SERIOUS
(H)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#30), out of a total sample of 20 residents, received care and treatment in accordance with profession...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#30), out of a total sample of 20 residents, received care and treatment in accordance with professional standards. Specifically, the facility failed for Resident #30, to obtain a physician's order for wound care on admission, develop and implement a pressure ulcer care plan on admission, to assess and monitor a pressure ulcer, to obtain orders for wound consultant recommendations-including medications, treatments and lab work, to transcribe orders for wound care accurately, and to provide wound care per physician's orders resulting in the progression of a deep tissue injury (DTI- intact skin with localized area of persistence non-blanchable deep red, maroon, or purple discoloration due to damage of underlying soft tissue from intense and/or prolonged pressure and shear forces at the bone-muscle interface) to a Stage 4 pressure ulcer (full thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed or directly palpable fascia, muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage, or bone in the ulcer) six times larger with eschar/necrotic tissue (dead/devitalized tissue).
Findings include:
Review of the Lippincott Manual of Nursing Practice, 11th Ed. (2019) indicated: Scope of Practice, Licensure, and Certification: The professional nurse's scope of practice is defined and outlined by the State Board of Nursing that governs practice. The National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the National League of Nursing have developed standards that guide each State Board in the development of their licensure requirements and scope of practice rules.
Review of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Nursing Advisory Ruling on Nursing Practice dated as revised April 11, 2018 indicated:
Nurse's Responsibility and Accountability: Licensed nurses accept, verify, transcribe, and implement orders from duly authorized prescribers that are received by a variety of methods (i.e., written, verbal/telephone, standing orders/protocols, pre-printed order sets, electronic) in emergent and non-emergent situations. Licensed nurses in a management role must ensure an infrastructure is in place, consistent with current standards of care, to minimize error.
Review of the facility's policy titled Prevention of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries, dated as last revised 11/2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Review the resident's care plan and identify the risk factors as well as the interventions designed to reduce or eliminate those considered modifiable.
-Assess the resident on admission (within 8 hours) for existing pressure ulcer/injury risk factors. Repeat the risk assessment weekly and upon any change in condition.
-Conduct a comprehensive skin assessment upon admission, including skin integrity-any evidence of existing or developing pressure ulcers or injuries.
-Inspect the skin on a daily basis and identify any signs of developing pressure injuries (i.e., non-blanchable erythema) and inspect pressure points (sacrum, heels, buttocks, and coccyx, etc.)
-Include nutritional supplements in the resident's diet to increase calories and protein, as indicated in the care plan.
-Evaluate, report and document potential changes in the skin.
-Review the interventions and strategies for effectiveness on an ongoing basis.
Review of the facility's policy titled Pressure Ulcer/Injury Risk Assessment, dated as last revised 4/2018, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-The purpose of a structured risk assessment is to identify all risk factors and then to determine which can be modified and which cannot, or which can immediately be addressed, and which will take time to modify.
-Once the assessment is conducted and risk factors are identified and characterized, a resident-centered care plan can be created to address the modifiable risk for pressure ulcers/injuries.
-The risk assessment should be conducted as soon as possible after admission, but no later than eight hours after admission is completed.
-Repeat the risk assessment weekly for the first four weeks, if there is a significant change in condition, or as often as is required based on the resident's condition.
-Conduct a structured pressure ulcer/injury risk assessment using a facility-approved tool
-Conduct a comprehensive skin assessment with every risk assessment.
-If a new skin alteration is noted, initiate a (pressure or non-pressure) form related to the type of skin alteration in skin.
-Develop the resident-centered care plan and interventions based on the risk factors identified in the assessments, the condition of the skin, the resident's overall clinical condition, and the resident's stated wishes and goals.
a. The interventions must be based on current, recognized standards of care.
b. The effects of the interventions must be evaluated.
c. The care plan must be modified as the resident's condition changes, or if the current interventions are deemed inadequate.
-The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record utilizing facility forms:
a. The type of assessment(s) conducted.
b. The date and time and type of skin care provided.
c. Any change in condition of identified.
d. The condition of the resident's skin.
e. Initiation of a (pressure or non-pressure) form related to the type of alteration in skin if new skin alteration is noted.
f. Documentation in medical record addressing MD notification if new skin alteration noted with change of plan of care, if indicated.
g. Notify attending MD if new skin alteration noted.
Review of the facility's policy titled Dressings, Dry/Clean, dated as last revised 4/2018, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure.
-Review the resident's care plan, current orders, and diagnoses to determine if there are any special resident needs.
-The following equipment and supplies will be necessary when performing this procedure: clean dressing, cleaning solution as ordered, and personal protective equipment (PPE).
Review of the facility's policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated as last revised 11/2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident.
-The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will:
a. Include measurable objectives and timeframes.
b. Describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
c. Incorporate identified problem areas.
d. Incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems.
e. Reflect treatment goals, timetables, and objectives in measurable outcomes.
f. Identify the professional services that are responsible for each element of care.
-Identifying problem areas and their causes and developing interventions that are targeted and meaningful to the resident, are the endpoint of an interdisciplinary process.
-The comprehensive, person-centered care plan is developed within seven days of the completion of the required comprehensive assessment (MDS assessment).
-Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' condition changes.
-The Interdisciplinary Team must review and update the care plan when there has been a significant change in the residents' condition and when the desired outcome is not met.
Resident #30 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including dementia, diabetes mellitus, and muscle weakness.
Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/30/23, indicated Resident #30 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 out of 15.
Review of the admission Nursing Evaluation V16, dated 6/27/23, indicated Resident #30 was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, eating, toileting, and required a mechanical lift for transfers. Further review of the evaluation indicated Resident #30 had a pressure injury to the sacrum (bottom of spine above tailbone) measuring 1 centimeter (cm) in length x 0.5 cm in width x 0 cm in depth. The pressure injury was staged as a Suspected Deep Tissue Injury. The evaluation was signed by the nurse on 7/7/23, 10 days after the resident was admitted to the facility. Section C: Skin Integrity was signed by nurse on 8/11/23, 45 days after the resident was admitted to the facility.
Review of the admission Physician Order Summary, dated 6/28/23, failed to indicate a treatment order for the pressure injury to Resident #30's sacrum.
Review of the care plans for Resident #30 failed to indicate a Pressure Ulcer/Injury care plan had been initiated upon admission.
Review of the Weekly Skin evaluation, dated 7/4/23, indicated Resident #30 had a pressure area to the right buttock, no measurements were documented. The evaluation was signed by the nurse on 7/8/23.
Review of the Pressure Ulcer Evaluation, dated 7/4/23, indicated Resident #30 had an Unstageable Pressure Ulcer to the sacrum, measuring 1.7 cm x 0.9 cm x 0 cm.
Wound description included:
-Date first observed: 7/14/23 (sic)
-Exudate/Drainage: Moderate Serous
-Wound Bed: Eschar
-Notes: cleanse, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam dressing daily
-Type of Evaluation: Weekly Evaluation of Existing Skin Condition
-Signed by the nurse on 8/11/23
Review of the June 2023 and July 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) failed to indicate a treatment for the pressure ulcer from 6/27/23 through 7/7/23. The Resident had gone 10 days with no treatment in place for the pressure ulcer; during that time, the wound had progressed from an intact DTI measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0 cm on 6/27/23 to an Unstageable pressure ulcer with moderate serous drainage and eschar measuring 1.7 cm x 0.9 cm x 0 cm on 7/4/23.
Further review of the TAR indicated a treatment order as follows:
-Apply House Barrier on buttocks twice daily skin protection/redness. (7/7/23).
Review of additional Weekly Skin Evaluations for July 2023, indicated the following:
-7/11/23, no documentation of the pressure ulcer, Signed by the nurse 7/18/23.
-7/18/23, no documentation of the pressure ulcer, Signed by the nurse 7/23/23.
-7/25/23, Weekly Skin Evaluation was not completed.
Review of additional Pressure Ulcer Evaluations for July 2023, indicated the following:
-7/11/23, Pressure Ulcer Evaluation was not completed.
-7/18/23, indicated Resident #30 had a resolved pressure area.
-Date first observed: 7/18/23, Signed by nurse on 7/20/23
No additional Pressure Ulcer Evaluations were completed in July 2023.
Review of the Wound Consultant Progress Note, dated 7/20/23, indicated the Resident was not seen.
No further Wound Consultant visits were completed in July 2023.
Review of the Nurse's notes from 6/27/23 - 7/30/23 failed to indicate the pressure ulcer had been assessed and monitored for changes.
Further review of a Nurse's Note, dated 7/31/23, indicated the Resident's skin was intact, the Resident did not have any ulcers, and wound care was provided in between buttock cheeks near the rectum. No further description or assessment of the wound or wound care provided was documented.
Further review of the TAR indicated Resident #30 did not have any orders for wound care to the pressure ulcer on his/her sacrum.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., the Wound Nurse, who is also the Unit Manager and Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON), said Resident #30 was admitted with the wound and she was not made aware of it until weeks later. Additionally, she said there was no treatment ordered on admission and there should have been. She said the Barrier cream treatment ordered on 7/7/23 was not appropriate for a pressure ulcer as that is for prevention, and this wound should have had a dressing on it. She also said there was no care plan initiated on admission and that it was not done until she re-opened the Nursing admission Evaluation V16 on 8/11/23 to fix it (45 days after admission). She said on the Pressure Ulcer Evaluation, dated 7/4/23, the date first observed should have been the admission date and not 7/14/23, that was wrong, and that she should not have written the treatment memo in the notes section of the Pressure Ulcer Evaluation because she was backdating the evaluation, and that dressing recommendation was from the 8/10/23 Wound Doctor visit. Additionally, she said when she and the Wound Physician did rounds on 7/20/23 they did not see Resident #30 because the wound was not visible, probably because of poor lighting, but it had to have been there as it was a big deep open wound the next time. She said they must have missed it. She said the usual process is: On admission after the Nursing admission Evaluation V16 is done, an order is obtained for a treatment, the care plan is initiated directly from the Nursing admission Evaluation V16, the nurse then notifies me and the Director of Nurses, the Wound Doctor is added to the Resident profile so the Resident would be seen on weekly wound rounds and weekly Pressure Ulcer Evaluations should be done. She said in this case none of those things happened. She said she was not made aware of the wound until weeks later when it was much bigger and that is when the wound care physician was added to the profile and the Resident was added to weekly wound rounds. She said adding the Wound Doctor to the Resident profile is our fail safe because it triggers the Wound Doctor to see the Resident, but in this case that did not happen for several weeks. She said Resident #30 should have had weekly Pressure Ulcer Evaluations done from admission and he/she did not.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the Director of Nurse (DON) said a treatment should have been ordered on admission and it was not. She said her expectation is if there is no order from the hospital, the nurse calls the primary care physician to obtain an appropriate order. She said a care plan should have been initiated and it was not, and the wound doctor should have been added to the Resident's profile and added to weekly rounds and that did not happen either. Additionally, the DON said the order written on 7/7/23 for House Barrier Cream was not an appropriate order for a pressure injury, the area should have had a dressing on it for protection. The DON said usually she or the Wound Nurse will review the Nursing admission Evaluations V16 for completion and to ensure any wounds have orders, care plans, and are added to wounds rounds; however, in this case none of those things were done and Resident #30's wound got worse and much larger.
AUGUST 2023
Review of the Weekly Skin Evaluations for August 2023 indicated the following:
-8/29/23, no documentation of the pressure ulcer.
Review of the Pressure Ulcer Evaluations for August 2023, indicated the following:
-8/3/23, Pressure Ulcer Evaluation was not completed.
-8/10/23, Resident #30 had a Stage 3 Pressure Ulcer (full thickness loss of skin, in which subcutaneous fat mat be visible in the ulcer and granulation tissue and epibole (rolled wound edges) are often present), measuring 6.3 cm x 4.4 cm x 0 cm.
Notes: Cleanse, apply calcium alginate and cover with border dressing daily.
-8/18/23, Resident #30 had a Stage 3 Pressure Ulcer, measuring 6 cm x 3.6 cm x 0.1 cm.
Notes: Etiology: Pressure Objective: Maintain Healing Phase Exudate: moderate serous, Necrotic tissue 20% Granulation 80% Primary Dressing: Wound Cleanser and Calcium Alginate secondary Dressing: Silicone Border Foam. Recs: Vitamin C 500 milligrams (mg) twice daily, Prevalon Boots.
-Signed by nurse on 8/21/23
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 8/3/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had an Unstageable Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) to the sacrum.
-Wound Etiology: Pressure
-Duration: greater than 7 days
Wound Size: 7.6 cm x 5.5 cm x not measurable cm
(Depth is immeasurable due to the presence of tissue overgrowth.)
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Silver Sulfadiazine (antibiotic cream used to treat and/or prevent infection) apply once daily; Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound (relieve pressure); Reposition per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Zinc Sulfate 20mg once daily for 14 days (vitamins to aid in wound healing); Pre-Albumin (blood test to determine if your body is getting enough protein which aids in wound healing).
Review of the medical record including Medication Administration Record (MAR), TAR, and physician's orders failed to indicate the treatment order was obtained for the Silver Sulfadiazine and foam dressing to the sacrum or any other new order for wound care. Additionally, the medical record failed to indicate the additional recommendations to off-load the wound, Vitamin C and Zinc Sulfate, or the lab work were ordered.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 8/10/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
-Wound Size: 6.3 cm x 4.4 cm x not measurable cm
(Depth is immeasurable due to the presence of nonviable tissue and necrosis.)
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Antimicrobial wound cleanser, calcium alginate (promotes formation of granulation tissue, re-epithelialization (cell growth to help healing), and helps to minimize bacterial infections) apply once daily; Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Reposition per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Zinc Sulfate 20mg once daily for 14 days; Prevalon Boots (heel booties with a heel cut out used to float heels off the mattress and relieve pressure to prevent pressure ulcers).
-Surgical Excisional Debridement to remove necrotic tissue and establish the margins of visible tissue.
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR, and physician's orders indicated an order for Calcium alginate pad-apply to sacrum once daily (8/11/23). Further review of the medical record failed to indicate an order was obtained for the antimicrobial cleanser and foam dressing. Additionally, the recommendations repeated from 8/3/23, to off-load wound, Vitamin C, Zinc Sulfate, and Pre-Albumin lab test had not been ordered, nor had the recommendation from 8/10/23 for Prevalon Boots been addressed.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 8/18/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
-Wound Size: 6 cm x 3.6 cm x 0.1 cm
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Antimicrobial wound cleanser, calcium alginate apply once daily; Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Zinc Sulfate 20mg once daily for 14 days; Prevalon Boots.
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR, and physician's orders indicated an order for Calcium alginate pad-apply to sacrum once daily (8/11/23). Further review of the medical record indicated the wound care order was changed on 8/22/23 with a start date of 8/23/23 as follows: Sacrum: Cleanse area with wound cleanser, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. This was 12 days after the recommendations were made on 8/10/23 and the antimicrobial cleanser was still not ordered as recommended. Additionally, the recommendations repeated from 8/3/23, to off-load wound, Vitamin C, Zinc Sulfate, and Pre-Albumin lab test had not been ordered, nor had the recommendation from 8/10/23 for Prevalon Boots been addressed.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 8/24/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
-Wound Size: 5.9 cm x 3.2 cm x 0.1 cm
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) (cleanser that creates a moist environment and loosens contaminated exudate within the wound bed to allow natural healing to take place) Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots.
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR and physician's orders indicated the following:
-Sacrum: Cleanse area with Vashe, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. (8/24/23; Discontinued 8/25/23)
-Sacrum: Cleanse area with wound cleanser, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. (8/25/23)
-Bootie/Heel Protectors on as tolerated every shift. (8/25/23)
Further review of the medical record failed to indicate the correct solution was ordered for wound care and failed to indicate the recommendations to off-load wound, Vitamin C, and Pre-Albumin lab work were addressed.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 8/31/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
-Wound Size: 5.5 cm x 3.5 cm x 0.1 cm
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe). Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots.
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR and physician's orders indicated the following:
-Sacrum: Cleanse area with wound cleanser, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. (8/25/23)
-Bootie/Heel Protectors on as tolerated every shift. (8/25/23)
Further review of the medical record failed to indicate the correct solution was ordered for wound care and failed to indicate recommendations to off-load wound, Vitamin C, and Pre-Albumin lab work were addressed.
A care plan titled Pressure Ulcer was initiated on 8/11/23, 45 days after admission.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., the Wound Nurse/Unit Manager/ADON said the Pressure Ulcer Evaluation on 8/3/23 should have been done and it was not. Additionally, she said the recommendations from the Wound Doctor on 8/3/23 should have been addressed and they were not, and the Resident continued to have a progressing wound without an appropriate treatment. She said she does wound rounds and usually writes the orders, but these were missed. Additionally, she said the order written on 8/11/23 for Calcium Alginate should have had the recommended cleanser and the foam dressing as part of the order and it did not and the recommendation to off-load wound, Vitamin C and Zinc Sulfate, Pre-Albumin lab work and Prevalon Boots all should have been addressed and they were not. She also said the orders should be written with the specific cleanser recommended as Wound Cleanser, Antimicrobial Wound Cleanser and Vashe Wound Cleaner are all different cleansers. She also said she took over doing wound rounds because things like this were not getting done.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the DON said the Pressure Ulcer Evaluation should be done weekly and it was not. She also said the order on 8/11/23 should have had the appropriate cleanser and foam dressing as part of the order and she missed that, therefore the order was incorrect. The DON said the type of cleanser needs to be specific as Wound Cleanser, Antimicrobial Wound Cleanser, and Vashe are all different cleansers. Additionally, she said all the recommendations made by the wound doctor should have been addressed and they were not.
SEPTEMBER 2023
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 9/7/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
-Wound Size: 7.5 cm x 3.3 cm x 0.1 cm
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots.
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR, physician's orders, and care plan failed to indicate off-load wound or Prevalon Boots had been addressed.
Further review of the medical record including MAR, TAR and physician's orders indicated the following:
-Sacrum: Cleanse area with wound cleanser, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. (8/25/23; Discontinued 9/4/23)
-Sacrum: Cleanse area with Vashe, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. (9/4/23).
-Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) 500 mg twice daily (9/5/23)
-Pre-Albumin blood test was drawn on 9/11/23, results were critically low.
The Vashe cleanser was ordered 11 days after it was recommended.
The Vitamin C was ordered 33 days after it was recommended.
The Pre-Albumin blood test was drawn 39 days after it was recommended.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 9/14/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
-Wound Size: 7.5 cm x 3 cm x 0.1 cm
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR, and physician's orders indicated the following:
-Bootie/Heel Protectors on as tolerated every shift. (8/25/23; Discontinued 9/13/23)
-Prevalon Boots in place at all times (9/13/23)
Review of the care plan indicated the following:
-Off-load wound was added to the care plan (9/15/23)
The Bootie/Heel Protectors were ordered 15 days after the Prevalon Boots were recommended.
The Prevalon Boots were ordered 34 days after they were recommended.
Off-load wound was added to the care plan 43 days after it was recommended.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 9/21/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
-Wound Size: 7 cm x 3 cm x 0.1 cm
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 9/28/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
-Wound Size: 7 cm x 3 cm x 0.3 cm
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots
Review of the Physician's Orders indicated the recommendations for Zinc Sulfate had still not been addressed since first recommended on 8/3/23.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., the Wound Nurse/Unit Manager/ADON said the recommendation to off-load wound, Vitamin C and Zinc Sulfate, Pre-Albumin lab work and Prevalon Boots all should have been addressed when recommended and they were not. The expectation is the orders are obtained within a day or two and they were not. and they were not.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the DON said all the recommendations made by the wound doctor should have been addressed by the day after the Wound Doctor visit and they were not.
OCTOBER 2023
Review of the Weekly Skin Evaluations for October 2023 indicated the following:
-10/17/23, no documentation of the pressure ulcer.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 10/5/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had Stage 4 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
-Wound Size: 6.6 cm x 2.8 cm x 1.1 cm
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots, Pre-Albumin blood test.
Review of the Physician's Orders failed to indicate the recommendation for Pre-Albumin lab work was addressed.
-10/12/23 no visit note
- Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 10/19/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had Stage 4 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
-Wound Size: 3.9 cm x 1.4 cm x 0.8 cm
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply twice daily and as needed; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) apply twice daily and as needed. Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply twice daily and as needed.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots, Pre-Albumin blood test.
-Sharp debridement refused by family.
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR, and physician's orders failed to indicate the recommendation to increase frequency of dressing change from once daily to twice daily and for the Pre-Albumin lab work were addressed.
- Review of the Wound Consultant Physician Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 10/26/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Resident #30 had Stage 4 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
-Wound Size: 3.9 cm x 1.5 cm x 1 cm with undermining: 1.4 cm at 1 o'clock
-Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply twice daily and as needed; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) apply twice daily and as needed. Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply twice daily and as needed.
-Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots, Pre-Albumin blood test.
-Sharp debridement refused by family.
Review of the Physician's Orders results failed to indicate an order for the Pre-Albumin blood test was obtained since recommended on 10/5/23.
Further review of the medical record including TAR and physician's orders failed to indicate the treatment was changed from once daily to twice daily as recommended on 10/19/23. The order to change the treatment from once a day to twice a day was obtained on 10/27/23 after it was recommended again by the wound physician on 10/26/23 (8 days after it was initially recommended).
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., the Wound Nurse/Unit Manager/ADON said the recommendation to increase the dressing change from once to twice daily and the Pre-Albumin lab work should have been addressed when recommended and they were not.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the DON said all the recommendations made by the wound doctor should have been addressed by the day after the Wound Doctor visit and they were not. She said recommendations for lab work should be ordered for the next lab day as the lab comes a couple times a week.
NOVEMBER 2023
-Review of the Wound Consultant Physician Evaluation and Management Summary, date
SERIOUS
(H)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interviews, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#30), out of a total sample of 20 residents, received care and treatment to prevent and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#30), out of a total sample of 20 residents, received care and treatment to prevent and promote healing of pressure injuries. Specifically, the facility failed for Resident #30, to obtain a physician's order for wound care on admission, develop and implement a pressure ulcer care plan on admission, to assess and monitor a pressure ulcer, to obtain orders for wound consultant recommendations-including medications, treatments and lab work, to transcribe orders for wound care accurately, and to provide wound care per physician's orders resulting in the progression of a deep tissue injury (DTI-intact skin with localized area of persistence non-blanchable deep red, maroon, or purple discoloration due to damage of underlying soft tissue from intense and/or prolonged pressure and shear forces at the bone-muscle interface) to a Stage 4 pressure ulcer (full thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed or directly palpable fascia, muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage, or bone in the ulcer) six times larger with eschar/necrotic tissue (dead/devitalized tissue).
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Prevention of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries, dated as last revised 11/2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Review the resident's care plan and identify the risk factors as well as the interventions designed to reduce or eliminate those considered modifiable.
- Assess the resident on admission (within 8 hours) for existing pressure ulcer/injury risk factors. Repeat the risk assessment weekly and upon any change in condition.
- Conduct a comprehensive skin assessment upon admission, including skin integrity, any evidence of existing or developing pressure ulcers or injuries.
- Inspect the skin on a daily basis and identify any signs of developing pressure injuries (i.e., non-blanchable erythema) and inspect pressure points (sacrum, heels, buttocks, and coccyx, etc.)
- Include nutritional supplements in the resident's diet to increase calories and protein, as indicated in the care plan.
- Evaluate, report and document potential changes in the skin.
- Review the interventions and strategies for effectiveness on an ongoing basis.
Review of the facility's policy titled Pressure Ulcer/Injury Risk Assessment, dated as last revised 4/2018, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- The purpose of a structured risk assessment is to identify all risk factors and then to determine which can be modified and which cannot, or which can immediately be addressed, and which will take time to modify.
- Once the assessment is conducted and risk factors are identified and characterized, a resident-centered care plan can be created to address the modifiable risk for pressure ulcers/injuries.
- The risk assessment should be conducted as soon as possible after admission, but no later than eight hours after admission is completed.
- Repeat the risk assessment weekly for the first four weeks, if there is a significant change in condition, or as often as is required based on the resident's condition.
- Conduct a structured pressure ulcer/injury risk assessment using a facility-approved tool
- Conduct a comprehensive skin assessment with every risk assessment.
- If a new skin alteration is noted, initiate a pressure or non-pressure form related to the type of skin alteration in skin.
- Develop the resident-centered care plan and interventions based on the risk factors identified in the assessments, the condition of the skin, the resident's overall clinical condition, and the resident's stated wishes and goals.
a. The interventions must be based on current, recognized standards of care.
b. The effects of the interventions must be evaluated.
c. The care plan must be modified as the resident's condition changes, or if the current interventions are deemed inadequate.
- The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record utilizing facility forms:
a. The type of assessment(s) conducted.
b. The date and time and type of skin care provided.
c. Any change in condition of identified.
d. The condition of the resident's skin.
e. Initiation of a (pressure or non-pressure) form related to the type of alteration in skin if new skin alteration is noted.
f. Documentation in medical record addressing MD notification id new skin alteration noted with change of plan of care, if indicated.
g. Notify attending MD if new skin alteration noted.
Review of the facility's policy titled Dressings, Dry/Clean, dated as last revised 4/2018, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure.
- Review the resident's care plan, current orders, and diagnoses to determine if there are any special resident needs.
- The following equipment and supplies will be necessary when performing this procedure: clean dressing, cleaning solution as ordered, and personal protective equipment (PPE).
Review of the facility's policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated as last revised 11/2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident.
- The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will:
a. Include measurable objectives and timeframes.
b. Describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
c. Incorporate identified problem areas.
d. Incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems.
e. Reflect treatment goals, timetables, and objectives in measurable outcomes.
f. Identify the professional services that are responsible for each element of care.
- Identifying problem areas and their causes and developing interventions that are targeted and meaningful to the resident, are the endpoint of an interdisciplinary process.
- The comprehensive, person-centered care plan is developed within seven days of the completion of the required comprehensive assessment (MDS assessment).
- Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' condition changes.
- The Interdisciplinary Team must review and update the care plan when there has been a significant change in the residents' condition and when the desired outcome is not met.
Resident #30 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including dementia, diabetes mellitus, and muscle weakness.
Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/30/23, indicated Resident #30 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 out of 15.
JUNE 2023
Review of the admission Nursing Evaluation V16, dated 6/27/23, indicated Resident #30 was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, eating, toileting, and required a mechanical lift for transfers. Further review of the evaluation indicated Resident #30 had a pressure injury to the sacrum (bottom of spine above tailbone) measuring 1 centimeter (cm) in length x 0.5 cm in width x 0 cm in depth. The pressure injury was staged as a Suspected Deep Tissue Injury. The evaluation was signed by the nurse on 7/7/23, 10 days after the Resident was admitted to the facility. Section C: Skin Integrity was signed by nurse on 8/11/23, 45 days after the Resident was admitted to the facility.
Review of the admission Physician's Order Summary, dated 6/28/23, failed to indicate a treatment order for the pressure injury to Resident #30's sacrum.
Review of the care plans for Resident #30 failed to indicate a Pressure Ulcer/Injury care plan had been initiated upon admission.
JULY 2023
Review of the Weekly Skin evaluation, dated 7/4/23, indicated Resident #30 had a pressure area to the right buttock, no measurements were documented. The evaluation was signed by the nurse on 7/8/23.
Review of the Pressure Ulcer Evaluation, dated 7/4/23, indicated Resident #30 had an Unstageable Pressure Ulcer to the sacrum, measuring 1.7 cm x 0.9 cm x 0 cm. Wound description includes:
- Date first observed: 7/14/23 (sic)
- Exudate/Drainage: Moderate Serous [watery, clear, or slightly yellow/tan/pink fluid that has separated from the blood and presents as drainage]
- Wound Bed: Eschar [dead or devitalized tissue that is hard or soft in texture; usually black, brown, or tan in color and may appear scab-like]
- Notes: cleanse, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam dressing daily
- Type of Evaluation: Weekly Evaluation of Existing Skin Condition
- Signed by the nurse on 8/11/23
Review of the June 2023 and July 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) failed to indicate a treatment for the pressure ulcer from 6/27/23 through 7/7/23. The Resident had gone 10 days with no treatment in place for the pressure ulcer; during that time, the wound had progressed from an intact DTI measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.0 cm on 6/27/23 to an Unstageable pressure ulcer with moderate serous drainage and eschar measuring 1.7 cm x 0.9 cm x 0.0 cm on 7/4/23.
Further review of the TAR indicated a treatment order as follows:
- Apply House Barrier on buttocks twice daily skin protection/redness. (7/7/23).
Review of the Physician's Orders for Resident #30 indicated:
- Weekly Skin Check every Tuesday (7/20/23).
Review of additional Weekly Skin Evaluations for July 2023 indicated the following:
- 7/11/23, no documentation of the pressure ulcer, Signed by the nurse 7/18/23.
- 7/18/23, no documentation of the pressure ulcer, Signed by the nurse 7/23/23.
- 7/25/23, Weekly Skin Evaluation was not completed.
Review of additional Pressure Ulcer Evaluations for July 2023 indicated the following:
- 7/11/23, Pressure Ulcer Evaluation was not completed.
- 7/18/23, indicated Resident #30 had a resolved pressure area. Wound description included:
a. Date first observed: 7/18/23
b. Type of Evaluation: Weekly Evaluation of Existing Skin Condition
c. Signed by nurse on 7/20/23
No additional Pressure Ulcer Evaluations were completed in July 2023.
Review of the Wound Consultant Progress Note, dated 7/20/23, indicated the Resident was not seen.
No further Wound Consultant visits were completed in July 2023.
Review of the Nurses' Notes from 6/27/23 - 7/30/23 failed to indicate the pressure ulcer had been assessed and monitored for changes.
Further review of a Nurse's Note, dated 7/31/23, indicated the Resident's skin was intact, the Resident did not have any ulcers, and wound care was provided in between buttock cheeks near the rectum. No further description or assessment of the wound or wound care provided was documented.
Further review of the TAR indicated Resident #30 did not have any orders for wound care. The Resident had an order for House Barrier Cream to buttocks twice daily for skin protection/redness.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., the Wound Nurse, who is also the Unit Manager and Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON), said Resident #30 was admitted with the wound and she was not made aware of it until weeks later. Additionally, she said there was no treatment ordered on admission and there should have been. She said the Barrier cream treatment ordered on 7/7/23 was not appropriate for a pressure ulcer as that is for prevention, and this wound should have had a dressing on it. She also said there was no care plan initiated on admission and that it was not done until she re-opened the Nursing admission Evaluation V16 on 8/11/23 to fix it (45 days after admission). She said on the Pressure Ulcer Evaluation, dated 7/4/23, the date first observed should have been the admission date and not 7/14/23 that was wrong and that she should not have written the treatment memo in the notes section of the Pressure Ulcer Evaluation because she was backdating the evaluation and that dressing recommendation was from the 8/10/23 Wound Doctor visit. Additionally, she said when she and the Wound Physician did rounds on 7/20/23 they did not see Resident #30 because the wound was not visible, probably because of poor lighting, but it had to have been there as it was a big, deep, open wound the next time. She said they must have missed it. She said the usual process is: On admission after the Nursing admission Evaluation V16 is done, an order is obtained for a treatment, the care plan is initiated directly from the Nursing admission Evaluation V16, the nurse then notifies me and the Director of Nurses, the Wound Doctor is added to the Resident profile so the Resident would be seen on weekly wound rounds and weekly Pressure Ulcer Evaluations should be done. She said in this case none of those things happened. She said she was not made aware of the wound until weeks later when it was much bigger and that is when the wound care physician was added to the profile and the Resident was added to weekly wound rounds. She said adding the Wound Doctor to the Resident profile is our fail safe because it triggers the Wound Doctor to see the Resident, but in this case that did not happen for several weeks. She said Resident #30 should have had weekly Pressure Ulcer Evaluations done from admission and he/she did not.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said a treatment should have been ordered on admission and it was not. She said her expectation is if there is no order from the hospital, the nurse calls the primary care physician to obtain an appropriate order. She said a care plan should have been initiated and it was not, and the wound doctor should have been added to the Resident's profile and added to weekly rounds and that did not happen either. Additionally, the DON said the order written on 7/7/23 for House Barrier Cream was not an appropriate order for a pressure injury, the area should have had a dressing on it for protection. The DON said usually she or the Wound Nurse will review the Nursing admission Evaluations V16 for completion and to ensure any wounds have orders, care plans, and are added to wounds rounds; however, in this case none of those things were done and Resident #30's wound got worse and much larger.
AUGUST 2023
Review of the Weekly Skin Evaluations for August 2023 indicated the following:
- 8/29/23, no documentation of the pressure ulcer.
Review of the Pressure Ulcer Evaluations for August 2023, indicated the following:
- 8/3/23, Pressure Ulcer Evaluation was not completed.
- 8/10/23, Resident #30 had a Stage 3 Pressure Ulcer, measuring 6.3 cm x 4.4 cm x 0 cm. Wound description includes:
a. Exudate/Drainage: Moderate Serous
b. Wound Bed: Eschar
c. Notes: Cleanse, apply calcium alginate and cover with border dressing daily.
- 8/18/23, Resident #30 had a Stage 3 Pressure Ulcer, measuring 6 cm x 3.6 cm x 0.1 cm. Wound description includes:
a. Exudate/Drainage: Moderate Serous
b. Wound Bed: Eschar
c. Notes: Etiology: Pressure Objective: Maintain Healing Phase Exudate: moderate serous, Necrotic tissue 20% Granulation 80% Primary Dressing: Wound Cleanser and Calcium Alginate secondary Dressing: Silicone Border Foam. Recs: Vitamin C 500 milligrams (mg) twice daily, Prevalon Boots.
d. Signed by nurse on 8/21/23
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 8/3/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Resident #30 had an Unstageable Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) to the sacrum.
- Wound Etiology: Pressure
- Duration: greater than 7 days
- Wound Size: 7.6 cm x 5.5 cm x not measurable cm (depth is immeasurable due to the presence of tissue overgrowth).
- Exudate: light serous
- Granulation tissue: 100%
- Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Silver Sulfadiazine (antibiotic cream used to treat and/or prevent infection) apply once daily; Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
- Recommendations: Off-Load wound (relieve pressure); Reposition per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Zinc Sulfate 20mg once daily for 14 days (vitamins to aid in wound healing); Pre-Albumin (blood test to determine if your body is getting enough protein which aids in wound healing.)
Review of the medical record including Medication Administration Record (MAR), TAR, and physician's orders failed to indicate the treatment order was obtained for the Silver Sulfadiazine and foam dressing to the sacrum or any other new order for wound care. Additionally, the medical record failed to indicate the additional recommendations to off-load the wound, Vitamin C and Zinc Sulfate, or the lab work were ordered.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 8/10/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound (appears as full thickness loss of skin, in which subcutaneous fat mat be visible in the ulcer and granulation tissue and epibole (rolled wound edges) are often present) to the sacrum.
- Wound Size: 6.3 cm x 4.4 cm x not measurable cm, (depth is immeasurable due to the presence of nonviable tissue and necrosis).
- Exudate: moderate serous
- Thick adherent devitalized necrotic tissue: 100%
- Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Antimicrobial wound cleanser, calcium alginate (promotes formation of granulation tissue, re-epithelialization (cell growth to help healing), and helps to minimize bacterial infections) apply once daily; Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
- Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Reposition per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Zinc Sulfate 20mg once daily for 14 days; Prevalon Boots (heel booties with a heel cut out used to float heels off the mattress and relieve pressure to prevent pressure ulcers).
- Surgical Excisional Debridement to remove necrotic tissue and establish the margins of visible tissue.
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR, and physician's orders indicated an order for Calcium alginate pad-apply to sacrum once daily (8/11/23). Further review of the medical record failed to indicate an order was obtained for the antimicrobial cleanser and foam dressing. Additionally, the recommendations repeated from 8/3/23, to off-load wound, Vitamin C, Zinc Sulfate, and Pre-Albumin lab test had not been ordered, nor had the recommendation from 8/10/23 for Prevalon Boots been addressed.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 8/18/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
- Wound Size: 6 cm x 3.6 cm x 0.1 cm
- Exudate: moderate serous
- Thick adherent devitalized necrotic tissue: 20%
- Granulation Tissue: 80%
- Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Antimicrobial wound cleanser, calcium alginate apply once daily; Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
- Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Zinc Sulfate 20mg once daily for 14 days; Prevalon Boots.
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR, and physician's orders indicated an order for Calcium alginate pad-apply to sacrum once daily (8/11/23). Further review of the medical record indicated the wound care order was changed on 8/22/23 with a start date of 8/23/23 as follows: Sacrum: Cleanse area with wound cleanser, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. This was 12 days after the recommendations were made on 8/10/23 and the antimicrobial cleanser was still not ordered as recommended. Additionally, the recommendations repeated from 8/3/23, to off-load wound, Vitamin C, Zinc Sulfate, and Pre-Albumin lab test had not been ordered, nor had the recommendation from 8/10/23 for Prevalon Boots been addressed.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 8/24/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
- Wound Size: 5.9 cm x 3.2 cm x 0.1 cm
- Exudate: moderate serous
- Thick adherent devitalized necrotic tissue: 30%
- Granulation Tissue: 70%
- Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) (cleanser that creates a moist environment and loosens contaminated exudate within the wound bed to allow natural healing to take place) Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
- Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots.
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR and physician's orders indicated the following:
- Sacrum: Cleanse area with Vashe, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. (8/24/23; Discontinued 8/25/23)
- Sacrum: Cleanse area with wound cleanser, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. (8/25/23)
- Bootie/Heel Protectors on as tolerated every shift. (8/25/23)
Further review of the medical record failed to indicate the correct solution was ordered for wound care and failed to indicate the recommendations to off-load wound, Vitamin C, and Pre-Albumin lab work were addressed.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 8/31/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
- Wound Size: 5.5 cm x 3.5 cm x 0.1 cm
- Exudate: moderate serous
- Thick adherent devitalized necrotic tissue: 20%
- Granulation Tissue: 80%
- Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe). Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
- Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots.
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR and physician orders indicated the following:
- Sacrum: Cleanse area with wound cleanser, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. (8/25/23)
- Bootie/Heel Protectors on as tolerated every shift. (8/25/23)
Further review of the medical record failed to indicate the correct solution was ordered for wound care and failed to indicate recommendations to off-load wound, Vitamin C, and Pre-Albumin lab work were addressed.
Review of the care plan titled Pressure Ulcer was initiated on 8/11/23, 45 days after admission. The care plan indicated but was not limited to the following:
- FOCUS: Pressure Ulcer: Ulceration or interference with structural integrity of layers of skin caused by prolonged pressure.
- GOAL: Show no signs of infection.
- INTERVENTIONS: Follow facility protocol/regime for treating breaks in skin integrity/pressure ulcers, Turn and reposition with skin care every two hours, and use two-person transfer and use turn sheet to avoid friction/shearing of resident skin. (8/11/23) Additional interventions include Air Mattress set at 150, Monitor for changes and update provider as warranted, Treatment as ordered, and Wound MD as needed (8/22/23).
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., the Wound Nurse/Unit Manager/ADON said the Pressure Ulcer Evaluation on 8/3/23 should have been done and it was not. Additionally, she said the recommendations from the Wound Doctor on 8/3/23 should have been addressed and they were not, and the Resident continued to have a progressing wound without an appropriate treatment. She said she does wound rounds and usually writes the orders, but these were missed. Additionally, she said the order written on 8/11/23 for Calcium Alginate should have had the recommended cleanser and the foam dressing as part of the order and it did not and the recommendation to off-load wound, Vitamin C and Zinc Sulfate, Pre-Albumin lab work and Prevalon Boots all should have been addressed and they were not. She also said the orders should be written with the specific cleanser recommended as Wound Cleanser, Antimicrobial Wound Cleanser and Vashe Wound Cleaner are all different cleansers. She also said she took over doing wound rounds because things like this were not getting done.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the DON said the Pressure Ulcer Evaluation should be done weekly and it was not. She also said the order on 8/11/23 should have had the appropriate cleanser and foam dressing as part of the order and she missed that, therefore the order was incorrect. The DON said the type of cleanser needs to be specific as Wound Cleanser, Antimicrobial Wound Cleanser, and Vashe are all different cleansers. Additionally, she said all the recommendations made by the wound doctor should have been addressed and they were not.
SEPTEMBER 2023
Review of the Pressure Ulcer Evaluations for September 2023 indicated the following:
- 9/1/23, Resident #30 had a Stage 3 Pressure Ulcer, measuring 5.5 cm x 3.5 cm x 0.1 cm. Wound description includes:
a. Exudate/Drainage: Moderate Serous
b. Wound Bed: Eschar
c. Notes: Etiology: Pressure Objective: Maintain Healing Phase Exudate: moderate serous, Necrotic tissue 20% Granulation 80% Primary Dressing: Vashe and Calcium Alginate Secondary Dressing: Silicone Border Foam. Recs: Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily, Prevalon Boots.
d. Signed by nurse on 9/4/23
- 9/8/23, Resident #30 had a Stage 3 Pressure Ulcer, measuring 7.5 cm x 3.3 cm x 0.1 cm. Wound description includes:
a. Exudate/Drainage: Moderate Serous
b. Wound Bed: Eschar
c. Notes: Etiology: Pressure Objective: Maintain Healing Phase Exudate: moderate serous, Necrotic tissue 20% Granulation 80% Primary Dressing: Vashe and Calcium Alginate Secondary Dressing: Silicone Border Foam. Recs: Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily, Prevalon Boots.
-9/14/23, Resident #30 had a Stage 3 Pressure Ulcer, measuring 7.5 cm x 3 cm x 0.1 cm. Wound description includes:
a. Exudate/Drainage: Moderate Serous
b. Wound Bed: Eschar
c. Notes: Etiology: Pressure Objective: Maintain Healing Phase Exudate: moderate serous, Necrotic tissue 60% Granulation 30% Skin 10%; Primary Dressing: Vashe and Calcium Alginate Secondary Dressing: Silicone Border Foam. Recs: Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily, Prevalon Boots.
-9/22/23, Resident #30 had a Stage 3 Pressure Ulcer, measuring 7 cm x 3 cm x 0.1 cm. Wound description includes:
a. Exudate/Drainage: Moderate Serous
b. Wound Bed: Eschar
c. Notes: Wound Progress: Improved evidence by decreased surface area Surface Area 21.00cm2 Etiology: Pressure Objective: Maintain Healing Phase Exudate: moderate serous, Necrotic tissue 20% Granulation 20% Skin 60%; Primary Dressing: Vashe and Calcium Alginate Secondary Dressing: Silicone Border Foam. Recs: Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily, Prevalon Boots.
-9/28/23, Resident #30 had a Stage 3 Pressure Ulcer, measuring 7 cm x 3 cm x 0.3 cm. Wound description includes:
a. Exudate/Drainage: Moderate Serous
b. Wound Bed: Eschar
c. Notes: Wound Progress: Exacerbated. Increase in depth Surface Area 21.00cm2 Etiology: Pressure Objective: Maintain Healing Phase Exudate: moderate serous, Necrotic tissue 25% Granulation 25% Skin 50%; Primary Dressing: Vashe and Calcium Alginate Secondary Dressing: Silicone Border Foam. Recs: Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily, Prevalon Boots.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 9/7/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
- Wound Size: 7.5 cm x 3.3 cm x 0.1 cm
- Exudate: moderate serous
- Thick adherent devitalized necrotic tissue: 20%
- Granulation Tissue: 80%
- Wound Progress: Exacerbated due to generalized decline of patient, nutritional compromise, patient non-compliant with wound care.
- Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
- Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots.
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR, physician's orders, and care plan failed to indicate off-load wound or Prevalon Boots had been addressed.
Further review of the medical record including MAR, TAR and physician's orders indicated the following:
- Sacrum: Cleanse area with wound cleanser, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. (8/25/23; Discontinued 9/4/23)
- Sacrum: Cleanse area with Vashe, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing daily. (9/4/23).
- Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) 500 mg twice daily (9/5/23)
- Pre-Albumin blood test was drawn on 9/11/23, results were critically low.
The Vashe cleanser was ordered 11 days after it was recommended.
The Vitamin C was ordered 33 days after it was recommended.
The Pre-Albumin blood test was drawn 39 days after it was recommended.
Review of the Nurse's Note, dated 9/11/23, indicated the Nurse Practitioner was notified of the Pre-Albumin lab results and new orders were obtained for a Liquid Protein supplement, Ensure Plus supplement drink three times daily, High Protein/Low Salt Diet. (Protein aids in wound healing). (39 days after the lab work was recommended.)
Further review of the medical record including TAR, nurse's notes, physician's progress notes, and care plan failed to indicate Resident #30 was non-compliant with wound care as noted in Wound Summary dated 9/7/23.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 9/14/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
- Wound Size: 7.5 cm x 3 cm x 0.1 cm
- Exudate: moderate serous
- Thick adherent devitalized necrotic tissue: 60%
- Granulation Tissue: 30%
- Skin: 10%
- Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
- Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR, and physician's orders indicated the following:
- Bootie/Heel Protectors on as tolerated every shift. (8/25/23; Discontinued 9/13/23)
- Prevalon Boots in place at all times (9/13/23)
Review of the care plan indicated the following:
- Off-load wound was added to the care plan (9/15/23)
The Bootie/Heel Protectors were ordered 15 days after the Prevalon Boots were recommended.
The Prevalon Boots were ordered 34 days after they were recommended.
Off-load wound was added to the care plan 43 days after it was recommended.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 9/21/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
- Wound Size: 7 cm x 3 cm x 0.1 cm
- Cluster Wound: open ulceration area of 8.4cm2
- Periwound radius: Surrounding DTI (purple/maroon)
- Exudate: moderate serous
- Thick adherent devitalized necrotic tissue: 20%
- Granulation Tissue: 20%
- Skin: 60%
- Dressing Treatment Plan: Primary Dressing: Calcium alginate apply once daily; Hypochlorous acid solution (Vashe) Secondary Dressing: Silicone Bordered Foam apply once daily.
- Recommendations: Off-Load wound; Repositions per facility protocol; Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily; Prevalon Boots.
Review of the Wound Consultant Physician's Evaluation and Management Summary, dated 9/28/23, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Resident #30 had Stage 3 Pressure wound to the sacrum.
- Wound Size: 7 cm x 3 cm x 0.3
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented the facility abuse policy for one Resident (#77), out of a total sample of 14 residents. Specifica...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented the facility abuse policy for one Resident (#77), out of a total sample of 14 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to follow their policy and ensure Resident #77's allegation of abuse was thoroughly investigated and protective measures were implemented.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse: Identification and Reporting, dated as last revised 12/2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-All alleged violations are thoroughly investigated and must prevent further potential abuse while the investigation is in process.
-The Executive Director (ED) or his/her designee will immediately take action to ensure resident safety.
Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse: Investigation, dated as last revised 12/2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-The facility will investigate all alleged/potential incidents of resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment, injuries of unknown etiology, and misappropriation of property.
-The facility ED will coordinate and/or delegate the gathering of information and implementation of actions for purposes of investigation.
-The nursing supervisor will take appropriate steps to protect the resident, if applicable, from further mistreatment, and to ensure that appropriate care is provided.
-The nursing supervisor will complete the Unusual Event Report.
-The nursing supervisor will complete the Abuse Prohibition Investigation Report.
-Interviews of appropriate individuals. Any individual(s) who may have knowledge of the event should be interviewed. This includes the alleged victim, employees working during the shift when the event was discovered/reported, as well as the visitors and other residents who may have witnessed something.
-Medical record review (72-hour look back) to determine possible etiology and/or to identify pertinent information relevant to the event.
-The Director of Nursing Services (DNS)/ED will coordinate the remaining interviews and investigation process until all appropriate individuals have been interviewed, utilizing the staffing schedule for the previous 72-hours as a reference.
-The DNS/ED will coordinate at least three separate interviews with a resident who alleged abuse.
-The DNS/ED or designee will assemble the investigation file. The file will include:
a. Completed Unusual Event Report
b. Completed Abuse Prohibition Investigation Report including interview records and medical record review.
c. Any other investigation statements from nursing supervisor, DNS, Social Worker, ED, or other individuals.
d. Staffing assignments for past 72hours.
e. Copy of the nurses and social service notes pertaining to the incident.
f. Copy of the resident's care plan.
g. Copy of the disciplinary action taken, if applicable
h. Copy of a monitoring program, if appropriate
i. Copy of the police report, if applicable
j. Copy of the report sent to the state, if applicable
k. Copy of any other pertinent reports
l. Summary of Investigation (see below)
-The Summary of Investigation will include the following:
a. Did the investigation begin promptly after the report of the problem?
b. Was relevant documentation obtained, appropriate individuals interviewed, evidence preserved?
c. What steps were taken to protect the alleged victim from possible further abuse? Appropriate action here might be for two people to provide care.
d. What steps were taken as a result of the investigation?
e. Were the resident and resident's family updated on the outcome of the investigation?
f. Has abuse/neglect been ruled out? Is there supporting documentation?
Resident #77 was admitted to the facility in August 2023 with diagnoses which included neoplasm of the brain and lung, heart disease, and history of falls.
Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/13/23, indicated Resident #77 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of 15.
Review of the January 2024 current Physician's Orders for Resident #77 indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Perform Neuro checks, document if pupils are equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation (PERRLA) present, notify MD of any abnormal results every shift. (1/13/24)
Review of the Progress Note, dated 1/12/24 at 12:15 P.M. for Resident #77, indicated the Administrator met with the Resident to follow up from grievance and the Administrator would address appropriately.
Review of the Grievance, dated 1/10/24, indicated the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) were rough while providing care and banged his/her head on the wall three days ago, either Sunday or Monday around 10:00 P.M.
Further review of the medical record indicated Resident #77 was seen by the Behavioral Health Group on 1/12/24 at 8:41 A.M. Review of the visit note indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Asked to assess in regard to accusatory type remarks and evident emotional distress.
-Orientation: partially oriented to time; partially oriented to place; responsive to reorienting.
-Assessment: Resident made vague comments about a staff person bumping his/her head during care yet could offer no details.
-Resident exhibits heightened feelings of anxiety and vulnerability, and depression.
-Treatment plan to Alleviate emotional suffering and the interact with less fear or suspicion.
Review of the facility's investigation, provided by the Administrator on 1/17/24, included a copy of the initial grievance, progress notes from 1/1/24-1/17/24, a copy of the Behavioral Health Group visit note dated 1/12/24, Alleged Abuse Report dated 1/12/24, Administrator interview with Resident dated 1/12/24, and a copy of the report submitted into the state agency database dated 1/12/24. No additional documents, notes, statements, or interviews were provided.
Review of the investigation provided indicated Resident #77 alleged when staff were boosting him/her in bed after providing care the staff were hitting his/her head on the headboard and he/she felt it was on purpose.
Review of the interview statement from the Administrator indicated Resident #77 reported the alleged abuse occurred three times, it happens when it's a ghost town in here, and he/she had four concussions. Specific details of dates and times were not in the statement.
During an interview on 1/18/24 at 12:55 P.M., the Administrator said during his interview with Resident #77 no specific date and time was provided. He said the Resident told him it was on the evening shift but did not elaborate. Additionally, he said although the initial grievance had a specific time frame (Sunday/Monday around 10:00 P.M.), the Behavioral Health Group Note did not have any details, and his follow up conversation references a couple weeks ago and evening shift, he did not interview all or even most of the staff on the unit and should have.
During an interview on 1/17/24 at 5:00 P.M., the Administrator said there was not any additional information to support the investigation.
Review of the investigation failed to indicate any staff interviews or statements had been obtained as part of the investigation between 1/12/24 and 1/17/24.
The surveyor requested any additional documents and the final/completed investigation on 1/18/24 three times between 8:30 A.M. and 11:00 A.M. The Administrator said he was typing up an interview for the folder and still had to talk to a nurse, then the corporate nurse had to review it before he could give the file to the Surveyor.
Review of the completed investigation included three staff interviews with the administrator, two dated 1/17/24 (7 days after the initial grievance and 5 days after the investigation was initiated by the administrator) and one dated 1/18/24. The interviews included but were not limited to the following:
-1/17/24, CNA #1 said she rarely has him/her and may have boosted him/her a few times but did not remember any specific details from that and was unaware if he/she had ever hit his/her head during a boost or transfer.
-1/17/24, CNA #2 said she was new and did not know him/her well. Additionally, she said he/she is easy to boost and was not aware of any issues.
-1/18/24, Nurse #4 said he/she is easy to boost and is not aware of any incidents while boosting.
The Surveyor requested staff schedules for the week prior from report date for review. Review of the staff schedules from 1/7/24 through 1/12/24 indicated but were not limited to the following:
-CNA #1 worked four shifts out of 30 opportunities on the A/B unit.
-CNA #2 worked two shifts out of 30 opportunities on the A/B unit.
-Nurse #4 worked two shifts out of 18 opportunities on the A/B unit.
The schedules provided did not specify if the staff member was assigned to Resident #77.
During an interview on 1/18/24 at 12:55 P.M., the Administrator said this was the completed investigation. The Administrator said he started the investigation by speaking with the Resident and because he/she could not give a specific time or date when the alleged incident took place, he just picked a couple random staff that worked on that unit. He said he spoke to two CNAs and one nurse and typed up interviews. He did not get any other statements and did not know if the staff he spoke with took care of Resident #77 recently or not, so it was not a thorough investigation. He said he should have looked at the staff schedules and gotten more statements from staff on the unit that took care of him/her. He said they did neuro checks because he/she said he/she had a concussion but did not implement any intervention to prevent further potential abuse while investigating. He said because there was not a specific person identified to suspend, he was unsure what else they could have done to protect him/her.
During the interview, the surveyor referred to the Abuse policy, which indicated the ED or designee will immediately take action to ensure resident safety. Additionally, the policy had suggested actions including but not limited to separate accused/suspected employee or resident, assign two persons to care for resident at all times, or provide 1:1 assignment.
During an interview on 1/18/24 at 12:55 P.M., the Administrator said he didn't think of those suggestions the policy referenced, but he should have made him/her two staff with all care while he investigated the alleged abuse. He said he did not follow the policy for investigating the allegations of abuse as he did not review schedules and did not implement any intervention to protect the resident. Additionally, the Administrator said he did not know what the Unusual Event Report or Abuse Prohibition Report were, they did not do them, and they were probably old forms because the policy is older. When asked if he would consider one nurse and two CNAs a thorough investigation per the policy, he said no. Additionally, he said he never looked back at the medical record, but he should have. No staffing schedules or assignments were part of the completed investigation, and they should have been.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#77), out of a total sample of 14 residents, an allegation of abuse was thoroughly investigated an...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#77), out of a total sample of 14 residents, an allegation of abuse was thoroughly investigated and protective measures were implemented.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse: Investigation, dated as last revised 12/2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
-The facility will investigate all alleged/potential incidents of resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment, injuries of unknown etiology, and misappropriation of property.
-The nursing supervisor will take appropriate steps to protect the resident, if applicable, from further mistreatment, and to ensure that appropriate care is provided.
-Interviews of appropriate individuals. Any individual(s) who may have knowledge of the event should be interviewed. This includes the alleged victim, employees working during the shift when the event was discovered/reported, as well as the visitors and other residents who may have witnessed something.
-Medical record review (72-hour look back) to determine possible etiology and/or to identify pertinent information relevant to the event.
-The DNS/ED or designee will assemble the investigation file. The file will include:
a. Completed Unusual Event Report
b. Completed Abuse Prohibition Investigation Report including interview records and medical record review.
c. Any other investigation statements from nursing supervisor, DNS, Social Worker, ED, or other individuals.
d. Staffing assignments for past 72-hours.
e. Copy of the nurses' and social service notes pertaining to the incident.
f. Copy of the resident's care plan.
g. Copy of the disciplinary action taken, if applicable
h. Copy of a monitoring program, if appropriate
i. Copy of the police report, if applicable
j. Copy of the report sent to the state, if applicable
k. Copy of any other pertinent reports
l. Summary of Investigation (see below)
-The Summary of Investigation will include the following:
a. Did the investigation begin promptly after the report of the problem?
b. Was relevant documentation obtained, appropriate individuals interviewed, evidence preserved?
c. What steps were taken to protect the alleged victim from possible further abuse? Appropriate action here might be for two people to provide care.
d. What steps were taken as a result of the investigation?
e. Were the resident and resident's family updated on the outcome of the investigation?
f. Has abuse/neglect been ruled out? Is there supporting documentation?
Resident #77 was admitted to the facility in August 2023 with diagnoses which included neoplasm of the brain and lung, heart disease, and history of falls.
Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/13/23, indicated Resident #77 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of 15.
Review of the January 2024 current Physician's Orders for Resident #77 indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Perform Neuro checks, document if pupils are equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation (PERRLA) present, notify MD of any abnormal results every shift. (1/13/24)
Review of the Progress note, dated 1/12/24 at 12:15 P.M. for Resident #77, indicated the Administrator met with the Resident to follow up from a grievance and the Administrator would address appropriately.
Review of the Grievance, dated 1/10/24, indicated the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) were rough while providing care and banged his/her head on the wall three days ago, either Sunday or Monday around 10:00 P.M.
Further review of the medical record indicated Resident #77 was seen by the Behavioral Health Group on 1/12/24 at 8:41 A.M. Review of the visit note indicated but was not limited to the following:
-Asked to assess in regard to accusatory type remarks and evident emotional distress.
-Orientation: partially oriented to time; partially oriented to place; responsive to reorienting.
-Assessment: Resident made vague comments about a staff person bumping his/her head during care yet could offer no details
-Resident exhibits heightened feelings of anxiety and vulnerability, and depression.
-Treatment plan to Alleviate emotional suffering and then interact with less fear or suspicion.
Review of the facility's investigation provided by the Administrator on 1/17/24 included a copy of the initial grievance, progress notes from 1/1/24-1/17/24, a copy of the Behavioral Health Group visit note dated 1/12/24, Alleged Abuse Report dated 1/12/24, Administrator interview with Resident dated 1/12/24, and copy of the report submitted into state agency database dated 1/12/24. No additional documents, notes, statements, or interviews were provided.
Review of the investigation provided indicated Resident #77 alleged when staff were boosting him/her in bed after providing care the staff were hitting his/her head on the headboard and he/she felt it was on purpose.
Review of the interview statement from the Administrator indicated Resident #77 reported the alleged abuse occurred three times, it happens when it's a ghost town in here, and he/she had four concussions. Specific details of dates and times were not in the statement.
During an interview on 1/18/24 at 12:55 P.M., the Administrator said during his interview with Resident #77 no specific date and time was provided. He said the Resident told him it was on the evening shift but did not elaborate. Additionally, he said although the initial grievance had a specific time frame (Sunday/Monday around 10P.M.), the Behavioral Health Group Note did not have any details, and his follow up conversation references a couple weeks ago and evening shift. He did not interview all or even most of the staff on the unit and should have.
During an interview on 1/17/24 at 5:00 P.M., the Administrator said there was not any additional information to support the investigation.
Review of the investigation failed to indicate any staff interviews or statements had been obtained as part of the investigation between 1/12/24 and 1/17/24.
The surveyor requested any additional documents and the final/completed investigation on 1/18/24 three times between 8:30 A.M. and 11:00 A.M. The Administrator said he was typing up an interview for the folder and still had to talk to a nurse, then the corporate nurse had to review it before he could give the file to the Surveyor.
Review of the completed investigation included three staff interviews with the Administrator, two dated 1/17/24 (7 days after the initial grievance and 5 days after the investigation was initiated by the Administrator) and one dated 1/18/24. The interviews were not included in the documents provided to the surveyor on 1/17/24. The interviews indicated but were not limited to the following:
-1/17/24, CNA #1 said she rarely has him/her and may have boosted him/her a few times but did not remember any specific details from that and was unaware if he/she had ever hit his/her head during a boost or transfer.
-1/17/24, CNA #2 said she was new and did not know him/her well. Additionally, she said he/she is easy to boost and was not aware of any issues.
-1/18/24, Nurse #4 said he/she is easy to boost and is not aware of any incidents while boosting.
The Surveyor requested staff schedules for the week prior from the report date for review. Review of the staff schedules from 1/7/24 through 1/12/24 indicated but were not limited to the following:
-CNA #1 worked four shifts out of 30 opportunities on the A/B unit.
-CNA #2 worked two shifts out of 30 opportunities on the A/B unit.
-Nurse #4 worked two shifts out of 18 opportunities on the A/B unit.
The schedules provided did not specify if the staff member was assigned to Resident #77.
During an interview on 1/18/24 at 12:55 P.M., the Administrator said this was the completed investigation. The Administrator said he started the investigation by speaking with the Resident and because he/she could not give a specific time or date when the alleged incident took place, he just picked a couple random staff that work on that unit but did not speak to them until five days after the allegation was reported. He said he spoke to two CNAs and one nurse and typed up interviews. He did not get any other statements and did not know if the staff he spoke with took care of Resident #77 recently or not, so it was not a thorough investigation. He said he should have looked at the staff schedules and got more statements from staff on the unit that took care of him/her. He said they did neuro checks because he/she said he/she had a concussion but did not implement any intervention to prevent further potential abuse while investigating. He said because there was not a specific person identified to suspend, he was unsure what else they could have done to protect him/her.
During the interview the surveyor referred to the Abuse policy, which indicated the ED or designee will immediately take action to ensure resident safety. Additionally, the policy had suggested actions including but not limited to separate accused /suspected employee or resident, assign two persons to care for resident at all times, or provide 1:1 assignment.
During an interview on 1/18/24 at 12:55 P.M., the Administrator said he didn't think of those suggestions the policy referenced, but he should have made him/her two staff with all care while he investigated the alleged abuse. He said he did not follow the policy for investigating the allegations of abuse as he did not review schedules and did not implement any intervention to protect the Resident. Additionally, the Administrator said he did not know what the Unusual Event Report or Abuse Prohibition Report were, they did not do them, and they were probably old forms because the policy is older. When asked if he would consider one nurse and two CNAs a thorough investigation per the policy, he said no. Additionally, he said he never looked back at the medical record, but he should have. No staffing schedules or assignments were part of the completed investigation, and they should have been.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to assess Resident #20 prior to staff moving the Resident after an unwitnessed fall. The total resident sample was 20.
Findings...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to assess Resident #20 prior to staff moving the Resident after an unwitnessed fall. The total resident sample was 20.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Assessing Falls and Their Causes, dated as revised in January 2018, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- If a resident has just fallen, or is found on the floor without a witnessed event, nursing staff will record vital signs and evaluate for possible injuries
- Once assessment rules out significant injury, nursing staff will help the resident to a comfortable position and document all relevant details
Resident #20 was admitted to the facility in May 2019 with diagnoses including: altered mental status, dementia, benign paroxysmal vertigo (a condition causing a sudden feeling of spinning and dizziness), bipolar disorder, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The most recent Brief Interview for Mental Status indicated the Resident was severely cognitively impaired.
On 11/30/23 at 7:28 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #20 sitting on his/her buttocks on the floor in between the two beds in his/her room, disrobed with bare feet and a sheet wrapped around their legs and waist. The sequence of events was as follows:
- At 7:29 A.M., the surveyor alerted Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #2 that Resident #20 was on the floor and CNA #2 gestured to CNA #3 for assistance.
- At 7:31 A.M., CNA #3 exited the room and the surveyor observed Resident #20 back in his/her bed. CNA #3 said the Resident was a fall risk and falls all the time but he and the other CNA placed him/her back to bed. He said the nurse did not assess the Resident first and he was going to notify her of the incident at that time.
- At 7:32 A.M., CNA #2 was in the room with the Resident and said he and CNA #3 placed the Resident back to bed prior to notifying the nurse and having the nurse assess the Resident. He said since the Resident was found on the floor he doesn't know whether or not the Resident fell, but the staff should not move a resident prior to the nurse assessing them when they are found on the floor and said he would notify the nurse of the situation.
- At 7:38 A.M., Nurse #6 entered the Resident's room and assessed the Resident. She said anytime a resident is found on the floor it was considered a fall and the staff should not have moved this Resident prior to the Resident being assessed for injury by a nurse. She said the Resident is a fall risk and has behaviors and thinks the Resident may put themselves on the floor, but has no evidence of that and has not ever observed that.
Review of the facility's Fall Incident Report for Resident #20's fall on 11/30/23 indicated but was not limited to the following:
- At about 7:35 A.M., the nurse was alerted that the Resident was seen on the floor and assisted back to bed without the staff notifying the nurse in charge
- No injuries observed at the time of the incident
- No complaints offered, alert and oriented to person and place
- No predisposing factors were identified throughout the report
Review of the three facility provided witness statements from the fall indicated but were not limited to the following:
- CNA #2: on 11/30/23 a department of public health (DPH) surveyor was in the hall and found Resident #20 sitting on the floor in his/her room, I asked CNA #3 for help and we put Resident #20 back to bed
- CNA #3: on 11/30/23 the Resident fell on the floor and CNA #2 asked me to help put him/her back to bed, I did not witness the fall.
- Nurse #6: at about 7:35 A.M., I was notified the Resident fell and the staff assisted him/her back to bed; I completed an assessment after that and continued to monitor.
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 8:14 A.M., the Director of Nurses reviewed the fall incident report for Resident #20 from 11/30/23. She said the Resident is a high risk for falls and falls frequently. She said she was made aware the CNAs moved the Resident prior to the Resident being assessed by the nurse and the process for managing falls was not followed.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to implement fall interventions indicated in the fall care plan for one Resident (#20), resulting in a fall, out of a total samp...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to implement fall interventions indicated in the fall care plan for one Resident (#20), resulting in a fall, out of a total sample of 20 residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Assessing Falls and Their Causes, dated as revised in January 2018, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- When a resident falls the information in the record should include: assessment data, condition the resident was found in, interventions administered and appropriate interventions to prevent future falls.
Resident #20 was admitted to the facility in May 2019 with diagnoses including: altered mental status, dementia, benign paroxysmal vertigo (a condition causing a sudden feeling of spinning and dizziness), bipolar disorder, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The most recent Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicated the Resident was severely cognitively impaired.
Review of the fall care plan for Resident #20 indicated but was not limited to the following:
Focus:
The Resident is at high risk for falls and has had actual falls related to dementia, cognitive impairment, psychotropic and pain medications (revised: 2/6/22)
Interventions:
- Slipper socks when in bed (11/1/23)
- Frequent checks for safety (7/1/22)
- Floor mats at bedside to minimize impact injury (10/23/23)
- Non-skid strips on floor by the bed (7/30/19)
- Anticipate Resident's needs (12/9/22)
- Encourage to attend activities (3/27/23)
On 11/30/23 at 7:28 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #20 sitting on his/her buttocks on the floor in between the two beds in his/her room, disrobed with bare feet and a sheet wrapped around their legs and waist. The sequence of events was as follows:
- At 7:29 A.M., the surveyor alerted Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #2 that Resident #20 was on the floor and CNA #2 gestured to CNA #3 for assistance.
- At 7:31 A.M., CNA #3 exited the room and the surveyor observed Resident #20 back in his/her bed. CNA #3 said the Resident was a fall risk and falls all the time but he and the other CNA placed him/her back to bed. He said the nurse did not assess the Resident and he was going to notify her of the incident at that time.
- At 7:32 A.M., CNA #2 was in the room with the Resident and said he and CNA #3 placed the Resident back to bed. He said since the Resident was found on the floor he doesn't know whether or not the Resident fell, but he would notify the nurse of the situation.
- At 7:38 A.M., Nurse #6 entered the Resident's room and assessed the Resident. She said anytime a resident is found on the floor it is considered a fall and the staff should not have moved this Resident prior to the Resident being assessed for injury by a nurse. She said the Resident is a fall risk and has behaviors and thinks the Resident may put themselves on the floor, but has no evidence of that and has not ever observed that.
The surveyor continued to make the following observations of Resident #20 on 11/30/23:
- At 8:57 A.M., observed alone in his/her bedroom, sitting on the edge of the bed with the bed in low position and fall mat under his/her feet, there were no slipper socks on the Resident and their feet remained bare
- At 9:14 A.M., observed alone in his/her bedroom, sitting on the edge of the bed leaning forward attempting to open the bottom drawer of the bedside table with the bed in low position, there were no slipper socks on the Resident and their feet remained bare
- At 11:23 A.M., observed Resident alone in his/her room with nothing on his/her feet (bare feet) and his/her legs over the edge of the bed touching the fall mat beside the bed with the bed in low position
- At 1:33 P.M., observed Resident lying in bed on his/her right side (feet covered; unable to assess if slipper socks in use)
- At 3:13 P.M., observed in bed with eyes closed (feet covered; unable to assess if slipper socks in use)
- At 5:02 P.M., observed sitting on the edge of his/her bed alone in the room with slippers (not slipper socks) on his/her feet.
Review of the facility's Fall Incident Report for Resident #20's 11/30/23 fall indicated but was not limited to the following:
- At about 7:35 A.M., the nurse was alerted that the Resident was seen on the floor and assisted back to bed without the staff notifying the nurse in charge
- No injuries observed at the time of the incident
- No complaints offered, alert and oriented to person and place
- No predisposing factors were identified throughout the report
Review of the three facility provided witness statements from the fall indicated but were not limited to the following:
- CNA #2: on 11/30/23 a department of public health (DPH) surveyor was in the hall and found Resident #20 sitting on the floor in his/her room, I asked CNA #3 for help and we put Resident #20 back to bed
- CNA #3: on 11/30/23 the Resident fell on the floor and CNA #2 asked me to help put him/her back to bed, I did not witness the fall.
- Nurse #6: at about 7:35 A.M., I was notified the Resident fell and the staff assisted him/her back to bed; I completed an assessment after that and continued to monitor.
Review of both the incident report and the witness statements failed to indicate the Resident's care plan was not implemented and the Resident was not wearing slipper socks in accordance with his/her plan of care.
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 8:14 A.M., the Director of Nurses reviewed the fall incident report for Resident #20 from 11/30/23. She said the Resident is a high risk for falls and falls frequently. She was made aware of the surveyor's observations of the incident and throughout the day and reviewed the Resident's care plan and said the care plan intervention for slipper socks while in bed was not implemented as it should have been. She further said the Resident did not have any documentation in the progress notes or in the care plans that indicated the Resident places themselves on the floor as a behavior. She said the process for managing a resident fall was not followed as it should have been in accordance with the facility policy.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain professional standards of care for Residents with indwelling urinary catheters for two Residents (#54 and #67), out ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain professional standards of care for Residents with indwelling urinary catheters for two Residents (#54 and #67), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed:
1. For Resident #54, to ensure the catheter drainage bag was maintained in a manner to prevent the potential of germs entering the urinary tract system and potential urinary complications; and
2. For Resident #67, to implement and follow physician's orders for catheter care.
Findings include:
According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), drainage bags should be kept below the level of the bladder and off the floor at all times to avoid the risk of infection (March 2017).
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:01 A.M., the Regional Nurse said the facility does not have a policy for management of an indwelling urinary device, catheter care, or placement of the urinary drainage bag.
1. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility in August 2022 with diagnoses including: benign prostate hyperplasia (enlargement of the prostate gland), urinary retention, and obstructive uropathy (a condition in which urine cannot drain through the urinary tract and backs up).
Review of the medical record indicated Resident #54 had moderate cognitive impairment as evidenced by the most recent Brief Interview for Mental Stats score of 12 out of 15. His/her healthcare proxy was not activated and he/she made their own medical decisions.
Review of the medical record for Resident #54 indicated the Resident was followed by outpatient urology and has had an indwelling urinary catheter for approximately three years for obstructive uropathy and urinary retention.
The surveyor made the following observations:
- 11/28/23 at 8:42 A.M., the catheter drainage bag was lying on the floor on the left side of the bed, attached to the Resident.
- 11/28/23 at 4:02 P.M., the catheter drainage bag was lying on the floor in the Resident's room underneath the overbed table, attached to the Resident.
- 11/29/23 at 7:06 A.M., the catheter drainage bag was on the floor to the left side of the Resident's bed attached to the Resident.
- 11/29/23 at 3:52 P.M., the catheter drainage bag was resting on the floor under the Resident's bed, attached to the Resident.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 3:52 P.M., the Resident said his/her catheter drainage bag is always on the floor unless he or she is ambulating with his/her walker or not in his/her bedroom. Resident #54 said they were not aware the catheter drainage bag needed to be kept off the floor since the staff put it on the floor after emptying it at the end of each shift. He/she said the staff put the drainage bag on the floor and leave it there when they see it on the floor so he/she had no knowledge that it should not be left that way.
During an interview with observation on 11/29/23 at 3:59 P.M., Nurse #2 entered Resident #54's room with the surveyor and observed the urinary drainage bag on the floor. She said the drainage bag should not be on the floor as it was an infection control issue and could result in an increased risk of infection to the Resident. She said there are times she believes the Resident places the bag on the floor and it is a behavior. She reviewed the record for Resident #54 and said there is no documentation that indicated the Resident has a behavior of placing the catheter drainage bag on the floor, that it has been identified on the floor in the past, or the Resident has been educated on the drainage bag not being on the floor in any notes or care plans. She said the drainage bag should not be on the floor and staff should be correcting the issue when they identify it.
Review of the Resident's current care plans indicated, but were not limited to the following:
FOCUS: (revised: 11/1/23)
- Resident has a chronic indwelling urinary catheter
GOAL: (revised: 9/1/23)
- Resident will not develop any complications associated with catheter usage through the next review
INTERVENTIONS: (all initiated: 8/19/22)
- Change drainage bag and catheter per policy
- Keep catheter tubing free of kinks
- Keep drainage bag below level of the bladder
- Monitor and report any signs of urinary tract infection to the physician
- Provide catheter care per the policy
- Secure the catheter
Further review of all of the current care plans for Resident #54 failed to indicate a behavior or habit of the Resident placing his/her catheter drainage bag on the floor intentionally.
Review of the progress notes for Resident #54 from 8/1/23 to 11/30/23 failed to indicate a previous known behavior or habit of Resident #54 placing his/her catheter drainage bag on the floor intentionally or any education to the Resident to prevent events such as this.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:58 A.M., the Director of Nursing said the expectation is for urinary drainage bags to be secured off the floor to decrease the potential risk of infection and for Resident #54 this expectation had not been met. She reviewed the record and said there was no evidence or documentation in place prior to the surveyor's inquiry that indicated the Resident was educated regarding the drainage bag placement, was care planned as having a behavior of placing the drainage bag on the floor, or that any interventions have been attempted to keep the drainage bag off the floor. She said keeping a drainage bag off the floor is a standard of practice to prevent germs from potentially entering the system and that standard was not followed in this instance.
2. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility in November 2023 with a catheter associated urinary tract infection, a history of bladder cancer and a chronic Foley catheter.
On 11/28/23 at 9:20 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #67 lying in bed with a catheter bag hanging from the side of the bed.
During an interview on 11/28/23 at 1:10 P.M., Resident #67 said he/she has had the catheter for many years and was recently sent to the hospital from the facility when the catheter became clogged.
Review of the care plans for Resident #67 indicated the Resident had an indwelling urinary catheter, the size was blank and the balloon size was blank. The care plan indicated the goal was for the Resident to not develop any complications associated with catheter usage with interventions of changing the catheter per policy/physician order, changing the drainage bag per policy, and provide catheter care per policy.
Review of the Physician's Orders, Medication Administration Records, and Treatment Administration Records on 11/29/23 (26 days after admission) failed to indicate the physician had written any orders for the Foley catheter including catheter changes, catheter care, catheter bag changes or catheter flushes.
Review of the Nursing Progress Notes indicated the catheter bag was changed on 11/13/23 and the catheter was flushed on 11/20/23.
Review of the Nursing Progress Notes on 11/22/23 indicated the catheter was not draining and the Resident requested a physician change the catheter and the Resident was sent to the hospital.
Review of the emergency room Summary indicated Resident #67's catheter had been clogged for the past couple of days and the catheter was changed.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 9:35 A.M., Nurse #1 said Resident #67 should have had physician's orders that included the catheter size, catheter care, irrigation as needed and an order to change the catheter bag. She said the catheter bag should be changed about once per week, depending on the order and she could not say how often the catheter bag had been changed for Resident #67 in the previous four weeks. She said she was unable to see when the Foley catheter was flushed (irrigated) or orders for the nurses to do this. Nurse #1 said the process for a resident admitted with a catheter was for the admitting nurse to identify the catheter and include batch (predetermined) orders for catheter care, catheter bag changes, and as needed flushes/irrigation.
During an interview on 11/20/23 at 9:52 A.M., the Regional Nurse said there was no facility policy to indicate the process for catheter orders upon admission, including frequency of catheter change, catheter care, or catheter bag changes, as indicated on the care plan.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services for one Resident (#74), out of a total sample of 20 resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services for one Resident (#74), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed weekly.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Oxygen Administration, revised 11/2017, indicated but was not limited to:
- The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration.
- Verify there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders of facility protocol for oxygen administration.
- Review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident.
Resident #74 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), acute respiratory failure, and multiple sclerosis.
Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 9/30/23, indicated the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 out of 15, indicating the Resident was cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS assessment indicated Resident #74 utilized Oxygen and had shortness of breath when lying flat.
Review of Resident #74's current Physician's Orders indicated but were not limited to:
- Change oxygen tubing every night shift every Sunday, start date: 6/28/23
- Obtain SPO2 every shift, administer O2 (Oxygen) at 2 liters via nasal cannula [small, flexible tube with two open prongs intended to sit just inside the nostrils to deliver Oxygen] as needed every shift, start date 9/10/23.
On 11/28/23 at 10:28 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #74 in bed receiving Oxygen via nasal cannula. Resident #74's oxygen concentrator was set to two liters of Oxygen per minute. The oxygen tubing was undated.
On 11/29/23 at 9:04 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #74 in bed receiving Oxygen via nasal cannula. Resident #74's oxygen concentrator was set to two liters of oxygen per minute. The oxygen tubing was undated.
On 11/29/23 at 2:01 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #74 in bed receiving Oxygen via nasal cannula. Resident #74's oxygen concentrator was set to two liters of oxygen per minute. The oxygen tubing was undated.
On 11/30/23 at 10:50 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #74 in bed receiving Oxygen via nasal cannula. Resident #74's oxygen concentrator was set to two liters of oxygen per minute. The oxygen tubing was dated 11/27/23.
On 12/4/23 at 10:03 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #74 in bed receiving Oxygen via nasal cannula. Resident #74's oxygen concentrator was set to two liters of oxygen per minute. The oxygen tubing was dated 11/27/23.
Review of Resident #74's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for November 2023 indicated his/her oxygen tubing was changed on 11/5/23, 11/12/23, and 11/26/23. Review of the TAR for 11/19/23 indicated the treatment was not completed.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:15 P.M., Resident #74 said he/she did not know when the last time the oxygen tubing was changed. Resident #74 said the oxygen tubing could have been changed a few days ago, but he/she was unsure.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:55 A.M., Nurse #3 said oxygen tubing is changed weekly. Nurse #3 said oxygen tubing is typically scheduled to be changed on the overnight shift every Sunday for residents receiving Oxygen. Nurse #3 said oxygen tubing was dated with a piece of tape and initialed on the day it is changed.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 11:17 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said oxygen tubing should be changed weekly. The DON said oxygen tubing and a bag attached to the concentrator should be dated when the oxygen tubing is changed. The DON said any resident with Oxygen orders are typically scheduled to have oxygen tubing changed on the overnight shift every Sunday. The surveyor requested a policy from the DON regarding expectations for oxygen tubing changes. The DON said she did not have a policy stating the frequency of oxygen tubing changes, but her expectation was staff followed physician's orders to change tubing weekly.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication, assessment and collaboration was maintained with the dialysis center for one Residents (#29), o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication, assessment and collaboration was maintained with the dialysis center for one Residents (#29), out of one Resident on dialysis in the facility.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Care of the Resident with End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), dated as revised November 2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Residents with ESRD will be cared for according to currently recognized standards of care.
Resident #29 was admitted to the facility in October 2023 with diagnoses including: ESRD and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15 indicating he/she was cognitively intact.
Review of the Dialysis Communication Book and forms in use by the facility for Resident #29 on 11/29/23 indicated but was not limited to the following:
- 11/7/23: communication form did not include the facility's assessment of the Resident before dialysis, lacking information on the last meal time, vital signs and any medications received within the last four hours.
- 11/14/23: communication from the dialysis center indicated the dialysis center required an updated medication list for the Resident.
- 11/16/23 to current (11/29/23): There were no dialysis communication forms available for review.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 10:40 A.M., Nurse #3 said the process for sending a dialysis resident to their scheduled treatments included the facility nurses completing the dialysis communication form with vital signs, last meal received, and any medications at a minimum. Nurse #3 reviewed Resident #29's dialysis communication book with the surveyor and said there was no communication sheet from 11/28/23 (the prior days dialysis treatment) nor any evidence in the medical record the facility and dialysis center had communicated a pre- and post-assessment of the Resident or had any communication at all. She said if the communication is missing, the process for collaborative treatment and communication with the dialysis treatment center isn't being followed.
Review of Resident #29's Progress Notes failed to indicate any communications between the facility and the dialysis center occurred from 11/16/23 through 11/29/23.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 9:03 A.M., Resident #29 said the facility frequently either loses his/her communication book or does not remember to send it with him/her to dialysis. The Resident said they were happy to be with it so they would know what was going on and have the information necessary if something were to happen, and the nurse at the dialysis center provides him/her with information. The Resident said they attend dialysis three times a week on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 9:36 A.M., Dialysis Nurse #1 said getting communication from the facility is hit or miss and happens only sporadically. She said the dialysis center sends the facility pertinent labs and changes and keeps their own record of pre- and post-assessments. She said she does not recall the facility ever contacting her for information when the dialysis communication sheets were missing or incomplete and the collaborative communication process needs improvement.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 9:46 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the dialysis communication sheets serve as a record of communication and pre- and post-dialysis assessment for the Resident to ensure ongoing collaborative communication. She reviewed the dialysis communication book and forms for Resident #29 as well as the Resident's record and said it lacked any evidence of communication between the dialysis center and facility since 11/16/23. She said the sheet on 11/7/23 was incomplete. She said the expectation is for communication to occur and be documented each time the Resident attends dialysis and that is clearly not being followed and the process needed work.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, policy review, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure monthly medication regimen reviews (MRR) were maintained as part of the permanent medical record and failed to ensu...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, policy review, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure monthly medication regimen reviews (MRR) were maintained as part of the permanent medical record and failed to ensure irregularities were addressed by physician, pharmacy, and facility for two Residents (#26 and #29), out of a total sample of 20 residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Regimen Review, dated 8/2020, indicted but was not limited to the following:
- The consultant pharmacist performs a comprehensive review of each resident's medication regime and clinical record at least monthly. The MRR includes evaluating the resident's response to medication therapy to determine that the resident maintains the highest practicable level of functioning and preventing or minimizing adverse consequences related to medication therapy.
- The findings are phoned, faxed, or e-mailed within 24 hours or in accordance with facility policy, to the Director of Nurses (DON) or designee and are documented and stored with the other consultant pharmacist recommendations in the resident's active record.
- The consultant pharmacist identifies irregularities through a variety of sources including the resident's clinical record, pharmacy records, and other applicable documents. The facility shall make available to the consultant pharmacist all appropriate records. In addition to the pharmacy and clinical records (such as medication administration records (MARs), prescriber's orders, progress notes of prescribers, nurses, and or consultants, the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), laboratory and diagnostic test results, and behavior monitoring information, the consultant pharmacist may need to interview the facility staff, the attending physician, and the resident.
- At least monthly the consultant pharmacist reports any irregularities to the attending physician, medical director, and director of nursing, at a minimum.
- Recommendations are acted upon and documented by the facility staff and/or the prescriber.
- The prescriber accepts and acts upon recommendations or rejects and provides an explanation.
1. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in April 2023 with diagnoses which included morbid obesity and hypothyroidism (thyroid gland does not produce enough thyroid hormones).
Review of the Physician's Orders indicated Resident #26 had an order for Levothyroxine 50 micrograms (mcg) one time daily (4/5/23).
Review of the Consultant Pharmacist MRR, dated 6/21/23, indicated the following:
- Resident is receiving the following medication that may benefit from laboratory monitoring. Levothyroxine-please consider TSH on the next convenient lab day and annually thereafter (TSH-Thyroid stimulating hormone: blood test to measure this hormone).
Review of the medical record failed to indicate the recommendation was reviewed with the Physician.
Review of the Consultant Pharmacist MRR, dated 10/24/23, indicated the following:
- Resident is receiving the following medication that may benefit from laboratory monitoring. Levothyroxine-please consider TSH on the next convenient lab day and annually thereafter.
Review of the medical record indicated the TSH lab test was ordered on 11/14/23 and completed on 11/15/23. (147 days after the initial recommendation was made).
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 1:30 P.M., Nurse Manager/Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said the recommendation from 6/21/23 was not addressed and it should have been. Additionally, she said it was not done until after the 10/24/23 recommendation was reviewed; the order was written on 11/14/23 and the lab was done on 11/15/23. She said the pharmacy recommendations should be done within a few days and these were not.
2. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility in July 2022, with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease (CKD) and dependence on renal dialysis.
Review of the medical record indicated Resident #29 was prescribed Tamsulosin 0.4 milligrams (also known as Flomax; a medication used to relax the muscles in the bladder neck, making it easier to urinate).
Review of the medical record indicated MRRs were completed monthly with recommendations (recs) on 9/27/23 which indicated see report. The report was not available in the active medical record for Resident #29 and was requested for review.
Review of the MRR detail report indicated the consultant pharmacist's recommendation to the prescriber was to please consider alternative therapy for incontinence for Resident #29. The consultant report had no signature or marks to identify the irregularity had been reviewed.
Review of the progress notes indicated on 10/5/23 the nurse on duty addressed the rec with the attending physician and a verbal order was received to discontinue to Tamsulosin.
Review of the provider (Physician and NP) notes for both October and November 2023 failed to indicate that the pharmacy recommendation for the Tamsulosin was addressed and indicated to review the nurses' notes and MAR for current orders.
Further record review failed to indicate that the facility discontinued the medication as verbally ordered by the physician in response to the recommendation. The Resident continued to have an active order for Tamsulosin and according to the medication administration records for October and November of 2023, was being administered Tamsulosin until 11/29/23, when the issue was identified by the surveyor. A progress note dated 11/29/23 indicated the physician was made aware that the medication was not discontinued as previously ordered in accordance with the pharmacy rec on 9/27/23 and to discontinue the medication as of this date (11/29/23).
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 9:48 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said that they keep the copies of all MRRs in an office, and they are not part of the medical record. The DON said the pharmacy recommendations were not completed appropriately and do not meet the expectation or requirements for the facility to follow up on a pharmacy rec. She said it appeared that the system needs to be reworked and improved upon to ensure the pharmacy recommendations are being followed and documented per the regulation and that the necessary documentation is in place. She said if the recommendation was addressed with the physician on 10/5/23, the order should have been discontinued, but she would expect the pharmacy consultant would have identified the error at the next review. She said the process failed in this instance.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 1:54 P.M., the Pharmacy Consultant said the facility doesn't have the MRR available for her to review during her monthly MRR, so it makes it more challenging to verify if the recommendations were completed or not and if a rationale was documented if they were declined. The Pharmacy Consultant said the recommendation for Resident #29 was not resubmitted to the physician because she did not notice that the order for the Tamsulosin had not been discontinued, as indicated in the 10/5/23 progress note during her review in November and that she missed it. She said if she had noticed that the recommendation wasn't completed, she would have made the recommendation again.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, policy review, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs without adequate monitoring for one Resident (#26), ou...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, policy review, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs without adequate monitoring for one Resident (#26), out of a total sample of 20 residents.
Findings include:
The Surveyor requested an Anticoagulation policy and was told by Consulting Staff #1 and the Director of Nurses (DON), the facility did not have an anticoagulation policy.
Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in April 2023 with diagnoses which included morbid obesity, atrial fibrillation, and cerebral aneurysm.
Review of the most recent MDS) assessment, dated 10/31/23, indicated Resident #26 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 out of 15.
Review of current Physician's Orders indicated the Resident was prescribed Eliquis (anticoagulant/blood thinner) 5 milligrams (mg) every 12 hours (4/4/23).
Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #26 received the medication as ordered.
Review of the medical record failed to indicate an order to monitor for side effects of the anticoagulant. (Unusual bleeding, excessive bleeding, excessive bruising, black/tarry stools, cloudy dark urine (hematuria)).
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:55 A.M., Nurse #5 said monitoring for side effects of anticoagulant medications should be on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and it is not.
During an Interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., Nurse Manager/Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said monitoring for side effects of anticoagulant medications should be on the MAR and it is not.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said monitoring for side effects of anticoagulant medications should be on the MAR; there is an order set populated for it. Additionally, she said she did not know why the order was not in place for Resident #26.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, policy review, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic drugs without adequate monitoring for two Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, policy review, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic drugs without adequate monitoring for two Residents (#11 and #26), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed:
1. For Resident #11, to monitor for side effects of an antipsychotic medication; and
2. For Resident #26, to monitor for behaviors related to the use of antianxiety and antidepressant medications and to ensure as needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic drugs are limited to 14 days except if the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes that it is appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, he/she should document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medication Use, dated as last revised 11/2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Nursing staff shall monitor for and report any of the following side effects and adverse consequences of antipsychotic medications to the Attending Physician.
a. General/anticholinergic: constipation, blurred vision, dry mouth, urinary retention, sedation;
b. Cardiovascular: orthostatic hypotension, arrhythmias;
c. Metabolic: increase in total cholesterol/triglycerides, unstable or poorly controlled blood sugar, weight gain; or
d. Neurologic: Akathisia, dystonia, extrapyramidal effects, akinesia; or tardive dyskinesia, stroke, or TIA.
Review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medication, dated as last revised 4/2018, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Monitoring for drug side effects leads to early identification and reporting in accordance with state/federal regulations.
- The Interdisciplinary Team assesses and monitors the appropriateness, effectiveness, and side effects associated with psychotropic medications.
- Record the approaches and interventions taken for behaviors in the care plan.
1. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses which included dementia, mood disturbance, anxiety, and schizophrenia.
Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/19/23, indicated Resident #11 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Staus (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 and took antipsychotic medication.
Review of the current Physician's Orders indicated the Resident was prescribed:
- Zyprexa 7.5 milligrams (mg) once daily (7/21/23) (antipsychotic medication).
Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #11 had received the Zyprexa as ordered.
Review of the medical record including MAR, Treatment Administration Record (TAR), physician's orders, and care plan failed to indicate an order to monitor for side effects of the antipsychotic medication.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:55 A.M., Nurse #5 said there should be an order to monitor for side effects of an antipsychotic medication on the MAR.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., the Nurse Manager/Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said all psychotropic medications should have side effect monitoring in place and Resident #11 does not.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said all antipsychotics should have an order to monitor for side effects of the medication.
2. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in April 2023 with diagnoses which included depression and anxiety.
Review of the most recent MDS assessment, dated 10/31/23, indicated Resident #26 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a BIMS score of 14 out of 15 and takes antianxiety and antidepressant medications.
Review of the current Physician's Orders indicated the Resident was prescribed:
- Nortriptyline 50 mg at bedtime related to depression. (4/4/23) (antidepressant)
- Wellbutrin XL Extended Release 300mg once daily for depression. (5/10/23) (antidepressant)
- Ativan 0.5 mg every six hours PRN for anxiety-Duration 45 days. (10/8/23) (antianxiety medication).
Review of the medical record including MAR, TAR, physician's orders, and care plan failed to indicate an order to monitor for behaviors related to the use of the antianxiety and antidepressant medications.
Review of the MAR indicated Resident #26 had received the Nortriptyline, Wellbutrin, and Ativan as ordered.
Review of the nurse progress note dated 10/8/23, indicated the following:
- Per MD may extend PRN Ativan x 45 days.
Further review of nurse progress notes failed to indicate the Resident was experiencing anxiety or behaviors.
Review of the Physician's Progress Notes for September 2023 through November 2023 failed to indicate Resident #26 had been experiencing anxiety or any behaviors. Further review of the progress notes indicated the Resident had not been seen by the Physician since 10/6/23 and no rationale for extended use of the Ativan had been documented.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:55 A.M., Nurse #5 said there should be an order to monitor behaviors related to the use of an antianxiety and antidepressant medications on the MAR.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., the ADON said all psychotropic medications should have behavior monitoring in place and Resident #26 does not. Additionally, she said PRN medications can be extended when the order is complete if the doctor wants to and write a note about it.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the DON said all psychotropic medications should have an order to monitor for behaviors on the MAR and extended use of PRN mediations needs to be documented in the medical record.
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** Based on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed a...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and/or implemented for three Residents (#4, #11, and #30), out of a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed:
1. For Resident #4,
a. to develop a comprehensive care plan related to a left-hand splint, and
b. to develop a comprehensive care plan related to a Foley catheter;
2. For Resident #11, to develop a comprehensive care plan related to antipsychotic and anticoagulant medications; and
3. For Resident #30, to develop a comprehensive care plan related to a pressure area.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised 11/2017, included but not was limited to:
- A comprehensive, patient centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident;
- The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident;
- The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will: (l) include measurable objectives and timeframes; (m) describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being; (r) incorporate identified problem areas; and
- Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the resident and the resident's conditions change.
1. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility in November 2002 with diagnoses including paraplegia, osteoarthritis, and urinary tract infections.
Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/5/23, indicated the Resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating the Resident was cognitively intact.
a. Review of Resident #4's current Physician's Orders indicated but were not limited to:
- Patient to wear left resting hand splint overnight with nursing to monitor for skin integrity/issues, start date: 6/13/23.
Review of Resident #4's Occupational Therapy (OT) Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated the Resident was discharged from skilled therapy services tolerating a left resting hand splint without signs/symptoms of discomfort or skin issues. The OT discharge summary indicated caregiver education was completed with staff regarding the splint.
Review of Resident #4's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) failed to indicate nursing staff was donning/doffing (putting on/taking off) the left-hand splint or documenting any changes noted in the Resident's skin.
Review of Resident #4's comprehensive care plans failed to indicate a care plan for the left-hand splint.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:31 P.M., Resident #4 said he/she used to wear a left hand splint each night. Resident #4 said he/she has not worn the left-hand splint in a very long time and that it is hanging in the bathroom. Resident #4 said the staff do not put the splint on him/her at night anymore and have not for a long time. Resident #4 said he/she would wear the left-hand splint if it was donned.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 9:12 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #4 said she did not recall Resident #4 wearing a splint on the left hand.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 9:25 A.M., Nurse #3 said Resident #4 may have a left-hand splint. The surveyor and Nurse #3 reviewed the Resident's active physician's orders and confirmed Resident #4 had an order for a left-hand splint.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:45 A.M., Nurse #3 said care plans were updated by supervisors or managers.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 11:23 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said Resident #4 should have a care plan related to the left-hand splint. The DON said the care plan should have been created in June 2023 when the physician's order was written and the Resident was discharged from OT services with the recommendation to wear the left-hand splint.
b. Review of Resident #4's current Physician's Orders indicated but were not limited to:
- Foley catheter 18fr/10mL continuous drainage bag; every shift, start date: 11/2/23;
- Foley Catheter Care, every shift, start date: 11/2/23;
- Change Foley catheter as needed for blockage/leakage, start date 11/2/23;
- May irrigate Foley with 20 cc of normal saline, as needed for blockage/leakage, start date 11/2/23; and
- Privacy bag for Foley catheter drainage bag, start date 11/2/23.
Review of Resident #4's comprehensive care plans failed to indicate a care plan for the Foley catheter.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:45 A.M., Nurse #3 said care plans were updated by supervisors or managers.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 11:23 A.M., the DON said her expectation would be for Resident #4 to have a care plan related to the Foley catheter. The DON said the care plan should indicate the care and management of the Foley catheter for Resident #4.
2. Review of the facility's policy titled Antipsychotic Medication Use, dated as last revised 11/2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- The Attending Physician and other staff will gather and document information to clarify a resident's behavior, mood, function, medical condition, specific symptoms, and risks to the resident and others.
- Behavior interventions have been attempted and included in the plan of care.
Review of the facility's policy titled Psychoactive Medications, dated as last revised 4/2018, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) assesses and monitors the appropriateness, effectiveness, and side effects associated with psychotropic medications for each resident via care plan review.
- Record the approaches and interventions taken for behavior problems in the care plan as indicated.
The Surveyor requested an Anticoagulation policy and was told by Consulting Staff #1 and the Director of Nursing (DON) that the facility did not have an anticoagulation policy.
Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses which included dementia, osteoporosis, and rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown) and re-admitted in July 2023 with new diagnoses including history of falls and tibial fracture.
Review of the most recent MDS assessment, dated 9/19/23, indicated Resident #11 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 and took antipsychotic medication. Further review of the MDS failed to indicate Resident #11 took an anticoagulant.
Review of the current Physician's Orders indicated the Resident was prescribed:
- Zyprexa 7.5 milligrams (mg) once daily (7/21/23) (antipsychotic medication).
- Eliquis 2.5 mg twice daily (7/20/23) (anticoagulant medication).
Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #11 had received the Zyprexa and Eliquis as ordered.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:55 A.M., Nurse #5 said antipsychotic and anticoagulant medications should be care planned.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., Nurse Manager/Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said residents on antipsychotic and anticoagulant medications should have a care plan in place.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the DON said residents on antipsychotic and anticoagulant medications should have a care plan in place.
3. Review of the facility's policy titled Prevention of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries, dated as last revised 11/2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Review the resident's care plan and identify the risk factors as well as the interventions designed to reduce or eliminate those considered modifiable.
- Review the interventions and strategies for effectiveness on an ongoing basis.
Review of the facility's policy titled Pressure Ulcer/Injury Risk Assessment, dated as last revised 4/2018, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Once the assessment is conducted and risk factors are identified and characterized, a resident-centered care plan can be created to address the modifiable risk for pressure ulcers/injuries.
- Develop the resident-centered care plan and interventions based on the risk factors identified in the assessments, the condition of the skin, the resident's overall clinical condition, and the resident's stated wishes and goals.
a. The interventions must be based on current, recognized standards of care.
b. The effects of the interventions must be evaluated.
c. The care plan must be modified as the resident's condition changes, or if the current interventions are deemed inadequate.
Resident #30 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including dementia, diabetes mellitus, and muscle weakness.
Review of the most recent MDS assessment, dated 9/30/23, indicated Resident #30 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a BIMS score of 2 out of 15 and had a pressure area.
Review of the admission Nursing Evaluation V16, dated 6/27/23, indicated Resident #30 had a pressure injury to the sacrum (bottom of spine above tailbone) measuring 1 centimeter (cm) in length x 0.5 cm in width x 0 cm in depth. The pressure injury was staged as a Suspected Deep Tissue Injury.
Review of the care plans for Resident #30 failed to indicate a Pressure Ulcer/Injury care plan had been initiated upon admission.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., the Wound Nurse/Nurse Manager/Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said Resident #30 did not have a care plan initiated on admission and it should have been done. She said the usual process is: On admission after the Nursing admission Evaluation V16 is done, the care plan is initiated directly from the Nursing admission Evaluation V16, she said in this case, it did not happen.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the DON said a care plan should have been initiated on admission and it was not. The DON said, Usually the Wound Nurse, or I will review the Nursing admission Evaluations V16 for completion and to ensure any wounds have orders, care plans, and are added to wound rounds; however, in this case none of those things were done.
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 refrigerator temperatures were recorded in the medication storage refrigerators to ensure safe storage for both medica...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure refrigerator temperatures were recorded in the medication storage refrigerators to ensure safe storage for both medications and vaccines in accordance with the facility policy.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medications, dated as revised August 2020, indicated but was not limited to:
- All medications are maintained within the temperature ranges in accordance with the United States Pharmacopeia and by the Centers for Disease Control.
- Refrigeration temperatures range from 36 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 46 degrees F, with a thermometer to allow temperature monitoring.
- The facility should maintain a temperature log in the storage area to record temperatures at least once a day.
- The facility should check the refrigerator or freezer in which vaccines are stored at least two times a day.
Review of Consultant Pharmacy Summary Audit, dated 11/28/23, indicated the pharmacist documented the failed compliance with the refrigerated medication storage temperature logs and reported those observations to the facility.
During an observation of the medication room on Unit D on 11/29/23 at 1:09 P.M, the surveyor observed the medication refrigerator, which contained two vaccines. Review of the temperature log attached to the refrigerator indicated the facility was not consistently documenting the temperatures of the refrigerator twice daily as required for vaccine storage or even once a day for refrigerated medication storage.
Further review of the Unit D Refrigeration Log for November 2023 indicated the following:
- 11 missed opportunities for once daily temperature monitoring (were blank) out of 29 total opportunities.
- 31 missed opportunities for twice daily vaccine temperature monitoring (were blank) out of 57 total opportunities.
During an observation with interview on 11/29/23 at 1:11 P.M., Nurse #1 reviewed the refrigerated medication storage and temperature log and said temperatures are supposed to be checked twice a day for the medication room fridge and it has not been completed as it should have been. She said without the temperatures being monitored there is no way for making sure the medicines and vaccines are stored at the correct temperature. She said there were a lot of holes and missing temperatures, and the staff are supposed to document it twice a day on the supplied temperature log and there is nowhere else it would be documented.
During an observation of the Medication room on Unit A on 11/29/23 at 1:40 P.M., the surveyor observed the medication refrigerator to contain numerous insulin pens and a box of suppositories, but no vaccines. Review of the temperature log attached to the refrigerator indicated the facility was not consistently documenting the temperatures of the refrigerator once daily to ensure safe medication storage.
Further review of the Unit A Refrigeration Log for November 2023 indicated the following:
- 10 missed opportunities for once daily temperature monitoring (were blank) out of 29 total opportunities.
During an interview with observation on 11/29/23 at 1:42 P.M, Nurse #5 reviewed the refrigerated medication storage and temperature log and said it is the staff's responsibility to complete the refrigerator temperature log daily. She said the log was incomplete and when the temperature has not been taken the nurse who identifies that should complete the log for that day and that was not done as it should have been.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:46 P.M, the Regional Nurse reviewed the November 2023 medication refrigeration temperature logs for both Unit A and Unit D and said the temperatures were not completed as they should have been, and the expectation is that they are completed daily for medication storage and twice daily with any vaccine storage. She further said the facility was not meeting the policy or expectations for medication refrigeration storage.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure drinks, specifically milk, were served at an appetizing temperature for residents.
Findings include:
Review of the Resident Council ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure drinks, specifically milk, were served at an appetizing temperature for residents.
Findings include:
Review of the Resident Council Minutes from 7/5/23, 8/2/23, and 9/15/23 indicated residents voiced concerns when they receive their meal trays that the milk was often warm.
During an interview on 11/28/23 at 11:14 A.M., Resident #48 who was seated in the main dining room pointed to the dietary staff and said, Should they be putting drinks on the food trucks this early? Look, there's milk there.
Review of the Food Truck Delivery Schedule indicated the last lunch truck arrived on a unit at 12:25 P.M., one hour and 10 minutes after the surveyor observed the milk to be placed on the meal trays.
On 11/30/23 at 11:24 A.M., the surveyor observed dietary staff to be in the process of adding drinks, including milk, to all the meal trays on the food trucks.
On 11/30/23 at 12:18 P.M., the surveyor requested the [NAME] take the temperature of a cup of milk from one of the meal trays on the last food truck, which was designated to arrive on the unit at 12:25 P.M., one hour after the milk was observed to be placed on the meal tray. The [NAME] took the temperature of the milk which registered at 59 degrees Fahrenheit. During an interview at this time, the [NAME] said this was not a good temperature and the milk would be replaced.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 3:40 P.M., the Food Service Director said she did not know the residents had complained at the Resident Council about warm milk despite having attended resident council meetings. She said the meal tray process had been to put all drinks on the meal trays prior to the rest of the food to be more efficient in the tray line. She said 59 degrees Fahrenheit was not an acceptable temperature for the milk and she would need to review the process.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program to measure and improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians and failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program to measure and improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians and failed to complete antibiotic usage audit tools, which are used to track, report and evaluate antibiotic prescribing patterns in accordance with the Antibiotic Stewardship Program.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Orders for Antibiotics, last revised November 2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- Antibiotics will be prescribed and administered to residents under the guidance of the facility's Antibiotic Stewardship Program and in conjunction with the facility's general policy for Medication Utilization and Prescribing.
- Guidelines: Prior to calling a physician/prescriber to communicate a suspected infection, the nurse will obtain and have the following information available: history of present illness; resident hydration status; current medication list; allergy information; any orders for Warfarin and results of last INR; Last Creatine clearance or serum creatinine, if available; and time of last antibiotic dose
- Appropriate indications for use of antibiotics include: criteria met for clinical definition of active infection or suspected sepsis; and pathogen susceptibility, based on culture and sensitivity to antimicrobial (or therapy begun while culture is pending).
- Empirical use of an antibiotic based on clinical criteria of suspected sepsis may be appropriate. The staff and practitioner will document the specific criteria that support the suspicion in the resident's clinical record.
Review of the facility's policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship-Staff and Clinician Training and Roles, last revised November 2017, indicated but was not limited to the following:
- The Director of Nursing (DON) will monitor individual resident antibiotic regimens, including: reviewing clinical documentation supporting antibiotic orders and compliance with start/stop dates and/or days of therapy
- The Infection Preventionist (IP) will audit, and the DON will provide feedback to providers on antibiotic prescribing practices
- The IP will obtain, and the DON will provide to healthcare practitioners, educational resources and materials about antibiotic resistance and opportunities for improved antibiotic use
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 11:11 A.M., the DON and IP said they coordinate the Antibiotic Stewardship Program together.
Review of the facility provided Infection Control Line Listing for the months of August, September and October 2023 failed to include documentation to indicate what criteria was utilized for each resident to be placed on an antibiotic.
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 11:12 A.M., the DON said the facility utilizes a McGeer criteria assessment in the electronic medical record to determine if a resident has met the criteria for utilizing an antibiotic.
Review of the October line listing indicated Resident #73 had a urinary tract infection (UTI) on 10/6/23 based on symptoms of laboratory (lab) results and was started on Macrobid (an antibiotic).
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 11:30 A.M., the IP said the McGeer criteria would have been met in order to start an antibiotic and the criteria assessment was located in the electronic medical record.
Review of the McGeer Criteria for Infection assessment indicated the following for a UTI without indwelling catheter:
- Check if urine culture is complete: if no culture, stop, infection does not meet UTI surveillance definitions.
Review of the nursing progress notes for Resident #73 indicated on 10/4/23 a urine sample was obtained based on increased confusion, there were no additional symptoms noted. The nursing progress note indicated Macrobid was ordered on 10/5/23, to start on 10/6/23, that the urinalysis had returned and the culture and sensitivity was still pending. Review of laboratory results for Resident #73 indicated the culture returned on 10/7/23. Review of the medical record for Resident #73 failed to include any completed electronic McGeer criteria assessments for this time.
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 11:35 A.M., the DON said the facility utilized the McGeer electronic assessment to track the criteria for the residents and there was no additional information available.
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 11:12 A.M., the IP said she provides education regarding Antibiotic Stewardship to nursing staff, however, she said does not provide education or feedback to providers. She said she does not speak to the clinicians about ordering antibiotics prior to meeting the McGeer criteria because they rule the roost. She said she does not document an analysis of the antibiotic use for improvement of antibiotic prescribing practices per their Antibiotic Stewardship policy.
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 11:45 A.M., the DON said the purpose of the Antibiotic Stewardship program was to not start antibiotic treatments when they are not needed. She said the Medical Director's involvement in Antibiotic Stewardship was to sign the orders for antibiotics.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff served food in accordance with professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to preven...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff served food in accordance with professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Food Temperature Measurement, revised in June 2018, indicated the following guidelines:
-sanitize a clean, calibrated food thermometer before use and between foods (or use a different clean, sanitized, calibrated food thermometer for each food). Use either of the following methods:
a. Immerse the thermometer stem into clean sanitizing solution at the proper concentration and contact time recommended by the sanitizer manufacturer. Air drying before using.
b. Use a food service compliant alcohol prep pad/wipe. Reminder: these are single use and should only be used to sanitize a thermometer one time and then discarded.
On 11/30/23 at 11:30 A.M., the surveyor observed the lunch line meal distribution, starting with the [NAME] taking the temperatures of the cooked food. The following was observed:
The [NAME] took a clean and sanitized thermometer from a cup which held multiple alcohol prep pads and started obtaining food temperatures. The [NAME] took the temperature of the Swedish meatballs, removed the thermometer from the food, wiped the thermometer down with a napkin then proceeded to take the temperature of the noodles with the same thermometer, without sanitizing it. The [NAME] then wiped down the thermometer with the same napkin that was used after the Swedish meatballs, then immediately used a clean napkin to wipe down the thermometer. The [NAME] proceeded to obtain temperatures of all cooked food items including two vegetables, puree meatballs, puree pasta, ground meatballs, gravy, fortified mashed potatoes, Swedish meatballs without gravy and soup while only wiping down the thermometer with a napkin between each food and not sanitizing the thermometer.
On 11/30/23 at 11:40 A.M., the surveyor observed the [NAME] place the thermometer back in the cup containing the alcohol prep pads. The surveyor then observed the Food Service Director pick up the thermometer and clean it with an alcohol prep pad.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 3:40 P.M., the Food Service Director said the [NAME] should have sanitized the thermometer between taking temperatures of the food items. She said the alcohol prep pads had been available for the [NAME] but that she had not used them.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
B. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including dementia, diabetes mellitus, and muscle weakness.
Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated ...
Read full inspector narrative →
B. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including dementia, diabetes mellitus, and muscle weakness.
Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/30/23, indicated Resident #30 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 out of 15 and had a pressure ulcer.
On 11/30/23 at 11:30 A.M., during wound rounds with the Wound Doctor and Wound Nurse/Infection Control Nurse/Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) the surveyor observed the following:
- Wound measurements: 3.5 cm x 1.1 cm x 0.8 cm with undermining at 11 o'clock measuring 1.7 cm.
- Wound Doctor said no necrosis and to continue the same treatment.
- After measuring the area, the Wound Doctor put a piece of gauze on the wound and exited the room.
Review of the current Physician's Orders for November 2023 included the following:
- Sacrum-cleanse area with Vashe, apply calcium alginate and cover with foam border dressing every day and evening shift. (11/17/23)
- Cleanse right knee wound with normal saline, apply xeroform, cover with gauze and wrap with kerlix every day shift. (10/20/23)
On 11/30/23 at 11:55 A.M., the surveyor observed the following during dressing change:
- Nurse #3 entered the room at 11:55 A.M. to dress the wound.
- Nurse #3 with clean gloves on gathered foam dressing from the Resident's bedside table.
- Nurse #3 with the same gloves on, gathered supplies from the treatment cart (including an opened package of bulk 4x4 gauze pads) at the door to the Resident's room.
- Nurse #3 removed gloves and did not perform hand hygiene (HH).
- Nurse #3 set supplies up on the overbed table and dated the foam dressing.
- Nurse #3 performed HH and put on clean gloves.
- Nurse #3 removed the bloody gauze from the sacral wound and then picked up a spray wound cleanser to cleanse the wound.
- Nurse #3 was unable to get the spray bottle to work using both gloved hands to try.
- Nurse #3 removed gloves and performed HH and returned to the treatment cart at the door.
- Nurse #3 removed a bottle of Normal Saline (NS) from the treatment cart and returned to the Resident's bedside and put on new gloves.
- Nurse #3 then cleansed the sacral wound with NS from a 60 ml bottle. While pouring the NS from the bottle to the gauze both the gauze and the lip of the bottle were observed to be touching the Resident's buttocks.
- Nurse #3 then reached into the opened bulk package of 4x4's with a soiled glove on to retrieve more gauze to finish cleansing and drying the wound.
- Nurse #3 removed the soiled gloves, performed HH and put on new gloves.
- Nurse #3 then proceeded to cut the calcium alginate to fit the wound, placed the calcium alginate in the wound bed and covered the wound with the foam dressing.
- Nurse #3 then re-attached the brief around the Resident's buttocks.
- Nurse #3 without changing gloves, rolled Resident to his/her back side and repositioned him/her in bed.
- Nurse #3 then removed a piece of bloody gauze from Resident #30's knee and covered the wound with two Band-Aids (with same gloves she had used to complete the dressing change on his/her sacrum).
- After performing HH, Nurse #3 picked up all the supplies and returned them to the treatment cart, including the bulk opened package of 4x4 gauze pads that she had accessed with a spoiled glove and the 60 ml bottle of NS that has touched the Resident's buttocks.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 2:28 P.M., Nurse #3 said the treatment order to the sacrum is: Cleanse with Vashe, apply calcium alginate and cover with a foam dressing. Additionally, Nurse #3 said all supplies are kept in the treatment cart and shared unless the resident is on precautions. She also said she should not have gotten more gauze from the bulk package with soiled gloves on and she did not think she touched Resident #30's body with the NS, but it was close, so she should not have put either of those back in the treatment cart and should have changed her gloves and performed HH before moving to the next wound.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., the Wound Nurse/Infection Control/ADON said the nurse should not get more gauze from a bulk package with soiled gloves on, the bulk package of gauze should be stored in the treatment cart in a sealed bag and the nurse should only take what they need into a resident's room and the same with the saline. If those supplies enter a room, they should not be put back into the treatment cart. Additionally, she said the same gloves should not be worn to dress multiple wounds not it the same area and HH should be done any time gloves are removed or changed.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the DON said the nurse should not get more gauze from a bulk package with soiled gloves on, the bulk package of gauze should be stored in the treatment cart in a sealed bag and the nurse should only take what they need into a resident's room and if the supplies enter a room, they should not be put back into the treatment cart. She said the small NS bottles are one-time single resident use and should not touch the resident's skin and should be disposed of after use. Additionally, she said her expectation is for HH to take place any time gloves are removed or changed, and she expects gloves to be changed between different wounds. She said it is cross contamination to access the bulk gauze with soiled gloves and then return it to the treatment cart, same for moving from one treatment to the next unless they are both in the same area.
Based on observation, interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to:
1. Maintain an infection prevention and control program which included a complete and accurate system of surveillance to identify any trends or potential infections; and
2. Follow infection control guidelines during a wound dressing treatments for two Residents (#51 and #30), out of two observed wound dressing changes.
Findings include:
1. Review of the facility's Infection Control Line Listings on 12/01/23 at 9:00 A.M. for the months of August 2023, September 2023, and October 2023 indicated the following:
-The August 2023 line list, signed by the Director of Nursing (DON) but not dated, had missing documentation for 13 out of the 15 residents. Thirteen residents had no documented culture date or results from the culture. Ten residents had no documented site of their infection or culture. Three residents had no documented infection status (i.e.: cleared/not cleared). Seven residents had no documentation indicating whether the illnesses met infection criteria per the facility's predetermined use of McGeer criteria. All 15 residents had been started on an antibiotic.
-The September 2023 line listing, signed by the DON but not dated, had missing documentation for 13 out of 13 residents. Thirteen residents had no documented culture date. Nine residents had no documented results for the cultures that were documented. Four residents had no documented site of culture or potential infection, or if the infection symptoms had resolved under the cleared section of the surveillance form. All 13 residents had been started on an antibiotic.
-The October 2023 line list, signed by the DON but not dated, had missing documentation for 12 out of the 12 residents. Twelve residents had no documented culture date. One resident had no documented site of culture or potential infection, or if the infection symptoms had resolved under the cleared section of the surveillance form. One resident had no documented Healthcare acquired or community acquired infection (HAI/CAI), and if the illness met infection criteria per the facility's predetermined use of McGeer criteria. All 12 residents had been started on an antibiotic.
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 11:12 A.M., the DON said the facility utilized McGeer criteria assessments in the electronic medical record to complete the surveillance line listings of resident illness or infection. She said she had not completely filled out all of the areas on the line list and the surveillance forms were not complete.
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 11:15 A.M., the Infection Prevention Nurse said she had been completing the line list to track illnesses which were not prescribed antibiotics but had accidentally shredded the line lists and was unable to demonstrate surveillance of illnesses that were not prescribed antibiotics. She said the last column on the line list is for if the illness counted as an infection solely based on if it was community acquired or healthcare acquired and not based on McGeer criteria.
2. Review of the facility's policy titled Dressings, Dry/Clean, last revised April 2018, indicated the following procedure for a wound dressing change:
-Establish a clean field
-Place the clean equipment on the clean field. Arrange the supplies so they can be easily reached.
-Ensure waste basket is nearby below clean field
-Wash and dry your hands thoroughly
-Put on clean gloves, remove soiled dressing
-Pull glove over dressing and discard into plastic or biohazard bag
-Sanitize hands or wash and dry thoroughly
-Open dry clean dressing(s), open other products (i.e., prescribed dressing, dry, clean gauze)
-Sanitize hands or wash and dry your hands thoroughly
-Put on clean gloves
-Apply the ordered dressing
-Discard disposable items in the designated container
-Wash and dry hands thoroughly
Review of the facility's policy labeled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, last revised April 2018, indicated but was not limited to the following guidelines:
-All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors
-Use an alcohol-based hand rub or alternately soap and water for the following situations:
- Before and after direct contact with residents;
- Before handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze pads, etc;
- Before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care;
- After contact with resident's intact skin;
- After contact with blood or bodily fluids;
- After handling dressings, contaminated equipment, etc.; and
- After removing gloves
A. Resident #51 was admitted to the facility in October 2022 with left hemiplegia and a wound to the sacrum (tail bone area).
Review of the current Physician's Orders for November 2023 included the following:
-Cleanse pressure ulcer to sacrum with Vashe (wound cleanser), followed by Calcium Alginate with Silver (a protective barrier to bacterial penetration in moderately to heavily draining wounds). Apply stoma paste between anus and wound. Cover with silicone border foam dressing.
-11/29/23 hold stoma paste until received from pharmacy
On 11/29/23 at 11:43 A.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #1 complete a wound dressing treatment to the sacrum of Resident #51. The following was observed:
- Nurse #1 performed hand hygiene and entered the room, the supplies were already in place on the bedside table. The nurse was observed to open an alcohol prep pad (a 2 inch by 1 inch alcohol disinfectant pad) and laid the pad on top of it's wrapper.
- Nurse #1 then opened the Calcium Alginate package and long Q-Tip, keeping the supplies inside their packages, and then placed an empty trash bag on the bed.
- Nurse #1 reached into her pocket and applied a pair of non-sterile gloves (without performing hand hygiene)
- Nurse #1 physically assisted Resident #51 onto his/her left side and held the Resident there with her left hand.
- Nurse #1 removed the old dressing with her right hand and showed it to the surveyor. The old dressing was observed to have a small amount of brownish/tan exudate (fluid that leaks out of blood vessels into nearby tissues).
- Nurse #1 placed the old dressing into the empty trash bag, and lowered Resident #51 onto his/her buttocks.
- Nurse #1 then reached into her pocket with the same gloves on and pulled out a pair of scissors and placed the tip of the scissors on the alcohol pad, dabbing the tip on the alcohol pad. Nurse #1 then removed her gloves, and donned a glove on her right hand only, leaving her left hand exposed (without performing hand hygiene)
- Nurse #1 assisted Resident #51 back onto his/her left side, and held the Resident up by placing her ungloved hand on the Resident's buttocks.
- Nurse #1 then applied Vashe wash to the sacral wound with a gauze pad using her right hand (glove in place) to cleanse the wound
- Nurse #1 then lowered Resident #51 back onto his/her buttocks with the wound (which was just cleaned) exposed to the old brief and bedding underneath the open wound
- Nurse #1 then cut a small piece of the Calcium Alginate dressing with the scissors that had been dabbed on the alcohol pad, picked up the large Q-tip with her gloved right hand, and assisted the Resident over to his/her left side with her ungloved left hand
- Nurse #1 placed the Calcium Alginate on top of the open wound and packed it with the large Q-tip and placed a silicone border dressing on top of it
- Nurse #1 then assisted the Resident back onto his/her buttocks
- Nurse #1 then removed her glove from her right hand and placed it into the trash bag (without performing hand hygiene)
- Nurse #1 then grabbed the scissors off the bedside table and placed them into her pocket, and took the bottle of Vashe wash, and the trash bag out of the room (without performing hand hygiene)
- Nurse #1 exited the room and placed the trash into the receptacle in the hallway, then walked to the treatment room and opened the door to the treatment room with her unsanitized hands
- Nurse #1 entered the treatment room, opened the treatment cart and placed the bottle of Vashe wash into the treatment cart (without performing hand hygiene)
- Nurse #1 then left the treatment room, used the door knob to open the dirty utility room and reached into her pocket and removed wrappers, throwing them into a large trash receptacle, exited the room then performed hand hygiene.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:36 P.M., Nurse #1 said she had set up her clean field with supplies prior to the surveyor entering the Resident's room. She said she performed hand hygiene prior to walking to the Resident's room with the surveyor, but did not bring in enough gloves and that was why she only wore one glove during the treatment. She said she failed to perform hand hygiene because she did not have any hand sanitizer on her and was unprepared. Nurse #1 said she had sanitized the scissors prior to placing them in her pocket and that was why she only dabbed the tip of the scissors on the alcohol pad in the Resident room. Nurse #1 said she did not realize placing the cleansed open wound on the brief could contaminate the wound.
During an interview on 12/1/23 1:35 P.M., the Infection Control Nurse said her expectation was for staff to perform hand hygiene in between glove changes and maintain clean technique during dressing changes.
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record reviews, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a written notification of the intent to transfer or discharge to the Resident or responsible party prior to disch...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a written notification of the intent to transfer or discharge to the Resident or responsible party prior to discharge to the hospital for two Residents (#49 and #11), in a total sample of 20 residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Transfer or Discharge Documentation, revised 11/2017, indicated but was not limited to:
- When a resident is transferred or discharged , details of the transfer or discharge will be documented in the medical record and appropriate information will be communicated to the receiving health care facility or provider;
- When a resident is transferred or discharged from the facility, the following information will be documented in the medical record: the basis for the transfer or discharge; and
- If the resident is being transferred or discharged because his or her needs cannot be met at the facility, documentation will include: that an appropriate notice was provided to the resident and/or legal representative.
1. Resident #49 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, catatonic disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety.
Review of the medical record indicated the Resident was sent to the hospital for evaluation on 11/16/23 due to a change in medical condition.
Review of the electronic medical record showed the Discharge/Transfer Evaluation Assessment was not initiated or completed for the 11/16/23 hospitalization.
Review of the electronic medical record showed a Notice of Intent to Discharge with Less than 30 Days Notice form, dated 11/21/23, was sent to the Resident and representative after the 11/16/23 hospitalization.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:55 A.M., Nurse #5 said transfer notices are part of the electronic record and completed under the evaluation section. Nurse #5 said the nurse on the unit is responsible for completing the evaluation and issuing the form when a resident is transferred to the hospital.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:59 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the nurse on the cart is responsible for completing the notice of transfer forms and was not sure why they were not completed. The DON said the forms should be sent with the resident being hospitalized or within a few hours of the transfer to the resident representative.
2. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses which included dementia, osteoporosis, and rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown).
Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/19/23, indicated Resident #11 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15.
Review of the medical record including census history, evaluations and progress notes indicated Resident #11 was transferred to an acute care hospital on 7/13/23 status post unwitnessed fall resulting in a fracture.
Further review of the medical record failed to indicate a Notice of Transfer/Discharge was issued to Resident #11 or his/her family.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:55 A.M., Nurse #5 said the Notice of Transfer/Discharge is an electronic form under the Evaluations tab and it was not done at 7/13/23 when the Resident was transferred to the hospital, and it should have been.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., Nurse Manager/Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said the Notice of Transfer/Discharge should be done when a resident is sent to the hospital and in this case it was not done.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said the nurse on the unit that is sending a resident to the hospital is responsible to complete the Notice of Transfer/Discharge at the time of transfer and she did not know why the notice was not done.
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a written notification of the bed hold po...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a written notification of the bed hold policy to the Resident or Resident representative prior to discharge to the hospital, for two Residents (#49 and #11), in a total sample of 20 residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's policy titled Bed Holds/Returns, revised 5/2018, indicated but was not limited to:
- Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed in writing of the bed-hold and return policy.
- Prior to a transfer, written information will be given to the residents and/or the resident representatives that explains in detail: (a) the rights and limitations of the resident regarding bed holds, and (d) the details of the transfer (per the Notice of Transfer).
1. Resident #49 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, catatonic disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety.
Review of the medical record indicated the Resident was sent to the hospital for evaluation on 11/16/23 due to a change in medical condition.
Review of the electronic medical record failed to indicate a Bed Hold Policy and Notice Evaluation was give to the Resident or Resident representative prior to discharge to the hospital on [DATE].
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:55 A.M., Nurse #5 said bed hold policy notices are part of the electronic record and completed under the evaluation section. Nurse #5 said the nurse on the unit is responsible for completing the evaluation and issuing the form when a resident is transferred to the hospital.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:59 A.M., the DON said the nurse on the cart is responsible for completing the notice of bed hold policy forms. The DON said she was not sure why the form was not completed. The DON said the forms should be sent with the resident being hospitalized or within a few hours of the hospitalization to the resident representative.
2. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses which include dementia, osteoporosis, and rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown).
Review of the most recent MDS assessment, dated 9/19/23, indicated Resident #11 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a BIMS score of 15 out of 15.
Review of the medical record including census history, evaluations, and progress notes indicated Resident #11 was transferred to an acute care hospital on 7/13/23 status post unwitnessed fall resulting in a fracture.
Further review of the medical record failed to indicate a Bed Hold Notice was issued to Resident #11 or his/her family.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:55 A.M., Nurse #5 said the Bed Hold Notice is an electronic form under the Evaluations tab and it was not done on 7/13/23 when the Resident was transferred to the hospital, and it should have been.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., Nurse Manager/Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said the Bed Hold Notice should be done when a resident is sent to the hospital and in this case, it was not done.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the nurse on the unit that is sending a resident to the hospital is responsible to complete the Bed Hold Notice at the time of transfer and she did not know why the notice was not done.
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
3. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses which included dementia, osteoporosis, and rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown) and re-admitted in July 2023 with new diagnos...
Read full inspector narrative →
3. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses which included dementia, osteoporosis, and rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown) and re-admitted in July 2023 with new diagnoses including history of falls and a tibial fracture.
Review of the most recent MDS assessment, dated 9/19/23, indicated Resident #11 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15.
Review of the current Physician's Orders indicated the Resident was prescribed: Eliquis 2.5 milligrams (mg) twice daily (anticoagulant) (7/20/23).
Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Resident #11 had received the Eliquis as ordered.
Further review of the MDS failed to indicate Resident #11 took an anticoagulant.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 10:55 A.M., Nurse #5 said Eliquis is an anticoagulant.
During an Interview on 12/4/23 at 10:18 A.M., Nurse Manager/Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said Eliquis is an anticoagulant and should have been coded on the MDS.
During an interview on 12/4/23 at 11:27 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said Eliquis is an anticoagulant and should have been coded on the MDS.
2. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility in August 2022 with diagnoses including: benign prostate hyperplasia (enlargement of the prostate gland), urinary retention, and obstructive uropathy (a condition in which urine cannot drain through the urinary tract and backs up).
Review of the most current MDS assessment for Resident #54 indicated the Resident used a restraint less than daily.
Review of the medical record failed to indicate that a restraint was ever used or ordered for Resident #54.
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 11:35 A.M., the MDS nurse said she does not recall Resident #54 ever having a restraint. She reviewed Resident #54's record and the most current MDS and said the indication on the MDS the Resident had a restraint was inaccurate and required correction. She said the indication of the Resident having a restraint did not accurately reflect the Resident's current or previous status.
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately completed to reflect the status for three Residents (#21, #54, and #11), in a total sample of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility failed:
1. For Resident #21, to ensure the MDS accurately reflected the hospice status;
2. For Resident #54, to ensure the MDS reflected the correct status regarding a restraint; and
3. For Resident #11, to ensure the MDS accurately reflected the use of anticoagulants (blood thinner).
Findings include:
1. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility in December 2022 with a diagnosis of dementia.
Review of the medical record indicated Resident #21 was started on hospice services in June 2023.
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 9/26/23, in section O failed to indicate Resident #21 was on hospice services.
Review of the Hospice book indicated Resident #21 was recertified for hospice services on 9/7/23 through 12/11/23.
During an interview on 12/1/23 at 10:15 A.M., the MDS Nurse said Resident #21 was on hospice services and the MDS from 9/26/23 was inaccurate.