SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #28 (R28):
Review of the medical record reflected R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], wit...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #28 (R28):
Review of the medical record reflected R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy, adult failure to thrive, chronic kidney disease and diabetes. The Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/15/23, reflected R28 scored 13 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R28 required extensive assistance of one person for many activities of daily living, including but not limited to bed mobility, transfers, walking in the room, locomotion on and off the unit. R28 was not coded as having any wounds.
On 05/03/23 at approximately 10:40 AM, R28 was observed seated in a wheelchair in her room. R28 stated she had some sores but was unsure if they were present before she admitted to the facility.
On 05/04/23 at 9:15 AM, R28 was observed lying on her left side in bed, watching TV. She reported she had absolutely no concerns with her care. Everyone has been really super. She reported she was able to turn and reposition herself in bed and sit up independently. She stated they told her she had fallen since she had been here. She reported sliding out of the bed. Upon interview, she acknowledged there are things she does not remember.
A Skin and Wound Evaluation for 4/16/23 reflected an in-house acquired open lesion to the sacrum, measuring 1.1 centimeters (cm) in length by (x) 0.8 cm in width. There was no description of the wound bed, and there were no additional assessments of the area after 4/16/23. Progress of the wound was marked as New.
During an interview on 05/08/23 at 11:04 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported R28 had a spot on her sacrum that measured 1.1 cm x 0.8 cm and healed on 4/16/23. DON B reported the picture showed a pink area with a bit of a scab on it. She reported the staff nurse was supposed to document that the area was healed, and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A closed (healed) the wound assessment on 4/25/23 at 11:47 AM. DON B reported R28 had a history of a pressure ulcer to that area.
DON B was notified of the request to observe R28's skin, including her sacrum/coccyx and left foot during scheduled treatments on 5/9/23.
On 05/08/23 at 1:00 PM, R28 was observed seated in her wheelchair, in her room, watching TV. She was wearing gripper socks on both feet, with her feet resting on the floor.
Review of wound notes by Wound Doctor Q reflected R28 was seen on 4/14/23 for an open sacral lesion that measured 1.1 x 0.8. The note reflected treatment was going to include MediHoney, collagen and foam dressing, to be changed three times a week and as necessary.
Review of the April 2023 TAR reflected those orders were not implemented and continued to reflect Coccyx: cleanse with NS [normal saline], pat dry and place optifoam over wound every day shift for wound care.
During an interview on 05/09/23 at 12:15 PM, DON B was notified that R28's treatments had already been documented as completed for the day, and the Survey Team had not been made aware for the previously requested observation. DON B was asked if she knew why the treatment was not updated to reflect Wound Doctor Q's treatment recommendation for the coccyx, as referenced in his Progress Note for 4/14/23. DON B believed Wound Doctor Q healed that area and that there was no need for the recommended treatment.
This citation pertains to intake MI00131462.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement pressure ulcer interventions and treatments for two (Resident #28 and Resident #29) of three reviewed, resulting in the worsening of a pressure ulcer for Resident #29 and the potential of a worsening pressure ulcer for Resident #28.
Findings include:
Review of the medical record revealed R29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included pressure ulcer to the left heel, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease stage 3. Review of the MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/13/23 revealed R29 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool), required extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility, and was not on a turning/repositioning program.
Review of the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk dated 3/6/23, revealed R29 scored 16 (15-18 is at risk).
Review of the Admission/re-admission Evaluation dated 3/6/23 revealed Stage 1 pressure ulcer-staged by RN [Registered Nurse] to R29's left heel.
Review of the Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 3/7/23 (day after admission) revealed R29 had a stage one pressure ulcer that measured 0.9 centimeters (cm) x 0.5 cm.
Review of R29's Physician's Orders and Treatment Administration Records (TARs) revealed on 3/6/23, border form was ordered for R29's left heel but was never applied or implemented. The order was discontinued on 3/7/23. No treatments were documented as completed on 3/6/23 or 3/7/23. Starting on 3/8/23, skin prep was ordered to apply to bilateral heels every day for protection. Skin prep was discontinued on 3/15/23.
Review of R29's At Risk for Alteration in Skin Integrity care plan initiated on 3/7/23 revealed elevate heels as able was implemented on 3/7/23, pressure redistributing device on bed/chair was implemented 3/7/23, use pillows/positioning devices as needed was implemented 3/7/23, and EHOB boots to bilateral feet were implemented on 3/12/23.
The Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 3/11/23 revealed R29's pressure ulcer was a deep tissue injury (persistent non-blanchable deep red, maroon, or purple discoloration) that measured 0.8 cm x 1.2 cm. The wound bed was documented as 100% eschar (dead tissue/unstageable).
Review of R29's Pressure Ulcer to Left Heel care plan initiated 3/13/23 revealed EHOB boots were implemented 3/13/23, pressure redistributing support surface was implemented 3/13/23, and repositioning during Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) was implemented on 3/13/23.
According to the TAR on 3/15/23, a Hydrofera Blue dressing was applied to R29's left heel. The order was to change the dressing every three days. The dressing was changed four days later, on 3/19/23. The Hydrofera Blue dressing was discontinued on 3/23/23.
The Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 3/19/23 revealed a 1.7 cm x 2.3 cm deep tissue injury with light serious drainage and macerated surrounding tissue.
According to the Order Summary and TAR, on 3/23/23 the treatment order was changed to cleanse with normal saline, apply skin prep, and apply optifoam every two days. The treatment was not documented as completed and the order was discontinued on 3/24/23. On 3/24/23 the order was changed to normal saline, medi honey, and a dry dressing daily.
The Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 3/24/23 revealed a1.2 cm x 0.8 cm unstageable (obscured full-thickness skin and tissue loss) pressure ulcer due to slough and/or eschar; however, the wound bed was documented as 20% granulation tissue without any documentation of the amount of slough and/or eschar.
Review of the MP Wound Progress Note dated 3/24/23 revealed I am going to change the plan .3. pressure reducing seat cushion, 4. pressure reducing heel boot, 5. pressure reducing air mattress, 6. turn and reposition per facility .
The Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 3/31/23 revealed a 2.4 cm x 1.6 cm unstageable pressure ulcer due to slough and/or eschar with a wound bed of 70% granulation tissue and 30% slough.
Review of a General Progress Note dated 4/6/23 revealed .consider referral to wound clinic .Elevate left heel off bed at all times .
The Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 4/7/23 revealed a 1.7 cm x 2.1 cm unstageable pressure ulcer due to slough and/or eschar with a wound bed of 100% eschar.
Review of the Wound Care Initial Consultation, History and Physical dated 4/7/23 revealed R29's pressure ulcer was 100% stable black eschar and measured 1.73 cm x 2.06 cm. The consultation revealed If patient sits in bed, appropriate offloading mattress .Frequent turning and positioning every two hours to the best of her ability to offload the area. Review of the care plans revealed turning and repositioning every two hours was not implemented.
The Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 4/14/23 revealed a 3.1 cm x 1.6 cm unstageable pressure ulcer due to slough and/or eschar. The assessment did not reflect any additional wound characteristics (i.e. wound bed, drainage).
The Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 4/21/23 revealed a 2.5 cm x 1.8 cm unstageable pressure ulcer due to slough and/or eschar with a wound bed of 100% eschar.
Review of the Radiology Report dated 4/21/23 revealed R29's left heel soft tissues appear swollen with ulceration .findings suspicious for calcaneal osteomyelitis [inflammation of bone due to infection], recommend MRI.
The Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 4/28/23 revealed a 1.3 cm x 2.2 cm unstageable pressure ulcer due to slough and/or eschar with a wound bed of 100% eschar.
Review of the MRI dated 5/4/23 revealed R29 had osteomyelitis of the left heel. R29 was on IV antibiotics for osteomyelitis.
The Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 5/5/23 revealed a 2.6 cm x 1.8 cm unstageable pressure ulcer due to slough and/or eschar; however the wound bed was documented as 60% granulation without any documentation of the amount of slough and/or eschar.
On 05/3/23 at 09:41 AM, R29 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in her room. Both feet were wrapped with kerlix and boots were in place. R29 reported she developed a pressure ulcer on her left heel due to her heel rubbing on the bed. R29 reported she was on IV antibiotics for an infection in her left heel. R29 did not recall elevating her feet off the bed prior to the development of the pressure ulcer. R29's bed was observed with a bariatric mattress that was not an alternating pressure mattress.
On 5/8/23 at 10:05 AM, R29 was observed in bed while staff were providing care. R29 did not have an alternating pressure mattress on her bed.
In an interview on 05/8/23 at 11:08 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported it was her understanding that R29 was admitted to the facility with the left heel deep tissue injury. DON B reviewed R29's wound assessments and agreed that on 3/6/23 and 3/7/23, the wound was documented as a stage 1 pressure ulcer to the left heel. DON B reported R29 now had osteomyelitis to the left heel. DON B reported the facility's standard mattresses were foam mattresses and that R29 should have had an alternating pressure mattress in place since 3/13/23. DON B reported the skin prep was started on 3/8/23 and agreed there was no documented preventative treatment completed on 3/6/23 or 3/7/23. DON B entered R29's room and reported the mattress on the bed was a standard foam mattress and not an alternating pressure mattress.
On 05/9/23 at 09:41 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) K was observed performing a skin check on R29. LPN K reported R29 was also due for dressing changes. LPN K began by removing R29's boots and dressings dated 5/8/23 from both feet. LPN K then placed both of R29's heels directly on a bath blanket. R29 had a pillow under her legs, but the pillow did not prevent her heels from resting on the bed. R29's left heel was observed with a a pressure ulcer. LPN K completed the remainder of the skin check and then left the room to obtain wound care supplies. When asked about the left heel pressure ulcer, R29 stated I just didn't get moved enough. R29 went on to further explain that she thought staff put something under her legs to elevate her heels when she first came in, but her heels still touched the mattress. LPN K returned at 10:00 AM to perform wound care. R29's heels were still resting on the mattress at that time. LPN K cleansed R29's left heel with normal saline, patted dry, applied betadine to the wound, applied calcium alginate to the wound, placed an ABD pad over, and then wrapped with kerlix.
Review of the Physician's Order dated 5/7/23 revealed left heel cleanse with NS [Normal Saline] apply collagen to heel and wrap with kerlix every day and PRN [as needed]. The treatment was scheduled for Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
In an interview on 05/9/23 at 10:26 AM, LPN K was asked about the treatment orders for R29's left heel. LPN K showed the order for betadine to left heel, soak 4x4 gauze with betadine, and wrap with kerlix. There was not an active treatment for 5/9/23 which reflected the order that was placed on 5/7/23 for normal saline, collagen, and kerlix.
In an interview on 05/9/23 at 11:34 AM, DON B reported R29's betadine order was supposed to be discontinued and the order for collagen was to be completed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. DON B reported she did not recall that calcium alginate was ever an order for R29's pressure ulcer. DON B reported R29 now had an alternating pressure mattress in place.
In an interview on 05/10/23 at 09:34 AM, Maintenance Director (MD) E reported work orders were usually not filled out for mattresses. MD E reported Housekeeping Director (HD) F kept track of when specialty mattresses were put into place.
In an interview on 05/10/23 at 09:38 AM, HD F reported as of 1/1/23, she did not keep track of mattresses; however, the requests were still done through email. HD F reported she looked back and found that the only conversation related to R29's bed was for a bariatric mattress and a trapeze. HD F reported R29 first received an alternating pressure mattress on 5/8/23.
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · 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 implement effective interventions to prevent falls for...
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 implement effective interventions to prevent falls for four (Resident #11, #13, #20, and #464) of five reviewed for accidents, resulting in reoccurring falls (Resident #13), falls with the potential for major injury (Resident #464) and falls with major injury (Resident #11 and #20).
Findings Include:
Resident #13
Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #13 (R13) admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included bilateral hearing loss, anxiety, osteoporosis, major depressive disorder, overactive bladder, delusional disorders, vascular dementia, and cognitive communication deficit. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/6/23, reflected R13 scored zero out of 15 (severe cognitive impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R13 did not walk and required extensive of two or more people for transferring and toileting.
In an observation on 05/03/23 at 09:58 AM, R13 was observed resting in bed with her eyes closed. R13 had a Broda chair (wheelchair that provides tilt-in-space positioning, recline and leg rest adjustments) in her room. R13 did not have a non-skid mat on the seat of the Broda chair. R13's television was off.
In an observation on 05/04/23 at 01:01 PM, R13 was seated in her Broda with a blanket covering her, slightly reclined back. R13 had a tablet on a stand in front of her but was not watching the content playing on the device. R13 had a blanket but did not have any other materials with her at the time of observation.
In an observation on 05/04/23 at 01:50 PM, R13 was observed seated on her bottom on the floor in front of R13's Broda chair. Staff members were assessing and assisting to R13.
In an observation on 05/04/23 at 01:53 PM, R13 was assisted back into the Broda chair and wheeled to the vicinity of the nurse's station. R13 had a blanket on her but had no other materials with her at the time of observation. An observation was made of the seat of the Broda chair, and it did not appear that R13 had a non-skid mat underneath her bottom on the seat of the chair.
In an observation on 5/04/23 at 1:56 PM, the staff member at the nurse's station left the area. R13 was left unsupervised by facility staff members for approximately five minutes.
In an observation 05/04/23 at 02:37 PM, R13 was seated in her Broda chair and slightly reclined back in the vicinity of the nurse's station. R13 appeared to have slid down significantly from her previous position with her buttocks towards the edge of the seat. R13 was attempting to lean up out of chair. A staff member approached R13 and wheeled R13 away from the nurse's station and down the hall. R13 was not repositioned in the Broda chair.
In an interview on 05/04/23 at 02:05 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) CC reported that she did not witness the fall that R13 sustained. LPN CC reported that the iPad in front of her prior to falling was for entertainment purposes, to watch tv and stuff.
Review of the Care Plan revealed R13 had an At Risk for Falls Care Plan initiated on 12/1/2020. Some listed interventions included assist patient near nurses' station if she is becoming restless in her chair, ensure patient has her baby doll when sitting in her chair, leave TV [television] on at bedtime with low volume, non-skid surface to wheelchair, reposition in Broda chair when noted restless or agitated, and watching iPad while in Broda chair of favorite show and music.
Review of the Care Plan revealed R13 had an increased risk of fracture related to
Osteoporosis Care Plan initiated on 01/16/2022. Interventions included to monitor for risk of falls and educate resident, family/caregivers on safety measures that needed to be taken in order to reduce risk of falls.
Review of the same Care plan revealed R13 had bilateral hearing loss and an Activities of Daily Living deficit Care Plan which revealed R13 wore glasses.
Review of the Assessment tab located in the Electronic Medical Record revealed R13 had 18 Fall Assessments from falls sustained from 1/1/23 until 5/8/23.
In an observation on 05/08/23 at 09:58 AM, R13's Broda chair was in R13's room. R13 was using the restroom at the time. There was no non-skid mat observed on R13's Broda chair.
In an interview on 05/08/23 at 12:53 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) EE reported that R13's fall interventions included ensuring R13's toileting needs were tended to, ensuring the bed is in the lowest position, not leaving R13 unattended in her room, and leaving her up by the nurse's station for increased supervision purposes. CNA EE stated that R13 does not respond much to the iPad. When queried about the non-skid pad that is Care Planned as a fall intervention, CAN EE reported that she [R13] used to have one but the facility got rid of them. CAN EE also reported that R13 had hearing loss but did not have hearing aids and has glasses, but they were in her drawer and not used.
In an observation on 05/08/23 at 10:08 AM, R13 was wheeled out of her room by a staff member and parked in the vicinity of the nurse's station. The staff member walked away from R13. At 10:32 AM, a staff member approached R13 and removed her from the nurse station and into her room. R13 had no direct supervision for the 24 minutes that R13 was left in the vicinity of the nurse's station.
In an observation on 05/08/23 at 10:46 AM, R13 was resting in bed with her eyes closed. R13's television was turned off and the Broda chair did not have a non-skid mat on the seat.
In an observation on 05/09/23 at 10:15 AM, R13 was observed in the hall seated in her Broda chair, slightly reclined back, with a blanket. R13 did not have a baby doll with her at the time of observation.
In an interview on 05/08/23 at 02:29 PM, LPN CC stated that fall interventions for R13 included keeping her at the nurse's station, toileting before and after meals, ensuring she had her blanket and baby doll and providing fluids after meals. When quired about the non-skid mat, LPN CC reported that the facility got rid of them and was no aware of any alternative for the non-skid mat. LPN CC reported that R13 did not having hearing aids or require the use of glasses.
In an interview on 05/11/23 at 10:28 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported that she was aware of R13's frequent falls and was going to start implementing risk management meetings with the facilities Interdisciplinary Team in the near future to monitor, track and trend resident falls. DON B confirmed that one of R13's fall interventions was to park her near the nurse's station to provide increased supervision. DON B reported that the facility does have and utilize the use of non-skid mats but was not certain why R13 did not have one on her Broda chair.
Resident #20
Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #20 (R20) admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included traumatic subdermal hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, adult failure to thrive, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, repeated falls, glaucoma, and visual disturbance. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/22/23, reflected R20 scored zero out of 15 (severe cognitive impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R20 required extensive of one person for transferring and toileting.
In an observation on 05/04/23 at 01:01 PM, R20 was seated in a wheelchair in her room with a blanket on her lap. R20's call light was clipped to her right side but was hanging out of reach. R20 yelled out can I go back to bed now? There was no response from staff.
In an observation on 05/04/23 at 01:14 PM, R20 yelled out Can I go back to bed? There was no response from staff even though there were two staff members approximately 6 feet outside of R20's room.
In an observation on 05/04/23 at 01:22 PM, R20 called out I need to go to the bathroom, and I need to go back to bed. A staff member passed by as R20 was calling out but did not respond to the request.
In an observation on 05/04/23 at 01:37 PM, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) approached this surveyor for an interview when R20 called out I need to go to the bathroom. The CNA then tended to R20.
In an observation on 05/08/23 at 12:44 PM, R20 was seated in her wheelchair and parked in the middle portion of her room. R20 did not have a call light within reach.
Review of a Progress Note dated 3/7/2023 at 5:39 PM revealed .on 3/4/23 @ [at] 930am, staff observed resident [R20] resting on the floor on her eft [sic] side near the bed of her roommate, her walker upright in front of her. She was unsure if her head made contact with anything. She stated she was trying to go back to bed after using the restroom following breakfast . She was incontinent at time of incident Immediate intervention: assist w/ [with] toileting following breakfast. CP (care plan) updated.
Review of an Incident report dated 3/4/23 at 9:35 AM revealed resident observed lying on the floor on her left side near roommates' bed .fall interventions already in place: have commonly used articles within reach, provide assistance to transfer and ambulate as needed. New intervention toilet before and after meals .
Review of a Progress Note dated 4/10/2023 at 07:38 AM revealed R20 observed lying on the floor face/body down next to bed. Resident stated, I was trying to get back into bed. Resident states hitting head and having 7/10 pain in head .Resident assisted off floor by EMS [Emergency Medical Service] and transported to ER [Emergency Department] for further evaluation.
An Incident Report dated 4/10/23 revealed that the fall occurred at 4/10/23 at 7:15 AM.
The Incident report provided by a Certified Nursing Assistant on 4-10-23 revealed resident toileted on midnight shifting [sic] observed resting in bed approx. 0700 [AM]. fell 0710 [AM].
A Patient Safety Note dated 4/11/2023 at 10:47 AM revealed R20 states she was getting up to go to bathroom .New intervention to update plan of care includes bed against wall. Interventions in place at time of fall include commonly used articles within reach, assist to use restroom after breakfast, encourage to change positions slowly .
Review of the Hospital Paperwork dated 4/11/23 revealed R20 sustained a subdermal hematoma (A condition due to bleeding under the membrane covering the brain called, the dura) and was admitted to the Critical Care Unit.
Review of the Care Plan revealed R20 had an At Risk for Falls Care Plan initiated on 4/6/2020. Interventions included administer medications per physician's order, encourage to transfer and change positions slowly, evaluate medications if patient demonstrates changes in mental status, provide assistance to transfer and ambulate as needed, refer to the therapy plan of treatment in the medical record for more detail, and therapy evaluation and treatment per orders.
In an interview on 05/08/23 at 02:37 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse CC reported that R20 is hard of hearing and seldomly uses her call light. R20's preferred method of asking for assistant was to call out.
Review of the [NAME] (portion of the Electronic Medical Record commonly used by Certified Nursing Assistants to communicate residents needs) revealed R20 required assistance to the restroom after breakfast and before staff leave room, place call light in patient hand for ease to access .
In an interview on 05/10/23 at 10:03 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) FF reported that R20 makes her needs known by calling out for help but at times, R20 will use the call light appropriately. CNA FF reported that staff will pin the call light to R20 to help with locating the call light when needed.
In an observation in 05/11/23 at 09:17 AM, R20 was in bed with her eyes closed. R20's bedside table was located at foot of bed. R20's water was located on the bedside table, which was out of reach from R20. R20's call light was observed on the floor, out of reach from the resident.
In an interview on 05/11/23 at 10:28 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported that R20 did sustain a fall in April when R20 rolled out of bed and was transferred out to the hospital. DON B reported that R20's current fall interventions included assisting R20 to the restroom after breakfast, have R20's bed against wall, transfer change position slowly, evaluate medications, and keep commonly used articles within reach. When asked to define commonly used articles, DON B stated drinks, bedside table, call light, and whatever the resident preference might be.
Resident #464
Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #464 (R464) admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included heart failure, dementia, difficulty in walking, cognitive communication deficit, weakness, anxiety, major depressive disorder, and expressive language disorder. A Social Services Note dated 4/24/23 revealed that R464 scored 4 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). R464's Kardax (computer program that communicates resident's care needs to staff) reflected R464 requires one person guidance and physical assistance for transfer.
In an observation on 05/03/23 at 12:02 PM, R464 was seated in the dining room at a table and speaking with a Hospice staff member. R464 was in his wheelchair and wearing standard socks.
A Progress Note dated 4/23/2023 at 2:45 PM revealed R464 was observed crawling on the floor in his room. When asked what happened, patient states, This is the only way I can get around.
An Incident Report dated 4/23/23 revealed R464 was discovered on the floor by his bed, sitting on his bottom. R464 did not sustain any injuries but was unsure how he fell out of his bed.
A Progress Note dated 4/24/2023 at 10:15 PM revealed R464 was discovered crawling on the floor in his room at 9:30 PM. When asked why he was on the floor, R464 replied I was trying to get up.
An Incident Report dated 4/24/23 revealed R464 was attempting to stand throughout the shift and was eventually discovered on the floor in his room during a routine check. The same Incident Report revealed that R464 was in need of incontinent care at the time of the fall. R464 was educated to use his call light if he needed anything.
A Progress Note dated 4/25/2023 at 02:01 AM revealed R464 was observed sitting on his bottom on the floor in his room. R464 was wearing one shoe on his foot and incontinent at the time of his fall.
An Incident Report dated 4/25/23 confirmed R464 was incontinent upon discovery. R464 was placed in his wheelchair and moved out into the hallway.
A Progress Note dated 4/30/2023 at 7:34 AM revealed R464 was observed on the floor in the dining room. R464 was unable to describe how the fall occurred.
An Incident Report dated 4/30/23 revealed R464 self-transferred out of his bed and into his wheelchair. R464 propelled himself down to the dining room where the fall took place.
Review of the Care Plan revealed R464 had an At Risk for Falls Care Plan initiated on 4/21/23. Interventions included reenforce the need to call for assistance, provide assistance to transfer and ambulate as needed, and have commonly used articles within easy reach. On 4/26/23 additional interventions were added to include refer to the therapy plan of treatment located in the medical record and preference to crawl on the floor.
Review of the same At Risk for Falls Care plan revealed addition interventions were added on 5/8/23 to include decrease activity and stimulation at times of increased anxiety and stress.
In an interview on 05/08/23 at 12:58 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) EE reported that R464 will occasionally crawl on the floor. CAN EE reported that R464 is a one assist for transfers but occasionally self-transfers.
In an interview on 05/09/23 at 11:58 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported that Incident Reports are completed by staff after a fall and any interventions implemented after a fall should go into the care plan. The staff should also be implementing an immediate fall intervention after a resident sustains a fall. If staff requires assistance formulating an intervention, the fall can be referred to the Interdisciplinary Team to help come up with additional or appropriate interventions. Regarding R464's fall on 4/23/23, the intervention was to care plan R464's preference to crawl on the floor. After the fall on 4/24/23 the intervention was staff to assist with call light within reach and educated on call light use. When queried if R464 was likely to benefit from reeducation with a low BIMS, DON B responded that he would not. After R464's fall on 4/25/23, DON B reported that the intervention was to refer to Physical and Occupational therapy for an evaluation. After the fall that R464 sustained on 4/30/23, DON B reported that the fall intervention implemented was to decrease activity stimulation at all times to decrease anxiety and review the care plan. When asked if DON B would consider a more appropriate intervention such as a toileting schedule considering R464 was incontinent for two of his four falls, she replied that she felt that would be an appropriate intervention.
An email was sent on 5/9/23 to Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A requesting documentation of R464's Physical and Occupational therapy evaluation. NHA A responded via email at 3:39 PM reporting None- he came in hospice.
Resident #11 (R11):
Review of the medical record reflected R11 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, flaccid hemiplegia affecting left non-dominant side and unspecified intellectual disabilities. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/24/23, reflected R11 scored nine out of 15 (moderate cognitive impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R11 did not walk and required extensive assistance of one to two or more people for most activities of daily living. R11 was coded for fall with major injury.
On 05/03/23 at 1:51 PM, R11 was observed in bed, with the head of the bed elevated and the bed height in a low position. Upon entering the room, R11 was asking for help. He was lying with his head towards the wall at the right bedside while trying to maneuver his body towards the left side of the bed. R11 was saying help me. A pillow was observed on the floor at the left bedside. With his requests for help, R11 was asked how he alerted staff of his needs. R11 indicated he wanted up.
Review of R11's Incident Reports since 1/1/23 reflected four falls.
An Incident Report for a fall on 1/21/23 at 10:31 AM reflected the Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) yelled down the hall to nurse at 9:55 AM and stated R11 was lying on the floor. Upon entering the room, R11 was observed lying on the floor, turned to his side, in front of his wheelchair. R11 laughed and stated he was fine. The documented cause reflected R11 slid out of wheelchair onto floor and when asked if he wanted to lay down, he said yes. The corrective action reflected R11 was assessed and an intervention for R11 to lie down between meals if he is wanting to lie down.
R11's Care Plan reflected an intervention that was initiated and created on 1/21/23 and revised on 1/24/23 to offer/assist R11 to return to bed for rest after breakfast.
An Incident Report for a fall on 1/30/23 at 12:59 PM reflected the CNA informed nurse that R11 had fallen out of his wheelchair. Upon entering R11's room, he was observed lying on the floor in front of his wheelchair. He was assessed for injuries, placed in his wheelchair via hoyer lift (mechanical lift), vital signs were obtained, and the call light was placed in reach. The cause of the fall was documented that R11 slid out of his wheelchair, onto the floor. The corrective action reflected R11 was assessed for injuries, placed in his wheelchair and vital signs were obtained.
The Investigation Report for the same fall reflected R11 had a history of sliding out of his wheelchair, and a non-slip grip would be placed in the wheelchair.
R11's Care Plan reflected an intervention that was initiated on 1/30/23 and created on 2/2/23 to encourage use of non-slip pad in wheelchair and encourage/assist R11 to be out in common area of nursing station when out of bed, for enhanced safety.
An Incident Report for a fall on 1/30/23 at 1:32 PM reflected the CNA informed the nurse that R11 was on the floor in the hallway. The nurse observed R11 in the hallway, lying in front of his wheelchair. He was assessed for physical injury, vital signs were obtained, hoyered into bed, positioned for comfort, bed placed in lowest position and call light placed in reach. The cause was documented as R11 sliding himself to the floor. The corrective action was to remove his wheelchair.
The Investigation Report for the same same fall reflected when R11 was out of bed, offer and assist him to sit in the hallway, close to the nurse's station, for closer supervision, as R11 allowed.
R11's Care Plan reflected an intervention that was initiated and created on 1/31/23 for offering and assisting R11 to sit in the hallway, close to the nurses station, for closer supervision when out of bed, as R11 allowed.
An Incident Report for a fall on 2/18/23 at 9:20 AM reflected R11 was found on the floor by the nurse around 8:50 AM. There was a significant amount of blood on the floor. Once R11 was cleaned up, he was noted to have a gash on the bridge of his nose, some swelling and a bruise on the side of his forehead. R11 was assessed for visible injuries and pressure was held related to bleeding. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called, and R11 sent to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation due to hitting his head. The documented cause of the fall reflected R11 fell out of his wheelchair while in his room. The corrective action reflected staff was re-educated about encouraging R11 to sit at the nurse's station or out in hallway while up in his wheelchair.
Hospital Records reflected R11 had a laceration to the bridge of his nose, requiring three sutures (stitches). Additionally, there were comminuted left and right nasal bone fractures and probable remote type I odontoid process (part of the neck) fracture without displacement.
R11's Care Plan reflected an intervention for routine safety checks when R11 preferred to stay in his room, dated 2/19/23.
During an interview on 05/08/23 at 9:57 AM, CNA P reported she was not sure if R11 would be classified as a fall risk. She reported R11 had fallen a few times when she had been on duty and had trips to the ER.
On 05/09/23 at 2:51 PM, R11 was observed lying in bed, with the bed height in low position. R11 had a standard size bed, not a bariatric bed, as indicated on the Care Plan.
On 05/11/23 at 9:12 AM, R11 was observed seated in a specialty wheelchair, watching TV in his room. Rear anti-tip bars were observed on the wheelchair. No call light was observed in R11's reach. A perimeter mattress without linens was observed on the bed. The mattress was observed to be a standard size, not bariatric as care planned. An overbed table was near R11's right side. A bottle of pop with a straw was observed on the dresser, under R11's TV. When asked if staff had offered to take him out of his room this morning, R11 denied.
On 05/11/23 at 9:19 AM, CNA Z stated R11 had been up since about 6:00 AM and had been in his room since after breakfast.
On 05/11/23 at 9:23 AM, R11 continued to be observed seated in his room, in a specialty wheelchair. He was observed using his feet to slightly and intermittently move the wheelchair back and forth. At 9:24 AM, he was observed moving the wheelchair towards the dresser and was attempting to move his torso forward. Upon entering the room and speaking with R11, he asked for his pop (which was on the dresser). R11's roommate overheard the request and stated he turned the call light on for R11. R11's roommate reported R11 had a call that he used, but it was probably on his bed. At 9:30 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) GG entered R11's room, in response to the call light. R11's roommate notified LPN GG that he had the call light on for R11. LPN GG was overheard asking R11 if he wanted his pop and stated to R11 that he was on thickened liquids, so he had to thicken the pop before giving it to him. The cap was placed on the pop, which was left on R11's dresser. The nurse exited the room at 9:32 AM, after telling R11 he would get him pop that was thickened.
An order dated 12/2/22 reflected R11 was on a regular diet with pureed texture, .2 Mildly Thick consistency [liquids].
During an interview on 05/11/23 at 10:25 AM, CNA Z reported when R11 was up in his chair, she kept an eye on him all the time. She reported R11 went to the dining room that morning and returned to his room around 9:00 AM. CNA Z reported R11 could not be in the bathroom alone but thought he could be in his room, in his wheelchair, alone.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to 1) ensure Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) documents were accurately and co...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to 1) ensure Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) documents were accurately and completely filled out for three (Resident #11, #28 and #42) of three reviewed; and 2) ensure updated and accurate letters of Guardianship were in the medical record for one (Resident #42) of one reviewed, resulting in the potential for code status wishes not being followed in an emergency situation and medical decisions not to be made by the legal Guardian of record.
Findings include:
Review of the MICHIGAN DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE PROCEDURE ACT, Act 193 of 1996 reflected, .An order executed under this section shall be on a form described in section 4. The order shall be dated and executed voluntarily and signed by each of the following persons:
(a) The declarant, the declarant's patient advocate, or another person who, at the time of the signing, is in the presence of the declarant and acting pursuant to the directions of the declarant.
(b) The declarant's attending physician.
(c) Two witnesses [AGE] years of age or older, at least 1 of whom is not the declarant's spouse, parent, child, grandchild, sibling, or presumptive heir.
(3) The names of all signatories shall be printed or typed below the corresponding signatures. A witness shall not sign an order unless the declarant or the declarant's patient advocate appears to the witness to be of sound mind and under no duress, fraud, or undue influence .
Further review of this Act reflected, .Sec. 4. A do-not-resuscitate order executed under section 3, 3a, or 3b must include, but is not limited to, the following language, and must be in substantially the following form:
DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE ORDER
This do-not-resuscitate order is issued by _______________________________________, attending
physician for _________________________________________.
(Type or print declarant's, ward's, or minor child's name)
Use the appropriate consent section below:
A. DECLARANT CONSENT
I have discussed my health status with my physician named above. I request that in the event my heart and breathing should stop, no person shall attempt to resuscitate me. This order will remain in effect until it is revoked as provided by law. Being of sound mind, I voluntarily execute this order, and I understand its full import.
_______________________________________ _______________
(Declarant's signature) (Date)
_______________________________________ _______________
(Signature of person who signed for declarant, if applicable) (Date)
_______________________________________
(Type or print full name)
B. PATIENT ADVOCATE CONSENT
I authorize that in the event the declarant's heart and breathing should stop, no person shall attempt to resuscitate the declarant. I understand the full import of this order and assume responsibility for its execution. This order will remain in effect until it is revoked as provided by law.
_______________________________________ _______________
(Patient advocate's signature) (Date)
_______________________________________
(Type or print patient advocate's name) .
D. GUARDIAN CONSENT
I authorize that in the event the ward's heart and breathing should stop, no person shall attempt to resuscitate the ward. I understand the full import of this order and assume responsibility for its execution. This order will remain in effect until it is revoked as provided by law.
_______________________________________ _______________
(Guardian's signature) (Date)
_______________________________________
(Type or print guardian's name)
_______________________________________ _______________
(Physician's signature) (Date)
_______________________________________
(Type or print physician's full name)
ATTESTATION OF WITNESSES
The individual who has executed this order appears to be of sound mind, and under no duress, fraud, or undue influence. Upon executing this order, the declarant has (has not)received an identification bracelet.
________________________________ ________________________________
(Witness signature) (Date) (Witness signature) (Date)
________________________________ ________________________________
(Type or print witness's name) (Type or print witness's name)
THIS FORM WAS PREPARED PURSUANT TO, AND IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH, THE
MICHIGAN DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE PROCEDURE ACT .
(https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(izncxegpu4xl2mqzb3v3ru45))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-Act-193-of-1996.pdf)
Resident #11 (R11):
Review of the medical record reflected R11 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, flaccid hemiplegia affecting left non-dominant side and unspecified intellectual disabilities. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/24/23, reflected R11 scored nine out of 15 (moderate cognitive impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R11 did not walk and required extensive assistance of one to two or more people for most activities of daily living.
Review of R11's DNR documents reflected R11, their Resident Representative and two witnesses signed the DNR with a date of 12/26/18. The Physician signature was dated 12/26/19.
During an interview on 05/04/23 at 1:17 PM, Social Worker (SW) O reported it looked like the Physician signed R11's DNR wrong, with the wrong date. When asked if she had noticed the discrepancy herself, SW O stated she had not. When going over code status, she looked at the DNR status in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) rather than the actual DNR forms. According to SW O, all signatures on a DNR had to be the same date. She reported that would be a legal DNR.
Resident #28 (R28):
Review of the medical record reflected R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy, adult failure to thrive, chronic kidney disease and diabetes. The Significant Change in Status MDS, with an ARD of 4/15/23, reflected R28 scored 13 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the BIMS. The same MDS reflected R28 required extensive assistance of one person for many activities of daily living, including but not limited to bed mobility, transfers, walking in the room and locomotion on and off the unit.
R28's DNR order reflected that the Attending Physician and Resident name were not noted in the designated areas of the document. Additionally, the witness signatures were undated.
During an interview on 05/04/23 at 1:17 PM, SW O reported the DNR process included having two competent residents sign as witnesses to the signature of the person signing the DNR. Witnesses had to have a BIMS score of 15 (cognitively intact). The Medical Director also had to sign the document. According to SW O, all signatures on a DNR had to be the same date. She reported that would be a legal DNR. When asked how it could be determined that the DNR belonged to R28, as there was no Physician name or Resident name on the top of the form, SW O stated because the resident signed it.
Resident #42 (R42):
Review of the medical record reflected R42 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included sepsis, squamous cell carcinoma of skin of lip, neoplasm related pain and malignant neoplasm of overlapping sites of lip, oral cavity and pharynx. The Quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 3/16/23, reflected R42 scored nine out of 15 (moderate cognitive impairment) on the BIMS and was independent for activities of daily living.
According to the medical record, R42 had a legal Guardian. R42's medical record reflected an Order Regarding Appointment of Guardian of Incapacitated Individual, which listed former Guardian HH as R42's legal Guardian. R42's EMR Profile listed Guardian II as R42's legal Guardian. There was no documentation in R42's medical record indicative of a change in legal Guardian.
R42's medical record reflected a DNR order signed by former Guardian HH on 7/15/19.
During an interview on 05/04/23 at 1:17 PM, SW O reported code status was reviewed at the time of admission, when doing Baseline Care Planning, Care Plans, MDS assessments and when residents went out to the hospital. SW O reported if she was just looking in the chart, she reviewed code status and stated she was constantly reviewing it. For a resident that was not their own Responsible Party, she made sure they had advance directives and Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) paperwork uploaded in the EMR. SW O acknowledged that R42 had a change in Guardian but was not sure when the change took place. Upon review of R42's paper medical record, SW O acknowledged she did not see paperwork naming Guardian II as R42's legal Guardian.
Review of the EMR on 05/09/23 at 2:27 PM reflected a document of new Guardianship paperwork was uploaded to the EMR on 5/5/23. The document, dated for a hearing on 9/14/20, reflected the Guardian changed from HH to Guardian II.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #28 (R28):
Review of the medical record reflected R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], wit...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #28 (R28):
Review of the medical record reflected R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy, adult failure to thrive, chronic kidney disease and diabetes. The Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/15/23, reflected R28 scored 13 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R28 required extensive assistance of one person for many activities of daily living, including but not limited to bed mobility, transfers, walking in the room and locomotion on and off the unit.
On 05/04/23 at 9:26 AM, R28 was observed in her room. She stated her weight was usually between 145 pounds (#) to 150#, and she was surprised when they told her she was about 137#. She stated, I guess I'm not eating a lot. She reported she tried to eat a little of what was on the tray. R28 reported she liked the food and had no food complaints.
The admission MDS, with an ARD of 2/9/23, reflected a weight of 165#. The Significant Change in Status (SCSA) MDS, with an ARD of 4/15/23, reflected a weight of 144# (12.73% weight loss). Question K0300 (Weight Loss), Loss of 5% or more in the last month or loss of 10% or more in last 6 months was coded as no or unknown on the SCSA MDS.
Review of the medical record reflected that on 02/06/2023, R28 weighed 164.6#. On 05/08/2023, R28 weighed 140# which was a 14.95 % weight loss.
A Nutrition Progress Note for 5/3/2023 at 10:52
AM reflected, Resident continues with 4% wt [weight] loss over 30 days, 16% wt loss in 90 days .
During an interview on 05/09/23 at 10:17 AM, Dietary Manager C did not recall doing any charting on R28.
Registered Dietitian D was out of the country at the time of the survey.
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to accurately complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for two (Resident #28 and Resident #29) of 18 reviewed, resulting in inaccurate assessments and the potential for unmet care needs.
Findings include:
Resident #29 (R29)
Review of the medical record revealed R29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included pressure ulcer to the left heel, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease stage 3. Review of the MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/13/23 revealed R29 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool), required extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility, was not on a turning/repositioning program, and had an unstageable pressure ulcer-suspected deep tissue injury present on admission.
On 05/03/23 at 09:41 AM, R29 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in her room. Both feet were wrapped with kerlix and boots were in place. R29 reported she developed a pressure ulcer on her left heel due to her heel rubbing in the bed. R29 did not recall elevating her feet off the bed prior to the development of the pressure ulcer. R29's bed was observed with a bariatric mattress that was not an alternating pressure mattress.
On 5/8/23 at 10:05 AM, R29 was observed in bed while staff were providing care. R29 did not have an alternating pressure mattress on her bed.
Review of the Admission/re-admission Evaluation dated 3/6/23 revealed Stage 1 pressure ulcer-staged by RN [Registered Nurse] to R29's left heel.
Review of the Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 3/7/23 (day after admission) revealed R29 had a stage one pressure ulcer that measured 0.9 centimeters (cm) x 0.5 cm. The Skin & Wound Evaluation dated 3/11/23 revealed R29's pressure ulcer was now a deep tissue injury measuring 0.8 cm x 1.2 cm.
In an interview on 05/08/23 at 3:20 PM, MDS Coordinator L reported R29's pressure ulcer was initially a stage 1 on admission. MDS Coordinator L was unable to explain why she coded the pressure ulcer as unstageable-suspected deep tissue injury present on admission.
In an interview on 05/08/23 at 11:08 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported on 3/7/23, R29's pressure ulcer was a stage 1 and on 3/11/23, it was a suspected deep tissue injury.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive Care Plans for two...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive Care Plans for two (Resident #11 and #27) of 18 reviewed, resulting in the potential for unmet care needs and adverse events.
Findings include:
Resident #11 (R11):
Review of the medical record reflected R11 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, flaccid hemiplegia affecting left non-dominant side and unspecified intellectual disabilities. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/24/23, reflected R11 scored nine out of 15 (moderate cognitive impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R11 did not walk and required extensive assistance of one to two or more people for most activities of daily living. R11 was coded for fall with major injury.
On 05/03/23 at 1:51 PM, R11 was observed in bed, with the head of the bed elevated and the bed height in a low position. Upon entering the room, R11 was asking for help. He was lying with his head towards the wall at the right bedside while trying to maneuver his body towards the left side of the bed. R11 was saying help me. A pillow was observed on the floor at the left bedside. With his requests for help, R11 was asked how he alerted staff of his needs. R11 indicated he wanted up.
An Incident Report for a fall on 1/30/23 at 12:59 PM reflected the CNA informed nurse that R11 had fallen out of his wheelchair. Upon entering R11's room, he was observed lying on the floor in front of his wheelchair. He was assessed for injuries, placed in his wheelchair via hoyer lift (mechanical lift), vital signs were obtained, and the call light was placed in reach. The cause of the fall was documented that R11 slid out of his wheelchair, onto the floor. The corrective action reflected R11 was assessed for injuries, placed in his wheelchair and vital signs were obtained.
The Investigation Report for the same fall reflected R11 had a history of sliding out of his wheelchair, and a non-slip grip would be placed in the wheelchair.
R11's Care Plan reflected an intervention that was initiated on 1/30/23 and created on 2/2/23 to encourage use of non-slip pad in wheelchair and encourage/assist R11 to be out in common area of nursing station when out of bed, for enhanced safety.
An Incident Report for a fall on 1/30/23 at 1:32 PM reflected the CNA informed the nurse that R11 was on the floor in the hallway. The nurse observed R11 in the hallway, lying in front of his wheelchair. He was assessed for physical injury, vital signs were obtained, R11 was hoyered into bed, positioned for comfort, bed placed in lowest position and call light placed in reach. The cause was documented as R11 sliding himself to the floor. The corrective action was to remove his wheelchair.
The Investigation Report for the same same fall reflected when R11 was out of bed, offer and assist him to sit in the hallway, close to the nurse's station, for closer supervision, as R11 allowed.
R11's Care Plan reflected an intervention that was initiated and created on 1/31/23 for offering and assisting R11 to sit in the hallway, close to the nurses station, for closer supervision when out of bed, as R11 allowed.
An Incident Report for a fall on 2/18/23 at 9:20 AM reflected R11 was found on the floor by the nurse around 8:50 AM. There was a significant amount of blood on the floor. Once R11 was cleaned up, he was noted to have a gash on the bridge of his nose, some swelling and a bruise on the side of his forehead. R11 was assessed for visible injuries and pressure was held related to bleeding. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called, and R11 sent to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation due to hitting his head. The documented cause of the fall reflected R11 fell out of his wheelchair while in his room. The corrective action reflected staff was re-educated about encouraging R11 to sit at the nurse's station or out in hallway while up in his wheelchair.
Hospital Records reflected R11 had a laceration to the bridge of his nose, requiring three sutures (stitches). Additionally, there were comminuted left and right nasal bone fractures and probable remote type I odontoid process (part of the neck) fracture without displacement.
R11's Care Plan reflected an intervention for routine safety checks when R11 preferred to stay in his room, dated 2/19/23.
During an interview on 05/08/23 at 9:57 AM, CNA P reported she was not sure if R11 would be classified as a fall risk. She reported R11 had fallen a few times when she had been on duty and had trips to the ER.
R11's Risk for Falls Care Plan reflected an intervention for a bariatric bed with a perimeter mattress that was initiated on 11/7/19, created on 11/8/19 and revised on 1/14/21.
On 05/09/23 at 2:51 PM, R11 was observed lying in bed, with the bed height in low position. R11 had a standard size bed, not a bariatric bed, as indicated on the Care Plan.
On 05/11/23 at 9:12 AM, R11 was observed seated in a specialty wheelchair, watching TV in his room. Rear anti-tip bars were observed on the wheelchair. No call light was observed in R11's reach. A perimeter mattress without linens was observed on the bed. The mattress was observed to be a standard size, not bariatric as care planned. An overbed table was near R11's right side. A bottle of pop with a straw was observed on the dresser, under R11's TV. When asked if staff had offered to take him out of his room this morning, R11 denied.
On 05/11/23 at 9:19 AM, CNA Z stated R11 had been up since about 6:00 AM and had been in his room since after breakfast.
On 05/11/23 at 9:23 AM, R11 continued to be observed seated in his room, in a specialty wheelchair. He was observed using his feet to slightly and intermittently move the wheelchair back and forth. At 9:24 AM, he was observed moving the wheelchair towards the dresser and was attempting to move his torso forward. Upon entering the room and speaking with R11, he asked for his pop (which was on the dresser). R11's roommate overheard the request and stated he turned the call light on for R11. R11's roommate reported R11 had a call that he used, but it was probably on his bed. At 9:30 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) GG entered R11's room, in response to the call light. R11's roommate notified LPN GG that he had the call light on for R11. LPN GG was overheard asking R11 if he wanted his pop and stated to R11 that he was on thickened liquids, so he had to thicken the pop before giving it to him. The cap was placed on the pop, which was left on R11's dresser. The nurse exited the room at 9:32 AM, after telling R11 he would get him pop that was thickened.
An order dated 12/2/22 reflected R11 was on a regular diet with pureed texture, .2 Mildly Thick consistency [liquids].
R11's Care Plan reflected an intervention that was initiated and created on 7/1/19 and revised 12/22/22 for, Diet: Regular, Pureed, Mildly thick.
During an interview on 05/11/23 at 10:25 AM, CNA Z reported when R11 was up in his chair, she kept an eye on him all the time. She reported R11 went to the dining room that morning and returned to his room around 9:00 AM. CNA Z reported R11 could not be in the bathroom alone but thought he could be in his room, in his wheelchair, alone.
Resident #27 (R27):
Review of the medical record reflected R27 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, cerebral vascular disease and diabetes. The Significant Change in Status MDS, with an ARD of 3/21/23, reflected R27 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the BIMS. The same MDS reflected R27 did not walk and required extensive to total assistance of two or more people for most activities of daily living. According to the MDS, R27 had upper and lower extremity impairment on one side that interfered with daily functions or placed her at risk for injury. R27 was not coded for receiving Restorative Nursing Programs for at least 15 minutes per day in the last seven calendar days, including but not limited to range of motion or splint or brace assistance.
On 05/04/23 at 9:42 AM, R27 was observed seated in a wheelchair, in her room. Her legs were elevated. An arm bolster was on the left side of her wheelchair. She stated she had a stroke in approximately 2014 and had left sided deficits related to the stroke. She showed that her left wrist was flexed and a rolled cloth was in her left hand. She denied getting any therapy or restorative services. R27 reported she had a brace for her left hand at one time, but she lost it quite a while ago, and it was not replaced. After she lost the brace, her hand and wrist started contracting, per her report. She reported having a boot in place for her left foot.
On 05/08/23 at 9:52 AM, R27 was observed lying in bed. Her wheelchair was observed at the left bedside, with an orthotic boot in the seat of the wheelchair. R27 reported she wore the boot when up and had it for eight or nine years, since her stroke. R27 denied that staff did any exercises or Range of Motion (ROM) with her and never had.
R27's Care Plan was reflective of an intervention created on 2/23/23 and initiated on 3/9/23 for ROM (active or passive) with activities of daily living care.
Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) task documentation on 5/8/23 reflected there was no task for ROM. R27's [NAME] (CNA Care Guide) was not reflective of ROM or orthotic devices.
During an interview on 05/08/23 at 9:57 AM, CNA P reported she used the [NAME] and Care Plan to know the care needs of each resident. She stated she was unsure if it contained the same information as the nursing Care Plan and had not seen any that were longer than three pages. CNA P reported she generally looked at the [NAME] every week. R27 had a boot that she wore on her left foot when out of bed, according to CNA P.
On 05/08/23 at 10:35 AM, an email was received from Director of Nursing (DON) B, in response to an earlier email request for documentation pertaining to prevention and management of contractures/ROM limitations on 5/8/23 at 9:39 AM. The email response included a [NAME] that had been modified since the original email request to reflect ROM (active or passive) with activities of daily living care.
During an interview on 05/08/23 at 11:04 AM, DON B reported she did not see ROM under the task documentation for R27. Upon review of R27's [NAME], DON B reported ROM was on the [NAME] and not the tasks, so there would not be documentation of it (ROM). Upon being asked when ROM was added to R27's Care Plan, DON B responded that it had been added that day, 5/8/23, by Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A. When DON B was asked if R27 had any devices, splints or anything of that nature that was being used, DON B reported she did not see any splints. When asked if she saw anything pertaining to an orthotic boot, DON B reported she did not.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 ensure 2 (Resident #13 and #34) out of 18 residents re...
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 ensure 2 (Resident #13 and #34) out of 18 residents reviewed for care plans, had a comprehensive care plan that was revised for resident care needs, resulting in the potential for all care needs not being met.
Findings Include:
Resident #13
Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #13 (R13) admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included bilateral hearing loss, anxiety, osteoporosis, major depressive disorder, overactive bladder, delusional disorders, vascular dementia, and cognitive communication deficit. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/6/23, reflected R13 scored zero out of 15 (severe cognitive impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R13 did not walk and required extensive of two or more people for transferring and toileting.
In an observation on 05/03/23 at 09:58 AM, R13 was observed resting in bed with her eyes closed. R13 had a Broda chair (wheelchair that provides tilt-in-space positioning, recline and leg rest adjustments) in her room. R13 did not have a non-skid mat on the seat of the Broda chair. R13's television was off.
In an observation on 05/04/23 at 01:01 PM, R13 was seated in her Broda with a blanket covering her, slightly reclined back. R13 had a tablet on a stand in front of her but was not watching the content playing on the device. R13 had a blanket but did not have any other materials with her at the time of observation.
In an observation on 05/04/23 at 01:50 PM, R13 was observed seated on her bottom on the floor in front of R13's Broda chair. Staff members were assessing and assisting to R13.
In an observation on 05/04/23 at 01:53 PM, R13 was assisted back into the Broda chair and wheeled to the vicinity of the nurse's station. R13 had a blanket on her but had no other materials with her at the time of observation. An observation was made of the seat of the Broda chair, and it did not appear that R13 had a non-skid mat underneath her bottom on the seat of the chair.
In an observation on 5/04/23 at 1:56 PM, the staff member at the nurse's station left the area. R13 was left unsupervised by facility staff members for approximately five minutes.
In an observation 05/04/23 at 02:37 PM, R13 was seated in her Broda chair and slightly reclined back in the vicinity of the nurse's station. R13 appeared to have slid down significantly from her previous position with her buttocks towards the edge of the seat. R13 was attempting to lean up out of chair. A staff member approached R13 and wheeled R13 away from the nurse's station and down the hall. R13 was not repositioned in the Broda chair.
In an interview on 05/04/23 at 02:05 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) CC reported that she did not witness the fall that R13 sustained. LPN CC reported that the iPad in front of her prior to falling was for entertainment purposes, to watch tv and stuff.
Review of the Care Plan revealed R13 had an At Risk for Falls Care Plan initiated on 12/1/2020. Some listed interventions included assist patient near nurses' station if she is becoming restless in her chair, ensure patient has her baby doll when sitting in her chair, leave TV [television] on at bedtime with low volume, non-skid surface to wheelchair, reposition in Broda chair when noted restless or agitated, and watching iPad while in Broda chair of favorite show and music.
Review of the Care Plan revealed R13 had an increased risk of fracture related to
Osteoporosis Care Plan initiated on 01/16/2022. Interventions included to monitor for risk of falls and educate resident, family/caregivers on safety measures that needed to be taken in order to reduce risk of falls.
Review of the same Care plan revealed R13 had bilateral hearing loss and an Activities of Daily Living deficit Care Plan which revealed R13 wore glasses.
Review of the Assessment tab located in the Electronic Medical Record revealed R13 had 18 Fall Assessments from falls sustained from 1/1/23 until 5/8/23.
In an observation on 05/08/23 at 09:58 AM, R13's Broda chair was in R13's room. R13 was using the restroom at the time. There was no non-skid mat observed on R13's Broda chair.
In an interview on 05/08/23 at 12:53 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) EE reported that R13's fall interventions included ensuring R13's toileting needs were tended to, ensuring the bed is in the lowest position, not leaving R13 unattended in her room, and leaving her up by the nurse's station for increased supervision purposes. CNA EE stated that R13 does not respond much to the iPad. When queried about the non-skid pad that is Care Planned as a fall intervention, CAN EE reported that she [R13] used to have one but the facility got rid of them. CAN EE also reported that R13 had hearing loss but did not have hearing aids and has glasses, but they were in her drawer and not used.
In an observation on 05/08/23 at 10:08 AM, R13 was wheeled out of her room by a staff member and parked in the vicinity of the nurse's station. The staff member walked away from R13. At 10:32 AM, a staff member approached R13 and removed her from the nurse station and into her room. R13 had no direct supervision for the 24 minutes that R13 was left in the vicinity of the nurse's station.
In an observation on 05/08/23 at 10:46 AM, R13 was resting in bed with her eyes closed. R13's television was turned off and the Broda chair did not have a non-skid mat on the seat.
In an observation on 05/09/23 at 10:15 AM, R13 was observed in the hall seated in her Broda chair, slightly reclined back, with a blanket. R13 did not have a baby doll with her at the time of observation.
In an interview on 05/08/23 at 02:29 PM, LPN CC stated that fall interventions for R13 included keeping her at the nurse's station, toileting before and after meals, ensuring she had her blanket and baby doll and providing fluids after meals. When quired about the non-skid mat, LPN CC reported that the facility got rid of them and was no aware of any alternative for the non-skid mat. LPN CC reported that R13 did not having hearing aids or require the use of glasses.
In an interview on 05/11/23 at 10:28 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported that she was aware of R13's frequent falls and was going to start implementing risk management meetings with the facilities Interdisciplinary Team in the near future to monitor, track and trend resident falls. DON B confirmed that one of R13's fall interventions was to park her near the nurse's station to provide increased supervision. DON B reported that the facility does have and utilize the use of non-skid mats but was not certain why R13 did not have one on her Broda chair.
Resident #34
Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #34 (R34) admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included acute cystitis with hematuria, disorder of the muscle, bradycardia (slow heart rate), hearing loss, syncope, and dementia. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/29/23, reflected R34 scored nine out of 15 (moderately cognitively impaired) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R34 required extensive of one person for toileting, transferring, and bed mobility.
In an observation on 05/04/23 at 12:52 PM, R34 was seated in her wheelchair holding a television remote. R34's wheelchair appeared to be a standard wheelchair and was not fitted with any anti rollback or auto lock mechanisms.
Review of a Progress Note dated 6/22/2022 at 11:41 PM revealed R34 was in her room and staff heard a loud noise from the room and they went to the room and observed Pt [patient] on the floor lying on her back. Pt [patient] was bleeding from back of her head and stated she hit her head to the floor . R34 was transferred to the local Emergency Department for evaluation.
Review of a Progress Note dated 6/23/2022 at 09:27 AM revealed R34 returned to the facility from the Emergency Department with four staples to the back of her head.
Review of a Patient Safety Note dated 6/23/2022 at 3:42 PM revealed that the Interdisciplinary Team reviewed the fall that R34 sustained on 6/22/23. Resident stated she stood up out of wheelchair and fell backwards . New intervention toupdate [sic] plan of care includes wheelchair safety with auto lock and anti-rollback wheelchair .
Review of the Safety section of the [NAME] (portion of the Electronic Medical Record commonly used by Certified Nursing Assistants to communicate resident's needs) revealed R34 required call light signage, nonskid footwear, blood sugar check at bedside as well as a bedtime snack, and anti-rollback and auto lock on R34's wheelchair.
In an observation on 05/08/23 at 12:57 PM, R34's wheelchair appeared to be the same standard wheelchair without anti rollback or auto lock mechanisms fitted to the wheelchair.
In an interview on 05/08/23 at 01:01 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) EE
reported R34's fall interventions included having her bed in the lowest position, call light within reach as well as R34's other commonly used items. CNA EE reported that R34 does self-transfer herself although she is a one assist. CNA EE verified that R34 has a regular wheelchair and R34 is supposed to have those things on her wheelchair.
In an interview on 05/08/23 at 02:35 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) CC reported that R34 self-transfers despite required assistance of one staff member. LPN CC also verified that R34 had a standard wheelchair.
In an interview on 05/11/23 at 10:21 AM, Director of Nursing B agreed that the anti-rollback and auto lock mechanisms were listed as a current fall intervention on R34's care plan.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to 1) follow their bowel management protocol for constipa...
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 1) follow their bowel management protocol for constipation; 2) ensure the accurate classification of a wound; 3) ensure comprehensive wound assessments were performed according to facility policy; and 4) ensure wound treatment and interventions were implemented timely and according to Physician recommendations
for one (Resident #28) of 18 reviewed, resulting in constipation and the potential for delayed wound healing and/or worsening wounds.
Findings include:
Review of the medical record reflected R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy, adult failure to thrive, chronic kidney disease and diabetes. The Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/15/23, reflected R28 scored 13 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R28 required extensive assistance of one person for many activities of daily living, including but not limited to bed mobility, transfers, walking in the room, locomotion on and off the unit. R28 was not coded as having any wounds.
On 05/03/23 at approximately 10:40 AM, R28 was observed seated in a wheelchair in her room. R28 stated she had some sores but was unsure if they were present before she admitted to the facility.
On 05/04/23 at 9:21 AM, R28 indicated it was normal for her to go a day or so without having a bowel movement (BM), but she was not having BM's as often as she normally would.
R28's BM documentation for the prior 30 days was reviewed (4/9/23 to 5/8/23) and reflected no BM on 4/15/23, 4/16/23, 4/17/23 and 4/18/23 (four days). No BM's were documented on 4/21/23, 4/22/23, 4/23/23, 4/24/23 or 4/25/23 (five days).
R28's Physician's Orders included GaviLAX Powder (Polyethylene Glycol 3350) 17 grams by mouth one time a day for constipation, ordered on 4/6/23. Additionally, R28 had an order for Milk of Magnesia Suspension 400 milligrams per 5 milliliters (mL) (Magnesium Hydroxide) 5 mL to be given by mouth every 24 hours as needed for no BM for three days, ordered 4/20/23.
The April 2023 TAR reflected as needed Milk of Magnesia was given on 4/25/23 and was effective. There was no documentation of additional as needed medication interventions for constipation.
The facility's undated Bowel Management Protocol reflected, 1. If a resident fails to have a bowel movement (BM) for three [days] the resident will receive a laxative per physician order. 2.
If the resident fails to have a BM 24 hours after receiving the laxative, an order for a suppository per physician order. 3. If the resident fails to have a BM 24 hours after receiving the suppository, an order for an enema per physician order. 4. If no results from the enema, the physician will be notified for additional orders. 5. Nurses must check the BM tracking daily. Documentation will occur on the 24 hour report and in [the] medical record for those residents that need to have a BM. Results from the laxative, etc. will be documented on the 24 hour report and medical record.
During an interview on 05/11/23 at 9:48 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported she did not see that any additional interventions had been provided to R28 for no BM on 4/15/23, 4/16/23, 4/17/23 and 4/18/23. She reported a Progress Note for 4/20/23 reflected R28 had not had a BM for three days, and the BM protocol was initiated. Regarding no BM documented for 4/21/23, 4/22/23, 4/23/23, 4/24/23 and 4/25/23, DON B reported she would have called the doctor to ask for a stool softener related to R28 being on Morphine. DON B stated nurses kept track of the clinical dashboard, and there was an alert from the CNA charting that would say there was no BM for three days. According to DON B, they did some education with staff on bowel protocol, as a few of the nurses did not know the clinical dashboard was there.
R28's medical record reflected the following Skin and Wound Evaluations of the left medial foot:
4/6/23: An open lesion, present on admission, measuring 1.9 centimeters (cm) in length by (x) 1.6 cm in width. There was no documentation pertaining to the wound bed appearance or characteristics.
4/21/23: An open lesion, present on admission, measuring 2.3 cm x 3.2 cm. The wound bed was documented as 100% slough (non-viable yellow, tan, gray, green or brown tissue).
The above wound documentation reflected no wound assessments were conducted for 15 days (between 4/6/23 and 4/21/23).
4/28/23: An open lesion, present on admission, measuring 3.6 cm x 4.0 cm. The wound bed was documented as having 30% granulation (pink-red moist tissue that fills an open wound when it starts to heal) and 50% slough.
5/5/23: An open lesion, present on admission, measuring 0.4 cm x 0.5 cm. There was no documentation of wound bed appearance or characteristics. Review of wound photos reflected an area that appeared larger than the 0.4 cm x 0.5 cm measurements, as indicated on the assessment.
R28's medical record reflected she readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. The April 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) reflected a treatment for the left foot wound was not implemented until 4/16/23, when an order was initiated to cleanse the wound with normal saline, pat dry and cover with optifoam daily.
During an interview on 05/08/23 at 11:04 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported R28's left foot wound was a pressure ulcer. She noticed when running wound reports that it was documented as an open lesion. DON B reported the wound measurements for 5/5/23 were auto-generated. She reported the measurement (of 0.4 cm x 0.5 cm) was the area of tissue that appeared as eschar (dead, devitalized tissue that is usually black, brown or tan in color). DON B reported the whole area (of the wound) should have been measured. DON B described the surrounding tissue as having some slough. She reported the area of eschar would make the wound unstageable.
During the interview, DON B reported there should have been documentation of wound bed appearance, and wound assessments were typically done weekly. DON B acknowledged that she did not see that a treatment was in place upon return from the hospital on 4/6/23.
On 05/08/23 at 1:00 PM, R28 was observed seated in her wheelchair, in her room, watching TV. She was wearing gripper socks on both feet, with both feet resting on the floor.
A visit note by Wound Doctor Q on 4/21/23 reflected R28 had a left foot diabetic foot ulcer with rolled wound edges, peripheral wound, epibole (rolled edges) and slough noted at the wound bed. The wound measured 2.28 (centimeters in length) by 3.23 (centimeters in width). There were no signs of infection, and the periwound area was normal in color and temperature, according to the note. The note reflected treatment would include the use of a prevalon boot, floating the heel and offloading the area. The note was signed on 5/8/23 at 9:30 AM.
R28's Care Plan and [NAME] did not reflect an intervention for a prevalon boot. R28 was not observed to wear a prevalon boot, nor was one observed in her room during the survey.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate treatment and services for contract...
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 ensure appropriate treatment and services for contracture management for one (Resident #27) of one reviewed, resulting in the potential for worsening contractures and pain.
Findings include:
Review of the medical record reflected R27 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, cerebral vascular disease and diabetes. The Significant Change in Status MDS, with an ARD of 3/21/23, reflected R27 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the BIMS. The same MDS reflected R27 did not walk and required extensive to total assistance of two or more people for most activities of daily living. According to the MDS, R27 had upper and lower extremity impairment on one side that interfered with daily functions or placed her at risk for injury. R27 was not coded for receiving Restorative Nursing Programs for at least 15 minutes per day in the last seven calendar days, including but not limited to range of motion or splint or brace assistance.
On 05/04/23 at 9:42 AM, R27 was observed seated in a wheelchair, in her room. Her legs were elevated. An arm bolster was on the left side of her wheelchair. She stated she had a stroke in approximately 2014 and had left sided deficits related to the stroke. She showed that her left wrist was flexed and a rolled cloth was in her left hand. She denied getting any therapy or restorative services. R27 reported she had a brace for her left hand at one time, but she lost it quite a while ago, and it was not replaced. After she lost the brace, her hand and wrist started contracting, per her report. She reported having a boot in place for her left foot.
On 05/08/23 at 9:52 AM, R27 was observed lying in bed. Her wheelchair was observed at the left bedside, with an orthotic boot in the seat of the wheelchair. R27 reported she wore the boot when up and had it for eight or nine years, since her stroke. R27 denied that staff did any exercises or Range of Motion (ROM) with her and never had.
R27's Care Plan was reflective of an intervention created on 2/23/23 and initiated on 3/9/23 for ROM (active or passive) with activities of daily living care.
Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) task documentation on 5/8/23 reflected there was no task for ROM. R27's [NAME] (CNA Care Guide) was not reflective of ROM or orthotic devices.
During an interview on 05/08/23 at 9:57 AM, CNA P reported she used the [NAME] and Care Plan to know the care needs of each resident. She stated she was unsure if it contained the same information as the nursing Care Plan and had not seen any that were longer than three pages. CNA P reported she generally looked at the [NAME] every week. R27 had a boot that she wore on her left foot when out of bed, according to CNA P. CNA P reported R27 had left sided weakness and no mobility on the left side. She reported when providing care, she softly stretched R27's arm about ten times and tried to do some ROM with R27's left leg. CNA P did not believe they documented performance of ROM anywhere.
On 05/08/23 at 10:35 AM, an email was received from Director of Nursing (DON) B, in response to an email request for documentation pertaining to prevention and management of contractures/ROM limitations on 5/8/23 at 9:39 AM. The email response included a [NAME] that had been modified since the original email request to reflect ROM (active or passive) with activities of daily living care.
During an interview on 05/08/23 at 11:04 AM, DON B reported she did not see ROM under the task documentation for R27. Upon review of R27's [NAME], DON B reported ROM was on the [NAME] and not the tasks, so there would not be documentation of it (ROM). When asked how CNAs knew to do a ROM program, DON B reported each day the CNAs had to review the [NAME], then they would know what tasks to do for the day. When asked how they would know to do ROM if it was not on the [NAME], DON B reported CNAs had to go through nursing classes and would have been taught to do it for the stroke side.
Upon being asked when ROM was added to R27's Care Plan, DON B responded that it had been added that day, 5/8/23, by Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A. When DON B was asked if R27 had any devices, splints or anything of that nature that was being used, DON B reported she did not see any splints. When asked if she saw anything pertaining to an orthotic boot, DON B reported she did not.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #16
Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #16 (R16) admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnos...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #16
Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #16 (R16) admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included disorder of the muscle, cirrhosis of the liver, right below the knee amputation, left below the knee amputation, anxiety, and major depressive disorder. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/22/23, reflected R16 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R16 required supervision to perform activities of daily living including toileting, transferring, and eating.
Review of the Physician's Order dated 12/11/2020 revealed an order for Trazodone (Desyrel; an antidepressant) 150 milligrams (mg) daily for depression.
Review of R16's Annual Mood MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed R16 received a Severity Score of 00 indicating that R16 had not exhibited any depressive behaviors such as having little to no interest in doing things, feeling down, depressed, or hopeless, feeling bad about themselves, poor appetite, and thoughts that they would be better off dead.
Review of R16's Quarterly Mood MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed R16 received a Severity Score of 00 indicated that R16 had not expressed any depressive behaviors since the previous review on 12/18/22.
A Pharmacy Medication Regimen Review note for 3/30/2023 reflected irregularities were noted and recommendations suggested a trial dose reduction of Trazadone (Desyrel/antidepressant medication) 125 milligrams (mg) daily. The note reflected, .If clinically contraindicated, provide documentation to support ongoing use . The Pharmacy recommendation was marked for, Decline the recommendation(s) above and do not wish to implement any changes due to the reason(s) below: The handwritten rationale, signed by the Physician on 3/31/23, reflected, pt (patient) is stable.
An undated handwritten note on the bottom of the Pharmacy Medication Regimen Review reflected the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) feels this is a good reccomendation.
Review of R16's medical record failed to reveal any further documentation regarding the clinical justification for not attempting a dose reduction.
In an interview on 05/11/23 at 09:48 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B: reported that the process for Gradual Dose Reduction includes meeting with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to discuss the topic. The IDT then presents it to the Physician to review. Typically, the Physician would perform a risk verse benefit screening for the dose reduction to determine if it would be clinically indicated to reduce the dose. DON B reported that she talks to R16 every day and R16 has not had any change in overall mood or function in the past few months. At that time, any documentation regarding the medication and the clinical rational to decline attempting a dose reduction was requested. The documentation was not received prior to the survey exit.
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to justify rationale for clinically contraindicated gradual dose reductions (GDRs) of psychotropic medications for two (Resident #16 and #52) of five reviewed for unnecessary medications, resulting in the potential for unnecessary medications.
Findings include:
Resident #52 (R52):
Review of the medical record reflected R52 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included stage four chronic kidney disease, diabetes, anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/4/23, reflected R52 scored 15 out 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). R52 was not coded for having behaviors and scored zero out of 27 on the PHQ-9 mood interview.
On 05/03/23 at 2:10 PM, R52 was observed to sit herself up independently in bed. A bandage was observed on her left arm, which she reported was from dialysis that day.
Additional MDS history for R52 reflected they did not have any behaviors and scored two out of 27 on the PHQ-9 for the Annual MDS with an ARD of 10/2/22. For the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 1/2/23, R52 had no behaviors and scored zero out of 27 on the PHQ-9.
A Pharmacy Medication Regimen Review note for 3/30/2023 reflected irregularities were noted and recommendations suggested a trial dose reduction of Escitalopram Oxalate (Lexapro/antidepressant medication) 10 milligrams (mg) daily. The note reflected, .If clinically contraindicated, provide documentation to support ongoing use . The Pharmacy recommendation was marked for, Decline the recommendation(s) above and do not wish to implement any changes due to the reason(s) below: The handwritten rationale, signed by the Physician on 3/31/23, reflected, stable [no] need to [change].
An undated handwritten note on the bottom of the Pharmacy Medication Regimen Review reflected the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) recommended to decrease Lexapro to 5 mg per day for five days, then discontinue the medication.
R52's Physician's Orders reflected R52's Escitalopram Oxalate 10 mg daily for depression had a start date of 9/25/21.
A Progress Note for 3/31/2023 at 9:48 PM reflected, .Recommendation made for a GDR trial. IDT agreed, [Physician] disagreed. Order was not updated.
During an interview on 05/10/23 at 10:54 AM, Social Worker (SW) O reported R52 did not have any behaviors or mood issues, was happy go lucky and a great resident. According to SW O, R52's PHQ-9 (mood interview/score) was always spot on and happy. SW O did not know why the Physician did not want to do a GDR for R52's Lexapro. When reviewing the pharmacy recommendation for a GDR of Lexapro for 3/30/23, SW O stated that was the note that the doctor wrote to state why they did not want a GDR. The Survey Team requested any additional documentation from that time period (3/2023) to support a decision not to conduct a GDR and why it was clinically contraindicated.
On 05/10/23 at 11:25 AM, SW O reported her and Director of Nursing (DON) B looked and could not find any additional documentation from the Physician pertaining to declining a GDR.
In an interview on 05/11/23 at 9:48 AM, DON B verified they were unable to find any additional documentation from the Physician pertaining to declining a Lexapro GDR.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent when two medication errors were observed from a total of twenty-seve...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent when two medication errors were observed from a total of twenty-seven opportunities for one resident (Resident # 374) of six reviewed for medication administration, resulting in a medication error rate of 7.41% and the potential for reduced efficacy of medications and increased risk of adverse reactions/side effects.
Findings include:
Review of the medical record revealed that Resident # 374 (R374) admitted to facility 4/20/23 with diagnoses including orthostatic hypotension, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, essential hypertension, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Active orders noted to include Insulin Glargine 30units daily and Metoprolol Succinate 25mg (milligrams), give 12.5mg daily, with a parameter to hold for blood pressure less than 100/60 or heart rate lower than 60.
On 5/04/23 at 8:05 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) GG was observed to prepare multiple oral medications and an insulin pen for administration to Resident #374 (R374). LPN GG entered R374's room with prepared oral medications including one individually packaged medication labeled metoprolol succinate 25mg tablet, Glargine Insulin Pen, and a plastic basket containing a glucometer, test strips, lancets, and alcohol swabs. LPN GG placed blood pressure cuff to R374's left arm with electronic blood pressure reading of 129/59 and heart rate of 82 noted on machine. LPN GG stated that the indicated blood pressure of 129/59 was within the ordered parameters for metoprolol administration, proceeded to open the individually packaged medication, broke the scored metoprolol succinate 25mg tablet in half to equal the ordered 12.5mg dose, added the half tablet to the medication cup with the remainder of the prepared oral medications, and handed the medication cup to R374 at which time R374 proceeded to take all medications, including the half tablet of metoprolol succinate.
After obtaining R374's blood sugar value, LPN GG removed gloves, washed hands, exited room to obtain needle for insulin pen, reentered room, sanitized hands, placed gloves, removed cap from Glargine Insulin Pen, and placed disposable insulin needle directly on pen without first cleansing the rubber hub at the top of the insulin pen with an alcohol swab. LPN GG was then observed to dial the insulin pen to 30 units, cleansed back of R374's left upper arm with an alcohol swab, and injected insulin. At no time prior to the insulin administration was LPN GG observed to prime (remove the air from the pen vial) the insulin pen. LPN GG was then observed to exit room and proceeded to document all oral medications and Glargine Insulin as given in R374's electronic medical record.
In an interview on 5/04/23 at 8:35 AM, LPN GG stated that he had been a nurse for eight years and contracted through the facility since January 2023. Per LPN GG, the steps to preparing an insulin pen for administration included removing the insulin pen cap and placing the disposable insulin needle. LPN GG did not verbalize the step to clean the rubber hub at the top of the insulin pen with an alcohol swab nor the step to prime the insulin pen after application of the disposable needle. When questioned regarding the priming of an insulin pen, LPN GG stated Can you explain that step? and confirmed that he did not know what priming was nor did he prime any insulin pen prior to dialing the pen to the ordered number of units for insulin administration.
In an interview on 05/04/23 at 10:05 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B stated that the facility used both insulin pens and vials for diabetic management. DON B stated that the procedure for insulin pen preparation included cleansing the top of the pen with an alcohol swab, applying the disposable needle, and then priming the needle with 2 units of insulin with the pen held in an upright position.
During the same interview, DON B stated that the assigned nurse generally checked a resident's blood pressure and pulse prior to the administration of cardiac medications and that the associated parameters, when ordered, typically included holding of the medication for a systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) of less than 110 or a heart rate of less than 60. Upon review of R374's medical record, DON B stated that the physician had been adjusting R374's cardiac medications due to orthostatic hypotension (a form of low blood pressure that occurs when moving from a lying to a sitting or standing position) and confirmed that the metoprolol succinate order included parameters to hold the medication for a blood pressure of less than 100/60. DON B confirmed that based on the ordered parameters, R374's metoprolol succinate should not have been administered for the blood pressure of 129/59 obtained that morning as the diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number in a blood pressure reading) of 59 was less than the ordered parameter of 60. DON B further stated that an ordered cardiac medication typically did not have diastolic blood pressure parameters in addition to the systolic blood pressure and heart rate parameters and that multiple parameters for the same medication could be confusing to the staff.
Review of the facility policy titled Subcutaneous injection with a revised date of May 20, 2022, indicated, Critical Notes .Using Insulin Pen Delivery Systems .Attach: Scrub rubber stopper. Attach new safety pen needle .Prime: Before each injection, hold upright and prime the pen to remove air bubbles and to ensure the needle is open and working .Dial: Dial to prescribed dose .Hold: Inject by fully depressing push button. Keep the needle inserted in the skin while depressing button for an additional 5 - 10 seconds .
Review of the facility policy titled Medication and Treatment Administration Guidelines, Long-Term Care dated 2023 indicated, .Medication and Treatment Orders: A complete medication order includes: date and time, name of the patient, name of the medication .medication specific parameters, if applicable .Medication Administration: Medications are administered in accordance with the following rights of medication administration or per state specific standards .right patient, right medication, right dose, right route, right time, right documentation .Documentation: Medication and treatments administered are documented immediately following administration or per state specific standards .Vital signs are taken and recorded prior to the administration of vital sign dependent medications in accordance with medical practitioner's orders .
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
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 ensure proper hand hygiene practices during wound car...
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 ensure proper hand hygiene practices during wound care for one (Resident #28) and proper catheter tubing placement for one (Resident #34) of 18 reviewed for infection control practices, resulting in the potential for cross contamination, the spread of infection and delayed wound healing.
Findings Include:
Resident #34
Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #34 (R34) admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included acute cystitis with hematuria, disorder of the muscle, bradycardia (slow heart rate), hearing loss, syncope, and dementia. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/29/23, reflected R34 scored nine out of 15 (moderately cognitively impaired) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R34 required extensive of one person for toileting, transferring, and bed mobility.
Review of a Physicians Order dated 1/30/23 revealed R34 had an order to maintain Foley Catheter .for Urinary retention every shift.
In an observation on 05/08/23 at 12:48 PM, R34 was resting in bed with her eyes closed. Approximately 5 inches of R34's Urinary Foley Catheter tubing was observed on the floor.
In an observation on 05/09/23 at 10:14 AM, R34 was in bed with her eyes closed. Approximately 10 inches of R34's Urinary Foley Catheter tubing was observed on the floor.
According to the Electronic Medical Record, R34 was recently diagnosed with a Urinary Tract Infection and had just completed antibiotic treatment for the Urinary Tract Infection.
In an observation on 5/9/23 at 11:29 AM, R34 was restring in bed with her eyes closed. Approximately 12 inches of the Urinary Foley Catheter tubing was observed resting on the floor.
In an interview on 05/09/23 at 11:55 AM, infection Control Registered Nurse (RN) V reported that catheter tubing on the floor is not something she would like to see, and it is against proper infection control methods for Urinary Catheters.
Resident #28 (R28):
Review of the medical record reflected R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy, adult failure to thrive, chronic kidney disease and diabetes. The Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/15/23, reflected R28 scored 13 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R28 required extensive assistance of one person for many activities of daily living, including but not limited to bed mobility, transfers, walking in the room, locomotion on and off the unit. R28 was not coded as having any wounds.
R28's medical record reflected a wound to the left foot, documented as an open lesion as of the most recent assessment on 5/5/23. The wound was documented as measuring 0.4 centimeters (cm) in length by (x) 0.5 cm in width. There was no documentation pertaining to the appearance of the wound bed.
During an observation that began on 05/10/23 at 9:09 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) S was observed to perform wound care with the assistance of LPN T for resident positioning. Wound care supplies included normal saline, Santyl ointment, kerlix (wrap), ABD pad, tape and cotton tipped applicators. R28 was seated in her wheelchair, in her room. LPN S and LPN T performed hand hygiene and donned (put on) gloves. LPN T removed R28's gripper sock, and the old dressing, dated 5/9/23, was removed from R28's foot. A wound was observed to the bottom of R28's left foot. LPN S removed her gloves, performed hand hygiene and donned new gloves. LPN S cleansed the wound with normal saline, blotted it dry with gauze and used a cotton tipped applicator to apply Santyl to the wound bed. An ABD pad was applied and secured with kerlix and tape. LPN S did not remove her gloves or perform hand hygiene between cleansing the wound and applying the new treatment and dressing.
After the treatment was completed, LPN S was asked when hand hygiene would be performed with wound care. LPN S reported hand hygiene was to be performed before wound care, after removing the (old) dressing, after cleansing the wound and after wound care. LPN S acknowledged that she should have performed hand hygiene after cleansing the wound, prior to placing the new dressing but did not.
During an interview on 5/10/23 at 2:18 PM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager (RN) V reported hand hygiene with wound care should be performed before, during and after. After cleansing the wound, hand hygiene should have been performed prior to application of the new dressing.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately track and document staff COVID-19 vaccination status and implement a process ensuring all staff were fully vaccinated for COVID-...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately track and document staff COVID-19 vaccination status and implement a process ensuring all staff were fully vaccinated for COVID-19, resulting in an inaccurate vaccination matrix, staff who were not vaccinated or partially vaccinated, and the potential for the transmission of COVID-19.
Findings include:
Review of the facility's Infection Control Manual: Chapter 10 Screening and Vaccinations revealed Both the annual influenza vaccine and the COVID-19 vaccines are mandatory for employees unless the individual has an approved medical contraindications or an approved religious exemption.
Review of the COVID-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers provided by NHA A on 5/3/23 at 10:36 AM revealed the facility had 89 total staff of which 5 were partially vaccinated, 73 completely vaccinated, 0 pending exemptions, 8 granted exemptions, 9 were temporary delay/new hire, and 3 were not vaccinated without exemption/delay.
Review of the COVID-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers provided by NHA A on 5/4/23 at 3:49 PM and labeled as corrected form. The matrix revealed 90 total staff of which 5 were partially vaccinated, 73 were completely vaccinated, 5 had pending exemptions, 4 had granted exemptions, 0 temporary delay/new hire, and 3 were not vaccinated without exemption/delay.
Review of the COVID-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers provided by NHA A on 5/8/23 at 11:06 AM and labeled as corrected info revealed the facility had 90 total staff of which 5 were partially vaccinated, 73 completely vaccinated, 0 pending exemptions, 9 granted exemptions, 0 temporary delay/new hire, and 3 not vaccinated without exemption/delay. This calculated as 91.1% of staff vaccinated.
Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) H was hired 3/28/23 and was marked for unvaccinated without exemption or delay. On 5/10/23 COVID-19 vaccination/exemption information was requested for CNA H. The facility provided a Request for a Religious Exemption to the COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement. The form had CNA H's typed name in the signature line and was dated 5/10/23. The questions on the form were not filled out.
The COVID-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers also listed CNA M and Registered Nurse (RN) N as unvaccinated without exemption or temporary delay. When COVID-19 vaccination/exemption information was requested for CNA M and RN N, the facility provided vaccination cards reflecting both staff were fully vaccinated for COVID-19.
CNA J was hired on 10/19/22 and was listed as partially vaccinated on the COVID-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers. Review of the COVID-19 Vaccination Record Card revealed CNA J received one dose of a two-dose series COVID-19 vaccination on 8/1/22. CNA J was eligible for the second dose.
Payroll Clerk (PC) I was hired on 1/9/23 and was listed as partially vaccinated on the COVID-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers. Review of PC I's vaccination history revealed PC I received one dose of a two dose series COVID-19 vaccination on 1/26/23. PC I was eligible for the second dose.
The COVID-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers listed three more staff as partially vaccinated, but in fact those staff had either been fully vaccinated or had an approved religious exemption on file.
Review of the timecards for CNA H, CNA J, and PC I revealed all three staff had worked multiple times in the last four weeks.
In an interview on 05/10/23 at 2:46 PM, Human Resources Director (HRD) G reported she tracked staff COVID-19 vaccinations. HRD G reported new hires were required to provide a copy of their COVID-19 vaccinations or request an exemption. HRD G reported staff were responsible for tracking when their second dose of a two-dose series was due. HRD G reported CNA H filled out the religious exemption on 5/10/23 after CNA H's vaccination information was requested by the survey team. HRD G agreed that none of the questions on the exemption form were completed. HRD G reported PC I received his first dose of a two-dose series at the facility and did not think he needed the second dose. HRD G reported she believed CNA J was fully vaccinated because it was a requirement for a class she attended in March. HRD G reported CNA J had not yet brought in proof of the second dose of the two-dose series. HRD G reported the staff were notified on 5/10/23 that they would have to provide proof of being fully vaccinated.
Review of the COVID-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers provided by HRD G on 5/10/23 at 1:51 PM revealed 90 total staff of which 2 were partially vaccinated, 77 completely vaccinated, 0 pending exemptions, 11 granted exemptions, 0 temporary delay/new hire, and 0 not vaccinated without exemption/delay. This calculated as 93.3% of staff vaccinated.
Review of the facility's Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy dated 11/19/21 and reviewed/revised 11/15/22 revealed employees must be fully vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccination. Employees are considered fully vaccinated if it has been 2 weeks or more since they completed a primary vaccination series for COVID-19. The completion of a primary vaccination series for COVID-19 is defied here as the administration of a single-dose vaccine, or the administration of all required doses of a multi-dose vaccine. Employees may request an exemption from mandatory vaccination if the vaccine is medically contraindicated for them or medical necessity requires a delay in vaccination. Employees also may be legally entitled to a reasonable accommodation if they cannot be vaccinated and/or wear a face covering (as otherwise required by this policy) because of a disability, or if the provisions in this policy for vaccination, and/or testing for COVID-19, conflict with a sincerely held religious believe, practice, or observance. Requests for exemptions must be initiated by completing the Request for a Medical Exemption to the COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement for, or the Request for a Religious Exemption to the COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement form .Employees and volunteers are required to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. Employees are required to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination and any boosters that employees may receive to their local HR .Employees/Volunteers who are partially vaccinated (i.e., one dose of a two dose vaccine series) submit proof of vaccination that indicates when the first dose of vaccination was received, followed by proof of the second dose when it is obtained .All new employees are required to comply with the vaccination requirements (as defined by CMS and recommended by the CDC) outlined in this policy as a condition of employment.
If vaccinated, new hires submit proof of vaccination that indicates dates of dose(s) to their local HR designee. If not vaccinated upon hire, new employees receive their first dose of vaccination or begin the exemption process (see Section IV. EXEMPTIONS) prior to providing any care, treatment, or other services for a [name of corporation] facility and/or its patients. The HR designee tracks completion.
Review of the Request for a Religious Exemption to the COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement revealed To request a religious exemption or delay from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement using this form: 4. The employee must complete the questions on this form. 5. The employee must submit the form to your agency's designated point of contact.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to effectively clean and maintain the physical plant effecting 73 residents, resulting in the increased likelihood for cross-...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to effectively clean and maintain the physical plant effecting 73 residents, resulting in the increased likelihood for cross-contamination, bacterial harborage, and decreased illumination.
Findings include:
On 05/04/23 at 08:45 A.M., A common area environmental tour was conducted with Director of Maintenance E and Environmental Services Director F. The following items were noted:
Service Corridor
Staff Break Room: The vinyl base coving was observed missing on 1 of 4 wall surfaces. The missing vinyl base coving measured approximately 16-feet-long. Director of Maintenance E indicated he would make necessary repairs as soon as possible.
A-Hall
Beauty Shop: Two 24-inch-long by 24-inch-wide acoustical ceiling tiles were observed stained from a previous moisture leak.
B-Hall
Soiled Utility Room: The two-door hand sink vanity base was observed etched, scored, bowed, and particulate. The vanity base lower shelf board was also observed severely warped and bent. Director of Maintenance E stated: We plan to replace the vanity base soon.
C-Hall
Fall Prevention Storage Room: The room was observed in severe disarray. Fall prevention devices were stored and scattered throughout the room.
Soiled Utility Room: The two-door hand sink vanity base was observed etched, scored, bowed, particulate. The vanity base lower shelf board was also observed severely warped and bent.
D-Hall
Two 24-inch-wide by 24-inch-long acoustical ceiling tiles were observed stained from previous moisture leaks, adjacent to the facility mail room entrance.
Shower Room: A 9-inch-wide by 48-inch-long section of ceramic tile squares was observed cracked and broken in the shower stall.
Hazardous Waste Storage Room: The entrance door lockset was observed severely bent and warped. The perimeter vinyl coving base was also observed missing. The missing vinyl coving base measured approximately 9-feet-long.
Multi-Purpose Room: The accordion door was observed exceedingly difficult to close. The upper mounting track and glides were also observed functioning poorly. One of four tables were also observed rocking and unlevel.
On 05/04/23 at 10:15 A.M., An interview was conducted with Environmental Services Director F regarding the facility maintenance work order system. Environmental Services Director F stated: We have a manual work order form and system. Environmental Services Director F also stated: The work order forms are completed and attached to the Director of Maintenance's office door for processing.
On 05/04/23 at 12:15 P.M., An environmental tour of sampled resident rooms was conducted with Environmental Services Director F. The following items were noted:
A-5: The Bed 1 overbed light assembly switch was observed broken.
A-9: The restroom commode support was observed loose-to-mount. The commode support could be moved from side to side approximately 4-6 inches. The restroom interior door surface was also observed etched, scored, particulate.
B-7: The Bed 2 overbed light assembly switch was observed broken.
C-4: The Bed 1 lower 48-inch-long fluorescent light bulb was observed non-functional.
C-8: The restroom hand sink faucet aerator was observed partially obstructed and mineralized with calcium and lime deposits.
D-1: The exterior window screen was observed worn and torn. The damaged window screen opening measured approximately 3-inches-wide by 3-inches-long. The Bed 2 drywall surface was also observed etched, scored, particulate. The damaged drywall surface measured approximately 2-feet-wide by 6-feet-long. The restroom hand sink faucet assembly was further observed loose-to-mount.
D-3: The window screen was observed worn and torn. The damaged window screen measured approximately 1-inch-wide by 3-inches-long. The restroom hand sink faucet assembly was also observed loose-to-mount.
D-10: The Bed 2 overbed light assembly upper 48-inch-long fluorescent light bulb was observed non-functional. Environmental Services Director F indicated she would have maintenance replace the faulty bulb as soon as possible.
D-15: The drywall surface was observed etched, scored, particulate, adjacent to Bed 1. The damaged drywall surface measured approximately 6-inches-wide by 30-inches-long.
D-16: The restroom commode support was observed loose-to-mount. The commode support could be moved from side to side approximately 4-6 inches. The drywall surface was also observed etched, scored, particulate, adjacent to the Bed 1 headboard.
On 05/08/23 at 08:00 A.M., Record review of the Manual Maintenance Work Order Form revealed the following: (1) Date, (2) Department, (3) Work Requested By, (4) Priority (Urgent, High, Medium, Low), (5) Location, (6) Description, (7) Date Repair Completed, and (8) Completed By.
On 05/08/23 at 08:30 A.M., Record review of the Policy/Procedure entitled: Patient Care Services/Non-Clinical Unit: Environmental Services Scope of Service 2023 dated (no date) revealed under Purpose: The Environmental Services Department provides a wide range of services for our customers providing an aseptic, sanitary, and attractive environment. Environmental Services will reduce and control the spread of germs; to provide a clean, orderly, safe, and friendly environment for our patients, visitors, and employees; to achieve a high level of patient satisfaction; to grow our staff and leadership through training, education, coaching, and recognition. Record review of the Policy/Procedure entitled: Patient Care Services/Non-Clinical Unit: Environmental Services Scope of Service 2023 dated (no date) further revealed under Goals: Exceed expectations. Maintain a clean, safe, and disinfected environment.
On 05/08/23 at 09:00 A.M., Record review of the Manual Maintenance Work Order Forms for the last 30 days revealed no specific entries related to the aforementioned maintenance concerns.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to effectively clean and maintain food service equipment effecting 73 residents, resulting in the increased likelihood for cr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to effectively clean and maintain food service equipment effecting 73 residents, resulting in the increased likelihood for cross-contamination and bacterial harborage.
Findings include:
On 05/03/23 at 09:15 A.M., An initial tour of the food service was conducted with General Manager of Nutritional Services C and Registered Dietician (RD) D. The following items were noted:
The Vulcan convection oven(s) interior and exterior surfaces were observed heavily soiled with accumulated and encrusted food residue.
The Vulcan conventional oven(s) interior and exterior surfaces were observed soiled with accumulated and encrusted food residue.
The Vulcan conventional stove top backsplash was observed heavily soiled with accumulated and encrusted food residue.
The Vulcan griddle backsplash and side guards were observed heavily soiled with accumulated and encrusted food residue. General Manager of Nutritional Services indicated she would have dietary staff thoroughly clean and sanitize the convection and conventional oven(s) interior and exterior surfaces as soon as possible.
The 2017 FDA Model Food Code section 4-601.11 states: (A) EQUIPMENT FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES and UTENSILS shall be clean to sight and touch. (B) The FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of cooking EQUIPMENT and pans shall be kept free of encrusted grease deposits and other soil accumulations. (C) NonFOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, FOOD residue, and other debris.
On 05/08/23 at 11:45 A.M., Record review of the Policy/Procedure entitled: Kitchen Sanitation dated 03/2021 revealed under Purpose: To promote a clean, safe, and effective environment and to prevent the transmission of disease-carrying organisms. Record review of the Policy/Procedure entitled: Kitchen Sanitation dated 03/2021 further revealed under Policy: Food and Nutrition Services maintains a comprehensive kitchen sanitation program and current Safety Data Sheets for approved chemicals used in cleaning and sanitizing.