WEDGEMERE HEALTHCARE

146 DEAN STREET, TAUNTON, MA 02780 (508) 823-0767
For profit - Corporation 94 Beds NEXT STEP HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
15/100
#333 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Wedgemere Healthcare in Taunton, Massachusetts has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. With a state rank of #333 out of 338 facilities, they are in the bottom half of nursing homes in Massachusetts, and #27 out of 27 in Bristol County, meaning there are no better local options available. The facility's performance is worsening, as they went from 1 issue in 2024 to 8 in 2025, and they have a high staff turnover rate of 54%, which is concerning compared to the state average of 39%. While they do have some good quality measures rated at 4 out of 5 stars, they also face serious issues, including a failure to provide adequate wound care for a resident, leading to the progression of a pressure ulcer, and lapses in food safety protocols that could risk foodborne illness. Additionally, they have incurred $129,794 in fines, which is higher than 92% of Massachusetts facilities, indicating ongoing compliance problems.

Trust Score
F
15/100
In Massachusetts
#333/338
Bottom 2%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
54% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$129,794 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 21 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Massachusetts. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
49 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 8 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Massachusetts average (2.9)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 54%

Near Massachusetts avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $129,794

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: NEXT STEP HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 49 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Jan 2025 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized, person-cente...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized, person-centered care plan to meet the physical, psychosocial, and functional needs for one Resident (#23), out of 18 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented to address the care and management of Resident #23's Diabetes Mellitus (non-insulin dependent diabetes). Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Care Plans: Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated as last revised 1/2024, indicated but was not limited to the following: -A comprehensive care plan will be developed for each resident. The care plan will include objectives that meet the resident's physical, psychosocial, and functional needs. -The care plan interventions are derived from information gathered from the comprehensive assessment. -The comprehensive care plan will identify problem areas and their causes as warranted and developing interventions that are targeted and meaningful to the resident. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility in October 2024 with diagnoses which included Diabetes Mellitus with other specified complications, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy, and unspecified fall. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #23 had a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus, took insulin, and had recent falls. The MDS failed to indicate that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) had been completed to determine cognitive status. Further review of the medical record indicated a BIMS assessment was completed on 1/15/25, and Resident #23 scored 4 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated: Reason for Exam: status post fall with hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) noted. Given poor intake developed hypoglycemia. Diabetic medication regime was adjusted inpatient and discharged to facility for rehab and further management on a diabetic diet with hypoglycemic protocol. Review of the Physician's Orders indicated but were not limited to the following: -Jardiance Oral Tablet 10 milligrams (mg) by mouth one time a day (10/29/24) (lowers blood sugar) -Metformin HCL 500 mg by mouth two times a day. (10/29/24) (lowers blood sugar) -Lantus SoloStar subcutaneous Solution Pen-Injector 100 units/milliliter (ml) inject 7 units subcutaneously at bedtime. (11/20/24) (long-acting insulin to lower blood sugar) Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan failed to indicate a care plan for Diabetic Management had been developed for Resident #23. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 3:54 P.M., Nurse #1 said Resident #23 should have had a care plan since admission for Diabetes and was unsure why he/she did not have one. Additionally, she said he/she should have diabetic monitoring orders, and he/she did not have those either. During an interview on 1/21/25 at 1:03 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said a Resident with a diagnosis of diabetes should have a care plan in place, monitor blood sugars as ordered, administer medications as ordered, and have a diabetic order set in place, including monitoring for hypo/hyperglycemia and parameters of when to notify the physician.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for two Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for two Residents (#54 and #23), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #54, to ensure the facility implemented the consultant eye doctor's recommendations for eye drops; and 2. For Resident #23, to ensure physician requested/recommended treatments were entered into the electronic medical record and implemented. Findings include: 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 prescriber's 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. 1. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility in May 2023 with diagnoses which included diabetes, dry eye, and presbyopia (gradual, age related loss of eyes to focus on nearby objects). Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 8/14/24, indicated Resident #54 scored 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), which indicated the Resident was cognitively intact. Review of the consultant progress note titled Eye Care Group, dated 11/28/24, indicated but was not limited to the following: -New medication order: Refresh Dry Eye Therapy oph. Solution, apply one drop both eyes twice daily for indefinitely. Review of the Physician's Orders from 11/28/24 through 1/21/25, indicated there were no orders for Refresh Dry Eye Therapy. During an interview on 1/14/25 at 3:08 P.M., Resident #54 said he/she was seen by the eye doctor who ordered eye drops, but he/she has never received them. Resident #54 said it has been weeks since he/she saw the eye doctor. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 5:05 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said when a resident has new orders from a consultant physician, the nurse should notify the resident's physician, and the orders should be written and the medication ordered. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 5:10 P.M., Resident #54 was upset and said to the surveyor and the DON, the eye doctor recommended eye drops and he/she still has not received them. The facility does not have a policy for consultant physician appointments. 2. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility in October 2024 with diagnoses which included Diabetes Mellitus with other specified complications, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, and unspecified fall. Review of the MDS assessment, dated 11/1/24, indicated Resident #23 had a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus, took insulin, and had recent falls. The MDS failed to indicate that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) had been completed to determine cognitive status. Further review of the medical record indicated a BIMS assessment was completed on 1/15/25 and Resident #23 scored 4 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated: Reason for Exam: status post fall with hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) noted. Given poor intake developed hypoglycemia. Diabetic medication regime was adjusted inpatient and discharged to facility for rehab and further management on a diabetic diet with hypoglycemic protocol. Review of the Physician's Orders indicated but were not limited to the following: -Health Care Proxy (HCP) invoked (11/26/24) -Diet: Soft bite sized food, one to one supervision with cues for multiple swallows, cue for cough after thin liquids. Follow Aspiration Precautions every shift. (12/26/24) -Jardiance Oral Tablet 10 milligram (mg) by mouth one time a day (10/29/24) (lowers blood sugar) -Metformin HCL 500 mg by mouth two times a day. (10/29/24) (lowers blood sugar) -Lantus SoloStar subcutaneous Solution Pen-Injector 100 units/milliliter (ml) inject 7 units subcutaneously at bedtime. (11/20/24) (long-acting insulin to lower blood sugar) Review of the physician's progress notes indicated the following: -10/31/24: Chief Complaint: Fall with recent history or alcohol intoxication and polypharmacy (use of multiple medications usually more than five to treat medical conditions). Appears in a poor general state. -11/1/24: Chief Complaint: Recent pneumonia with continued cough. admission orders: Monitor glucose levels and adjust diabetic medications as needed. -11/7/24: Chief Complaint: Routine follow up: Plan: Diabetes Management: reinforce dietary modifications and ensure compliance with antidiabetic medications. Arrange HbA1c (hemoglobin A1C-blood test to show average blood glucose level over the last two to three months) -11/8/24: Chief Complaint: pneumonia: Plan: Start Levaquin 750 mg daily for 10 days, start probiotic daily for 14 days, repeat chest x-ray (CXR) after completion of Levaquin (11/19/24), and repeat complete blood count (CBC) and compete metabolic panel (CMP) (blood tests) after completion of Levaquin (11/19/24). Nursing made aware of new orders. New orders will be input into Point Click Care (PCC-the electronic medical record). -11/14/24: Chief Complaint: routine follow up: white blood cell count (WBC) remains elevated, currently on Levaquin for suspected infection. Plan: Repeat WBC on the next lab day to assess trend. 1/2/25: Chief Complaint: routine follow up: Recent hospitalization: Diabetes Mellitus Plan: continue current regimen, monitor glucose levels closely, HbA1c follow up in 3 months. -1/7/25: Chief Complaint: Progress Note 30/60 day: Diabetes Management: Continue Lantus and Metformin. Monitor blood glucose levels regularly. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate blood glucose monitoring was implemented, failed to indicate the lab work was scheduled (HbA1c, CBC, CMP), and failed to indicate the repeat CXR was scheduled. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 3:54 P.M., Nurse #1said the physician's progress notes get uploaded directly into PCC and the nurses on the floor do not routinely go in and read them. She said there is no Unit Manager and is unsure if anyone reads the notes on a regular basis. She said regarding the orders the physician wants written, they are relayed to nursing either verbally or sometimes they write them on a physician order sheet and leave them for us. She said she did not know why these orders from their progress notes were never clarified and carried out. Review of the progress notes failed to indicate communication between the provider and nursing had taken place to clarify the frequency of requested glucose monitoring. During an interview on 1/17/25 at 9:07 A.M., Physician #1 said the plan/orders written in his notes is reviewed with the nurse and his expectation is for the order to be entered into PCC. He said he usually communicates his plan verbally. Additionally, he said Resident #23 was hospitalized with hypoglycemia and had medication adjustments made. He said his expectation is that the hypoglycemic protocol was in place and CBGs were ordered to monitor his/her blood sugars to adjust medication as needed. He said he was not aware the CBGs were not ordered nor the follow up labs and CXR and did not know why they were not done as they should have been.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an ankle foot orthosis (AFO) brace and to ensure left arm sling was worn for one Resident (#66), out of a total of 18...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an ankle foot orthosis (AFO) brace and to ensure left arm sling was worn for one Resident (#66), out of a total of 18 residents, so that he/she could carry out their activities of daily living, specifically regarding mobility and left shoulder support. Findings include: Resident #66 was admitted to the facility in October 2024 with diagnoses which included hemiplegia (weakness or paralysis of one side of body) following a cerebrovascular disease (stroke) affecting left side, dislocated left shoulder, and a history of falls. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/6/24, indicated Resident #66 scored 10 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. In addition, Section GG 0115 indicated Resident #66 had functional limitations in range of motion with lower extremity impairment on one side. Resident #66 also required substantial to maximal assistance to put on/off footwear. Review of Resident #66's Care Plan (initiated 11/13/24) indicated but was not limited to the following: -Activities: The Resident requires assistance from staff for meeting emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs related to cognitive deficits and physical limitations. Ensure that adaptive equipment that the resident needs is provided and is present and functional. -Fall risk: The Resident is at risk for falls related to confusion, deconditioning, gait (walking)/balance problems. Rehab to evaluate and treat as ordered. Stroke: The Resident has hemiplegia related to stroke. Left-sided weakness. The Resident will maintain optimal status and quality of life within limitations imposed by the hemiplegia through review date. Review of Resident #66's Physician's Orders indicated but were not limited to the following: -Left AFO brace in place at all times while out of bed, initiated 12/10/24. -Check skin integrity daily, initiated 12/10/24. -Sling in place to left arm, remove and check skin integrity daily at bedtime, initiated 11/22/24 and discontinued 1/21/25. Review of Resident #66's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for January 2025 indicated but was not limited to the following: -Left AFO brace in place at all times while out of bed. Check skin integrity daily. Review of the TAR indicated the AFO brace was applied daily from 1/1/25 through 1/20/25 (total of 20 days). -Sling in place to left arm, remove and check skin integrity daily at bedtime. Review of the TAR indicated the sling was applied 1/1/25 through 1/5/25, 1/7/25 through 1/11/25, and 1/13/25 through 1/20/25 (Total of 17 days). During an interview on 1/14/25 at 10:32 A.M., Resident #66 said they stopped his/her therapy, and he/she does not know why. The surveyor then observed Resident #66 walking in his/her room, with no shoes on, no AFO brace on the left lower leg, and no sling on left arm. On 1/14/25 at 1:32 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #66 sitting in a chair in his/her room, wearing socks with no AFO brace and no left arm sling. On 1/15/25 at 4:32 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #66 in his room walking with a cane, wearing slipper socks on both feet. The Resident was not wearing an AFO brace or a left arm sling. During an interview on 1/17/25 at 2:15 P.M., Rehab Staff #2 said Resident #66 received physical therapy services from 11/1/24 through 1/20/25. During that time, Resident #66 tried a couple different AFO braces, but the ones they had, the Resident said, hurt his/her leg. Rehab Staff #2 said she did request to her Rehab director the need for a custom AFO and was not sure where it went. Rehab Staff #3 said Resident #66 has a sling to wear and a palm guard to wear for the left hand. He said Resident #66 doesn't always wear them. During an interview on 1/21/25 at 10:05 A.M, the Rehab Director (RD) said Resident #66 came in with an old AFO which he/she will not wear. The RD said he remembers a discussion about obtaining a custom AFO for Resident #66, but said they do not have anyone that comes to the facility to provide a custom splint. The RD said he was not aware the AFOs tried in the facility were causing pain, he just thought Resident #66 would not wear the AFO. During an interview on 1/21/25 at 10:12 A.M., Rehab Staff #2 said they were trialing AFOs they had in the facility, but they were not comfortable. She said she spoke to the RD about getting a custom AFO for Resident #66. Rehab Staff #2 showed the surveyor the shoe and the AFO which was last trialed with Resident #66 which she had in the rehab room. Rehab Staff #2 said she removed it from the Resident's room because it caused pain and didn't want the Resident using it. The RD and Rehab Staff #2 both agreed they had discussions about obtaining a custom AFO, but they never followed up arranging for Resident #66 to get a custom AFO. During an interview on 1/21/25 at 10:55 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said she was not aware of any request for a custom AFO and the last she heard, Resident #66 had an AFO in his/her room. The DON said the nurses should not be signing off the AFO is being put on daily when it's not available. During an interview using an interpreter (Certified Nursing Assistant #4) on 1/21/25 at 10:32 A.M., Resident #66 said he/she does have a sling in the bag on the bedside table, but nobody puts it on him/her. Resident #66 said the brace (AFO) is not in the room, therapy took it back the last day of therapy. Resident #66 said the brace (AFO) was too hard and hurt his/her leg, pointing at the back of the lower leg. Resident #66 said if he/she had a better brace, he/she would be able to walk better.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff provided appropriate care and services for one Resident (#46) with a Gastrostomy tube (G-tube: a tube that is pl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff provided appropriate care and services for one Resident (#46) with a Gastrostomy tube (G-tube: a tube that is placed directly into the stomach through an abdominal incision for administration of nutrition, fluids, and medication), out of 18 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to administer the prescribed enteral (form of nutrition that is delivered into the digestive system as a liquid) feeding, document administration tubing set changes every 24 hours and ensure the labels included the accurate Resident name, date, start time and rate of infusion. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Enteral Nutrition, dated as revised 9/2018, included but was not limited to the following: -An enteral formulary is established to meet the nutrient needs of the residents and guide physician's orders Review of Lippincott Nursing Procedures - 9th Edition (2023), indicated but was not limited to the following: -Verify the practitioner's order, including the patient's identifiers, prescribed enteral formula, -Compare the label on the enteral formula container to the order in the patient's medical record. -Make sure that the enteral formula container is labeled with the patient's identifiers; formula name (and strength if diluted); date and time of formula preparation; date and time that the formula was hung; administration route, rate, and duration (if cycled or intermittent); initials of who prepared, hung, and checked the enteral formula against the order; expiration date and time. -Label the enteral administration set with the date and time that it was first hung. -If you're using a closed system, change the administration set according to the manufacturer's instructions Resident #46 was admitted to the facility in September 2024 with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing liquid or food), and intercranial hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/13/24, indicated Resident #46 had a feeding tube and the portion of the total calories the resident received through a feeding tube was 51% or more. On 1/14/25 at 9:35 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #46 lying in bed with the head of the bed elevated. The feeding pump was set at 45 milliliters (ml) per hour (hr) and flush 150 ml per 6 hr. The formula label said Osmolite 1.5. The label was dated 1/14 with the Resident's last name. No other information was documented on the label. The water flush bag was dated 1/12/25 at 7:00 A.M. No further information was documented on the label. On 1/15/25 at 8:49 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #46 lying in bed with the head of the bed elevated. The feeding pump was set at 45ml/hr and flush 150ml/6hrs. The formula label said Osmolite 1.5. The label was filled out with a different resident's name and room number, rate 55ml/hr, dated 1/15/25. The water flush was dated 1/15/25 with Resident #46 name and room number, and initials of staff member who hung the bag. Further review of the handwritten label indicated the substance inside was Jevity 1.5 at 45ml/hr. On 1/15/25 at 11:33 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #46 sitting up in a reclining chair in their room. The feeding pump was set at 45 ml/hr and flush 150 ml/6hr. The formula said Jevity 1.5, dated 1/15/25, with no other information written on the label. The water flush bag remained unchanged. During an interview on 1/15/25 at 11:51 A.M., Nurse #4 said she just changed the formula because she noticed it was the wrong one. She said Resident #46 is supposed to receive Jevity 1.5 not Osmolite 1.5. Nurse #4 said she only changed the formula and did not change the water flush bag or tubing. Review of the care plans indicated Resident #46 was dependent on the G-tube with the following interventions: -Provide and serve enteral formula as ordered -Give 45 cc of Jevity 1.5 via tube with free water flush (fwf) of 150 cc every 6 hours Review of the Physician's Orders indicated Resident #46 had the following orders related to the feeding tube: -Diet NPO (nothing by mouth) (9/20/24) -Give free water (H20) 150 milliliters (ml) every six hours (8/16/24) -Every shift Jevity 1.5 at 45ml/hr (hour) continuous, total 1080ml (11/20/24) -Change feeding bag and tubing every 24 hours (8/16/24) -Change piston syringe every night shift (8/16/24) Review of the Physician's Orders failed to indicate an order for Osmolite 1.5. Review of the nursing progress notes failed to indicate the feeding bag and tubing were changed every 24 hours as ordered. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) failed to indicate the feeding bag and tubing were changed as ordered. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 7:14 A.M., Nurse #2 said she changed the feeding formula, water flush bag, tubing and supplies for Resident #46 on 1/14/25 and 1/15/25. She said she reviews the physician's order, fills out the labels on the formula and water flush bag, and then administers it to the Resident. Nurse #2 said she does not know why she wrote two different dates on the formula and the water bag on 1/14/25. She said she changed them together. She said on 1/15/25 she wrote Jevity 1.5 on the water bag because that is the formula Resident #46 receives and can see how this could be confusing. Nurse #2 said she has another resident using Osmolite 1.5 and must have confused the formulas both days and hung the wrong one by mistake. Reviewing the TAR with Nurse #2, she said the order to change the tubing is not scheduled on the TAR as it should be, however she does change the tubing every 24 hours. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 2:39 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed Resident #46 physician's orders with the surveyor and confirmed the Resident should have been given Jevity 1.5 and not Osmolite 1.5. She said the physician's order was not followed. She said the label on the formula and the water flush bag should be filled out completely to ensure it is clear what resident the formula is for and the time and date the feeding and the flushes were administered. She said the order for changing the administration tubing set every 24 hours should be on the TAR to allow each nurse to sign off as completed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff stored all drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional princip...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff stored all drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for two Residents (#31 and #67), out of 18 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #31, to ensure a bottle of Tylenol was not left unsecured in the Resident's room; and 2. For Resident #67, to ensure two bottles of Latanoprost eye drops (decreases pressure in the eye) and one bottle of Timolol eye drops (decreases pressure in the eye) were not left unsecured in the Resident's room. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Self-Administration of Medications dated as revised September 2024, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Residents have the right to self-administer medications if the interdisciplinary team has determined that it is clinically appropriate and safe for the resident to do so. -Medications must be stored in a safe and secure place, which is not accessible by other residents. -Staff shall identify and give to the nurse any medications found at the bedside, that are not authorized for self-administration. 1. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility in October 2024 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease dependent on renal dialysis. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/14/24, indicated Resident scored 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating he/she was cognitively intact. On 1/14/25 at 2:50 P.M., the surveyor observed the following in Resident #31's room: -A bottle of Tylenol in an open pink bin on top of the overbed table, unsecured. On 1/16/25 at 7:24 A.M., the surveyor observed the following in Resident #31's room: -A bottle of Tylenol in an open pink bin on top of the overbed table, unsecured. Review of Resident #31's active Physician's Orders indicated the following: -Acetaminophen tablet (Tylenol) 650 milligrams (mg) give 975 mg by mouth every 8 hours as needed for pain not to exceed 3,000 mg in 24 hours Review of the medical record failed to indicate a Self-Administration of Medications Assessment was completed for self-administration of any medications. During an observation with interview on 1/16/25 at 10:22 A.M., Nurse #1 said if a resident would like to self-administer medications an evaluation must be completed first to ensure it is safe to do so. She said if medications are kept in a resident room, they must be stored in a locked box. The surveyor and Nurse #1 entered Resident #31's room and observed a bottle of Tylenol in a pink bin placed on the overbed table. Nurse #1 said she had never seen the Tylenol bottle before, and did not know it was there. She said the Resident does not self-administer medications and it should not be in the room. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 10:22 A.M., Resident #31 said he/she had their friend bring in the bottle of Tylenol a few weeks ago in case he/she needed it. Resident #31 said he/she has not taken any and was not aware he/she could not have medications in the room. 2. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility in October 2024 with diagnoses including glaucoma (increased eye pressure). Review of the MDS assessment, dated 11/6/24, indicated Resident #67 scored 9 out of 15 on the BIMS, indicating he/she had moderate cognitive impairment. On 1/14/25 at 10:38 A.M., the surveyor observed the following in Resident #67's room: -One bottle of Timolol eye drops -Two bottles of Latanoprost eye drops All three bottles of eye drops were in a clear plastic bag placed on top of Resident #67's bureau, unsecured. On 1/15/25 at 11:27 A.M., the surveyor observed the following in Resident #67's room: -One bottle of Timolol eye drops -Two bottles of Latanoprost eye drops All three bottles of eye drops were in a clear plastic bag placed on top of Resident #67's bureau, unsecured. Review of Resident #67's active Physician's Orders indicated the following: -Latanoprost Solution 0.005% instill one drop in both eyes at bedtime for glaucoma -Timolol Maleate Gel Forming Solution 0.5% Instill one drop in both eyes one time a day for eye pressure Review of the medical record failed to indicate a Self-Administration of Medications Assessment was completed for self-administration of any medications. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 10:24 A.M., Nurse #1 said she was unaware Resident #67 had eye drops in his/her room. She said she administers eye drops to the Resident daily. She said the eye drops must have come with the Resident from the hospital. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 2:33 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said Residents #31 and #67 should not have medications kept in their rooms which are not locked and secure. She said her expectation is if a resident would like to self-administer medications an assessment is completed, a physician's order is obtained, and the medications are kept in a locked box.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility in May 2021 with diagnoses including Traumatic Spinal Cord Dysfunction, Neuromuscul...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility in May 2021 with diagnoses including Traumatic Spinal Cord Dysfunction, Neuromuscular Dysfunction of bladder, obstructive and reflux uropathy (Obstructive uropathy is a disorder of the urinary tract that occurs due to obstructed urinary flow and can be either structural or functional). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/18/24, indicated Resident #32 has a suprapubic catheter in place. Review of the January 2025 Physician's Orders included but was not limited to: 1) clean around suprapubic catheter (a tube that drains urine from the bladder through a small incision in the lower abdomen) daily; and 2) suprapubic catheter care, every shift for monitoring. Review of Resident #32's November 2024 through January 2025 TAR failed to indicate: - the suprapubic catheter was cleaned, drain sponge had been changed and documented as done on 11/8/24, 11/11/24, 11/15/24, 11/22/24, 11/30/24, and 12/6/24, as ordered (4/12/23); and - the suprapubic catheter care every shift for monitoring on 12/6/24, 12/2/24, and 1/10/25 had been provided and documented as ordered (9/18/24) During an interview on 1/14/25 at 11:00 A.M., Nurse #9 said anytime a treatment is provided it should be documented on the TAR to reflect the date and time it was done. During an interview on 1/17/25 at 10:25 A.M., Nurse #7 said the nurses are to document anytime a treatment is provided. During an interview on 1/17/25 at 7:25 A.M., the DON said she was aware there was an issue with the documentation of treatment administration on the TARs and did not know why the nurses were not consistently documenting them. The DON said the expectation is that the nurses should be documenting on the TAR before they leave their shift for the day.Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained accurate documentation for four Residents (#37, #50, #32, and #23), out of a total of 18 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #37, ensure November 2024 through January 2025 Medication Administration Records (MAR) were accurate and reflected the administration of multiple medications according to physician's orders; 2. For Resident #50, ensure December 2024 and January 2025 MAR were accurate and reflected the administration of multiple medications according to physician's orders; 3. For Resident #32, ensure November 2024 through January 2025 Treatment Administration Records (TAR) accurately reflected the administration of multiple treatments according to physician's order; and 4. For Resident #23, ensure November 2024 through January 2025 MAR accurately reflected the administration of multiple medications according to physician's orders. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Charting and Documentation, dated 8/2019, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Documentation in the medical record may be electronic, manual or a combination. -The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record as warranted: -Objective observations; -Medications administered; -Treatments or services performed -Documentation in the medical record will be objective, complete, and accurate. 1. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility in May 2024 with diagnoses including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, depression, and chronic kidney disease. Review of Physician's Orders included but was not limited to: -Ascorbic Acid Tablets (used for wound healing) 500 milligrams (mg), twice a day (6/13/24) -Atorvastatin Calcium (lowers cholesterol) 40 mg, once daily in the evening (5/10/24) -Calcium Carbonate (antacid) 500 mg, 2 tablets two times a day (8/14/24) -Clopidogrel Bisulfate (antiplatelet blood-thinning drug) 75 mg, once daily (5/10/24) -Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B12) 500 micrograms (mcg), 2 tablets once daily (5/10/24) -Famotidine (acid reducer) 20 mg, at bedtime (5/10/24) -Finasteride (blocks the action of an enzyme called 5-alpha reductase) 5 mg, once daily (5/10/24) -Folic acid (B-viamin to treat folate deficiency anemia) 1 mg, once daily (5/10/24) -Januvia (antidiabetic agent) 25 mg, once daily (5/23/24) -Magnesium Oxide (mineral that aids in blood sugar levels) 400 mg, twice a day (5/10/24) -Melatonin (for sleep) 5 mg, at bedtime (5/10/24) -Protonix (treats high levels of stomach acid) 40 mg, once daily (5/23/24) -Zoloft (antidepressant) 50 mg, once daily (5/10/24) Review of November 2024 through January 2025 MAR indicated the following medications were not signed off as administered as evidenced by several blank, unsigned boxes corresponding to the dates and times medications were to be administered on 53 occasions as follows: -Ascorbic Acid: 11/19/24, 11/26/24, 12/12/24, 12/22/24, 1/7/25 -Atorvastatin Calcium: 12/11/24, 12/12/24, 12/20/24, 12/28/24, 1/7/25 -Calcium Carbonate: 11/19/24, 11/26/24, 12/12/24, 12/22/24, 12/28/24, 1/7/25 -Clopidogrel Bisulfate: 11/19/24, 11/26/24, 12/22/24 -Cyanocobalamin: 11/19/24, 11/26/24, 12/22/24 -Famotidine: 12/11/24, 12/12/24, 12/20/24, 12/28/24, 1/7/25 -Finasteride: 11/19/24, 11/26/24, 12/22/24 -Folic acid: 11/19/24, 11/26/24, 12/22/24 -Januvia: 11/19/24, 11/26/24, 12/22/24 -Magnesium Oxide: 11/19/24, 11/26/24, 12/12/24, 12/22/24, 12/28/24, 1/7/25 -Melatonin: 12/11/24, 12/12/24, 12/20/24, 12/28/24, 1/7/25 -Protonix: 11/19/24, 11/26/24, 12/22/24 -Zoloft: 11/19/24, 11/26/24, 12/22/24 2. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility in July 2023 with diagnoses including dementia, diabetes mellitus, and depression. Review of Physician's Orders included but was not limited to: -Amlodipine Besaylate (lowers blood pressure) 5 mg, once daily (1/13/25) -Amlodipine Besaylate 5 mg, twice daily (2/28/24, Discontinued 1/13/25) -Atorvastatin Calcium 40 mg, once daily in the evening (12/27/24) -Carvedilol (for blood pressure) 12.5 mg, one half tablet 2 times per day (2/26/24) -Cholecalciferol (vitamin D deficiency) 25 mcg, 2 tablets once daily (1/13/25) -Cholecalciferol 25 mcg, 2 tablets once daily (7/25/23, Discontinued 1/9/25) -Furosemide (diuretic) 40 mg, once in the morning (10/2/24) -Gabapentin (for pain) 100 mg, 3 times a day (10/2/24) -Hydralazine HCL (to treat high blood pressure) 10 mg, 2 tablets 3 times a day (12/27/24) -Memantine HCL (used to treat memory loss) 5 mg, 2 times a day (7/23/24) -Protonix 40 mg, once daily (12/27/24) -Sennosides-Docusate Sodium (laxative) 8.6-50 mg, once daily (7/24/23) -Sertraline HCL (Used for depression) 50 mg, once daily (7/24/23) -Spironolactone (diuretic) 25 mg, once daily (11/5/23) -Trazodone HCL (antidepressant) 50 mg, once daily (7/24/23) -Xarelto (blood thinner) 10 mg, once daily (1/14/25) -Xarelto 2.5 mg, once daily (8/23/23, Discontinued 12/27/24) -Aspirin Chewable (blood thinner) 81 mg, once daily (7/25/23, Discontinued 1/14/25) -Celecoxib (anti-inflammatory) 200 mg, once daily (10/8/24, Discontinued 12/27/24) -Multivitamin with Iron 1 tablet daily (7/25/23, Discontinued 12/27/24) -Ascorbic Acid Tablets 500 mg, 2 times a day (2/26/24, Discontinued 12/27/24) -Bumetanide (diuretic) 1 mg, 2 times a day (7/12/24, Discontinued 12/27/24) -Lactobacillus (probiotic) 1 capsule, 2 times a day (7/25/23, Discontinued 12/27/24) -Polyethylene Glycol 3360 powder (for constipation) 17 grams (gm), 2 times a day (12/27/24) -Heparin Sodium Solution (anticoagulant) 5000 Unit per Millimeter, inject 5000 units every 8 hours (12/27/24, Discontinued 1/14/25) Review of December 2024 and January 2025 MAR indicated the following medications were not signed off as administered as evidenced by several blank, unsigned boxes corresponding to the dates and times medications were to be administered on 148 occasions as follows: -Amlodipine Besaylate twice daily: (day dose) 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 (evening dose) 12/8/24,12/11/24,12/12/24,12/17/24,12/18/24,12/24/24,12/25/24, 12/28/24, 12/29/24, 12/30/24, 12/31/24 -Amlodipine Besaylate once daily: 1/1/25, 1/7/25 -Atorvastatin Calcium: 1/1/25, 1/7/25 -Carvedilol: (day dose) 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 (evening dose) 12/8/24,12/11/24, 12/12/24,12/17/24,12/18/24,12/24/24,12/25/24, 12/28/24, 12/29/24, 12/30/24, 12/31/24, 1/1/25, 1/7/25 -Cholecalciferol: 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 -Furosemide: 12/3/24, 12/5/24, 12/12/24, 12/18/24, 12/23/24, 12/24/23, 12/25/24, 12/26/24, 1/11/25 -Gabapentin: (morning dose) 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 (afternoon dose) 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 (evening dose) 12/8/24, 12/11/24, 12/12/24, 12/17/24, 12/18/24, 12/24/24, 12/25/24, 12/28/24, 12/29/24, 12/30/24, 12/31/24, 1/1/25, 1/7/25 -Hydralazine: (evening dose) 12/28/24, 12/29/24, 12/30/24, 12/31/24, 1/1/25, 1/7/25 -Memantine (day dose) 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 (evening dose) 12/8/24, 12/11/24, 12/12/24, 12/17/24, 12/18/23, 12/2/24, 12/25/24, 12/28/24, 12/29/24, 12/30/24, 12/31/24, 1/1/25, 1/7/25 -Protonix: 1/11/25 -Sennosides-Docusate Sodium: 12/8/24, 12/11/24, 12/12/24, 12/17/24, 12/18,24 12/24/24, 12/25/24, 12/28/24, 12/29/24, 12/30/24, 12/31/24, 1/1/25, 1/7/25 -Sertraline: 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 -Spironolactone: 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 -Trazadone: 12/8/24, 12/11/24, 12/12/24, 12/17/24, 12/18/24, 12/24/24, 12/25/24, 12/28/24, 12/29/24, 12/30/24, 12/31/24, 1/1/25, 1/7/25 -Xarelto 2.5 mg: 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 -Aspirin Chewable: 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 -Celecoxib: 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24, 12/27/24 -Multivitamin with Iron 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 -Ascorbic Acid: (day dose) 12/9/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 (evening dose) 12/8/24, 12/11/24, 12/12/24, 12/17/24, 12/18/24, 12/24/24, 12/25/24 -Bumetanide: (day dose) 12/9/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 (evening dose) 12/8/24, 12/11/24, 12/12/24, 12/17/24, 12/18/24, 12/24/24, 12/25/24 -Lactobacillus: (day dose) 12/9/24, 12/22/24, 12/25/24, 12/26/24 (evening dose) 12/8/24, 12/11/24, 12/12/24, 12/17/24, 12/18/24, 12/24/24, 12/25/24 -Polyethylene Glycol: (evening dose) 12/28/24, 12/29/24, 12/30/24, 12/31/24, 1/1/25, 1/7/25 -Heparin: (morning dose) 1/11/25 (evening dose) 12/28/24, 12/29/24, 12/30/24, 12/31/24, 1/1/25, 1/7/25 During an interview on 1/16/25 at 1:45 P.M., Nurse #3 said she was unaware there was an issue with documentation on the MARs. Nurse #3 said she could only see what she was assigned to give that shift. Nurse #3 said when a Resident was out of the facility she could document that on the MAR. Nurse #3 said the internet goes out periodically, but she was not told the procedure to document on a paper MAR. Nurse #3 said nurses needed to document on the MAR at the end of their shift. During an interview on 1/17/25 at 7:25 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said she was aware there was an issue with the documentation of medication administration on the MARs and did not know why the nurses were not consistently documenting on them. The DON said she could not verify if it was an issue with the internet connection or if a resident had been out of the facility. The DON said there is an emergency protocol for when the internet was unavailable. The DON said she had not been notified of any computer issues. The DON said when a resident is out of the facility it should be noted on the MAR. The DON said the expectation is that the nurses should be documenting on the MAR before they leave their shift for the day. 4. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility in October 2024 with diagnoses which included Diabetes Mellitus with other specified complications, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with diabetic neuropathy. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated he/she had a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus and took insulin. Review of the physician orders indicated but were not limited to the following: -Acidophilus (probiotic/GI health) give one capsule, one time a day for 14 days (11/8/24) -Atorvastatin 80 mg, once daily at bedtime (10/29/24) -Cholecalciferol 1000-unit tablet (vitamin), 2 tablets one time a day (10/29/24) -Duloxetine HCL Capsule 30mg (for depression), give 90mg one time a day (10/29/24) -Famotidine 40mg, one time a day (11/21/24) -Famotidine 20mg one time a day (10/29/24-11/20/24) -Jardiance 10mg (lowers blood sugar), one time a day (10/29/24) -Lantus SoloStar Insulin (lowers blood sugar), inject 7 units at bedtime (11/21/24) -Levofloxacin 750mg (antibiotic), one time a day for pneumonia for 10 days (11/8/24) -Magnesium Oxide 400mg, one time a day (10/29/24) -Multivitamin tablet, one time a day (10/29/24) -Nicotine 14mg Patch, apply once daily (11/9/24) -Tamsulosin 0.8mg (for prostate), one time a day (10/29/24) -Trazodone 50mg, at bedtime (10/29/24) -Tresiba Insulin (lowers blood sugar), inject 7 units one time a day (10/29/24-11/20/24) -Calcium Carbonate 500mg, two times a day (10/29/24) -Eliquis 5mg (blood thinner), two times daily (10/29/24) -Guaifenesin ER tablet 600mg (for mucus/congestion), twice daily (10/29/24) -Metformin 500mg (lowers blood sugar), two times a day (10/29/24) -Tramadol 50mg (pain), two times a day (10/29/24-11/14/24) -Benzonatate 100mg (for cough), three times a day (10/29/24) -Gabapentin 600mg, three times a day (10/29/24) -Tramadol 50mg (for pain), three times a day (11/14/24) -Ipratropium/Albuterol 0.5mg/2.5mg (respiratory), - 3ml inhale four times a day (11/5/24) -Phenytoin 100mg (seizures), every six hours (10/29/24) Review of the November 2024 through January 2025 MARs indicated the following medications were not signed off as administered, as evidenced by blank, unsigned boxes corresponding to the dates and times medications were to be administered on 236 occasions as follows: -Acidophilus: November 4 of 14 opportunities. -Atorvastatin: November 4 of 30 opportunities; December 4 of 19 opportunities; January 2 of 14 opportunities. -Cholecalciferol: November 2 of 30 opportunities. -Duloxetine HCL: November 2 of 30 opportunities. -Famotidine: November 4 of 30 opportunities; December 4 of 37 opportunities; January 2 of 14 opportunities. -Jardiance: November 2 of 30 opportunities. -Lantus Insulin: November 2 of 10 opportunities; December 2 of 19 opportunities; January 2 of 14 opportunities. -Levofloxacin: November 2 of 10 opportunities. -Magnesium Oxide: November 2 of 30 opportunities. -Multivitamin: November 2 of 30 opportunities. -Nicotine 14mg Patch: November 2 of 20 opportunities. -Tamsulosin: November 2 of 30 opportunities. -Trazodone: November 4 of 30 opportunities; December 4 of 19 opportunities; January 2 of 14 opportunities. -Tresiba Insulin: November 2 of 20 opportunities. -Calcium Carbonate: November 6 of 60 opportunities; December 4 of 37 opportunities; January 1 of 29 opportunities. -Eliquis: November 6 of 60 opportunities; December 3 of 33 opportunities; January 1 of 29 opportunities. -Guaifenesin: November 6 of 60 opportunities; December 4 of 37 opportunities; January 1 of 29 opportunities. -Metformin: November 7 of 60 opportunities; December 4 of 37 opportunities; January 1 of 29 opportunities. -Tramadol: November 4 of 26 opportunities. -Benzonatate: November 11 of 90 opportunities; December 4 of 55 opportunities; January 2 of 43 opportunities. -Gabapentin November 11 of 90 opportunities; December 4 of 56 opportunities; January 2 of 44 opportunities. -Tramadol: November 5 of 48 opportunities; December 4 of 55 opportunities; January 3 of 44 opportunities. -Ipratropium/Albuterol Nebulizer: November 21 of 102 opportunities; December 18 of 68 opportunities; January 4 of 58 opportunities. -Phenytoin: November 20 of 120 opportunities; December 19 of 76 opportunities; January 2 of 58 opportunities. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 3:54 P.M., Nurse #1 said the MAR should not have any blanks, every mediation should be signed off as administered, held, refused etc. During an interview on 1/21/25 at 1:23 P.M., the DON said when a nurse administers medications, they should document that it was administered on the MAR. She said the MAR should not have any holes (blank/unsigned boxes).
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections for three Residents (#50, #61, and #46), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1a. For Resident #50, to ensure staff performed hand hygiene when indicated, adhered to Contact Precautions, and sanitized shared medical equipment (blood pressure cuff) after use; and b. For Resident #61, to ensure staff performed hand hygiene when indicated, adhered to Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP-an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities), and sanitized shared medical equipment (blood pressure cuff) after use; and 2. For Resident #46, to ensure Gastrostomy tube (G-tube: a tube that is placed directly into the stomach through an abdominal incision for administration of nutrition, fluids, and medication) equipment was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner to decrease the risk of potential contamination and infection. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled Infection Control Guidelines for Nursing Procedures, dated as last revised 7/2024 indicated but was not limited to the following: -Standard Precautions are the minimum infection prevention practices that apply to all resident care, regardless of suspected or confirmed infection status of the residents, in any setting where health care is delivered. Standard Precautions include hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), sterile instruments and devices, and clean and disinfected environmental surfaces. -Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) will be used whenever measures more stringent than Standard Precautions are needed to prevent the spread of infection. TBP will be initiated when there is reason to believe that a resident has a communicable infectious disease. TBP may include Contact Precautions, Droplet Precautions, Airborne Precautions, or Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). Types of TBP: Contact Precautions: In addition to Standard Precautions, implement Contact Precautions for residents known or suspected to be infected with microorganisms that can be transmitted by direct contact with the resident or indirect contact with the environmental surfaces or resident care items in the resident's environment. Examples of such infections include infection with MDROs. -PPE: In addition to wearing gloves as outlined under Standard Precautions, don (put on) disposable gown when entering the room. After removing gloves, gown, and washing hands do not touch potentially contaminated environmental surfaces. -Resident Care Equipment: When possible, dedicate the use of non-critical resident care equipment items such as a stethoscope, sphygmomanometer (blood pressure cuff), thermometer to a single resident to avoid sharing between residents. If use of common items is unavoidable, then adequately clean and disinfect them before use for another resident. ENHANCED BARRIER PRECAUTIONS (EBP): Infection Control intervention designed to reduce transmission of MDROs. EBP is indicated for nursing home residents with any of the following: Infection or colonization with an MDRO when Contact Precautions do not otherwise apply, Chronic wounds, Indwelling medical devices, including but not limited to IV, feeding tubes, trach, drains, and urinary catheters. -PPE: use of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that may provide opportunities for transmission of MDROs via staff hands and clothing. Examples of high contact resident activities are dressing, bathing, showering, transferring, changing linen, personal hygiene, toileting/brief change, device care, Central line. -Resident Care Equipment: If use of common items is unavoidable, then adequately clean and disinfect them before use for another resident. In most situations, the preferred method of hand hygiene is with an alcohol-based hand rub. If hands are not visibly soiled, use an alcohol-based hand rub: -Before and after direct contact with residents -Prior to donning and post doffing (removing) gloves -Before preparing or handling medications -After contact with the resident's skin -After contact with objects (medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the resident a. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility in December 2024 with diagnoses which included acute osteomyelitis of the ankle and foot (infection to the bone), surgical amputation, and chronic ulcer of the left lower leg. Review of the Physician's Orders indicated but were not limited to the following: -Maintain CONTACT precautions due to MRSA use of gown and gloves every shift. (12/27/24) Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan indicated but was not limited to the following: -Resident has actual impairment to the skin related to constant picking. Multiple scabbed areas to bilateral lower extremities. (Revision 11/29/24) -Alteration in skin integrity related to patient non-compliance with treatment and retraumatizing healing wound via picking at skin. Post surgical wound right foot status post amputation of great and second toe with wound vac in place. (Revision 1/9/25) -Resident has MRSA in the right foot wound. Contact Isolation; Instruct family/visitors to wear gown/gloves during physical contact with resident. Wash hands before leaving room. On 1/15/25 at 8:25 A.M., the surveyor observed a Contact Precautions sign posted at the door to Resident #50's room. Review of the Contact Precautions sign indicated the following: STOP: Contact Precautions: Everyone Must: -Clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. -Providers and Staff must also: Put on gloves and gown before room entry. -Use dedicated or disposable equipment. Clean and disinfect reusable equipment before use on another person. On 1/15/25, the surveyor observed Nurse #4 administer medications to Resident #50 as follows: -8:26 A.M., Nurse #4 poured the medications for Resident #50 at the medication cart outside the resident's room. -8:37 A.M., Nurse #4 entered the room with the medication cup and a cup of water with no PPE on (no gloves or gown). She proceeded to check Resident #50's blood pressure with a wrist cuff, move items around on the bedside/overbed table, and adjust his/her bed linens covering lower extremities with exposed and visible wounds/scabs. The cuff did not read the blood pressure, so the cuff was repositioned and taken again. The medications were administered. Nurse #4 exited the room without performing hand hygiene (HH) and returned to the medication cart, placing the blood pressure cuff on top of the cart. -8:42 A.M., without performing HH, Nurse #4 proceeded to access the electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) on the computer, opened the medication cart, opened the narcotic box, removed Oxycodone (narcotic for pain), signed the narcotic book and at 8:46 A.M. re-entered Resident #50's room without performing HH or donning PPE. She administered the medication and exited the room without performing HH. On 1/15/25, the surveyor made additional observations during the medication pass of staff entering Resident #50's room as follows: -8:36 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 entered the room without performing HH and without PPE on. She collected the breakfast tray, exited the room and placed the tray in the meal cart. Without performing HH, she entered the next room to collect the breakfast tray. -9:01 A.M., Housekeeper #2 entered the room with gloves on but no gown and proceeded to sweep the room, adjust personal items on the Resident's bedside/overbed table, including trash, and exit the room without performing HH. b. Resident #61 was admitted to the facility in July 2024 with diagnoses which included peripheral vascular disease, absence of left leg below the knee, and gangrene. Review of the Physician's Orders indicated but were not limited to the following: -EBP every shift. (10/9/24) Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan indicated but was not limited to the following: -Skin: Actual alteration in skin integrity related to admitted with surgical wound left below the knee amputation. (Revision 12/3/24) -EBP (10/24/24) On 1/15/25 at 8:46 A.M., the surveyor observed an EBP sign posted at the door to Resident #61's room. Review of the EBP Precautions sign indicated the following: STOP: EBP: Everyone Must: -Clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. -Providers and Staff must also: Put on gloves and gown for the following High-Contact Resident Care Activities: Dressing, Bathing/Showering, Transferring, Changing Linens, Providing Hygiene, Changing brief or assisting with toileting, Device Care or use, Wound Care On 1/15/25, the surveyor observed Nurse #4 administer medications to Resident #50 and then continue on to administer medications and provide care to Resident #61 as follows: -8:47 A.M., Nurse #4 logged back into the eMAR and reviewed the medication list for Resident #61. She walked away from the medication cart (still without performing HH) and entered the nurses' station, retrieved two cartons of Glucerna (liquid nutritional supplement) from the cabinet and returned to the medication cart. Without performing HH, she proceeded to pour the medications for Resident #61. Nurse #4 was unable to locate one over the counter (OTC) medication needed, so she proceeded to lock the medication cart and walk to the medication storage room (still without performing HH). She entered the medication storage room, located the OTC medication and returned to the medication cart. Nurse #4, without performing HH, finished pouring the medications for Resident #61. Nurse #4 entered the room without PPE, placed the medication cup on the beside/overbed table, exited the room and returned to the medication cart in the hallway to retrieve the blood pressure cuff from the top of the cart. Nurse #4 re-entered the room without PPE or performing HH and without cleaning the blood pressure cuff proceeded to check Resident #61's blood pressure, administered medications, and exited the room. She placed the blood pressure cuff back on the top of the medication cart without cleaning it. -9:00 A.M., without performing HH, Nurse #4 then opened a small canvas bag to retrieve a thermometer and an oximeter. She placed those items on the top of the medication cart. She accessed the eMAR and started to prepare medications for the next resident and was stopped by the surveyor. During an interview on 1/15/25 at 9:00 A.M., Nurse #4 said she did not know why Resident #50 had a Contact Precautions sign hanging up and did not think he/she was on true precautions. She said she thought Residents #50 and #61 were both on EBP for wounds. Additionally, she said they do not have to wear PPE for medication administration. She said during the medication pass she tries to do HH before entering a room at least every few residents. She said usually it's every 2-3 unless there is a treatment, then HH is done. She said she does not perform HH between every resident. Nurse #4 said the blood pressure cuff is usually wiped down with an alcohol-wipe every three residents or so. During an interview on 1/15/25 at 9:26 A.M., CNA #1 said Resident #50 was on Contact Precautions, but they did not need PPE to enter the room or to deliver/collect trays. She said they only needed to wear PPE (gloves, gown, and mask) when providing care. During an interview with Housekeeper #2 and the Director of Housekeeping #1 on 1/15/25 at 9:17 A.M., Housekeeper #2 said she did not speak English well and indicated she would get the supervisor to assist. The Director of Housekeeping #1 said Housekeeper #2 should have had full PPE on to enter Resident #50's room due to Contact Precautions. She said Housekeeper #2 doesn't speak good English but would need more education on what PPE is needed in the Precaution rooms. During an interview on 1/15/25 at 12:29 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) and Consulting Staff #1 said with Contact Precautions staff should perform HH prior to entering the residents' room and have PPE on for resident contact/care. Consulting Staff #1 said Housekeeping should be okay just sweeping but touching the environment they should have PPE on. Additionally, she said the sign does indicate to don PPE prior to entering the room, so they all should have it on based on that. They said with EBP staff should be performing HH prior to entering the room and PPE should be used when providing resident care/contact with the area (i.e. wound). The DON said equipment should be cleaned between residents if shared and HH should be performed between every resident and when entering/exiting any room with a precaution sign. During an interview on 1/15/25 at 2:43 P.M., Nurse #4 said Resident #50 is on Contact Precautions and therefore she should have had full PPE on to enter the room, administer meds, check his/her blood pressure, and adjust the bed linens. Additionally, she said the blood pressure cuff should have been sanitized before being used for the next resident and it was not. 2. Review of the facility's policy titled Infection Control Guidelines for Nursing Procedures, dated as revised 7/2024, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Standard precautions are the minimum infection prevention practices that apply to all resident care areas Resident #46 was admitted to the facility in September 2024 with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing liquid or food), and intercranial hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/13/24, indicated Resident #46 had a feeding tube and the portion of the total calories the resident received through a feeding tube was 51% or more. On 1/14/25 at 2:57 P.M., the surveyor observed a piston syringe (needleless syringe to administer fluids through a feeding tube) lying on the Resident's bedside table, uncovered and undated. The syringe did not have a protective barrier underneath it potentially exposing it to environmental contaminants. Review of the Physician's Orders indicated Resident #46 had the following orders related to the feeding tube supplies: -Change piston syringe every night shift During an observation with an interview on 1/16/25 at 7:43 A.M. Nurse #2 and the surveyor observed a piston syringe lying uncovered and undated on top of Resident #46's nightstand, potentially exposed to environmental contaminants. Nurse #2 said the syringes are supposed to be stored in individual bags that are labeled with the Resident's name and date. She said they are coming in one large bag now and she has nothing to store it in, so she places it on the table. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 2:39 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said all G-tube supplies should be stored in a sanitary manner with a protective barrier, to reduce the risk of contamination. She said it also should have the Resident's name and date labeled on it, and it is to be changed every 24 hours.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a safe and clean environment in the designated smoking area by not properly disposing of cigarette butts in designated safe ashtrays...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a safe and clean environment in the designated smoking area by not properly disposing of cigarette butts in designated safe ashtrays. Findings include: Review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) circular letter, dated November 10, 2011, titled Smoking Safety in Long Term Care Facilities indicated but was not limited to the following: -The facility is obligated to ensure the safety of designated smoking areas which includes protection of residents from weather conditions and non-smoking residents from secondhand smoke. -The Life Safety Code (NFPA 101, 2000 ed., 19.7.4) requires each smoking area be provided with ashtrays made of noncombustible material and safe design. On 1/16/25 at 10:40 A.M., the surveyor observed the outside smoking area as follows: -Along the entire border of the smoking area there were hundreds of cigarette butts observed in the bushes lining the smoking area. -White glass bowls, stained with a black substance and ashes were in the bushes. -Plastic outdoor self-extinguishing ashtray with bucket at its base. The neck of the ashtray was disconnected from the bucket leaving the cigarette butts exposed. -On two of the outdoor tables there were one white glass bowl and three clear glass bowls with numerous cigarettes butts. There were no covers to the bowls. -Cigarette butts disposed of in the trash can lined with a plastic bag containing empty cigarette boxes. -Cigarette butts in the planter by the door to the facility. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 10:45 A.M., Resident #51 said the ashtrays blew over with the wind and the top of the ashtray blew off, blowing cigarette butts everywhere. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 10:50 A.M., the Maintenance Director (MD) said he cleans up the smoking area every Monday and Friday. He said when he comes out on Mondays it is worse. The MD said the residents know they are supposed to dispose of cigarettes in the ashtrays, but they don't. He said when he tells the residents they must dispose of cigarettes in the ashtray, they tell him they have rights, and they don't listen. The area needs to be kept cleaner. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 11:35 A.M., the MD said the outdoor ashtray was missing a screw and that's why the top came off, and he removed all the open ashtrays from the tables. During an interview on 1/16/25 at 11:55 P.M., the Administrator said he was not aware of the numerous cigarettes on the ground or the screw missing from the ashtray. He said there is a staff member out there supervising all smoking sessions.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled Employee Files, the Facility failed to ensure they implemented and followed their Abuse Policy when a Massachusetts Nurse Aide Regist...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled Employee Files, the Facility failed to ensure they implemented and followed their Abuse Policy when a Massachusetts Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) check was not conducted on Nurse #1 prior to her date of employment at the Facility as required, and in accordance with the Facility's Abuse Policy. Findings include: Review of the Facility's Policy titled Abuse Investigation and Reporting, dated as revised February 2024, indicated that the Nurse Aide Registry is checked prior to employment for all facility employees. Review of Nurse #1's Employee File indicated her first date of employment at the Facility was 03/04/24. Further review of her Employee File indicated there was no documentation to support that an NAR check had been conducted prior to employment at the Facility. During an interview on 10/22/24 at 2:10 P.M., the Administrator said all employees must have an NAR check prior to their first date of employment at the Facility. The Administrator said the Facility was unable to provide documentation to support that a NAR check had been conducted on Nurse #1 prior to her first date of employment.
Dec 2023 21 deficiencies 2 Harm
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.
Nov 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose Plan of Care indicated he/she ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose Plan of Care indicated he/she required two staff members to assist with and be present the entire time while providing care and services, the Facility failed to ensure nursing staff consistently implemented and followed interventions from his/her Plan of Care while meeting his/her care needs. On 10/07/23, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 provided personal care to Resident #1 and then performed passive range of motion (ROM) exercises to Resident #1's left leg, without another staff member present in the room, and although CNA #1 heard a popping sound while performing range of motion to Resident #1's left leg, she did not report it to anyone, a week later Resident #1 complained of pain to his/her left leg and reported the incident that had previously occurred involving CNA #1 during care to nursing. Findings include: Review of the Facility's Policy, titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plan, dated November 2017, indicated the Facility would develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs. The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive care plan must describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Review of the Facility's Internal Investigation Report, dated 10/16/23, indicated that on 10/14/23 Resident #1 complained of left leg pain and stated that someone hurt him/her about a week ago. The Report indicated that Resident #1 stated that when CNA #1 performed range of motion exercises on his/her left leg, he/she heard a popping sound and felt pain during the range of motion exercises. The Report indicated that CNA #1 was interviewed and stated that while performing range of motion exercises on Resident #1 on 10/07/23, she heard a pop like sound and that Resident #1 said he/she was fine and asked her (CNA #1) not to report the incident to the nurse. The Report indicated that Resident #1 told CNA #1 not to tell anyone because he/she was afraid of retaliation. The Report indicated that CNA #2 was interviewed and stated that the following night (10/08/23), Resident #1 asked her to get CNA #1 (who was working on another unit at the Facility) and when CNA #1 entered the room, Resident #1 told both CNA #1 and CNA #2 not to report the incident. The Report indicated that CNA #1, CNA #2 and Resident #1 made a pact to keep the incident between them and not report the incident. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in November 2002, diagnoses included paraplegia, osteoporosis, traumatic brain injury, psychoactive substance abuse with psychoactive substance-induced psychotic disorder with delusions, anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #1 was cognitively intact, required extensive physical assistance from two staff members with dressing, hygiene, bed mobility and toileting. The MDS indicated Resident #1 had physical and verbal behaviors directed towards others. Review of Resident #1's Behavior Care Plan, renewed and reviewed with his/her September 2023 MDS, indicated two staff members were required to be in his/her room at all times (during provision of care or when responding to him/her) secondary to accusatory behavior. Review of Resident #1's CNA Care Plan, (used as a reference guide by CNA's), dated 10/01/23, indicated Resident #1 required two staff members assistance with all of his/her care needs, that passive ROM was to be performed with activities of daily living (ADL) and that Resident #1 had accusatory behaviors. Review of Resident #1's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Care Plan, renewed and reviewed with his/her September 2023 MDS, indicated that staff was to perform passive ROM with ADL care, monitor and report changes in physical functioning and changes in ROM ability. Review of CNA #1's Written Witness Statement, undated, indicated that on 10/07/23, Resident #1 called for assistance with personal care. The Statement indicated that CNA #1 informed Resident #1 that the other staff member was on break at that time. The Statement indicated that Resident #1 said he/she needed to be changed because he/she was too wet and that CNA #1 informed Resident #1 that she would need to leave the door open. The Statement indicated that Resident #1 requested that she (CNA #1) perform range of motion, that she did range of motion a couple of times then heard a popping noise and stopped performing range of motion. During a telephone interview on 11/09/23 at 11:20 A.M., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 said that on 10/07/23 Resident #1 put on his/her call light and requested personal care. CNA #1 said that she told Resident #1 that the other staff member was on break and said that Resident #1 told her that he/she did not want to wait because he/she was wet. CNA #1 said she left the door open to Resident #1's room so the nurse could hear what was being said in the room. CNA #1 said she provided personal care to Resident #1 and then performed range of motion to his/her left leg and heard a pop during range of motion. CNA #1 said she knew that Resident #1's plan of care indicated that there should always be two staff members in his/her room at all times because of his/her accusatory behaviors and said she should have waited for the other staff member to come back from break to provide care to Resident #1. During an interview on 11/08/23 at 3:45 P.M., the Administrator said that Resident #1 always requires two staff members in his/her room because of his/her accusatory behaviors. The Administrator said that CNA #1 should have gone into Resident #1's room with another staff member, said that CNA #1 did not follow Resident #1's plan of care when she went into his/her room to provide care and perform range of motion without another staff member. The Administrator said it was her expectation that staff follow the residents' plan of care.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose Plan of Care indicated to perf...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), whose Plan of Care indicated to perform passive range of motion (ROM) with activities of daily living and to monitor and report changes in range of motion, the Facility failed to ensure that he/she was provided with the necessary care and potential need for treatment, when he/she experienced a sudden change in condition during the performance of range of motion by staff, that was not immediately reported to his/her nurse, as required. On 10/07/23, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 performed passive range of motion exercises to Resident #1's left leg and heard a popping sound while performing range of motion to his/her left leg, however CNA #1 never reported the incident to Resident #1's nurse. A week later Resident #1 complained of pain to his/her left leg and reported to nursing the incident that had occurred during care when CNA #1 performed passive ROM on him/her. Findings include: Review of the Facility's Policy, titled Accidents and Incidents - Investigating and Reporting, dated November 2017, indicated the following: -all accidents or incidents involving residents, employees, visitors, etc., occurring on Facility premises shall be investigated and reported to the Administrator; -the Nurse Supervisor, Charge Nurse and/or Department Director shall promptly initiate and document the investigation of the accident or incident; -the following data, as applicable, shall be included on the Report of Incident/Accident form: -date and time accident or incident took place; -nature of the injury or illness; -circumstances surrounding the accident or incident; -where the accident or incident took place; -the name of witnesses and their accounts of the accident or incident; -the injured person's account of the accident or incident; -the date and time the injured persons's attending Physician and family was notified and by whom; -the condition of the injured person; -disposition of the injured person; -any corrective action taken; -follow-up information and signature and title of the person completing the report. Review of CNA #1's signed Nurse Aide Job Description, dated 4/04/1995, indicated that the nurse aide is directly responsible to the charge nurse, observes and immediately reports to the charge nurse changes in the residents' condition or behavior, assists with developing resident care plans and reviews in conjunction with nursing and other disciplines. Resident #1 was admitted to the Facility in November 2002, diagnoses included paraplegia, osteoporosis, traumatic brain injury, psychoactive substance abuse with psychoactive substance-induced psychotic disorder with delusions, anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #1 was cognitively intact, required extensive physical assistance from two staff members with dressing, hygiene, bed mobility and toileting. The MDS indicated Resident #1 had physical and verbal behaviors directed towards others. Review of Resident #1's CNA Care Plan, (used as a reference guide by CNA's), dated 10/01/23, indicated Resident #1 required two staff members to provide assistance with his/her care needs, that he/she was to receive passive ROM by staff with activities of daily living, and that two staff were required to be present at all times with care due to his/her history of accusatory behavior. Review of Resident #1's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Care Plan, renewed and reviewed with his/her September 2023 MDS, indicated that staff to perform passive ROM with ADL care, monitor and report changes in physical functioning and changes in ROM ability. During an interview on 11/08/23 at 11:45 A.M., Resident #1 said that on 10/07/23 he/she asked CNA #1 to do range of motion exercises to his/her left leg and said that when CNA #1 performed range of motion on his/her left leg, she heard a pop. Resident #1 said that CNA #1 told him/her not to report it to anyone and said he/she suffered in pain for a whole week before he/she told anyone about the incident. Review of the Facility's Internal Investigation Report, dated 10/16/23, indicated that on 10/14/23 Resident #1 complained of left leg pain and stated that someone hurt him/her about a week ago. The Report indicated that Resident #1 stated that when CNA #1 performed range of motion exercises on his/her left leg, he/she heard a popping sound and felt pain during the range of motion exercises. The Report indicated that CNA #1 was interviewed and stated that while performing range of motion exercises on Resident #1 on 10/07/23, she heard a pop like sound and that Resident #1 said he/she was fine and asked her (CNA #1) not to report the incident to the nurse. The Report indicated that Resident #1 told CNA #1 not to tell anyone because he/she was afraid of retaliation. The Report indicated that CNA #2 was interviewed and stated that the following night (10/08/23), Resident #1 asked her to get CNA #1 (who was working on another unit at the Facility) and when CNA #1 entered the room, Resident #1 told both CNA #1 and CNA #2 not to report the incident. The Report indicated that CNA #1, CNA #2 and Resident #1 made a pact to keep the incident between them and not report the incident. Review of CNA #1's Written Witness Statement, undated, indicated that on 10/07/23, Resident #1 called for assistance with personal care and requested that she perform range of motion. The Statement indicated that she (CNA #1) performed range of motion a couple of times then heard a pop like noise and stopped performing range of motion. The Statement indicated that CNA #1 did not report the incident to the nurse because Resident #1 asked her not to report the incident to anyone and that she (CNA #1) agreed. During a telephone interview on 11/09/23 at 11:20 A.M., CNA #1 said that on 10/07/23 Resident #1 put his/her call light on and requested personal care. CNA #1 said she provided personal care to Resident #1 and then performed range of motion to his/her left leg and heard a pop like sound during range of motion. CNA #1 said that Resident #1 told her not to report the incident to anyone and had said he/she would be fine. CNA #1 said that the next day, she was working on another unit and CNA #2 told her that Resident #1 wanted to talk to her. CNA #1 said that when she and CNA #2 went into Resident #1's room, he/she told both of them not to talk to anyone about the incident. CNA #1 said she did not report the incident to anyone. Review of CNA #2's Written Witness Statement, dated 10/16/23, indicated that on 10/08/23 CNA #1 was by the time clock and told her that Resident #1 got hurt when she performed range of motion exercises to his/her left knee. The Statement indicated that CNA #1 told her (CNA #2) that she heard a pop like sound from Resident #1's knee during range of motion exercises and that CNA #1 told her that she was afraid that she may get into trouble for performing range of motion exercises on Resident #1. The Statement indicated that Resident #1 asked her (CNA #2) to go get CNA #1 because he/she wanted to talk to her. The Statement indicated that when she and CNA #1 entered Resident #1's room, Resident #1 said that CNA #1 would not get into any trouble or be fired because of his/her leg and indicated that Resident #1 said that the incident would stay between them. The Statement indicated that Resident #1 stated to them that he/she would say that he/she rolled over and heard a pop. During an interview on 11/08/23 at 1:59 P.M., CNA #2 said that on 10/08/23 CNA #1 was crying by the time clock and told her that Resident #1 said that she hurt him/her when she performed range of motion exercises on his/her leg. CNA #2 said that CNA #1 said that when she performed range of motion exercises with Resident #1 on his/her left leg, she heard a pop like noise. CNA #2 said she asked CNA #1 if she reported the incident to anyone and that CNA #1 did not answer her. CNA #2 said that CNA #1 then told her that she had made a pact with Resident #1 not to tell anyone about the incident. CNA #2 said that when she told CNA #1 to report the incident to the nurse, that CNA #1 walked away from her. CNA #2 said that she did not report the incident to anyone. During an interview on 11/08/23 at 3:45 P.M., the Administrator said that Resident #1 reported to her that CNA #1 performed range of motion exercises on his/her leg and they both heard a popping sound. The Administrator said that during the investigation, it was revealed that there was a pact made between Resident #1, CNA #1 and CNA #2 not to report the incident to anyone and to keep it a secret. The Administrator said that CNA #1 and CNA #2 did not report the incident to, but should have. The Administrator said that it was her expectation that staff immediately report any change of condition to the nurse.
Oct 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, policy review, and document review, the facility failed to maintain and consistently implement an infection prevention and control program during a current COVID-19 outbreak in the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, policy review, and document review, the facility failed to maintain and consistently implement an infection prevention and control program during a current COVID-19 outbreak in the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Consistently implement a system for staff surveillance of COVID-19 within the facility; and 2. Ensure staff followed infection control guidelines for doffing (taking off) personal protective equipment (PPE) when exiting a COVID-19 positive resident's room. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled Surveillance for Infections, revised April 2018, indicated but was not limited to the following: -The Infection Preventionist will conduct ongoing surveillance for Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs) and other epidemiologically significant infections that have substantial impact on potential resident/staff outcome and that may require transmission-based precautions and other preventative interventions. On 10/3/23 at 8:50 A.M., during the entrance conference, the Administrator, Infection Preventionist (IP), and Director of Nursing (DON, and helps the IP) said the current COVID-19 outbreak in the facility began on 9/19/23 after a resident tested positive. Review of the staff COVID-19 return to work document provided by the IP and DON indicated the following: -Staff #1 - COVID-19 positive on 9/20/23 -Staff #2 - COVID-19 positive on 9/21/23 -Staff #3, Staff #4, Staff #5 - COVID-19 positive on 9/22/23 -Staff #6, Staff #7, Staff #8 - COVID-19 positive on 9/23/23 -Staff #9, Staff #10, Staff #11 - COVID-19 positive on 9/24/23 -Staff #12, Staff #13, Staff #14, Staff #15- COVID-19 positive on 9/25/23 -Staff #15 - COVID-19 positive on 9/26/23 -Staff #16, Staff #17, Staff #18 - COVID-19 positive on 9/27/23 Review of the facility's Long-Term Care Staff Surveillance Line Lists, dated 9/19/23 and 9/21/23 through 9/27/23, indicated the line lists were blank or incomplete, missing consistent documentation of one or more of the following: -Staff primary floor assignment -Symptom onset date -Symptoms -Type of specimen collected -Date of collection -Type of test ordered -Type of pathogen detected -Symptom resolution date During an interview on 10/3/23 at 3:30 P.M., the surveyor reviewed the line listings with the IP who said the DON was responsible for them during that timeframe. She said the line listings were not complete with the required information but should have been. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 3:40 P.M., the surveyor reviewed the line listings with the DON who said she was responsible for completing the ones dated 9/19/23 through 9/27/23. She said they were not completed as they should have been. 2. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 7:20 A.M., the Administrator said the facility was in a current COVID-19 outbreak that began on 9/19/23 with three residents currently positive (one each on the B, C, and D Units). She said the expectation for PPE was for staff to wear a N95 facemask, gown, face shield/goggles, and gloves prior to entering a COVID-19 positive resident's room. Review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance titled Use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) When Caring for Patients with Confirmed or Suspected COVID-19, dated June 2020, indicated but was not limited to the following (www.cdc.gov/coronavirus): Doffing (taking off the gear) 1. Remove gloves 2. Remove gown 3. Healthcare personnel (HCP) may now exit patient room On 10/3/23 at 8:05 A.M., the surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 exit a COVID-19 positive resident's room wearing a N95 facemask, goggles, gown, and gloves. CNA #1 doffed her gloves and gown in the hallway, not prior to exiting the resident's room. A sign posted outside the resident's room indicated he/she was on isolation precautions. The surveyor did not observe a garbage can inside the resident's room for staff to doff PPE. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 8:10 A.M., CNA #1 said the Resident was positive for COVID-19 and the garbage can was usually inside of the room, but it aggravated the Resident so she doffed her PPE using the garbage can in the hall. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 4:10 P.M., the IP said staff were supposed to doff their PPE in the resident's room prior to exiting and not in the hallway, except for the masks which were to be doffed outside the room in the black garbage can. She said there was supposed to be a garbage can in the resident's room for staff to doff their gown and gloves, but there wasn't.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to provide education, assess for eligibility, and offe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to provide education, assess for eligibility, and offer Pneumococcal Vaccinations per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations and facility policy for four Residents (#1, #2, #3, and #4), out of a total sample of five residents reviewed for immunizations. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccine, revised 7/2023, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Upon admission, residents will be assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine series, and when indicated, will be offered the vaccine unless medically contraindicated, refusal by the resident or health care representative, or the resident has already been vaccinated -Administration of the pneumococcal vaccines or revaccinations will be made in accordance with current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations at the time of the vaccination. Review of the CDC website Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults (cdc.gov), dated 3/15/23, indicated but was not limited to the following: -For adults 65 and over who have not had any prior pneumococcal vaccines, then the patient and provider may choose Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) 20 or PCV15 followed by Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV) 23 one year later. -For adults 65 and over who have only had the PCV13, then PCV20 is recommended greater or equal to 1 year later. -For adults 65 and over who has had PCV13 and PPSV23 and it has been 5 years or greater since the last Pneumococcal vaccination, then the patient and the vaccine provider may choose to administer the 20-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV20). a. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in March 2011 and was [AGE] years old. Review of the immunization record indicated Resident #1 had received the following pneumococcal vaccinations: -Pneumovax Dose 1, 1/30/11 (prior to admission, dose unspecified) The record failed to indicate documentation of follow up screening, an assessment for eligibility to receive the next recommended pneumococcal vaccine dose, the provision of education related to the pneumococcal vaccine, and administration of the vaccine in accordance with facility policy and CDC recommendations since admission, twelve years prior. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 12:33 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said she assisted the Infection Preventionist (IP) and said there was no documentation of follow up that she knew of to offer the Resident the pneumococcal vaccine since he/she had been there. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 3:05 P.M., the IP said she wasn't sure what type of pneumonia vaccine the Resident received in 2011 and could not answer if there had been any follow up since the Resident was admitted in 2011. She said she just obtained consent in September of 2023 to start the whole process. She further said none of the facility's residents had gotten the PCV20, but all were eligible for it. She said she just received the vaccine last night but could not answer why it was not previously administered. b. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in January 2018 and was [AGE] years old. Review of the immunization record indicated Resident #2 had received the following pneumococcal vaccinations: -PCV13, 1/13/2020 Review of the Immunization Consent, dated 12/8/21, indicated the Resident's health care representative consented to administration of the pneumococcal vaccination, however, there was no record the Resident had received the second dose (PCV20) in the series greater or equal to one year later. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 3:15 P.M., the IP said the Resident had not received the pneumonia vaccine since 2020. c. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility in December 2022 and was [AGE] years old. Review of the immunization record did not indicate Resident #3 had received the pneumococcal vaccine. The record failed to indicate documentation of screening, an assessment for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine, the provision of education related to the pneumococcal vaccine, consent to receive, and administration of the vaccine in accordance with facility policy and CDC recommendations. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 1:00 P.M., the DON said there wasn't an Immunization Consent form in the Resident's medical record, and he/she had not gotten it while at the facility. She said the Resident started on hospice as of June 2023, but could not answer why he/she was not offered it upon admission per facility policy. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 1:05 P.M., the IP said she didn't have any information for the Resident from December 2022 to June 2023 in regard to the pneumococcal vaccine. d. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility in March 2023 and was [AGE] years old. Review of the immunization record indicated Resident #4 had received the following (prior to admission): -Pneumococcal (unspecified), 6/28/2011 -PCV13, 8/28/15 The record failed to indicate the Resident or his/her responsible party were educated on the availability of PCV20 per CDC recommendations, or the Resident was assessed for eligibility to receive the vaccination, even though it had been more than eight years since the prior pneumococcal vaccine. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 2:47 P.M., the IP said the program is a work in progress and was not implemented until 9/27/23. She said the Residents are not up to date with their pneumococcal vaccinations as they should be. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 3:25 P.M., the IP said because of the time lapse, Resident #4 should be getting the PCV20 vaccine. She said the facility policy was not followed for administering the pneumonia vaccine to residents.
Oct 2021 15 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Representative/Health Care Agent was given information necessary to make health care decisions, includi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Representative/Health Care Agent was given information necessary to make health care decisions, including the risks and benefits of psychoactive medications and obtain consent for their use, prior to administration for one Resident (#18), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Psychoactive Medication, dated as last revised 4/2018, indicated, but is not limited to: - To administer and monitor the effects of psychoactive medications when prescribed. Psychoactive medication will be prescribed at the lowest possible dosage. - A physician's order and an appropriate diagnosis is required for all psychoactive medications - An informed consent from the resident or legally authorized individual in the case of resident incompetence is required for administration of psychoactive medication. - The Interdisciplinary Team assesses and monitors the appropriateness, effectiveness and side effects associated with psychoactive medications for each resident via resident care plan. review. The resident, and when indicated, the family or responsible person, will be included in the process prior to administration of dose. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility in June 2019 with diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance and major depressive disorder. The Resident's health care proxy was activated in June 2019 due to dementia and severe cognitive impairment. Review of the current Physician's Orders, dated 10/1/21 through 10/31/21, indicated: - Seroquel (antipsychotic) 25 milligrams (mg) at bedtime for behavioral disturbances, order date, 10/9/20. - Lorazepam (antianxiety) 0.5 milliliter (ml) sublingual (under the tongue) once daily before morning care for anxiety/agitation, order date, 12/11/20. - Trazodone (antidepressant) 50 mg three times daily for major depressive disorder, order date, 9/20/21. Review of Resident #18's September 2021 and October 2021 Medication Administration Records (MAR) indicated the psychoactive medications were administered as ordered by the physician. Further review of the clinical record failed to indicate signed Informed Consent Forms were obtained from the Health Care Agent for administration of the psychoactive medications as ordered by the physician. During an interview on 10/12/21 at 1:30 P.M., the Director of Nurses and the surveyor reviewed the clinical record and was unable to locate signed Informed Consents for administration of the psychoactive medications. The Director of Nurses said all residents should have completed and signed Informed Consents for psychoactive medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on policy review, record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were not self-administered without an assessment, a physician's order, and stored safely ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were not self-administered without an assessment, a physician's order, and stored safely for one Resident (#22), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Safety and Supervision of Residents, dated as revised April 2018, indicated residents may self-administer their medications if the interdisciplinary team and the prescribing practitioner has assessed and determined that it is clinically appropriate and safe for the resident to do so. As part of the evaluation the staff and the practitioner will evaluate and document that the resident has the decision-making capacity and was able to perform a specific skill assessment. The skill assessment determines if the resident has the ability to read and understand the medication labels, has comprehension of the purpose and proper dosage, administration time for his/her medications, has the ability to remove the medication from a container, administer the medication, has the ability to recognize risks and major adverse consequences of his/her medications, and is able to store the medication safely and securely. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility in November 2018 with diagnoses that included chronic dermatitis. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/26/21, indicated the Resident scored a 15 out of 15 on his/her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), which indicated intact cognition. Review of the Physician's Order, dated 10/11/21, indicated the topical cream Triamcinolone Acetonide 0.5% was to be applied to back/ abdomen topically, two times a day for rash. Triamcinolone Acetonide is a steroid used to treat skin conditions. During an observation and interview on 10/5/21 at 11:10 A.M. and at 2:29 P.M., the surveyor observed a bottle of normal saline solution on the Resident's windowsill, and a container of Triamcinolone Acetonide 0.1% cream on the Resident's tray table. Resident #22 said the normal saline had been left by the nursing staff and the Triamcinolone Acetonide 0.1% cream belonged to him/her. Resident #22 said the cream was for rash, but that he/she was unable to reach most of the areas it was to be applied to and was unable to explain when it was to be administered. On 10/7/21 at 9:00 A.M. and 12:20 P.M., and on 10/12/21 at 9:00 A.M. and at 4:30 P.M., the surveyor observed medications at the Resident's bedside that included a bottle of normal saline and a container of Triamcinolone Acetonide 0.1% cream. During an interview on 10/13/21 at 10:20 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said she was not aware Resident #22 had any medications stored at the bedside, or that the Resident had been assessed to self-administer medications. The ADON confirmed that Resident #22 did not have a physician's order to have medications at the bedside, and that no assessment was completed for self-administration of the normal saline and the Triamcinolone Acetonide cream.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan after falls for two Residents (#1 and #42), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Findings ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan after falls for two Residents (#1 and #42), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #42 was admitted to the facility in May 2021 with diagnoses including history of falling, lymphedema (localized swelling of the lower legs), and muscle weakness. Review of the Incident Report, dated 9/18/21, indicated the Resident was found sitting on the floor next to his/her wheelchair and stated he/she slid out of the wheelchair while trying to pick up clothes from the floor. The Incident Report indicated the interdisciplinary team met on 9/20/21 and requested an Occupational or Physical Therapy evaluation for the Resident. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan for Fall Risk due to poor safety awareness and impaired balance, initiated on 5/18/21, did not include the intervention for an Occupational or Physical Therapy evaluation after the fall on 9/18/21. During an interview on 10/07/21 at 8:56 A.M., Rehab Services Staff #1 said she could not find the screen at this time but stated, I will get it to you. During an interview on 10/07/21 at 9:18 A.M., Rehab Services Staff #1 said she was unable to find a screen and was not aware that the Resident fell. She said she doesn't attend the risk meeting and only gets a verbal update about the risk meeting from the Director of Nurses, Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse, or Dietitian. During an interview on 10/07/21 at 9:24 A.M., the Director of Nurses said the Resident was supposed to have an Occupational or Physical Therapy evaluation, but it was not done. 2. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in June 2021 with diagnoses that included sciatica, rheumatoid arthritis, and difficulty walking. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/29/21, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15, indicating the Resident is moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated the Resident is dependent on two people for transfers. Review of the Nurse's Progress Notes indicated Resident #1 had falls on 10/1/21 and 10/4/21, as follows: -On 10/2/21, Resident #1 returned to the facility from the hospital after being evaluated for a fall. Review of the Fall Investigation Report, dated 10/1/21, indicated the Resident was found on the floor on his/her right side. The report indicated he/she had rolled out of bed. Investigation report did not indicate that any new interventions were put in place to help prevent falls. -On 10/4/21, Resident #1 was found sitting on the ground on his/her buttocks next to his/her bed. Review of the Fall Investigation Report, dated 10/4/21, indicated the facility implemented two half side rails to the bed as an intervention to help prevent falls from bed. Review of the Resident's Care Plan for Falls, dated 6/24/21 and revised 10/1/21, indicated Resident #1 was a moderate risk for falls related to de-conditioning, sciatica pain, and fibromyalgia. Interventions identified on the Care Plan included: - Two half side rails on bed to assist with repositioning and help define parameters of bed (10/5/21) - 9/6/21 encourage the use of the call light for assistance with items, encourage reacher if able (9/18/21) - Be sure the Resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. The Resident needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. (6/24/21) - Educate the resident/family/caregivers about safety reminders and what to do if a fall occurs (6/24/21) - Follow facility protocol (6/24/21) - PT evaluate and treat as ordered or PRN (as needed) (6/24/21) During an interview on 10/5/21 at 11:48 A.M., Resident #1 said the facility had just put side rails on his/her bed that day and said that he/she would not have fallen out of bed if he/she had the bars in the first place. During an interview on 10/13/21 at 11:30 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said the care plan should be updated with new interventions after a fall and she is not sure why there were no interventions placed for the 10/1/21 fall. Review of the comprehensive care plan for falls indicated there was no documented evidence to address the fall that occurred on 10/1/21.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

3.) Resident #43 was admitted to the facility in May 2021 with diagnoses which included paraplegia (partial paralysis of the lower half of the body), Type 2 diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary...

Read full inspector narrative →
3.) Resident #43 was admitted to the facility in May 2021 with diagnoses which included paraplegia (partial paralysis of the lower half of the body), Type 2 diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease that blocks airflow and makes it difficult to breathe). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/18/21, indicated Resident #43 had no significant weight loss since admission to the facility. Review of the facility's policy titled Weight Measurement, revised on 4/4/19, included but was not limited to: -Weights will be obtained weekly for four weeks after admission. Subsequent weights will be monthly, unless physician's orders or the resident's condition warrants more frequent as determined by the interdisciplinary team. -Monthly weights are to be obtained in the beginning of each month. -All residents with significant weight changes will have verification of weight measurement for accuracy and documentation purposes. If verification of weight indicates significant weight change (suggested parameters for evaluating significance of unplanned and undesired weight loss are: 5% in 30 days, 7.5% in 90 days and 10% in 180 days) the resident and/or family representative and interdisciplinary team will be notified, and the plan of care will be revised as appropriate. -Residents with significant unintended weight changes will be added to weekly weight for 4 weeks or until weight stabilizes. -Staff will follow acceptable procedure to obtain accurate weights. Review of the weight report for Resident #43 indicated: - May 2021- 220 pounds (lbs.) (admission weight) - 6/8/21- 999.9 lbs. (entry indicates weight not obtained) - 6/17/21- 999.9 lbs. (entry indicates weight not obtained) - 7/8/21- 999.9 lbs. (entry indicates weight not obtained) - 8/5/21- 188 lbs. with a warning for a 5% significant weight loss in 30 days and a 7.5% significant weight loss in 90 days. - 9/10/21- 200.4 lbs. - 10/6/21- 200.8 lbs. Review of the weight report indicated the facility's policy was not followed. The Resident was not weighed weekly for four weeks after admission to the facility and then monthly, and a reweight was not obtained to verify a significant weight loss. During an interview on 10/6/21 at 1:53 P.M., Resident #43 said, I don't refuse to be weighed; they just don't have a safe way to do it. My slide board moves all over the place and if they had a scale that I could wheel onto with my wheelchair then I would do it anytime they asked. The Resident showed the surveyor the chair scale to explain why he/she didn't feel safe on it and then went on to say that there was a scale on the rehab unit that he/she could wheel onto but that no one takes him/her down to it or suggests it. During an interview on 10/6/21 at 2:05 P.M., the Dietitian said, We concluded that the weight of 220 lbs. was inaccurate. She went on to say that the facility had some trouble when asking for a reweight, and she said it has been challenging with staffing to get weights. The Dietitian was unable to provide any documents supporting a conclusion that the weight of 220 lbs. was inaccurate. Based on interviews, observations, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that staff provided care and services according to accepted standards of clinical practice for three Residents (#8, #22, and #43), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, 1.) For Resident #8, the facility failed to ensure the staff implemented the physician's order and obtained a pressure relieving air mattress in a timely manner. 2.) For Resident #22, the facility failed to implement orders recommended by the dermatologist, after the prescribing practitioner reviewed and agreed on treatment. 3.) For Resident #43, the facility failed to ensure accurate weights were obtained. Findings include: 1.) Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses that included severe anemia, severe protein-calorie malnutrition and pressure ulcer of sacral region. Review of Resident #8's Physician's Progress Notes, dated 8/25/21, indicated the nursing staff requested the prescribing practitioner to assess the resident's severe anemia, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, pre-renal azotemia (abnormally high level of nitrogen waste products in the blood), and full thickness pressure wound on his/her coccyx. The practitioner orders included additional lab tests, increase the supplements, and for staff to obtain an air mattress as soon as possible (ASAP). Further review of the prescribing Practitioner's Progress Note, dated 8/30/21, indicated the order for the air mattress, ordered 8/25/21, has not been done. The progress note indicated the prescribing practitioner advised the nursing supervisor to obtain the air mattress ASAP. During an interview and observation on 10/07/21 at 9:15 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #8 in bed lying on an air mattress. Resident #8 said the air mattress had been put on his/her bed two days earlier. Further review of the medical record on 10/7/21, indicated the following: - A hand written telephone order was transcribed on 8/25/21 for the air mattress. - On 10/5/21, a Nurse's Note indicated the air mattress was placed on the Resident's bed. However, the note failed to indicate the reason for the 40 day delay in obtaining the prescribing practitioner's order. - The Physician's Orders, as of 10/7/21, did not include the use of an air mattress. During an interview on 10/7/21 at 11:15 A.M., Nurse #5 said she did not know anything about the air mattress. During an interview on 10/12/21 at 10:30 A.M., Nurse Supervisor #1 said she knew nothing about the air mattress and could not explain why it was not implemented for 40 days. 2.) Resident #22 was admitted to the facility in November 2018 with diagnoses that included chronic dermatitis. (a) During multiple observations and interviews on 10/5/21 at 11:10 A.M. and at 2:29 P.M., on 10/7/21 at 9:00 A.M. and 12:20 P.M., and on 10/12/21 at 9:00 A.M. and at 4:30 P.M., the surveyor observed a container of the topical steroid cream Triamcinolone Acetonide 0.1% on the Resident's tray table. Resident #22 said the Triamcinolone Acetonide cream belonged to him/her. Review of Resident #22's most recent Physician's Orders, (10/12/21), included the topical steroid cream, Triamcinolone Acetonide 0.5% to be applied to back / abdomen topically, two times a day for rash. The Physician's Order was incorrectly written with the wrong dose strength and did not indicate the medication could be stored at the Resident's bedside. During an interview on 10/13/21 at 10:20 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) said the Resident did not have a physician's order to have medications at the bedside and at that strength. (b) Record review indicated Resident #22 had an ongoing unresolved itchy rash and was followed regularly by a dermatologist for treatment and care. On 7/29/21 and 8/11/21, the Dermatologist evaluated Resident #22 and treatment recommendations included: - placing cotton towels to the back of the Resident's chair and applying double cotton sheets on bed, to prevent rubbing and irritation of the Resident's back, and - to administer the antibiotic Minocycline 50 milligrams (mg), twice daily. Record review indicated the Dermatologist's recommendations were reviewed with the prescribing practitioner on 7/29/21. On 8/4/21, the practitioner wrote a progress note indicating the recommendations would be ordered and followed. Review of the Medication Administration Records (MAR) and Treatment Administration Records (TAR) for July 2021, August 2021, September 2021, and October 2021, indicated the antibiotic Minocycline 50 mg, twice daily was not started and not administered. Although, the administration records indicate the staff are applying the cotton towel to Resident #22's chair and the double cotton sheets to the bed, the surveyor did not observe the intervention being done or could identify a staff member who implemented the intervention. During multiple observations and interviews on 10/5/21 at 11:10 A.M. and at 2:29 P.M., on 10/7/21 at 9:00 A.M. and 12:20 P.M., and on 10/12/21 at 9:00 A.M. and at 4:30 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #22 in their room and he/she was seated in the chair. The chair did not have a cotton towel on the back of it. The surveyor observed the bedsheet not to be cotton and it was not doubled. Resident #22 said on 10/12/21 at 9:00 A.M., staff are supposed to put the cotton towel and sheets, but never do it. During an interview on 10/12/21 at 10:30 A.M., Nurse Supervisor #1 said she knew nothing about the the cotton towels and doubled cotton sheets.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility in November 2002 with diagnoses that included blood vessel injury to the neck, Bipolar Disorder, and major depression. Review of the MDS assessment, dated ...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility in November 2002 with diagnoses that included blood vessel injury to the neck, Bipolar Disorder, and major depression. Review of the MDS assessment, dated 7/19/21, indicated Resident #16 had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicated the Resident is cognitively intact. During an interview on 10/13/21 at 10:40 A.M., Resident #16 said that the night shift nurse (11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. shift) brought him/her scheduled pain medication at 12:00 A.M. but never attempted to wake him/her up. The Resident said the nurse left the cup of medication on their overbed tray table. Resident #16 then said the nurse returned to his/her room at 4:00 A.M. with the next scheduled dose of his/her pain medication. He/she said this time the nurse woke him/her up and Resident #16 took the scheduled 4:00 a.m. dose along with the 12:00 A.M. dose of the medication. Resident #16 then said that he/she realized that he/she took double the dose of the medication. Resident #16 said that the nurse asked the Resident to not say anything to management staff and that she would monitor the Resident for any adverse effects from the increased dose of the medication. Resident #16 said that he/she reported the incident to the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) first thing in the morning. The Resident said that the ADON said she would report it to the Director of Nurses (DON) immediately. Review of the Physician's Orders indicated the Resident received Oxycodone 10-325 milligrams (mg) every four hours. The Resident is scheduled to receive it at 12:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M. on the overnight shift. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated that on 10/13/21 the Resident received Oxycodone 10-325mg at 12:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M. Review of the facility's policy titled Administering Medications (revised 2/2020) indicated the following: - medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, as prescribed - medications are administered in accordance with prescriber's orders, including any required time frame - medications are administered within one hour before or after their prescribed time unless specified or per resident preference - medication errors are documented, reported, and reviewed by the QAPI committee to inform process changes and or the need for additional staff training During an interview on 10/13/21 at 11:15 A.M., the DON said she had been made aware of the situation and was completing an incident report and investigating the situation. She said that medications should not be left at the bedside. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident receives adequate supervision for the prevention of accidents and hazards for two Residents (#39 and #16), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1) For Resident #39, ensure falls were investigated per the facility's policy and interventions were implemented and in place for the prevention of falls with injury; 2) For Resident #16, ensure medications were administered in a safe and timely manner, as prescribed and in accordance with the prescriber's orders. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled Assessing Falls and Their Causes, dated 1/2018, indicated but was not limited to the following: - An incident report must be completed for resident falls. The incident report form should be completed by the nursing supervisor on duty at the time and submitted to the Director of Nursing Services no later than 24 hours after the fall occurs. Review of the facility's policy titled Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, dated 4/2018 indicated but was not limited to the following: -The staff, with the input of the attending physician, will implement a resident-centered fall prevention plan to reduce the specific risk factors(s) of falls for each resident at risk or with a history of falls. -If falling reoccurs despite initial interventions, staff will implement additional or different interventions, or indicate why the current approach remains relevant. -If underlying causes cannot be readily identified or corrected, staff will try various interventions, based on assessment of the nature or category of falling, until falling is reduced or stopped, or until the reason for the continuation of the falling is identified as unavoidable. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility in May 2019 with the following diagnoses: Parkinson's disease and unsteady gait. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/16/21, indicated Resident #39 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15, indicating he/she had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further indicated the Resident required staff supervision with ambulation and a rolling walker, required limited assistance with transfers and required extensive assist of one staff personnel for toileting needs. Review of Resident #39's Progress Notes from January 2021 through September 2021 indicated that he/she had a total of 10 falls in the facility. The falls were as follows: - 1/5/21 at 8:45 A.M.: Unwitnessed fall in room - no injury - 1/20/21 at 7:32 A.M. - Unwitnessed fall in room - no injury - 5/1/21 at 6:20 P.M. - Unwitnessed fall in room - pain in right hip - 5/29/21 at 7:40 A.M. - Unwitnessed fall in room - no injury - 5/30/21 at 5:10 A.M. - Unwitnessed fall in room - no injury - 6/1/21 at 6:50 A.M. - Unwitnessed fall in room - no injury - 6/1/21 at 11:13 A.M. - Unwitnessed fall in bathroom - no injury - 7/19/21 12:20 P.M. - Unwitnessed fall in room - no injury - 7/22/21 at 7:00 P.M. - Unwitnessed fall in room - no injury - 9/10/21 at 10:00 A.M. - Unwitnessed fall in room - nose fracture with bruising under bilateral eyes Review of the Fall Incident Reports for Resident #39 failed to indicate an incident report was completed for the unwitnessed fall on 7/22/21. During an interview on 10/7/21 at 3:39 P.M., the Director of Nurses said she does not have an incident report completed for Resident #39's unwitnessed fall on 7/22/21 and was not aware of the interventions implemented as a result of this fall. Review of the current Physician's Orders for Resident #39 indicated the following: - Motion alarm on bathroom door, check for function every shift (10/22/20) - Motion sensor alarm on when in bed, check placement and function every shift (10/8/21) Review of Resident #39's Fall Prevention Care Plans indicated: - staff should be offering and assisting with toileting needs as allowed by the Resident, - the call light should be in reach and staff should encourage the Resident to use the call light, - non-skid strips should be on the floor next to the Resident's bed and - a motion alarm should be used at night. On 10/7/21 at 8:53 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #39 resting in bed. The call light was observed to be tucked under the Resident's bed and out of reach for the Resident. The motion sensor was mounted on the wall and in the off position. The alarm did not sound. The non-skid strips next to the Resident's bed appeared worn and torn off the floor in places. On 10/12/21 at 9:00 A.M., the surveyor observed the Resident transferring out of bed and standing to readjust the blankets. The surveyor entered the Resident's room to find the wall mounted motion alarm on but not sounding. The surveyor then observed a new bathroom door alarm affixed to the bathroom door. The surveyor opened the bathroom door but the alarm failed to sound. The non-skid strips on the floor remained worn and peeling from the floor. On 10/12/21 at 09:10 A.M., the surveyor and the Director of Nurses (DON) entered Resident #39's room. The motion alarm and bathroom door alarm were again observed to be in the on position, but not functioning and sounding. The DON said both alarms should be working and did not have an explanation as to why they were not sounding. The DON further said the non-skid strips next to the Resident's bed were worn out and should be replaced.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a follow-up appointment with urology was scheduled for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a follow-up appointment with urology was scheduled for one Resident (#8) with a Foley catheter, out of a total sample of 19 residents. Findings include: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in June 2021 with a diagnosis of urinary retention. Review of the medical record indicated Resident #8 was admitted to the facility with a Foley catheter. Review of the Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], recommended the Resident be seen by a urologist as soon as possible. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for July 2021 included the order for staff to schedule a urology appointment. Review of the medical record indicated the Resident went to the urologist on 7/13/21. The urologist recommended the Resident keep the Foley catheter in place for one month and return for a follow up appointment in one month. The evaluation indicated Resident #8 had urinary retention. Review of the Resident's record indicated, on 7/13/21, a physician's order was obtained for a urology appointment as soon as possible. However, record review failed to indicate a follow-up appointment for the urologist was made for Resident #8. During an interview on 10/07/21 at 9:15 A.M., Resident #8 was asked about the Foley catheter and Resident #8 said he/she was supposed to go back to the urologist but has never been sent back. Resident #8 said he/she has asked staff, but none of the staff knew about any appointments, nor did they follow up and make an appointment for the Resident. During an interview on 10/12/21 at 10:30 A.M., Nurse Supervisor #1 said she knew nothing about the urology appointment. On 10/12/21 at 1:00 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) attempted to explain a plan for the Foley catheter. However, she could not explain why the follow-up urology appointment had not been made as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2) Resident #16 was admitted to the facility in November 2002 with diagnoses that included morbid obesity and traumatic brain injury. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/19/21, in...

Read full inspector narrative →
2) Resident #16 was admitted to the facility in November 2002 with diagnoses that included morbid obesity and traumatic brain injury. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/19/21, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated the Resident is cognitively intact. Review of the October 2021 Physician's Orders indicated Resident #16 had an order for oxygen at 2 liters via nasal cannula every shift for SOB (shortness of breath). On 10/5/21 at 2:07 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #16's oxygen tubing without a date indicating when the tubing was last changed. On 10/6/21 at 3:41 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #16's oxygen tubing without a date indicating when the tubing was last changed. During an interview on 10/6/21 at 3:45 P.M., Resident #16 said that staff doesn't usually change the tubing unless he/she asks them to do it. The Resident said it had not been done in a while. The surveyor closely observed the tubing at that time which showed debris on the tubing that appeared old. During an interview on 10/7/21 at 3:53 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said that it is the expectation that oxygen tubing is changed weekly by the nurse on the 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. shift. She said that all orders for oxygen will be in the MD orders. Review of the October 2021 Physician's Orders did not indicate any orders to change the oxygen tubing or orders for the maintenance, care, and oversight of the oxygen tubing. Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and maintenance of oxygen equipment was provided for two Residents (#16 and #59), out of total sample of 18 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Oxygen Administration, dated as last revised 11/2017, indicated, but is 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. 1) Resident #59 was admitted to the facility in August 2020, with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (lung disease that blocks airflow and makes it difficult to breathe). On 10/05/21 at 12:24 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #59 seated in the chair with oxygen. The oxygen tubing was noted to be connected to the concentrator, with a nasal cannula (small, flexible tube which contains two open prongs intended to sit just inside the nostrils to deliver oxygen) in place in the Resident's nostrils. The concentrator was on and set to a flow rate of 2.5 liters/minute. The surveyor inspected the oxygen tubing and observed a piece of surgical tape fastened to the oxygen tubing with a handwritten date of 9/10/21. Review of the Physician's Orders, dated 9/1/21 through 9/30/21, indicated: - Administer oxygen at 2-4 liters/minute continuously to maintain oxygen saturation greater than 90%. - Change oxygen tubing every Thursday in the evening every 7 days for shortness of breath related to COPD (order date, 8/10/21, D/C date 9/14/21). - Change oxygen tubing every Thursday in the evening every Friday for shortness of breath related to COPD (order date, 9/14/21). Review of the Treatment Administration Records (TAR), dated 9/1/21 through 9/30/21, indicated the oxygen tubing was checked off and documented as changed on 9/7/21, 9/17/21, and 9/24/21. Review of the TAR, dated 10/1/21 through 10/31/21, indicated the oxygen tubing was checked off and documented as changed on 10/1/21. On 10/7/21 at 9:51 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #59 seated in the chair with oxygen. The oxygen tubing was noted to be connected to the concentrator, with a nasal cannula in place in the Resident's nostrils. The concentrator was on and set to a flow rate of 2.5 liters/minute. The surveyor inspected the oxygen tubing and observed a piece of surgical tape fastened to the oxygen tubing with a handwritten date of 9/10/21. This was inconsistent with the TAR which indicated the oxygen tubing was changed on 9/7/21,9/17/21,9/24/21, and 10/1/21. During an interview on 10/12/21 at 3:00 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said the expectation was for oxygen tubing to be changed weekly during the 11:00 P.M.-7:00 A.M. shift per the physician's orders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#42) was assessed for risk of entrapment prior to the installation of side rails, out of a to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#42) was assessed for risk of entrapment prior to the installation of side rails, out of a total sample of 18 residents. Findings include: Resident #42 was admitted to the facility in May 2021 with diagnoses which included history of falling, lymphedema (localized swelling of the lower legs), and muscle weakness. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/18/21, indicated the Resident needed extensive assist with bed mobility and transfers. On 10/5/21 at 1:54 P.M., the surveyor observed the Resident sitting next to his/her bed. The bed was against the wall completely on one side and the open side of the bed had a one quarter side rail attached to the bed frame. Review of the October 2021 Physician's Orders indicated one quarter side rail to aid in positioning every shift (dated 10/7/21). Further review of the medical record failed to indicate that a Side Rail Assessment was completed for Resident #42 to asses for the risk of entrapment from the side rail prior to installation. During an interview on 10/7/21 at 9:59 A.M., the Director of Nurses reviewed the Resident's chart with the surveyor and confirmed that there was no Side Rail Assessment in the physical chart or electronic health record.
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, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the attending Physician reviewed and addressed the identified pharmacological irregularities for two Residents (#14 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the attending Physician reviewed and addressed the identified pharmacological irregularities for two Residents (#14 and #18), out of total sample of 18 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Regimen Review (MRR) and Reporting, dated 9/2018, indicated, but is not limited to: - The consultant pharmacist reviews the medication regimen of each resident at least monthly. - Resident-specific MRR recommendations and findings are documented and acted upon by the nursing care center and/or physician. - The consultant pharmacist and the nursing care center follows up in the recommendations to verify that appropriate action has been taken. Recommendations shall be acted upon within a reasonable time frame. - The physician may accept and act on a recommendation or reject a recommendation and provide an explanation for disagreement. - For recommendations that do not require physician intervention, the Director of Nursing or licensed designee will address the recommendations. 1. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility in April 2019 with diagnoses which included schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. Review of the Pharmacy MRR for Resident #14, dated 8/29/21, indicated: - the Resident is receiving medications which need lab work. - Please consider adding the following to the next ordered labs: Valproic Acid, Lipids, and A1C. Review of the 8/29/21 MRR failed to include a Physician/Prescriber response to indicate the recommendation was addressed. Further review of Resident #14's clinical record failed to include any documentation to indicate the Pharmacy MRR recommendation of 8/29/21 was addressed. During an interview on 10/8/21 at 11:20 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said she was unable to locate any documentation in the clinical record to indicate the Pharmacy recommendation of 8/29/21 was addressed. The DON said she received all Pharmacy MRR's via email, which is printed out and given to the Day Supervisor to follow through with the physician as indicated. The DON said the expectation is for all Pharmacy MRR's to be addressed, transcribed, and placed in the clinical record and was unsure why the recommendations had not been addressed. 2. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility in June 2019 with diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance and major depressive disorder. Review of the Pharmacy MRR for Resident #18, dated 6/28/21, indicated: - Resident has been on Protonix 40 milligrams (MG) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) since 7/26/19. Please evaluate continued need for this medication as long term PPI (medicines that work by reducing the amount of stomach acid made by glands in the lining of the stomach) therapy has been associated with low magnesium, osteoporosis and an increase in C Diff (inflammation of the colon by bacteria) infections. - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) guidelines suggest a review and documentation of a clinical rationale for use longer than 12 weeks. Review of the 6/28/21 MRR failed to include a Physician/Prescriber response to indicate the recommendation was addressed. Further review of Resident #18's clinical record failed to include any documentation to indicate the Pharmacy MRR recommendation of 6/28/21 was addressed. Review of the Physician's Orders, dated 9/1/21 through 9/30/21 and 10/1/21 through 10/31/21, indicated Resident #18 continued on the identified medication addressed in the 6/28/21 MRR: - Pantoprazole Sodium Tablet Delayed Release (Protonix) 40 mg daily, (order date: 7/25/19) During an interview on 10/8/21 at 11:20 A.M., the DON said she was unable to locate any documentation in the clinical record to indicate the Pharmacy recommendation of 6/28/21 was addressed. The DON said she received all Pharmacy MRR's via email, which is printed out and given to the Day Supervisor to follow through with the physician as indicated. The DON said the expectation is for all Pharmacy MRR's to be addressed, transcribed and placed in the clinical record.
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 staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for an antipsychotic and antidepressant medication for one Resident (#62), out of a total sam...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for an antipsychotic and antidepressant medication for one Resident (#62), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Findings include: Resident #62 was admitted to the facility in June of 2020 with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder, dementia with behavioral disturbances, and anxiety. Review of the Physician's Orders, dated 6/16/20, indicated Seroquel 50 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth at bedtime and Zoloft 25 mg one tablet by mouth daily. Review of the medical record and the Consultant Pharmacist's Recommendation, dated 6/27/21, indicated a gradual dose reduction (GDR) of one or more of the psychotropic medications for Resident #62. Review of the Behavioral Progress Note, dated 7/21/21, indicated that no GDR was required at this time. Review of the Behavior Monitoring and Interventions Report indicated no behaviors were identified from April 1, 2021 through October 12, 2021. During an interview on 10/7/21 at 2:30 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) stated the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner said that a GDR was not required but could not explain why. During an interview on 10/13/21 at 8:03 A.M., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 said Resident #62 does not have behaviors and is one of the nicest residents in here. During an interview on 10/13/21 at 8:04 A.M., Nurse #1 said that Resident #62 is very pleasant and has no behaviors. During an interview on 10/13/21 at 8:15 A.M., the DON said she could not find the psych recommendation for this Resident, and she will call the physician to see if he remembers signing the recommendation. The physician did not respond. During an interview on 10/13/21 at 8:18 A.M., Consulting Staff #2 stated, A lot of times we usually don't do too many GDR's at one visit so several patients are not decompensating at the same time. He reviewed Resident #62's record in the presence of the surveyor and said the Resident was appropriate for a GDR.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0773 (Tag F0773)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to obtain laboratory services when ordered by the prescribing physician for one Resident (#8), out of a total sample of 18 resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to obtain laboratory services when ordered by the prescribing physician for one Resident (#8), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Findings include: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses including severe anemia, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, and a pressure ulcer of sacral region. Review of Resident #8's current Physician's Orders included orders for two laboratory tests to be completed every Wednesday morning. The laboratory tests were for a complete blood count with differential (CBC with DIFF) (a measure of the number of red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets in the blood, including the different types of blood cells), and a comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), a blood test with 14 different measurements. It is often used to evaluate liver function, kidney function, and nutrient levels. Review of the laboratory results from 9/1/21 through 10/12/21 indicated tests should have been obtained on 9/1/21, 9/8/21, 9/15/21, 9/22/21, 9/29/21, 10/6/21, and scheduled for 10/13/21. Record review indicated that the laboratory results were not completed on 9/29/21 and 10/6/21, and the laboratory tests were not scheduled for 10/13/21. Further review of the lab results indicated that the test obtained was a CBC and not a CBC with DIFF. A CBC measures the total number of whites cells in your blood and a CBC with DIFF measures the number of red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets in the blood, including the different types of blood cells. During an interview on 10/7/21 at 11:15 A.M., Nurse #5 said she did not know anything about the missing and wrong laboratory tests and results. Nurse #5 said orders for laboratory tests are called into the lab and an order slip with the types of tests are placed into the laboratory book for the technician to verify upon their arrival to the facility. She said that all labs are maintained in the book. Review of the laboratory book failed to indicate that Resident #8 was scheduled for weekly CBC with DIFF and CMP tests every Wednesday. Nurse #5 said maybe she was wrong and the laboratory technician has some kind of bar code they use.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0777 (Tag F0777)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to obtain diagnostic services as ordered by the prescribing practitio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to obtain diagnostic services as ordered by the prescribing practitioner for one Resident (#8), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to notify the Resident's physician that the diagnostic service for a colonoscopy was not completed during two outpatient appointments, and that no additional action was taken by the facility staff to ensure the resident received the diagnostic service. Findings include: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses including severe anemia, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, and a pressure ulcer of the sacral region. Record review indicated on 7/20/21, Resident #8's laboratory test for his/her hemoglobin and hematocrit were 5.8 (range 13.5-17.5) and 19.3 (40.0-50.0) respectively. The Resident was hospitalized , receiving two units of packed red blood cells, diagnosed with severe anemia, and given discharge instructions, dated [DATE], included an appointment for outpatient colonoscopy and endoscopy scheduled for 7/26/21. On 7/26/21, the outpatient clinic provided preparation instructions for to the facility for Resident #8's colonoscopy and endoscopy, scheduled for 7/28/21. The instructions included the following: - Prior to the procedure - Drink clear liquids only for breakfast, lunch and dinner (NO SOLID FOODS and NO MILD MILK PRODUCTS OR CREAM). - At 3:00 P.M. take to 2 Dulcolax tablets (laxative) - At 4:00 P.M. take to 2 Dulcolax tablets - At 5:00 P.M. mix 238 gram bottle of Miralax (laxative) and 64 ounce Gatorade. Start drinking an eight ounce glass every to to 15 minutes until you have finished 48 ounces. Leave the remaining 16 ounces for the morning of the procedure. Continue to drink clear liquids until bedtime. - At 3:00 A.M., drink the remaining Miralax and Gatorade mixture until it is gone - this should be done within one hour. Review of the Nurse's Note, Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 7/27/21, indicated Resident #8 was administered one of the two doses of prep laxative Dulcolax. The MAR and TAR failed to indicate the Resident had received all of the Miralax and Gatorade mixture. Review of a Nurse's Note, dated 7/28/21 at 8:17 A.M., indicated Resident #8 had received all the prep for the colonoscopy, as ordered and was awaiting transport to the outpatient appointment. Review of the outpatient referral, dated 7/28/21, indicated the colonoscopy and endoscopy could not be attempted as it was determined the pre-prep for the colonoscopy was poor (as solid stool was present) and the Resident showed a gastric hiatal hernia. The Resident was sent back to the facility with orders to prep the Resident for another attempt to complete the colonoscopy and endoscopy on 7/30/21. Review of the Interdisciplinary Notes dated 7/28/21 and Physician's Notes failed to indicate the staff identified the failed colonoscopy and endoscopy. Review of a Nurse's Note, dated 7/29/21, indicated the Resident had a colonoscopy scheduled for 7/30/21 and the Resident was on a clear liquid diet and receiving prep instructions. The Nurse's Note indicated the Resident was administered the laxative, but the administration record indicated the total dose was less then the order and the Miralax and Gatorade mixture drink was not identified as part of any orders. Review of the endoscopy referral, dated 7/30/21, indicated the colon was unprepared and the procedure was aborted. The facility was asked to schedule another appointment. Following the 7/30/21 outpatient procedure for colonoscopy and endoscopy, there was no additional information indicating the physician was made aware the procedures were not done and no indication staff re-scheduled the procedures. During an interview on 10/07/21 at 9:15 A.M., Resident #8 said the facility staff do not always follow through and that is frustrating. Resident #8 said that he/she has never gone back for some tests that were supposed to be done back in July 2021. Resident #8 said that the staff had not given him/her the correct prep procedure before sending him/her for a colonoscopy on two occasions. Resident #8 said the reason for the procedure was because of a blood transfusion and the staff have never rescheduled the procedure. During an interview on 10/12/21 at 10:30 A.M., Nurse Supervisor #1 said she knew nothing about the colonoscopy. During an interview on 10/12/21 at 1:00 P.M., the Assistant Director of Nurses followed up with the surveyor and could not explain why the appointment was not rescheduled.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interviews and review of the Facility Assessment, the facility failed to ensure that agency nursing staff (Nurses #2 and #3 and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) #2 and #3) were provid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews and review of the Facility Assessment, the facility failed to ensure that agency nursing staff (Nurses #2 and #3 and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) #2 and #3) were provided an orientation to the facility's day to day operations and emergency services to ensure resident safety. Findings include: The Director of Nurses informed the survey team on the first day of survey (10/5/21) that the facility has contracts with nursing agency companies to fill licensed nursing positions and CNA positions. Review of the nursing schedules for the duration of the survey (10/5-10/13/21) indicated that agency staff were used for licensed and CNA positions each day and over all three shifts. Review of the Facility Assessment, dated as reviewed by the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee on 7/30/21, indicated a list of training topics and competencies that were necessary to provide the level and types of support and care needed for the resident population in the facility. Review of the Fast Track Agency Orientation document, revised 12/2020, indicated training topics and competencies including: -Abuse/resident rights, elopement, fire safety/hazardous chemicals, incidents/accidents, infection control related items, bloodborne pathogen, outbreak policy, transmission based precautions/covid-19, decontamination: removing clothing, cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces, lockout/tag out, code blue policy/RN pronouncement, PPE/hand hygiene, Narcan/SUD (substance use disorder) and competencies including: central lines, central line dressings, clean dressing change, IV insertion, hanging primary and secondary IVs, oral pharyngeal suctioning, enteral feeding tubes, tracheostomy tubes, PPE, hand hygiene, N95 mask, metered dose inhalers, non-rebreather mask, CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) and BIPAP (bilevel positive airway pressure). Review of the agency binder containing the orientation checklist and signatures of the staff and facility representative indicated Nurses #2 and #3 did not receive an orientation and CNA #2 and #3 also did not receive an orientation to the facility. During an interview on 10/6/21 at 3:56 P.M., Nurse #3 said she did not receive an orientation to the facility before working. During an interview on 10/13/21 at 8:30 A.M., the Director of Nurses said that what the facility had in the binder for orientation of agency staff was all they had and if it was not there then there was no orientation for Nurses #2 and #3 or CNAs #2 and #3.
CONCERN (F)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure medical record information was safeguarded a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure medical record information was safeguarded against destruction after a flood in the facility basement damaged the medical record storage area. Findings include: On [DATE] at 9:55 A.M., the surveyor made the following observations in the facility basement: - The medical record storage area was located in the corner area of the basement. - There were numerous brown accordion type of paper folders which contained closed medical resident records. The folders were placed on milk crates and observed to have visible water markings and were torn and crumbled with papers falling out. - There were numerous opened, torn document boxes with yellow type folders containing resident records placed on milk crates. The boxes and the yellow folders had visible water damage. - Some of the boxes were identified with the words IRON MOUNTAIN and other boxes were plain white covered document boxes. Some boxes had hand written wording which indicated admission and discharges 2018. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:03 A.M., the Maintenance Director said the facility experienced a basement flood one month ago with approximately 26 inches of water. The Maintenance Director said the medical records had been stored on the floor and received damage from the flood. He said a cleaning restoration company was called in to assist with the cleanup and drying process of the damaged medical records. He said he was unsure of any plans to move the medical records at this time. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:25 A.M., the Medical Record Clerk said she had several positions in the facility including Certified Nurse Assistant and scheduler. She said she usually dedicated one day a week to medical records with tasks such as thinning records and processing discharged records. She said discharged , expired and AMA medical records were stored in the basement and were recently damaged due to a flood. She said she believed the medical records were moved every several years and stored off site but she was not involved in the process. She said she was not aware of any current plans for the damaged medical records. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:45 A.M., the Administrator said medical records had been stored in the basement on wooden pallets, but the pallets collapsed when the medical record room was flooded and the records were soaked by the flood water. The Administrator said a cleaning and restoration company was brought in to facilitate cleanup of the area and drying of the medical records. The Administrator said he was unsure of how many medical records were affected by the flood and had no current plan in place for the affected records. The Administrator said he believed medical records were periodically moved to a medical record storage company but was unaware when the records were last moved and was not aware of any type of schedule for storage of the medical records. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:25 P.M., the Regional Nurse provided the surveyor with a contract for a medical record storage company called Iron Mountain and said the contract was not facility specific but an overall company contract. She said she was not aware of any schedule for movement and storage of medical records for the facility.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews, the facility failed to follow their scheduled menu and failed to notify residents of the changes or updates to the menu. Findings include: During an interview on 10/05/21 at 11:4...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, the facility failed to follow their scheduled menu and failed to notify residents of the changes or updates to the menu. Findings include: During an interview on 10/05/21 at 11:48 A.M., Resident #43 said, The food is okay, but they don't have what is on the menu. Last week we were supposed to have pizza and didn't have it so they gave us a tuna fish sandwich instead. Then recently we were supposed to get lasagna and they didn't have it either. During an interview on 10/6/21 at 1:53 P.M., the Dietitian said that the facility was having trouble getting food from their food vendor and she did not know if the residents were made aware. During an interview on a 10/6/21 at 2:07 P.M., the Food Service Director said their food vendor was having shortages with many items and they do not substitute. For example, the residents were supposed to get chicken sandwiches and the vendor didn't send any chicken and we had to use our chicken tenders. The vendor just doesn't send a substitute and we must use what we have in the facility which alters a future meal that was planned as well. We don't find out until the day of, and we do not have a system yet to let the residents know of the change. During an interview on a 10/6/21 at 2:22 P.M., the Director of Nurses said she was unaware of any issues with the food vendor and getting items for meals.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 harm violation(s), $129,794 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 49 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $129,794 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Massachusetts. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (15/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 15/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Wedgemere Healthcare's CMS Rating?

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

How is Wedgemere Healthcare Staffed?

CMS rates WEDGEMERE HEALTHCARE's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 75%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Wedgemere Healthcare?

State health inspectors documented 49 deficiencies at WEDGEMERE HEALTHCARE during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 43 with potential for harm, and 4 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Wedgemere Healthcare?

WEDGEMERE HEALTHCARE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by NEXT STEP HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 94 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 78% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in TAUNTON, Massachusetts.

How Does Wedgemere Healthcare Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, WEDGEMERE HEALTHCARE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Wedgemere Healthcare?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Wedgemere Healthcare Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Wedgemere Healthcare Stick Around?

WEDGEMERE HEALTHCARE has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 8 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Wedgemere Healthcare Ever Fined?

WEDGEMERE HEALTHCARE has been fined $129,794 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.8x the Massachusetts average of $34,377. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Wedgemere Healthcare on Any Federal Watch List?

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