said there was no evidence there were any interdisciplinary care conferences after April 2022, as required. 5. For Resident #3, the facility failed to ensure staff conducted routine care plan meetings with the Resident and/or Resident Representative, as required. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in February 2022. During an interview on 10/26/22 at 11:45 A.M., Resident #3 said he/she had received notices about care plan meetings that were scheduled, but they never occurred, or if they did, he/she was not a part of them. Review of the clinical record indicated no documented evidence that a care plan meeting for Resident #3 was held prior to October 2022. On 11/02/22 at 10:56 A.M., the surveyor requested evidence that scheduled care plan meetings were held for Resident #3 from the Clinical Reimbursement Nurse. During an interview on 11/02/22 at 11:37 A.M., the Clinical Reimburse Nurse said that he reviewed Resident #3's clinical record and could not find evidence that care plan meetings were conducted quarterly as required. He further said that he found evidence that one meeting occurred on 10/26/22, but that was all he could find.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#3) was free from significant medication errors, out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Findings include: Resident #...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#3) was free from significant medication errors, out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Findings include: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in February 2022 with diagnoses including Atherosclerotic Heart Disease (build of up plaque in the walls of the arteries causing obstruction of blood flow) and Hypertension (high blood pressure/BP). Review of the 10/2022 Physician's Orders indicated the following: -obtain vital signs every shift -Hydralazine HCL (medication used to treat high blood pressure) 10 milligram (mg) tablet, give orally every 6 hours as needed (PRN) for high BP; systolic (pressure in the arteries when the heart beats) BP greater than (>) 160 and/or diastolic (pressure in the arteries when the heart rests) BP > 100 Review of the 10/2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the following dates with elevated BPs levels meeting the criteria to receive the PRN Hydralazine: -10/15/22 on the day shift: 163/80 -10/15/22 on the night shift: 173/80 -10/16/22 on the evening shift: 196/80 -10/17/22 on the day shift: 162/80 -10/19/22 on the evening shift: 217/113 -10/19/22 on the night shift: 217/113 -10/28/22 on the day shift: 176/74 Further review of the 10/2022 MAR indicated Hydralazine was administered once on 10/19/22 at 10:03 P.M. and was effective. There was no indication that Hydralazine was administered on the other dates/times that the Resident's BP was elevated. During an interview and review of the 10/2022 MAR on 11/02/22 at 2:13 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that Hydralazine should have been administered on 10/15/22, 10/16/22, 10/17/22 and on 10/28/22 but there was no indication that it was. He said the missed doses of Hydralazine were medication omissions, were considered medication errors and the Physician would need to be notified. The DON further said that the by not administering the BP medication as ordered, the Resident would continue to have elevated BP levels and would be at risk for a stroke.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff properly secured and stored prescription medication, as required. Specifically facility staff failed to 1.) keep a box of em...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure its staff properly secured and stored prescription medication, as required. Specifically facility staff failed to 1.) keep a box of emergency medication locked up, and 2.) monitor the medication refrigerator temperatures regularly on one of two units inspected. Findings include: Review of the facility policy Storage of Medications, revised April 2019, included the following: - drugs and biologicals used in the facility are to be stored in locked compartments and under proper temperature, light and humidity controls Review of the facility's copy of insulin storage recommendations, provided by the facility's contracted pharmacy service indicated unopened insulin should be refrigerated at temperatures between 36 degrees to 46 degrees Fahrenheit. 1. During an observation and interview on 10/26/22 at 1:48 A.M., the surveyor observed a plastic box under the nursing station counter which was in full view from the left side of the nursing station. The box was secured with a thin plastic zip tie closure with a label that indicated the box contained the following: - Epinephrine (a hormone injection used along with emergency medical treatment to treat a life threatening allergic reaction) 0.3 milligram (mg) per milliliter (ml) pen - GVoke (Glucagon, a prescription medication used to treat very low blood sugar), 1 mg/0.2 ml pen - Naloxone (Narcan, an emergency medication used to treat a known or suspected opioid overdose) 0.4 mg/ml vial - a needle syringe used to inject medication During an interview at the time of the observation, Nurse #3 said that the plastic box containing the medications should probably be locked up. During an interview 10/28/22 at 3:17 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said he was not aware the anaphylaxis kit (the box of emergency medication the surveyor observed under the nursing station counter) was under the nursing station and it should be in the medication cart. 2. During an inspection of the South Unit medication refrigerator containing insulin and other medications on 10/28/22 at 3:45 P.M., the surveyor noted the temperature to be at 48 degrees Fahrenheit. The surveyor also observed that the Nursing Refrigerator Temperature Log sheet on a cabinet above the refrigerator was incomplete noting that temperatures were logged only 13 times since 12/28/21 and was last recorded on 9/22/22. During an interview on 10/28/22 at 3:50 P.M., the DON said the nurses did not document the medication refrigerator temperatures anywhere else and that the temperatures should have been recorded daily.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure that its staff stored food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the facility staff: 1) did...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure that its staff stored food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the facility staff: 1) did not properly seal and/or label/date food when opened, 2) did not thoroughly clean areas where food and dishware was stored, 3) did not store foods off the floor, and 4) did not dispose of food that had expired. Findings include: Review of the Food Safety and Inspection Service United States (U.S.) Department of Agriculture Sanitation Performance Standards Compliance Guide, revised March 2016, indicated the following: -All food-contact surfaces, including food-contact surfaces of utensils and equipment, must be cleaned and sanitized as frequently as necessary to prevent the creation of unsanitary conditions or the adulteration (action of making something poorer in quality by the addition of another substances) of the product -Non-food-contact surfaces of facilities, equipment, and utensils used in the operation of the establishment must be cleaned and sanitized as frequently as necessary to prevent the creation of unsanitary conditions or the adulteration of the product -Products must be protected from adulteration during processing, handling, storage, loading, and unloading at and during transportation from official establishments -Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils shall be clean to sight and touch. -The food-contact surfaces of cooking equipment and pans shall be kept free of encrusted grease deposits and other soil accumulations -Non-food-contact surfaces of equipment shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, food residue, and other debris - Items that are kept in closed packages may be stored less than 15 centimeters (cm) /6 inches above the floor on dollies, pallets, racks, and skids On 10/25/22 at 7:30 A.M., the surveyor observed the following while conducting the initial visit to the facility kitchen: -shelving that housed clean pots and pans had visible dust and dried residue -shelving under the cook preparation table was dirty -the top of the stove had baked on black debris -the can opener had an accumulation of dried black residue -the store room had: -- a cart with a round large round container (containing sugar), the cover to the container was not on, it was loosely laid over the top exposing the inner contents to air and there was no label or date on the container --a box containing packages of rolls was on the floor --two clear containers of dry cereal with no labels/dates located on a shelf, there was a spoodle placed on one of the tops of dry cereal containers that had visible food residue on it, --an open bag of white rice with no label/date, --two large open bags of potatoes chips with no date --fruit flies were observed flying in the store room -the walk- in refrigerator had: -- a handled pan covered with plastic wrap and contained solidified whitish food and did not contain a label and date --pitcher of orange colored beverage with no label/date, --a clear bag containing two heads of iceberg lettuce which was visibly rotten -the walk-in freezer had: -- a open clear package of unknown meat/meat substitute patties with no label/date --clear plastic container with green beans no label/date -stand alone freezer contained various covered bowls of ice creams with no label/date -the slicer was located on the side of the two compartment sink. the slicer blade and outer sections/handle of the slicer had food residue. The slicer was directly below an open window to the outside of the facility and a box fan covered with visible dust and debris was in positioned in the open window. On 11/02/22 at 4:20 P.M., the surveyor observed the following accompanied by the Food Service Director (FSD): -the meat slicer (which was covered with clean clear bag) had presence of visible food residue. The FSD said that when the slicer was covered, it indicated that it was clean and ready to use. He further said that it would need to be cleaned. -the window above the meat slicer remained open, the box fan had been removed, but there was large tear in the window screen and dust, leaves and debris were present. -the store room had: -- a large round container (containing flour) with the lid loosely covering to top and therefore exposing the food product to air/contamination. The FSD said that containers with food product should be labeled/dated and sealed. --two open packages of corn meal with a use by date of 10/2019 were on the shelve, the FSD said that they should not be used and should be discarded --a spoodle with caked food residue on top of closed containers of dry cereal -the shelving containing clean pots/pans/cooking/storage equipment near the dish machine and near the cooks areas continued to have visible residue/dust and was gritty and/or tacky to touch. The FSD said the shelving units where clean pots/pans/kitchen equipment were stored were dusty/dirty and the lower shelves needed to be replaced near the oven. During an interview at the time of the observation, the FSD said that he was not aware of any policies pertaining to general kitchen cleaning/sanitation. He said that all dietary staff are responsible for ensuring the kitchen services and equipment were clean.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** [NAME], [NAME] Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained complete, accurate and re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** [NAME], [NAME] Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained complete, accurate and readily accessible medical records for four Residents (#15, #26, #29 and #39), out of 17 residents sampled. Findings include: 1. For Resident #15 the facility failed to maintain a complete medical record relative to a court ordered treatment plan. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility in [DATE] with diagnoses including Schizophrenia and Depression. A record review indicated an expired court ordered treatment plan dated [DATE], with a review date of [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] 4:12 P.M., the Administrator said that the social work consultant/department were typically the ones who monitor the legal information for residents. She said the treatment plan in Resident #15's chart was expired and requested more time to research the concern. During a follow-up interview on [DATE] at 8:00 A.M., the Administrator provided an updated and current treatment order. She said the current treatment documentation was not a part of the medical record and should have been, as required. 2. For Residents #26 the facility failed to maintain an accurate and complete record relative to care plan meetings. Specifically, the record did not provide evidence that the Resident, family or Resident Representative had the opportunity to participate in his/her plan of care. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in [DATE]. A record review indicated no evidence that the Resident or their Representative was given the opportunity to partake or had participated in the planning of the Resident's care plan. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:40 A.M., the Social Worker provided a partially legible, handwritten note titled Care Plan, dated [DATE]. She said that the note was not a part of the medical record because she did not have consistent wifi access, allowing her to document accordingly. 3. For Residents #39 the facility failed to maintain an accurate and complete record relative to care plan meetings. Specifically, the record did not provide evidence that the Resident, family or Resident Representative had the opportunity to participate in his/her plan of care. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility in [DATE]. A record review indicated no evidence that the Resident or their Representative was given the opportunity to partake or had participated in the planning of the Resident's care plan. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:00 P.M., the Social Worker said that she completes notes in the electronic medical record (EMR). She further said that there was not a note in the EMR for Resident #39's care plan meeting because she did not always have access to wifi, therefore she was unable to enter notes. She said there was no documentation in the medical record indicating that the Resident, family, or Resident Representative participated or had input in the Resident's plan of care. During a follow-up interview on [DATE] at 1:25 P.M., the Social Worker provided an illegible and undated handwritten note for a care plan meeting. She said that the notes were not a part of the medical record and should have been, as required. 4. For Resident #29, the facility failed to ensure the staff accurately documented an order for a Hospice consult. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility in [DATE]. Review of the Physician Progress Note, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #29's prognosis was poor and indicated that a hospice consult would be obtained. Review of a Nursing Progress Note, dated [DATE] indicated that the Physician was updated about the Resident's status, spoke with family about hospice services and a new order was given by the Physician to have a hospice consult due to the Resident's medical decline. Review of a Dietary Progress Note, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #29 was now receiving Hospice services. Review of the 10/2022 Physician's Orders did not indicate an order for Resident #29 to have a Hospice consult nor Hospices services. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:54 P.M., Nurse #3 said that Resident #29 was signed onto Hospice Services on [DATE]. Nurse #3 said there should be an order for hospice services in the Resident's chart. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:23 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that when a resident was declining, the facility staff and/or Physician would ask the resident/resident family about obtaining hospice services. He said that if the resident/resident family agreed to hospice services, a Physician's order would need to be obtained and a referral made to the requested hospice service agency. He further said that the Physician's Order for hospice referral was not put in until [DATE] when the surveyor inquired.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to 1.) ensure staff reviewed their Infection Control Policies and Procedures at least annually to ensure policies and procedures ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to 1.) ensure staff reviewed their Infection Control Policies and Procedures at least annually to ensure policies and procedures are current, 2.) create written policies related to COVID-19 surveillance and symptom monitoring, 3.) implement their procedures for COVID-19 screening prior to each shift for staff, putting the facility at risk for transmission for COVID-19 within the facility, and 4.) ensure that staff monitored for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 every shift on a unit conducting outbreak testing for two Residents (#26 and #44), out of three total sampled residents, to stop the spread of COVID-19 infection. Findings include: 1. The facility failed to review their written facility wide infection prevention and control program (IPCP) annually. Review of the IPCP packet provided by the Administrator of the facility titled Managing Infections indicated no documentation that the facility staff had reviewed the packet annually. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 12:33 P.M., the Administrator said the IPCP had not been reviewed in the last year and she was unsure when it was reviewed last as there was no documentation to support it was reviewed on a yearly basis. 2. The facility failed to create written policies related to COVID-19 surveillance and symptom monitoring for staff and residents that was current. Review of the following facility policies indicated the following policies had not been revised since April 2020. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Infection Prevention and Control Measures Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Identification and Management of Ill Residents During an interview on 11/1/22 at 2:10 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility utilized The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) Memos as their policies and procedures for COVID-19 surveillance and symptom monitoring for staff and residents. Further review of the provided policies indicated they were last revised April 2020 and did not align with current DPH guidance. The facility provided no other COVID-19 policies pertaining to surveillance and symptom monitoring for staff and residents. During an interview on 11/2/22 at 12:33 P.M., the Administrator said the facility had no current written policies related to surveillance and symptom monitoring for staff and residents. 3. The facility failed to ensure their procedures were implemented related to screening for COVID-19 signs and symptoms for staff prior to staff beginning their shifts. Review of the DPH memo titled Update to Caring for Long-Term Care Residents during the COVID-19 Response, including Visitation Conditions, Communal Dining, and Congregate Activities, dated October 13, 2022, indicated the following: Long-term care facilities should screen all individuals entering the facility for symptoms but may utilize posted signage as a means to do so. Long term care facilities should have all individuals entering the facility, including healthcare personnel and visitors, self-assess for symptoms of COVID-19 (e.g., cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, runny nose, headache, myalgia, chills, fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, new onset loss of smell or taste and a fever). Self-screening should also include absence of a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the prior 10 days. Long-term care facilities should post signage at facility entrance(s) explaining self-screening to visitors and staff. Review of the facility entrance on the South Unit and Facility main entrance indicated no posted documentation about self-screening for COVID-19 signs and symptoms prior to entering the building. On 10/26/22 at 3:05 P.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #4 enter the facility from the South Unit entrance. The Nurse did not complete the screening log at the doors entrance prior to entering the unit and beginning her shift. Review of the facilities nursing schedule indicated Nurse #5 worked on 10/27/22, 10/29/22, and 10/30/22. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 2:52 P.M., the Respiratory Therapist (RT) said she reviewed the facilities COVID-19 screening log from 10/26/22 and Nurse #4 did not complete the screening log prior to beginning her shift, as required, she further said she also reviewed the COVID-19 screening logs from 10/27/22, 10/29/22, and 10/30/22 and Nurse #5 did not complete the screening logs prior to beginning of her shifts on those days, as required. During an interview on 11/1/11 at 3:35 P.M., the surveyor asked Nurse #2 to explain the process of what happens prior to the Nurse beginning her shift. Nurse #2 said when she enters the building from the South Unit entrance and walks through the South Unit to go downstairs to punch in. She did not provide any information that she performs a self screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 or utilizes the screening log at the South Unit entrance door or the log provided by the time clock to screen herself for signs and symptoms of COVID-19. Review of the facilities COVID-19 screening logs from 11/1/22 indicated no documentation that Nurse #2 screened for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 prior to beginning her shift. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 3:54 P.M., the RT said staff should enter through the basement door. There is a COVID-19 screening log that is in front of the time clock that is to be filled out by staff before each shift. She further said if staff did enter the building from one of the other entrances there are screening logs at those entrances too, that should be completed. She further said Nurse #2 did not complete the screening log when she entered the building, as required, prior to starting her shift. 4. The facility failed to ensure that its staff monitored residents for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 every shift on a unit conducting outbreak testing for two Residents (#26 and #44), out of three total sampled residents, to stop the spread of COVID-19 infection. Review of the DPH memo titled Update to Caring for Long-Term Care Residents during the COVID-19 Response, including Visitation Conditions, Communal Dining, and Congregate Activities, dated October 13, 2022 indicated the following: On unit(s) conducting outbreak testing, a long-term care facility should assess residents for symptoms of COVID-19 during each shift. a. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in September 2021. Review of the October 2022 and November 2022 Order Summary Reports indicated the following order with a start date of 3/4/22: Does resident have the following symptoms: cough or shortness of breath and two of the following symptoms: fever shaking/chills, headache, new loss of taste or smell, diarrhea, muscle pain, sore throat, or vomiting every day shift for monitoring . Review of the October 2022 and November 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #26 was only monitored once daily during the day shift for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 from October 31, 2022 through November 2, 2022. b. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility in July 2021. Review of the October 2022 and November 2022 Order Summary Reports indicated the following order with a start date of 3/10/22: Does resident have the following symptoms: cough or shortness of breath and two of the following symptoms: fever shaking/chills, headache, new loss of taste or smell, diarrhea, muscle pain, sore throat, or vomiting every day shift for monitoring . Review of the October 2022 and November 2022 MAR indicated Resident #26 was only monitored once daily during the day shift for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 from October 31, 2022 through November 2, 2022. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 9:54 A.M., the DON said the facility followed DPH guidance for monitoring for signs and symptoms of COVID-19. He further said they started outbreak testing on the South Unit on 10/31/22 and that Resident #26 and Resident #44 resided on the South Unit and were part of outbreak testing. During an interview on 11/1/22 at 1:52 P.M., Nurse #6 said Resident #26 and Resident #44 should be being monitored for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 every shift if they were part of outbreak testing. Nurse #6 reviewed both Resident's Physician Orders and said both Residents were only being monitored once a day for signs and symptoms of COVID-19.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 43 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade F (28/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 28/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Massachusetts, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 67%, which is 21 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 80%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 43 deficiencies at POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm, 38 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center?

POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by EPHRAM LAHASKY, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 63 certified beds and approximately 55 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GREENFIELD, Massachusetts.

How Does Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (67%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER is high. At 67%, the facility is 21 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 80%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

POET'S SEAT HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $8,525 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Massachusetts average of $33,164. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Poet'S Seat Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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