Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility

50 Sanderson Lane, Coldwater, MI 49036 (517) 279-9587
Government - County 114 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
80/100
#40 of 422 in MI
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility in Coldwater, Michigan, has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is recommended and above average in quality. It ranks #40 out of 422 facilities in Michigan, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among the two nursing homes in Branch County. The facility is improving, with the number of issues decreasing from six in 2024 to just one in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, rated 5 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 30% that is significantly lower than the state average of 44%. Notably, there are no fines on record, indicating good compliance, but there are some concerns, including an incident where two residents fell due to inadequate supervision, and issues with food safety practices that could lead to illness among residents. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and compliance, families should consider these specific incidents when evaluating care options.

Trust Score
B+
80/100
In Michigan
#40/422
Top 9%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
6 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
30% turnover. Near Michigan's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 60 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Michigan nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 6 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (30%)

    18 points below Michigan average of 48%

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 30%

15pts below Michigan avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jun 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake number MI00152699. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one out o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake number MI00152699. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one out of three residents (Resident #2) was able to exercise resident rights and be treated with respect and dignity. Findings Included: Review of the facility documents revealed Resident #2 (R2) had resided at the facility since [DATE], and had a diagnosis of dementia and behavior disturbances. R2 was deceased at the time of the onsite investigation. Review of a facility investigation revealed that on [DATE] Medical Assistant (MA) C reported that Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D entered R2's room while she was in the room to administer medications to R2. MA C reported that R2 was lying flat in bed when LPN D gave R2 a pill, and told R2 that was a new stomach pill that he needed to take. MAC further reported that LPN D used vulgar language and told R2 that he must swallow the pills. MA C reported that R2 told LPN D that she was killing him. The investigation concluded that R2 had no recollection of the incident when Social Worker (SW) E followed up with him. In an interview on [DATE] at 9:30 AM, MA C stated she was in the room when LPN D entered to give R2 his medications. MA C said R2 had to swallow a pill which was a new pill that, and was the only pill that could not be crushed so he had to take it whole. MA C said R2 was not able to swallow the pill, and told LPN D he could not swallow the pill over and over multiple times. CNA C said R2 was lying flat, and water was running out of his mouth down to his chest, while LPN D kept telling him that he needed to swallow the pill. MA C said R2 just kept saying several times, that he could not. MA C said LPN D used vulgar language and told R2 to take his pill. An attempt was made on [DATE] at 10:04 AM to contact LPN D but was not successful. Review of LPN D's education revealed that LPN D had been education in resident rights in 2022, 2023, and 2024. LPN D was terminated from the facility on [DATE]. The reason for termination was mistreatment of resident.
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0744 (Tag F0744)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This survey pertains to intake MI00146629. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This survey pertains to intake MI00146629. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement person-centered care approaches for one resident (Resident #1) with dementia of three reviewed. Findings include: Review of the medical record reflected Resident #1 (R1) admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 6/17/24, reflected a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool) should not be completed, as R1 was rarely/never understood. The same MDS reflected R1 had short-term and long-term memory impairments and severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. On 9/5/24 at 12:08 PM, R1 was observed seated in her room, in a Broda chair (specialty chair). A staff member was observed to propel R1 to the dining room, while seated in the Broda chair. A hoyer (mechanical lift) lift sling was observed beneath R1. She was wearing padded arm protectors on both arms. On 9/6/24 at 9:26 AM, R1 was observed seated in a Broda chair, in her room. A hoyer lift sling was beneath her. She was wearing a long sleeve shirt, and a padded arm protector was observed on her right arm. R1 did not verbally respond when spoken to and kept her eyes closed. The left side of her bed was observed against the wall. A nightstand was observed approximately one foot away from the right bedside, near the head of the bed. An Incident Report, dated 8/26/24 at 7:50 AM, reflected staff was providing morning care, and R1 became combative and began hitting and squeezing her arm. When staff was putting R1's shirt on, blood was observed. The report reflected a skin tear injury to the right forearm, measuring 4.5 inches in length by 4 inches in width and 1.5 centimeters deep. An emergency room note for 8/26/24 at 9:16 AM reflected R1 presented with an extremity laceration. The documentation reflected the tissue was avulsed (torn away) to the subcutaneous fat (beneath the skin), and muscle was exposed. The note further reflected, .Given the depth of the laceration, concern was it needed repaired . An emergency room note for 8/26/24 at 1:10 PM reflected R1 was seen in the Emergency Department with a large laceration/avulsion to the right forearm. The wound was cleansed and closed using a combination of deep sutures, which would dissolve on their own, and sutures on the skin that were to be removed in 10 days. During an interview on 9/6/24 at 9:52 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) I reported R1 required total assistance from staff for care. She reported R1 had behaviors of being combative with care, swatting at staff, twisting the arms of staff, as well as twisting her own arms. CNA I stated she went in to provide care around 7:35 AM to 7:40 AM (on 8/26/24). While washing R1, she began swatting at CNA I and hitting and twisting her own right arm, using her left arm to do so. CNA I reported she had visualized R1's skin prior to the start of care, and no skin tears were noted. While putting R1's shirt on over her right arm, she observed blood. When she pulled R1's sleeve back, she noticed a huge skin tear, then went to the hall to get the nurse. CNA I reported seeing muscle tissue and bright red blood. CNA I stated she did not see R1's injury occur but observed R1 twisting her arm while care was being provided. CNA I reported she would normally call a second CNA in to help but could not find anyone to help her with care. When R1 became combative, CNA I stated she tried to reassure her that she was getting washed up for breakfast, that it was ok, and she (CNA) was trying to help her. CNA I reported she continued providing care to R1 that morning as she exhibited behaviors throughout the care. CNA I stated she did not stop performing R1's care that morning but probably should have, per her report. CNA I reported R1 exhibited behaviors with care pretty much daily, each time care was performed. She stated other shifts also reported the same behaviors. CNA I stated she had reported behaviors to the nurses but was unsure if anything was documented. During an interview on 9/6/24 at 12:00 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) G reported being the charge nurse the morning of 8/26/24. She reported CNA I was providing perineal care to R1, while R1 held a stuffed dog in her arm. She was notified by CNA I that blood was observed on R1's arm protector. RN G reported observing a softball sized saturation of blood and stated R1's arm was still bleeding and dripping onto her sheets. RN G reported R1's right hand was on her stuffed dog, and her left hand was squeezing her right forearm. Blood was observed around the cuticles, fingernails and under all five fingers of R1's left hand. Upon assessment, RN G stated adipose (fatty) tissue was noted on the skin flap. Under the deepest part, muscle and tendon were visible. According to RN G, CNA I did not know what happened and stated the injury was not present at the start of care. RN G reported the Physician assessed R1's arm and ordered for her to be sent to the Emergency Room. RN G reported R1 could become aggressive and liked to grab onto herself, such as her thumb, fingers, pant legs, shirt, bed sheets or the clothing of staff. She stated she always made sure R1 had something to hold onto to calm and soothe her. If that did not work, she would reapproach. In an interview on 9/6/24 at 12:17 PM, Social Worker (SW) H stated staff had not reported physical behaviors during care to her, for R1. She reported she previously stopped having staff chart behaviors on a sheet (behavior log) for R1 because they were all blank, but behaviors would be documented in the medical medical record. During an interview with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A and Director of Nursing (DON) B on 9/6/24 at 1:23 PM, it was reported that staff training for the care of residents with dementia and behaviors included, if a resident was refusing or if there were issues during care, staff should ensure resident safety, leave, reapproach them or have other staff reapproach them and possibly having the resident hold onto something soothing. Record review reflected CNA I completed training related to dementia care, including but not limited to, Handling Difficult Behaviors in Residents with Dementia on 5/22/24.
Aug 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to allow one out of two residents (R9) to relocate to a chosen room of 2 residents reviewed for choices resulting in emotional di...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to allow one out of two residents (R9) to relocate to a chosen room of 2 residents reviewed for choices resulting in emotional distress manifested as frustration, anger, and depression. Findings include: On 8/13/24 at 12:15 PM R9 was resting in bed, awake and able to participate in an interview. R9 was asked how things were going and responded, Not good! R9 talked about his wife who was a resident on another hall. I was supposed to be able to move to a room across from her R9 explained. R9 said that during the time the move was anticipated the Administrator canceled the plan and I was never told why. R9 said he sees his wife (R27) and when they are together . we cry every day. R9 went on to describe a marriage of 45 years with deep commitment and bonding that leaves him feeling empty without her near presence. On 8/13/24 record review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R9's admission date as 2/6/23 and with pertinent diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (Recurrent, unspecified). According to the Brief Mental Status Interview (BIMS) documented 5/14/2024 R9 has a score of 15/15 indicating intact cognition. On 8/14/24 at 9:10 AM R27 was observed resting upright in bed ready for breakfast. R27 was smiling and establishing strong eye contact; able to participate in an interview. During interview R27 said the only concern is to be with my husband. R27 talked about the fact they are both getting older. If we are closer, I can keep an eye on him, and he can keep an eye on me. and added We love each other so much! R27 talked about the many enjoyable times the two spend together. According to EMR review R27 had an admission date of 2/3/23. On 8/14/24 at 1:23 PM an interview was held with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A of the facility who recalled the previous plan to move R9 to a room across from wife (R27). NHA A explained the plan was canceled due to protestations of the family of R27 when the plan was talked about and during this period R27 decided in agreement with family. On 8/14/24 at 3:07 PM, an interview with the Social Worker (SW) E during which there was discussion of R9's unhappiness with the cancellation of a plan to move. SW E explained R27 had at one point been okay with the plan to move him closer. R27 then conferred with family, and both decided to not recommend him to be closer. SW E talked about the fact the two spend significant time together. On 8/14/24 record review of the EMR disclosed a psychiatry note entered 3/11/24 by Nurse Practitioner (NP) G which contained the following: Resident was evaluated while laying in bed in the dark and quoted resident as saying he had been lied to having been told he could have the room across from his wife and it was given to someone else. Resident stated, I'm worse than I've ever been. It was documented that resident missed his wife and was not sleeping well. In the Assessment and Plan portion of the note, NP G documented that Some of the sadness is situational and would benefit from weekly psychotherapy. I encouraged him to visit his wife daily. On 8/15/24 at 12:35 PM a subsequent interview was held with SW E and the question was asked if aside from voiced family concerns about the previous proposed move, if R9 had a right to the choice to move into the room he wanted. SW E responded, Yes, technically he had the right and added he would not have had the end result (to be near his wife) he was seeking. We would have moved his wife to another room the same day. Record review disclosed a Behavior Note entered 2/26/24 which stated the following: Resident states he wants to move to room closer to wife and that he has spoken to management regarding this desire. Resident assured that his requests would be forwarded. Further review of EMR did not disclose any documentation of negative interactions between R9 and R27. On 8/15/24 at 1:00 PM R9 was observed sitting on the side of his bed with a tray of food in front of him. Flat affect noted; little eye contact; and the room was dark with lights off and shades closed. Not good; never good he said in response to the question of how he was doing. I will never feel good until I can be near my wife he stated. R9 talked about feeling bitter about the situation and added that the Administrator will not speak with him about the situation.
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** Resident #44 (R44) Medical record reflected R#44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] following a fal...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #44 (R44) Medical record reflected R#44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] following a fall with major injury. Diagnoses of dystonia, psychotic disorder with delusions, severe vascular dementia, anxiety, depression, age-related osteoporosis without current pathological fracture, chronic pain, disorientation, and adult failure to thrive. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/18/2022, revealed R#44 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 01 (severely impaired) out of 15. Under section GG0130, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) assessment revealed R#44 is dependent of all care including being toileting, repositioning and getting dressed. During an interview on 08/14/24 at 04:05 PM, family member I stated she was told R#44 was found on her floor in her room trying to get to the bathroom on 04/13/24. Family member I also stated this had happened before. Family member I stated it was after midnight when she received the call, and she was out of state for work. R#44 had fractured her left hip. Record review revealed R#44 had the following test on 04/13/24. Right hip magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)- No fractures. Left hip computed tomography (CT)-Acute impacted sub-capital left hip fracture with mild displacement. CT- cervical spine without contrast. No fractures, CT of the brain, no bleed, no fracture. Record review also revealed that R#44 had to have a surgical repair on 04/14/24 with an abductor pillow in place, hip precautions to be maintained. R#44 did clench her mouth and was non-verbal. Unable to follow verbal cues and tended to push back. Record review revealed R#44 returned to the facility on [DATE] at 13:20PM. R#44 was assisted to the recliner following therapy evaluation. Occupational therapy (OT) evaluation has been completed to assess safety and functional performance during self-care, transfers and mobility. R#44 will receive skilled OT five times a week for two weeks. Physical therapy (PT) evaluation completed, and R#44 will be receiving skilled PT services 5 times per week for 2 weeks to address strength, balance, gait, and transfer deficits. ADL's/Functional Status as of 04/17/24: Eating -Limited Assistance, Meal (s) acceptance -75%, res was feeding self, pleasant mood and having a conversation with staff.360ml, Bed mobility - Extensive Assistance x2, Transfers - Extensive Assistance x2, Toileting - Extensive Assistance x2, Ambulation in room- Did not occur. Ambulation in hallway Did not occur, R#44 is a WBAT with assist x2. ADL's/Functional Status as of 04/24/24: Eating -Extensive assistance, Meal (s)acceptance - No meals given at this time., 0ml, Bed mobility - Total Assistance x2, Transfers - Total Assistance x2, Toileting - Total Assistance x2, Ambulation in room- Did not occur, Ambulation in hallway Did not occur. R#44 followed up with orthopedic doctor, discontinued physical therapy and occupational therapy on 04/29/24. Restorative program started up after therapy programs were discontinued. Record review revealed nurses note dated 05/03/24 stated R#44 required extensive assist of 1 to 2 staff for ADL's, dressing, bathing, toileting. Resident requires extensive to total assist for dining. Dines in hall dining room. Propelled in wheelchair by staff, ambulates with assist of 2 people with gait belt. During an interview on 08/15/24 at 10:54 AM, DON B stated R#44 was not on the restorative plan, they haven't have a restorative program since January 2024. DON B also stated they have a mobility program but had to step away from it because they needed to have the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) working on the floor taking care of residents' DON B stated they encourage staff to walk residents right now. During an interview on 08/15/24 at 1:19 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) and mobility coordinator D, stated she works alone in the mobility program. RN D also stated she can get eight to ten residents seen in one day. RN D stated that staffing had been so bad that she got pulled to the floor once to twice a week, sometimes three times in a week. RN D stated ideally, they could have had 30-40 residents in the mobility program a week. RN D added that the restorative program stopped the end of last year sometime. RN D stated she had no backup, so when she is pulled to the floor, the CNA's try to walk residents if they had time. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide restorative services to maintain mobility, in two of two residents reviewed for mobility (Resident #98 & #44), resulting in anxiety and unmet goals. Findings include: Resident #98 (R98) R98 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in her room on 8/13/24 at 11:37 AM. R98 stated during an interview that she was so anxious she could barely stand it. R98 stated her therapy services ended last week because she could not bear weight on her leg; she stated therapy explained she would receive restorative nursing services, but services had not started and she felt there was a lack of communication. R98 pointed to a daily activity flyer she had received and stated she wondered if she was supposed to attend range of motion (ROM, movement at each joint) exercise program scheduled at 4:00 PM; and staff had not told her she should attend the activity. R98's Minimum Data Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]; and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, cognitive screener) score of 15 (13-15 cognitively intact). The same MDS revealed R98 had a functional limitation of range of motion (limited ability to move a joint that interfered with daily functioning or placed resident at risk of injury) on one side of her lower extremity (hip, knee, ankle, foot). Physical Therapy (PT) Discharge summary dated [DATE], indicated R98 had the diagnosis of a left femur fracture repair following a motor vehicle accident. R98 was unable to continue making progress on her goals due to toe touch weight bearing status on her left lower extremity. Prior to R98's accident, she was living independently in a home. The plan was for PT to re-assess when R98's weight bearing status was upgraded. The same PT summary included recommendations for a ROM program with 2-pound weight to the left lower extremity and 4-pound weights to the right lower extremity. R98's same summary indicated prognosis to maintain current level of function was good with consistent staff follow-through. Occupational Therapy (OT) Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed R98 had reached her maximum potential with skilled services given her current weight bearing restriction and would be reevaluated once her status was upgraded. R98's OT summary included recommended exercises to both upper extremities using 3-pound hand weights or arm bike as tolerated to maintain current therapeutic strength gains. R98's same summary indicated prognosis to maintain current level of function was good with consistent staff follow-through. Mobility Registered Nurse (RN) D was interviewed on 8/15/24 at 9:37 AM and confirmed R98 was not currently on restorative/mobility program because there was not enough staff. RN D stated she was pulled from restorative/mobility care to work as the floor nurse approximately twice a week. RN D stated R98 had not attended the exercise group activity that was scheduled 3 times a week at 4:00 PM.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 08/13/24 at 11:07 AM an anonymous resident was interviewed and was asked about choices concerning bathing. The anonymous resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 08/13/24 at 11:07 AM an anonymous resident was interviewed and was asked about choices concerning bathing. The anonymous resident said two showers per week would be preferred and explained that staff have said there is not enough staff . to provide two showers per week. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for a period going back of 30 days confirmed the days of the week resident said the showers occur and that they have been documented as having been given only once per week. On 08/13/24 at 2:13 PM an anonymous resident was interviewed and talked about showers. I get one shower a week. I have said I would like two showers a week. The anonymous resident then explained the person spoken to was a shower attendant who said there was not enough staff to give two showers per week. According to Electronic Medical Record (EMR) on 8/13/24 the anonymous resident has a Brief Mental Status Interview score of 15/15 indicating intact cognition. The EMR review of a 30-day period confirmed documentation of once a week tub baths on 4 separate dates, not showers. On 08/15/24 08:47 AM during interview with Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor J staffing was discussed. RN J explained that normally there are two staff members scheduled for day shift to work on the baths and showers. RN J said if they can't complete required showers/baths on that shift then the showers or baths get placed for the next shift. RN J also said those scheduled to work on baths and showers are not on the unit taking an assigned group for general care. They are scheduled to focus on the baths and showers. When asked about residents who would like more than one bath per week RN J said, If there is a request and if we have the extra space we do our best to accommodate them. And added that is especially true if the resident has an event of some kind like a family event or something going on. and added, We have had a few residents who get more than 1 shower a week due to infections. During an interview on 08/15/24 at 10:54 AM, DON B stated they did not on the restorative plan, they haven't have a restorative program since January 2024. DON B also stated they have a mobility program but had to step away from it because they needed to have the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) working on the floor taking care of residents' DON B stated they encourage staff to walk residents right now. During an interview on 08/15/24 at 1:19 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) and mobility coordinator D, stated she works alone in the mobility program. RN D also stated she can get eight to ten residents seen in one day. RN D stated that staffing had been so bad that she got pulled to the floor once to twice a week, sometimes three times in a week. RN D stated ideally, they could have had 30-40 residents in the mobility program a week. RN D added that the restorative program stopped the end of last year sometime. RN D stated she had no backup, so when she is pulled to the floor, the CNA's try to walk residents if they had time. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing to provide restorative/mobility services and choice of shower frequency, in a sample of 20 residents and a census of 100 residents, resulting in resident choices not honored, unmet goals, and the likelihood for functional decline. Findings include: In review of the Facility assessment dated [DATE], the facility had 114 licensed beds and the average daily census was 104. The same assessment revealed services and care offered were based on resident needs and preferences; and 102 residents required assistance with bathing. The same assessment indicated specific mobility program was offered per individual resident needs that included transfers, ambulation, contracture prevention/care. The same facility assessment indicated there were zero restorative nursing assistants and would add two staff once staffing levels were reached. Mobility Registered Nurse (RN) D was interviewed on 8/15/24 at 9:37 AM and stated she was pulled from restorative/mobility care to work as the floor nurse approximately twice a week and there were residents that had not received mobility services as recommended by therapy due to staffing.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide appropriate infection surveillance for all residents (100 current residents) and take appropriate actions to track, trend, and formu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide appropriate infection surveillance for all residents (100 current residents) and take appropriate actions to track, trend, and formulate corrective actions to decrease the spread of nosocomial infections in the facility. Findings Included: During an interview on 08/15/2025 at 09:32 a.m. Infection Control Preventionist (ICP) C explained that he had been in his current position since February of 2024 and was responsible for the data collection and review of information regarding infections in the facility. ICP C explained that he reviewed the data and would identify trends that potentially required interventions to prevent further spread of infection. ICP C explained that the Infection Control Committee met a monthly, through the Quality Assurance Committee, and a report was provided to the committee monthly. ICP C was asked for the latest monthly report that was presented to the Infection Control Committee. ICP C explained that the last written report that was completed was February 2024. When asked why the other months were not available ICP C explained that he had been busy and had not had time to complete the reports but had verbally reported to the Infection Control Committee and Quality Assurance Committee for each month since February 2024. When asked if there were any trends for facility acquired infections ICP C explained that he had not identified any trends. Review of the facility Line Listing of facility use of antibiotics demonstrated nosocomial (infections acquired in the facility) infections rates of 11.63% for February 2024, 3.27% for March 2024, 5.72% for April 2024, 7.74% for May 2024, 7.36% for June 2024, and 10.2% for July 2024. No report was provided for the root cause of increase in nosocomial infections. The same line Line Listing demonstrated urinary tract infections with out catheters to be 3 in March 2024, 7 in March 2024, 6 in June 2024, and 10 in July 2024. No report was provided for the root cause of increase in nosocomial urinary tract infections in resident without catheters. No report was provided to identify actions taken by the facility for the increase in nosocomial infection rates or for increase in nosocomial urinary tract infections in resident without catheters. Review of the facility provide maps of infections by location demonstrated a legend that include C=Community Acquired and I=In-House Acquired. Review of infection maps for March 2024, April 2024, May 2024, and June 2024 did not demonstrate and C or I on the map. Review of the Quality Assurance Minutes for April 2024, May 2024, June 2024, and July 2024 each demonstrated Reports present for (date) meeting. Each month demonstrated under the above section demonstrated Infection Control- (Name of ICP C presented this report. In an interview on 08/15/2024 at 11:18 a.m. Director of Nursing (DON) B explained that it was the expectation that ICP C provide a monthly report that is to be provided to the Infection Control Committee and the Quality Assurance Committee. DON B explained the report should include nosocomial infection rates, trends, and identified corrective action to prevent the further spread of infection. DON B explained that she was aware of the increase in nosocomial urinary tract infections without catheters and explained that she had identified the concerns on the one of the units. DON B could not provide any education or actions that were taken in response to the increase in identified concerns. DON B could not explain why the provided facility maps did not include they type of infections, as listed in the map legend as 'C-Community Acquired or I-In House Acquired. DON B could not explain why the Quality Assurance Minutes demonstrated Infection Control- (Name of ICP C presented this report was recorded in the minutes even though no report was completed for each month after February 2024.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to include daily nursing total numbers and actual hours worked on the posted Daily Nurse Schedule, which was available for 100 cu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to include daily nursing total numbers and actual hours worked on the posted Daily Nurse Schedule, which was available for 100 current residents and family/visitors. Findings Included: During an interview on 08/15/2024 at 12:49 a.m. Nursing Staff Scheduler F was asked where the facility daily nursing hours were posted in the facility. Nursing Staff Scheduler F explained that a nursing staff schedule was posted outside of the nurse managers office. Nursing Staff Scheduler assisted surveyor locating the posting of the facility daily nursing hours. During that time, it was observed a document was posted entitled Daily Nurse Schedule, dated 08/15/2024. The document demonstrated names and shifts of person that were to work that date. The document did not include total hours to be worked, only demonstrated the total number of persons that were to work. Nursing Staff Scheduler was asked where are the total number of hours to be worked for each shift and where was the total number of hours worked for previous shifts. Nursing Staff Scheduler F could not answer and suggested that Director of Nursing (DON)B would know the answer. During an interview on 08/15/2024 at 01:06 p.m. Director of Nursing (DON) B was asked to observe the Daily Nurse Schedule for 08/15/2024 which was posted outside of the Nurse Managers Office. After review of the above documents DON B was asked where the actual hours worked, for previous shifts and dates was posted. DON B could did not know the answer and suggested that we talk with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A. During an interview on 08/15/2024 at 01:10 p.m. Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A was asked where the posting for actual nursing hours worked, and hours scheduled was posted. NHA A explained that a Daily Nurse Schedule was posted outside of the nurse managers office. NHA A was asked if the Daily Nurse Schedule included total hours worked and she responded that the person reviewing the hours would have to add the hours on their own as the schedule only listed total number of persons working. NHA A explained that she was not aware of the requirement to post actual worked hours and requested location of that requirement. NHA A was provided the requested information.
Nov 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation Pertains To Intake MI00140863 Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation Pertains To Intake MI00140863 Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #3) was free from abuse of three reviewed, resulting in Resident 3 being abused by a staff member. Findings include: Review of the facility reported incident dated 10/27/2023 reflected Resident 3 was handled roughly be two Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's) F and G on 10/24/23 when putting R3 to bed for the evening. The facility reported incident also included the allegation of CNAF engaging in an aggressive manner with R3 on the same day after dinner. According to the clinical record Resident 3 (R3) was an [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility with diagnosis of dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] R3 scored 10 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating moderate cognitive impairment. On 10/30/2023 R3 scored 5 on the BIMS indicative of severe cognitive impairment. Of note, R3 resided on the facility's secured dementia unit. Further review of the facility reported incident documents reflected CNA D reported allegations of abuse perpetrated by CNA's F and G toward R3 to the house supervisor on 10/27/23. Review of the documents reflected CNA E was assigned to the secured dementia unit with CNA F and G, CNA E alleged she witnessed R3 being mocked, and handled roughly, covering R3 eyes, holding her down by her shoulders and throwing her in bed. On 11/14/2023 review of the facility video footage dated 10/24/23 revealed CNA F in the common area, R3 was sitting on a walker and CNAF was observed on camera trying to get R3 to move, R3 began swatting at CNA F and grabbed her name badge and lanyard, camera footage revealed CNA F swatting back multiple times at R3. Additional camera footage was viewed dated 10/24/23 at 6:00 pm, this footage showed CNA E entering the common area with R3, CNA F was observed a few feet away. R3 then raised and dropped her arms and CNA F then mimicked the movement over and over and over, CNA E was transitioning R3 into a chair at which point CNA F was observed talking, making multiple hand gestures including but limited aggressively pointing her finger at R3. Additional camera footage dated 10/24/23 at 9:55 pm showed CNA E, F and G exiting R3's room. Review of CNA E's witness statement reflected on 10/24/23 she observed CNA F and CNA G forced R3 into bed, covered her eyes and put their hand over R3's mouth. CNA E's witness statement reflected CNA F and G laughed about the incident like it was a joke. Multiple attempts were made to interview CNA E messages were left and text messages sent with no response. On 11/14/23 at 2:43 during a phone interview with CNA G she reported she helped R3 in bed along with CNA E and F, she elaborated the her and CNA F did all the work and R3 tried to get up, CNA G stated they were not rough but R3 needed to be pushed back down to lay down. CNA G stated CNA E was confused about what she saw. On 11/14/23 at 3:21 pm during a phone interview with CNA F she denied all allegations of abuse, when queried about the video footage that was viewed dated 10/24 where she was observed swatting at R3 and then later mocking R3, CNA F stated her behavior was justified because R3 threatened to kill her earlier that day. Of note all three CNA's E, F and G were terminated at the conclusion of the facility investigation on the grounds of abuse. According to the facility policy and procedure titled Abuse Prevention and Investigation Program dated 4/2020 Policy Statement It is the policy of Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility to maintain and right of each resident to have an environment free of abuse, neglect misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This includes but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion and any physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the resident 's medical symptoms. Residents will not be subjected to abuse by anyone including, but not limited to, facility staff, other residents, consultants, contractors, volunteers, or staff of other agencies serving the resident, family members or legal guardians, friends or other individuals.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation Pertains To Intake MI00140863 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to report al...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation Pertains To Intake MI00140863 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse for one (Resident #3) of 3 reviewed for abuse reporting, resulting in known allegations of abuse that were not reported timely to the facility Administrator and/or Director of Nursing . This deficient practice leaves the potential for further allegations of abuse to go undetected and unreported, allowing the opportunity for further abuse to continue. Findings include: Review of the facility reported incident dated 10/27/2023 reflected Resident 3 was handled roughly be two Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's) F and G on 10/24/23 when putting R3 to bed for the evening. The facility reported incident also included the allegation of CNAF engaging in an aggressive manner with R3 on the same day after dinner. According to the clinical record Resident 3 (R3) was an [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility with diagnosis of dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] R3 scored 10 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating moderate cognitive impairment. On 10/30/2023 R3 scored 5 on the BIMS indicative of severe cognitive impairment. Of note, R3 resided on the facility's secured dementia unit. Further review of the facility reported incident documents reflected CNA D reported the allegations of abuse that involved R3 by CNA F and G to the house supervisor on 10/27/23. Review of the documents reflected CNA E was assigned to the secured dementia unit with CNA F and G. CNA E alleged she witnessed R3 being mocked, and handled roughly, covering R3 eyes, holding her down by her shoulders and throwing her in bed on 10/24/23. On 11/14/2023 review of the facility video footage dated 10/24/23 revealed CNA F in the common area, R3 was sitting on a walker and CNAF was observed on camera trying to get R3 to move, R3 began swatting at CNA F and grabbed her name badge and lanyard, camera footage revealed CNA F swatting back multiple times at R3. Additional camera footage was viewed dated 10/24/23 at 6:00 pm, this footage showed CNA E entering the common area with R3, CNA F was observed a few feet away. R3 then raised and dropped her arms and CNA F then mimicked the movement over and over and over, CNA E was transitioning R3 into a chair at which point CNA F was observed talking, making multiple hand gestures including but limited aggressively pointing her finger at R3. Additional camera footage dated 10/24/23 at 9:55 pm showed CNA E, F and G exiting R3's room. Of note, none of the camera footage has volume. Review of CNA E's witness statement reflected on 10/24/23 she observed CNA F and CNA G forced R3 into bed, covered her eyes and put their hand over R3's mouth. CNA E's witness statement reflected CNA F and G laughed about the incident like it was a joke. Multiple attempts were made to interview CNA E voice mail messages were left and text messages sent with no response. On 11/14/23 at 2:43 during a phone interview with CNA G she reported she helped R3 in bed along with CNA E and F, she elaborated the her and CNA F did all the work and R3 tried to get up, CNA G stated they were not rough but R3 needed to be pushed back down to lay down. CNA G stated CNA E was confused about what she saw. CNA G elaborated she became aware of the allegations against her and CNA F on 10/26 situation because her friend CNA J, belongs in a group chat with CNA E, D, H, I, J and K, and all 6 of the CNA's were gossiping about it on a group chat. On 11/14/23 at 3:21 pm during a phone interview with CNA F she denied all allegations of abuse, when queried about the video footage that was viewed dated 10/24 where she was observed swatting at R3 and then later mocking R3, CNA F stated her behavior was somewhat justified because R3 threatened to kill her earlier that day. On 11/14/23 at 3:45 pm during an interview with CNA H she acknowledged she was part of a group chat with E, D, I, J, K, CNA H further reported that the group chat and became aware of the allegations of abuse that involved R3 and CNA F and G on 10/26/23 at approximately 11:00 am. CNA H stated she did not report the incident because there were so many people in the group chat she assumed one of them would report it and thought it was taken care of. On 11/14/23 at 4:00 pm during an interview with CNA I, she too reported she was aware of the abuse allegations prior to the group chat via facility gossip but also acknowledged partaking in the group chat on 10/26/23. When queried why she didn't notify the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A of the abuse allegations, CNA I stated she did not see abuse first hand , therefore considered it hearsay, and she does not and would not report hearsay to NHA A. On 11/14/23 at 5:30 pm, a portion of the 10/26/23 group chat was reviewed, CNA E had written And ever since that day, which is two days ago, I've been thinking like what the f**k do I do after I witnessed that and They should never let those two (CNA F and G) work 400 I saw how they treated them I was shocked. I didn't even tell you guys cuz that's how bad I feel about. There were voice recording on the group chat thread (which were not audible) along with question from CNA K as to why they covered R3's eyes. On 11/15/23 at 8:40 am, during an interview with NHA A she reported CNA E, F and G were all terminated related to the incident. NHA A reported despite the CNA's all being trained in abuse she could not account for why the allegations were not reported immediately after they were made. According to the facility policy and procedure titled Abuse Prevention and Investigation Program dated 4/2020 read in part In response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, the facility must: a. Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown origin and misappropriation or resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation in-volve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours in the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including the State Survey Agency) in accordance with State Law.
Jun 2023 7 deficiencies
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 ensure accurate completion of advance directive information for 1 (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate completion of advance directive information for 1 (Resident #30) of 1 resident reviewed for advance directives (legal documents that allow a person to identify decisions about end-of-life care ahead of time) resulting in the potential for a resident's preferences for medical care to not be followed by the facility. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed that Resident #30 (R30) was admitted to facility 5/12/2023 with diagnoses including hydronephrosis, malignant neoplasm of bladder, and hemiplegia following cerebral infarction. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/16/23 revealed that R30 had adequate hearing, clear speech, was usually understood by others, and was usually able to understand others. Section C of same MDS revealed that R30 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool) score of 12 (moderately impaired cognition). Review of R30's medical record completed with the following findings noted: Order dated 5/12/2023 at 2:16 PM stated, DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). Document titled Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Resident Medical Decision Identification Form dated 5/12/23 indicated that R30 was capable of making his own medical treatment decisions. R30's DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE ORDER reflected R30's signature and corresponding date of 5/12/23 within the section titled DECLARANT CONSENT; the section titled ATTESTATION OF WITNESS, within the same form, reflected 2 witness signatures with a corresponding date of 5/ /23 for both (the month and year was indicated but the day was omitted). Document titled Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Activation of Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare dated 6/20/23 revealed that R30 was deemed unable to make his own decisions by two physicians. R30's Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care (DPOA-HC) paperwork, indicated that R30 named his son as DPOA-HC, and to make decisions for R30, when he was no longer able to make his own decisions, as determined by two physicians or a physician and a psychiatrist. Document titled Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Code Status reflected R30's date of admission as 5/12/23 with a handwritten date beneath which reflected updated 6/20/23. Director of Social Services (DSS) F initialed on line that indicated, This code was prepared by the resident's legally appointed and appropriately activated Patient Advocate, as this resident has been determined as being incapable of participating in their own health care decisions by two physicians in a written medical determination . with R30's activated POA (Power of Attorney) noted to have initialed on the line that indicated No Code - Do not resuscitate. R30's POA was noted to sign on the line that indicated Signature of Resident (or Resident Advocate/Guardian) with two witness signatures noted beneath. The corresponding lines which indicated the dates for both the POA and witnesses' signatures were noted to be blank. A second DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE ORDER reflected R30's POA signature within the section titled PATIENT ADVOCATE CONSENT with the corresponding line that reflected the date of the signature noted to be blank; the section titled ATTESTATION of WITNESS, within the same form, reflected 2 witness signatures with the corresponding lines that reflected the date of each signature noted to be blank. A Psychosocial Note dated 6/23/2023 at 8:51 AM, completed by DSS F stated, Resident's DPOA (Durable Power of Attorney) has been activated. Call placed to DPOA and message left asking to come in and sign advance directives. In an interview on 6/27/23 at 3:21 PM, DSS F stated that a residents advance directive information was completed upon admission, and at other times deemed warranted, by the admissions nurse, admissions coordinator, or herself and included completion of the Resident Medical Decision Identification form, Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Code Status form, and the Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE ORDER form if the DNR option was chosen. Per DSS F, when the DNR option was chosen, both the Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Code Status form and the Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE ORDER form would be signed and dated by the resident, activated POA, or legal guardian in the presence of two witnesses and that the two witnesses both signed and dated the forms at the same time the resident, POA, or guardian signed. Upon review of R30's Code Status form and DNR Order form, DSS F acknowledged that the dates of the POA and witness signatures were omitted for both. DSS F further stated that she was unsure as to why R30's Code Status form indicated updated 6/20/23, that the updated forms were not completed until 6/23/23 when his POA had come to the facility, and confirmed that both the Code Status form and DNR Order form were incomplete as the POA and both witnesses should have dated the forms at the time of completion. Review of the facility policy titled Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Advance Directives dated 2/2018 stated, Policy: It is the resident's right to formulate an Advance Directive .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guideline: 1. On admission, the facility will determine if the resident has executed an Advance Directive and if not, determine whether the resident would like to formulate an Advance Directive .3. The facility will periodically assess the resident for decision-making abilities and approach the health care proxy or legal representative if the resident is determined not to have decision making capacities . Review of the MICHIGAN DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE PROCEDURE ACT, Act 193 of 1996 (Revised 3-25-14), revealed that, 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 revealed, Sec. 4. A do-not-resuscitate order executed under section 3 or 3a shall include, but is not limited to, the following language, and shall 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 or ward'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 (Date) declarant, if applicable) _______________________________________ (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) C. 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.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure one out of three residents (Resident #40) was a...

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 one out of three residents (Resident #40) was assessed for removal of a Foley catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a drainage bag), and document a clinical rational that demonstrated the necessity for the catheter, resulting in the potential for infection and/or long-term urinary incontinence. Findings Included: Per the facility face sheet Resident #41 (R41) was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included personal history of other diseases of urinary system, and obstructive and reflux uropathy (blockage/trouble urinating). On R41's diagnoses list it was documented that R41 had a nephrostomy tube (drainage tube inserted into the kidney to drain urine) placed into her left kidney by a hospital Radiologist on 7/12/2022 however, on 10/5/2022 the nephrostomy tube was removed by the hospital Radiologist. The list also revealed next to R41's diagnosis PRESENCE OF UROGENITAL IMPLANTS dated 3/8/2023, Chronic Indwelling Foley Catheter per PN (progress note) dated 3/8/2023. Also documented on R41's diagnoses list was a notation, Hx (history) of Polymicroboa; resistant UTI (urinary tract infection) dated 7/21/2022, that was resistant to Vancomycin (used to treat serious infections) Review of R41's care plans that were in place revealed a care plan with a Problem of I (R41) have a Foley catheter and places me at risk for developing UTI or other complications. July '22 Nephrostomy tube placed secondary to obstructive uropathy. 10/5/22-L (left) nephrostomy tube removed, per interventional radiology, does not need to be replaced, improvement noted. 10/12/22--(name redacted-Urologist) to be consulted. The care plan was dated 7/21/2022 for the date the problem was initiated, and 10/27/2022 as the date the problem was revised. The care plan revealed an intervention dated 7/21/2022, Urology consult as ordered. Record review of a physician progress notes dated 3/8/2023, revealed a notation by the physician that R41 was concerned about her Foley catheter still being in place, and was questioning about removing it. Under Plan the note revealed that the staff would discuss with R41 and her family member about follow up with her Urologist regarding the Foley cath. The note also revealed under IMPRESSION, #2 Chronic indwelling foley catheter, and under PLAN .The staff will discuss with the patient's (R41) daughter regarding a follow up urology consultation regarding the indwelling Foley catheter. Record review of all consult progress notes in R41's paper chart revealed no documentation from a Urologist, and upon thorough review of R41's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and paper chart revealed R41 did not have a Urologist progress note, office visit note, and no written orders, and furthermore no Urologist was listed on R41's face sheet under her care providers. R41's EMR and paper chart revealed no order for a Urologist consult. Record Review of another physician progress note dated 4/4/2023, revealed no documentation regarding the status of R41's Foley catheter, nor the question R41 and her family member had about removing the catheter, no consultation was documented to have been made with a Urologist. The note revealed no documentation of a conversation with R41 and/or her daughter regarding the status of the Urology consult. Record Review of another physician progress note dated 5/3/2023, revealed no documentation regarding the status of R41's Foley catheter, nor the question R41 and her family member had about removing the catheter, no consultation was documented to have been made with a Urologist. The note revealed no documentation of a conversation with R41 and/or her daughter regarding the status of the Urology consult. In an interview on 6/26/2023 at 11:03 AM, R41 and a family member both stated that R41 would like to see her catheter taken out. Family member stated that R41 would probably be incontinent of urine due to the catheter remaining in place for a year now. R41 and family member stated that R41 had a nehprostomy tube removed about one year ago, and has had the catheter in place ever since then. R41 and her family member both stated that they did not know why R41 still had the catheter in place a year later, and had asked several Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) I about having the Foley catheter removed, but no response had been received. Record review of a physician order dated 7/22/2022, revealed R41 was to have the Foley catheter maintained, and on 9/17/2022 R41 was to have her Foley Catheter changed as needed, and per policy On 6/28/2023 at 9:05 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) B was asked to provide R41's last Urologist appointment, and the progress notes from that appointment. In an email received from Administrator A on 6/28/2023 at 9:20 AM, of an After Visit Summary dated 10/5/2023 from the hospital, revealed the summary was for a replacement of R41's nephrostomy tube. The summary was documented by a Radiologist due to R41 having a nephrostomy tube replaced. No Urologist notes or visits of R41 being seen were noted on the hospital After Visit Summary. No other Urologist consult or appointment visit progress notes were received. Requested via email reply to above Administrator A's email at 9:24 AM, R41's Urologist consult/appointment progress notes since January 2023 to present. Received via email response from Administrator A, to above request on 6/28/2023 at 9:54 AM, She has not had any other appointments with the urologist since January 2023. Record review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed R41 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 11 out of 15, which indicated a moderate cognitive impairment. In another interview on 6/28/2023 at 11:46 AM, R41 stated that she always wondered why she still had the Foley catheter. R41 said she did not recall talking to a nurse about it, and did not recall talking to the physician about it in October 2022. R41 stated her daughter may have spoken to them. Stated she had seen the Orthopedic surgeon last week about her knee, which was swollen. R41 said the Orthopedic surgeon told her that he would not do anything about her knee swelling until she saw an Urologist, due to her excess fluid. R41 further stated that the physician had spoken with her that morning and told her the Orthopedic surgeon said she needed to see a Urologist, but stated the physician did not tell her he was going to refer to a Urologist. During the interview R41's daughter arrived in her room. R41's daughter stated that R41 had not been seen since October 2022 by a Urologist or any other physician regarding her Foley catheter, and stated that LPN I had all that information. R41's daughter stated that she had not heard anything about the physician at the facility making a referral to see a Urologist, and she was waiting on him to put in the referral. R41's daughter said that since R41 had seen the Orthopedic surgeon last week she had asked LPN I about the Urologist referral and appointment. R41's said she called a Urologist herself because R41 need the referral, however stated that she was told by the Urologist office that R41 primary physician at the facility had to put in the referral. R41's daughter continued to stated during the interview that R41 has had the Foley catheter in place since July of 2022. R41's Daughter said she asked LPN I numerous times over the lat 6 months about removing the Foley catheter, but said LPN I always just told her that R41's bladder was probably so weak that she would just urinate all over herself and that was why the Foley catheter remained in place. During the same interview R41 stated that she would know when she had to urinate. R41 said she walks to the bathroom herself, and did just that when she had to have a bowel movement. R41 also stated that she would be fine with wearing a brief, and not having the Foley catheter in place. R41's daughter said the physician told her about eight months ago that R41 needed the Foley catheter in place, but had never given a rational for it to stay in place. In an interview on 6/28/2023 at 12:16 PM, LPN I stated that she did not know anything about R41's Foley catheter. LPN I stated that the House Supervisor managed all the referrals and spoke with the physician every time the physician was at the facility in regards to all residents he had seen. During the interview LPN I was asked to provide progress notes form R41's physician and Urologist. Record review of R41's paper chart with LPN I revealed no consult progress notes from a Urologist or the physician regarding R41's request for the Foley catheter to be removed after the 3/8/2023 progress note. LPN I stated that she did not know why R41 had the Foley catheter in place. In an interview on 6/28/2023 at 12:24 PM, Registered Nurse G who was the House Supervisor (RN/HS) stated that R41 and her daughter were offered to be referred to a Urologist in town (this is the same Urologist R41's daughter had called to get a referral), but stated that she thought she recalled R41 and her daughter did not want to be seen by a Urologist at the time. During the same interview RN/HS G was asked to provide documentation of attempts to remove the Foley, document rational for keeping the Foley in place for a year. RN/HS G said she had something and after review R41's diagnoses stated R41 had a bladder perforation, which was why R41 had the nephrostomy tube in place, and stated R41 has a diagnosis of obstructive and reflex uropathy, a urogenital implant (implants for urinary stress incontinence or urinary retention), and on 3/8/2023 the physician had made a progress note regarding R41's Foley catheter, and had written a diagnosis that R41 had urogenital implants-chronic indwelling catheter. Additionally during the same interview RN/HS G stated that she was not able to find documentation of R41 and/or R41's daughter not wanting the Urologist referral. RN /HS G said the reason R41's Foley catheter needed to stay in place was something she would need to look at in R41's EMR or paper chart, because she thought there was something the physician said about the Foley remaining in place. RN/HS G was asked to provide documentation of R41's referral and Urology appointment being scheduled, R41 and her daughter's refusal at the time for the referral, and the reason the Foley catheter remaining in place since July of 2022. RN/HS G also stated that R41 was admitted to the facility with the Foley catheter in place, and said there had been no attempts to remove R41's catheter. As of 6/28/2023 at 2:44 PM, none of the requested documents had been received from RN/HS G. As of 6/28/2023 at 3:10 PM, none of the requested documents had been received from RN/HS G. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Urinary Catheter Maintenance dated December of 2022, revealed under, Policy Statement: Foley catheters will be utilized and maintained in a manner to promote resident comfort while preventing the risk for catheter associated infections in accordance to CDC Guidelines., and under Policy Interpretation and Implementation:, 3. Indwelling catheters should be used only when clinically necessary. When an indwelling catheter is used, it should be removed as soon as possible to reduce the risk of catheter-related urinary tract infections. Upon exit of the survey on 6/28/2023 at 4:00 PM, none of the requested documents had been received from RN/HS G
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to 1) ensure timely follow up on pharmacy recommendations for one (Resident #66) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and 2) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to 1) ensure timely follow up on pharmacy recommendations for one (Resident #66) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and 2) ensure the facility's policy included timeframes for each step of the Medication Regimen Review (MRR), resulting in the potential for unnecessary medications and untimely follow up to pharmacy recommendations. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed that Resident #66 (R66) was admitted to the facility 1/3/23 with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease stage 4, dependence on renal dialysis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis, and visual loss right eye, normal vision left eye. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/11/23 revealed that R66 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool) score of 13 (cognitively intact). Review of R66's monthly Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review since 1/2/23 admission, reflected monthly review with pharmacy recommendations for January and March 2023. Recommendation dated 1/24/2023 stated, (R66's name) is currently receiving Maxitrol (neomycin-Polymyxin-Dexamethasone) (an anti-infective, steroid eye medication used to treat inflammation or treat/prevent bacterial eye infections) to the left eye twice daily. Please clarify - is there a stop date for this order? If this is a chronic order, please update the diagnosis for use, as blindness would not be an appropriate diagnosis for the use of this medication. D/C'd (discontinued) 2/23/23 was handwritten within the Follow-Through section on the report. Nurse's Notes dated 2/23/23 at 8:14 AM stated, Res (resident) seen by (Physician's name) for routine visit .(Physician's name) reviewed .pharmacy recommendations .new orders received to D/C Neomycin eye ointment . Review of R66's medication orders reflected that Neomycin-Polymyxin-Dexamethasone eye ointment was ordered 1/3/2023 and discontinued 2/23/2023. Review of Physician Nursing Home Visit notes dated 1/30/23 and 2/21/23 were not noted to include any mention of or rationale for use of Neomycin eye ointment with documentation noted to indicate, .Physical Examination .HEENT (head, ears, eyes, nose, throat) .Pupils are reactive to light and accommodation. Further review of R66's medical record completed with no indication that the 1/24/23 pharmacy recommendation was reviewed or followed up on prior to the 2/23/23 discontinuation of the eye ointment. Recommendation dated 3/27/2023 stated, (R66's name) is currently receiving Prilosec (Omeprazole) 20mg (milligrams) once daily. This medication is on the Beer's list (a list of potentially inappropriate medications for use in older adults) due to its risk of Clostridium Difficile infections and bone loss/fractures. If a resident is to stay on this medication, risk vs. (versus) benefit documentation should be provided . Within the section titled Physician/Prescriber Response, R66's physician indicated that he agreed with the recommendation, wrote D/C (discontinue), signed, and dated the form 6/5/23. Nurse's Note dated 6/5/23 at 9:51 AM stated, (Physician's name) reviewed pharmacy recommendations. DRR (Drug Regimen Review) completed, new orders received to D/C Omeprazole. Review of R66's medication orders reflected that Omeprazole 20mg was ordered 1/12/2023 and discontinued 6/5/23. Review of Physician Nursing Home Visit notes dated 4/13/23 stated, .Her overall condition has been stable since last evaluation .Her dietary intake has been good .Physical Examination .Abdomen: Soft, nontender . with no indication that 3/27/23 pharmacy recommendation to assess ongoing need of Omeprazole was addressed. Further review of R66's medical record completed with no indication that the 3/27/23 pharmacy recommendation was reviewed or followed up on prior to the 6/5/23 discontinuation of the Omeprazole. In an interview on 6/28/23 at 1:54 PM, Registered Nurse/Nursing House Supervisor (RN/NHS) G stated that the pharmacist generally completed resident chart review and recommendations during the last week of the month, the recommendations were forwarded to her by the Director of Nursing (DON), that she reviewed and placed the recommendation within the designated physician folder for physician review during the next routine visit for the indicated resident, and that once addressed they were forward to the Nursing Secretary to be filed in the resident's closed chart. RN/NHS G stated that she was unaware of any specific time frames for the review, follow-up, and completion of the recommendations and that her goal was to have them completed within a month from the time the recommendation was made but that due to time restraints, this was not always possible. Upon review of R66's January and March 2023 recommendations, RN/NHS G confirmed that she had completed follow-up on both, acknowledged that the 1/24/23 recommendation regarding the Neomycin eye ointment was not followed up on until the eye ointments discontinuation on 2/23/23 (one month after the 1/24/23 recommendation was made), and stated that she had no explanation as to why the March 27, 2023 recommendation for the discontinuation of Omeprazole was not followed up on until 6/5/23 (over 2 months after the 3/27/23 recommendation was made at which time physician provided order to discontinue the medication, per recommendation). In an interview on 6/28/23 at 2:28 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B stated that the pharmacist reviewed each resident's chart monthly, that she received the recommendations from the pharmacy in a facility packet, and that she forwarded the medication related recommendations to the house supervisors for completion. DON B stated that she was not aware of any specific time frames for the completion of the recommendations, but her expectation was that once the house supervisors received the recommendations that they would review and address them with the physician within a couple week time frame. Upon review of R66's January and March recommendations, DON B acknowledged that the recommendations were not followed up on timely as stated that even if the physician wanted to wait to address the January recommendation for the Neomycin eye ointment until routine rounds, would have expected a timelier diagnosis clarification as the blindness diagnosis was not accurate and stated that the 3 month turn around time to address the March recommendation for discontinuation of the Omeprazole was excessive. DON B further stated that as she recognized that the monthly pharmacy recommendations were not being followed up on in a timely manner, planned to initiate audits to monitor there completion as the goal was for timely discontinuation of unnecessary medications. Review of the facility policy titled Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Policy Medication Record Review dated 9/2021 stated, Policy Statement: It is the policy of this facility to complete a Medication Regimen review for residents admitted to this facility .Policy Implementation .2. The drug regimen of each resident will be reviewed at least monthly by the consulting pharmacist .4. The consulting pharmacist will report irregularities to the DON, attending physician and the medical director to be acted upon .a. Irregularities may include, but are not limited to, any drug that meets the criteria for unnecessary drugs b. Any irregularities noted by the pharmacist during review will be documented on a written report which will be forwarded the DON, attending physician, and medical director, to include the resident name, relevant drug, and the irregularity identified c. The attending physician will document in the residents' medical record that the identified irregularity has been reviewed and what, if any, action was taken to address .7. Upon completion of the medial record review, the facility designee and/or physician will respond to the recommendations in a timely manner .10. Each residents' drug regimen will be free of unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug is any drug when used: a. In excessive doses, including duplicate therapy b. For excessive duration c. without adequate monitoring d. Without adequate indications for its use .
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately monitor and document involuntary movements, in one of five residents reviewed for high-risk medications (Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately monitor and document involuntary movements, in one of five residents reviewed for high-risk medications (Resident #35), resulting in an inaccurate monitoring and the potential for unmet needs. Findings include: Resident #35 (R35) On 6/26/23 at 11:00 AM, R35 was observed in activity, lip smacking was noted. 6/28/23 at 12:00 PM, R35 was noted to have lip smacking and chewing. R35's minimum data set (MDS) assessment with assessment reference dated on 6/06/23 revealed she had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS), a brief performance-based cognitive screener, score of 05 (00-07 severe cognitive impairment); R35 did not have any physical, verbal, or other behaviors during the 7-day look-back period. Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), a clinical outcome checklist completed by a healthcare provider to assess the presence and severity of abnormal movements of the face, limbs, and body in patients with tardive dyskinesia) dated 5/01/23 revealed R35 had no lip and perioral area (e.g., puckering, pouting, smacking) movements or any other involuntary movements during the assessment. Physician's progress note dated 5/24/23 indicated her mental condition was declining. Zyprexa (antipsychotic) 2.5 milligrams (mg) and Lexapro (antidepressant) 5 mg were ordered daily. The plan included to monitor R35's condition closely. The same note indicated R35 had some mid lip smacking and shuffling gait upon examination. The same noted indicated symptoms could be early signs of Parkinson's disease with some extrapyramidal symptoms. Social Worker (SW) F was interviewed on 6/28/23 at 11:03 AM and stated R35's diagnoses included psychotic disorder with delusions. SW F stated R35 had been taking Zyprexa since 4/29/22. SW F stated on 5/24/23 she had noted R35's lip smacking with the physician. SW F stated she did not complete another AIMS assessment after symptoms were noted. SW F stated there was no plan for a neurology consult and stated the nurses assess R35 for symptoms every day and document on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). In review of R35's May and June 2023 MAR's, there was no documentation of antipsychotic side effects including parkinsonism and abnormal involuntary movements documented on day or evening shifts. Nurse Assistant (NA) K was interviewed on 6/28/23 at approximately 11:30 AM and he did not observe R35 lip smacking and that if her lips were dry, she had lip balm. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) L was interviewed on 06/28/23 at 12:03 PM she had noticed R35's lip smacking, but not on the day of this interview. LPN L stated R35 had dentures and thought she was moving her dentures around in her mouth. LPN L stated R35 had lip balm. Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber from pharmacist dated 11/22/22 revealed R35 had been taking Zyprexa 2.5 mg since 4/29/22 and was due for a gradual dose reduction (GDR). The physician response dated 11/30/22 indicated disagreement; and noted R35 continued to exhibit periodic episodes of paranoia and delusions. Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber from pharmacist dated 4/25/23 revealed R35 had been taking Zyprexa 2.5 mg once daily since 4/29/22. Per regulations, two reduction attempts/evaluations were due within the first year of initiation. A GDR was denied on 11/30/22. The same recommendation form indicated R35 was due for a dose reduction to comply with regulations. The physician response indicated disagreement with the pharmacist recommendation and noted R35 previously failed GDR attempt, resident was currently stable and dose reduction was not in her best interest. Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A on 6/29/23 at 12:50 PM indicated the AIMS test was completed upon the instructions on the assessment and did not have a policy or specific training for staff. The social worker was the only staff that completed the AIMS assessment, and the care plan indicated the AIMS assessment was completed every 3 months.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0572 (Tag F0572)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to inform and or have ongoing communication with resident...

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 inform and or have ongoing communication with residents regarding their rights as expressed during the confidential group meeting held on 06/07/23 for 15 of 15 of the participants resulting in the potential for rights to be violated, misunderstood, and the inability of the Residents to make informed decisions regarding their rights Findings Included: During a confidential resident council meeting with the state surveyor on 6/27/2023 at 2:00 PM, 15 out of 15 residents who were in attendance stated that they did not know where they could find the information on resident rights, and all 15 residents concurred that they did not know where it was posted. All 15 residents concurred that staff had not ever gone over resident rights with them. In an an interview on 6/27/2023 at 2:48 PM, Activity Director (AD) H stated that she regularly attended the monthly resident council meetings, and said the Ombudsman has come and talked to the residents during their meetings. AD H said every year in July she held a Quality Assurance (QA) resident council meeting, and the last one held was July of 2022. AD H stated that during this meeting all subjects were discussed with the residents in attendance, and included resident rights, information about who the Ombudsman was and contact information, and grievances. AD H was informed that during the confidential group council meeting all residents who were in attendance were not aware of how to fill a grievance and where to find the grievance forms, where to find out who the Ombudsman was and contact information, did not know where to find the list of resident rights, did not know where to find the state agency contact information, nor the state survey results. AD H stated that her yearly QA resident council meeting was due to be conducted in July of 2023, and said because it had been since last July of 2022 that she held the last meeting, the residents probably forgot that she went over their resident rights, the Ombudsman information, because it had been a year ago. AD H stated that she was not involved with the grievance forms, and said Administrator A was in charge of those. Review of resident council meeting minutes for the Months of January, February, March, April, May and June of 2023 revealed no discussions regarding resident rights, and their rights to the Ombudsman name and contact information, where grievance forms were located and the purpose of the grievance forms, nor was there any documented discussion that informed the residents, who were in attendance of all six months of council meetings, of their resident rights to know where to locate the posting of the state agency contact information and the facility's survey results. Observation on 06/27/2023 at 2:30 PM, of the Resident Reception room revealed a document holder on the wall that contained resident grievance forms, the state agency survey results, and the Ombudsman name and contact number. No poster was observed on the wall that contained the contact information for the state agency, including how to file a complaint with the state agency. During the observed the state survey results binder was opened, and revealed a two page form in the front of the binder that was titled, Nursing Home Complaint Form, and was dated October of 2003. The form was for residents to fill out with their complaint and submit the form to the state agency. The form had the name of the state department as, Michigan Department of Consumer & Industry Services, Bureau of Health Systems, Complaint Investigation Unit. Page two of the form instructed residents to, Sign this form when completed and submit it to the Bureau of Health Systems by mail or fax to: Michigan Department of Consumer & Industry Services Bureau of Health Systems, Complaint Investigation Unit P.O. Box 30664, [NAME], Ml 48909. Per www.michigan.gov the Department of Consumer & Industry Services was only in place from 1996 to 2003, the state agency complaint investigation unit no longer exists, and the Bureau of Health Systems is the incorrect Bureau information were residents can submit a complaint with the state agency. Record review of the QA resident council meeting minutes from July 2022 revealed the topics of state agency contact information, resident rights and where to find the information, grievances, and information about the Ombudsman was documented as discussed. Upon further review of the minutes for the July 2022 QA resident council meeting revealed that only one resident out of the 15 who were in attendance at the confidential resident council meeting on 6/27/2023 at 2:00 PM, was also in attendance at the July 2022 QA meeting. The remaining 14 resident had not been in attendance at the QA July 2022 meeting. Record Review of the facility's Resident Council policy and procedure dated January 2003, revealed Resident Council, Policy Statement In an effort to promote the residents right to organize and participate in resident groups in the facility for the purpose of self determination, the Activity Department will facilitate and assist in the maintenance of Resident Council. Procedure .#9. The use of resources to enhance residents' understanding of facility functions and/or issues that affect them are facilitated. Resources can include utilizing department heads, the long-term care ombudsman, or others, as guest speakers upon approval or request of the Resident Council. In an email received on 6/28/2023 at 4:56 PM, Administrator A wrote, Resident Rights, Grievance, and Ombudsman information are listed in the Welcome to (name extracted) Booklet that is in the Admissions Packet. Concerns and Complaints on Page A-7, A-8. The Resident Rights are on page A-1 and A-2 and the Ombudsman and Complaint information is all listed on page A-15 and A-16. These items are all listed on the bulletin board in the showcase in the front hallway as well as in the Resident Reception room. We review these with residents in July Resident Council Meetings and during our July QA Meeting. Review of the 15 residents, who were in attendance at the confidential resident council meeting on 6/27/2023 at 2:00 PM, admission dates revealed that eight out the 15 resident had the following years of admission: 2019 times four residents, 2020 times two residents, 2021 times one resident, and 2022 times one resident, in regards to how many years it had been since they received their admission packet. The remaining seven resident all had admission dates in 2023, however the seven resident concurred during the confidential council meeting that they had no knowledge of where to find the information regarding resident rights, and their rights to know the Ombudsman's name and contact information, where grievance forms were located and the purpose of the grievance forms, and the state agency contact information and the facility's survey results. Observation of the showcase in the front hallway revealed it was located in the lobby/front hall at the entrance of the facility. The front hall/lobby had double doors that were observed during the onsite survey from 6/26-6/28/2023 to always be closed, putting the showcase out of resident's view, and was located outside of the residents living area. During the onsite survey residents were not observed to frequent the front hall/lobby area, and furthermore the showcase had to glass sliding doors that were locked and not accessible at will to the residents, and was not at a visual level for resident who require the use of a wheelchair. Another observation was conducted on 6/28/2023 at 1:51 PM, of the Resident Recreation room which again revealed that the state agency contact number was not posted in view of residents, but was rather in the survey results binder.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0574 (Tag F0574)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 15 out of 15 resident, who attended a confident...

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 15 out of 15 resident, who attended a confidential group meeting, were knowledgeable of their resident rights regarding the Ombudsman contact information, state agency contact information, how to file a complaint with the state agency, and the state agency survey results, resulting in the potential for resident to not be able to exercise their rights. Findings Included: During a confidential resident council meeting with the state surveyor on 6/27/2023 at 2:00 PM, 15 out of 15 residents who were in attendance stated that they did not know where they could find the information on resident rights, and all 15 residents concurred that they did not know where it was posted, and that staff had not ever gone over resident rights with them, regarding their right to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman's name and contact information, where to find the state agency contact information including the process to file a complaint with the state agency. In an an interview on 6/27/2023 at 2:48 PM, Activity Director (AD) H stated that she regularly attended the monthly resident council meetings, and said the Ombudsman has come and talked to the residents during their meetings. AD H said every year in July she held a Quality Assurance (QA) resident council meeting, and the last one held was July of 2022. AD H stated that during this meeting all subjects were discussed with the residents in attendance, and included resident rights, information about who the Ombudsman was and contact information, and grievances. AD H was informed that during the confidential group council meeting all residents who were in attendance were not aware of where to find out who the Ombudsman was and contact information, did not know where to find the state agency contact information, nor the state survey results. AD H stated that her yearly QA resident council meeting was due to be conducted in July of 2023, and said because it had been since last July of 2022 that she held the last meeting, the residents probably forgot that she went over their resident rights, the Ombudsman information, because it had been a year ago. AD H stated that she was not involved with the grievance forms, and said Administrator A was in charge of those. Review of resident council meeting minutes for the Months of January, February, March, April, May and June of 2023 revealed no documented discussions regarding resident rights to the Ombudsman and contact information, nor was there any documented discussion that informed the residents, who were in attendance of all six months of council meetings, of their resident rights to know where to locate the posting of the state agency contact information and the facility's survey results. Observation on 06/27/2023 at 2:30 PM, of the Resident Reception room revealed a document holder on the wall that contained the state agency survey results, and the Ombudsman name and contact number. No poster was observed on the wall that contained the contact information for the state agency, including how to file a complaint with the state agency. During the observed the state survey results binder was opened, and revealed a two page form in the front of the binder that was titled, Nursing Home Complaint Form, and was dated October of 2003. The form was for residents to fill out with their complaint and submit the form to the state agency. The form had the name of the state department as, Michigan Department of Consumer & Industry Services, Bureau of Health Systems, Complaint Investigation Unit. Page two of the form instructed residents to, Sign this form when completed and submit it to the Bureau of Health Systems by mail or fax to: Michigan Department of Consumer & Industry Services Bureau of Health Systems, Complaint Investigation Unit P.O. Box 30664, [NAME], Ml 48909. Per www.michigan.gov the Department of Consumer & Industry Services was only in place from 1996 to 2003, the state agency complaint investigation unit no longer exists, and the Bureau of Health Systems is the incorrect Bureau information were residents can submit a complaint with the state agency. Record review of the QA resident council meeting minutes from July 2022 revealed the topics of state agency contact information, resident rights ,and information about the Ombudsman was documented as discussed. Upon further review of the minutes for the July 2022 QA resident council meeting revealed that only one resident out of the 15 who were in attendance at the confidential resident council meeting on 6/27/2023 at 2:00 PM, was also in attendance at the July 2022 QA meeting. The remaining 14 resident had not been in attendance at the QA July 2022 meeting. Record Review of the facility's Resident Council policy and procedure dated January 2003, revealed Resident Council, Policy Statement In an effort to promote the residents right to organize and participate in resident groups in the facility for the purpose of self determination, the Activity Department will facilitate and assist in the maintenance of Resident Council. Procedure .#9. The use of resources to enhance residents' understanding of facility functions and/or issues that affect them are facilitated. Resources can include utilizing department heads, the long-term care ombudsman, or others, as guest speakers upon approval or request of the Resident Council. In an email received on 6/28/2023 at 4:56 PM, Administrator A wrote, Resident Rights, Grievance, and Ombudsman information are listed in the Welcome to (name extracted) Booklet that is in the Admissions Packet. Concerns and Complaints on Page A-7, A-8. The Resident Rights are on page A-1 and A-2 and the Ombudsman and Complaint information is all listed on page A-15 and A-16. These items are all listed on the bulletin board in the showcase in the front hallway as well as in the Resident Reception room. We review these with residents in July Resident Council Meetings and during our July QA Meeting. Review of the 15 residents, who were in attendance at the confidential resident council meeting on 6/27/2023 at 2:00 PM, admission dates revealed that eight out the 15 resident had the following years of admission: 2019 times four residents, 2020 times two residents, 2021 times one resident, and 2022 times one resident, in regards to how many years it had been since they received their admission packet. The remaining seven resident all had admission dates in 2023, however the seven resident concurred during the confidential council meeting that they had no knowledge of where to find the information regarding their right to know the Ombudsman's name and contact information, and the state agency contact information and the facility's survey results. Observation of the showcase in the front hallway revealed it was located in the lobby/front hall at the entrance of the facility revealed a state survey report, Ombudsman information, and state agency contact information to be inside. The front hall/lobby had double doors that were observed during the onsite survey from 6/26-6/28/2023 to always be closed, putting the showcase out of resident's view, and was located outside of the residents living area. During the onsite survey residents were not observed to frequent the front hall/lobby area, and furthermore the showcase had to glass sliding doors that were locked and not accessible at will to the residents, and was not at a visual level for resident who require the use of a wheelchair. Another observation was conducted on 6/28/2023 at 1:51 PM, of the Resident Recreation room which again revealed that the state agency contact number was not posted in view of residents, but was rather in the survey results binder.
CONCERN (E)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 15 out of 15 resident, who attended a confident...

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 15 out of 15 resident, who attended a confidential group meeting, were knowledgeable of their resident rights on how to file a grievance and complaint, resulting in the potential for residents grievances and complaints to go unresolved. Findings Included: During a confidential resident council meeting with the state surveyor on 6/27/2023 at 2:00 PM, 15 out of 15 residents who were in attendance stated that they did not know where they could find the information on resident rights regarding how to file a grievance, where the grievance forms were located, what the process was to file a grievance. All 15 residents concurred that staff had not ever gone over resident grievance rights with them in regards to their right to file a grievance and complaint, nor the contact information of the state agency and Ombudsman to whom the residents had the right to file a grievance or complaint. In an an interview on 6/27/2023 at 2:48 PM, Activity Director (AD) H stated that she regularly attended the monthly resident council meetings, and said the Ombudsman has come and talked to the residents during their meetings. AD H said every year in July she held a Quality Assurance (QA) resident council meeting, and the last one held was July of 2022. AD H stated that during this meeting all subjects were discussed with the residents in attendance, and included resident rights, information about who the Ombudsman was and contact information, and grievances. AD H was informed that during the confidential group council meeting all residents who were in attendance were not aware of how to fill a grievance and where to find the grievance forms, where to find out who the Ombudsman was and contact information, did not know where to find the list of resident rights, did not know where to find the state agency contact information, nor the state survey results. AD H stated that her yearly QA resident council meeting was due to be conducted in July of 2023, and said because it had been since last July of 2022 that she held the last meeting, the residents probably forgot that she went over their resident rights, the Ombudsman information, because it had been a year ago. AD H stated that she was not involved with the grievance forms, and said Administrator A was in charge of those. Review of resident council meeting minutes for the Months of January, February, March, April, May and June of 2023 revealed no discussions regarding resident rights to file a grievance and complaint, where the grievance forms were located and the purpose of the grievance forms. No documented discussion about resident rights to file a grievance with the Ombudsman and/or state agency, and were to find the contact information. Observation on 06/27/2023 at 2:30 PM, of the Resident Reception room revealed a document holder on the wall that contained resident grievance forms. During the observed the state survey results binder was opened, and revealed a two page form in the front of the binder that was titled, Nursing Home Complaint Form, and was dated October of 2003. The form was for residents to fill out with their complaint and submit the form to the state agency. The form had the name of the state department as, Michigan Department of Consumer & Industry Services, Bureau of Health Systems, Complaint Investigation Unit. Page two of the form instructed residents to, Sign this form when completed and submit it to the Bureau of Health Systems by mail or fax to: Michigan Department of Consumer & Industry Services Bureau of Health Systems, Complaint Investigation Unit P.O. Box 30664, [NAME], Ml 48909. Per www.michigan.gov the Department of Consumer & Industry Services was only in place from 1996 to 2003, the state agency complaint investigation unit no longer exists, and the Bureau of Health Systems is the incorrect Bureau information were residents can submit a complaint with the state agency. Record review of the QA resident council meeting minutes from July 2022 revealed the topics of state agency contact information, resident rights and where to find the information, grievances, and information about the Ombudsman was documented as discussed. Upon further review of the minutes for the July 2022 QA resident council meeting revealed that only one resident out of the 15 who were in attendance at the confidential resident council meeting on 6/27/2023 at 2:00 PM, was also in attendance at the July 2022 QA meeting. The remaining 14 resident had not been in attendance at the QA July 2022 meeting. Record Review of the facility's Resident Council policy and procedure dated January 2003, revealed Resident Council, Policy Statement In an effort to promote the residents right to organize and participate in resident groups in the facility for the purpose of self determination, the Activity Department will facilitate and assist in the maintenance of Resident Council. Procedure .#9. The use of resources to enhance residents' understanding of facility functions and/or issues that affect them are facilitated. Resources can include utilizing department heads, the long-term care ombudsman, or others, as guest speakers upon approval or request of the Resident Council. In an email received on 6/28/2023 at 4:56 PM, Administrator A wrote, Resident Rights, Grievance, and Ombudsman information are listed in the Welcome to (name extracted) Booklet that is in the Admissions Packet. Concerns and Complaints on Page A-7, A-8. The Resident Rights are on page A-1 and A-2 and the Ombudsman and Complaint information is all listed on page A-15 and A-16. These items are all listed on the bulletin board in the showcase in the front hallway as well as in the Resident Reception room. We review these with residents in July Resident Council Meetings and during our July QA Meeting. Review of the 15 residents, who were in attendance at the confidential resident council meeting on 6/27/2023 at 2:00 PM, admission dates revealed that eight out the 15 resident had the following years of admission: 2019 times four residents, 2020 times two residents, 2021 times one resident, and 2022 times one resident, in regards to how many years it had been since they received their admission packet. The remaining seven resident all had admission dates in 2023, however the seven resident concurred during the confidential council meeting that they had no knowledge of where to find the information regarding resident rights, and their rights to know the Ombudsman's name and contact information, where grievance forms were located and the purpose of the grievance forms, and the state agency contact information. Observation of the showcase in the front hallway revealed it was located in the lobby/front hall at the entrance of the facility. The front hall/lobby had double doors that were observed during the onsite survey from 6/26-6/28/2023 to always be closed, putting the showcase out of resident's view, and was located outside of the residents living area. During the onsite survey residents were not observed to frequent the front hall/lobby area, and furthermore the showcase had to glass sliding doors that were locked and not accessible at will to the residents, and was not at a visual level for resident who require the use of a wheelchair. Another observation was conducted on 6/28/2023 at 1:51 PM, of the Resident Recreation room which again revealed that the state agency contact number was not posted in view of residents, but was rather in the survey results binder.
May 2022 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and implement appropriate care planned...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and implement appropriate care planned interventions to prevent falls for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #7 and #56) reviewed for falls, resulting in falls with injuries and fractures negatively affecting the residents highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Resident #7: Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #7 was a male with pertinent diagnoses which included laceration of scalp, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage with loss of consciousness (acute brain injury with bleeding in the brain), history of urinary infections, suprapubic catheter (inserted into a hole in abdomen then directly into the bladder), history of falling, and chronic pain. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #7, with a reference date of 2/19/22 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of a total possible score of 15, which indicated Resident #7 was cognitively intact. Review of current Care Plan for Resident #7, revised on 2/22/22, revealed the focus, I am at risk for falls r/t (related to) new admit, hx (history) of falls, Rib fx (fracture), impaired mobility, diagnosis', potential medication adverse effects, Antiplatelet increases risk for bruising/bleeding should fall occur . with the intervention .Staff will remind me and reinforce safety awareness .Need a safe environment with bed kept at knee height, nonskid footwear provided, walker kept in reach, commode used on toilet, safety reminder signs, paddle call light, non skid to recliner .My IDT (Interdisciplinary team) will provide/encourage activities that minimize the potential for falls while providing diversion and distraction .use a fall risk assessment to identify my risk factors . Review of Fall Huddle dated 3/20/22 at 11:20 AM, revealed, .Dining room on 100/200 hallway .Resident was at table with magazines .Resident observed laying on the floor near his wheelchair .Res restless, res was previously in recliner in room scooting down, hollering out constantly, not making sense .Remove high traffic area .Resident to wear leg bag when up .impulsive, poor judgment . Review of (Facility Name) Determination of Reportable Incident/investigation Guide for incident on 3/20/22 at 11:20 AM, revealed, .Immediate intervention: Resident in high traffic area for increased safety, increased monitoring for remainder of shift and staff to call activities to help when resident is anxious or offer to take resident for a walk .Falls committee review: Resident was already in a high traffic area - not going to prevent a possible reoccurrence so intervention removed from plan of care. Also, upon further investigation resident with regular catheter bag and tubing in place. New intervention to change resident to a leg bag when up in his wheelchair to allow for ease with mobility and ambulation . Review of Kardex as of 3/21/22 revealed, .**Please assist me with changing my catheter bag to a LEG BAG when I am up** . Review of Progress Notes dated 5/13/2022 at 11:17 AM, revealed, .At approx. 10:50am writer called to 100 dining room and observed res laying on his left side on the floor in front of the table where he was sitting. W/c to Rt (right) of res. Res alert to himself per his norm stating, I was trying to get to my truck. Res able to move all extremities freely and without difficulty. Staff assisting res off of floor with assist of 3 and a gait belt and placed into w/c. Res able to bear weight with no c/o pain or discomfort when standing. Upon assessment res observed with an area of 5.0x4.0cm swelling to Lt (left) forehead with a 4.0x3.0cm abrasion in the center. Ice applied. Skin tear to Lt upper, outer forearm 3.0x0.5cm. Area cleansed with NS, patted dry, steri-strips applied and covered with tegaderm (waterproof, transparent, sterile barrier to external contaminants). Res also with a 5x4.5cm abrasion to Lt mid back left OTA (open to air). Res talking with staff during assessment. Mood pleasant, smiling at staff. Speech clear, non sensical at times per his norm, continues to make comments of getting home to the farm. PEERL with Lt pupil sluggish. T-97.8 P-80 R-22 BP-152/78 spo2 95% on RA. Res removing his O2 multiple times this AM, spo2 maintaining above 90% with no s/sx of respiratory distress or SOB observed. BG 184. House supervisor made aware of the same . Review of Progress Notes dated 5/13/2022 at 11:28 AM, revealed, .Called to room by wing nurse resident observed sitting in w/c alert per norm with confusion and non sensical speech at times per norm. Large hematoma to Lt forehead, laceration to left elbow and abrasion to left back. Denies dizziness, or nausea. Unable to verbalize whether or not he has blurred vision. Knows that he is in (town residing in). When asked what he was doing he stated he was going to his truck. Rt (right) pupil equal round and easily reactive to light at 3 mm. Lt pupil with small abrasion to outer aspect of eye lid pupil 3 mm and very sluggish. Hand grips weak but equal. (Physician) updated with new order received to transport to ER for Eval . Review of Progress Notes dated 5/13/2022 at 11:40 AM, revealed, .Resident transported to (local hospital) ER via (EMS transport company) with transfer packet, code status, DPOA papers, Meds, labs, progress notes and bed hold policy. Report phoned to (local hospital) ER . Review of Progress Notes dated 5/13/2022 at 3:55 PM, revealed, .Report received from (staff member at local hospital) ER. Res is returning. He does have a bleed. Physician and family aware that it could get worse. Steri Strips placed at facility remain in place. Xray to elbow was negative for fx (fracture). Nystatin has been ordered. Tetanus updated. Physician aware of above . In an email sent on 5/26/22 at 10:30 AM, revealed, .Regarding the fall on (5/13/22) (Resident #7) - review of fall on video showed resident stood and attempted to ambulate getting caught on his catheter. Resident was to have leg bag in place when out of bed. This was the intervention put in place from fall in 3/22. (RN #AA) did not change that in his plan of care. Attached is the warning she received. Education was provided that care plan is to (be) updated immediately . Review of Written Record of Verbal Warning for Registered Nurse (RN) AA dated 5/13/22, revealed, .You failed to change a resident's plan of care that was put in place as a fall intervention . Review of Provider Note dated 5/15/22, revealed, .(Resident #7) fell. He was sent to the hospital. He had a small left frontal cutaneous laceration and also, he has a small left frontal subdural hematoma measuring 8 mm .Impression: Closed head injury with a small abrasion and laceration of the left frontal scalp with a small, 8 mm, subdural hematoma . According to Medline Plus, a subdural hematoma is a collection of blood between the covering of the brain (dura) and the surface of the brain .most often the result of a severe head injury . https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000713.html. Review of Progress Notes dated 5/17/22 at 3:16 PM revealed, .BIMS done with resident today. He could not recall the month or the day and had trouble with recall as well. While asking questions he asked what this had to do with the cows. Unable to hold a meaningful conversation and would revert back to the farming he had to get done . Review of Progress Notes dated 5/24/2022 at 10:52 PM, revealed, .Res sitting in w/c by fish tank when he leaned over and fell out of w/c onto left side. Writer heard fall with other staff. Res had a cut to left side of head that was bleeding. Staff applied pressure to wound and then assessed res. Res able to verbalize that he was trying to unhook a trailer when asked what he was doing. Res denied pain, PERRL (pupils are equal, round and react to light), ROM (range of motion) intact to all extremities, and no drooping noted to face. V.S. T:99.0, P:88, R:28, B/P:177/96, SpO2:96@RA. BG:274. House supervisor made aware . Review of Progress Notes dated 5/24/2022 at 6:46 PM, revealed, .(Physician) made aware of res fall, laceration to head, Neuros WNL per res . No new orders received . In an interview on 5/24/22 at 3:09 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported (Resident #7) had a fall with a hematoma and the facility had sent him to the hospital and he received stitches to his head. DON B reported for all falls the IDT team reviews and talks about the falls every day, discuss care plans and interventions and if any changes were needed. Review of Orders dated 5/25/22, revealed, .Monitor laceration on L side of head apply CDD (clean dry dressing) if drainage noted q (every) 1 shift and PRN as needed. Cleanse with NS (normal saline) an apply CDD is draining . Review of Orders dated 5/25/22, revealed, .Monitor abrasions to L knee every day and evening shift . During an observation on 5/26/22 at 9:26 AM, CNA D assisted by CNA JJ assisted resident from his wheelchair to his bed in his room. CNA D reported she felt more comfortable with another staff to assist with resident, he was normally a one assist, as he hasn't been standing very good. CNA D reported he had an incident yesterday and was going this afternoon for an x-ray. Resident #56: Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #56 was a male with pertinent diagnoses which included anxiety, urgency of urination, dizziness and giddiness, stroke, ulcer of [NAME] of left foot, chronic pain syndrome, and history of falling. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #56, with a reference date of 4/21/22 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 out of a total possible score of 15, which indicated Resident #56 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of current Care Plan for Resident #56, revised on 10/27/2020, revealed the focus, .I need assistance with my ADL's. AEB: Needs assistance with bed mobility, transfer, walking .toilet use . with the intervention .My toileting ability is: Assist x 1-2 based on level of arousal. Go slowly when I stand as I become dizzy easily . Review of Progress Notes dated 5/17/2022 at 8:49 PM, revealed, .At approx. 1900 writer called to resident bathroom. Resident was lowered to floor in bathroom after knees buckled during peri care. Resident did not hit head, Neuros WNL (within normal limits) PEERL (pupils are equal, round and react to light) WNL. 2 abrasions to L knee measuring 1.5cm x 0.5cm and 0.4cm x 0.3cm, areas cleansed with NS, patted dry and left OTA (open to air) due to no drainage. No c/o pain or discomfort at that time. BP-107/72, P-61, R-16, T-98.2, SpO2-97% and BG 128. House supervisor made aware . Review of Fall Huddle dated 5/17/22, revealed, .Exact Location of Incident: Room - Bathroom .Describe exactly what you saw: When staff standing resident to provide care after toileting res. knees gave out and staff lowered res on to knees .List causes or potential causes: Gait belt use was not performed by staff .Any other information or specific factors that may have contributed to this fall? No gait belt use .Describe Injuries: Abrasions to L (left) knee . 1.5 x 0.5 and 0.4 x 0.3 .Intervention: Staff education: Education provided to (CNA #II) about gait belt use . Review of Progress Notes dated 5/18/2022 at 10:43 PM, revealed, .Fall on 5/17/2022 reviewed at Fall Committee. All Safety Interventions in place per plan of care and continues to be appropriate at this time. Staff education provided . Review of Progress Notes for Resident #56 revealed no documented refusals by resident to wear a gait belt during ambulation. During an observation on 5/24/22 at 10:36 AM, observed a paper on the door to Resident #56's room, upon further review, the document was a form for 15-minute checks for Resident #56. In an interview on 5/24/22 at 10:37 PM, CNA D reported the form hanging on the outside of the door were for 15-minute checks for Resident #56. CNA D reported she was to make note of what the resident was doing every 15 minutes and she would sign it. Once it is completed, it would go in the chart. CNA D reported the form for 15-minute checks was replaced every day. During an observation on 5/25/22 at 3:15 PM, review of the 15-minute form on the door for Resident #56 revealed missing documentation for a 15-minute check for 2:30 PM and 2:45 PM. Also, no initials were in the time slots for 1:25 PM, 1:30 M, and 1:45 PM for this date.
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 implement resident comprehensive care plans for 2 of ...

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 resident comprehensive care plans for 2 of 18 residents (Resident #68 and #7) reviewed for care planning, resulting in the lack of services being furnished for residents to attain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Resident #68 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #68 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included multiple sclerosis and dementia. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #68, with a reference date of 4/29/2022, revealed a Staff Assessment for Mental Status score of 3, which indicated that Resident #68 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of the Mobility Care Plan dated 2/28/18 and revised 5/15/20 revealed . Problem . I am at risk for altered body alignment (related to) end stage (multiple sclerosis) with Impaired Mobility, spasticity, contractures, and lack of upper body control . Interventions . (Range of Motion) completed twice daily: assist with gentle stretching of bilateral elbows (twice a day); support my arms as I relax my elbows, Carrots (splint used to position fingers away from palm to protect the skin from moisture, pressure and nail puncture) to bilateral hands at all times . revised 12/27/19 Review of a Rehab Note dated 4/25/2022 at 1:28 p.m. revealed . (Range of Motion) to be performed by staff per care plan . In an interview on 5/26/2022 at 10:09 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) GG reported that she has not been performing range of motion while performing Resident #68's care, and she is not aware if Certified Nursing Assistants are to be performing range of motion. In an observation on 5/26/2022 at 10:28 a.m., Resident #68 was observed in her bed without Carrot splints or rolled towels in her hands. Resident #68's fingers were squeezed tightly into her palms. In an interview on 5/26/2022 at 10:57 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) GG reported that rolled towels are always to be in place in Resident #68's hands. CNA GG reported that third shift staff must have performed Resident #68's care and forgotten to replace the towels after. In an interview on 5/26/2022 at 10:18 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) FF, restorative CNA, reported that restorative staff work with Resident #68 5 days a week, once a day. CNA FF reported that clinical staff are responsible for completing range of motion as well, but she is not sure if this is documented in the electronic medical record. In an interview on 5-26-2022 at 11:09 a.m., Rehab Director CC reported that staff began using rolled towels for Resident 68's hand contractures instead of Carrot splints on their own, without the direction of rehabilitative services. Rehab Director CC reported that range of motion is to be performed twice a day, and that certified nursing assistants are to be performing this as part of normal care. Rehab Director CC reported that she is not sure if this range of motion is documented in the electronic medical record. In an interview on 5/26/2022 at 12:36 p.m. Director of Nursing (DON) B reported that certified nursing assistants are expected to perform range of motion with resident care, but this is not documented in the electronic medical record. Review of the facility policy/procedure Person Centered Care Planning, dated January 2022, revealed .The patient care plan must be oriented towards attaining or maintaining the resident's highest practicle level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being . Resident centered interventions which staff will take to assist the resident in achieving specific goals are identified . Changes to the care plan are made as needed and dated. Discontinued or new problems, goals and interventions are also dated. Changes to the care plan are relayed to staff using the electronic medical record . Review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, v1.16, Chapter 4: Care Area Assessment (CAA) Process and Care Planning, revealed .the comprehensive care plan is an interdisciplinary communication tool. It must include measurable objectives and time frames and must describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident 's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The care plan must be reviewed and revised periodically, and the services provided or arranged must be consistent with each resident 's written plan of care . .A nursing care plan includes nursing diagnoses, goals and/or expected outcomes, individualized nursing interventions, and a section for evaluation findings .The plan promotes continuity of care and better communication because it informs all health care providers about a patient's needs and interventions and reduces the risk for incomplete, incorrect, or inappropriate care measures. Nurses revise a plan when a patient's status changes .The plan of care communicates nursing care priorities to nurses and other health care providers. It also identifies and coordinates resources for delivering nursing care . [NAME], [NAME] A.; [NAME], [NAME] Griffin; Stockert, [NAME]; Hall, [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing, Tenth Edition - E-Book (Kindle Location 15861 of 76897). Elsevier Health Sciences. Resident #7: Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #7 was a male with pertinent diagnoses which included laceration of scalp, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage with loss of consciousness (acute brain injury with bleeding in the brain), history of urinary infections, suprapubic catheter (inserted into a hole in abdomen then directly into the bladder), history of falling, and chronic pain. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #7, with a reference date of 2/19/22 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of a total possible score of 15, which indicated Resident #7 was cognitively intact. Review of current Care Plan for Resident #7, revised on 4/14/22, revealed the focus, .I have a suprapubic catheter secondary to neurogenic bladder with recurrent UTIs . with the intervention .5/13/22: Leg bag on when up in w/c with cath strap. Catheter bag when in bed only . Review of current Care Plan for Resident #7, revised on 3/18/22, revealed the focus, .I am at risk for an alteration in my skin integrity r/t (related to) impaired mobility, diagnosis' (sic) .3/18/22: Skin tear to left elbow . with the intervention .Bil. (bilateral) Arm protectors on at all times, off for hygiene . Review of General Incident Report dated 3/18/22 at 8:30 AM, revealed, .Resident observed with skin tear to left elbow .1x1.3 CM skin tear to left elbow . Review of (Facility Name) Determination of Reportable Incident/investigation Guide for incident on 3/18/22 at 8:30 AM, revealed, .Immediate intervention: Bilateral arm protectors applied to avoid a possible reoccurrence . Review of Fall Huddle dated 3/20/22 at 11:20 AM, revealed, .Dining room on 100/200 hallway .Resident was at table with magazines .Resident observed laying on the floor near his wheelchair .Res restless, res was previously in recliner in room scooting down, hollering out constantly, not making sense .Remove high traffic area .Resident to wear leg bag when up .impulsive, poor judgment . Review of (Facility Name) Determination of Reportable Incident/investigation Guide for incident on 3/20/22 at 11:20 AM, revealed, .Immediate intervention: Resident in high traffic area for increased safety, increased monitoring for remainder of shift and staff to call activities to help when resident is anxious or offer to take resident for a walk .Falls committee review: Resident was already in a high traffic area - not going to prevent a possible reoccurrence so intervention removed from plan of care. Also, upon further investigation resident with regular catheter bag and tubing in place. New intervention to change resident to a leg bag when up in his wheelchair to allow for ease with mobility and ambulation . Review of [NAME] as of 3/21/22 revealed, .**Please assist me with changing my catheter bag to a LEG BAG when I am up** . Review of [NAME] as of 3/21/22 revealed, .Bil. (bilateral) arm protectors on at all times . During an observation on 5/25/22 at 3:15 PM, Resident #7 was observed in his bed laying on his back without bilateral arm protectors on his arms. During an observation on 5/26/22 at 9:24 AM, Resident #7 was observed in the small dining room located by his room. Resident #7 observed seated in his wheelchair with the catheter tubing extending from between his legs under the front of the wheelchair seat, looped into a circle only a few inches from the floor and attached to a catheter bag secured to the bottom of the wheelchair. Resident #7 observed not wearing bilateral arm protectors on both arms. Resident #7 observed to have steri-strips to his left elbow area, a square bandage, undated, on his upper left forehead area and multiple spots of purple bruising of diverse sizes at various locations across both forearms and tops of both hands. During an observation on 5/26/22 at 9:26 AM, CNA D assisted by CNA JJ assisted resident from his wheelchair to his bed in his room. CNA D placed catheter bag on resident's lap and both assisted resident into his bed. CNA D reported she felt more comfortable with another staff to assist with resident, he was normally a one assist, as he hasn't been standing very good. CNA D reported he had an incident yesterday and was going this afternoon for an x-ray. In an interview on 5/26/22 at 10:55 AM, CNA D reported CNAs would go to the resident profile to review the [NAME] or the care plan. CNA D reported Resident #7 did not have a leg bag on when he was up in his wheelchair in the dining area, and he did not have on bilateral arm protectors. CNA D reported she was not sure where they were, and she might have to get him some new ones. During an observation on 5/26/22 at 11:03 AM, Resident #7 allowed CNA D to place the bilateral arm protectors on his arms. In an email sent on 5/26/22 at 10:30 AM, revealed, .Regarding the fall on (5/13/22) (Resident #7) - review of fall on video showed resident stood and attempted to ambulate getting caught on his catheter. Resident was to have leg bag in place when out of bed. This was the intervention put in place from fall in 3/22. (RN #AA) did not change that in his plan of care. Attached is the warning she received. Education was provided that care plan is to (be) updated immediately .
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to 1. properly store, date, and discard food items; and 2. address temperatures out-of-range for refrigeration units and dish mac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to 1. properly store, date, and discard food items; and 2. address temperatures out-of-range for refrigeration units and dish machine. These conditions resulted in an increased risk of food borne illness that affected 82 of 83 residents who consume food from the kitchen. Findings include: Review of a facility policy, Food Storage: Labeling/Dating Food Items, dated 5/22, revealed, . Policy Interpretation and Implementation . a. Packaged items shall be dated upon opening with current date. b. All open, dated items will be disposed of on the fifth day following the open date or by the manufacturer's suggested use by date. c. All unopened items will be disposed of according to the manufacturer's use by date. d. All dry spices will be dated upon opening and disposed of in 6 months from open date . Review of a facility form Main Kitchen Refrigerator/Freezer Log revealed, All refrigerators and freezers must be checked daily for appropriate (sic) temperatures. Refrigerators must have a temperature at or below 40 degrees, freezer temperature should be at or below 0 degrees .Any concerns should be reported to maintenance immediately. Review of a facility policy, Dish Machines/Ware Washing Equipment dated 10/21 revealed, .Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Dish machine temperatures will be taken prior to using for sanitation purposes. 2. Machine temperatures must meet manufacturer's recommendation for safe and sanitary operation .4. Any concerns related to machine operation or temperature must be reported to maintenance immediately . Review of a manufacturer equipment label located on the dish machine revealed, Final Rinse Temperature Minimum 180 F (degrees Fahrenheit), Auxilliary (sic) Rinse Temperature Minimum 165 F, Wash Temperature Minimum 160 F . During an initial dining tour on 5/24/22 beginning at 10:10 AM in the walk-in freezer of the main kitchen, noted 2 single-serve containers of ice cream, 1 single-serve container of sherbet, a package of what appeared to be a beef roast, and 2 loose frozen carrot coins located directly on the freezer floor. Noted a bag of chicken nuggets and a bag of potato triangles located on the storage rack in the freezer that were opened, but not labeled or dated. Dietary Manager (DM) O reported that the items should not be directly on the freezer floor. DM O reported opened items should be labeled and dated with opened and discard dates. During an initial dining tour on 5/24/22 beginning at 10:15 AM in the walk-in cooler of the main kitchen, noted an opened gallon container of parmesan cheese with an opened date of 3/14/22 written on the container. DM O reported the parmesan cheese should have been repacked into smaller containers and frozen for later use or should have been discarded after 5 days from the date opened. During an initial dining tour on 5/24/22 beginning at 10:20 AM in the dry storage area of the main kitchen, noted a food item that was in an opened, clear bag with an opened date of 4/24/22 written on the bag. DM O reported the item was topping and that it should have been discarded after 5 days of the date it was opened. Also noted an opened package of brown gravy mix that was not securely sealed and was not dated; an opened bag of gluten free crisps with an opened date of 3/16/22 and a use by date of 3/21/22 written on the package; and a package of gluten free lemon wafers with an opened date of 4/21/22 and a discard date of 4/26/22 written on the package. DM O reported all food items should be dated when opened. DM O reported all of those items should have been discarded already and then removed the items from the dry-storage area. During an initial dining tour on 5/24/22 beginning at 10:30 AM, reviewed the May, 2022 Main Kitchen Refrigerator/Freezer Log (that also contained the dish machine temperature log) with DM O and noted the following: a temperature of 42 degrees was recorded for PM REF 2 (Afternoon Refrigerator 2) on 5/11/22 and 5/12/22; a temperature of +2 degrees was recorded for PM W-In F (Afternoon Walk-In Freezer) on 5/18/22; dish machine temperatures recorded for dinner on 5/3/22 were 155/157; for dinner on 5/10/22 were 152/159; and for dinner on 5/15/22 were 155/159. DM O reported when the refrigerator/freezer temperatures were found to be out-of-range, the dietary staff should recheck the temperatures and then contact maintenance immediately. There were no temperature rechecks recorded on the log. DM O reported would have to check with the maintenance department for evidence that dietary staff had contacted them for the out-of-range refrigerator/freezer and dish machine temperatures. During an initial dining tour on 5/24/22 beginning at 10:42 AM in the 100 hall service kitchen, noted in the top cupboard across from the dish machine: an opened bottle of sugar free syrup that was labeled with an opened date of 12/28/21 and a use by date of 1/2/22; a box of creamy farina cereal that was labeled with an opened date of 11/10/21 and a use by date of 11/15/21; and a bag of corn flakes cereal that was labeled with an opened date of 8/25/21 and was not labeled with a use by date. DM O reported all items should have been discarded a long time ago. In a follow-up interview on 5/25/22 at 1:25 PM, DM O reported did not have a paper trail that maintenance had been contacted about the out-of-range temperatures for the refrigerators, freezer, or dish machine.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Michigan.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
  • • 30% turnover. Below Michigan's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Michigan, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Staffed?

CMS rates Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 17 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility?

Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 114 certified beds and approximately 105 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Coldwater, Michigan.

How Does Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Michigan. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Stick Around?

Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility has a staff turnover rate of 30%, which is about average for Michigan nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility Ever Fined?

Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility on Any Federal Watch List?

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