LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM

25 WOODLAND ROAD, STONEHAM, MA 02180 (781) 662-2545
For profit - Corporation 94 Beds LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
15/100
#163 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: September 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Life Care Center of Stoneham has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #163 out of 338 nursing homes in Massachusetts places it in the top half of facilities in the state, but this does not reflect well when considering the overall grade. The facility is showing signs of improvement, having reduced its issues from 10 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing levels are average, with a turnover rate of 39%, which is in line with the state average, and the facility has better RN coverage than 88% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting some strength in nursing oversight. However, it has incurred $39,559 in fines, which is concerning and indicates recurring compliance issues. Notable incidents include a resident suffering an unwitnessed fall without proper assessment or documentation by the nursing staff, leading to severe pain and an emergency hospital transfer. While there are some positive elements, such as staffing and improvements in trends, the serious incidents raise significant red flags for families considering this nursing home.

Trust Score
F
15/100
In Massachusetts
#163/338
Top 48%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
10 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
39% turnover. Near Massachusetts's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$39,559 in fines. Higher than 90% of Massachusetts facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 55 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Massachusetts. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
34 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 10 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (39%)

    9 points below Massachusetts average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Massachusetts average (2.9)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 39%

Near Massachusetts avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $39,559

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 34 deficiencies on record

5 actual harm
Mar 2025 3 deficiencies 3 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who during the overnight shift (11:00 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who during the overnight shift (11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) on 1/30/25 into 1/31/25, had an unwitnessed fall and was found on the floor by staff, the facility failed to ensure he/she was free from neglect, when although Resident #1 told staff he/she was hurt and was screaming I'm in pain, without assessing him/her for the potential for injuries, Nurse #1 picked Resident #1 up off the floor put him/her in a wheelchair, picked him/her up again, transferred him/her back into bed and left the room. Despite Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 reporting to Nurse #1 that Resident #1 was still complaining of and was in obvious pain, Nurse #1 did not go check on Resident #1 and still did not assess him/her for injuries. Nurse #1 finished his shift, left the facility and never reported the incident to anyone. Day shift nursing staff, who were totally unaware that Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall on the previous shift, were unable to provide care, as Resident #1 screamed whenever staff tried to touch him/her. Resident #1 was emergently transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department, where he/she was diagnosed with a left hip fracture. Findings include: The Facility's Policy titled, Abuse, dated as reviewed 06/17/24, indicated neglect is defined as the failure of the Facility its employees or services providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish or emotional distress. The Policy indicated the Facility is to prevent and prohibit all types of abuse and neglect. The Policy indicated the Facility assures that residents are free from neglect by having the structures and process to provide needed care and services to all residents, which includes but is not limited to the provision of a facility assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently. The Facility's Policy titled, Resident Rights, dated as reviewed 09/10/24, indicated the following: a resident has the right to be treated with respect and dignity; a resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. Review of the Facility's Incident Report, dated 02/06/25, indicated on 01/31/25 sometime around 8:30 A.M. Resident #1 was observed by Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 screaming as if in pain and would not allow CNA #2 to provide care to him/her. The Report indicated Resident #1 reported 10/10 pain (a pain scale where 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst pain imaginable, severe or unbearable pain) his/her leg. The Report indicated Resident #1 informed Nurse #2 and the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) that he/she had fallen out of bed in the early morning and two men assisted him/her back to bed. The Report indicated Resident #1's left leg was rotated outward and noted to be larger than the right leg. The Report indicated Emergency Medical Services (911) had been called and in the Emergency Department Resident #1 was found to have a Displaced Proximal Left Femoral Subtrochanteric Fracture (break in thigh bone just below the bony prominence in the lower part of the hip). Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in December 2024, diagnoses included Rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of muscle tissue), Hypertension (high blood pressure), Orthostatic Hypotension (low blood pressure that happens when standing up from sitting or lying down), Bradycardia (slower than expected heart rate, generally beating fewer than 60 minute), Wedge Compression fracture of T11-T12 vertebra subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing (occurs when the front (anterior) portion of the vertebra collapses, resulting in a wedge-shaped deformity), difficulty with walking, muscle weakness and history of falling. Review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 12/19/24, indicated Resident #1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), score was 14/15 (score of 13-15 indicates intact cognition, 12-8 indicates moderate cognitive impairment, 0-7 indicates severe cognitive impairment). Review of the Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1's Written Witness Statement, dated 02/03/25, indicated on 01/31/25 at 2:30 A.M., she was helping Resident #3, heard a fall [loud bang] and left Resident #3's room to see what was going on. The Statement indicated Resident #1 was on the floor screaming, help me. The Statement indicated CNA #1 told Nurse #1, to call the ambulance because Resident #1 was screaming, but Nurse #1 said they should put Resident #1 back into bed. The Statement indicated Nurse #1 picked Resident #1 up off the floor put him/her into his/her wheelchair, then picked Resident #1 up from his/her wheelchair and put him/her into the bed. The Statement indicated CNA #1 did not move or touch Resident #1, but did hold the wheelchair. The Statement indicated she (CNA #1) was uncomfortable, that Resident #1 was screaming, I'm in pain, and that Nurse #1 told her not to say anything about this. During an interview on 03/18/25 at 2:00 P.M., (and during a follow-up interview on 03/19/25 at 1:07 P.M.) CNA #1 said on 01/31/25, sometime around 2:30 A.M., she heard a loud bang while providing care to Resident #3 and went to find out what the noise was. CNA #1 said the noise came from the room diagonally across from the room she was providing care in. CNA #1 said she found Resident #1 in his/her room lying face up on the floor and called Nurse #1 for help. CNA #1 said when Nurse #1 came to the room, Resident #1 was screaming, I'm in pain, I'm in pain. CNA #1 said that Nurse #1 said to get Resident #1 up off the floor. CNA #1 said she told Nurse #1 No, that in school she learned that when a patient falls and screams, they may have something broken and that they should call an ambulance. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 said No, we do not need to call the ambulance, and told her to bring Resident #1's wheelchair over to him. CNA #1 said she brought the wheelchair over to Nurse #1 and Nurse #1 picked up Resident #1 up off the floor, by himself, that Resident #1 was screaming, I'm in pain, I'm in pain. and placed him/her in the wheelchair. CNA #1 said then Nurse #1 transferred Resident #1 out of the wheelchair by himself to the bed. CNA #1 said Resident #1 was still screaming, I'm in pain. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 did not perform an assessment on Resident #1 prior to moving Resident #1 up off the floor and did not even check his/her vital signs. CNA #1 said shortly thereafter, she and Nurse #1 left the room at the same time and Resident #1 was still saying he/she was in pain. CNA #1 said she asked Nurse #1 if he was going to call 911 and complete the paperwork and Nurse #1 said, to her Forget about it, Forget about it. CNA #1 said around 4:00 A.M., she assisted Resident #1's roommate with care and Resident #1 was moaning like he/she was in pain. CNA #1 said she told Nurse #1 again about Resident #1's pain and asked him to take Resident #1's vital signs and to see if he/she was ok. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 waved his hand in a backward motion at her, as if he was dismissing her concerns and telling her to go away. CNA #1 said she never saw Nurse #1 go check on or assess Resident #1, after she asked him to. During an interview on 03/18/25 at 1:15 P.M., Nurse #2 said on 01/31/25 she started her shift around at 8:00 A.M. and had not receive an oncoming Nurse Change Shift Report from Nurse #1, because he had left the Facility prior to her arrival. Nurse #2 said the other nurse who was working with her on the day shift did not report to her that there was any change of condition or a fall regarding Resident #1. Review of the Nurse #1 Written Witness Statement, dated 01/31/25, indicated he was called into Resident #1's room by CNA #1, because Resident #1 was seated halfway in his/her wheelchair and CNA #1 could not sit him/her up by herself. The Statement indicated he assisted Resident #1 in the wheelchair and back to bed with CNA #1's help and left for the day. The Statement indicated Nurse #1 did not witness any fall. During an interview on 04/01/25 at 9:40 A.M., Nurse #1 said on the night shift (1/30/25 into 1/31/25), he did not hear Resident #1 fall, and when he transferred Resident #1 into bed, he/she was not in pain. Nurse #1 denied he received any reports from CNA #1 that Resident #1 was in pain and that he had no idea how Resident #1 fractured his/her hip. During an interview on 03/19/25 at 9:40 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said she received a phone call on 01/31/25, at around 9:00 A.M. from the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) that Resident #1 reported he/she had fallen during the overnight shift, and two men picked him/her up and put him/her back into bed. The DON said the SDC reported that Resident #1's left hip was larger than his/her right and Resident #1 was sent to the Hospital. The DON said she had not received any phone calls from the night shift Nurse (Nurse #1) regarding Resident #1's fall on 01/31/25. The DON said she had asked the SDC to start an investigation. The DON said it was not until she and the Administrator spoke with CNA #1 on 02/03/25 and obtained her statement that they were informed Resident #1 had fallen on 01/31/25, and had been found on the floor. The DON said CNA #1 told them she called Nurse #1 for help, told him that they should call 911 and that Nurse #1 told her (CNA #1), No, we were going to put him/her back to bed. The DON said CNA #1 said Resident #1 told them (CNA #1 and Nurse #1) he/she was in pain and that his/her leg hurt. The DON said she reviewed Resident #1's Medical Record and there was no documentation related to Resident #1's fall on 01/31/25, that there were no Nursing assessment including no pain assessment, no documentation to support the Physician was notified of Resident #1's acute pain to obtain orders, and that Resident #1 was not given any medication to treat or manage his/her pain. The DON said her expectations were that the Nursing staff follow the Facility's Policy and Procedures which included that Resident #1 should not have been moved off the floor after the fall occurred until Nursing completed a Nursing Assessment which includes a physical and pain assessment and taking care of the resident's needs immediately. The DON said Nursing staff should have called Emergency Medical Services if Resident #1 was in pain and/or an injury was suspected. The DON said her expectations were that Nursing notify the Physician, Health Care Proxy, Facility Management, complete the Fall Packet/Risk Management Progress Note, and inform the oncoming shift. Review of Resident #1's Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall at the Facility, was diagnosed with a Closed Displaced Subtrochanteric Fracture of the Left Femur, with the broken pieces out of alignment, treated surgically using a metal rod (intramedullary nail) inserted into the bone's hollow channel) on 02/01/25. On 03/18/25, the Facility was found to be in Past Non-Compliance and provided the surveyor with a plan of correction which addressed the area of concern as evidenced by: A) 01/31/25, Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital and was found to have a Displaced Proximal Left Femoral Subtrochanteric Fracture (break in thigh bone just below the bony prominence in the lower part of the hips). B) 02/03/25, Nurse #1 was suspended pending an Investigation, and on 02/06/25, Nurse #1 was terminated from the Facility. C) 02/07/25, Resident #1 returned to the Facility status post Left Femur Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) with intramedullary nail on 02/01/25, and his/her Care Plans were reviewed and updated as needed. D) 02/07/25, the Director of Nursing and Cooperate Nurse reviewed and performed an audit of the Facility's previous three months of resident falls, including conducting an audit related to Nurse #1's involvement with any Facility incidents. There were no concerns identified during the audits and it was determined Nurse #1 was not involved in any of the fall incidents. E) 02/10/25 through 02/26/25, the Staff Development Coordinator provided in-person education to all Licensed staff on the following topics: - Fall Management - Review Policy & Procedure - Assessments - Fall Reporting Tools - Falls - Immediate action - Reporting - Resident Rights, Abuse and Neglect F) 02/20/25 an Ad-Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held with the Facility leadership team. The Director of Nursing and the Cooperate Nurse developed a plan of correction related to the deficient practice, the plan and corrective measures were reviewed. G) 02/26/25 and ongoing, the Unit Manager and Director of Nursing review each fall (Incident/Accident Reports) to ensure Licensed Staff are following Facility's Policy and Procedure, they will collect the data and present findings to QAPI Committee. H) Effectiveness of corrective action plan will be reviewed during Monthly QAPI meetings until further notice. I) Director of Nursing and Executive Director are responsible for overall compliance.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who during the overnight shift (11:00...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who during the overnight shift (11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) on 1/30/25 into 1/31/25, had an unwitnessed fall, was found on the floor by staff complaining of pain, the facility failed to ensure he/she was provided care and services that met professional standards of nursing practice, when although Resident #1 was crying out in pain, without completing any type of assessment, Nurse #1 picked Resident #1 up off the floor, initially put him/her in a wheelchair, then transferred him/her again by picking him/her up out of the wheelchair, put him/her in bed, and left the room. Nurse #1 did not complete any type of assessments, did not document the fall in a progress note that night, did not complete an incident report, and did not inform oncoming nursing staff during change of shift report that Resident #1 had been found on the floor after an unwitnessed fall and had been complaining of pain since the fall. Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department, at the start of the day shift, where he/she was diagnosed with a left hip fracture. Findings include: Standard Reference: Standard of Practice Reference: Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L), chapter 112, individuals are given the designation of registered nurse and practical nurse which includes the responsibility to provide nursing care. Pursuant to the Code of Massachusetts Regulation (CMR) 244, Rules and Regulations 3.02 and 3.04 define the responsibilities and functions of a registered nurse and practical nurse bear full responsibility for systematically assessing health status and recording the related health status and recording the related health data. They also stipulate that both the registered and practical nurse incorporated into the plan of care and implement prescribed medical regimens. The rules and regulations 9.03 define standards of Conduct for Nurses where it is stipulated that a nurse licensed by the Board shall engage in the practice of nursing in accordance with accepted standards of practice. The Facility's Policy titled Incident and Reportable Event Management, dated as reviewed 09/25/24, indicated an accident refers to any unexpected or unintentional incident, which results or may result in injury or illness to a resident. The Policy indicated an unwitnessed or witnessed fall is an event management, a fall refers to unintentionally coming to rest on the ground, floor, or other lower level, but not as a result of an overwhelming external force; An episode where a resident lost his/her balance and would have fallen, if not for another person or if he or she had not caught him/herself, is considered a fall; a fall without injury is a fall, unless there is evidence suggesting otherwise and when a Resident is found on the floor, a fall is considered to have occurred. The Policy indicated if an event Incident/Injury occurs the Licensed Nurse should do the following: - Evaluate the residents and render first aid if needed. The Nurse evaluation be completed prior to moving a resident who has fallen, to determine presence of injury. - Create an event note and include the following details: Assessment details of the resident-including location details of the resident; Presence or absence of injury, and any treatments rendered; If resident can report what occurred, this should be included in the notes; Notification of Family or responsible party; and Notification of Physician and any orders received. - Create a risk report in the electronic system and identify the most appropriate type of event from the available options in the system. - Notify the following in accordance with state and federal requirements including the Supervisor on duty and/or Director of Nursing. Review of the Facility's Incident Report, dated 02/06/25, indicated on 01/31/25 sometime around 8:30 A.M. Resident #1 was observed by Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 screaming as if in pain and would not allow CNA #2 to provide care to him/her. The Report indicated Resident #1 reported 10/10 pain (a pain scale where 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst pain imaginable, severe or unbearable pain) in his/her leg. The Report indicated Resident #1 informed Nurse #2 and the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) that he/she had fallen out his/her bed in the early morning and two men assisted him/her back to bed. The Report indicated Resident #1's left leg was rotated outward and noted to be larger than the right leg. The Report indicated Emergency Medical Services (911) had been called and in the Emergency Department Resident #1 was found to have a Displaced Proximal Left Femoral Subtrochanteric Fracture (break in thigh bone just below the bony prominence in the lower part of the hip). Review of Resident #1's Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall at the Facility, was diagnosed with a Closed Displaced Subtrochanteric Fracture of the Left Femur, with the broken pieces out of alignment, treated surgically using a metal rod (intramedullary nail) inserted into the bone's hollow channel) on 02/01/25. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in December 2024, diagnoses included Rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of muscle tissue), Hypertension (high blood pressure), Orthostatic Hypotension (low blood pressure that happens when standing up from sitting or lying down), Bradycardia (slower than expected heart rate, generally beating fewer than 60 minute), Wedge Compression fracture of T11-T12 vertebra subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing (occurs when the front (anterior) portion of the vertebra collapses, resulting in a wedge-shaped deformity), difficulty with walking, muscle weakness and history of falling. Review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 12/19/24, indicated Resident #1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), score was 14/15 (score of 13-15 indicates intact cognitive, 12-8 indicates moderate cognitive impairment, 0-7 indicates severe cognition impairment). Review of Resident #1's Care Plan, titled Pain, dated 01/07/25, indicated Resident #1's Pain interventions included to anticipate the resident's need for pain relief and respond immediately to any complaints of pain, pain meds as ordered, observe and report to Nurse any signs or symptoms of non-verbal pain and observe and report to Nurse resident complaints of pain or requests for pain treatment. During an interview on 03/18/25 at 2:00 P.M., (and during a follow-up interview on 03/19/25 at 1:07 P.M.) Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 said on 01/31/25, sometime around 2:30 A.M., she heard a loud bang while providing care to Resident #3 and went to find out what the noise was. CNA #1 said the noise came from the room diagonally across from the room she was providing care in. CNA #1 said she found Resident #1 in his/her room lying face up on the floor and she called Nurse #1 for help. CNA #1 said when she called for help, Nurse #1 was at the Nurses Station sitting in a chair, his feet were up on another chair, he had a blanket covering him and his eyes were closed. CNA #1 said she called Nurse #1's name, he did not answer, then she called his name again and he jumped. CNA #1 said when Nurse #1 came to Resident #1's room, he/she was screaming, I'm in pain, I'm in pain. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 said to get Resident #1 up off the floor. CNA #1 said she told Nurse #1 No, they should not move him/her. CNA #1 said she told Nurse #1 that in school she learned that when a patient falls and screams, they may have something broken and they needed to call for an ambulance. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 said to her, No, we do not need to call the ambulance, and told her to bring Resident #1's wheelchair over to him. CNA #1 said she brought the wheelchair over to Nurse #1 and Nurse #1 picked up Resident #1 up off of the floor, by himself, and put him/her in the wheelchair, and that Resident #1 was screaming, I'm in pain, I'm in pain. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 then transferred Resident #1 out of the wheelchair by himself to the bed. CNA #1 said Resident #1 was still screaming, I'm in pain. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 did not perform an assessment on Resident #1 prior to him moving Resident #1 up off the floor and did not even check his/her vital signs. CNA #1 said shortly thereafter, she and Nurse #1 left the room at the same time and Resident #1 was still crying out in pain. CNA #1 said she had asked Nurse #1 if he was going to call 911 and complete the paperwork and Nurse #1 said to her, Forget about it, Forget about it. CNA #1 said around 4:00 A.M., she assisted Resident #1's roommate with care and Resident #1 was moaning like he/she was in pain. CNA #1 said she had informed Nurse #1 again about Resident #1's pain and asked him to take Resident #1's vital signs and to check to see if he/she was ok. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 waved his hand in a backward motion at her, as if he was dismissing her concerns and telling for her to go away. CNA #1 said she did not see Nurse #1 go check on or assess Resident #1 when she asked him to. Review of the Facility's Witness Statement, dated 01/31/25, written by Nurse #1, indicated he was called into Resident #1's room by CNA #1, because Resident #1 was halfway seated in his/her wheelchair and CNA #1 could not sit him/her up by herself. The Statement indicated he assisted Resident #1 in the wheelchair and back to bed with CNA #1's help and left for the day. The Statement indicated Nurse #1 did not witness any fall. During an interview on 04/01/25 at 9:40 A.M., Nurse #1 said on 01/30/25 he started his shift around at 3:00 P.M. and ended his shift on 01/31/25 around 7:00 A.M. Nurse #1 said Resident #1 was alert to self but confused. Nurse #1 said Resident #1 was able to express if he/she was in pain or in discomfort. Nurse #1 said at the start of the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift, Resident #1 was in bed sleeping and he did not see Resident #1 again until around 4:30 A.M. or 5:00 A.M. Nurse #1 said he was at the Nursing station, preparing to start his morning medication pass when CNA #1 called him to help her, because Resident #1 was position half way out (sliding) of his/her wheelchair and CNA #1 was unable to sit up Resident #1 in his/her wheelchair. Nurse #1 said he had asked Resident #1 what he could do to help him/her and if he/she needed to go to the bathroom. Nurse #1 said Resident #1 said, No. Nurse #1 said he pulled on Resident #1's pants to get him/her back in a sitting position in his/her wheelchair and then transferred him/her back into bed. Nurse #1 said that although Resident #1 was in bed at the start of the shift, that he did not know how Resident #1 had gotten into the wheelchair that night. Nurse #1 said he did not see Resident #1 fall and said he does not know how Resident #1 fractured his/her hip. Nurse #1 said he did not need to assess Resident #1 since he had no concerns and Resident #1 did not say anything to him about being in pain. Nurse #1 said he did not hear any banging noises during the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift. Nurse #1 said he did not observe Resident #1 to be in pain and was not informed by anyone that Resident #1 was in pain. Nurse #1 said around 5:30 A.M. or 6:00 A.M., was the last time he saw Resident #1, because he had gone to the room to help his/her roommate. Nurse #1 said Resident #1 was not in pain then. Nurse #1 said he did not speak to any oncoming shift staff regarding Resident #1. Nurse #1 said he had no clue what happened to Resident #1. Review of Resident #1's Medical Record indicated there was no documentation of Resident #1's fall, no incident report, no type of assessment including Pain and Neurological as having been completed on 01/31/25, by Nurse #1. During an interview on 03/18/25 at 1:15 P.M., Nurse #2 said on 01/31/25 she started her shift around at 8:00 A.M. and did not receive an oncoming Nurse Change of Shift Report from Nurse #1 because he had left the Facility prior to her arrival. Nurse #2 said there was no progress note or incident report in Resident #1's Medical Record about him/her being found on the floor during the overnight shift or that he/she had complained of being in pain all night. During an interview on 03/18/25 at 4:31 P.M., the Unit Manager said her expectations was that Nurses would immediately assess a resident after a fall for the potential for injury and pain prior to moving them and notify the oncoming shift Nursing Staff of any incidents, accidents or changes in a resident. The Unit Manager said she reviewed Resident #1's Medical Record and there was no documentation of Resident #1's fall, no notification to Physician or Facility Administrative Staff, no incident report, and no assessments, having been completed on 01/31/25, by Nurse #1. During an interview on 03/19/25 at 9:40 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said she and the Administrator interviewed Nurse #1 and he said around 4:30 A.M., CNA #1 called him to help her since Resident #1 was hanging out off his/her wheelchair and he assisted Resident #1 back to bed. The DON said she had asked Nurse #1 if he completed an assessment since Resident #1 was positioned that way in his/her wheelchair and that Nurse #1 said, No. that there was no need to assess Resident #1 and there was nothing wrong with him/her. The DON said she asked Nurse #1 if Resident #1 fell and he said, No. The DON said Nurse #1 did not respond when she asked how he thought Resident #1 obtained a hip fracture. The DON said she reviewed Resident #1's Medical Record and there was no documentation related to Resident #1's fall on 01/31/25, that there were no nursing assessments including a pain assessment, and no documentation to support the Physician was notified of Resident #1's new onset of acute pain. The DON said her expectations were that the Nursing staff to follow the Facility's Policy and Procedures which include residents should not have been moved off the floor after a fall occurred until first completing a thorough Nursing Assessment. The DON said Nursing staff should call Emergency Medical Services if Resident #1 was in pain and or an injury was suspected. On 03/18/25, the Facility was found to be in Past Non-Compliance and provided the surveyor with a plan of correction which addressed the area of concern as evidenced by: A) 01/31/25, Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital and was found to have a Displaced Proximal Left Femoral Subtrochanteric Fracture (break in thigh bone just below the bony prominence in the lower part of the hips). B) 02/03/25, Nurse #1 was suspended pending an Investigation, and on 02/06/25, Nurse #1 was terminated from the Facility. C) 02/07/25, Resident #1 returned to the Facility status post Left Femur Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) with intramedullary nail on 02/01/25, and his/her Care Plans were reviewed and updated as needed. D) 02/07/25, the Director of Nursing and Cooperate Nurse reviewed and performed an audit of the Facility's previous three months of resident falls, including conducting an audit related to Nurse #1's involvement with any Facility incidents. There were no concerns identified during the audits and it was determined Nurse #1 was not involved in any of the fall incidents. E) 02/10/25 through 02/26/25, the Staff Development Coordinator provided in-person education to all Licensed staff on the following topics: - Fall Management - Review Policy & Procedure - Assessments - Fall Reporting Tools - Falls - Immediate action - Reporting - Resident Rights, Abuse and Neglect F) 02/20/25 an Ad-Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held with the Facility leadership team. The Director of Nursing and the Cooperate Nurse developed a plan of correction related to the deficient practice, the plan and corrective measures were reviewed. G) 02/26/25 and ongoing, the Unit Manager and Director of Nursing review each fall (Incident/Accident Reports) to ensure Licensed Staff are following Facility's Policy and Procedure, they will collect the data and present findings to QAPI Committee. H) Effectiveness of corrective action plan will be reviewed during Monthly QAPI meetings until further notice. I) Director of Nursing and Executive Director are responsible for overall compliance.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who during the overnight shift (11:00...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who during the overnight shift (11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) on 1/30/25 into 1/31/25, had an unwitnessed fall, was found on the floor by staff and was crying out in pain, the facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with care and treatment consistent with professional standards of practice related to pain management. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 said she found Resident #1 on the floor in his/her room, he/she was crying out in pain and immediately called Nurse #1 for help. CNA #1 said she asked Nurse #1 more than once to check on Resident #1 that night, because he/she kept crying out in pain. Nurse #1 did not complete a pain assessment on Resident #1, there was no documentation to support Nurse #1 medicated or did anything to treat or manage Resident #1's pain including not notifying the Physician. Day Shift nursing staff were unable to provide care, as Resident #1 screamed whenever staff tried to touch him/her, he/she was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department, and was diagnosed with a left hip fracture. Findings include: The Facility's Policy titled Pain Assessment and Management, dated reviewed 09/05/24, indicated that the Facility must ensure that pain management is provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences. The Policy indicated based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the Facility must ensure that residents receive the treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive care plan, and the resident's choices related to pain management. The Policy indicated all residents will be assessed for pain indicators upon admission/readmission, quarterly and with any change in condition. The Facility's Policy titled Changes in Resident's Condition or Status, dated reviewed 09/05/24, indicated the Facility will notify the resident, his/her primary care provider, and resident/resident representative of changes in the resident's condition or status. Review of the Facility's Incident Report, dated 02/06/25 at 1:48 P.M., indicated on 01/31/25 sometime around 8:30 A.M. Resident #1 was observed by Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 screaming as if in pain and would not allow CNA #2 provide care to him/her. The Report indicated Resident #1 reported 10/10 pain (a pain scale where 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst pain imaginable, severe or unbearable pain) in his/her leg. The Report indicated Resident #1 informed Nurse #2 and the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) that he/she had fallen out his/her bed in the early morning and two men assisted him/her back to bed. The Report indicated Resident #1's left leg was rotated outward and noted to be larger than the right leg. The Report indicated Emergency Medical Services (911) had been called and in the Emergency Department Resident #1 was found to have a Displaced Proximal Left Femoral Subtrochanteric Fracture (break in thigh bone just below the bony prominence in the lower part of the hip). Review of Resident #1's Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall at the Facility, was diagnosed with a Closed Displaced Subtrochanteric Fracture of the Left Femur with the broken pieces out of alignment, treated surgically using a metal rod (intramedullary nail) inserted into the bone's hollow channel) on 02/01/25. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in December 2024, diagnoses included Rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of muscle tissue), Hypertension (high blood pressure), Orthostatic Hypotension (low blood pressure that happens when standing up from sitting or lying down), Bradycardia (slower than expected heart rate, generally beating fewer than 60 minute), Wedge Compression fracture of T11-T12 vertebra subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing (occurs when the front (anterior) portion of the vertebra collapses, resulting in a wedge-shaped deformity), difficulty with walking, muscle weakness and history of falling. Review of Resident #1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 12/19/24, indicated Resident #1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), score was 14/15 (score of 13-15 indicates intact cognition, 12-8 indicates moderate cognitive impairment, 0-7 indicates severe cognitive impairment). Review of Resident #1's Care Plan, titled Pain, dated 01/07/25, indicated Resident #1's Pain interventions included to anticipate the resident's need for pain relief and respond immediately to any complaints of pain, pain meds as ordered, observe and report to Nurse any signs or symptoms of non-verbal pain and observe and report to Nurse resident complaints of pain or requests for pain treatment. Review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record, for January 2025, indicated Resident #1 had the Physician's Orders for medications for pain management as follows: - Lidocaine External Patch 4% apply at 9:00 A.M. to Left & Right lower back for Pain and Remove patch at 9::00 P.M. - Tylenol (Acetaminophen) Oral Tablet 325 mg (milligram), give two tablets every 6 hours as needed for pain. Further Review of the MAR indicated up until 01/31/25 Resident #1 had only requested Tylenol once. Documentation on the MAR for 01/31/25, indicated that, despite CNA #1 reporting to and making Nurse #1 aware, more than once that Resident #1 was moaning and saying he/she was in pain, he/she was not administered anything to treat or manage his/her pain. There was no documentation to support the Physician was notified or that new orders were obtained to treat his/her acute pain. During an interview on 03/18/25 at 2:00 P.M., (and during a follow-up interview on 03/19/25 at 1:07 P.M.) CNA #1 said on 01/31/25, sometime around 2:30 A.M., she heard a loud bang while providing care to Resident #3 and went to find out what the noise was. CNA #1 said she found Resident #1 in his/her room lying face up on the floor and she called Nurse #1 for help. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 came to Resident #1's room, that Resident #1 was screaming, I'm in pain, I'm in pain, but that Nurse #1 told her to get Resident #1 up off the floor. CNA #1 said she told Nurse #1 No, they should not move him/her. CNA #1 said she told Nurse #1 that in school she learned that when a patient falls and screams, they may have something broken and they needed to call for an ambulance. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 said No, we do not need to call for an ambulance, and said to bring Resident #1's wheelchair over to him. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 picked up Resident #1 off the floor, by himself and that Resident #1 was screaming, I'm in pain, I'm in pain and placed him/her in the wheelchair. CNA #1 said then Nurse #1 transferred Resident #1 out of the wheelchair by himself to the bed, and that Resident #1 was still crying out, I'm in pain. CNA #1 said when she and Nurse #1 left the room, she asked Nurse #1 if he was going to call 911 and complete the paperwork and that Nurse #1 said, Forget about it, Forget about it! CNA #1 said around 4:00 A.M., she assisted Resident #1's roommate with care and Resident #1 was still moaning like he/she was in pain. CNA #1 said Resident #1 had to urinate, but she was unable to assist him/her to use a urinal/bedpan, because when she touched Resident #1 to move him/her, he/she was in pain. CNA #1 said she was unable to pull down Resident #1's pants and that just touching Resident #1, he/she was groaning in pain. CNA #1 said she informed Nurse #1 again about Resident #1's pain, asked him to take Resident #1's vital signs and to check to see if he/she was ok. CNA #1 said Nurse #1 had motioned his hand in a backward motion at her as if he was dismissing her concerns and telling her to go away. During an interview on 03/19/25 at 2:29 P.M., CNA #2 said she worked with Resident #1 in the past, had worked with Resident #1 the day prior and he/she had not been in or complained of pain. CNA #2 said she was usually able to get Resident #1 out of bed without any difficulty or concerns. CNA #2 said on 01/31/25, she worked the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. shift, and around at 7:45 A.M., she observed Resident #1 in bed, that he/she was screaming and when she tried to assist him/her with care to get him/her out of bed, Resident #1 said to her, I'm in a lot of pain, do not touch me, I'm in a lot of pain. CNA #2 said she could tell by Resident #1's facial expression that he/she was very uncomfortable. CNA #2 said she informed Nurse #2 right away, and she (Nurse #2) immediately assessed Resident #1. During an interview on 03/18/25 at 1:15 P.M., Nurse #2 said on 01/31/25 she started her shift around at 8:00 A.M. and shortly thereafter CNA #2 came to her reporting that Resident #1 was complaining of left leg pain. Nurse #2 said she went to assess Resident #1 and asked Resident #1 to move his/her left leg, and he/she said, No, it hurts. Nurse #2 said when she touched Resident #1's left hip area, he/she said Ouch, Ouch. Nurse #2 said she asked Resident #1 what happened, and Resident #1 said he/she had fallen this morning, and a man got him/her up. Nurse #2 said she asked the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) and the Unit Manager to come help with assessing Resident #1 with her. During an interview on 03/18/25 at 3:10 P.M., the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) said on 01/31/25 he helped Nurse #2 assess Resident #1. The SDC said he observed Resident #1's left upper thigh area was larger than his/her right and with any slight movement, Resident #1 said it was very painful for him/her. The SDC said when he assessed Resident #1's pedal pulses (rhythmic throbbing or pulsations that can be felt when palpating the arteries in the feet) his slight touch, per Resident #1, hurt. The SDC said Resident #1 said he/she had fallen out of bed and a male placed him/her back into bed. The SDC said Resident #1 had sweat pants on and they had to cut them off him/her to provide Resident #1 some comfort and relief from the pain. The SDC said Resident #1's left leg was rotated in an outward position and Resident #1's left thigh was twice as large than his/her right. The SDC said Resident #1 was groaning, had facial grimacing and he/she clearly was in pain. The SDC said staff called Emergency Medical Services to transfer Resident #1 to the Hospital. During an interview on 03/18/25 at 4:31 P.M., the Unit Manager said on 01/31/25 she helped assess Resident #1. The Unit Manger said Resident #1 was verbalizing he/she was in pain, she observed that his/her left leg was swollen and was in an externally (outward) rotated position. The Unit Manager said Resident #1 said he/she fell out of bed and a man picked him up and placed him/her back to bed. The Unit Manager said Resident #1's was wearing sweat pants that were tight, staff were unable to take them off him/her because Resident #1 was in so much pain, so they had to cut them off him/her. The Unit Manager said her expectations was that Nurses would immediately assess a resident after a fall for the potential for injury and pain prior to moving them. The Unit Manager said she reviewed Resident #1's Medical Record and there was no documentation of Resident #1's fall, no notification to Physician or Facility Administrative Staff, no incident report and no Pain Assessment completed on 01/31/25, by Nurse #1. During an interview on 04/01/25 at 9:40 A.M., Nurse #1 said on 01/30/25 he started his shift around at 3:00 P.M. and ended his shift on 01/31/25 around 7:00 A.M. Nurse #1 said Resident #1 was alert to self but confused. Nurse #1 said Resident #1 was able to express if he/she was in pain or in discomfort. Nurse #1 said at the start of the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift, Resident #1 was in bed sleeping and he did not see Resident #1 again until around 4:30 A.M. or 5:00 A.M. Nurse #1 said he was at the Nursing station, preparing to start his morning medication pass when CNA #1 called him to help her, because Resident #1 was position half way out (sliding) of his/her wheelchair. Nurse #1 said he pulled on Resident #1's pants to get him/her back in a sitting position in his/her wheelchair and then transferred him/her back into bed. Nurse #1 said that although Resident #1 was in bed at the start of the shift, that he did not know how Resident #1 had gotten into the wheelchair that night. Nurse #1 said he did not need to assess Resident #1 since he had no concerns and Resident #1 did not say anything to him about being in pain. Nurse #1 said he did not observe Resident #1 to be in pain and was not informed by anyone that Resident #1 was in pain. Nurse #1 said around 5:30 A.M. or 6:00 A.M., was the last time he saw Resident #1, because he gone to the room to help his/her roommate. Nurse #1 said Resident #1 was not in pain then. During an interview on 03/19/25 at 9:40 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said she reviewed Resident #1's Medical Record and there was no documentation related to Resident #1's fall on 01/31/25, that there were no Nursing assessments including a pain assessment, no documentation to support the Physician was notified of Resident #1's acute pain to obtain new orders, and that Resident #1 was not given any medications to treat or manage his/her pain. On 03/18/25, the Facility was found to be in Past Non-Compliance and provided the surveyor with a plan of correction which addressed the area of concern as evidenced by: A) 01/31/25, Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital and was found to have a Displaced Proximal Left Femoral Subtrochanteric Fracture (break in thigh bone just below the bony prominence in the lower part of the hips). B) 02/03/25, Nurse #1 was suspended pending an Investigation, and on 02/06/25, Nurse #1 was terminated from the Facility. C) 02/07/25, Resident #1 returned to the Facility status post Left Femur Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) with intramedullary nail on 02/01/25, and his/her Care Plans were reviewed and updated as needed. D) 02/07/25, the Director of Nursing and Cooperate Nurse reviewed and performed an audit of the Facility's previous three months of resident falls, including conducting an audit related to Nurse #1's involvement with any Facility incidents. There were no concerns identified during the audits and it was determined Nurse #1 was not involved in any of the fall incidents. E) 02/10/25 through 02/26/25, the Staff Development Coordinator provided in-person education to all Licensed staff on the following topics: - Fall Management - Review Policy & Procedure - Assessments - Fall Reporting Tools - Falls - Immediate action - Reporting - Resident Rights, Abuse and Neglect F) 02/20/25 an Ad-Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held with the Facility leadership team. The Director of Nursing and the Cooperate Nurse developed a plan of correction related to the deficient practice, the plan and corrective measures were reviewed. G) 02/26/25 and ongoing, the Unit Manager and Director of Nursing review each fall (Incident/Accident Reports) to ensure Licensed Staff are following Facility's Policy and Procedure, they will collect the data and present findings to QAPI Committee. H) Effectiveness of corrective action plan will be reviewed during Monthly QAPI meetings until further notice. I) Director of Nursing and Executive Director are responsible for overall compliance.
Sept 2024 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure a dignified existence was maintained for residents who require assistance with meals. Findings Include: Review of facility policy tit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure a dignified existence was maintained for residents who require assistance with meals. Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled Dignity, dated as reviewed 9/25/23, indicated the following: -Each resident has the right to be treated with dignity and respect. -Examples of treating residents with dignity and respect include, but are not limited to: -e. Addressing residents by the name or pronoun of the resident's choice, avoiding the use of labels for residents such as feeders or walkers. On 9/19/24 at 8:03 A.M., the surveyor overheard a staff member in a resident's room yell out into the hallway to another staff member to go downstairs and help with breakfast because they have more feeders on that unit. The Staff member yelling into the hallway was sitting in a resident room, assisting a resident with his/her meal. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 10:32 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said staff should not refer to residents as feeders as it is not dignified to refer to someone that way.
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

3. Review of facility policy titled Skin Integrity & Pressure Ulcer/Injury Prevention and Management, dated as reviewed 7/9/24, indicated the following: -A skin assessment/ inspection should be perfor...

Read full inspector narrative →
3. Review of facility policy titled Skin Integrity & Pressure Ulcer/Injury Prevention and Management, dated as reviewed 7/9/24, indicated the following: -A skin assessment/ inspection should be performed weekly by a licensed nurse. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility in August 2024 with diagnoses that included acute on chronic diastolic congestive heart failure and lymphedema. Review of Resident #16's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/19/24, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of a possible 15, indicating that Resident #16 is cognitively intact. The MDS further indicated that the Resident has no pressure areas but is at risk for developing pressure ulcers/ injuries. Review of Resident #16's active plan of care for skin integrity, dated 8/14/24, indicated interventions for weekly skin checks. Review of Resident #16's medical record indicated the only skin check was completed on 8/23/24, and no further skin checks were completed after this date. Review of nursing progress notes since the Residents' admission failed to indicate that Resident #16 refused any weekly skin checks. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 9:18 A.M., Nurse #4 said that every resident has a skin check weekly that triggers automatically in the electronic health record (EHR). During an interview on 9/19/24 at 10:25 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said the plan of care should be followed for weekly skin checks, and that they are assigned automatically on the computer in the EHR (Electronic Health Record). The Director of Nursing said If a skin check is refused by a resident, it should be documented in a nurses note. Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person centered care plan for three Residents (#43, #31 and #16) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #43, the facility failed to develop a care plan regarding a new skin tear and treatment applied. 2. For Resident #31, the facility failed to develop a care plan for Resident #31's resident specific Activities of Daily Living needs. 3. For Resident #16, the facility failed to implement the plan of care for completing weekly skin checks. Findings include: 1. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility in September 2019 and has diagnoses that include dementia, anxiety disorder and history of falling. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/20/24, indicated that on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam Resident #43 scored a 2 out of a possible 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated Resident #43 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living. On 9/17/24 at 8:34 A.M., Resident #43 was observed in bed. There was a bandage on his/her left hand, not labeled or dated with approximately a nickel size red area on the bandage. Resident #43 said some woman came in two days ago and said what happened here, its bleeding and put on the bandage. On 9/17/24 at 12:37 P.M., Resident #43 was observed in bed with the same unlabeled and undated bandage on the left hand. On 9/18/24 at 7:35 A.M., Resident #43 was observed in bed with the same unlabeled and undated bandage on the left hand, as evidenced by the curling of all sides of the bandage. Review of Resident #43's current care plan failed to indicate a plan of care for a left-hand skin tear or for a left-hand skin treatment. During an interview on 9/18/24 at 7:31 A.M., the Director of Nursing said that when the skin tear was discovered staff should have developed a care plan specific to the skin tear and the treatment applied. 2. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility in July 2024 and has diagnoses that include an unstageable pressure ulcer of the right heel and Type II Diabetes. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/22/24, indicated that on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam Resident #31 scored a 6 out of a possible 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated Resident #31 requires substantial/maximal assistance with lower body care, including putting on/taking off footwear. Review of Resident #43's care plan failed to indicate a plan of care had been developed regarding Resident #31's Activities of Daily Living needs. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 8:05 A.M., the Director of Nursing said that it was the expectation that a care plan be developed by nursing for every resident's Activities of Daily Living needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain good groo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain good grooming and hygiene. Specifically, the facility failed to provide nail care for one Resident (#54) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled Nail Care. dated as reviewed 9/10/24, indicated but was not limited to the following: - For general fingernail care for most residents, the following procedure will be followed: - 1. Ensure fingernails are clean and trimmed to avoid injury and infection. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility in August 2024 with diagnoses that included fracture of the right femur and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #54's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/2/24, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 out of 15, indicating that the Resident is cognitively intact. The MDS further indicated that the Resident is dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). Further review of the MDS indicated that rejection of care is not a behavior exhibited by Resident #54. On 9/17/24 at 8:32 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #54 sitting up dressed in his/her wheelchair eating breakfast. His/her right arm was in a sling and his/her left hand had a dark black substance under all of his/her fingernails. On 9/18/24 at 7:26 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #54 laying in bed. The Resident's fingernails on his/her left hand were observed to have had a dark black substance under them. On 9/19/24 at 8:14 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #54 in bed eating breakfast. His/her fingernails on the left hand were observed to have had a dark black substance under them. Resident #54 said that the staff assist him/her with activities of daily living and hygiene tasks because of his/her current condition. When asked if anyone has offered to help clean under his/her nails, Resident #54 said no. Resident #54 said he/she would like help cleaning their nails because this isn't typically how they keep them. Review of Resident #54's nursing progress notes since the Residents' admission failed to indicate any refusal of care. Review of Certified Nurses Aid (CNA) documentation failed to indicate any behaviors for refusal of care for Resident #54. Review of Resident #54's Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) care plan, dated 9/3/24, indicated that for personal hygiene and oral care, Resident #54 requires extensive assistance. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 10:12 A.M., Certified Nurses Aid (CNA) #2 said that Resident #54 requires extensive assistance with ADLs. CNA #2 said nail care should be part of the ADL process each day and CNAs should be checking resident's nails ensure they are not too long and are not dirty. The surveyor and CNA #2 observed Resident #54's nails and CNA #2 said they are dirty and need to be cleaned. CNA #2 said Resident #54 does not refuse care. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 10:20 A.M., Nurse #5 said that CNAs should be performing nail care as part of daily ADL care. Nurse #5 said that if a resident refuses, the CNA would tell the nurse and the nurse would document it in a nurses note. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 10:23 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that if nails are long or dirty, nail care should be performed as part of ADLs and hygiene care.
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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure standards of quality care were implemented for one Resident (#43) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure standards of quality care were implemented for one Resident (#43) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to a.) notify the physician or responsible party of a new skin tear, b.) failed to obtain an order for a treatment applied to a new skin tear and c.) failed to document an assessment of the new skin tear. Findings include: The facility policy titled area of Focus: Basic Skin Management, dated 11/29/23, indicated the following: -All residents have a head-to-toe inspection upon admission/readmission, then completed weekly, and as needed by nursing. It is documented in PCC: NRSG: Weekly Skin. -If any new skin alteration/wound is identified, it is the responsibility of the nurse to perform and document an assessment/observation, obtain treatment orders, and notify the MD and responsible party. -Orders are required for skin and wound care. There are wound care protocol orders in PCC under Orders-TX (treatment) Template. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility in September 2019 and has diagnoses that include dementia, anxiety disorder and history of falling. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/20/24, indicated that on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam Resident #43 scored a 2 out of a possible 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated Resident #43 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living. On 9/17/24 at 8:34 A.M., Resident #43 was observed in bed. There was a bandage on his/her left hand, not labeled or dated with approximately a nickel size red area on the bandage. Resident #43 said some woman came in two days ago and said what happened here, its bleeding and put on the bandage. On 9/17/24 at 12:37 P.M., Resident #43 was observed in bed with the same unlabeled and undated bandage on the left hand. On 9/18/24 at 7:35 A.M., Resident #43 was observed in bed with the same unlabeled and undated bandage on the left hand, as evidenced by the curling of all sides of the bandage. During an observation and interview on 9/18/24 at 7:23 A.M., with Resident #43's Nurse (#1) the surveyor and Nurse #1 observed Resident #43's hand with an unlabeled and undated bandage on the left hand. Nurse #1 said the bandage should be labeled and dated and that she would expect there is an order for the treatment. Nurse #1 reviewed the record and said that there was not a Physician's order for the treatment. Following review of the record Nurse #1, the Director of Nursing and the surveyor observed Resident #43's hand and Nurse #1 removed the bandage, exposing an approximately 1-inch-long skin tear. Review of the most recent Skin Integrity update assessment, dated 9/9/24, indicated Resident #43 had no skin tears. The option to indicate Resident #43 had any skin tears was blank. Review of the Physician/PA/NP visit note, dated 9/16/24, indicates Resident #43 was assessed by the NP and there was no documented skin tear or treatment to the left hand indicated. Review of the current Physician orders for Resident #43 failed to indicate an order for a treatment to the left hand. Review of the record failed to indicate that the Physician or Activated Health Care Proxy for Resident #43 were notified of a skin tear to the left hand. Review of the record failed to indicate that when the new skin alteration/wound was identified that the nurse documented an assessment/observation of the area. Review of Resident #43's current care plan failed to indicate a care plan for a left-hand skin tear or for a left-hand skin treatment. During an interview on 9/18/24 at 7:31 A.M., the Director of Nursing said that when the skin tear was discovered staff should have done the following: -Created a risk report, which would include getting statements from staff and attempting to determine the cause of the skin tear; -notify the Physician and obtain an order for a treatment to the skin tear; -notify Resident #43's responsible party of the incident; -develop a care plan specific to the skin tear; and, -document all the above in the electronic medical record. In this case the Director of Nursing said that none of those things occurred.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prevent new ulcers from developing for one Resident (#31) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #31 wore Prevalon boots while in bed, as ordered by the Physician. Findings include: The facility policy titled Skin Integrity & Pressure Ulcer/Injury Prevention and Management, dated as revised 7/9/24, indicated the following: 5. Measures to protect the resident against the adverse effects of external mechanical forces, such as pressure, friction and shear are implemented in the plan of care: d. heel protection/suspension if indicated. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility in July 2024 and has diagnoses that include an unstageable pressure ulcer of the right heel and Type II Diabetes. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/22/24, indicated that on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam Resident #31 scored a 6 out of a possible 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated Resident #31 substantial/maximal assistance with lower body care, including putting on/taking off footwear. Review of the current Physician orders indicated Resident #31 had the following order: -Wear Prevalon Boot when in bed or not walking, Do not walk or transfer while wearing the Prevalon boot, start date 7/16/24. (sic) Review of Resident #31's care plans indicated the following: -A care plan that indicated Resident #31 has an unstageable pressure ulcer right heel. Interventions on the care plan include: Treatment as ordered. -A care plan that indicated Resident #31 has a Skin Tear of the left hand (back) and DTI to right heel. Interventions on the care plan include: Prevalon boots to bilateral lower extremities as tolerated -A behavior care plan, indicating Resident #31 was resistive to care, however the care plan failed to indicate Resident #31 refused to wear the Prevalon boots. Review of the clinical progress note dated 9/17/24 that Resident #31 has area to right heel which requires treatment and Prevalon boot daily. On 9/17/24 at 7:58 A.M., Resident #31 was observed in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. Resident #31 was not wearing Prevalon boots and none were observed in the room. On 9/17/24 at 8:40 A.M., Resident #31 was observed in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. Resident #31 was not wearing Prevalon boots and none were observed in the room. On 9/17/24 at 12:40 P.M., Resident #31 was observed in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. Resident #31 was not wearing Prevalon boots, and none were observed in the room. On 9/18/24 at 2:35 P.M., Resident #31 was observed in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. Resident #31 was not wearing Prevalon boots. On 9/19/24 at 7:29 A.M., Resident #31 was observed in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. Resident #31 was not wearing Prevalon boots. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 7:49 A.M., Resident #31's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 said that Resident #31 fluctuates and requires one person assist to total care by 2 staff. He said that the nurses are responsible to put the Prevalon boots on Resident #31. During an interview and observation on 9/19/24 at 7:55 A.M., Resident #31's Nurse (#3) said that Resident #31 has an area on his/her heel and that nurses are responsible to put the Prevalon boots on when Resident #31 is in bed. The surveyor and Nurse #3 observed Resident #31 in bed without the Prevalon boots on. Nurse #3 searched the room but could not locate the boots. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 8:05 A.M., the Director of Nursing said that she would expect that staff follow MD orders and ensure Resident #31 had his/her Prevalon boots applied when in bed. The DON said that if Resident #31 refused the boots it should be documented in the Treatment Administration Record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice for food service safety by failing to perform proper hand hygiene. Findings include: ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice for food service safety by failing to perform proper hand hygiene. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, titled Chapter 1: Food Safety and Infection Control, Washing Hands Properly, not dated, indicated the following: -Training objective: Participants will know when they should wash their hands and will demonstrate the proper way to do so. Discussion, as food service workers, our hands come into contact with many unsanitary things during the day. Some of these contacts are part of our job tasks and some are not. Harmful bacteria can pass from an infected person to a well person from objects such as food, dishes, eating, utensils, glasses etc. These bacteria, in turn can make a person very ill. We can reduce the risk of becoming contaminated by washing out hands properly. When you should wash your hands: included but not limited to: -When they become soiled, -After completing a task and before beginning a new one. -Before handling food, clean dishes, or flatware. 1. During observation of the breakfast tray line in the kitchen on 9/19/24 at 7:35 A.M., the surveyor made the following observations. -Diet Aid #1, wearing gloves on both hands, was rolling flatware into napkins. Diet Aide #1 then removed his gloves, and without hand washing, touched the food truck, the door handle and left the kitchen with the food truck. Diet Aide #1 then returned to the kitchen, went to the hand washing sink, washed his hands and used his clean hands to turn off the water, thus contaminating his hands. Diet Aide #1 then proceeded to place on gloves and returned to rolling flatware into napkins. -Diet Aide #1 left the kitchen with the food truck two additional times after removing gloves and failing to perform hand hygiene after glove removal. Both additional times, Diet Aide #1 returned to the hand washing sink, washed his hands, turned off the water using his clean hands and in doing so contaminated his hands. After each of the two times he proceeded to put on gloves and returned to task including putting away clean items from the dish room. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 9:40 A.M., the Food Service Director (FSD) said staff are to wash hands when removing gloves and use proper hand washing techniques which would include using a paper towel to turn off the water to prevent contamination of clean hands.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for two Residents (#31 and #43) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, 1. Nu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for two Residents (#31 and #43) out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, 1. Nurses documented in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) that Resident #31 wore Prevalon boots while in bed, contrary to direct observation of the boots not being worn. 2. A nurse inaccurately documented on a Skin Assessment that Resident #43 did not have a skin tear, when he/she had a skin tear to the left hand. Findings include: The facility policy titled Nursing Documentation, dated as reviewed 9/5/24, indicated the following: -The medical record must contain an accurate representation of the actual experience of the resident and include enough information to provide a picture of the resident's progress, including his/her response to treatment and /or services, and changes in his/her condition, plan of care goals, objectives and/or interventions. 1. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility in July 2024 and has diagnoses that include an unstageable pressure ulcer of the right heel and type II diabetes. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/22/24, indicated that on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam Resident #31 scored a 6 out of a possible 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated Resident #31 substantial/maximal assistance with lower body care, including putting on/taking off footwear. Review of the current Physician orders indicated Resident #31 had the following order: -Wear Prevalon Boot when in bed or not walking, Do not walk or transfer while wearing the Prevalon boot, start date 7/16/24. (sic) On 9/17/24 at 7:58 A.M., Resident #31 was observed in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. Resident #31 was not wearing Prevalon boots, and none were observed in the room. On 9/17/24 at 8:40 A.M., Resident #31 was observed in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. Resident #31 was not wearing Prevalon boots, and none were observed in the room. On 9/17/24 at 12:40 P.M., Resident #31 was observed in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. Resident #31 was not wearing Prevalon boots, and none were observed in the room. On 09/18/24 at 2:35 P.M., Resident #31 was observed in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. Resident #31 was not wearing Prevalon boots. On 9/19/24 at 7:29 A.M., Resident #31 was observed in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. Resident #31 was not wearing Prevalon boots. Review of the September 2024 TAR indicated the following: -On 9/17/24, day shift, Nursing documented Resident #31 wore Prevalon boots while in bed, contrary to observations at 7:58 A.M., 8:40 A.M., and 12:40 P.M., of the Resident #31 in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. -On 9/18/24, day shift, Nursing documented Resident #31 wore Prevalon boots while in bed, contrary to the observation at 2:35 P.M., of Resident #31 in bed with his/her feet flat on the mattress. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 7:55 A. M., with Resident #31's Nurse (#3) she said that Resident #31 has an area on his/her heel and has an order for Prevalon boots to be worn when in bed. The surveyor and Nurse #3 observed Resident #31 in bed without the Prevalon boots on and upon searching the room Nurse #3 could not locate the boots. Nurse #3 said that she had not yet been in to see Resident #3 that morning, but because the night nurse had documented that the boots were on overnight, she would have expected the boots to be on when she went into the patient that morning. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 8:05 A.M., with the Director of Nursing (DON) she said that she would expect that the documentation in the TAR to be accurate. The DON said that if the boot were not applied as ordered this should be documented and a note written explaining the reason. 2. Resident #43 was admitted to the facility in September 2019 and has diagnoses that include dementia, anxiety disorder and history of falling. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/20/24, indicated that on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam Resident #43 scored a 2 out of a possible 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated Resident #43 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living. On 9/17/24 at 8:34 A.M., Resident #43 was observed in bed. There was a bandage on his/her left hand, not labeled or dated with approximately a nickel size red area under the bandage. Resident #43 said some woman came in two days ago and said what happened here, its bleeding and put on the bandage. On 9/17/24 at 12:37 P.M., Resident #43 was observed in bed with the same unlabeled and undated bandage on the left hand. Review of the most recent Skin Assessment, dated 9/17/24 at 23:01 P.M., indicated Resident #43 had Scattered bruises all over the body especially the arms and hands. Skin is very fragile, however the assessment failed to indicate Resident #43 had a skin tear to the left hand. The option to indicate Resident #43 had any skin tears was blank. During an observation and interview on 9/18/24 at 7:23 A.M., the surveyor and Resident #43's Nurse (#1) observed Resident #43's hand with an unlabeled and undated bandage on the left hand. Nurse #1 removed the bandage, exposing an approximately 1-inch-long skin tear. During an interview on 9/18/24 at 7:31 A.M., the Director of Nursing said that the Skin Assessment completed 9/17/24 at 23:01 P.M., should have been completed accurately and noted the skin tear on the left hand.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0839 (Tag F0839)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure professional staff are licensed, certified, or registered in...

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 professional staff are licensed, certified, or registered in accordance with applicable State laws. Specifically, when the facility indicated they had one nurse employed under a nursing waiver, they failed to ensure that the nurse had graduated from a board approved nursing program. Findings Include: Review of The Department of Public Health (DPH) Circular Letter, issued on June 3, 2024, regarding Guidance for Nursing Practice by Graduates and Students in Their Last Semester of Nursing Education Programs, indicated, but was not limited to: -An individual who graduated from a registered nursing or practical nursing program approved by the board or who is a senior nursing student attending the last semester of a registered nursing or practical nursing program approved by the board may practice nursing; provided that: -(iii) the employing licensed health care facility or licensed health care provider has verified that the individual is a graduate of a registered nurse or practical nursing program approved by the board or that the individual is a senior nursing student attending the last semester of a registered nursing or practical nursing program approved by the board. -In order to practice under the authorization of Chapter 88 of the Acts of 2023, a graduate or student in their last semester: 1. Must have graduated from a board approved nursing education program within one year of the hire date or be a student currently enrolled in their last semester of a board approved nursing education program. -Responsibilities of Licensed Healthcare Facilities and Licensed Healthcare Providers -In order to allow a graduate or student in their last semester to practice under the authorization of Chapter 88 of the Acts of 2023, a licensed healthcare facility or licensed healthcare provider shall: -1. Verify the individual is a graduate from a board approved registered nursing program or practical nursing program or is a student in their last semester of a board approved registered nursing or practical program. The licensed healthcare facility or licensed healthcare provider must obtain independent verification and/or official documentation from the nursing education program. It is not sufficient for a licensed healthcare facility or licensed healthcare provider to rely on an individual's representation of their education status. Review of the board approved nursing education programs included programs that were located only in Massachusetts. During the entrance conference on 9/17/24 at 8:54 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) and Administrator they said they have one nurse (Nurse #2) working in the facility under a state waiver who has graduated from nursing school and is waiting to take her boards exam in November. Review of Nurse #2's personnel file included a resume indicating a graduation from Nova Southwestern University in [NAME], Florida in May 2020 and an application for employment indicating she had completed a nursing program. Nurse #2's personnel file failed to include independent verification and/or official documentation from the nursing education program to confirm completion. Review of the License verification site for the Office of Health and Human Services for Massachusetts, failed to indicate an active nursing license for Nurse #2. Review of Nurse #2 worked hours and punch log indicated that Nurse #2 worked 670.02 hours as a nurse from 5/22/24 through 9/18/24. During an interview on 9/18/24 at 1:51 P.M., the DON said she was aware that Nurse #2 went to school in Florida, graduated from the program and moved to this area not too long ago. The Surveyor and the DON reviewed the personnel file together and the DON said that with the information in the file there was no evidence that the employee completed the nursing program and that the statement on the resume is not enough to confirm. The surveyor and DON also reviewed the State Circular Letter with respect to board approved nursing programs, and the DON said she had not reviewed the list of schools. During a follow up interview on 9/18/24 at 3:03 P.M., the DON said that the nurse should not be working in the facility. During an interview on 9/18/24 at 1:59 P.M., the Corporate Recruiter said the facility should have confirmation that the employee completed and graduated from an accredited nursing program, and they do not. He was not able to confirm if Nurse #2 completed a nursing program. He said the nurse should not be employed at the facility at this time.
Aug 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) whose Physicians Orders included the administr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) whose Physicians Orders included the administration of multiple bowel medications for the management of constipation and frequently complained of abdominal pain, the Facility failed to ensure they developed and implemented a Comprehensive Plan of Care that identified goals, outcomes and interventions related to constipation and abdominal pain, so identified care needs would be met by Nursing. Findings include: Review of the Facility's Policy, titled Person-Centered Care Planning, dated as reviewed 08/22/23, indicated each resident will have a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed and implemented to meet his or her preferences and goals, and address the resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. Review of the Facility's Policy, titled Comprehensive Care Plans and Revisions, dated as reviewed 08/22/23, indicated the Facility will ensure the timeliness of each resident's person-centered, comprehensive care plan, and to ensure that the comprehensive care plan is reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team composed of individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in November 2022, diagnoses included sepsis, acute renal failure, hypertension, seizures, and advanced Alzheimer's. Review of Resident #1's Evaluation for Bowel & Bladder Training, dated 05/01/24, indicated he/she had a score of 17 (indicating a poor candidate for scheduling or retraining), moderate cognition impairment, was incontinent of stool and had impaired mobility. Review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR), and Physician's Orders, for July 2024, indicated he/she was being administered multiple medications daily for treatment of constipation, as follows; - Monitor bowel sounds and bowel movements every shift. - Bisacodyl Tablet Delayed Release 5 MG, Give two tablets by mouth at bedtime for Constipation. - Colace Oral Capsule 100 MG (Docusate Sodium), Give two capsules by mouth, two times a day for Constipation. - Enulose Solution 10 GM/15 ML (Lactulose Encephalopathy), Give 30 milliliters by mouth, two times a day for Constipation. - Milk of Magnesia Oral Suspension 2400 MG/30 ML (Magnesium Hydroxide), Give 30 ML by mouth, one time a day for Constipation. - Polyethylene Glycol Powder (Polyethylene Glycol 1450), Give 17 gram by mouth one time a day, Give in 8 oz of water for Constipation. - Senna Plus (Sennosides-Docusate Sodium) oral tablet 8.6-5.0 MG, Give 2 tablets by mouth, two times a day for Constipation. - Simethicone Oral Tablet 80 MG, 2 tablets by mouth ,four times a day for gas, chew with some amount of water. Resident #1's MAR, for July 2024, also indicated he/she had Physician Orders for (PRN) as needed, medications for management of his/her constipation, as follows; - Bisacodyl Suppository, 10 MG, Insert 1 Suppository rectally every 8 hours, As needed for Constipation daily. - Fleet Enema 7-19 GM/118 ML (Sodium Phosphates), Insert 1 application rectally every 8 hours, As needed for Constipation if no results from suppository. - Polyethylene Glycol Powder 3350 Powder (Polyethylene Glycol 3350 (BULK)), Give 17 gram by mouth every 24 hours, As needed for Constipation. Further review of Resident #1's Physician Orders and his/her Treatment Administration Record (TAR), indicated he/she had a new orders, for Nursing to complete the following: - 7/19/24, Insert Foley Catheter, 18 French Foley Catheter into rectum for 22 hours, one time only for abdominal pain and flatulence for one day. -7/25/24, Insert Foley Catheter, 18 French Foley Catheter, with 30 cc (balloon) into rectum for 24 hours, one time for gas relief, for one day (07/25/24) and Bladder Scan every shift for three days, if Post void residual is greater than 400 milliliters (ML), notify the provider. Review of Resident #1's Physicians Progress Note, dated 07/19/24, indicated Resident #1 had multiple medical problems, advanced dementia, ongoing parasitic Iieus (a condition that occurs when the muscles in the intestines stop working properly, preventing food from passing through and can lead to a block intestine, even though there is no physical obstruction) versus colonic pseudo-obstruction (also known as [NAME] Syndrome, a condition that causes the colon to suddenly expand, even though there's no mechanical blockage), history of chronic constipation and an extremely distended abdomen. During a telephone interview on 08/29/24 at 1:05 P.M., the Nurse Practitioner said that Resident #1's bowels do not work properly, he/she had been constipated with flatus (gas) had abdomen discomfort, and that he/she needed assistance with the aid of bowel medications and treatments. The Nurse Practitioner said Resident #1 had a distended abdomen, he/she was uncomfortable and had abdominal pain. The Nurse Practitioner said on 07/19/24 and 07/25/24, as an intervention, an order was given for Nursing to insert a Rectal Tube (Foley Catheter tube was used as rectal tube was unavailable) to provide comfort to Resident #1. During an interview on 08/29/24 at 12:20 P.M., the Nurse Manager said she was informed Resident #1 was constipated, had a distended abdomen, and he/she had abdominal discomfort. The Nurse Manager said she was aware Resident #1 had been on bowel medications for constipation and abdominal distention and he/she had a Foley Catheter placed in his/her rectum twice as an intervention to release gas and to help promote him/her to have a bowel movement. The Nurse Manager said Resident #1's Comprehensive Plan of Care did not include Resident #1's history of constipation, his/her issues with abdominal distention, regimen of bowel medications or the placement of a Rectal Tube in his/her rectum for an intervention. The Nurse Manager said the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse and the Director of Nurses (DON) were responsible for reviewing and updating the Residents' Comprehensive Plans of Care. During an interview on 08/29/24 at 1:41 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said Resident #1 had a history of constipation, abdominal and gas pain, he/she had been taking bowel medications and Nursing placed a Foley Catheter (as the Facility did not have a Rectal Tube in stock) in his/her rectum on two different occasions to provide Resident #1 comfort. On the day of Survey, 08/29/24, The DON reviewed Resident #1's Comprehensive Plan of Care with the Surveyor and said Resident #1's Plan of Care did not include his/her history of constipation, abdominal discomfort/pain or indicate interventions including multiple bowel medications or use of a Rectal Tube. The DON said it was her expectation that Nursing staff be knowledgeable about residents' Plans of Care and to implement goals, interventions, and outcomes accordingly. The DON said Nursing staff can implement, change, update and make any changes including interventions that need to be placed in the residents Plan of Care as needed. The DON said it is the responsibility of the Nurse Unit Managers, the MDS Nurse and herself to ensure the residents Plans of Care are accurate.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a history of constipation, and had Physician's Order on 07/19/24 and 07/25/24, for Nursing to insert ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a history of constipation, and had Physician's Order on 07/19/24 and 07/25/24, for Nursing to insert an 18 French Foley Catheter (due to unavailability of a Rectal Tube) into his/her rectum to treat abdominal distention and pain, the Facility failed to ensure nursing staff were competent in the process, which included being aware of Facility Policy and Procedures and documenation requirements. Findings include: Review of the Facility's Policy titled, Nursing Documentation, dated as reviewed 08/10/23, indicated the facility will ensure nursing documentation is consistent with professional standards of practice, the state nurse practice act, and any state laws governing the scope of nursing practice. The Policy indicated the Facility must ensure that Licensed Nurses have the specific competencies and skill sets necessary to care for residents' needs, as identified through resident assessments, and described in the plan of care. Review of the Facility Policy titled, Rectal Tube Insertion and Removal, dated as reviewed 08/24/23, indicated the Facility will provide Rectal Tube Insertion and Removal in accordance with professional standards of practice. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in November 2022, diagnoses included sepsis, acute renal failure, hypertension, seizures, and advanced Alzheimer's. Review of Resident #1's Physicians Progress Note, dated 07/19/24, indicated that Resident #1 was on a regimen of multiple bowel medications which were not relieving his/her abdominal distention. The Note indicated to trial Resident #1 with a Rectal Tube (if not available could use Foley Catheter tube until available) to provide comfort to Resident #1 and decompress his/her abdomen. Review of Resident #1's Physician Order, dated 07/19/24, indicated Nursing to insert Foley Catheter, 18 French Foley Catheter into rectum for 22 hours, One time only for abdominal pain and flatulence. During an interview on 08/29/24 at 12:20 P.M., the Charge Nurse said Resident #1 had a Physician's Order for a Rectal Tube to be inserted by Nursing into his/her rectum. The Charge Nurse said she did not review the Facility's Policy on Rectal Tube Insertion and Removal, that she had not performed this particular nursing skill (was not familiar with this type of intervention) and said the Nurse Practitioner assisted her with the insertion of the Foley Catheter tube (as Rectal Tube was unavailable) into Resident #1's rectum. The Charge Nurse said the Facility does not stock Rectal Tubes in their supply, and that she had used a Foley Catheter tube. The Charge Nurse said she did not write a Nurse Progress Note on 07/19/24 about the procedure, since the Nurse Practitioner said she would document on Resident #1. During a telephone interview on 09/06/24 at 1:05 P.M., the Nurse Practitioner said on 07/19/24 the insertion of a Rectal Tube (Foley Catheter tube) was done to provide Resident #1 with comfort since he/she had a lot of gas, discomfort, was constipated, had a distended abdomen and was not responding to his/her bowel medications. The Nurse Practitioner said the Facility did not have any Rectal Tubes in supply, so a Foley Catheter was used until a Rectal Tube was available. The Nurse Practitioner said she was planning to insert Resident #1's Foley Catheter Tube into his/her rectum, but the Charge Nurse had already started the procedure upon her arrival. The Nurse Practitioner said Resident #1's Physician was aware of his/her health status, had suggested the Rectal Tube be inserted to help decompress the abdomen and said the Physician had documented on Resident #1. The Nurse Practitioner said on 07/25/24 she had received a phone call from Nursing stating Resident #1's abdomen was again distended, and he/she was uncomfortable. The Nurse Practitioner said since Resident #1 had relief on 07/19/24 from the Foley Catheter tube being inserted in his/her rectum, she provided a new order for Nursing to insert a Rectal Tube for treatment. The Nurse Practitioner said the Facility did not have any Rectum Tubes in supply and Nursing inserted a Foley Catheter into Resident #1's rectum. Review of Resident #1's Physician Order, dated on 07/25/24, indicated Nursing to insert Foley Catheter, 18 French Foley Catheter, with 30 cc balloon, into rectum for 24 hours, for gas relief, for one day (07/25/24). During a telephone interview on 08/29/24 at 10:35 A.M., Nurse #1 said on 07/25/24, Resident #1 was constipated, he/she had abdominal distention and he/she was uncomfortable. Nurse #1 said Resident #1 had a Physician Order to insert a Rectal Tube into his/her rectum to provide Resident #1 comfort. Nurse #1 said she had never heard of this Nursing skill, was not sure if the Facility had a Policy and Procedure on Rectal Tubes and said she did not review or speak to any of the other Nurses regarding Rectal Tube insertion. Nurse #1 said the Facility did not stock Rectal Tubes in supply, so she used a Foley Catheter Tube. Nurse #1 said she inserted the Foley Catheter Tube into Resident #1's rectum like she would insert a Foley catheter in the urinary track, although she only inserted the tube a couple of inches into his/her rectum. During a telephone interview on 09/11/24 at 9:49 A.M., Nurse #2 said on 07/25/24, Resident #1 had a Physician Order for Nursing to insert a Foley Catheter Tube into his/her rectum to provide Resident #1 comfort. Nurse #2 said the Facility does not have Rectal Tubes in supply. Nurse #2 said he was not sure if the Facility had a Policy and Procedure on Rectal Tube Insertion and Removal and he has never heard of or performed this type of procedure. Review of Resident #1's Nurse Progress Notes, indicated there was no Nursing documentation on 07/19/24, 7/20/24, 07/25/24 or 7/26/24, to indicate which Nurse inserted and/or removed the Rectal Tube (Foley Catheter Tube), how Resident #1 tolerated the procedures or what the outcomes were. During a telephone interview on 09/06/24 at 3:28 P.M., the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) said if a Physician orders a Rectal Tube insertion/removal, the Facility does not have any Rectal Tube supplies to manage the Rectal Tube procedure. The SDC said the Facility has not provided Nursing Staff with education or skills training related to Rectal Tubes. The SDC said the Facility does have a Policy on Rectal Tube Insertion and Removal, and that Nursing staff are able to review the Policy and Procedures on the Facility's computer system prior to any skill they perform on a resident. During an interview on 08/29/24 at 1:41 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said the Facility does have a Rectal Tube Insertion and Removal Policy. The DON said the Facility does not stock Rectal Tubes in supply. The DON said it was her expectation that Nursing staff be knowledgeable about Facility's Policies and Procedures and Nursing skills prior to performing a task. The DON said it was her expectation that Nursing document any procedure in the residents Progress Note after a skilled procedure is performed. On 08/29/24, the DON reviewed Resident #1's Progress Notes (with the Surveyor) and said Nursing did not document Progress Notes on the insertion or removal of Resident #1's Foley Catheter in his/her rectum. The DON said it was her expectation that Nursing staff be knowledge and document the skill that was performed.
Sept 2023 15 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of care for one Resident (#5), out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #5 the facility failed to ensure an occupational therapy assistant provided services within her scope of practice resulting in an injury. Findings include: Review of 259 CMR Board of Allied Health Professionals: 3.00 OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS, indicated the following: 1. Evaluation is the process of obtaining and interpreting data necessary for an intervention, including planning for and documenting the evaluation process and results. 2. Occupational Therapy Assistants (OTA) may not initiate or alter an intervention plan without prior evaluation by and approval of, the supervising Occupational Therapist (OT). 3. The OT must be directly involved in the delivery of services during evaluation and re-evaluation. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility in September 2020 with diagnoses including diabetes, Charcot's joint of the left ankle and foot (damage to the ankle and foot when nerve damage has caused a lack of sensation), displaced fracture of the left tibia (lower leg) with routine healing, lateral malleolus of left fibula (ankle) fracture with routine healing and left talus (bone that forms the ankle) fracture with routine healing. Review of the Occupational Therapy (OT) evaluation dated 7/11/23, indicated Resident #5 was referred to therapy for self-feeding due to recent weight loss with a new goal: will improve ability to feed self and efficiently perform eating tasks. Further review of the evaluation failed to indicate that Resident #5 was evaluated by the OT for transfers and the evaluation failed to include a goal for transfers or positioning. Further review failed to indicate a referral to Physical Therapy as Resident #5 was at baseline status for transfers. Review of the OT treatment note dated 7/20/23, indicated the OTA suggested (without the OT evaluating Resident #5) for Resident #5 to transfer to a wheelchair. Resident #5 said he/she was afraid to do the transfer and did not want to attempt transfer to the wheelchair. Resident #5 took two shuffles towards the head of the bed, using a rolling walker for support, and sat on the edge of the bed. The note indicated the OT was present during the transfer but did not have her hand on the Resident as the sit to stand transfer took place to evaluate the ability of the Resident to perform the task safely. A transfer to the wheelchair did not take place. Review of the OT note dated 7/25/23, indicated that Resident #5 was treated by the OTA and was transferred with a max assist of one to stand and pivot into a wheelchair. The evaluating therapist was not present during this transfer to assess the Resident's current level or safety with the transfer. The note was signed at 2:18 P.M. The OT notes failed to indicate the plan of care was modified to include a goal for positioning or transfers and that the OT had assessed Resident #5's transfer status prior to the OTA completing the transfer. Review of the care plan indicated a focus area for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) with an initiation date of 11/18/21, and an intervention of TRANSFER: The Resident requires max assistance by two staff members to move between surfaces. Review of the Progress Note dated 7/25/23, entered at 8:52 P.M., indicated that the nurse was notified by the nursing assistant that she had noted swelling with bruising of the Resident #5's left foot. The nurse assessed Resident #5's left foot and noted that the entire foot and lower leg was significantly swollen. Resident #5 denied any pain (as would be normal with Charcot foot). The nurse practitioner ordered an X-ray of the foot. Review of the X-ray dated 7/25/23, at 9:30 P.M. indicated soft tissue swelling without fracture or dislocation. Review of the progress note dated 7/26/23, entered at 8:13 A.M. indicated that the nurse observed the left foot to be worsening, felt hot to the touch and obtained an order from the nurse practitioner to send Resident #5 to the hospital. Review of the document titled [NAME] Hospital History and Physical Examination, dated 7/28/23, indicated Resident #5 was transferred from [NAME] hospital upon orthopedic evaluation because the physician felt it best to have Resident #5's condition evaluated and treated at [NAME] hospital. Further review indicated the left lower leg with significant swelling and ecchymosis (bruising). Ankle resting inverted with skin tear over the anterior distal tibia and a wound over the lateral malleolus with exposed bone. Further review indicated Resident #5 has an open left ankle fracture. Review of the document titled [NAME] hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE], indicated the following: *The patient is a resident at a nursing home who is non weight bearing, non-mobile at baseline with a known left foot deformity who normally transfers with a Hoyer lift. At the nursing home she/he was transferred while weight bearing resulting in worsening deformity, acute swelling, blister formation and skin breakage with bone exposure. She/he has severe neuropathy at baseline and sensation is diminished on exam. Review of the facility document titled Documentation Survey Report v2 (where Certified Nurse's Aides (CNAs) document daily function of a resident and the level of assistance provided) indicated the following: *In May 2023 Resident #5 was totally dependent on 2 staff members to transfer (full staff performance to complete the task). Walk in room; activity did not occur. *In June 2023 Resident #5 was totally dependent on 2 staff members to transfer. Walk in room; activity did not occur. *In July 2023 Resident #5 was totally dependent on 2 staff members to transfer. Walk in room; activity did not occur. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #5 was totally dependent (full staff performance every time during a 7 day look back period) for transfers and required two + staff members to complete the task. Further review indicated that Resident #5 did not walk in her/his room (activity did not occur). During an interview on 9/14/23 at 7:57 A.M., Certified Nurse's Aide (CNA) #2 said a dependent transfer requires the use of a mechanical lift and a transfer with maximal assistance with 2 staff members requires the 2 staff members to lift the resident under the arms without the resident's feet touching the floor. CNA said that with either type of transfer, the resident in non-weight bearing and does not participate in the activity. CNA #2 said prior to Resident #5's injury, he/she would transfer with a mechanical lift or maximal assistance from 2 staff members. During an interview on 9/13/23, at 12:02 P.M., the Occupational Therapist said that she completes the majority of the OT evaluations in the facility. The OT said the Occupational Therapist Assistant then completes the treatments but that she treats all residents on caseload every 10th visit to ensure the plan of care is still appropriate. The OT said that it is not within the scope of practice for an occupational therapy assistant to assess a resident or to make changes to the plan of care. The OT said she completed the evaluation for Resident #5 and said she had not assessed the Resident's ability to transfer during the initial evaluation and had not made a goal for transferring. The OT said she had not modified Resident #5's treatment plan prior to the OT assistant completing the transfer and she, herself had not physically assessed the Resident's ability to transfer. The OT said that she was present during the 7/20/23 treatment session, however, did not assess Resident #5's transfer status and that she watched the assistant perform the treatment, (including the resident weight bearing). The OT said she is a newer therapist and since the OTA had more years of experience, she deferred to the assistant. The OT again said it was her responsibility to assess the Resident and develop the plan of care and it is not within the scope of practice for the assistant to do so. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 12:18 P.M., the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) said the OT is responsible for evaluating the residents of the facility and developing the plan of care. The DOR said the evaluating therapist must continually assess the resident based on the feedback provided by the assistant and change the plan of care if appropriate. The DOR said the Occupational Therapy Assistant should not have transferred Resident #5 without the OT assessing his/her transfer status and a goal being in place. The DOR said if positioning was an issue during feeding, the nursing staff could have transferred the Resident out of bed and the OTA could have begun treatment after the transfer was complete. During a follow up interview on 9/14/23, at 7:42 A.M., the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) said that therapists use the term dependent and maximum assist of 2 people interchanging. The DOR said that both are considered non-weight bearing but dependent implies the use of a mechanical lift. The DOR then said that when nursing documents a resident is a max assist of 2 people, the staff is lifting the resident and the resident's feet do not touch the floor. The DOR confirmed this is how Resident #5 had been transferring with the staff up until his/her injury on 7/25/23.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff implemented orders for one Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff implemented orders for one Resident (#5) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Staff failed to remove a leg brace as recommended by the orthopedic surgeon resulting in the worsening of a surgical wound. Subsequently, Resident #5 was hospitalized requiring debridement (a surgical procedure to remove dead tissue) of the wound and sepsis (an infection of the blood stream) with associated Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia requiring a PICC line (a long, thin tube that's inserted through a vein in the arm and passed through to the larger veins near the heart) for IV antibiotics. Findings include: Review of the Treatment of Wounds policy, dated 3/31/23, indicated: It is the intent of this center that a resident having a wound receives necessary medical treatment to prevent infection, deterioration or development of wounds in keeping with the resident's medical condition. Resident #5 was re-admitted to the facility in August 2023 with diagnoses including displaced fractures of the left tibia, lateral malleolus of the left fibula, and left talus. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #5 scored 15 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam indicating he/she is cognitively intact. On 9/12/23 at 7:55 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #5 in bed with his/her left foot in a cast. Review of the hospital discharge paperwork dated 8/4/23 indicated: Patient has cast with window available to do regular wound checks if concerns prior to follow-up visit may come in sooner. Plan to d/c cast when incisions are healed. Review of the orthopedic clinic follow up note dated 8/15/23 indicated Resident #5's left leg was irritated by cast and was replaced with a brace. Instructions indicated: remove brace 2-3 times daily. The instructions were signed and dated by Nurse Practitioner on 8/15/23. Review of the Physicians orders for August 2023, Treatment Administration Record for August 2023, and care plans failed to indicate staff were removing the brace as ordered. Review of the nurse progress notes indicated: 8/16/23: LLE (left lower extremity) Dressing/wrap clean, dry and intact. Pending instructions from orthopedic MD. (The orthopedic MD recommendations to remove the brace 2-3 times a day had been signed and dated by the Nurse Practitioner the day before; 8/15/23) A nursing note written on 8/21/23 indicated the following: This writer, Nurse Practitioner and Director of Rehab assessed wound to left lateral ankle. Moderate amount of serous drainage noted to gauze. Wound bed 50%/50% slough and granulation. Undermining noted to be 2-6 o'clock when cleaning. Surrounding skin red and blanchable, tender to touch and warm on palpitation. Area edematous/swollen. Pt visited surgeon for follow up . Hard cast was removed and replaced with kerlix, ACE wrap and brace that was to be removed TID (three times a day) per day to observe for wound deterioration. [Nurse Practitioner] evaluated and is sending out [to hospital] for further eval. Review of the hospital paperwork dated 9/5/23 indicated Resident #5 was admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of sepsis due to left ankle infection with associated MRSA bacteremia. Resident #5's wound was debrided and a PICC line was placed during the hospitalization to treat the infection with IV antibiotics. During an interview on 9/13/23 9:12 A.M., Unit Manager #1 said that the Nurse Practitioner had signed off on the orthopedics instructions to remove Resident #5's brace 2-3 times daily and it was not carried over to the physician's orders. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 2:45 P.M., the Director of Nursing said that when the Nurse Practitioner had signed off on the orthopedic instructions to remove Resident #5's leg brace, it should have been put in as an order for nursing to follow. During an interview on 9/14/23 at 8:07 A.M Nurse #1 said that Resident #5's cast was completely managed by the orthopedics and at some point was changed. Nurse #1 said that nursing staff did not remove any device off Resident #5's leg.
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, policy review and interviews, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for the residents on the first floor unit. Findings include: Review of the facility p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, policy review and interviews, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for the residents on the first floor unit. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Dignity, dated 9/30/22, indicated the following: *Each resident has the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Interactions and activities with residents by staff, temporary agency staff, or volunteers must focus on maintaining and enhancing the resident's self-esteem, self-worth, and incorporating the resident's goals, preferences, and choices. On 9/12/23 at 8:15 A.M., the following was observed in the first floor dining room: *Two residents were seated at a table. One resident was served his/her meal at 8:21 A.M. The second resident asked for his/her meal. He/She was not given his/her meal until 8:38 A.M., 17 minutes later. *A resident who is assist for meals was provided his/her meal at 8:40 A.M. The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) put the resident's tray on the bedside table. She did not return to assist the resident with his/her meal until 9:03 A.M., 23 minutes later. On 9/12/23 at 12:00 P.M., the following was observed in the first floor dining room: * Two residents were seated at a table. One resident was served his/her meal at 12:05 P.M. The second resident asked for his/her meal. He/She was not given his/her meal until 12:18 PM., 13 minutes later. *A resident who is assisted with his/her meal was served lunch at 12:18 P.M. A CNA did not return to the table until 12:30 P.M. to assist the resident with the meal, 12 minutes later. On 9/13/23 at 8:00 A.M., the following was observed in the first floor dining room: *Three residents were seated at a table. The first resident was served breakfast at 8:13 A.M. The third resident was served breakfast at 8:30 A.M., 17 minutes later. On 9/13/23 at 11:45 A.M., the Surveyor observed the Registered Dietitian (RD) refer to two residents as feeders within earshot of residents in a resident common area on the 2nd floor unit. On 9/13/23 at 11:57 A.M., the Surveyor observed the RD refer to a Resident as a feed directly outside of a Resident room within earshot of a Resident who was approximately 4 feet from the RD on the 2nd floor unit. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 10:02 A.M., the Director of Nursing said all residents sitting at the same table should be served at the same time. The Director of Nursing said she had noticed some of the issues with dining and it is something the facility needs to work on.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to honor 1 Resident's (#174) right to refuse treatment out of a total ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to honor 1 Resident's (#174) right to refuse treatment out of a total of 21 sampled Residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's Resident Rights policy, dated 10/6/22, indicated: *The resident has the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination and reprisal from the facility in exercising his or her rights and to be supported by the facility in the exercise of his or her rights as required under this subpart. *The resident has the right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research and to formulate an advance directive. Resident #174 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #174 scored 14 out of 15 in the Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam (BIMS) indicating intact cognition. The MDS also indicated Resident #174 requires assistance with bathing, dressing and toileting. Review of Resident #174's clinical record indicated he/she did not have an activated health care proxy and is his/her own decision maker. Nurse Progress note, 6/27/23: Early morning, nurse went in to patient room to do vitals and to administer medication. Patient refused meds and all care.He/she started cursing, yelling, he/she stated doesn't want anyone in the room or to give him/her care. Nurse notified Nurse Practitioner #1, she went to the room to have a conversation with patient, but did not go well. Nurse Practitioner #1 stated if he does not want staff to help with any kind of care she would send patient out on a Section 12 due to refusing care. Nurse Practitioner note, 6/27/23: Resident #174 heard down the hall yelling profanity at staff. Asked to see Resident #174 as he/she has follow up urology and ortho appointments today and is refusing to go to them. When attempting to educate patient on follow ups and their importance patient continued to yell and swear at myself and staff. Patient has been retaining urine post FC (foley catheter) removal and has been refusing straight catheter or FC reinsertion. Resident #174 is also refusing to have his/her blood sugar checked as well as refusing am medications. He/she is a risk for harm to himself/herself as he/she is not accepting of medical treatment within this facility. Section 12 (an order for involuntary hospitalization when an individual as at risk of harming themselves or others) form was completed, EMS and police responded. Patient appeared calm at that time but still refused to go to hospital for follow up. Patient states I will not go to the hospital, but I will go home and I will walk home. He/she did in fact take his/her medications under the encouragement of the police. After much discussion, Resident agreed to follow rules of the facility, including taking medications and allowing care and attending follow up appointments. Made aware that if he/she does not abide by such rules- he/she will have to return to the hospital. During an interview on 9/12/23 at 12:04 P.M., Nurse #1 said that Resident can be behavioral and refuse care. Nurse #1 said that Resident #174 gets loud, yells and curses but does not threaten others or himself/herself with harm. During an interview on 9/12/23 at 11:59 A.M. Nurse Practitioner #1 said that Resident #174 is his/her own decision maker and does not have an activated Health Care Proxy. Nurse Practitioner #1 said that in response to Resident #174's refusals of care and attending appointments, she attempted to have Resident #174 sent out to the hospital for self-neglect. During an interview on 9/12/23 at 12:08 P.M. Unit Manager #1 said that the attempts to hospitalize Resident #174 for refusing treatment was related to concerns for his/her health due to non compliance. Unit Manager #1 said she understood that Resident #174 has the right to refuse treatments and services. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 2:00 P.M., Social Worker #1 said that Resident #174 is resistive to care, treatments and going to doctors appointments. Social Worker #1 she was not involved when staff initiated a Section 12. Social Worker #1 said that residents have the right to refuse treatment and services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident Protected Health Information (PHI) was secure and not visible to others on one of two nursing units. Findings include: Revi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident Protected Health Information (PHI) was secure and not visible to others on one of two nursing units. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Safeguarding and Storage of Medical Records dated reviewed 3/16/23, indicated do not leave medical records unattended in public areas. On 9/12/23, at 8:31 A.M., during a medication pass, Nurse #4 had an Electronic Health Record (EHR) located on a medication cart on the first floor hallway. The screen was open, unattended and the screen of a residents' Protected Health Information (PHI) was visible to anyone who passed by. The surveyor also observed that there were several residents and unauthorized staff in the area at the time. On 9/14/23, at 10:20 A.M., the surveyor observed an Electronic Health Record (EHR) located on a medication cart on the first floor hallway. The screen was open, unattended and the screen of a residents' Protected Health Information (PHI) was visible to anyone who passed by. The surveyor also observed that there were several residents and unauthorized staff in the area at the time. During an interview on 9/12/23, at 8:35 A.M., Nurse #4 said that she should not have left the screen to the computer open with PHI visible to anyone who passed by.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse and/or neglect within 2 hours as required for 1 Resident (#324) out of a total sample of 21 resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse and/or neglect within 2 hours as required for 1 Resident (#324) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Findings include: Facility policy titled Incident and Reportable Event Management, revised October 15, 2023, indicated the following: -Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. Resident #324 was admitted to the facility in September 2023 with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following other cerebrovascular disease affecting right dominant side, muscle weakness, and cancer. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/7/23, indicated that Resident #324 scored a 14 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) which indicates the Resident is cognitively intact. Review of Resident #324's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care-plan indicated the following intervention: -Assist with mobility and ADL's as needed. During an interview on 9/12/23 at 8:20 A.M., Resident #342 said that a few days ago he/she was having diarrhea secondary to his/her cancer treatment and had asked an aide to be cleaned/changed. The Resident said the aide refused to clean/change him/her and refused to get a nurse after the Resident had asked for the nurse. The Resident said he/she was not cleaned/changed until the following day. Resident #342 said that he/she had told various staff, including aids, nurses, a manager and the activities director about this event over the last weekend (9/9-9/10). Review of a nursing progress note, dated 9/9/23, indicated Resident #324 was experiencing diarrhea. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 9:18 A.M., the Activities Director said she had worked on Saturday, 9/9/23 and had seen Resident #324 to complete an assessment. The activities Director said the Resident had told her that he/she had diarrhea and had asked an aide to be cleaned/changed who replied I don't have time for you, left the room, and that Resident #324 could hear the aide laughing. The Activities Director said she is unsure how long the Resident waited to be cleaned and that because she felt this could potentially be neglect or abuse she told the nurse and weekend Nursing Supervisor. The Activities Director also said she had texted the Director of Nursing (DON) that Resident #324 had voiced a concern that needed to be addressed, but did not share the specific details of the allegation. The Activities Director said she had brought up the concern in more detail during morning meeting on Monday, 9/11/23. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 10:07 A.M. The DON said all allegations of abuse and/or neglect should be investigated immediately and reported to state agencies within 2 hours of the allegation being made. The DON said she would expect staff to notify her of any allegations of abuse and/or neglect immediately. The DON said she was made aware of Resident #324's allegations on Monday, 9/11/23, at which point an investigation was initiated and the allegations were reported to state agencies. The DON said that she does not know how long it was before the Resident was cleaned/changed, and that staff should have communicated to her on Saturday what the Resident had communicated to them as it warranted immediate investigation and reporting. Review of the Health Care Facilities Reporting System indicated a report for Resident #324's allegation of abuse was submitted to state agencies on 9/11/23 at 9:30 A.M., approximately 48 hours after the facility staff was made aware of the allegation. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, policy review and interviews, the facility failed to 1) investigate an allegation of negle...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, policy review and interviews, the facility failed to 1) investigate an allegation of neglect for 1 Resident (#13) and 2) failed to investigate a bruise of unknown origin for 2 Residents (#6 and #51) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Event and Reportable Event Management, dated 5/4/23, indicated the following: *Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. * Immediately means as soon as possible comma in the absence of a shorter state time frame requirement comma but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made comma if the events that caused the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury comma or not later than 24 hours if the events that caused the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. * The licensed nurse should perform a quick initial investigation to determine the most likely cause of the event. * The interdisciplinary team(IDT) we'll conduct a more thorough review of the event to determine if the initial investigation is complete and include the most likely causation period if the IDT reaches a separate conclusion comma then the initial intervention implemented by the licensed nurse may be modified. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility in November, 2022 with diagnoses including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Review of Resident #13's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated the Resident scored 15 out of a possible 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam which indicated he/she is cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated Resident #13 requires extensive assistance with bathing and dressing tasks. During an interview on 9/12/23 at 8:58 A.M., Resident #13 said he/she was not provided care from Sunday September 10, 2023, at 5 P.M. to Monday September 10, 2023, at 12:00 P.M. Resident #13 said he/she felt neglected. Resident #13 said he/she reported this to Nurse #3 on Monday 9/11/23 and was still awaiting a response. During an interview on 9/12/23 at 12:05 P.M., Nurse #3 said any allegations of neglect need to be investigated. Nurse #3 said she was aware of Resident #13's allegation, however, she had not yet started to investigate it because upper management was not in the facility on Monday, and she forgot to contact the Director of Nursing to tell her of Resident #13's allegation. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 10:02 A.M., the Director of Nursing said all allegations of neglect need to be investigated immediately, within 2 hours. The Director of Nursing said she was made aware of the allegation on 9/12/23 and was unaware Nurse #3 had known about the allegation and failed to tell her the day prior when the allegation was made. 2a. Review of the facility policy titled, Event and Reportable Event Management, dated 5/4/23, indicated the following: * Injuries of unknown source is classified when both of the following criteria are met: -the source of the injury was not observed by any person or the source of the injury could not be explained by the resident; and -the injury is suspicious because of the extent of the injury or the location of the injury (e.g. The injury is located in an area not generally vulnerable to trauma) or the number of injuries observed at one particular point in time or the incidence of injuries over time. *Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. *Immediately means as soon as possible, in the absence of a shorter state time frame requirement, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that caused the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that caused the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with diagnoses including dementia. Review of Resident #6's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 8 out of a possible 15 which indicated he/she had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated the Resident requires physical assistance from staff for functional daily tasks. On 9/12/13 at 8:11 A.M., the surveyor observed a nickel sized purple area, resembling a bruise, on Resident #6's left hand at the inner base of the thumb. The bruise was visible to anyone providing care or entering the Resident's room. Resident #6 was unable to say how the bruise occurred. Review of the nursing notes for the month of September 2023 failed to indicate the nursing staff identified or investigated the cause of the bruise. During an interview on 9/12/23 at 11:56 A.M., Nurse #2 confirmed this area on the Resident's hand was a bruise and said she had first observed the bruise a couple of days ago. Nurse #3 said she did not write a note about the bruise and did not report the bruise to the Supervisor or Director of Nursing. During an interview on 9/12/23 at 12:01 P.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2 said she primarily cares for Resident #6 and said she had noticed the bruise a couple of days ago. CNA #2 said she did not report the bruise to the nurse. A nursing note dated 9/12/23 indicated the following: * nurse notice a dark old mark on patient left top hand by thumbs of the patient. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 11:02 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) and surveyor observed Resident #6's left hand together and the DON confirmed the bruise. The DON said she was unaware of the bruise and that Nurse #2 had not reported the new bruise to her. The DON said all bruises of unknown origin should be reported to management and need to be investigated immediately. 2b. Resident #51 was admitted to the facility in November of 2019 with diagnosis including stroke, diabetes, orthopedic conditions, muscle weakness, contracture right hand, contracture left hand, traumatic spinal cord dysfunction, and traumatic brain dysfunction. Review of Resident #51 most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated , 6/29/23, indicates the Resident has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 out of a possible 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicates Resident #23 requires total dependence with all functional tasks. During an observation on 9/13/23 at 9:45 A.M., Resident #51 was observed sitting up in his/her bed. He/she had three small purple discolorations approximately the size of a nickel, resembling a bruise, on the top part of his/her left hand near the knuckles. Resident #51 was dressed for the day. Resident #51 said he/she had recent labs drawn and that could be why he/she has bruising. Review of Resident #51's weekly skin check completed on 9/8/23 did not indicate any bruising. Review of Resident #51's nursing notes failed to indicate any bruising or skin alterations on his/her hands. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 12:23 P.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 said Resident #51 needs help with ADL care. CNA #1 said if any open areas or bruising is found during care, she would tell the nurse right away. During an interview on 9/14/23 at 1:13 P.M., the Unit Manager said staff will report any injuries or bruises to the supervisor for follow up. The Unit Manager said a complete investigation would follow and staff would notify the Director of Nurses. During an observation on 9/13/23 at 1:37 P.M. the surveyor observed the Director of Rehab (DOR) assess range of motion to bilateral hands. The DOR was observed holding the left hand and flexing the wrist and fingers and the Resident had visible bruising to the top part of the hand near the knuckles. During an observation on 9/14/23 at 7:50 A.M., the surveyor and Nurse #2 observed three small purple discolorations approximately the size of a nickel resembling a bruise on the top part of Resident #51's left hand near the knuckles. Nurse #2 observed the left hand and said the bruising is easily visible near the knuckles and not located where labs are typically drawn. Nurse #2 said Resident #51's right hand is swollen, and a small dark purple bruise is visible on the right index finger just below the nail bed measuring half an inch. Nurse #2 said the bruising should be documented and reported. During an interview on 9/14/23 at 8:03 A.M. the Director of Nursing (DON) said the bruising does not look like lab draw bruising and the bruising looks old. The DON said she would expect staff to report it and it should have been documented because it looks old. The DON then observed the bruising area on the right index finger and said the bruise looks new because it is dark purple and will need to be reported as an injury of unknown origin along with the area to the left hand. The DON said the bruising is in an area visible to staff. During an interview on 09/14/23 at 8:39 A.M., the Director of Rehab (DOR) said she noticed the bruising yesterday but did not report it to anyone because Resident #51's skin is like that, and it seems like his/her baseline. The DOR said the bruise is considered a bruise of unknown origin. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 11:02 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said all bruises of unknown origin should be reported to management and need to be investigated immediately.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to implement a skin integrity care plan for 1 Resident...

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 implement a skin integrity care plan for 1 Resident (#69) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Findings include: Resident #69 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including hypertension. Review of Resident #69's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated he/she had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of a possible 15 which indicted the Resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated Resident #69 required extensive assistance from staff for bed mobility tasks. On 9/12/23 at 8:08 A.M., and 12:33 P.M., Resident #69 was observed lying in bed with both feet directly on the bed and legs not elevated. On 9/13/23 at 6:37 A.M., 9:05 A.M. and 11:00 A.M., Resident #69 was observed lying in bed with both feet directly on a pillow and legs not elevated. Review of Resident #69's physician orders indicated the following active orders: *Ensure heels are FREE FLOATING when in bed every shift, initiated 7/26/23. *Prevalon Boots (pressure relieving boots) when in bed every shift, initiated 7/26/23. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 9:09 A.M., Nurse #2 and Certified Nursing Assistant #1 said Resident #69 uses a pillow between his/her ankles so that his/her feet do not touch. Both Nurse #2 and CNA #1 said the Resident does not utilize pressure relieving boots on either foot and does not need his/her legs elevated. Nurse #2 was unaware of the orders for the boots and elevation of legs. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 10:02 A.M., the Director of Nursing said all orders should be followed as written.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide assistance with meals as needed for 2 Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide assistance with meals as needed for 2 Residents (#6 and #56) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with diagnoses including dementia. Review of Resident #6's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 8 out of a possible 15 which indicated he/she had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated the Resident requires physical assistance from staff for functional daily tasks. On 9/12/23 at 8:39 A.M., Resident #6 was observed eating breakfast while lying in bed. There were no staff present to supervise or assist if needed and he/she was not visible from the hallway. The Resident's tray was not completely set up with his/her hot cereal still covered and his/her utensils not unwrapped. The Resident had pieces of egg on his/her chest. On 9/12/23 at 12:30 P.M., Resident #6 was observed eating lunch while lying in bed. There were no staff present to supervise or assist if needed and he/she was not visible from the hallway. There were no finger foods present on the Resident's tray. The Resident had only eaten approximately half of his/her apple pie and there was apple pie pieces on his/her chest. On 9/13/23 at 12:30 P.M., Resident #6 was observed eating lunch while lying in bed. There were no staff present to supervise or assist if needed and he/she was not visible from the hallway. When asked, the Resident said he/she was having a difficult time feeding him/herself. On 9/14/23 from 8:34 A.M., to 8:58 A.M., Resident #6 was observed eating breakfast while lying in bed. There were no staff present to supervise or assist if needed and he/she was not visible from the hallway. Resident #6 consumed approximately 1/4th of his/her orange juice and 2 bites of toast. A nursing assistant entered the Resident's room and took his/her breakfast tray away at 8:58 A.M. without offering to assist the Resident or asking if he/she was done eating. Review of Resident #6's activity of daily living care plan care plan last revised 5/31/23 indicated the following intervention: *Resident requires 1:1 assistance with meals. Review of Resident #6's [NAME] (a form indicating the level of assistance of the Resident) indicated the following: *Eating: assistance with meals as needed. Review of the quarterly nutritional note dated 5/23/23 indicated Resident #6's intake at meals is improved with 1 on 1 assistance from staff. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 8:40 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant #1 said Resident #6 did not require any physical assistance or supervision with meals. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 8:39 A.M., Nurse #2 said Resident #6 did not require any physical assistance or supervision with meals. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 9:00 A.M., Unit Manager #2 said any resident who requires supervision for meals should be eating their meals in the dining room. Unit Manager #2 was unaware Resident #6's care plan indicated the Resident requires supervision with meals or that the recommendation of the Dietitian was to have physical assistance with meals. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 10:02 A.M., the Director of Nursing said the staff should follow the care plans for the level of assistance residents require for meals. 2. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility in May 2021 with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), dysarthria (weakness of the mouth muscles), dementia and hemiplegia following a stroke. Review of Resident #56's last Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of a possible 15 which Indicated he/she was cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated Resident #56 required supervision for self-feeding tasks. On 9/12/23 at 8:26 A.M., Resident #56 was observed eating breakfast while lying in bed at a 50-degree angle. The Resident was not visible from the hallway as the privacy curtain was drawn to the foot of his/her bed. On 9/13/23 at 8:36 A.M., Resident #56 was observed eating breakfast while lying in bed at a 50-degree angle. The Resident was not visible from the hallway as the privacy curtain was drawn to the foot of his/her bed. On 9/14/23 at 8:36 A.M., Resident #56 was observed eating breakfast while lying in bed at a 75-degree angle. The privacy curtain was drawn, and the Resident was not visible from the hallway. Review of Resident #56's current physician orders indicated the following orders: *Alternate liquids and solids with meals related to dysphagia following cerebral infarction and snacks, initiated 9/8/22. *Encourage chin tuck with meals three times a day related to dysphagia following cerebral infarction and snacks, initiated 8/19/22. *OOB (out of bed) all meals, every shift related to dysphagia following cerebral infarction and snacks, initiated 8/17/22. *Supervision for meals snacks three times a day related to dysphagia following cerebral infarction and snacks, initiated 8/19/22. Review of Resident #56's activity of daily living care plan, last revised 5/3/23, indicated the following intervention: *Eating: the resident requires continual supervision for adequate intake. Review of Resident #56's [NAME] (a form indicating the level of assist the Resident requires) indicated the following: Eating: the resident requires continual supervision for adequate intake. *Aspiration (choking) risk Review of the speech therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE] indicated the following recommendations: *Upright during all intake, slow rate, small bites/sips. 3 second hold with liquids, no straws, put fork down after every bite, upright positioning at intake, remove distractions. *Occasional supervision. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 8:39 A.M., Nurse #2 said Resident #56 is independent with meals and does not need any assistance or supervision. Nurse #2 was unaware of Resident #56's diagnosis and history with difficulty swallowing. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 9:00 A.M., Unit Manager #2 said Resident #56 should be up in his/her wheelchair for all meals and if not should be positioned at 90-degress while in bed. During an interview on 9/13/23 at 10:02 A.M., the Director of Nursing said the staff should follow the care plans for the level of assistance residents require for meals.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one Resident (#51), out of a total sample of 21 residents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #51 was wearing prosthetic device and hand splints. Findings include: Resident #51 was admitted to the facility in November of 2019 with diagnosis including stroke, diabetes, orthopedic conditions, muscle weakness, contracture right hand, contracture left hand, traumatic spinal cord dysfunction, and traumatic brain dysfunction. Review of Resident #51 most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated , 6/29/23, indicates the Resident has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 out of a possible 15, indicating he/she is cognitively intact. The MDS also indicates Resident #23 requires total dependence with all functional tasks. On 9/12/23 at 7:49 A.M., Resident #51 was observed lying in bed. His/her left and right hands were in a closed, fisted position. The Resident was unable to open his/her hands. Resident #51 was unable to say how long he/she has been unable to voluntarily open his/her hand and said he/she has hand splints for both hands, but staff do not put them on anymore. Resident #51 said he/she has asked staff if he/she could wear the hand splints, but staff would tell the Resident they could not locate them. Resident #51 said he/she also has a prosthetic leg that he/she would wear but has not seen anyone from physical therapy in a very long time. Resident #51 said he would like to get up into his wheelchair, wear the prosthetic leg and use the bilateral hand splints. Resident #51 said he/she can't get up into the wheelchair because staff said he/she would not fit. Review of Resident #51's medical record indicated he/she has bilateral hand contractures and below knee amputation of right leg with prosthetic. Review of Resident #51's Occupational Therapy eval & plan of Treatment dated 10/19/21 indicated the following: -Current orthotic device: wrist hand finger orthosis BUE (both upper extremities). Orthotics: splint /orthotic recommendations continue with wrist hand finger orthoses: Left splint donned at 7am and off after 2-3 hours per patient tolerance. Right splint at lunch time 2-3 hours per patient tolerance both loosely strapped. Need for durable medical equipment for condition. Review of Resident #51's Occupational Therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE] indicated the following: -Patient will participate in BUE therapy as determined appropriate with therapist with min verbal cues and demonstrations to improve patient quality of life and ability to participate in valued occupations. -Patient will be assessed for w/c (wheel chair) positioning/safety with tolerance for sitting in appropriate w/c for 1 hour. -Staff will facilitate BUE therapy program provided by therapy independently with patient to improve patient quality of life and participation in valued occupations including exercise. -Wrist/hand/finger orthoses BUE -Patient may benefit from a more cushioned geri chair/recliner. -Prognosis to maintain CLOF (current level of functioning)= Excellent with consistent staff support. -Patient able to participate in exercise program and activities staff educated. Review of Resident #51's care plan dated 7/19/23 indicated the following interventions: -Staff to assist with 2 x per week exercise in his/her room in or out of bed. -During room exercise, inform resident what to do, giving one step at a time and inform him/her offered exercise is for range of motion. -Provide enhanced/adaptive activities equipment as appropriate when/if needed to increase participation due to hand contraction. -PT/OT eval/screen as needed. -The Resident has contractures of the bilateral hands. Provide skin care to keep clean and prevent skin breakdown. -The Resident is totally dependent on two staff for dressing. NWB (non weight bearing) to LLE (left lower extremity), elevate LLE and LUE (left upper extremity), R (right) prosthetic. -The Resident requires a mechanical lift with two staff assistance for transfers. Resident is non ambulatory. Specialized 22x16 wheelchair with assist with left lateral support. During an interview on 9/13/22 at 10:49 P.M., the Unit Manager said Resident #51 was receiving physical therapy but has been very sleepy and hasn't left his/her room or gotten out of bed. The Unit Manager said Resident #51 has orthotic equipment in his/her bathroom, and the care plan will indicate what equipment is needed and what level of care is needed. During an interview on 9/13/22 at 12:18 P.M., the Director of Rehab (DOR) said Resident #51 has bilateral hand splints and a prosthetic leg, but she could not recall the last time she observed the Resident wearing them. The DOR said the resident's care plan should have the orthotics listed and an order for placement. The DOR said she was not aware that Resident #51 was not wearing the hand splints and that she was not aware that they had been lost. The DOR said she should have been notified if there was a change and new splints were needed. The DOR said Resident #51 does not ask to get out of bed and she did not think to ask him/her if he/she would like to get out of bed and into his/her wheelchair. During an observation on 9/13/22 at 1:27 P.M., the Director of Rehab (DOR) and the surveyor observed Resident #51 laying in bed. The DOR was observed completing range of motion exercises on the Resident's right and left hands. The DOR said the hand splints would help to keep the hands from closing and will keep them open and more comfortable. The DOR then asked Resident #51 if he/she would like to wear hand splints. Resident #51 said yes and told the DOR he/she would also like to get out of bed. The DOR opened the Resident's bedside table and the two hand splints were located inside. The DOR then walked into the Resident's bathroom and showed the Resident the prosthetic leg. Resident #51 said he/she would like to wear the prosthesis if staff would offer and help him/her put it on. The DOR said she would notify Occupational Therapy for an assessment the next day.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate for 1 Resident (#25) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate for 1 Resident (#25) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility in March 2023 with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, psychotic disorder and generalized weakness. Review of the doctor's orders dated September 2023 indicated a doctor's order for Acetaminophen oral tablet 500 mg (milligrams) give 2 tablets by mouth three times a day for pain. Further review indicated the following orders: 1. Lidocaine external patch 4% apply to mid upper back topically one time a day for pain and remove per schedule. 2. Miralax oral packet 17 GM (grams) give one packet by mouth in the morning for constipation. On 9/13/23, at 8:30 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #4 administer medications to Resident #25. The surveyor observed Nurse #4 give Resident #25 2 tablets of Acetaminophen 650 mg. The surveyor did not observe Nurse #4 administer the Lidocaine patch or the Miralax. Review of the medication administration record (MAR) indicated that Nurse #4 had documented that she had administered Acetaminophen oral tablet 500 mg (milligrams) give 2 tablets. Further review indicated that Nurse #4 had administered both the Lidocaine external patch 4% and Miralax oral packet 17 GM (grams). During an interview on 9/13/23, at 8:43 A.M., Nurse #4 said that she was waiting to put the Lidocaine patch on after Resident #25 took a shower. Nurse #4 then said that she thought the Acetaminophen was the 500 mg and didn't realize the bottle contained 650 mg tablets. Nurse #4 also said that she did not administer the Miralax. Nurse #4 then said that she should not have documented that the medications had been administered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that infection control measures were maintained during medication pass. Findings include: 1. Resident #25 was admitted t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that infection control measures were maintained during medication pass. Findings include: 1. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility in March 2023 with diagnoses Parkinson's disease, psychotic disorder and generalized weakness. On 9/13/23, at 8:30 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #4 to prepare to administer medications to Resident #25. The surveyor observed Nurse #4 to remove the vital signs stand from the hallway, enter the Resident's room and take the Resident's blood pressure and oxygen level without cleaning the blood pressure cuff or the oximeter. During an interview on 9/13/23, at 8:43 A.M., Nurse #4 said that she should have cleaned the blood pressure cuff and oximeter before applying them to Resident #25.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that it is free from medication rates of 5% or greater. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Administ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that it is free from medication rates of 5% or greater. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Administration of Medications dated reviewed 8/24/23, indicated the facility will ensure medications are administered safely and appropriately per physician order to address resident's diagnoses and signs and symptoms. 1. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility in March 2023 with diagnoses Parkinson's disease, psychotic disorder and generalized weakness. Review of the doctor's orders dated September 2023 indicated a doctor's order for Acetaminophen oral tablet 500 mg (milligrams) give 2 tablets by mouth three times a day for pain. Further review indicated the following orders: 1. Lidocaine external patch 4% apply to mid upper back topically one time a day for pain and remove per schedule. 2. Miralax oral packet 17 GM (grams) give one packet by mouth in the morning for constipation. On 9/13/23, at 8:30 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #4 administer medications to Resident #25. The surveyor observed Nurse #4 give Resident #25, 2 tablets of Acetaminophen 650 mg. The surveyor did not observe Nurse #4 administer the Lidocaine patch or the Miralax as ordered. During an interview on 9/13/23, at 8:43 A.M., Nurse #4 said that she was waiting to put the Lidocaine patch on after Resident #25 took a shower. Nurse #4 then said that she thought the Acetaminophen was the 500 mg and didn't realize the bottle contained 650 mg tablets. Nurse #4 also said that she did not administer the Miralax. 2. Resident #65 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with diagnoses including stroke, depression and anxiety. Review of the doctor's orders dated September 2023 indicated the following doctor's order: 1. Baclofen oral tablet 5 mg give one tablet three times a day. 2. Carvedilol oral tablet 12.5 mg give three tablets by mouth two times a day for hypertension with meals, to hold if heart rate below 60. On 9/13/23, at 9:11 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #5 dispense and administer Baclofen 5 mg 3 tablets. The surveyor did not observed Nurse #5 dispense and administer Carvedilol oral tablet 12.5 mg as ordered.
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, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications 1. were stored properly and labeled 2. once opened were dated as required and 3. topical and treatment ite...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications 1. were stored properly and labeled 2. once opened were dated as required and 3. topical and treatment items were not stored with oral medications. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, dated last revised 7/21/22, indicated the following: 1. Facility should ensure that external use medications and biologicals are stored separately from internal use medications and biologicals. 2. Facility should ensure that all medications and biologicals, including treatment items, are securely stored in a locked cabinet/cart or locked medication room that is inaccessible by residents and visitors. 3. Once any medication or biological package is opened, the facility should follow manufacturer's guidelines with respect to expiration dates for opened medications. 4. If a multi-dose vial of an injectable medication has been opened or accessed the vial should be dated and discarded within 28 days unless the manufacturer specifies a different date for that opened vial. A) On 9/12/23, at 8:27 A.M. the surveyor observed the following in the Woodland Unit north medication cart: 1 bottle of cranberry supplement open without a date. Review of the manufacturer's directions indicted that the supplement expires 3 months after opening. 1 vial tuberculin derivative injectable, open without a date 5 tubes of Diclofenac Sodium Treatment cream 1 tube ammonium Lactate Cream 1 tube Nystatin Cream 1 tube Ketoconazole Cream 1 tube Lidocaine cream 1 tube Hydrocortisone cream 1 tube Clotrimazole cream 1 tube Santyl ointment 1 tube Triamcinolone Acetonide cream 1 budesonide and formoterol inhaler open without a date 1 albuterol/ipratropium combavent inhaler open without a date B) On 9/12/23, at 3:40 P.M. the surveyor observed the following in the Pond View Unit south medication cart: 12 tubes of Diclofenac cream 4 bottles of nystatin antifungal powder 3 tubes nystatin antifungal cream 1 tube Solosite wound gel 1 tube of Normlgel Ag wound treatment 3 combivent inhalers open without a date. Further review indicated that the inhalers were dispensed on 12/7/22, 12/31/22, and one without a date or label. Review of the manufacturer's directions indicated to discard the inhalers three months after opening. 1 Pulmacort inhalers open without a date. Further review indicated the inhaler was dispensed from the pharmacy 2/24/23, more than six months ago. Review of the manufacturer's directions indicated to discard the inhalers six months after opening. 1 tube of Neomycin/Polymyxin B Sulfates and Bacitracin Zinc ophthalmic ointment open without a date and a dispense date of 8/8/23. 1 bottle of Latanoprost ophthalmic solution open without a date and without a date dispensed. C) During medication pass on 9/12/23, at 8:31 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #4 leave the medication cart and enter a residents room leaving the medication cart unlocked. During an interview on 9/12/23, at 8:35 A.M., Nurse #4 said that the medication cart should always be locked when it is not within eyesight of the nurse. During an interview on 9/12/23, at 3:44 P.M., Nurse #2 said that treatment creams belong in the treatment cart. Nurse #2 then said that all of the inhalers should have been dated when opened.
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 store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Food Saf...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Food Safety, revised 04/26/23, indicated the following: -Food in a walk-in cooler/freezer is stored six inches off the floor -Leftovers are dated properly and discarded after 72 hours unless otherwise indicated. On 9/12/23 at 7:04 A.M., the following observations were made during the initial walkthrough of the kitchen: -Asparagus, lemons, and apples with significant signs of decomposition including the growth of a white wispy substance in the walk-in refrigerator. -Red Onions and sweet potatoes with significant signs of decomposition including the growth of a blue-white wispy substance in the main kitchen. -Multiple Jars of dressing coated on the outside with a black wispy substance in the walk-in refrigerator, the substance was observed on the inside of the lid of one dressing container. -A nearly empty container of garlic aioli (a mayonnaise-based sauce) in the walk-in refrigerator, dated 5/16 -A container of creamy appearing prepared food in the walk-in refrigerator unlabeled and undated -Two bags of shredded cheese open, wrapped, but undated. -2 milk-crates containing milk stored directly on the floor in the walk-in refrigerator Review of the facilities use-by date guide indicated mayonnaise should be discarded no later than one month after it was opened. During an interview on 9/12/23 at 2:39 P.M., the Food Service Director (FSD) identified the wispy growths as mold. The FSD also said that no food should be stored directly on the floor and that the milk-crates should have been stored on a shelf off the floor. The FSD said the date on the lid of the garlic aioli is the date the product was received, but is unsure when the product was opened. The FSD confirmed the garlic aioli should have been discarded after one month. The FSD also said all opened and prepared foods should be labeled and dated.
Aug 2022 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 Residents (#50 and #63) were properly assessed for self-administration of medications out of a total of 19 sampled Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 Residents (#50 and #63) were properly assessed for self-administration of medications out of a total of 19 sampled Residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Self Administration of Medication and dated as revised 10/13/21, indicated that the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) will evaluate the resident's cognitive, physical and visual ability to safely self administer their medications. Further review indicated that a physician's order will be obtained and the care plan updated to reflect the ability to self administer medication. Further review indicated that a reassessment would be conducted quarterly to ensure the resident remains capable of self administering their medications. 1. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility in December, 2020 with diagnoses including gastro esophageal reflux disease, heart disease and diabetes type 2. On 8/16/22 at 8:27 A.M. the surveyor observed a bottle of TUMS antacid on top of Resident #50's window sill. On 8/16/22 at 4:10 P.M., the surveyor observed a bottle of TUMS antacid on top of Resident #50's window sill. Review of the medical record failed to indicate that Resident #50 had been evaluated for the safe self administration of the medications. Further review failed to indicate a doctor's order for TUMS or an order to keep medications at bedside. During an interview on 8/16/22, at 4:40 P.M., Family Member #1 said that she had brought in the TUMS for herself about 9 months ago and keeps forgetting to bring them home. During an interview on 8/16/22 4:40 PM Nurse #1 acknowledged the bottle of TUMS sitting on the window sill. During an interview on 8/17/22, at 1:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing said that there were no self administration of medications assessments in the medical record for the TUMS. She also said that Resident #50 would not be able to self administer medications. 2. Resident #63 was admitted to the facility in November 2019 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), major depression and pain in left shoulder. On 8/16/22, at 8:25 A.M. the surveyor observed a tube of Voltarin cream (used to treat pain) on Resident #63's nightstand. On 8/16/22, at 4:10 P.M., the surveyor observed a tube of Voltarin cream, 1 albuterol inhaler (used to treat asthma), 1 Breo Elipta inhaler and 1 Pro-air inhaler (used to treat COPD) on the nightstand and 1 tube of Mupirocin ointment (used to treat bacterial skin infections) in a plastic storage container on top of the dresser. Resident #63 was not in the room. Review of the doctor's orders dated August 2022 failed to indicate an order to self administer the albuterol, Breo Elipta and Pro-air inhalers and the Mupirocin ointment. Review of the medical record failed to indicate that Resident #63 had been evaluated for the safe self administration of the inhalers, the Mupirocin ointment or the Voltarin cream. During an interview on 8/16/22, at 4:40 PM Nurse #1 acknowledged the medications at bedside and said that Resident #63 administers her/his own medications. During an interview on 8/17/22, at 1:25 P.M., the Director of Nursing said that there were no other self administration of medications assessments in the medical record except for the Voltarin Cream.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to investigate injuries of unknown origin (bruises) for 2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to investigate injuries of unknown origin (bruises) for 2 Residents (#25, #49) out of a total of 19 sampled Residents. Findings include: The facility's Protection of Residents: Reducing the Threat of Abuse and Neglect policy, indicated: *Identification: It is the policy of this facility to identify abuse, neglect and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property. *Examples of injuries that could indicate abuse include: Injuries that are non-accidental or unexplained; bruises, including those found in unusual locations such as the head, neck, lateral locations such as the head, neck lateral locations on the lateral arms. *When an incident or suspected incident of resident abuse and/or neglect, injury of unknown source, exploitation or misappropriation, the administrator/designee will investigate the occurrence. 1. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility in June 2020 with diagnoses including heart failure and dementia. Review of Resident #25's most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated that he/she is cognitively impaired and requires assistance with bathing, dressing and transfers. On 8/16/22 at 9:16 A.M., the surveyors observed a large bruise on Resident #25's right forearm and bruising on Resident #25's right hand. Due to Resident #25's cognitive status, he/she was unable to say how the bruising occurred. Review of Resident #25's weekly skin assessment dated [DATE], failed to indicate Resident #25 had any bruises or other skin issues. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/17/22, at 12:13 P.M., she said that when a bruise is found on a resident, the expectation is for her to be alerted to begin an investigation to rule out possible abuse. The Director of Nursing said that an investigation into Resident #25's bruises had not been initiated until 8/17/22. 2. Resident #49 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses including renal failure and depression. Review of Resident #49's most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated he/she is cognitively intact and requires assistance with bathing and dressing. On 8/16/22, at 8:52 A.M., During an interview with Resident #49, the surveyor observed a small circular bruise on his/her left hand. Resident #49 said he/she was not sure how he/she developed the bruise. During an interview on 8/17/22, at 12:13 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that when a bruise is found on a Resident, the expectation is for her to be alerted to begin an investigation to rule out possible abuse. The DON said that an investigation into Resident #49's bruises had not been initiated until 8/17/22.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide showers for 2 Residents (#25 and #67) out of a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide showers for 2 Residents (#25 and #67) out of a total of 19 sampled Residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility in June 2020 with diagnoses including heart failure and dementia. Review of Resident #25's most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated that he/she is cognitively impaired and requires assistance with bathing, dressing and transfers. During interviews with staff on 8/17/22, staff reported that Residents were not receiving routine showers regularly due to a high number of Residents who require high levels of care and there is not enough time to provide showers to all Residents who want them. Review of Resident #25's Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) documentation indicated: *Resident #25 was to receive two showers weekly on Wednesdays and Saturdays. *From 7/19/22 -8/18/22 Resident #25 received 2 showers. There was no evidence in the clinical record indicating that Resident #25 had any behaviors or rejected any care. 2. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility in July 2022 with a diagnosis of a stroke. Review of Resident #67's most recent Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], indicated he/she is cognitively impaired and is totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. During interviews with staff on 8/17/22, staff reported that Residents were not receiving routine showers regularly due to a high number of Residents who require high levels of care and there is not enough time to provide showers to all Residents who want them. Review of Resident #67's Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) documentation indicated: *Resident #67 had not been put on a shower schedule. *Resident #67 had not been showered any any time during his/her stay at the facility. There was no evidence in the clinical record indicating that Resident #67 had any behaviors or rejected any care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure it was free of a medication error rate of greater than 5%. The surveyor observed 2 of 3 licensed nurses make errors whi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure it was free of a medication error rate of greater than 5%. The surveyor observed 2 of 3 licensed nurses make errors while administering medications on 2 of 3 resident care units. Three errors in 33 opportunities were observed resulting in a medication error rate of 9.09%. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Administration of Medications and revised 5/6/22, indicated that staff who are responsible for medication administration will adhere to the 10 rights of medication administration including the right route and the right dose. 1. Resident #280 was admitted to the facility in August 2022 with diagnoses including heart disease, high blood pressure and atrial fibrillation (irregular heart beat). Review of the doctor's orders dated 8/16/22, indicated an order for Lisinopril tablet 30 mg (milligrams) by mouth one time a day related to essential hypertension. During observation of the medication pass on 8/17/22, the surveyor observed Nurse #2 administer Resident #280 a Lisinopril 40 mg tablet. The surveyor did not observe Nurse #2 take Resident #280's blood pressure. During an interview on 8/17/22, at 10:11 A.M., Nurse #2 acknowledged that the medication card, she took the Lisinopril from and administered to Resident #280, contained 40 mg tablets. Nurse #2 said she thought she had given 30 mg's but found the medication card with the 30 mg tablets in the back of the Resident's medication cards, turned around and without any tablets removed. Nurse #2 said she gave the wrong dose. 2. Resident #52 was admitted to the facility in May of 2014 with diagnoses including glaucoma, high blood pressure and adult failure to thrive. Review of the doctor's orders dated August 2022 indicated an order for Dorzolimide HCL solution 2% (used to treat glaucoma) instill 1 drop in both eyes two times a day. Further review indicated an order for Flucticasone Furoate Suspension 27.5 micrograms/spray give 2 spray in both nostrils one time a day for allergies. On 8/17/22, at 9:33 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #3 administer Dorzolimide HCL solution 2 drops in each eye and then Nurse #3 administered Flucticasone Furoate Suspension 27.5 micrograms/spray, one spray by mouth. During an interview on 8/17/22, at 9:45 A.M., Nurse #3 acknowledged that she had administered 2 drops of the Dorzolimide HCL solution in each eye instead of the ordered one drop and that she had administered the Flucticasone Furoate Suspension by mouth instead of in each nostril.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were stored securely on 1 out of 4 units. Findings include: 1. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility in 12/2020 with d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure medications were stored securely on 1 out of 4 units. Findings include: 1. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility in 12/2020 with diagnoses including gastro esophageal reflux disease, heart disease and diabetes type 2. On 8/16/22, at 8:27 A.M. the surveyor observed a bottle of TUMS antacid on top of Resident #50's window sill. On 8/16/22 at 4:10 P.M., the surveyor observed a bottle of TUMS antacid on top of Resident #50's window sill. Review of the medical record failed to indicate that Resident #50 had been evaluated for the safe self administration of the medications. Further review failed to indicate a doctor's order for TUMS or an order to keep medications at bedside. During an interview on 08/16/22 4:40 PM Family Member #1 said that she had brought in the TUMS for herself about 9 months ago and keeps forgetting to bring them home. 2. Resident #63 was admitted to the facility in November 2019 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), major depression and pain in left shoulder. On 8/16/22 at 8:25 A.M. the surveyor observed a tube of Voltarin cream on Resident #63's nightstand. On 8/16/22, at 4:10 P.M., the surveyor observed a tube of Voltarin cream, 1 albuterol inhaler (used to treat asthma), 1 Breo Elipta inhaler and 1 Pro-air inhaler (used to treat COPD) on the nightstand and 1 tube of Mupirocin ointment (used to treat bacterial skin infections) in a plastic storage container on top of the dresser. Resident #63 was not in the room. Review of the medical record failed to indicate that Resident #63 had been evaluated for the safe self administration of the medications and could safely store medications in her/his room. During an interview on 8/16/22 4:40 PM Nurse #1 acknowledged the un-secured medications and said that all medication should be kept locked up for safety. Nurse #1 then said that the nurses are supposed to check resident's rooms during medication pass to make sure that no medications are in the rooms on the unit that are not secured.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. For Resident #25, the facility failed to failed to a.) assist him/her with meals per physician's orders and his/her plan of c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. For Resident #25, the facility failed to failed to a.) assist him/her with meals per physician's orders and his/her plan of care, and b.) failed to implement physicians orders from the hospital regarding monitoring weight related to congestive heart failure (CHF). Resident #25 was admitted to the facility in June 2020 with diagnosis including CHF and dementia. Review of his/her most recent Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated he/she is cognitively impaired and requires assistance with bathing, dressing and eating. a.) On 8/16/22, at 9:16 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #25 in bed. Resident #25 had his/her meal in front of him/her and no staff were in the room providing assistance. Resident #25 was thin and frail. Review of Resident #25's clinical record indicated the following: *A physicians order dated 6/3/22, for 1:1 assistance with meals. *An Unexpected Weight Loss care plan dated 6/16/22, indicating Resident #25 had a history of weight loss. *An Activities of Daily Living care plan revised 6/16/22, indicated Resident #25 requires continual supervision with meals and increased assistance at times to complete meals due to fatigue and cognitive deficits. On 8/16/22, at 12:47 P.M., the surveyors observed Resident #25 seated in the dinning room with his/her meal untouched in front of him/her and no staff were present providing 1:1 assistance or supervision. CNA #1 and CNA #2 were present and assisting others with their meals. On 8/17/22, at 8:08 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #25 asleep in bed. Resident #25's breakfast was in front of him/her untouched. No staff were present providing assistance. On 8/17/22, at 12:42 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #25 in the dinning room taking small bites of his/her meal. No staff were providing 1:1 assistance. During an interview with CNA #1 on 8/17/22 at 9:26 A.M., she said that Resident #25 feeds himself/herself and staff may provide assistance at times. On 8/18/22 at 8:12 A.M. the surveyor observed Resident #25 in bed with his/her breakfast meal in front of him/her. No staff provided 1:1 assistance. b. Additional review of Resident #25's clinical record indicated: *A hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE], indicated he/she was hospitalized due to CHF and orders for Resident #25's to be weighed standing daily, inform physician if weight gain more than 3 pounds in 2 days or more than 2 pounds in 1 day. *A CHF care plan revised 6/16/22, indicating an intervention for daily weight monitoring. *Resident #25's weights indicating he/she is weighed weekly. During an interview on 8/17/22, at 10:02 A.M., the Nurse Practitioner said that when a Resident returns to the facility she or the physician will receive a call from the facility to review new orders or recommendations from the hospital. The Nurse Practitioner then said she knew that Resident #25 had recently returned from the hospital but could not recall if she had been notified of the discharge orders for Resident #25 to be weighed daily. She also said that it could have been missed and that Resident #25's weights should be monitored. 4. For Resident #51, the facility failed to provide assistance with meals per his/her plan of care. Resident #51 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses including diabetes and dementia. Review of Resident #51's most recent Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated he/she is cognitively impaired and requires assistance with bathing, dressing and eating. On 8/16/22 the surveyors observed Resident #51 seated in his/her room eating breakfast alone. Resident #51 was thin and frail. Review of Resident #51's clinical record indicated: *A physician's order dated 3/11/22, for 1:1 assistance with meals. *A Nutritional Risk care plan revised 7/11/22, indicated Resident #51 is underweight and has sub-optimal intake with an intervention to assist with meals as needed. *An Activities of Daily Living care plan revised 11/10/21, indicated that Resident #51 is totally dependent on staff assistance with meals. On 8/17/22, at 8:07 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #51 in his/her room with his/her breakfast meal in front him/her. There were no staff providing 1:1 assistance. During an interview on 8/18/22, at 8:43 A.M., CNA #2 said that staff set up Resident #51's tray in the morning and return later to check on him/her and then staff assist Resident #51 with his/her lunch meal in the dinning room. 5. For Resident #7 the facility failed to provide a stockinet glove per the plan of care. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility in February 2021 with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, abnormal posture, generalized muscle weakness. Review of Resident #7's most Recent Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #7 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 15 out of possible 15 indicating he/she was cognitively intact. During an interview on 8/16/22, at 8:50 A.M., Resident #7, the surveyor observed that his/her left hand was contracted. Resident #7 said he/she used to wear something on his/her hand but had not been wearing it recently. Review of Resident #7's Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Care Plan dated 11/11/21, indicated the use of a stockinet glove on Resident #7's left hand, change when soiled with skin checks and hygiene. Review of Resident #7's Occupational Therapy (OT) discharge summary recommendations dated 6/23/21, indicated; Resident #7 tolerating use of stockinet glove to promote skin integrity, unable to tolerate basic palm protector or more significant splinting due to severity of thumb contracture. On 8/16/22, at 8:50 A.M. the surveyor observed Resident #7 in his/her wheelchair with left hand without a stockinet glove. On 8/17/22, at 12:35 P.M. the surveyor observed Resident #7 sitting in his/her wheelchair left arm without a stockinet glove. On 8/18/22, at 9:50 A.M. the surveyor observed Resident #7 observed in bed with his/her left hand over the covers without a stockinet glove. During an interview on 8/18/22, at 9:55 A.M., Nurse# 3 said that Resident #7 is supposed to wear stockinet glove on his/her left hand. Nurse # 3 said she could not recall the last time she saw Resident #7 wearing the stockinet glove. During an interview on 8/18/22, at 10:15 A.M., the Rehabilitation Director said Resident #7 was seen last by OT in May 2021 and the recommendation was for Resident #7 to wear a stockinet glove throughout the day on the left hand. Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to implement the plan of care for 5 Residents (#6, #7, #10, #25, and #51) out of a sample of 19 residents. Findings include: 1. For Resident #6 the facility failed to provide continual supervision with meals per the plan of care. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in June 2019 with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty eating), depression and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #6 required an extensive assist of one staff member to eat. Further review indicated that Resident #6 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, was not able to complete the exam and was severely cognitively impaired. Review of the care plan indicated that Resident #6 requires continual supervision with verbal cues throughout meals. Review of the facility document titled Documentation Survey Report v2 where the Certified nurse's Aides (CNA) document the care provided to each resident daily for the month of August 2022, indicated that Resident #6 was supervised during meals. On 8/16/22, at 8:30 A.M. the surveyor observed Resident #6 eating alone in her/his room. On 8/16/22, at 12:20 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #6 eating alone in her/his room. On 8/17/22, at 8:33 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #6 eating alone in her/his room. On 8/17/22, at 12:30 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #6 eating alone in her/his room. 2. For Resident #10 the facility failed to provide continual supervision with meals per the plan of care. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility in December 2019 with diagnoses including heart disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, depression and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #10 required supervision with eating. Further review indicated that Resident #10 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan indicated that Resident #10 requires continual supervision with meals. CNA flow sheet indicated continual supervision was not provided for eating 6 out of 16 days during [DATE]. On 8/16/22, at 8:49 A.M. the surveyor observed Resident #10 eating breakfast alone in his/her room while in bed. On 8/16/22 at 12:20 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #10 eating breakfast alone in his/her room while in bed. On 8/17/22 at 8:33 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #10 eating breakfast alone in his/her room while in bed. On 8/17/22 at 12:30 P.M. the surveyor observed Resident #10 eating breakfast alone in his/her room while in bed. During an interview on 8/18/22, at 8:35 A.M., the Staff Development Coordinator said that residents that require supervision should have someone with them at all times when they are eating. He also said that he was not aware that either Resident #6 or Resident #10 required supervision with eating.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 39% turnover. Below Massachusetts's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 5 harm violation(s), $39,559 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 34 deficiencies on record, including 5 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $39,559 in fines. Higher than 94% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (15/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Life Of Stoneham's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Massachusetts, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Life Of Stoneham Staffed?

CMS rates LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Life Of Stoneham?

State health inspectors documented 34 deficiencies at LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM during 2022 to 2025. These included: 5 that caused actual resident harm and 29 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Life Of Stoneham?

LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM 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 LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 94 certified beds and approximately 82 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in STONEHAM, Massachusetts.

How Does Life Of Stoneham Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Life Of Stoneham?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the substantiated abuse finding on record.

Is Life Of Stoneham Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Life Of Stoneham Stick Around?

LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM has a staff turnover rate of 39%, which is about average for Massachusetts nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Life Of Stoneham Ever Fined?

LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM has been fined $39,559 across 2 penalty actions. The Massachusetts average is $33,474. 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 Life Of Stoneham on Any Federal Watch List?

LIFE CARE CENTER OF STONEHAM 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.