ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES

90 TAUNTON STREET, WRENTHAM, MA 02093 (508) 384-7977
Non profit - Corporation 144 Beds ALLIANCE HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
63/100
#66 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: July 2024

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

Overview

Alliance Health at Maples has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating that it is slightly above average but not outstanding in quality. It ranks #66 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, placing it in the top half, and #7 out of 33 in Norfolk County, meaning there are only six local options that are better. The facility is improving, with a reduction in issues from 11 in 2023 to 4 in 2024. Staffing is a strength, with a 4 out of 5 star rating and a turnover rate of 26%, significantly lower than the state average. However, there are concerning fines of $47,886, which is average, suggesting some compliance issues. Additionally, there is less RN coverage than 80% of Massachusetts facilities, which is a drawback as registered nurses can catch potential problems that other staff might miss. Specific incidents of concern include a resident being allowed to fall multiple times due to inadequate supervision, leading to a serious injury, and failures in infection control practices, such as not ensuring staff performed proper hand hygiene after procedures. While the facility has its strengths, these weaknesses highlight areas that need attention.

Trust Score
C+
63/100
In Massachusetts
#66/338
Top 19%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
26% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 22 points below Massachusetts's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
○ Average
$47,886 in fines. Higher than 57% of Massachusetts facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Massachusetts. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 11 issues
2024: 4 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (26%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (26%)

    22 points below Massachusetts average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

Federal Fines: $47,886

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: ALLIANCE HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jul 2024 4 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided adequate supervision to one Resident (#77), out of a total sample of 26 residents, who was identified as a high fall ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided adequate supervision to one Resident (#77), out of a total sample of 26 residents, who was identified as a high fall risk and received anticoagulant medication (medication that prevents blood from clotting). Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff provided adequate supervision and/or implemented adequate interventions in an effort to prevent five falls in one month, one of which resulted in the Resident being transferred to the hospital emergency department for evaluation, and he/she was diagnosed with a subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the space between the brain and the tissue covering the brain). Findings include: Review of the facility's Fall Management Program, dated as last revised 10/13/22, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Policy: To identify, prevent, and treat residents at risk for negative outcomes based on their clinical comorbidities, functional status, cognitive status, and other risk factors that compromise their well-being through a systematic approach. -Purpose: To utilize resident related data to determine which residents are at risk. To minimize resident falls through a systematic approach, implementing individualized interventions based on the resident's assessment, clinical condition, comorbidities, and other related factors. -Procedure: The facility will utilize all resident related information made available on admission to determine resident-at-risk for Fall Status. -A fall risk assessment will be conducted on each resident upon admission, with the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) cycle, when a significant change in status occurs, annually and after a fall. -Residents identified at high risk for falls (score of 10 or higher on the assessment) will have an appropriate fall prevention care plan developed, implemented, and revised as necessary. -Develop a new care plan or update the existing care plan as applicable with new interventions to prevent reoccurrence. -Morning team review will include clinical record review, care plan and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) care card update. Interdisciplinary care plans will be revised with a new dated intervention following a resident fall to ensure that all appropriate interventions to minimize recurrence have been included. Resident #77 was admitted to the facility in May 2024 following an extended hospitalization after having two falls at home and a urinary tract infection The Resident had diagnoses including encephalopathy (any brain disease that alters brain function or structure), history of repeated falls, syncope (dizziness) and collapse, muscle weakness and difficulty in walking. Medications included antipsychotic, antidepressant, anticoagulant, and anti-seizure medication (also used for nerve pain). Review of the MDS assessment, dated 5/16/24, indicated Resident #77 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 out of 15, demonstrated inattention and wandering, and required partial to moderate assistance for all walking, and was administered anticoagulant medication. The MDS also indicated Resident #77 had falls prior to admission and had two falls since admission to the facility. Review of May 2024 Physician's Orders included but was not limited to: -Enoxaparin (anticoagulant) syringe 40 milligrams (mg)/0.4 milliliters (mL) subcutaneously (under the skin) twice a day for two months (5/9/24-7/9/24) According to the National Institute of Health (2023), anticoagulants may increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage associated with falling. Review of a fall risk assessment, dated 5/10/24, indicated Resident #77 had balance problems while walking and had a fall risk score of 10, indicating a high risk for falls. The assessment indicated referrals to Physical Therapy (PT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) were appropriate. Review of the comprehensive care plan for falls, initiated 5/9/24, indicated: Problem: Resident has a history of falling related to weakness and confusion Goal: Resident will remain free from injury (target: 2/28/24) Approach: -Analyze Resident's fall to determine pattern/trend -Give Resident verbal reminders not to ambulate/transfer without assistance -Keep call light in reach at all times -Keep personal items and frequently used items within reach -Leave nightlight on in room -Obtain PT consult for strength training, toning, positioning, transfer training, gait training, mobility devices -Occupy Resident with meaningful distractions: music, companion, crafts -Provide an environment free of clutter Review of the CNA Care Card (undated) indicated but was not limited to: -Mobility/Ambulation: Walks with supervision, monitoring (close supervision) -Mobility device: Encourage rolling walker (RW) -Behaviors: Wanders, anxious, resistive to care -Fall Risk: Yes Review of the medical record and Accident/Incident Report and Investigation Form-Falls indicated Resident #77 sustained five falls between 5/9/24 and 6/1/24, one of which (6/1/24) resulted in a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Fall #1 (5/9/24 at 3:40 P.M.): -Review of the medical record indicated Resident #77 fell off a chair in his/her room witnessed by his/her Health Care Proxy (HCP). No injuries were noted. Interventions/recommendations identified to prevent further occurrence included redirection, encourage diversional activities and therapy to improve gait and balance. Review of the OT Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 5/9/24, indicated, but was not limited to: -The patient presents with impairments in balance, gross motor coordination and mobility resulting in limitations and/or participation restrictions in the areas of mobility and self-care. Review of the PT Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 5/10/24, indicated but was not limited to: -The patient presents status post lengthy admission to hospital (one month) with decreased strength in bilateral lower extremities, decreased activity tolerance and decreased standing balance. -Patient with decreased safety awareness demonstrating much confusion. Resident #77's baseline level of functional mobility was partial/moderate assistance (the patient can perform 50% of the mobility task while the caregiver assists with 50%) to walk between 10 feet and 150 feet with no assistive device. -Long term goal: safely ambulate 350 feet using no assistive device on level surfaces with supervision or touching assistance with ability to right self to achieve/maintain balance to increase independence within facility (target: 6/20/24). -Plan of treatment included PT sessions five to six times a week for six weeks (5/10/24 - 6/20/24). Review of an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Risk Note, dated 5/23/24, indicated but was not limited to: team reviewed the Resident's fall from 5/9/24 with the following interventions in place: therapy for gait and balance, and encourage diversional activities of choice. Resident very restless and pacing. Medications reviewed and restarted Gabapentin (treats nerve pain) for his/her restless legs. IDT will continue to monitor. Fall #2 (5/26/24 at 9:30 A.M.) -Review of the medical record indicated Resident #77 had a fall in the unit hallway witnessed by a nurse. A Nursing Note, dated 5/26/24, indicated the Nurse saw the Resident walking down the hallway, lose his/her balance and fall. The Nurse indicated she was administering medications some distance away from the Resident and was unable to reach the Resident. No injuries were noted. Fall #3 (5/28/24 at 7:05 A.M.) -Review of the medical record indicated Resident #77 had an unwitnessed fall in the unit hallway. The report indicated a Nurse was at the medication cart and turned around and saw the Resident on the floor. No injuries were noted. Interventions/recommendations identified to prevent further occurrence indicated medication review by the Physician, continue to encourage the Resident to be in supervised area and provide distraction-encourage activity. Review of the PT progress note, dated 5/28/24, indicated Resident #77 had an unwitnessed fall with a recommendation to continue supervision for all mobility. Fall #4 (5/29/24 at 9:30 A.M.) -Review of the medical record indicated Resident #77 had an unwitnessed fall in the unit hallway. The report indicated the Resident's ambulation status was supervised; however, the fall was unwitnessed, and staff found the Resident on the floor in front of the nurse's desk. No injuries were noted. Interventions/recommendations identified to prevent further occurrence indicated to keep hallway clear of obstacles, monitor Resident when in hallway, and attempt to encourage Resident to sit and rest. Review of the medical record indicated Resident #77 was seen by his/her Physician on 5/29/24 and some medications were adjusted. The Physician assessed the Resident using a rolling walker, and said the Resident is to be encouraged to use the walker. Review of an Interdisciplinary Referral and Rehab Screen, dated 5/30/24, indicated but was not limited to a recommendation for staff to provide supervision at all times and to walk with the Resident due to his/her fall risk and decreased safety awareness. The care plan for falls was updated on 5/30/24 with intervention to monitor the Resident for fatigue and offer him/her a chair. Review of an IDT Risk Note, dated 5/31/24, indicated but was not limited to: team reviewed the Resident's falls from 5/9/24, 5/26/24 and 5/29/24 with the following interventions in place: therapy for gait and balance, and encourage diversional activities of choice. Resident very restless and pacing. Physician reviewed medications and made adjustments and said to encourage the Resident to use walker when he/she is ambulating. IDT will continue to monitor. Fall #5 (6/1/24 at 7:45 A.M.) -Review of the medical record indicated Resident #77 was walking in the dayroom without his/her walker and tripped on a walker and fell as he/she was exiting the dayroom. The report indicated the fall was witnessed by Nurse #8. Nurse #8's statement indicated she placed the Resident's walker outside the dayroom to give to the Resident when he/she came out of the room, and she was at the medication cart at the time of the fall. Further review of the incident report indicated four investigation/witness statements from CNAs working on the unit at the time of the fall. None of the CNAs indicated they observed the fall or provided close supervision (according to the fall care plan) while he/she ambulated in the dayroom and failed to indicate any staff encouraged the Resident to use the walker for ambulation as indicated by the Physician on 5/29/24. Further review of the medical record indicated Resident #77 complained of pain to his/her right hip and was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. Review of emergency room Physician documentation, dated 6/1/24, indicated but was not limited to Resident #77 being evaluated after sustaining a fall at the facility with a question of a head strike. Imaging of the pelvis and both hips were negative for fracture. However, on the computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain, there was a finding of a trace right frontal subarachnoid hemorrhage. A repeat scan performed four hours later confirmed the presence of a subarachnoid hemorrhage and that it was unchanged from the initial scan. Review of a CT scan of the brain performed during a prior hospitalization, dated 4/11/24, failed to indicate Resident #77 had a subarachnoid hemorrhage or any other type of bleeding in the brain. The care plan for falls was updated on 6/2/24 with interventions to occupy Resident with meaningful distractions (repeated intervention); PT notified and recommends not using walker- he/she does not recognize the device; provide close supervision for safety as needed (6/3/24). Review of the CNA Care Card failed to indicate it was updated to reflect PT's recommendation to not use a walker as the Resident does not recognize it. Review of a Physician's Progress Note, dated 6/3/24, indicated the Resident had a recent fall with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Continue fall precautions, supportive care, monitor for any motor or sensory deficits, follow up with neurology as needed. Review of an IDT Risk Note, dated 6/6/24, indicated but was not limited to: team reviewed the Resident's falls from 5/9/24, 5/11/24, 5/26/24, 5/29/24, and 6/1/24 with the following interventions in place: therapy for gait and balance, and encourage diversional activities of choice. Resident very restless and pacing. Physician reviewed medications and made adjustments and encouraged resident to use walker when he/she is ambulating. On 6/3/24, Resident was assigned a CNA with very close supervision at all times. IDT will continue to monitor. Review of a Nursing Note, dated 6/3/24, indicated but was not limited to Resident #77 was placed on 1:1 supervision with a CNA and a gait belt worn every shift to prevent any falls. During an interview with the Rehabilitation Director and Physical Therapist #1 on 7/16/24 at 7:42 A.M., the Rehab Director said Resident #77 has had a lot of falls since admission and can be impulsive and uncooperative. The Rehab Director reviewed PT documentation and said supervision by staff means when the Resident is up and ambulating, the resident should always have someone right there with him/her. Physical Therapist #1 said she agreed with the Rehab Director and said supervision of the Resident is when someone has eyes on the Resident and standing right with him/her to assist. During an interview on 7/16/24 at 9:31 A.M., CNA #3 said Resident #77 used to walk around the unit independently, and after the Resident fell and was sent to the hospital, he/she has been on a 1:1. She said now she walks alongside the Resident with her hand ready on the gait belt if he/she needs to be redirected or guided to turn or avoid obstacles so he/she doesn't trip. During an interview on 7/16/24 at 9:50 A.M., CNA #4 said she has worked with Resident #77 as his/her 1:1 a few times. She said the Resident has never fallen while she was his/her 1:1, but he/she has fallen with other CNAs. She said she saw the Resident fall at the nursing station (5/29/24) and she did not see a CNA supervising him/her. During an interview on 7/16/24 at 10:30 A.M., Nurse #8 said Resident #77 wanders constantly and has had a lot of falls since being admitted to the facility. She said on 6/1/24 (fall with injury), she didn't actually see the Resident fall (contrary to the incident report). She said she heard a noise, turned around and saw the Resident on the floor and no CNA was with him/her. She said after that fall, she was glad that they put him/her on a 1:1 because she was so nervous the Resident would fall and get hurt. During an interview on 7/16/24 at 10:48 A.M., CNA #2 said when Resident #77 was first admitted to the unit, he/she was very confused, unsteady with walking and impulsive. He said the Resident needed someone watching him/her 24/7. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Regional Clinical Specialist #2 on 7/16/24 at 11:10 A.M., they said Resident #77's ambulation status is very different than his/her last admission. They said the Resident is very impulsive and gets up and walks in a moment's notice. Regional Clinical Specialist #2 and the DON said close/constant supervision of the Resident was not practical and they did not implement 1:1 supervision until the Resident returned from the hospital after sustaining a subarachnoid hemorrhage from the fall on 6/1/24. During an interview on 7/17/24 at 10:55 A.M., Resident #77's Responsible Person (RP) said Resident #77 was taken to the emergency room on 6/1/24 after having a fall and was told by the doctor that there was some bleeding in his/her head. He said the Resident had CT scans of his/her head before, and the Resident never had any bleeding in his/her brain before. He said the Resident has had several falls since admission to the facility and is relieved he/she now has a 1:1 to keep him/her safe.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Representative was notified of a change in treatment for one Resident (#77), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Spe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Representative was notified of a change in treatment for one Resident (#77), out of a total sample of 26 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to notify the Resident Representative when the Nurse Practitioner ordered the discontinuation of anticoagulant (medication that prevents blood from clotting) therapy following a fall resulting in a subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the space between the brain and the tissue covering the brain). Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Condition: Significant Change in, last revised 5/20/22, indicated but was not limited to: Policy: professional staff will communicate with physician, resident, and family regarding changes in condition. -Purpose: to provide timely communication of resident status change which is essential to Quality Care Management. -Process: The physician, resident and/or responsible party will be promptly notified by the nurse in the event of a condition change. -Order changes given by the physician will be carried out, including emergency transport if necessary, by the nurse -This notification including date, time and by whom, shall be documented in the clinical record by appropriate personnel. Resident #77 was admitted to the facility in May 2024 following an extended hospitalization and had an activated Health Care Proxy. The Resident was administered the anticoagulant medication Lovenox for treatment of a splenic infarct (occurs when the blood supply to the spleen is compromised, resulting in tissue ischemia and eventual necrosis). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/16/24, indicated Resident #77 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 out of 15, and was administered anticoagulant medication. Review of the May 2024 Physician's Orders included but was not limited to: -Enoxaparin (anticoagulant) syringe 40 milligrams (mg)/0.4 milliliters (mL) subcutaneously (under the skin) twice a day for two months (5/9/24-7/9/24). According to the National Institute of Health (2023), anticoagulants may increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage associated with falling. Review of the medical record indicated Resident #77 sustained a fall on 6/1/24 and was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. Review of emergency room Physician documentation, dated 6/1/24, indicated the computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain, revealed a finding of a trace right frontal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Review of Nursing Notes, dated 6/3/24, indicated the Nurse Practitioner gave an order to discontinue Lovenox due to the Resident's subarachnoid hemorrhage. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate Resident #77's Resident Representative was notified of the discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy. During an interview on 7/17/24 at 10:55 A.M., Resident #77's Resident Representative said he was not notified by anyone that the order for Lovenox was discontinued. During an interview on 7/17/24 at 11:20 A.M., Unit Manager #2 said she spoke to the Nurse Practitioner and received the order to discontinue Lovenox. She said she usually documents when she notifies Resident Representatives of any changes, but she may have missed telling the Resident's Representative the medication was discontinued.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, for one Resident (#88), of three closed records reviewed, the facility failed to document the recapitulation of the Resident's stay that included his/her co...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, for one Resident (#88), of three closed records reviewed, the facility failed to document the recapitulation of the Resident's stay that included his/her course of illness/treatment. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Discharge Planning Process, dated 6/11/24, indicated but was not limited to: Upon discharge the facility will complete a discharge summary which will include a recapitulation (the recapitulation of stay shall be a concise summary of the resident's stay and course of treatment while in the facility) and a final summary which included the resident's status at the time of discharge. The discharge summary shall include a description of the resident's: -course of illness, treatment, and/or therapy since entering the facility Resident #88 was admitted to the facility in April 2024 with the following diagnoses: fracture of right femur (bone in the upper leg/thigh) and history of fall. Review of the medical record indicated Resident #88 was discharged to an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) on 6/25/24. Review of Resident #88's discharge paperwork, titled Discharge Summary, indicated the following information was left blank: -date and time of admission -date and time of discharge -admitting diagnosis -brief history of nursing home stay -condition at time of discharge (physical and mental) -discharge to -final diagnosis -prognosis -date -physician signature During an interview on 7/16/24 at 4:00 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said when a resident is being discharged , she prints the Continuity of Care Document including their medication list and the last time administered. Unit Manager #2 said no additional assessments or observations are completed on paper or electronically. Unit Manager #2 said she then reviews the information with the resident and/or resident representative, faxes the information to the receiving facility or Visiting Nurse Agency and puts a copy in the Resident's medical record. During an interview on 7/16/24 at 4:31 P.M., Social Worker #2 said a once a discharge date and plan is established, the facility sets up any necessary outpatient services. Social Worker #2 said when the resident is discharged the discharge paperwork including the discharge plan of care and discharge summary was sent to the primary care provider, receiving facility, and/or outpatient services. Social Worker #2 said the discharge plan of care was completed electronically. Social Worker #2 said Resident #88's discharge plan of care was not completed at the time of discharge. During an interview on 7/16/24 at 4:28 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) and Regional Clinical Specialist #1 said the physician did not complete the discharge summary and recapitulation. The Regional Clinical Specialist #1 said she believed the physician had roughly 30 days to complete the recapitulation.
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 records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure for two Residents (#13 and #15), out of five residents selected for unnecessary medication review, that each Resident's drug reg...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure for two Residents (#13 and #15), out of five residents selected for unnecessary medication review, that each Resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #13, an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessment (a clinical outcome checklist completed by a healthcare provider to assess the presence and severity of adverse outcomes, such as abnormal movements of the face, limbs, and body) was completed timely in accordance with standards of practice; and 2. For Resident #15, as needed (prn) antidepressant medication was limited to 14 days, or extended beyond 14 days with a documented clinical rationale for its continued use and identified a clinical indication for use. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medication Management, last revised 5/15/2022, indicated but was not limited to: - Policy: Each resident's drug regimen will be free from unnecessary drugs. Administration of psychoactive medications will focus on the individual needs of the resident and will be prescribed only when necessary and clinically indicated to treat specific conditions and symptoms as diagnosed and documented. Psychoactive medication management will include implementation of behavioral interventions, gradual dose reduction, and adequate monitoring that complies with Federal and State guidelines. - Protocol: - Obtain Physician order for each psychoactive medication. Ensure that supportive diagnosis and target behaviors are documented and clearly identify the use of the medication is necessary and warranted. - Perform a baseline AIMS assessment upon initiation of any Antipsychotic medication and every six months thereafter. - Review should include verification that adequate indications for use of the psychotropic medication exist, the medications are not being used for extended duration, and residents are free from duplicate therapy and being monitored for adverse consequences, per current professional standards of practice and in accordance with Federal and State guidelines. - PRN (as needed) orders for psychotropic drugs are limited to 14 days (except as noted before) if the prescribing MD or practitioner believes it is appropriate for the PRN to be extended beyond 14 days. The MD will document his/her rational in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order. Review of the facility's policy titled Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), last revised 8/5/23, indicated but was not limited to: - Policy: The AIMS examination will be administered to all residents when antipsychotic medications are prescribed at time of baseline and every six months thereafter. A psychiatric service provider, or licensed nursing/social service staff member may administer this examination. - Procedure: - Perform the AIMS examination according to the guidelines provided on the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale. Review of the National Library of Medicine (NLM), dated 5/15/23, indicated but was not limited to: - The AIMS is administered every three to six months to monitor the patient for the development of TD (tardive dyskinesia, is a syndrome characterized by abnormal involuntary movements of the patient's face, mouth, trunk, or limbs. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10292174/) 1. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility in April 2022 with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, psychosis, and unspecified dementia. Review of Resident #13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/15/24, indicated that the Resident had short- and long-term memory problems as evidenced by staff interview. Further review of the MDS indicated Resident #13 was receiving an antipsychotic medication on a regular basis. Review of Resident #13's current Physician's Orders indicated but were not limited to: - Quetiapine (antipsychotic medication) 50 milligrams (MG) tablet. Give one tablet twice daily (start date 7/20/24). Review of Resident #13's Medication Administration Records (MAR) for May, June, and July indicated he/she received Quetiapine per physician's orders. Review of Resident #13's current Care Plan indicated but was not limited to: - Problem: Psychotropic Drug Use Resident is receiving psychotropic medication (Edited: 05/22/2024) - Goal: Resident will have no side effects to medication noted through next review. (Edited: 05/20/2024) - Intervention: AIMS assessment every 6 months (Created: 04/25/2023) Review of Resident #13's medical record indicated his/her last AIMS was completed 9/5/2023. During an interview on 7/16/24 at 1:04 P.M., Unit Manager #3 said that AIMS assessments are either done by the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner or by the Psychologist, but she would also do the AIMS assessment if she needed to do it. Unit Manager #3 reviewed Resident #13's medical record and said that Resident #13 last had an AIMS assessment completed 9/5/23. Unit Manager #3 said she was unaware of when Resident #13's next AIMS assessment was due. During an interview on 7/16/24 at 1:17 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said AIMS assessments were to be completed every six months. The DON said Resident #13 last had his/her AIMS assessment completed on 9/5/23 and it was due to be completed again in March of 2024, but it was not.2. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility in May 2021 with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, restlessness and agitation, paranoid personality disorder, and anxiety. Review of the MDS assessment, dated 5/30/24, indicated Resident #15 was unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), had both long- and short-term memory problems, and received antipsychotic and antidepressant medication daily. Review of the medical record indicated but was not limited to the following Physician's orders: -Trazodone (antidepressant) 50 mg, give 25 milligrams (gm) every six hours prn, re-evaluate on 9/15/23 (9/2/23) -Trazodone 50 mg, give 25 mg every six hours prn, then re-evaluate on 10/2/23 (9/18/23) -Trazodone 50 mg, give 25 mg every six hours prn, then re-evaluate on 10/20/23 (10/6/23) -Trazodone 50 mg, give 25 mg every six hours prn for 14 days, then re-evaluate (11/3/23) -Trazodone 50 mg, give 25 mg every six hours prn, then re-evaluate in six months on 5/17/24 (11/20/23) -Trazodone 50 mg, give 25 mg every 6 hours prn. Re-eval with MD on 8/16/24 (5/19/24-8/16/24) The prn orders for Trazodone failed to indicate an indication for its use. Review of MARs from September 2023 through July 2024 indicated prn Trazodone was administered as follows: -September 2023 through February 2024: not administered -March 2024: 3/13, 3/14, 3/18, 3/23, 3/28 -April 2024: 4/2 -May 2024: 5/13 -June 2024 and July 2024: not administered Review of the entire medical record failed to indicate the prn orders for Trazodone from September 2023 through July 2024 were re-evaluated and a clinical rationale for its continued use was documented in the medical record by either the Physician (MD) or Nurse Practitioner (NP). During an interview on 7/11/24 at 9:11 A.M., the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) reviewed Resident #15's medical record and said there was no documentation from the MD or NP that indicated an evaluation and clinical rationale for the continued use of prn Trazodone. During an interview on 7/15/24 at 1:30 P.M., Unit Manager (UM) #2 reviewed Resident #15's medical record and said there was no documentation from the MD or NP to indicate a clinical rationale for continued use of Trazodone. She said the prn Trazodone orders are supposed to include indications for its use, but they don't. UM #2 said she would contact the Physician regarding the prn Trazodone order. Review of a Nursing Note, dated 7/15/24, indicated UM #2 spoke with Resident #15's Physician about the prn Trazodone order. The note indicated Resident #15 had not used the prn Trazodone over the last month, had no restlessness or agitation and may discontinue the prn Trazodone order. No further documentation was provided to the survey team by the exit conference on 7/17/24 at 2:00 P.M.
Mar 2023 11 deficiencies
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's abuse policy for two Residents (#112 and #233), out of a total sample of 27 residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented the facility's abuse policy for two Residents (#112 and #233), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to follow their policy for investigating and reporting alleged allegations of abuse documented in the facility's Grievance Book for: 1. Resident #112's alleged allegation of sexual assault; and 2. Resident #233's alleged allegation of physical abuse. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse Policies and Procedures, dated 7/17/2019, indicated but was not limited to: -The facility prohibits any form of abuse (verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, corporal punishment, or involuntary seclusion; neglect and exploitation of residents and must ensure each resident is free from misappropriation of personal property. - All injuries of unknown source or unwitnessed injuries such as bruises, skin tears, and fractures will be investigated as potential abuse or neglect incidents. - All employees of the nursing facility have a responsibility to immediately report any incident that occurs that gives them reasonable cause to believe that a resident has been abused or neglected. Staff is not required to have conclusive proof that abuse has occurred. Reasonable cause means that upon review of a situation and circumstances, there is enough evidence to suggest to a prudent person that abuse, neglect, mistreatment, misappropriation of resident's personal property did occur. - The Director of Nurses (or designee) and Administrator (or designee) will ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. -For all alleged violations of abuse, neglect, mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property, the facility maintains evidence that all alleged violations are thoroughly investigated. 1. Resident #112 was admitted to the facility in June 2022 with a diagnosis which included dementia. Review of the Record of Grievance form, dated 10/14/22, indicated to see attached form. Review of the attached form indicated the following: -Social Worker (SW) #3 was informed by nursing this morning, that last evening around 10:00 -10:30 P.M., Resident #112 approached the female nurse and asked her, Where is the black man? He raped me. -Nurse indicated that when talking with the Resident further, the Resident stated, Maybe I dreamt it. -SW #3 met with the Resident #112 this morning to discuss the above. -Resident #112 is alert and oriented to person. Mental status is impaired due to diagnosis of dementia, Alzheimer's type with behavioral disturbance. -In speaking with Resident, he/she was unable to recall anything that occurred overnight. -When we talked about his/her concern about being raped last evening he/she immediately stated, I didn't say that; that didn't happen. -The Resident indicated that no one has hurt him/her or treated him/her inappropriately. -Healthcare proxy (HCP) was informed, and he/she does not believe that would have happened and is aware that his/her parent has dementia and is not always accurate. -Informed the Healthcare proxy the concern would be made, and an investigation would be completed. Review of the Health Care Facility Reporting System (a web-based system that health care facilities must use to report incidents and allegations of abuse, neglect, and misappropriation) on 3/20/23 at 5:00 P.M., failed to indicate Resident #112's allegation of sexual assault that was reported to staff on 10/13/22, was reported to the Department of Public Health (DPH) as required. During an interview on 3/20/23 at 5:53 P.M., with the Administrator and the Director of Nurses (DON), they reviewed the grievance and said they were not aware of the incident. The DON said she had not assumed the role of DON at the time of the incident. She said if she received this grievance, she would have reported the incident to Department of Public Health (DPH) and then completed a full investigation. The Surveyor requested any additional information, including the investigation of the above grievance. At the completion of the re-certification survey, the surveyor had not received any investigation material from the facility. 2. Resident #233 was admitted to the facility in September 2021 with a diagnosis which included dementia. Review of the Record of Grievance form, dated 4/11/22, indicated to see attached forms. Review of the attached forms indicated the following: Form #1: -Social Worker #2 (SW) received a phone call from Resident #233's spouse (FM #5) on 4/11/22. FM #5 said when visiting on 4/10/22, he/she noted a bruise on Resident #233's face. FM #5 said Resident #233 reported that someone in the night grabbed him/her by the cheek so hard that it felt like his/her cheek was going to fall off. -SW explained to FM #5, that she would complete a grievance form and an investigation would be completed. -SW #2 met with Resident #233. -SW #2 noted marks on Resident #233's left check area. -SW #2 asked Resident #233 how he/she got the marks on his/her cheeks and Resident #233 stated he/she didn't know and said, I must have scratched myself. -The Resident reports he/she feels safe at the facility. -The information was provided to the Administrator. Form #2: -SW worker #3 received a call from SW #2 to report FM #5 called to report over the weekend while visiting, Resident #233 told FM #5 that someone had grabbed his/her cheek so hard that he/she felt like it was going to fall off. -FM #5 reported Resident #233 did have marks on his/her left cheek. -SW #3 did meet with Resident #233 and did notice that the Resident did indeed have marks on his/her left check. Resident #233 had two small scratch marks and some red bruising. -Resident is diagnosed with dementia and has no memory of discussing this incident with his/her spouse. -SW #3 asked about the marks on his/her cheek, Resident reported not realizing he/she had marks and said, I may have done it to myself. -Resident reported feeling safe and is not in any distress at this time. Review of the Health Care Facility Reporting System on 3/20/23 at 5:00 P.M. failed to indicate Resident #233's allegation of abuse reported to staff on 4/11/22 was reported to the Department of Public Health (DPH) as required. During an interview on 3/20/23 at 5:53 P.M., with the Administrator and the Director of Nurses (DON), they reviewed the grievance and said they were not present in the building on 4/11/22 and were not aware of the incident. The DON said if she received this grievance, she would have reported the incident to Department of Public Health (DPH) and then completed a full investigation. The surveyor requested any additional information, including the investigation of the above grievance. At the completion of the re-certification survey, the surveyor had not received any investigation material from the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. Review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medication Management, revised 11/15/22, indicated but was not limited to: - Care plan the psychoactive medication use, supportive diagnoses, goa...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. Review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medication Management, revised 11/15/22, indicated but was not limited to: - Care plan the psychoactive medication use, supportive diagnoses, goals of therapy, target behaviors and pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches, inclusive, but not limited to behavioral interventions. Resident #74 was admitted to the facility in December 2021 with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease that blocks airflow and makes it difficult to breathe) and adjustment disorder with depressed mood and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/5/23, indicated Resident #74 had received both antipsychotic and antidepressant medications. Review of Resident #74's current Physician's Orders indicated but was not limited to: -Seroquel (antipsychotic) 25 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice daily, dated 6/10/22 -Mirtazapine (antidepressant) 7.5 mg by mouth at bedtime, dated 1/7/23 Review of Resident #74's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March 2023 indicated he/she was administered Seroquel and Mirtazapine per physician's orders. Review of Resident #74's care plan in the previous and current electronic medical records (EMR) (transitioning EMRs) failed to indicate there was a care plan for the use of psychotropic medication. During an interview on 3/20/23 at 1:40 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said her expectation was psychotropic medication usage should be care planned. The DON was unable to provide documented evidence of a care plan for the use of psychotropic medications. Based on observation, policy review, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for two Residents (#59 and #74), out of a total sample size of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #59, to develop a comprehensive care plan for the care and treatment of left and right heel pressure ulcers within 21 days of admission to the facility, per facility policy; and 2. For Resident #74, to develop a comprehensive care plan for the use of a psychotropic medications. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Care Plan Comprehensive, dated 10/22/22, indicated but was not limited to the following: - Comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implement for each resident. -The comprehensive, person-centered care plan should be developed within seven (7) days of the completion of the required comprehensive assessment (MDS) (14 days). 1. Resident #59 was admitted to the facility in February 2023 with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease, on hemodialysis, and right and left heel pressure wounds. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/10/23, indicated Resident #59 had two unstageable pressure ulcers that required the application of a dressing to both feet, which were present on admission to the facility. Review of the Resident #59's current Comprehensive Care plan indicated, but was not limited to: -Resident has an arterial ulcer of the right heel, created on 3/14/23. -Resident has an arterial ulcer of left heel, created on 3/14/23. During an interview on 3/20/23 at 8:50 A.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said you have 21 days to complete the comprehensive care plan. Review of Resident #59's comprehensive care plan for arterial ulcer's indicated the comprehensive care plans were not completed within the 21 days.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to obtain a hearing assistive device in a timely manner for one Resident (#29), out of a sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Resident #...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to obtain a hearing assistive device in a timely manner for one Resident (#29), out of a sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Resident #29 was admitted to the facility in November 2020 with diagnoses which included a stroke affecting the right side. The Resident had recently entered into hospice care. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/18/23, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) test was not performed because Resident #29 was rarely understood. In addition, the MDS indicated Resident #29 had moderate difficulty hearing, the speaker has to increase volume and speak distinctly. Resident #29 does use a hearing aid. During an interview on 03/15/23 at 1:05 P.M., Family Member (FM) #4 said his/her parent was deaf and you need to use the communication board. FM #4 said they lost his/her hearing aids in 2020 and back in December 2022 he/she filled out a request to have Resident #29 evaluated for a hearing device. FM #4 said he/she has not heard back from anyone, and he/she is the healthcare proxy (HCP). Review of the contracted audiologist Patient Intake Information form indicated FM#4 filled out the request on 12/9/22. Review of the audiologist Authorization for Treatment form indicated it was signed by FM #4 on 3/6/23. During an interview on 03/20/23 at 3:15 P.M., Nurse #10 said FM #4 filled out the form a while ago to have Resident #29 evaluated for hearing aids; she is not sure what is taking so long. Nurse #10 said she contacted the audiologist office on 3/7/23, and they said due to staffing they no longer come to the facility and Resident #23 would have to come to Boston for two appointments to get fitted for hearing aids. Nurse #10 said Resident #29 could not tolerate the two trips into Boston, so the audiologist office recommended the Resident get a handheld hearing aid, which she ordered for the Resident, but it has not come in. During a telephonic interview on 3/21/23 at 11:00 A.M., the Consultant Audiologist Staff said she did receive a call from the facility and the pocket talker was recommended for Resident #29. She said the facility was supposed to call back and order it if the Resident wanted it, but they never did. She said, yesterday she received a call from the facility, and they ordered the Pocket talker, and it was shipped out today.
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 policy review, record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain physician's orders for oxygen use prior to administration for one Resident (#384), in a total s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to obtain physician's orders for oxygen use prior to administration for one Resident (#384), in a total sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Oxygen Administration - Reservoir or Pendant Style Nasal Cannula/Oxymizer (Revised 5/5/2022) indicated the following: - Oxygen is to be delivered at low flow oxygen rates and concentration per the physician's order. Resident #384 was admitted to the facility in March 2023 with the following diagnoses: pneumonia, pulmonary fibrosis (disease that scars and damages lung tissue), and hypoxemia (low level of oxygen in the blood). On 03/15/23 at 2:30 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #384 sitting in his room with Oxygen being administered via a nasal cannula (lightweight tube used to deliver supplemental oxygen through the nostrils). The oxygen concentrator was set to 1.5 liters/ minute. On 03/16/23 at 10:28 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #384 lying in his bed with Oxygen being administered via a nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set to 1.5 liters/ minute. On 03/20/23 at 09:10 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #384 lying in his bed with Oxygen being administered via a nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set to 1.5 liters/ minute. Review of Resident #384's current Physician's Orders in the electronic health record (EHR), dated 2/20/23 - 3/20/23, failed to indicate a physician's order for oxygen therapy. Review of the interim and verbal orders in Resident #384's paper medical record failed to indicate a physician's order for oxygen therapy. During an interview on 03/20/23 at 09:39 A.M., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reviewed the paper and electronic medical records. The ADON said physician's orders are written in the paper medical record and then entered into the electronic medical record. The ADON said there were no physician's orders for oxygen therapy in either chart. During an interview on 03/20/23 at 01:24 P.M., Nurse #9 said she was caring for Resident #384 and knows what oxygen setting to use by reading the physician's order. She said for Resident #384, it should be at 1.5 liters/minute. The surveyor and Nurse #9 reviewed the medical record. The Nurse said she was unable to find the order for oxygen and there should have been an order in place. During an interview on 03/20/23 at 02:00 P.M., the Director of Nursing said that the nurses should administer Oxygen to a resident based on the physician's order, she said there should be an order in the medical record for the oxygen flow rate, changing the tubing, and checking the oxygen saturation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to follow their policy and consistently complete the f...

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 follow their policy and consistently complete the facility's section of the Dialysis communication sheet prior to dialysis treatment for one Resident (#59), out of a sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Hemodialysis, dated 11/5/22, indicated but was not limited to the following: -Communication between the facility and the hemodialysis center will occur using a communication book/sheet that consist of: -Vital signs -Copy of the medication administration record (MAR) -Any change of condition from last hemodialysis treatment (i.e., changes in weight, medications, behavior, appetite, falls, focus areas such as pressure area being treated etc.) -Documentation will be completed prior to dialysis treatment -The communication book/ sheet will be reviewed upon return from dialysis Resident #59 was admitted to the facility with the diagnosis which included end stage renal disease on hemodialysis, diabetes, and heel wounds on both feet. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #59 was receiving dialysis treatment. Review of the Physician's Orders indicated but was not limited to the following: -Resident goes to dialysis on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday. Resident #59 had 17 scheduled dialysis sessions since his/her admission to the facility. Review of Resident #59's Dialysis Communication Book indicated the following: -Nine Dialysis Communication Forms that were not completed by the facility nurses prior to Resident #59 attending dialysis treatment. -No Dialysis Communication Forms for review on the following dates: 2/14, 2/16, 2/18, 2/21, 2/25, 2/28, and 3/9/23. -One form was not dated and only completed by the dialysis center. During an interview on 3/17/23 at 2:15 P.M., Nurse #11 said Resident #59 goes out to dialysis Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday at 5:00 A.M. Nurse #11 said the normal process is the Dialysis Communication Book goes with the Resident and should be filled out.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor for signs/symptoms of adverse consequences (i.e., side effects) of an anticoagulant agent (blood thinner) prescribed for one Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor for signs/symptoms of adverse consequences (i.e., side effects) of an anticoagulant agent (blood thinner) prescribed for one Resident (#90), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Findings include: Resident #90 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses which included atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/15/22, indicated Resident #90 had received anticoagulant medications. Review of Resident #90's current Physician's Orders indicated but was not limited to: -Eliquis (anticoagulant) 5 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice daily, dated 1/28/23 Review of Resident #90's February and March 2023 Medication Administration Records (MAR) indicated he/she was administered Eliquis as ordered. Further review of the February and March MARs indicated the monitoring of adverse consequences to anticoagulation medications were not being documented. During an interview on 3/21/23 at 11:35 A.M., Nurse #5 said when someone is on an anticoagulant there should be an order to monitor for signs and symptoms of bleeding every shift. The Surveyor, Nurse #5, and Nurse #6 reviewed the medical record which failed to indicate an order to monitor for signs and symptoms of bleeding. Nurse #6 said there should be an order in place to monitor for bleeding, but she was unable to locate the order. During an interview on 3/21/23 at 1:34 PM, the Director of Nurses (DON) said her expectation was monitoring for signs and symptoms of bleeding be completed every shift when a resident is on an anticoagulant.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on document review, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#2), out of a total sample of 27 residents, was free from a significant medication error when an ant...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on document review, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#2), out of a total sample of 27 residents, was free from a significant medication error when an antibiotic was stopped without a physician's order during the facility's transitioning to an electronic medical record system. Findings include: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in November 2017 with diagnoses which included acute kidney disease, and infection and inflammatory reaction due to an indwelling urethral catheter. Review of Resident #2's Physician's Orders, dated 1/11/23, indicated the Resident was to receive Macrodantin (an antibiotic medication that treats an infection) 100 milligrams (mg) one capsule by mouth everyday indefinitely. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the Resident received Macrodantin 1/11/23 through 1/18/23 at 8:00 P.M. The MAR further indicated the Macrodantin was stopped on 1/19/23. Review of a Urinalysis and Culture report, dated 1/17/23, indicated results greater than 100,000 CFU/ml (colony-forming unit per milliliter) of Escherichia coli (ESBL) and greater than 100,000 CFU/ml of Enterococcus faecalis. The lab slip indicated the Resident was on Macrodantin 100mg daily with no new orders. During an interview on 3/17/23 at 1:23 P.M., the surveyor and Nurse Manager (NM) #1 reviewed the physician's order dated, 1/11/23, for Macrodantin to be given indefinitely. NM #1 said there was no order to discontinue the Macrodantin. NM #1 said she was unsure why the order was discontinued. During an interview on 3/17/23 at 1:25 P.M., the surveyor and Nurse #7 reviewed the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). Nurse #7 said there was no order for Macrodantin. Nurse #7 said she was unsure why the Macrodantin order was discontinued. During an interview on 3/17/23 at 1:27 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the facility transitioned to an EMR on 1/19/23, and the Pharmacy did the transfer of Resident information into the EMR. The DON said the order for Macrodantin had been dropped during the information transfer by the Pharmacy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

3. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in November 2017 with diagnoses which included acute kidney disease and infection and inflammatory reaction due to an indwelling urethral catheter. Review o...

Read full inspector narrative →
3. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in November 2017 with diagnoses which included acute kidney disease and infection and inflammatory reaction due to an indwelling urethral catheter. Review of Resident #2's Physician's Orders, dated 1/11/23, indicated the Resident was to receive Macrodantin (an antibiotic medication that treats an infection) 100 milligrams (mg) one capsule by mouth everyday indefinitely. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the Resident received Macrodantin 1/11/23 through 1/18/23 at 8:00 P.M. The MAR further indicated the Macrodantin was stopped on 1/19/23. During an interview on 3/17/23 at 1:23 P.M., the surveyor and Nurse Manager (NM) #1 reviewed the Physician's order dated, 1/11/23, for Macrodantin to be given indefinitely. NM #1 said there was no order to discontinue the Macrodantin. NM #1 said she was unsure why the order was discontinued. During an interview on 3/17/23 at 1:25 P.M., the surveyor and Nurse #7 reviewed the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). Nurse #7 said there was no order for Macrodantin. Nurse #7 said she was unsure why the Macrodantin order was discontinued. During an interview on 3/17/23 at 1:27 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the facility transitioned to an EMR on 1/19/23, and the Pharmacy did the transfer of Resident information into the EMR. DON said the Macrodantin order had been dropped during the information transfer by the Pharmacy. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the medical record was complete and accurate for three Residents (#74, #90, and #2), out of a total sample of 27 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #74, to ensure an order to admit the Resident to hospice services was integrated into the current physician orders when transitioning to an electronic medical record; 2. For Resident #90, to ensure the monitoring for signs and symptoms of bleeding with the use of anticoagulant medication was being documented; and 3. For Resident #2, the facility failed to ensure an order for an antibiotic had been included in a data transfer. Findings include: 1. Resident #74 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and congestive heart failure. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/5/23, indicated Resident #74 received hospice services. Review of the medical record indicated Resident #74 had been admitted to hospice services in July 2022. Review of the Physician's Orders, signed by the provider, on the following dates indicated Resident #74 was on hospice services: -8/10/22 -9/14/22 -10/21/22 Review of Resident #74's current Physician's Orders failed to indicate an order for the Resident to receive hospice services had been transcribed into the current electronic medical record during the transition. During an interview on 3/20/23 at 1:40 PM, the Director of Nurses (DON) said her expectation was for an order to be in the current physician's orders to indicate hospice services are being received. The DON said the order for Resident #74 was not in the current physician's orders and should have been transcribed into the new electronic system when the facility transitioned. 2. Resident #90 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses which included atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), dementia, and hypertension. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/15/22, indicated Resident #74 had received anticoagulant medications. Review of Resident #90's current Physician's Orders indicated but was not limited to: -Eliquis (anticoagulant) 5 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice daily, dated 1/28/23 Review of Resident #90's February and March 2023 Medication Administration Records (MAR) indicated he/she was administered Eliquis as ordered. Review of the December 2022 Treatment Record indicated the facility had monitored for adverse consequences to anticoagulation every shift. Further review of the February and March MARs failed to indicate documentation of the monitoring of adverse consequences to anticoagulation medications had been initiated when the facility transitioned to the current electronic medical record. During an interview on 3/21/23 at 11:35 A.M., Nurse #5 said when someone is on an anticoagulant there should be an order to monitor for signs and symptoms of bleeding every shift. The Surveyor, Nurse #5, and Nurse #6 reviewed the medical record which failed to indicate an order to monitor for signs and symptoms of bleeding. Nurse #6 said there should be an order in place to monitor for bleeding, but she was unable to locate the order. During an interview on 3/21/23 at 1:34 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said her expectation was that signs and symptoms of bleeding be monitored every shift when a resident is on anticoagulant medications. The DON said the facility had transitioned to a new electronic system and the order should have carried over from the previous system.
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 observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and potential transmissi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections in the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure that healthcare personnel performed hand hygiene following the self-collection of a nasal swab sample to rule out COVID-19; 2. Ensure that healthcare personnel donned (put on) the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) prior to entering a precaution room as indicated by posted signs outside of the resident's room; and 3. Ensure staff performing aerosol generating procedures for COVID-19 residents were properly fit-tested for an N-95 mask, prior to performing the procedure. Findings include: 1. Review of the Fact Sheet for Health Providers for BinaxNow COVID-19 Care, dated 4/6/2021 indicated the following: - Specimens should be collected with appropriate infection control precautions On 3/15/23 at 9:25 A.M., the surveyor observed Clerical Staff Member #1 perform a COVID test on Dietary Staff #1. Clerical Staff Member #1 donned PPE and screened Dietary Staff #1 and input the information into a tablet. Dietary Staff #1 swabbed herself and handed the swab to Clerical Staff Member #1 and exited the testing room. Dietary Staff # 1 did not perform hand hygiene after performing the nasal swab or prior to exiting the room. During an interview on 3/15/23 at 9:30 A.M., Clerical Staff Member #1 said the staff members should always sanitize or wash their hands when they are done self-swabbing. 2. Review of the facility's policy titled Droplet Precautions-COVID-19, revised 7/31/22, indicated the following: - Clean hands when entering and leaving the room - A mask and eye protection should be worn when providing direct care to the resident on droplet precautions. These should be donned per CDC guidelines for donning/doffing PPE. - N95 mask is required when performing aerosol-generating procedures, including but not limited to nebulizer treatments or obtaining a nasopharyngeal swab. - Gown and glove at the door- Full PPE is required to care for the resident on droplet precautions. a). On 3/15/23 at 12:29 P.M., the surveyor observed an Isolation/Droplet Precaution sign hanging outside of room E7 on the Eastport Unit. The Precaution sign indicated the following: - Clean hands when entering and leaving the room - Wear mask (Fit tested N-95 or higher required when performing aerosol generating procedures) - Wear eye protection (face shield or goggles) - Gown and glove at the door On 3/15/23 at 12:30 P.M., the surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2 outside room E7 donning an N95 face mask, a disposable gown, and gloves. CNA #2 was then observed entering room E7 but failed to don eye protection prior to entering. On 3/15/23 at 12:34 P.M., the surveyor observed CNA #2 exiting room E7 and performing hand hygiene. During an interview on 3/15/23 at 12:35 P.M., CNA #2 said she did not put eye protection on prior to entering the precaution room because eye protection was not available in the precaution cart set up outside the room. She said she should be following the sign and wearing eye protection prior to entering the room and caring for residents with COVID-19. b.) On 3/15/23 at 1:17 P. M., the surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #6 exiting a precaution room on the Eastport Unit. An Isolation/Droplet Precaution sign was observed hanging outside of the room and indicated the following: - Clean hands when entering and leaving the room - Wear mask (Fit tested N-95 or higher required when performing aerosol generating procedures) - Wear eye protection (face shield or goggles) - Gown and glove at the door The surveyor observed CNA #6 without eye protection on and removing a gown and N95 mask. CNA #6 replaced her N-95 mask with a surgical mask but failed to perform hand hygiene after removing soiled PPE and before replacing the new mask. c.) On 03/15/23 at 3:57 P.M., the surveyor observed CNA #7 entering a precaution room without donning eye protection. An Isolation/Droplet Precaution sign was observed hanging outside of the room and indicated the following: - Clean hands when entering and leaving the room - Wear mask (Fit tested N-95 or higher required when performing aerosol generating procedures) - Wear eye protection (face shield or goggles) - Gown and glove at the door During an interview on 3/15/23 at 04:10 P.M., CNA #7 said he didn't wear eye protection into the precaution room because there was none on the precaution cart outside of the room. He said he would be fine because he used the N95 mask while caring for the resident. 3. Review of the facility's policy titled Droplet Precautions-COVID-19, revised 7/31/22, indicated the following: - N95 mask is required when performing aerosol-generating procedures, including but not limited to nebulizer treatments or obtaining a nasopharyngeal swab. On 3/15/23 at 4:10 P.M., the surveyor observed a CNA exiting room E2 on the Eastport Unit. The CNA was observed telling Nurse #6 that the resident was requesting a nebulizer treatment (a small machine that turns liquid medicine into a mist that can be easily inhaled). The surveyor observed an Isolation/Droplet Precaution sign hanging outside of room E2 on the Eastport Unit. The Precaution sign indicated the following: - Clean hands when entering and leaving the room - Wear mask (Fit tested N-95 or higher required when performing aerosol generating procedures) - Wear eye protection (face shield or goggles) - Gown and glove at the door At 4:12 P.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #6 donning PPE including an N-95 mask, entering room E2 and shutting the door. At 04:25 P.M., the surveyor observed Nurse #6 exiting room E2 and doffing (removing) PPE. The Nurse said she administered a nebulizer treatment to the resident. Nurse #6 said she wore an N-95 mask while performing the nebulizer treatment but could not recall being properly fit-tested for an N-95 mask. During an interview in 3/20/23 at 3:44 P.M., the Director of Nurses said all nurses should be fit-tested for N-95 masks if they are performing aerosol-generating procedures. She said Nurse #6 had not been fit-tested and only a few of the leadership team members had been fit-tested. The Director of Nurses provided a list of nurses to the surveyor who have been properly fit-tested for N-95 masks. Only three nurses working in the building were listed.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff completed the Comprehensive MDS Assessment within the required time frame for six Residents (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff completed the Comprehensive MDS Assessment within the required time frame for six Residents (#109, #23, #83, #6, #50, and #71), out of a total sample of 22 resident assessments reviewed. Findings include: An Annual MDS assessment is considered timely if the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of the Annual MDS is completed within 366 days of the most recent Comprehensive Assessment (Admission, Annual, or a Significant Change in Status Assessment), and submitted no later than 14 days after the assessment reference date. 1. Resident #109 was admitted to the facility in January 2022 with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of the annual MDS assessment, dated 1/11/23, indicated it was not completed until 3/14/23, a total of 49 days late. 2. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility in February 2022 with a diagnosis of anemia. Review of the annual MDS assessment, dated 2/22/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of nine days late. 3. Resident #83 was admitted to the facility in February 2022 with a diagnosis of dementia. Review of the annual MDS assessment, dated 1/26/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 36 days late. 4. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in April 2020 with a diagnosis of dementia. Review of the annual MDS assessment, dated 1/31/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 32 days late. 5. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility in February 2022 with a diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease. Review of the annual MDS assessment, dated 1/31/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 32 days late. 6. Resident #71 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. Review of the annual MDS assessment, dated 2/2/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 29 days late. During an interview on 3/16/23 at 3:04 P.M., the MDS Nurse said she was aware that the MDSs had been late and were not being completed timely. She said they should be getting done on time but recently her work hours had changed, and it was difficult to keep up with the number of MDSs that needed to be completed.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete Quarterly MDS assessments timely for 15 Residents (#42, #25, #18, #119, #105, #15, #10, #53, #77,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete Quarterly MDS assessments timely for 15 Residents (#42, #25, #18, #119, #105, #15, #10, #53, #77, #26, #55, #20, #82, #117, and #97), out of a total sample of 22 resident assessments reviewed. Findings include: A Quarterly MDS assessment is considered timely if the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of the Quarterly MDS is completed within 92 days of the most recent OBRA Assessment reference date (Admission, Annual, Quarterly, or a Significant Change in Status Assessment), and submitted no later than 14 days after the assessment reference date. 1. Resident #42 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/31/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 31 days late. 2. Resident #25 was readmitted to the facility in July 2021 with a diagnosis of cerebrovascular incident (stroke). Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/24/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 38 days late. 3. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility in September 2020 with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/23/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 39 days late. 4. Resident #119 was admitted to the facility in August 2022 with a diagnosis of cerebrovascular incident (stroke). Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/25/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 37 days late. 5. Resident #105 was admitted to the facility in August 2022 with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/26/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 36 days late. 6. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility in May 2021 with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/12/23, indicated it was completed with a signature date of 3/15/23, a total of 49 days late. 7. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with a diagnosis of cerebrovascular incident. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/24/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 40 days late. 8. Resident #53 was admitted to the facility in December 2020 with a diagnosis of anemia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/25/23, indicated it was completed with a signature date of 3/16/23, a total of 37 days late. 9. Resident #77 was admitted to the facility in October 2017 with a diagnosis of dementia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 2/1/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 30 days late. 10. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/18/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 44 days late. 11. Resident #55 was admitted to the facility in December 2020 with a diagnosis of anemia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/25/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 37 days late. 12. Resident #20 was admitted to the facility in December 2018 with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/31/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 31 days late. 13. Resident #82 was readmitted to the facility in December 2021 with a diagnosis of anemia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/12/23, indicated it was completed with a signature date of 3/15/23, a total of 49 days late. 14. Resident #117 was admitted to the facility in May 2022 with a diagnosis of dementia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/24/23, indicated it was in process and had not been completed as of 3/16/23, a total of 38 days late. 15. Resident #97 was admitted to the facility in June 2021 with a diagnosis of dementia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/25/23, indicated it was completed with a signature date of 3/16/23, a total of 37 days late. During an interview on 3/16/23 at 3:04 P.M., the MDS Nurse said she was aware that the MDSs had been late and were not being completed timely. She said they should be getting done on time but recently her work hours had changed, and it was difficult to keep up with the number of MDSs that needed to be completed.
Feb 2020 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified timely of a newly developed open pressure area for one Resident (#6) in a total sample of 27 Residents. F...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified timely of a newly developed open pressure area for one Resident (#6) in a total sample of 27 Residents. Findings include: Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in May 2019 with a diagnosis of dementia. A review of the medical record for Resident #6 indicated an order for dermagram (a skin protectant), every shift and as needed, was initiated on 12/27/19 for a reddened area on the right gluteal fold. A review of a nursing progress note, dated 1/15/20, indicated the area to the right gluteal fold had opened. There was no indication in the nursing progress note that the physician was notified of the change to the area. A review of the incident report dated 1/15/20 indicated an open area to the right buttock was found on Resident #6 on 1/15/20. The section for notification did not indicate that the physician was notified of the change to the skin area. The nursing progress note from 1/16/20 indicated the pressure injury to the right buttock was noted with some bloody drainage, was cleansed and dermagram was applied. The was no indication the physician was notified regarding the bloody drainage. The nursing progress note from 1/18/20 indicated the area on the right buttock appeared larger in size, dermagram was applied. There was no indication the physician was notified of the change. The nursing progress note from 1/19/20 indicated the area to the right buttock was open with some serous (thin, watery constitution) drainage. There was no indication the physician was notified. The nursing progress note dated 1/20/20 indicated Resident #6 was seen by the Wound Nurse and an order for a new treatment was initiated: to cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply Hydrogel and dry protective dressing daily and as needed. During an interview on 2/5/20 at 8:21 A.M. the Wound Nurse said the treatment to the right gluteal fold was initially dermagram when it was a red area, identified on 12/27/19. She said the dermagram continued until the Wound Nurse saw the wound on 1/20/20 and called the physician with the changes. She said that when an open area was identified the procedure was for the nurse to initiate an incident report, notify the Wound Nurse, notify the family, notify the physician and notify the dietician. During an interview on 2/5/20 at 2:50 P.M. Nurse #3 said he had identified the open area for Resident #6 on 1/15/20. He said the area was previously pink and had opened, indicating a change. He said when he identified the open area he left a message for the Wound Nurse as she would be responsible for measuring and staging the pressure injury. He said he did not notify the physician of the change.
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 record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed, for three Residents (#31, #37, and #32 ) in a total of 27 sampled Residents. Findings include: 1. For Resident #31, the facility failed to address the Resident's communication and hearing loss needs to ensure proper care and use of hearing devices. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility in October 2019. Resident #31 medical diagnoses included unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, depression, weaknesses and history of falling. Review of the physician's orders dated January 2020 included: bilateral hearing aids, apply in the morning and remove at bed time. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #31 was moderately cognitively impaired with a Brief Interview for mental Status (BIMS) of 09. The MDS indicated the Resident had minimal hearing difficulty in some environment and was wearing hearing aids. For activities of daily living, the assessment indicated that it was very important for Resident #31 to listen to music. During interview on 1/30/20 at 10:20 A.M., Resident (#31) was unable to communicate due to being hard of hearing, and the hearing aids were not applied as per the physician's order. Review of Resident #31's care plan dated 10/18/19, failed to identify communication deficits related to hearing loss. There were no approaches or revisions that included care and use of hearing aid devices to improve and maintain the Resident's hearing and communication needs. During an interview on 2/4/20 at 2:44 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said that in the past 2 weeks Resident #31 had refused to wear the bilateral hearing aid devices. Unit Manager #2 had no explanation why the Resident's comprehensive plan of care did not include care and approaches for the communication/hearing loss needs. 2. For Resident #37, the facility failed to develop and implement a plan of care for the care and treatment of an open area. The Resident was identified as having an open area on the right buttock on 11/17/19, the wound measured 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm at the time. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility in November 2010. Resident #37's medical diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis ( muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body). The clinical record indicated a wound measurement was obtained on 2/3/20. The wound size was found to be 1.5 cm x 1 cm., indicating that the wound had increased in size and the area was unhealed. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #37 had a stage 2 pressure wound. Review of Resident #37's care plan initiated 3/22/16 for At risk for developing pressure ulcers related to incontinent and impaired decision making, had no updated interventions formulated into the plan that addressed the right buttock area and the follow-up treatments of care by the wound care nurse. Further review of the clinical record indicated Resident # 37 was being followed by the facility wound care nurse on a weekly basis. On 2/3/20, a new order was given to wash the wound with normal saline, pat dry then apply Dermagram cream topically followed by 4 x 4). During an interview with the wound care nurse on 2/5/20 at 10:56 A.M., she said she does weekly wound rounds and changed the Resident's dressing every Monday. She was asked to find the plan of care for the right buttock wound and could not find any and said it should have been added to the skin care plan. During an interview with unit manager #2 on 2/5/20 at 10:56 A.M., she said she did not develop a care plan that addressed the right buttock wound care area. 3. For Resident #32, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for a cardiac pacemaker (a device that can be placed in the chest or abdomen to help control abnormal heart rhythms). Resident #32 was admitted to the facility in October of 2019, with diagnoses including heart failure, atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm characterized by rapid and irregular beating), and a cardiac pacemaker Review of the admission MDS, with a reference date of 10/21/19, indicated that Resident #32 had a cardiac pacemaker. Review of the medial record failed to indicate a developed plan of care for the resident's cardiac pacemaker including pacemaker checks, interventions and goals. During an interview with Unit Manager #1 on 2/5/20 at 2:57 P.M., the surveyor and unit manager reviewed Resident #32's care plans together. The Unit Manager said she was not aware that there were no care plans developed and implemented for a cardiac pacemaker for Resident #32.
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 standards of practice by not obtaining a physici...

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 standards of practice by not obtaining a physicians' order prior to providing treatment to a blister, for one Resident (#104) in a total sample of 27 Residents. Findings include: Resident #104 was observed on 1/30/20 at 2:17 P.M. to be sitting in a high back wheelchair with foot rests and wearing black sneakers. The resident was observed again on 2/4/20 at 3:30 P.M. to be wearing black sneakers. A review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated Resident #104 was totally dependent for activities of daily living. A review of the nursing progress notes included a note from Nurse #2 on 01/04/20, which indicated Resident #104 had a 1 centimeter broken blister to the right heel, most likely caused from the back of a shoe and the spouse of Resident #104 suggested the resident not wear shoes. The note indicated that opsite (a transparent adhesive film which allows the skin to breathe, which helps promote healing) was applied. A review of the treatment administration record (TAR) for January 2020 indicated Resident #104 had a treatment sheet initiated on 1/4/20 for a poly-occlusive dressing ( an air tight, water-proof dressing). A review of the physician orders for January 2020, including telephone orders, did not indicate an order was written for opsite or for a poly-occlusive dressing for Resident #104. During an interview on 2/5/20 at 10:00 A.M. Unit Manager #3 said she was unaware that Resident #104 had a blister in January 2020. The Unit Manager and the surveyor observed the right heel of the resident while he/she was in bed. The right heel was observed to have a 1 centimeter ring of skin regrowth, no open area was observed. The Unit Manager and the surveyor observed there were 3 sets of shoes in the resident's room. She said she was unsure which shoes the resident should not be wearing and would follow up with the staff and the resident's spouse. During an interview on 2/5/20 at 10:16 A.M. Nurse #2 said she had identified the blister area on 1/4/20 and thinks she notified the physician of the area and obtained an order for opsite. She can not recall if she wrote out a telephone order and was unsure why the treatment sheet indicated a treatment for poly-occlusive dressing instead of opsite as indicated in the nursing progress note. During an interview on 2/5/20 at 10:26 A.M. Unit Manager #3 said the treatment sheet was incorrect, as a poly-occlusive dressing would not have been ordered for a blister.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. For Resident (#6), with a pressure injury, the facility failed to ensure the necessary treatment and services were consistent...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. For Resident (#6), with a pressure injury, the facility failed to ensure the necessary treatment and services were consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in May 2019 with a diagnosis of dementia. A review of the medical record for Resident #6 indicated an order for dermagram (a skin protectant), ever shift and as needed, was initiated on 12/27/19 for a reddened area on the right gluteal fold. A facility acquired stage 2 pressure injury to the right gluteal fold was identified on 1/15/20. On 1/29/20 an order was written for a low air loss mattress, set to the resident's weight. A review of the medical record indicated Resident #6 weighed 98 pounds as of 1/22/20. Resident #6 was observed to be in bed on 1/30/20 at 1:55 P.M. The air mattress on the bed was set in the middle between number 50 and 100 on the dial. On 2/4/20 at 2:46 P.M. Resident #6 was observed in bed. The air mattress dial was set closer to 150. On 02/05/20 at 8:03 A.M., the surveyor observed a wound dressing change to the right gluteal fold with Nurse #2 and the facility Wound Nurse. When the Wound Nurse rolled Resident #6 onto his/her left side the surveyor observed two disposable liners bunched up under the right buttock, a blanket and a fitted sheet, all between the air mattress and the Resident. The Wound Nurse said she was not sure why there were so many layers between the Resident and the air mattress, which would make the air mattress less effective. The air mattress setting was observed to be in the middle between 50 and 100. During an interview on 2/5/20 at 8:20 A.M. Unit Manager #3 said she was not sure who would have changed the settings on the air mattress and said it should have been set at 100, which was closest to the weight of Resident #6. Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that for 2 Residents (#37 and #6) with a facility acquired pressure ulcer, received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prevent infection, in a total of 27 sampled residents. Findings include: 1, Resident #37 was admitted to the facility in 11/2010. Resident #37 medical diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis (muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #37 had one stage 2 pressure ulcer. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident #37 had a facility acquired pressure ulcer on his/her right buttock. The original onset date of the wound was 11/17/19, the wound measured 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm at the time. On 02/04/20 at 01:35 P.M., the Resident was observed during the wound dressing change. The certified nursing assistant (CNA) had just finished providing incontinence care to the Resident. Nurse #4 entered the room with the surveyor, applied a pair of non-sterile gloves, and had no dressing supplies gathered. CNA #2 applied a pair of non-sterile gloves as well, rolled the Resident towards her, facing the wall. CNA #2 took Dermagram cream applied it to the wound and the surrounding areas with the same gloves, then she opened a 4x4 gauze, covered the wound and secured it with the adult brief. Nurse #4 did not even assess the wound nor perform the dressing change, she said to the surveyor that the dressing was completed. The clinical record indicated a wound measurement was obtained on 2/3/20. The wound size was found to be 1.5 cm x 1 cm. indicating that the wound had increased in size. Review of the Wound Treatment sheet indicated Dermagram (wound care cream) topically followed by 4x4 gauze, every shift. During an interview with Unit Manager #2 on 2/5/20 at 10:56 A.M., she said to the surveyor that the Resident was being treated for a facility-acquired, stage 2 pressure ulcer to the right buttock. The Unit Manager said that the Resident acquired the pressure ulcer sometime around 11/2019, and that he/she was being treated by the facility wound care nurse.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a follow up with urology was provided to one Resident (#59) with a catheter, out of a total sample of 27 Residents. Findings in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a follow up with urology was provided to one Resident (#59) with a catheter, out of a total sample of 27 Residents. Findings include: Resident #59 was admitted to the facility in June 2019 with a diagnosis of urinary retention. A review of the medical record indicated Resident #59 was admitted to the facility with a Foley catheter. The hospital discharge summary indicated a recommendation for a voiding trial and follow up with a urologist. During an interview on 1/30/20 at 2:45 P.M. the daughter of Resident #59 said the resident had a catheter from the hospital due to urinary retention. She said she attended the care plan meeting and questioned if Resident #59 continued to need a catheter and was told by staff that the catheter could not be removed. A review of the medical record included a physician progress note from a Urologist dated 9/3/19. The note indicated Resident #59 had chronic urinary retention and mental status changes related to a urinary tract infection. The plan indicated to change the catheter to size 16 and silicone, to give Cipro 500 milligrams one time before changing the catheter and to follow up with urology in one month. During an interview on 2/4/20 at 4:18 P.M. Unit Manager #3 said Resident #59 was seen by the urologist on 9/3/19 and there had been no follow up visit following that day, as indicated in the physician progress note. She said she thought the follow up visit with urology was not conducted because the physician wrote his own orders and the follow up was not part of the order.
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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide care and services for one resident (#90) receiving dialysis. Specifically, for Resident #90, the facility failed to develop a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide care and services for one resident (#90) receiving dialysis. Specifically, for Resident #90, the facility failed to develop a resident specific comprehensive care plan for hemodialysis (the process of removing waste products and excess fluid from the body) treatments. Resident #90 was admitted to the facility in December of 2019 with diagnoses including adult failure to thrive, end stage renal disease, and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with a reference date of 12/23/19, indicated Resident #90 was cognitively intact, as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. Resident #90 required limited to extensive assistance with all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), except was independent with eating. During an initial observation on 1/31/20 at 12:17 P.M., Unit Manager #1 told the surveyor Resident #90 was offsite at the dialysis center receiving a weekly treatment. The Unit Manager indicated the resident receives dialysis treatments three times per week, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Review of the medical record failed to include any developed written plan of care that indicated Resident #90 had end stage renal disease, and/or was receiving dialysis treatments, with pertinent interventions and goals. During an interview with Unit manager #1 on 2/5/20 at 3:01 P.M., the surveyor and Unit Manager reviewed Resident #90's care plans together. The Unit Manager said the resident has been on dialysis since she had known him/her and said the care plan should reflect his/her current status. The Unit Manager said the resident's care plan was incomplete and not individualized and should have included a plan of care for dialysis.
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
  • • 26% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 22 points below Massachusetts's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 21 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $47,886 in fines. Higher than 94% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 63/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Alliance Health At Maples's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Massachusetts, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Alliance Health At Maples Staffed?

CMS rates ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 26%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Alliance Health At Maples?

State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES during 2020 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 18 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Alliance Health At Maples?

ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by ALLIANCE HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 144 certified beds and approximately 127 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WRENTHAM, Massachusetts.

How Does Alliance Health At Maples Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (26%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Alliance Health At Maples?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Alliance Health At Maples Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Alliance Health At Maples Stick Around?

Staff at ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 26%, the facility is 20 percentage points below the Massachusetts average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 28%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Alliance Health At Maples Ever Fined?

ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES has been fined $47,886 across 1 penalty action. The Massachusetts average is $33,558. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Alliance Health At Maples on Any Federal Watch List?

ALLIANCE HEALTH AT MAPLES 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.