Maples Benzie County Medical Care

210 Maple Street, Frankfort, MI 49635 (231) 352-9674
Government - County 78 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
35/100
#136 of 422 in MI
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Maples Benzie County Medical Care has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. In Michigan, the facility ranks #136 out of 422, placing it in the top half, but it is the lower-ranked option in Benzie County, at #2 out of 2. The facility is showing signs of improvement, having reduced issues from 12 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5/5 rating and a turnover rate of 42%, which is lower than the state average, suggesting that staff members are experienced and familiar with the residents. However, the facility has accumulated $57,490 in fines, which is concerning and indicates potential compliance problems, and recent inspections revealed serious incidents where residents suffered harm due to a failure to follow care plans and address safety hazards. For example, one resident sustained multiple leg fractures from a fall, while another overdosed due to inadequate behavioral health support, highlighting significant areas for improvement despite some positive aspects.

Trust Score
F
35/100
In Michigan
#136/422
Top 32%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
12 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
42% turnover. Near Michigan's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$57,490 in fines. Lower than most Michigan facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 72 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
29 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 12 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 (42%)

    6 points below Michigan average of 48%

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 42%

Near Michigan avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $57,490

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 29 deficiencies on record

5 actual harm
Sept 2025 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

This citation pertains to Facility Reported Incident (FRI) 2611699.Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify and mitigate environmental hazards, ensure the ap...

Read full inspector narrative →
This citation pertains to Facility Reported Incident (FRI) 2611699.Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify and mitigate environmental hazards, ensure the appropriate use of assistive devices, and implement care planned interventions resulting in falls for three Residents (#24, #25, #26) of three residents reviewed for accident hazards and supervision. This deficient practice resulted in actual harm when Resident #24 sustained multiple lower leg fractures requiring surgical intervention. Findings include:Resident #24 (R24)Review of R24's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed initial admission to the facility on 8/4/23 with diagnoses including vascular dementia, major depressive disorder, and personality disorder. Review of R24's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/5/25, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, indicative of moderate cognitive impairment. Further review of the MDS indicated R24 was independent in walking distances up to 150 feet and transferring from a bed to chair.Review of the facility incident summary submitted to the State Agency (SA) on 9/2/25 at 12:12 PM read, in part: [R24] was observed on the floor in the doorway of the bathroom today at 0835 [8:35 AM]. She was noted to have blood on her left ankle. It appeared that she has an open fracture of the left ankle. She was walking with CNA [certified nursing assistant] from the bathroom after having a shower . She was nude other than a towel around her. She lost her balance on the floor transition. She went backwards hitting her head on the door, she then went down to the floor. [R24] was not moved from the floor due to probable fracture. EMS [Emergency Medical Services] was called at approximately 0845 [8:45 AM] Fractures confirmed at 1127 [11:27 AM] per verbal report, acute comminuted displaced distal tibial diaphyseal fracture, acute comminuted displaced distal fibular fracture, acute proximal fibular fracture [three fractures of the lower two leg bones].Review of the Emergency Department (ED) Consultation Report on 9/2/25 read, in part: .patient seen in emergency department after having a slip and fall in the shower at her facility. she does have an open fracture with exposed tibia on exam. she will require surgical irrigation and debridement with surgical fixation of her tibia and possible fibula.On 9/17/25 at 9:28 AM, R24 was observed sitting at the edge of bed, eating breakfast in her room. Adhesive strips were noted over surgical wounds on both sides of R24's left ankle as well as under and inside R24's left knee. This surveyor entered R24's room and asked how she was feeling to which she replied, So-so. My ankle hurts. R24 was asked the reason for the surgical wounds, she replied, I fell. Three breaks [fractures]. When asked the location of the fall, R24 pointed at the private bathroom located near the foot of her bed and stated, I slipped. When asked if she was showering at the time of the fall, R4 replied, Yes. R24 asked if the floor was wet at the time of the fall to which she responded, Yes then indicated she no longer wished to pursue the conversation.On 9/17/25 a telephone interview was conducted with CNA A who verified she was assisting R24 in the shower at the time of R24's fall on 9/2/25. CNA A stated R24 was finished showering and was wrapped in a towel making her way toward the bedroom to get dressed. CNA A recalled as R24 stepped over the threshold separating the bathroom tile from the bedroom linoleum, her leg slipped out from behind her, and she proceeded to fall backward and hit her head on the doorframe. CNA A stated, At that point, I watched her bone pop out of her leg. When asked about her positioning at the time of the fall, CNA A stated she was walking backward into the bedroom as R24 was walking forward, just because I know the floor is so slippery. CNA A was asked if she attempted to use a shower chair, a gait belt, or non-skid footwear as ways to increase safety on the slippery floor. CNA A stated R24 is usually hard-headed and at times will not allow it. When asked if she attempted to utilize or offer a shower chair, gait belt, or footwear to R24, CNA A replied, No, I just assumed from prior experience that she would decline.Review of an Incident Note written by Registered Nurse (RN) G, dated 9/2/25 at 9:21 AM, read, in part: Called to room found [R24] lying on floor post shower. During shower CNA witnessed [R24] slip and fall, hit back of head on door, no grip socks in place was just getting out of shower feet floor still wet .Review of the Root Cause Review, signed by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/5/25 read, in part: Environmental/Equipment Factors: Floor wet from shower.Behavioral Factors (aggression, noncompliance, etc.): none.On 9/17/25 at 10:15 AM, an interview was conducted with RN G who verified she was the floor nurse on duty at the time of the fall on 9/2/25. RN G was called into R24's room and visualized her on the floor coming out of the bathroom with an open fracture to her left lower leg. RN G stated, The floor was wet. I was mad because she [R24] didn't have a gait belt on, and she can be really impulsive. or even use a shower chair. When I was a CNA, I always dried them [residents] off thoroughly on a shower chair or bench and put footwear on them and a towel on the floor. RN G recalled when she completed a head-to-toe assessment upon entering the room, R24's feet were damp.On 9/17/25 at 10:48 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA D regarding expectations for assisting residents to complete a safe shower. CNA D stated, .instead of trying to do a transfer in the bathroom to get to their room, I get them all dry, their feet dry, get them clothed, their socks on, their shoes on [in the shower room]. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know you can't have an elderly person walking barefoot on a wet floor. Bare minimum for any resident, you shouldn't be walking anywhere, let alone on slippery floors, with bare feet.Review of a Nurses Note, dated 9/6/25 at 14:17 [2:17 PM] read, in part: .[R24 is now a 2-person full lift transfer. She ambulates with her wheelchair.Review of R24's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following order, initiated 9/4/25, upon re-admission to the facility: Oxycodone HCl Oral Tablet 5 MG (milligrams), give one table my mouth every 6 hours as needed for severe pain.R24 was administered oxycodone 26 times between 9/4/25 - 9/16/25 for pain management related to the left lower leg fractures and subsequent surgical intervention.Resident #25 (R25)Review of R25's EMR revealed initial admission to the facility 7/14/25 with diagnoses including bilateral primary osteoarthritis of the knees and abnormalities of gait and mobility. Review of R25's most recent MDS assessment, dated 7/22/25, revealed a BIMS score of 7, indicative of severe cognitive impairment.Review of R25's EMR revealed the following Incident Note written by RN G on 9/3/25 at 19:42 [7:42 PM]: Called to room by [CNA B] said that [R25] slipped and fell. When I arrived, resident was laying on the bathroom floor supine no footwear or gait belt or towel on floor. Shower chair in SE [southeast] corner of shower.Lower back and pelvic girdle and hip discomfort upon palpation. Called [physician] for V.O. [verbal order] to send to ER [emergency room].On 9/17/25 at 10:49 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA B who stated she overhead R25 had fallen in the shower while she was being assisted by CNA C. CNA B stated when she arrived at the scene of the fall, the water was running and only one wheel [out of four] was locked on the shower chair.On 9/17/25 at 2:46 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA C who confirmed she was assisting R25 at the time of her fall. CNA C explained she positioned R25's wheelchair near the shower chair to help her transfer. CNA C recalled, I tried to lock the shower chair, but I must have unlocked the wheels by mistake. I also forgot to put a towel on the ground. she didn't have any shoes on at the time. When CNA C was asked if the water was running at the time of the fall, she stated, Yes, it was pretty slippery. CNA C stated when R25 attempted to transfer, the shower chair slipped out for underneath her, causing her fall backward on the shower tile. CNA C confirmed R25 was not wearing a gait belt at the time of the fall.Review of R25's plan of care revealed the following intervention, initiated 8/21/25: Transferring: CGA [contact guard assist] with gait belt and a 2ww [2 wheeled walker] for stand-pivot transfers.Review of a Witness Statement written by CNA D on 9/3/25 at 6:30 PM read, in part: [CNA C] came out of her [R25's] room and told me she slid to the floor. I ran in the room and found [R25] sitting in pain on the floor, she told me the shower chair slid away. The wheels were NOT locked, the floor was wet, and shower running. She [R25] was naked with bare feet on a wet floor!On 9/17/25 at 2:01 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA D who verified she was the first one on the scene after CNA C notified her of the fall. CNA D recalled, When I got there, the water was running, her wheelchair was pushed out behind her, she [R25] was on the floor, the shower chair was in front of her with only one wheel locked. I was mortified.Review of the Root Cause Review, signed by the DON on 9/5/25 read, in part: Environmental/Equipment Factors: No gb [gait belt], no footwear, no locked wheels.Resident #26 (R26)Review of R26's EMR revealed initial admission to the facility 8/1/24 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease and repeated falls.Review of an Incident Summary submitted to the SA on 8/5/25 at 2:19 PM read, in part: [R26] was observed on the floor in her room at 0745 [7:45 AM] this am [morning]. [R26] was observed to have a moderate amount of dried blood around her head. [R26] was assisted into full lift sling and lifted to her bed. During the transfer to the bed [R26] began to complain of right hip pain. [R26] was taken to [acute care hospital] for evaluation. [R26] was noted to have a right femur fracture and L2 [lumbar] compression fracture at that time.Review of the Root Cause Review, signed by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 8/5/25 read, in part: Interventions/Corrections Implemented: bed alarm to alert staff when [R26] is getting out of bed.Review of R26's plan of care revealed the following intervention, initiated 8/5/25: [R26] uses a bed alarm. Please ensure proper place of alarm pad while [R26] is in bed or in her recliner.Review of an Incident Note written on 9/9/25 at 14:56 [2:56 PM] by RN I read, in part: RN responded to call light pulled out of wall in resident room. Upon entry into room resident was noted to be sitting on the floor with legs straight out in front of her, back against bed frame, left hand on floor supporting her upper body. She was sitting on her floor mat with grippy socks on, CNA was with her. Appears to have slid out of bed. Bed alarm was in place, however, was not on at time of fall.On 9/17/25 at 12:11 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA E who verified she first responded to R26's fall on 9/9/25. CNA E stated she was assisting with feeding in the dining room was she noticed R26's call light was going off. When she went to investigate, she found R26 on the floor with the pancake alarm at the foot of the bed. CNA E stated, When I got in there, I noticed that her [R26] bed alarm wasn't on. I think she coincidentally pulled the pancake alarm out of the wall on her way down. CNA E explained the bed alarms have a switch located on the side that allows them to be turned on or off. CNA E stated the CNA on the night shift who helped R26 to bed most likely forgot to turn it on. On 9/17/25 at 3:23 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON regarding recent falls at the facility. The DON stated it is expected all care planned interventions are in place. On 9/17/24 at 3:34 PM, an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and DON who understood the concerns related to the falls. Review of the facility policy, titled, Accidents and Supervision, reviewed 8/14/23, read, in part: The resident environment will remain as free of accident hazards as is possible. Each resident will receive adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. This includes: 1. Identifying hazard(s) and risk(s). 2. Evaluating and analyzing hazard(s) and risk(s). 3. Implementing interventions to reduce hazard(s) and risk(s).
Dec 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement revised care plan interventions for falls s...

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 revised care plan interventions for falls sustained by one Resident (#67) of three residents reviewed for falls. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for potential for additional falls and potential for subsequent injury. Findings include: On 12/2/24 at 12:30 PM, Resident #67 (R67) was observed on the 400 unit sitting in a recliner in the living room area. R67 had a tab alarm device placed on them (Device used to alert caregivers, should R67 attempt to rise from the recliner without assistance). Review of R67's medical record revealed admission to the facility on 5/1/24 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke-occurs when blood flow to the brain is blocked, or otherwise disrupted, causing brain tissue to die), aphasia (affects a person's ability to understand and/or express themselves), and dementia. Review of R67's Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment, dated 8/6/24, revealed R67 scored a 2/15 on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of R67's progress note, dated 6/22/24 at 1:00 PM, read in part, .upon entering room [R67] was observed laying on the floor perpendicular to the side of his bed with his head resting on the bottom of his bedside table .Resident does have 2 bruises to the top of right hand, right elbow is red, abdomen is reddened to the right middle side. Left knee is red, left crease of arm is red. Right side of right eye/head slightly red where resident was laying his head down on the end of his bedside table . Review of R67's progress note, dated 9/3/24 at 7:20 PM, read in part, Resident unwitnessed fall out of wheelchair found face down, facial trauma . Review of R67's progress note, dated 10/26/24 at 11:36 PM, read in part, .Fall was witnessed .TV room. Resident was reaching for item(s) at time of the fall .Fall Risk Score: 9 .Wheelchair was involved in fall. Wheelchair was not unlocked at time of fall .New. Location: Right knee. Pain score: 3 .Skin note: Right knee scab post fall Review of progress note, dated 12/02/24 at 1:49 PM, read in part, Had a fall on 10/26/24 and has a tab alarm for his chair and is to have staff keep eyes on him at all times. Uses a wheelchair for ambulation dependent on staff and has foot pedals . Review of R67's care plan, dated 5/1/24, read in part, .Focus: Safety: [R67's] is High risk for injury related to fall risk, Gait/balance problems, Poor communication/comprehension. [created on date 5/2/24] Goal: The resident will be free of falls through the review date [created on date 8/13/24]. Interventions/Tasks: Wheelchair and other assistive devices are in good repair. Remove malfunctioning equipment from use [created on 5/2/24]. [R67's] needs either non skid socks or shoes while up in .wheelchair [created on 5/17/24] . Further review of R67's care plan, dated 5/1/24, lacked additional interventions after R67 fell on 6/22/24, 9/3/24, and 10/26/24. On 12/4/24 at 8:35 AM, a review of R67's electronic medical record was conducted and revealed, a lack of post fall evaluation and fall risk evaluation on 6/22/24 and 9/3/24, and no documentation on the [NAME] or care plan to routinely check for placement and operation of R67's tab alarm. On 12/4/24 at 9:10 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) G who was asked if they knew when R67's tab alarm was added as a fall intervention and replied, I think it was about a month ago, maybe a little more, but I am not sure. On 12/04/24 at 12:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) who was asked about R67 and their frequent falls and replied, After each fall a new intervention should be added. Nursing is also required to complete a post fall and a new fall risk evaluation. The DON was then asked when R67's tab alarm was added and replied, I am not sure I would have to look. The DON reviewed R67's care plan and stated, The tab alarm should have been documented in the medical record and the guardian should have been made aware at the time it was implemented. The DON stated, There is a post fall checklist that nursing fills out. I will get you a copy. Review of policy titled, Fall Risk Assessment, dated 5/18/22, read in part, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to provide an environment that is free from accident hazards over which the facility has control, and provides supervision and assistive devices to each resident to prevent avoidable accidents. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The risk assessment will be completed by the nurse or designee upon, admission, quarterly, or when a significant change is identified .3. An At Risk for Falls care plan will be completed for each resident to address each item identified on the risk assessment and will be updated accordingly. 4. The At Risk for Falls care plan will include interventions, including adequate supervision, consistent with a resident's needs, goals, and current standards of practice in order to reduce the risk of an accident. 5. Monitor the effectiveness of the care plan interventions, and modify the interventions as necessary, in accordance with current standards of practice. Review of policy titled, Post Fall Assessment and Intervention, dated 7/10/17, read in part, Purpose: To provide an analysis of each resident fall in an attempt to prevent future falls or decrease injuries related to falls. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. The DON or designee will conduct the fall report and all witness statements, develop an initial summary report, and ensure an intervention was placed on the care plan . Review of document titled, Falls Checklist, dated 5/15/24, revealed the following: Resident assessment . All falls must have an intervention put in the care plan . Complete a Fall risk assessment . Review of policy titled, Alarms, dated 5/20/22, read in part, Policy Statement: To provide staff with guidelines on proper usage and application of alarms for use with residents. Policy Interpretation and Implementation .2. Place on CNA [NAME] and on nursing Care plans and state 'Check for placement and operation every shift.' .
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sanitary storage of respiratory equipment for two Residents (#19 and #20) of two residents reviewed for respiratory se...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sanitary storage of respiratory equipment for two Residents (#19 and #20) of two residents reviewed for respiratory services. Findings include: Resident #20 (R20) Review of R20's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed initial admission to the facility on 2/27/23 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and Parkinson's Disease. Review of R20's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/3/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15, indicative of intact cognition. Review of R20's EMR revealed the following pharmacy order: Ipatropium-Albuterol Solution 0.5-2.5 mg/mL (milligrams/milliliter): inhale orally two times a day (between 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM and again between 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM) for wheezing. On 12/2/24 at 11:36 AM, R20 was observed sleeping in a wheelchair in her private room. A nebulizer (a medical device which turns liquid medication into a very fine mist that can be inhaled through a face mask or mouthpiece) was observed assembled and stored on top of a dresser. Additional observations of the assembled nebulizer stored on top of the dresser were made on: 12/3/24 at 8:19 AM, 12/3/24 at 12:12 PM, and 12/3/24 at 3:36 PM. Condensation was again observed in the nebulizer cup on 12/3/24 at 3:36 PM. Resident #19 (R19) Review of R19's EMR revealed initial admission to the facility on 9/27/23 with diagnoses including hypoxemia (low levels of oxygen in the blood) and congestive heart failure (CHF). Review of R19's most recent MDS assessment, dated 9/24/24, revealed R19's cognitive skills for daily decision making as, severely impaired. Review of 19's EMR revealed the following order: 1-3 L [liters] of Oxygen as needed to maintain SpO2 [oxygen saturation] above 90%. On 12/2/24 at 12:35 PM, R19 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in a common area, receiving supplemental oxygen via nasal cannula from an oxygen concentrator. A portable oxygen tank was observed affixed to R19's wheelchair with additional oxygen tubing, not in use, hanging on the back of the wheelchair. A protective storage bag was not observed. On 12/03/24 at 9:13 AM, oxygen tubing was again observed hanging on the back of R19's wheelchair, not in use. A protective storage bag was not observed. Oxygen tubing resting on top R19's bed, not in use, was observed on the following dates: 12/3/24 at 10:33 AM, 12/3/24 at 11:59 AM, and 12/4/24 at 10:15 AM. On 12/4/24 at 10:17 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) M regarding expectations with respiratory equipment storage. LPN M stated following each nebulizer treatment, the equipment should be rinsed and laid out to dry. LPN M stated after drying, the nebulizer equipment should be stored in its designated case or bag for infection control purposes. LPN M stated oxygen tubing and nasal cannulas should be stored in a bag when not in used. LPN M observed R19's oxygen tubing stored on top the bed with this Surveyor and stated, There should be a storage bag. On 12/4/24 at 10:48 AM, an interview was conducted with Clinical Care Coordinator (CCC) B regarding respiratory equipment storage expectations. CCC B indicated oxygen tubing should be dated and stored in a bag when not in use and nebulizer equipment should be cleaned after each medication administration. CCC B confirmed the floor staff required additional education to meet these expectations. Review of facility policy titled, Oxygen Use, revised 3/1/17, read, in part: .when the nasal cannula/tubing are not in use, place them in a Ziploc bag attached to the oxygen concentrator . Review of facility policy titled, Administering Medication through a Small Volume (Handheld) Nebulizer, reviewed 10/12, read, in part: .rinse the nebulizer equipment according to facility protocol, or; rinse with hot water, allow to drive on a paper towel .when equipment is completely dry, store in a plastic bag with the resident's name and date on it .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

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 provide adaptive dining equipment for one 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 provide adaptive dining equipment for one Resident (#27) of one resident reviewed for nutrition. This deficient practice resulted in increased difficulty with independent eating. Findings include: Resident #27 (R27) Review of R27's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed initial admission to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, muscle weakness, and limitations of activity due to disability. Review of R27's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/10/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10/15, indicative of a moderate cognitive impairment. On 12/2/24 at 11:53 AM, R27 was observed eating their lunch meal in bed. R27 was utilizing a stainless-steel fork and demonstrated difficulties with independent feeding due to a noticeable tremor of his right hand. Noodles were observed spilling onto R27's chest due to the tremor. On 12/2/24 at 3:22 PM, a phone interview was conducted with R27's Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) O regarding self-feeding. DPOA O verified R27 had a progressive tremor in his right hand. DPOA O stated R27's ability to self-feed had improved since receiving special silverware from the facility. Review of R27's Plan of Care read, [R27] receives built-up/curved utensils for his meals. Review of R27's Tray Card read, Equipment: Built-up Utensils (1 each), curved spoon. On 12/4/24 at 8:15 AM, R27 was observed eating the breakfast meal in bed which consisted of eggs, waffles, and oatmeal. R27 was observed with standard stainless-steel cutlery and demonstrated an uncoordinated trajectory to his mouth. R27 was observed appearing to become frustrated and eventually resorted to eating the waffle with his hand. On 12/4/24 at 8:17 AM, an interview with conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) L regarding R27's adaptive equipment needs. CNA L verified R27 was supposed to receive adaptive utensils with every meal. CNA L was unsure if R27 received the prescribed adaptive utensils with his breakfast meal. On 12/4/24 at 8:22 AM, an interview was conducted with [NAME] N regarding resident adaptive equipment needs. [NAME] N indicated equipment needs are located on the respective resident's tray card. When asked if R27 received the built-up utensils and curved utensils noted on his tray card, [NAME] N was observed retrieving them from a kitchen drawer. [NAME] N verified the cutlery was never placed on R27's meal tray. On 12/4/24 at approximately 10:55 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding adaptive equipment expectations. The DON verified residents should receive adaptive equipment per their plan of care. Review of facility policy titled, Adaptive Eating Devices, undated, read, in part: .Adaptive devices are available for those needing them . Adaptive devices in use are . provided for each meal. Adaptive devices are noted on each resident's diet card .
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain infection control practice during dressing changes for one Resident (#46) of three residents reviewed for wound care....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain infection control practice during dressing changes for one Resident (#46) of three residents reviewed for wound care. Findings Include: Resident #46 (R46) On 12/2/24 at 12:42 PM, during an interview, Registered Nurse (RN) R stated R46 stage II pressure injury which was in-house acquired. RN R stated she believed it to be from R46 having periods of prolonged sitting. On 12/3/24 at 2:30 PM wound care was observed performed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) S for the pressure injury located on the coccyx of R46. During this observation LPN S failed to perform any hand hygiene after taking off her gloves following removal of the old dressing. LPN S applied new gloves on her hands and failed to perform any hand hygiene before cleansing and applying the new dressing. Immediately following the observation of wound care, an interview was completed with LPN S who acknowledged the concerns and indicated she was not aware hand hygiene needed to be performed between removal of old dressings and application of new dressings. On 12/4/24 at 1:51 PM, during an interview, the concern was reviewed with Clinical Care Coordinator (CCC) RN B regarding hand hygiene between old dressing and new dressing being applied. RN B acknowledged lack of hand hygiene concern at which time the facility policy addressing the concern was requested. On 12/4/24 at 2:00 PM the Hand Hygiene policy provided, dated 2/15/24 was reviewed in the presence of the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and read as follows: . All staff will perform hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection . . 1. Staff will perform hand hygiene when indicated, using proper technique consistent with accepted standards of practice. 2. Hand hygiene is indicated and will be performed under the conditions listed in, but not limited to, the attached hand hygiene table. . 6. Additional considerations: a. The use of gloves does not replace hand hygiene. If your task requires gloves, perform hand hygiene prior to donning gloves, and immediately after removing gloves. . After handling contaminated objects . Before applying and after removing personal protective equipment (PPE), including gloves . Before and after handling clean or soiled dressings, linens, etc. After handling items potentially contaminated with blood, bodily fluids, secretions, or excretions . When during resident care, moving from a contaminated body site, to a clean body site . After review of the policy, NHA acknowledged the hand hygiene concern.
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 store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This deficient p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This deficient practice has the potential to result in food borne illness among any and all 77 residents of the facility. Findings include: On 12/2/24 at approximately 11:49 AM, observations in the Oak dining room were conducted. A stainless steel pan was observed sitting on an ice base, filled with a green liquid like substance. The temperature of the food was measured and found to be 48°F. An interview with Food Service Worker (FSW) I was conducted at this time, who stated the product was pureed salad. FSW I was requested to measure the temperature of the food with a facility thermometer. FSW I removed a thermometer from an adjacent drawer, and without any attempt to sanitize the probe of the thermometer, placed it in the food. FSW I was observed to push the thermometer stem to the bottom of the steel pan and reported a temperature of 39°F. FSW I was then asked to retract the thermometer somewhat so the temperature of the center of the product could be measured accurately. FSW I then reported a temperature of 48°F. When asked if the temperature of the product had been measured before service had begun, FSW I stated Yes. FSW I then stated the temperature was 37°F about 20 minutes prior. FSW I stated he was not aware the temperature of the foods was to be measured in the middle of the product and to protect against the tip of the thermometer from coming into contact with the bottom of the pan which was in contact with the underlying ice. When asked why the probe of the thermometer had not been sanitized prior to placing it into the food, FSW I stated the thermometer had been sanitized prior to placing it in the drawer, but then acknowledge that the probe of the thermometer was not protected from any contamination in the drawer. FSW I failed to implement any corrective action related to the food's temperature. On 12/2/24 at approximately 12:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Dietary Manager (DM) H. The observations above were discussed and explained that no corrective action had been implemented related to the food being above the maximum holding temperature of 41°F. DM H stated that the food should be placed in the refrigerator to cool it down. No documentation of temperature demonstrating the food was in compliance with temperature below 41°F was provided. The FDA Food Code states: 3-501.16 Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Hot and Cold Holding. (A) Except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, or when time is used as the public health control as specified under §3-501.19, and except as specified under (B) and in (C ) of this section, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD shall be maintained: (1) At 57°C (135°F) or above, except that roasts cooked to a temperature and for a time specified in 3-401.11(B) or reheated as specified in 3-403.11(E) may be held at a temperature of 54°C (130°F) or above;P or (2) At 5ºC (41ºF) or less On 12/3/24 at approximately 8:41 AM observations were made of the morning meal in the Pine unit. Wiping cloths were observed to be stored in a red bucket, adjacent to the food preparation/service area. FSW J was requested to demonstrate the process of ensuring adequate sanitizing chemicals were present in the solution with the wiping cloths. FSW J removed a short length of QT 40 test strips, used to measure the concentration of quaternary ammonium (quat) in solution. FSW J swished the strip in the solution for approximately two seconds, removed it and read the concentration at more than 400 PPM (parts per million). FSW J was then requested to review the test strip package for directions for proper of the use of the strips. FSW J stated he had not be instructed to hold the strip still, in the solution for ten seconds before comparing the color of the strip to the package to determine the concentration. FSW J stated the only part he had been instructed on was the temperature of the water. The FDA Food Code states: 4-602.11 Equipment Food-Contact Surfaces and Utensils. (A)EQUIPMENT FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES and UTENSILS shall be cleaned: (5) At any time during the operation when contamination may have occurred.
Jan 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

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 investigate injuries of unknown source for one Reside...

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 investigate injuries of unknown source for one Resident (R68) of one resident reviewed for abuse. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for unidentified abuse. Findings include: Resident #68 (R68) was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, depression, and others. R68 had a left below knee amputation and required assistance from staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed on 11/21/23. R68 scored '00' on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) examination, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented R68 experienced delusions and wandering behavior. Care plans for R68 included plans of care for impaired cognitive function, impaired decision making and depression, and actual psychosocial well-being problem. On 1/30/24 at 8:57 a.m., R68 was observed sleeping in a recliner in the lounge. R68's upper extremities were visible. An area on the left forearm appeared to be scar tissue formation that presented as a stretched, pink-white colored area with puckered edges. A review of R68's progress notes from 11/1/23 through 1/30/24 revealed entries regarding areas of skin impairment. On 1/4/24 at 10:44 p.m., the documentation noted Right toe - big toe two pinpoint open areas. On 12/23/23 at 10:44 a.m., a note was entered for skin tear on LUE (left upper extremity) anterior forearm noted, wound bed red skin flap in c-shape and 50% intact. Cleansed with saline and applied bandaid to cover . An entry was made on 11/6/23 at 9:44 p.m. that documented: .left knee (front) - small scabbed area on knee . A progress note of 11/2/23 at 9:23 p.m. read .skin is not intact. The following have been noted: right knee (front) has scabbed area .the skin issue is not new . On 1/30/24 at 9:39 a.m., the Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) were asked to provide all incident reports for R68. The incident reports provided were for R68's falls that occurred In July, September, and November of 2023. No incident reports were provided for the areas of skin impairment documented in R68's medical record. The DON was interviewed on 1/30/24 at 11:25 a.m. about incident/accidents, investigation, and reporting. The DON confirmed there were no further incident reports for R68. When queried regarding the expectation for incident report completion, the DON said the policy was for incident report completion for all incidents or accidents and provided examples that included falls, burns, and any skin impairment. The DON stated the procedure would be for incident report completion by the nurse on the floor, then interdisciplinary team (IDT) review at the next morning meeting. When asked about incident reports for R68's skin impairments, including the skin tear identified on 12/23/23, the DON replied, I didn't even know she had a skin tear. The DON reviewed R68's progress notes. The DON agreed R68 was cognitively impaired and unable to reliably verbalize the source of the injuries. The DON defined injury of unknown source as Injuries like bruises or skin tears that are not witnessed. The DON said the facility conducted investigations into injuries of unknown source even if it doesn't need to be reported to the State. The DON confirmed she did not have any investigations, witness statements, or incident reports for the skin tear, open area, or scabbed areas for R68. The DON agreed that the root-cause of the skin impairments had not been determined and there were no care plans regarding R68's risk for skin impairments other than pressure injuries. An undated policy titled 'Skin Injuries (name of facility)' read in part It is the policy of this facility to complete timely incident reporting of all resident skin injuries. Thorough investigations will occur for any suspicious skin injuries or injuries of unknown cause . The Director of Nursing or designee will be responsible to review the report and investigate. Additional actions will be required if the injury is deemed to be suspicious in nature .Witness statements will be required by staff involved if a skin injury is of unknown nature or is suspicious .The residents care plan shall be updated with appropriate interventions for treatment or for avoidance of future injuries.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

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 weights were obtained accurately, monitored we...

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 weights were obtained accurately, monitored weekly, and nutritional assessments were completed monthly for one Resident (#31) of two Residents reviewed for weight loss. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for further significant weight loss. Findings include: On 1/30/24 at 8:00 AM, Resident #31 (R31) was observed in the dining room of the 300 unit sitting at a table with one other resident. R31 had a cup of coffee in front of her. R31 did not have any food in front of her and she held her cup of coffee sipping it for approximately 15 minutes. After R31 was finished with her coffee she had a small bowl of oatmeal and a spoon. R31 ate very slowly while the other residents at the table were receiving assistance with their meal. R31 was not observed to eat any additional food at this time just her coffee and oatmeal. Review of R31's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia and depression. A review of the 11/28/23 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed she had scored 4/15 on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating impaired cognition and was set up and clean up assistance and independent with eating. Review of R31's care plan, date printed 1/30/24, read in part, Nutrition: [R31] has not been eating consistently well, and she has lost a large amount of weight recently. She had difficulty chewing/swallowing .She had a history of self-feeding difficulty .She is at risk for weight/appetite changes .needs supervision and assistance at times . Review of R31's weight log revealed the following: 1/1/24 - 133.0 pounds (%-17.19 / -27.6 pounds x 1 month -significant weight loss) 12/2/23 - 160.6 pounds (likely inaccurate weight not rechecked) 11/24/23 - 133.0 pounds (%-9.77 / - 14.4 pounds x 6 months - insidious weight loss) 5/16/23 - 139.0 pounds (%-5.7 / -8.4 pounds x 2 days - significant weight loss) 5/14/23 - 147.4 pounds - R31's weigh log revealed she was not receiving weekly weights as indicated in her nutritional assessments. Review of R31's nutritional assessment, dated 10/26/23, revealed an average food intake of 51-75%, frequently accepts snacks, and level of intake likely suboptimal (not meeting) to meet estimated needs and would benefit from resuming oral nutritional supplement. Summary revealed weekly weights. Review of R31's nutritional assessment, dated 11/27/23, revealed an average food intake of 26-50%, snack acceptance none since readmit, and level of intake likely suboptimal to meet estimated needs and would benefit from resuming oral nutritional supplement. Summary revealed weekly weights. Review of R31's order, start date 11/28/23, read in part, Magic cup, two times a day, give at 1400 [2:00 PM] and 2000 [8:00 PM] . Review of the last nutritional note titled weight gain/loss for R31, dated 11/28/23, revealed the following: . 131-159 lb IBW [ideal body weight] range 11/25/23 CBW [current body weight] 133.2 lb 10/26/23 30 days 149.8 lb (-16.6 lb / 11.08%) 09/01/23 85 days 147.0 lb (-13.8 lb / 9.39%) 05/31/23 178 days 145.6 lb (-12.4 lb / 8.52%) sig wt [significant weight] loss unplanned & unavoidable .& diet downgrade - There were no nutritional notes titled weight gain/loss or further assessments since the 11/27 and 11/28/23 nutritional notes related to her significant weight loss. On 1/31/24 at 12:00 PM, and interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). The DON was asked if the dietitian should have a follow up nutritional assessment regarding the significant weight loss note on 11/27/23 and replied, Yes. He should have put one in for the month of December as a follow up to the significant weight loss. The DON was asked about weekly weights and deferred the question to the dietitian. The DON was asked about R31's approximately 28-pound weight gain value (weight taken on 12/2/23) and replied, The weight should have been retaken the same day. I do not know why she was not. The NHA also agreed that the dietitian should be making monthly notes on residents with weight loss. On 1/31/24 at 12:15 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Dietitian (RD) A. RD A was asked why he did not make a follow up nutritional assessment for R31 and her continued weight loss and replied, I guess I have not been doing that. RD A agreed that there should have been a follow up note. RD A was asked about the frequency of weights for R31 and replied, Everyone is weighed the first day of each month. RD A was asked about the weekly weights indicated in R31's nutritional assessments and replied, I guess I should have put an order in for weekly weights. On 1/31/24 at 2:20 PM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) M who was asked what he does if he gets a resident weight that is five or more/less than the prior weight obtained and replied, I would reweight the resident right away. On 1/31/24 at 2:25 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) O who was asked what she does if she gets a resident weight that is five or more/less than the prior weight obtained and replied, Well you would reweight the resident on that same day. Review of facility policy titled, Weight Assessment and Intervention, dated 5/29/18, revealed, . 3. Any weight change of 5# (3# if under 100 lbs.) or more since the last weight assessment will be retaken the same day for confirmation. If the weight is verified, nursing will immediately notify the CDM [certified dietary manager]. The CDM will communicate wt. (weight) changes monthly to the dietician. 4. The CDM will review the unit Weight Records to follow individual weight trends over time . Review of facility policy titled, Significant Weight Loss, undated, read in part, e. Place the resident/client on weekly weights for one month and review these weights weekly .
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the licensed pharmacist reported recommendations and medicat...

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 the licensed pharmacist reported recommendations and medication regimen irregularities to the attending physician, Medical Director, and the Director of Nursing for Two Residents (R68 and R8) of five residents reviewed for medication regimen reviews and recommendations by the licensed pharmacist. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for clinically significant adverse medication consequences affecting all 75 residents in the facility. Findings include: Resident #68 (R68) was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The licensed pharmacist conducted a review of R68's medication regimen on 12/28/23. The pharmacist documented in R68's medical record in part, Potential irregularity found. See report . There was no pharmacist report found in the medical record. Resident #8 (R8) was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The pharmacist conducted a review of R68's medication regimen on 10/25/23. The pharmacist documented in R8's medical record in part, Potential irregularity found. See report . There was no pharmacist report found in the medical record. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 1/31/24 at 2:22 p.m. The DON was asked where the pharmacist's medication regimen review reports were located. The DON said the facility received the pharmacist's recommendations for the last quarter of 2023 on 1/29/24. The DON confirmed the pharmacist completed the recommendations each month, but the pharmacy failed to deliver the recommendations to the attending physician, Medical Director, and Director of Nursing for the months of October, November, and December 2023. A policy titled 'The [NAME] Drug Regimen Review (DRR) Process' dated 12/14/16 read in part Pharmacy will perform a DRR on each resident no less than monthly . The consultant pharmacist will deliver the recommendations .
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed in accordance with ...

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 hand hygiene was performed in accordance with accepted standards of practice and facility policy during the provision of wound care and medication administration for two Residents (R8 and R376) of three residents reviewed for infection prevention and control. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Findings include: Resident #8 Resident #8 (R8) was admitted to the facility 5/9/16 with diagnoses of cardiomyopathy (a disease of the heart), amputation of the right lower extremity, peripheral vascular disease, and others. R8 developed vascular wounds on his left lateral calf and left lateral ankle. The treatment order contained the directive to cleanse both wounds with Dakin's solution, a hypochlorite (bleach) solution used to treat skin and tissue infections. A review of R8's medical record revealed the resident had received two courses of antibiotic therapy in January due to bacterial infections in the wounds. On 1/30/24 at 3:04 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse L (LPN L) was observed completing dressing changes to R8's wounds. LPN L washed her hands and put on gloves before beginning the dressing changes. The top wound was uncovered to expose a large vascular wound on the left lateral calf with evident vascular discoloration extending from below the knee to the ankle circumferentially around the entire leg. LPN L changed gloves twice while treating the wound but did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes. LPN L did not remove the soiled gloves or perform hand hygiene before moving to the other wound. LPN L revealed the wound on R8's left lateral ankle using the same gloves used on the calf wound. When finished with the wound care tasks, LPN L gathered the refuse bag that was utilized for the soiled dressings and placed it on the floor. LPN L completed the treatments and dressing changes to both of R8's wounds without performing hand hygiene until after the treatments were completed and both wounds were dressed. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 1/31/24 at 2:22 p.m. The DON said the facility expectations for completing dressing changes were contained in the policy for pressure injury and produced an undated policy titled 'Pressure Ulcer Treatment.' The policy contained a dressing change procedure and read in part: 5. Wash hands and apply gloves. 6. Remove old dressing, remove gloves, and wash hands. 7. Apply clean gloves. 9. Apply dressing/treatment . 10. Discard gloves and wash hands. 11. Place treatment bag in the biohazard waste container if indicated. Resident #376 Resident #376 (R376) was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cellulitis (a bacterial infection of the skin) of the left lower extremity, Bacteremia (bacteria in the blood), gangrene (death of tissue), and others. R376 was receiving prescribed intravenous antibiotic due to the infections. During a medication administration observation on 1/31/24 at 9:10 a.m., Registered Nurse N (RN N) was observed to be eating potato chips from a bag of potato chips on top of the medication cart. RN N disposed of the empty bag when she had finished consuming the potato chips but did not wash or sanitize her hands. RN N commenced emptying unit-dose packets of medications for R376 into a plastic medication dispensing cup. When the medications were in the cup RN N placed her ungloved and uncleansed finger in the medication cup and touched the medications. RN N said pharmacy dispensed additional medication tablets in the packet to meet the dose prescribed by the physician. RN N donned gloves and began rummaging through the garbage to obtain the empty medication packet to verify the dosage and number of tablets that had been dispensed. After searching through the refuse, RN N removed the gloves and picked up the medication dispensing cup from the med cart without performing hand hygiene after glove removal. RN N administered the medications to R376 without washing or sanitizing her hands. A policy titled 'Medication Administration Guidelines' dated 4/30/2020 did not contain hand hygiene expectations during medication administration. During the interview with the DON on 1/31/24 at 2:22 p.m., the DON confirmed concerns with breaches of infection control practices with dressing changes and medication administration. When asked why the nurses did not adhere to standards of practice for hand hygiene during medication administration and dressing changes, the DON shook her head and stated, We have a lot of work to do. An undated policy titled 'The [NAME] Isolation - Categories of Transmission Based Precautions Policy' was reviewed and read in part: Standard Precautions shall always be used when caring for residents regardless of their suspected or confirmed infection status. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations for Standard Precautions and Hand Hygiene documents in part: Healthcare facilities should require healthcare personnel to perform hand hygiene in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. Hand hygiene is an essential element of Standard Precautions. Standard Precautions are intended to be applied to the care of all patients in all healthcare settings, regardless of the suspected or confirmed presence of an infectious agent. Implementation of Standard Precautions constitutes the primary strategy for the prevention of healthcare-associated transmission of infectious agents among patients and healthcare personnel. Standard Precautions include a group of infection prevention practices that apply to all patients, regardless of suspected or confirmed infection status, in any setting in which healthcare is delivered. These include: hand hygiene . Standard Precautions are also intended to protect patients by ensuring that healthcare personnel do not carry infectious agents to patients on their hands .Healthcare personnel should use an alcohol-based hand rub or wash with soap and water for the following clinical indications: immediately before touching a patient, after touching a patient or the patient's immediate environment . after contact with environmental contaminants . before and after eating food . after contact with blood, body fluids, or contaminated surfaces . immediately after glove removal . ( CDC's Core Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Safe Healthcare Delivery in All Settings | Infection Control | CDC; Hand Hygiene Guidance | Hand Hygiene | CDC; Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings (2007) (cdc.gov).
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to honor resident's rights and provide a dignified dining experience for four Residents (R45, R6, R68, and R22) of four resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to honor resident's rights and provide a dignified dining experience for four Residents (R45, R6, R68, and R22) of four residents reviewed for dignity while dining. This deficient practice resulted in the disrespectful treatment of residents and the potential for avoidable weight loss, decreased socialization, and feelings of frustration and helplessness. On 1/30/24 at 12:59 p.m., Resident #45 (R45) was observed to be sleeping at one of the dining room tables during the noon meal on the 200-unit. R45's head was tilted fully-forward with his chin on his chest and a long string of saliva flowing from R45's mouth. An untouched plate of food was in front of R45. Registered Nurse K (RN K) was eating yogurt while sitting directly across the table from R45. RN K was not socializing, engaging, or interacting with the residents sitting at the table. Certified Nursing Assistant J (CNA J) was observed sitting at a table with other residents while eating a plate of food on a facility-issued tray. CNA J was intermittently taking a bite of food from the plate in front of her using her fingers, then giving Resident #22 (R22) a bite of food from a plate in front of R22. CNA J was not interacting or speaking with R22. CNA J was eating from her own plate while assisting R22 to eat without washing or sanitizing her hands. At another dining table, Residents #6 and #68 (R6 and R68) were sleeping with untouched plates of food in front of them. Certified Nursing Assistant I (CNA I) was at the table adjacent to R6 and R68 eating a plate of food on a facility-issued tray. Staff were not supervising, encouraging, or assisting residents to eat. When staff noticed the surveyor observing the dining room, CNA I picked up the plate of food she had been eating from and disposed of the remainder of the food on the plate. CNA I awakened R45 and began feeding the resident while standing over him. CNA I did not interact or converse with R45. RN K disposed of the yogurt container and exited the dining area without supervising or assisting any of the residents. CNA J stopped consuming food from the plate in front of her and focused on feeding R22 but continued without speaking or interacting with R22. The Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 1/31/24 at 11:06 a.m. regarding Residents Rights. The NHA said the Michigan Department of Community Health's (MDCH) booklet Know Your Rights is reviewed with each resident and/or responsible party (RP) as part of the admission packet when residents are admitted to the facility. An admission packet was examined and contained the booklet referenced by the NHA. The booklet read in part: You have the right to receive necessary nursing, medical and social services to reach and maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and social well-being.You have the right to adequate and proper care. An undated policy titled 'Meal Service and Distribution' was reviewed and read in part: 4. Positioning and assistance at mealtimes must be appropriate for residents' needs. 5. Residents' meals are distributed promptly with supervision as needed by Nursing staff. A policy dated 12/27/2022 titled 'Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity' was reviewed and read in part: It is the practice of this facility to protect and promote resident rights and treat each resident with respect and dignity as well as care for each resident in a manner and in an environment, that maintains or enhances resident's quality of life. 1. All staff members are involved in providing care to residents to promote and maintain resident dignity and respect resident rights. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 1/31/24 at 2:22 p.m. When questioned regarding the expectations of staff duties in the dining room during resident meals, the DON said staff is expected to assist and supervise residents during mealtimes. When asked if staff is expected to eat their personal meals at the table with residents during resident meals, the DON said staff had a break room to consume their meals and stated, We don't allow them to take a break during mealtimes because resident's need assistance - It's the expectation they don't take a break during resident mealtimes.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordan...

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 store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by: 1. Failing to ensure adequate and proper hand washing fixtures in two of four satellite kitchens. 2. Failing to ensure proper cooling procedures were followed for cooked food, cooled and stored in the walk in freezer. 3. Failing to maintain hot food at the proper temperature during holding on the steam table. 4. Failing to provide back flow protection on a hose connection in the kitchen. 5. Failing to provide proper back flow protection on two waste lines serving food preparation sinks in the kitchen. These deficient practices have the potential to result in food borne illness among any and all 78 residents of the facility. Findings include: 1. On 1/29/24 between 1:15 PM and 2:30 PM, initial observations were made of the main kitchen and four satellite kitchens. The hand sinks in the Pine and Elm units' kitchens were activated to wash hands. The installed faucets were electronically activated by motion of the hands near/under the goose neck spout. The water temperature was found to be cold and the time the faucet remained on was less than ten seconds at each faucet. On 1/30/24 between 7:15 AM and 8:30 AM, observations were made during the morning meal. All four satellite kitchens were observed and each of the hand sinks were used to wash this surveyor's hands. All four sinks were observed to be motion activated with the temperature of the water controlled by mixing valves under the sink. No manual controls were available. In both the Pine and Elm units, the water provided by the faucet continued to shut off during the washing process, at times failing to return water flow for more than ten seconds. The water being discharged for hand washing was measured with a probe thermometer to reach a maximum of 66°F and 59°F respectively during the hand washing process. On 1/30/24 at 7:55 AM an interview with cook C was conducted related to the hand wash sink. [NAME] C stated that hot water was rarely available at the sink used by the cooks in the kitchen. At 8:10 AM an interview with [NAME] D was conducted related to the sink used for hand washing. [NAME] D stated the same, that hot water rarely was produced from the hand sink faucet. On 1/30/24 at approximately 10:20 AM, an interview with Environmental Services Director (ESD) H was conducted related to the satellite kitchen hand sinks. ESD H stated the facility has had continuing problems with the sinks and the mixing valves controlling the water temperatures. ESD H also stated the electronic motion activated faucets were problematic and was of the understanding that type of faucet was required by law. ESD H stated the facility would begin replacing the faucets with manual controls to ensure proper flow and tempered water was provided for food service staff. The FDA Food Code 2017 states: 5-202.12 Handwashing Sink, Installation. (A) A HANDWASHING SINK shall be equipped to provide water at a temperature of at least 38°C (100°F) through a mixing valve or combination faucet. Pf (B) A steam mixing valve may not be used at a HANDWASHING SINK. (C) A self-closing, slow-closing, or metering faucet shall provide a flow of water for at least 15 seconds without the need to reactivate the faucet. 2. On 1/29/24 at approximately 2:15 PM, during the initial observations, the walk in freezer in the main kitchen was observed to have many two gallon Lexan containers with left over foods. An interview with Chef B was conducted at this time and asked about cooling procedures and documentation of the same. Chef B pointed to a clip board and stated the documentation for cooling was on the cooling log sheet. Three full containers, one labeled Taco Meat dated 1/24; one labeled beef Burgundy dated 1/29; and one labeled sausage peps dated 1/8 were inventoried on the shelf in the freezer. A review of the cooling log sheet indicated there was not any evidence these three foods were cooled and documented as meeting cooling criteria. On 1/30/24 at 8:55 AM the same observation was made of the freezer, with the three above mentioned containers of food remaining on the shelf. At 9:00 AM, an interview was conducted with Chef B who verified that all cooled foods in the freezer, should follow the defined cooling procedure and be documented on the cooling log. 3. On 1/30/24 at approximately 8:45 AM, observations were made of the morning meal service. A container of food being held on the steam table in Oak unit was identified as pureed Sausage by [NAME] D. The temperature of the sausage was measured using a metal stem probe thermometer and found to be 117°-124°F. [NAME] D was requested to measure the temperature of the food, using a facility thermometer, and reported a temperature of 122°F. The FDA Food Code 2017 states: 3-501.16 Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Hot and Cold Holding. (A) Except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, or when time is used as the public health control as specified under §3-501.19, and except as specified under ¶ (B) and in ¶ (C ) of this section, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD shall be maintained: (1) At 57°C (135°F) or above, except that roasts cooked to a temperature and for a time specified in ¶ 3-401.11 4. On 1/29/24 at approximately 1:45 PM, observations were conducted of the main kitchen. At this time a green garden type hose, with a hand sprayer affixed to the end, was observed connected to a dual water line, with a Y connection, combining the two into one for the green hose and terminating with a hand held sprayer. the sprayer was lying in one of the sinks of the three compartment sink which was directly adjacent. The two water lines were identified as ½ copper pipes providing a hot and cold water source and located on the wall behind the cooking stove. No back flow prevention device was connected to the water lines. At this time, an interview was conducted with Chef B who acknowledged the presence and use of the hose. Chef B stated the hose was used for filling the steamer equipment located in close proximity to the hose. Chef B was unaware of the need for backflow protection on the hose and stated it had been that way since he had begun working, which was about a year. 5. On 1/30/24 at approximately 2:45 PM, observations were made in the main kitchen with Dietary Manager ((DM) A. Two stainless steel sinks were identified by DM A as sinks used to wash and process foods, including produce. The drain lines from both of these sinks were observed to be connected directly to the sanitary sewer line without the benefit of an air break. This exposes the food preparation sinks to potential back flow or back siphonage of contaminated waste water from the sanitary sewer lines. DM A stated, related to this issue, I was told this was grandfathered in because of the age of the building. The FDA Food Code 2017 states: 5-202.13 Backflow Prevention, Air Gap. An air gap between the water supply inlet and the flood level rim of the PLUMBING FIXTURE, EQUIPMENT, or nonFOOD EQUIPMENT shall be at least twice the diameter of the water supply inlet and may not be less than 25 mm (1 inch). 5-202.14 Backflow Prevention Device, Design Standard. A backflow or backsiphonage prevention device installed on a water supply system shall meet American Society of Sanitary Engineering (A.S.S.E.) standards for construction, installation, maintenance, inspection, and testing for that specific application and type of device. 5-203.14 Backflow Prevention Device, When Required. A PLUMBING SYSTEM shall be installed to preclude backflow of a solid, liquid, or gas contaminant into the water supply system at each point of use at the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, including on a hose [NAME] if a hose is attached or on a hose [NAME] if a hose is not attached and backflow prevention is required by LAW, by: (A) Providing an air gap as specified under § 5-202.13 P; or (B) Installing an APPROVED backflow prevention device as specified under § 5-202.14. P 5-402.11 Backflow Prevention. (A) Except as specified in ¶¶ (B), (C), and (D) of this section, a direct connection may not exist between the SEWAGE system and a drain originating from EQUIPMENT in which FOOD, portable EQUIPMENT, or UTENSILS are placed. P
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee met at least quarterly with the required committee members. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee met at least quarterly with the required committee members. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for ineffective coordination of medical care and delayed resolution of facility issues, placing all 75 residents in the facility at risk for quality care concerns. Findings include: During an interview on 1/31/24 at 2:40 PM, the QAPI process was discussed with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). The NHA stated the QAPI team met at least quarterly and as needed to coordinate and evaluate quality assessment program activities. The attendance documents were reviewed for the 1/20/23, 7/20/23, 9/8/23, 9/22/23, 12/17/23, and 1/25/24 meetings. No attendance documentation was found between February and June. The NHA has assumed her role recently and could not speak to the attendance during that time frame. Review of facility policy titled, QAPI Plan, dated 11/8/23, read in part, .QAA Committee: .Committee meetings are held on a quarterly basis at a minimum. The committee shall maintain written meeting agendas, minutes, attendance records, and QAPI program progress reports .
Aug 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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to communicate a change of condition notifications per facility policy and standards of practice for one Resident (R3) of three residents revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to communicate a change of condition notifications per facility policy and standards of practice for one Resident (R3) of three residents reviewed for condition change. This deficient practice resulted in the inability for family to provide timely medical direction and anxiety, and the inability for the physician to provide medical care direction based on goals set between the physician and the resident. Findings include: This citation pertains to intake #MI00138437 Resident #3 (R3) Review of R3's electronic medical record (EMR), revealed an original admission to the facility on 3/3/23 with medical diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety, depression, hypertension, insomnia, and diabetes mellitus. R3's census tab revealed she was discharged on 3/4/23 to a local hospital. Review of R3's three-day functional assessment, dated 3/3/23, revealed dependence for activities of daily living involving oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, showering, upper and lower body dressing, sit to stand position, chair/bed transfer, and toilet transfer. R3 also required partial/moderate assistance for activities of daily living involving eating, rolling left to right, sit to lying position, and lying to sitting position. Review of R3's incident and accident report, dated 3/4/23 and timed 12:53 AM, read in part, .12:30 AM Responding to calls for help Nurse and CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) found resident on floor horizontal to bed. Resident Description: Unable to articulate the situation .Immediate action taken: Description: .bump to right forehead with bruising .incontinent of stool .Injuries Observed at Time of Incident: Injury Type: Bruise. Injury Location: 1.) Top of Scalp .Mental Status: Unable to assess at this time . Review of R3's hospital summary, dated 3/3/23, revealed a medication list including aspirin (a blood thinner) 81 mg (milligrams) one tab every day at noon. Review of R3's progress notes, dated 3/4/23 at 1:32 AM, read in part, .[physician N] notified per text [family member O] notified per text. On 8/31/23 at 10:09 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) J. RN J was asked if he recalled R3 and her fall and replied, Yes. I do recall her. RN J confirmed that R3 had fallen out of bed just after midnight on 3/4/23. RN J also confirmed that he texted R3's family member O and was unable to leave a message as the line he tried to text was a landline and that the family member was not called after R3 had fallen out of bed. RN J confirmed that a text is not normally how a family is notified of an event and that a telephone call is proper procedure. RN J stated that R3 had hit her head during the fall, and she sustained a bump and bruise on her right forehead. Review of R3's neuro check assessment form, dated 3/4/23 at 12:30 AM, revealed, at 6:15 AM a low and or decrease blood pressure of 89/49. At 7:15 AM a line was drawn through assessments of; level of consciousness, movement, hand grasp, speech, pupil reaction, nurses notes and initials. Neuro assessment at that time indicated an abnormal assessment with decrease level of consciousness, weakness in right- and left-hand grasp, pupil reaction sluggish, and no movement. At 11:15 AM similar abnormal assessment from 7:15 AM was documented. Review of R3's progress note, dated 3/4/23 at 11:56 AM, read in part, On earlier neuro check some abnormal result .Large bruise area noted right forehead and one by her left knee. (R3) unable to communicate and problems she is having. Called DR (doctor) .(on call) and gave her up date. Order received to send (R3) to .(local hospital) for (evaluation) . On 8/31/23 at 9:06 AM, an interview was conducted with family member O. Family member O was asked about R3's fall and if he was notified and replied, No. I did not find out she fell at the facility until after she was at the local hospital when I went to see her there. I met her after she was placed at the facility on 3/3/23 around two or three in the afternoon, came to see her around six, and left her that evening around nine in the evening. The facility never called me when she initially fell. There was a female nurse (RN K) who called me to tell me they were sending her to the hospital on 3/4/23 just before noon. They told me she was not feeling well the night before. Family member O was very upset and stated, Couldn't they tell she needed to go get checked out at the hospital. They just picked her up and put her back to bed and left her. On 8/31/23 at 12:10 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON was asked if the doctor should have been spoken to about R3's fall and condition and replied, Yes. The doctor should have been spoken to verbally, not texted and made aware of the incident and R3's findings. The DON was asked to provide proof of the text message from RN J to the doctor and was unable to produce at the time of the abbreviated survey. The DON confirmed that R3 should have been sent to the local hospital for evaluation sooner and the family should have been contacted immediately after the fall as should the doctor. The DON also confirmed that R3's decrease in blood pressure on 3/4/23 at 6:15 should have been communicated to the doctor and the neuro check assessment form should have been fully completed by nursing staff. Review of facility policy, Condition Change, dated 3/16/16, read in part, Whenever a resident's condition deteriorates, the resident's family, responsible party (or guardian) and the physician must be notified. 1. A condition change may be defined as: a. A vast difference in his/her vital signs .d. Any time a resident falls, sustains an injury .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to assess and monitor one Resident (R3) of three residents reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to assess and monitor one Resident (R3) of three residents reviewed for quality of care. This deficient practice resulted in a fall with injuries and subsequent hospital admission. Findings include: This citation pertains to intake #MI00138437 Resident #3 (R3) Review of R3's electronic medical record (EMR), revealed an original admission to the facility on 3/3/23 with medical diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety, depression, hypertension, insomnia, and diabetes mellitus. R3's census tab revealed she was discharged on 3/4/23 to a local hospital. Review of R3's hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], read in part, .Patient suffered 4 - 4.5-inch laceration posterior to the lateral malleolus (boney projection to ankle bone) of right ankle 2nd to fall at facility . Review of progress note, dated 3/3/23 at 4:30 PM, read in part, Late entry: .admission Note: admitted from [local hospital name] via transport .close observation does not follow directions well. *Note: progress note actual date added 3/17/23 at 7:09 PM. Review of R3's three-day functional assessment, dated 3/3/23, revealed dependence for activities of daily living involving oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, showering, upper and lower body dressing, sit to stand position, chair/bed transfer, and toilet transfer. R3 also required partial/moderate assistance for activities of daily living involving eating, rolling left to right, sit to lying position, and lying to sitting position. Review of R3's incident and accident report, dated 3/4/23 and timed 12:53 AM, read in part, .12:30 AM Responding to calls for help Nurse and CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) found (R3) on floor horizontal to bed. Resident Description: Unable to articulate the situation .Immediate action taken: Description: .bump to right forehead with bruising .incontinent of stool .Injuries Observed at Time of Incident: Injury Type: Bruise. Injury Location: 1.) Top of Scalp .Mental Status: Unable to assess at this time . *Note R3's baseline care plan and admission fall assessment lacked completion prior to her fall. Review of R3's progress note, dated 3/4/23 at 11:56 AM, read in part, On earlier neuro check some abnormal result .Large bruise area noted right forehead and one by her left knee. (R3) unable to communicate and problems she is having. Called DR (doctor) .(on call) and gave her up date. Order received to send (R3) to .(local hospital) for (evaluation) . Review of R3's electronic medical record (EMR), revealed a lack of any initial assessments completed on 3/3/23 [admission date] for R3's fall risk, skin breakdown risk, wandering, elopement risk, and no baseline care plan was completed. R3's EMR, also revealed that R3 did not have a baseline set of vitals taken after she arrived at the facility on 3/3/23 in the afternoon (vital signs of blood pressure, pulse, temperature, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation). *R3's height and weight was not recorded in the EMR for 3/3/23. Review of R3's admission assessment, dated 3/4/23 at 3:23 AM, revealed a weight, blood pressure, temperature, and pulse documentation dated 7/4/21 (past admission information). R3's admission assessment also revealed a respiratory rate documentation date of 7/2/21, a height documentation of 6/28/17 (all past admission information and lacked any new documentation) and signed by Registered Nurse (RN) J. On 8/31/23 at 10:09 AM, an interview was conducted with RN J. RN J was asked if he recalled R3 and her fall and replied, Yes. I do recall her. RN J confirmed that R3 had fallen out of bed just after midnight on 3/4/23 and had arrived at the facility on 3/3/23 around three in the afternoon while he was on shift. RN J stated that R3 had been a new admission and was restless and he gave her an alprazolam after family left that evening. RN J was asked about admission assessments and when and how these are completed and replied, Assessments are started within the first couple of hours after the resident arrives. RN J was asked why he did not use a current set of vital signs on R3's admission assessment and replied, I do not recall. On 8/31/23 at 12:10 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON was asked if R3 should have had a baseline set of vitals taken after she arrived and replied, Yes. That is one of the first things that are to be done if a resident is admitted and then we complete a skin assessment and start a full head to toe assessment. The DON confirmed that the vitals recorded in R3's admission assessment were old and should have been entered correctly with a new set of vital signs. The DON also confirmed that R3 arrived at the facility around three in the afternoon and assessments should have been completed on that same day. Review of facility policy, Admissions and Care Planning, dated 5/20/22, read in part, The Resident care is dependent on everyone being aware of the individual needs. This assessment must begin with the admission process. All licensed staff on all shifts will be responsible to ensure that the steps are completed in a timely manner to allow for the resident to be cared for in an individualized manner which will result in a safe, competent transition to the nursing facility .On admission the admitting nurse will: .2. Complete the admission assessment form within 8 hours of admission. 3. Begin the baseline care plan. 4. Complete the risk for elopement form within 8 hours of admission .6. Complete the admission note prior to the end of the admitting shift. 7. Areas of risk should have a care plan focus, goal, and intervention started in the chart (falls, elopement, etc.) . Review of facility, admission Checklist, undated, read in part, The following needs to be entered on each admission at the time of admission .admission assessment - within 8 hours (the admitting nurse needs to start this unless the admission arrives at shift change). Skin assessment if wound care not able - especially important to do this as soon as possible. Base line care plan and: Care Plan/[NAME] addressing immediate needs (The actual care plan to address FALLS, ADLS, ECT. upon admission and ongoing as needed) This gives guidance for appropriate care. This should be completed within 4 hours. Morse fall scale - within 8 hours. Wandering risk scale - within 8 hours .Braden scale should be done in conjunction with the skin assessment .
Mar 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00135277. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate be...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00135277. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate behavioral health services for the expression of suicidal ideation for one Resident (#202) of three Residents reviewed for behavioral health. This deficient practice resulted in actual harm when Resident #202 intentionally overdosed on ibuprofen, resulting in the Resident's hospitalization with subsequent unresponsiveness requiring fluid resuscitation. Findings include: Resident #202 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #202's most recent, complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated [DATE] revealed diagnoses including dementia, anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder (disorder characterized by extreme alterations in mood from manic to severe depression). Further review of the MDS assessment revealed Resident #202 was independent for walking and transfers and required set up help only for dressing, eating and toilet use. Resident #202 scored 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status, indicating she was cognitively intact. A review of Section D - Resident Mood Interview (PHQ-9), revealed Resident #202 reported feeling down, depressed or hopeless 7 to 11 days and reported having a poor appetite or overeating 12-14 days of the 14-day look back period. A review of Resident #202's hospital Emergency Department Report, dated [DATE] at 4:35 p.m., revealed the following: EMS [emergency medical services] apparently was called due to profound slurred speech and acute onset of altered mentation at 10 AM [10:00 a.m.] . patient is minimally following commands and per EMS is [sic] stopped responding with verbal stimuli in route . Assessment/Plan: Acute encephalopathy [altered brain function] . Further review of Resident #202's hospital documentation revealed the Resident's condition continued to worsen after hospitalization. A hospitalist note, dated [DATE] at 5:44 a.m., revealed the following: Contacted by nurse for patient being hypotensive and more lethargic. Normal saline 1L [one liter] bolus ordered followed with maintenance IV [intravenous] fluids at 125 cc/h, repeated labs showed worsening kidney function . by the end of my shift patient was waking up and becoming more alert, stated that she took 2 bottles of ibuprofen, intentional suicidal attempt, patient placed on suicide precautions . Focus Notes - Last 24 hrs [hours]: [DATE] 04:45 [4:45 a.m.] Patient unresponsive to sternal rub at shift change, day shift reports patient mentation waxes and wanes. Blood pressure soft. Provider paged to room to assess. 1 liter bolus given . [DATE] 05:53 [5:53 a.m.] Patient awake and verbalizing desire to end her life. Patient acknowledges taking two bottles of ibuprofen with the intent of ending her life prior to hospital admission . A review of Resident #202's Hospitalist Progress Note, dated [DATE] at 4:00 p.m., revealed the following: Assessment/Plan . 1. Acute encephalopathy suspect primarily [secondary to] NSAID [non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug] overdose . 2. Intentional overdose of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) as suicide attempt - after being admitted and mentation started to improve, pt [patient] woke and stated she took 2 bottles of ibuprofen as a suicide attempt. [Facility] confirmed with a receipt in her room of 2 ibuprofen bottles 200mg [milligram] tablets #100. They only found one empty bottle, however [patient] reported taking two. So she would have consumed 20,000 - 40,000mg of ibuprofen on 1/25 [[DATE]] at some point. [discussed with] poison control, reviewed current lab trends and clinical status . They noted that severe effects often occurs when doses of >400mg/kg [more than 400 milligrams per kilogram of body weight] are ingested, which was her case, and effects of acute encephalopathy would likely begin 6-8hr [six to eight hours] after ingestions, which seems consistent with the acuity of her encephalopathy onset . Drug screen reviewed: positive for ibuprofen . Psychiatric Issues depression, bipolar disorder no longer suspected, suspected personality disorder, PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] .3. Acute kidney injury suspect in setting of NSAID overdose, baseline Cr [creatinine: chemical indicative of how well the kidneys are filtering waste from the blood] 0.9 [mg/dL], peak at 1.8, now down to 1.3 . It was noted the hospital reference for normal creatinine levels were 0.6 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) - 1.1 mg/dL. A review of a hospital Suicide Severity Screening, dated [DATE] at 5:49 a.m., revealed Resident #22 was assessed to be a high risk for suicide. Further review revealed when asked In the past month have you started to work out or worked out the details of how to kill yourself? Do you intend to carry out this plan?, Resident #202 responded, yes. A review of Resident #202's Psychiatric Progress Note, dated [DATE] at 4:37 p.m., revealed the following: . When asked why she wanted to kill herself, she stated, hell. When asked if she means that life feels like hell, she says, yes. When asked if she feels like living or dying today, she says, if [Resident #300] would just love me again . A review of Resident #202's facility electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the Resident was transferred to the emergency department for evaluation on [DATE]. Further review of the EMR revealed the following: [DATE] at 9:43 p.m. - Nurses Notes. 2000 [8:00 p.m.] nauseated with multiple episodes of vomiting. Weak, extensive assistance required transferring from toilet to bed. LOC [level of consciousness] altered, responds to verbal stimuli but very slowly . [DATE] at 10:15 a.m. - Behavior Note. Before breakfast this AM [morning] resident was quite lethargic. After removing blankets discovered she was incontinent of both bladder and bowel. This is unusual for her . [physician] came on unit and decided it would be best to send her out [to emergency department] for evaluation. Changes are too dramatic. [DATE] at 11:31 a.m. - . called [hospital, name redacted] and spoke with nurse caring for [Resident #202] to let them know we did find an empty 2 pack of ibuprofen., 100 caplets of 200 mg each, in her room hidden in a drawer. The bottles themselves have not been located. A review of Resident #202's physician progress note for the date of service [DATE], signed on [DATE] at 6:00 p.m., revealed the following: Chief Complaint/Nature of Presenting Problem: Emesis. History of Present Illness: . seen today for reports of multiple bouts of emesis . She has had significant change in level of consciousness. She is only oriented to person, not to place, time or situation . She does report being saddened by having separated rooms from her previous roommate . Assessment: . Decreased level of consciousness . escalation of care due to acute change . Major depressive disorder with single episode . feels her moods have slightly worsened. Recently had somewhat aggressive behavior . A review of an undated facility investigation report revealed Resident #202 and Resident #300 were married in a civil ceremony while residing at the facility. After the ceremony, the Residents resided in a double room together, until Resident #300's condition deteriorated, and family requested he be moved to a private room for comfort. According to a facility Witness Statement, signed by Social Services Designee (Staff) S and Registered Nurse (RN) T, dated [DATE], Resident #300 was moved to a private room on [DATE]. Further review of the Witness Statement, revealed the following: . went to speak to [Resident #300] about the room change. [Resident #202] was in room sleeping during the conversation but awoke when she heard us speaking. Please see attached progress note for more details . A review of the attached progress note, signed by Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) U and dated [DATE] at 2:50 a.m., revealed the following: Behavior Note. Late Entry. Resident was very upset about [Resident #300] getting moved to his own room. I was trying to comfort the resident and she made the statements she was going to kill herself [and] she wishes she could just die [and Resident #300] promised that they would die together. Resident was also asked if she knew what happened to [Resident #300's] necklace that he always wears, she responded with I know exactly where it is but I'm not telling. Resident did end up telling where it was. She stated that if she saw if on [Resident #300] she would rip it off him. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:05 p.m., CNA U confirmed the statements she recorded in the Behavior Note, on [DATE] at 2:50 a.m., to be true and accurate. CNA U reported she immediately notified Staff S and the nurse on duty at that time, of Resident #202's suicidal ideation and expressions of self-harm. CNA U stated she could not remember the exact time Resident #202 expressed the desire to die or the name of the nurse on duty whom she alerted to Resident #202's behavior. CNA U reported Resident #202 was upset about the CNA looking for Resident #300's necklace with his previous, deceased spouse's wedding band threaded on it. CNA U stated no room check for harmful objects or substances was conducted during her shift on [DATE]. CNA U stated after alerting nursing and Staff S of Resident #202's comments, she went about caring for other residents. Further review of Resident #202's EMR for [DATE], including all progress notes, assessments, physician notes and Behavioral Care Solutions (BCS) documentation revealed no follow-up to Resident #202's comments regarding the expression of suicidal ideation on [DATE]. A review of physician orders and point of care documentation revealed no initiation of suicide precautions, including a search of the Resident's room, prior to [DATE]. On [DATE] at 12:12 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) reported RN V cared for Resident #202 during the 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. shift on [DATE]. An attempt to reached RN V by telephone was made on [DATE] at 12:15 p.m. No return call was received prior to the end of the survey on [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:20 a.m., Resident #202 confirmed she had intentionally taken two full bottles of ibuprofen prior to her transfer to the emergency department on [DATE]. Resident #202 could not recall how many pills but stated both bottles were full and she threw the empty bottles in her bathroom trash. Resident #202 stated she had counseling while hospitalized and now feels better. She stated Resident #300 passed away while she was hospitalized , and she never had the chance to say goodbye. Resident #202 reported she took the ibuprofen because she was in need of attention and was lonely. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:23 p.m., Staff S reported being unaware of Resident #202's verbal expression of suicidal ideation on [DATE]. Staff S stated she was not notified of Resident #202 commenting she wishes she could just die or that she was going to kill herself. Staff S confirmed no referral for evaluation of suicidal ideation by Behavioral Health or the physician was initiated prior to the Resident presenting with decreased level of consciousness on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #202's EMR revealed the following: [DATE] at 3:52 p.m. - Late Entry: RN [V'] and [Staff S] social services went to speak with [Resident #300]. [Resident #202] was in the room sleeping in the bed next to [Resident #300] . agreed with being in his own room, as he feels it will help him feel better. [Resident #202] was very upset . RN and [Staff S] assisted [Resident #202] out of the room to speak with her. [Resident #202] continued to state you are taking everything from me. tried to explain that the move was about [Resident #300] and his care and not about her. [Resident #202] continued to state that is was about her. [Staff S] and this RN [V] made multiple attempts to explain to [Resident #202] but she was not understanding. [Resident #300's] necklace [with deceased spouse's ring] was placed on his neck. Orders placed to check this every 2 hrs [hours] as [Resident #202] stated she would take it off him. [DATE] at 2:54 p.m. - [Resident #202] ambulated to inside of nurses' station to confront a staff member while she was giving report. [Resident #202] stated that she thought you were my friend. Staff member stated she was unaware of why resident was upset. Staff stated that she was just attempting to give report. [Resident #202] began to cry and became agitated and requested to speak to [Nursing Home Administrator, NHA]. [DATE] at 10:54 a.m. - Care plan and CNA tasks updated to reflect q 15 minute [every 15 minute] checks for her location. [Resident #202] is disruptive with care with her significant other [Resident #300] and must be accompanied when she visits with him. During an interview on [DATE] at approximately 11:15 a.m., the DON confirmed Resident #202 was not assessed for suicidal ideation or risk after the Resident made suicidal comments to CNA U on [DATE] or prior to her hospitalization on [DATE]. The DON stated it appeared the focus was on the care and comfort of Resident #300 and Resident #202's mental status was not sufficiently taken into account. The DON reported when a Resident expresses thought of self-harm, a complete assessment should be conducted by nursing staff, the physician notified and increased safety monitoring immediately implemented. A review of the facility policy titled Suicide Threats, dated [DATE], revealed the following: Resident suicide threats shall be taken seriously and addressed appropriately. Staff shall report any resident threats of suicide immediately to the Charge Nurse. The Charge Nurse shall immediately assess the situation and shall notify the Director of Nursing or Administrator of such threats. A staff member shall remain with the resident until the Charge Nurse arrives to evaluate the resident. After assessing the resident in more detail, the Charge Nurse shall notify the resident's attending physician and responsible party and shall seek further direction from the physician. Appropriate nursing personnel and other staff involved in caring for the resident shall be informed of the suicide threat and instructed to report changes in the resident's behavior. The resident surround should be searched for any objects that could be using in harming self. As indicated, a psychiatric consultation or transfer for emergency psychiatric evaluation may be initiated. If the resident remains in the facility staff will monitor the resident's mood and behavior and update care plans accordingly until a physician has determined that a risk of suicide does not appear to be present.
Feb 2023 2 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00133945. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect Resident (#100...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00133945. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect Resident (#100's) right to be free from neglect when the facility failed to ensure staff competency in following resident care plans and in the use of a mechanical lift during transfers. This deficient practice resulted in actual harm when Resident #100 sustained a fractured right femur, subsequent surgical repair and hospitalization. Findings include: A review of Resident #100's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated [DATE], revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including dementia, stroke, hearing loss and reduced mobility. A review of the MDS assessment Section C- Cognitive Patterns, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was not completed due to Resident #100 being rarely/never understood. The Staff Assessment for Mental Status revealed Resident #100 had impaired long and short-term memory and moderately impaired decision making. Further review of the MDS assessment revealed Resident #100 was assessed as having Functional Limitation in Range of Motion, in both lower extremities and required two-person, physical assistance for toilet use (how resident uses the toilet room . transfers on/off toilet, cleanses self after elimination . and adjust clothes .). A review of Resident #100's Electronic Medical Record (EMR), accessed on [DATE] at 10:39 a.m., revealed the following: [DATE] 01:06 (1:06 a.m.) Nurses Notes . Notified by CNA (Certified Nurse Aide H) at approximately 2145 (9:45 p.m.) this nurse was needed in rm (room), entered rm and found (Resident #100) laying on her bed and her CNA (CNA F) standing nearby, (CNA F) explained that (Resident #100) was slipping out of the standing (sit to stand lift used to assist resident to rise to a standing position on the lift base for transfer to another surface) lift sling and she was hanging there, so (CNA F) went outside the rm and yelled for help, (CNA G) came into the rm to help. (CNA G) lifted her (Resident #100's) upper half and (CNA F) took her (Resident #100's) legs and they put her into bed. During the transfer or while in the sling, (Resident #100) sustained a small skin tear to her right forearm. Once in bed (Resident #100) c/o (complained of) right leg pain. It hurt when her leg was moved. Per both (CNA F) and (CNA G) (Resident #100) did not fall or hit her leg during the transfer. Leg was examined and found to have a scratch down her right inner thigh. There was also a bruise behind her right calf. The age of the bruise is unknown to nurse . [DATE] 12:50 (12:50 p.m.) Nurses Notes . As the day went on (Resident #100) began to complain of increased pain . [DATE] 13:59 (1:59 p.m.) Nurses Notes . Assessment of right lower extremity revealed swollen right thigh . Palpation of the right thigh (Resident #100) complains of pain. Any movement of the thigh causes discomfort. Right inner thigh is larger than the other. Call to on call (physician) at 1500 (3:00 p.m.) . gave approval to send (Resident #100) for assessment . Director of Nursing (DON) informed via phone call at 1504 (3:04 p.m.) instructs to send via EMS (Emergency Medical Services) . A review of Resident #100's hospital History and Physical, dated [DATE] at 20:33 (8:33 p.m.), revealed the following, in part: Pt (patient) arrives via EMS from (facility) post fall last night. EMS (states) (facility) staff (state) it was a bad transfer . Assessment/Plan . 2. Femur fracture, right: Xray: Obliquely oriented fracture (angled fracture going completely through the bone, most often cause by fall or trauma) or spiral fracture (fracture winds around length of bone, twisting injury) through the distal diaphysis (bone shaft) of the right femur (thigh bone) . A review of Resident #100's Radiology Report, dated [DATE] at 5:55 p.m., revealed the following, in part: Findings . Obliquely oriented displaced (pieces of bone moved to the point a gap formed around the fracture) fracture of the distal right femoral diaphysis with rotational component. Medial displacement and rotation of the distal fracture fragment noted mild overlap of fracture fragments . A review of Resident #100's Orthopedic Consultation, dated [DATE] at 7:42 a.m., revealed the following, in part: Patient has been placed on the OR (Operating Room) schedule with the offer for surgical stabilization to assist with pain management and stabilization for transfers. This would be in the form of open reduction internal fixation of the femoral shaft . Diagnostic Results: Impression . There is oblique right mid to distal femur fracture . there is over 10 cm (centimeters) of shortening/overriding bone in these images. A review of an incident report dated [DATE] at 9:45 p.m., revealed the following: Witnessed Fall . (Resident #100) . Level of Consciousness: Alert. Mobility: Wheelchair bound. Mental Status: Oriented to Person. Predisposing Situation Factors: During transfer. It was noted there were no Predisposing Environmental Factors, or Predisposing Physiological Factors, marked regarding Resident #100's fall. A review of the investigation documents for (Resident #100) fall with fracture on [DATE], provided by the DON, revealed the following: As reported by (RN I) in her incident note and in personal interview . At approximately 2145 (9:45 p.m.) on [DATE] (CNA F) was providing (bedtime) care for (Resident #100). She (CNA F) had taken her to the bathroom in the sit to stand lift. Upon finishing she raised (Resident #100) up into a standing position with the sit to stand lift. Per an interview with (CNA F) the belt was snug, and the leg straps were on per instructions. (CNA F) stated that as she wheeled (Resident #100) out of the bathroom (Resident #100) let her legs go slack which caused her to almost slip out of the sling but due to the sling belt (Resident #100) was held up and did not fall to the floor . In both a personal interview and written statement by (CNA G) . it was learned (CNA G) was in the process of taking soiled linen to the hopper room when she heard (CNA F) call out for help. (CNA G) went in and saw (Resident #100) slipping out of the sling and that it was around her armpits. (CNA G) yelled for (CNA H) in case they needed another hand. Together, with (CNA G) controlling the lift, (CNA G) holding the sling/upper torso and (CNA F) taking (Resident #100's) legs they lifted her into bed. (CNA G) reports that (Resident #100) yelled out in pain and that (CNA G) thought the leg was turned. Further review of the facility investigation documents revealed the following: (Registered Nurse (RN) K)was the nurse on duty the next morning . mid-afternoon (RN K) noted through (Resident #100's) slacks that her right leg was swollen . (Resident #100) was having pain and the leg was shortened at that time . (RN K) notified the physician and sent (Resident #100) to the emergency room for evaluation. X-ray report revealed an obliquely oriented fracture or spiral fracture through the distal diaphysis of the right femur . (Resident #100) did undergo surgery at (acute care hospital) . (Resident #100) has been wheelchair bound for several years and has severe dementia . Her transfer status was to be done with 2 assists and sit to stand lift, however, (CNA F) stated she was unaware of this . The root cause of the fracture is undetermined. Theories are that it may have been a pathological fracture when she slid downward and that the leg straps held her calves in place putting pressure on the femur. There is also a thought that at the time it occurred it was not displaced but after sitting in a reclining position in the wheelchair the next morning . it became displaced and began to swell. A review of the interview statements included with the facility investigation documents revealed the following: Interview with (RN I) on [DATE]: (RN I) admits that (Resident #100) was having some pain but because (CNA F and CNA G) stated there was no fall and that (Resident #100) did not bump her leg on the lift she (RN I) did not do anything more. (RN I) did state that she observed a skin tear to the right inner thigh which she cleansed and dressed but did not see anything unusual about the appearance of (Resident #100's) leg . Interview with (CNA G) on [DATE]: When asked if the leg straps were intact, she could not recall . Interview with (CNA H) on [DATE]: When asked what she observed she stated that she saw (Resident #100) sitting on the floor beside the bed with the sling around her armpits. She did not know if the leg straps were on or not. She stated that (CNA G) picked her up by the upper torso and (CNA F) took her legs and lifted her up and into the bed. (CNA H) followed with the sit to stand lift which (Resident #100) was still attached to. (CNA H) said (Resident #100) complained of pain to the right leg and it appeared to her that it was turned inward. Interview with (CNA F) on [DATE]: (CNA F) stated that she had put the leg straps on the lift which was unreported and is policy. There is a handle on the back of the new slings for the sit to stand. (CNA G) lifted (Resident #100) with the handle and (CNA F) lifted by (Resident #100's) legs . we are a no lift facility . this was an improper transfer and (Resident #100) should have been lowered to the floor and a full lift used to put her into bed . It was also pointed out that the [NAME]/care plan stated that two staff should be with (Resident #100) when any type of lift is used . Further review of the facility investigation documents revealed the following: . some thoughts on what happened. The (right femur) fracture may have occurred when she began to slide out of the sling as her calves were still in the leg straps (fracture was mid-femur). Or did it happen when they picked her up by her legs and torso . A review of CNA F's undated, signed statement included we transferred (Resident #100) back to bed, (CNA H) noticed her right lower leg was turned toward her left leg . at this point I was concerned . (Resident #100) was in extreme pain. I was very concerned and returned to (Resident #100's) room approximately 15 (minutes) later, she was still in pain . (RN I) reassessed her and said she believed she was ok. A review of all accident and incident reports from [DATE] through [DATE] revealed on [DATE], Resident #100 fell when CNA F attempted to transfer the Resident, without assistance, using the sit to stand lift. Further review of the incident report titled Witnessed Fall, dated [DATE] at 10:05 p.m., revealed the following: The emergency call light went off in (Resident #100's room), followed (CNA M) . Entered room and found (Resident #100) sitting on her bottom on the floor with (CNA F), standing in back of (Resident #100) supporting her back and head. (Resident #100's) legs were still strapped to the new standing lift. (CNA F) stated I had to lower her to the floor because she was slipping out of the sling . Predisposing Environmental Factors: None. Predisposing Physiological Factors: Incontinent. Predisposing Situation Factors: Improper footwear. During transfer. Other Info: (CNA F) was transferring (Resident #100) in the new sit to stand lift and was getting her ready for bed. (Resident #100) was incontinent and barefoot. Further review revealed Immediate Action Taken: (CNA M) unfastened (Resident #100's) legs from the lift straps and lowered her legs to the floor . The signed investigation document attached to the fall reported included An intervention on the care plan was to have 2 staff present with the sit to stand . It was noted in review, Resident #100's legs were still strapped to the sit to stand lift upon staff entering the room and finding Resident #100 on the floor with CNA F. A review of Resident #100's care plan revealed the following plans were initiated, and active, prior to the Resident's fall on [DATE]: Focus: (Resident #100) is high risk for falls (related to) confusion, deconditioning, gait/balance problems. Date Initiated [DATE]. Goal: (Resident #100) will be free of minor injury through the review date. (Resident #100) will not sustain serious injury through review date. Date Initiated: [DATE]. Interventions: (Resident #100) to be sit to stand lift for transfers, downgrade PRN (as needed) to full lift when not actively assisting with BLE (bilateral lower extremities). Date Initiated: [DATE]. Two staff members to operate new lifts until everyone is comfortable. Date Initiated: [DATE]. Focus: (Resident #100 has an ADL (Activities of Daily Living) self-care performance deficit (related to) dementia. Date Initiated: [DATE]. Goal: (Resident #100) will maintain current level of function in all ADLs through the review date. Date Initiated: [DATE]. Interventions: Transfer - (Resident #100) requires extensive assistance by 2 staff to move between surfaces as necessary. Date Initiated: [DATE]. Focus: (Resident #100) Transfers. Date Initiated: [DATE]. Goal: (Resident #100 will maintain level of function through review date. Date Initiated: [DATE]. Interventions: (Resident #100) is a sit to stand lift with a medium sling for transfers. May downgrade to full lift when needed. Date Initiated: [DATE]. Two staff when sit to stand used. Date Initiated: [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:00 p.m., the facility Training Coordinator, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B reported after Resident #100's fall on [DATE], CNA F reported she did not feel comfortable using the sit to stand lifts. LPN B was asked what the procedure was for assessing staff competencies following accidents, including resident injuries during transfers. LPN B stated after a fall with injury the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) review the incident reports and determine what they believe to be the cause of the fall and review the care plan for appropriateness. LPN B add that if failure to follow facility policies and care plans were believed to have contributed to the fall, staff would be re-educated, and competency assessed. LPN B stated CNA F was not retrained on lift use or competency assessed after the fall from the lift on [DATE] and before Resident #100 fell from the lift on [DATE]. LPN B reported after Resident #100's fall on [DATE], CNA F was scheduled to be re-trained and have competency assessed on using the sit to stand lifts but left employment with the facility prior to completion. LPN B stated all staff were trained in [DATE], when the facility received new sit to stand lifts, were instructed to use two-person assistance until comfortable using the lift and were to report if more training was needed. LPN B reported all staff are trained on the facility's no lift policy and should not physically lift a fallen resident from the floor, but instead get assistance and use a total, mechanical lift to transfer the resident for safety. On [DATE] at 2:00 p.m., LPN B was asked how someone could fall out of the sling on the sit to stand lift. LPN B stated she is unsure how Resident #100 could have slipped out of the sling, if the sling was appropriately secured to the Resident and the lift. She added that some residents may become weak during transfers, that is why Resident #100 was care planned for two-person assistance using the lift. LPN B reported after Resident #100's fall on [DATE], CNA F was instructed not to perform any lift transfers until she could be retrained and reassessed for competency. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:34 p.m., the DON reported she was aware Resident #100 had a previous fall on [DATE], while being transferred by CNA F using the sit to stand lift. The DON acknowledged CNA F did not follow Resident #100's care plan and transferred the Resident with the sit to stand lift without the presence or assistance of another staff member. When asked if CNA F was reassessed for competency using the new sit to stand lifts after the Resident's fall on [DATE], the DON stated she would expect the CNA to be assessed using the lift to determine teaching needs and safety using the lift. The DON reported she could not provide documentation of CNA F being reassessed for safety and competency in transferring residents using the sit to stand lift following the fall on [DATE]. The DON stated on [DATE], a nurse spoke with CNA F regarding the necessity of following Resident #100's care plan and not transferring the Resident alone. The DON confirmed CNA F transferred Resident #100 using the sit to stand lift on [DATE], without assistance and the Resident fell during the transfer. The DON also confirmed Resident #100 sustained a fracture during the transfer which required surgical repair and hospitalization. When asked if CNA F was aware of the possibility of the Resident falling if transferred with the sit to stand, without two-person assistance, the DON acknowledged CNA F should have been aware of the risk due to Resident #100's prior fall on [DATE]. The DON confirmed CNA F was no longer employed by the facility. A review of CNA F's Employee Disciplinary Notification, dated [DATE], revealed the following, in part: Major Infractions: Violation of Safety Rules. Failure to Follow Instructions/Policy/Procedures. Supervisor Remarks: You did not check the [NAME] (care plan) for the residents transfer status and inappropriately transferred the resident. The notification was signed by CNA F on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 11:26 a.m., an attempt was made to reach CNA F by telephone to confirm the CNA's written statement. No return call was received. On [DATE] at 11:36 a.m., an attempt was made to reach CNA G by telephone to confirm the CNA's written statements. No return call was received. CNA G was no longer employed by the facility at the time of the survey. On [DATE] at 11:42 a.m., an attempt was made to reach CNA H by telephone to confirm the CNA's written statement. No return call was received. CNA H was no longer employed by the facility at the time of the survey. Resident #100 returned to the facility on [DATE] at 4:45 p.m., following hospitalization for surgical repair of her right femur fracture. Further review of the EMR revealed Resident #100 expired at the facility on [DATE] at 9:16 p.m. A review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, dated [DATE], revealed the following, in part: It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation . Definitions: Neglect means failure of the facility, its employees or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish or emotional distress . Prevention of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation: B. Identifying, correcting and intervening in situations in which abuse, neglect . is more likely to occur with the deployment of trained and qualified, registered, licensed, and certified staff on each shift . and to assure that the staff assigned have knowledge of the individual resident's care needs .
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00133945. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate ass...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00133945. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate assistance with bed mobility according to the resident care plan for one Resident (#102) of three residents reviewed for accidents. This deficient practice resulted in actual harm when Resident #102 fell from bed and sustained a head laceration requiring emergent transfer to the emergency department and sutures. Findings include: A review of Resident #102's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/08/2022, revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, muscle weakness and chronic pain. Resident #102 had severe, cognitive impairment. A review of a facility incident report, dated 12/9/2022 at 6:30 a.m., revealed the following, in part: (Resident #102). Incident Location: Resident's room. Incident Description: This nurse called to the resident's room stating the resident had rolled out of bed to the floor while the CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) was cleaning and changing the resident. The resident was observed on the floor next to her bed with an approximate 5 cm (centimeter) laceration on her left forehead. The laceration was bleeding. Pressure with a 4 x 4 gauze was given to the lacerated area until bleeding stopped. Ambulance was called and resident was transferred to (acute care hospital) for evaluation . Other Info: Resident was being cared for by her assigned CNA, being changed and cleaned after incontinence of bowel when resident rolled out of bed. A review of Resident #102's Emergency Department Report, dated 12/09/2022 at 7:33 a.m., revealed the following, in part: Physical Exam: Skin: Small superficial skin tear on left elbow region 1 cm in size . Similar 1 cm superficial laceration on left lateral hip. There is also a 3 cm laceration to the left eyebrow region gaping 1.6 cm . There are some exposed nerves that appear to be fully intact . Medical Decision Making: Patient is a full assist and as she was being transferred this morning apparently fell hitting her head causing a laceration to the left eyebrow region. This was witnessed by staff . she also sustained small skin tears to the left elbow and left hip region . Patient's forehead laceration is anesthetized and repaired (sutured) . A review of Resident #102's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the following: 12/9/2022 11:38 (a.m.). Nurses Notes: (Resident @102) returned at 0946 (9:46 a.m.) form (acute care hospital) . 9 sutures above left eyebrow . A review of a (Facility) Witness Statement, signed and dated by CNA C on 12/09/2022, revealed the following: I (CNA C) was changing (Resident #102) in her bed. I started off on the side away from the wall getting her cleaned and dressed . I moved her bed and got on the side next to the wall. While cleaning her . and holding her, (Resident #102) rolled off her bed. (Resident #102) hit her head, forehead, blood started coming out going everywhere . During a telephone interview on 2/10/2023 at 2:48 p.m., CNA C confirmed her written statement, dated 12/9/2022, to be true and accurate. CNA C added Resident #100 was hard to roll in bed. CNA C stated she unlocked the bed and moved the bed away from the wall to roll the Resident on the Resident's right side. When she rolled the Resident over, CNA C reported the Resident just kept rolling, and fell off the opposite side of the bed from where the CNA was standing. When asked if the Resident's care plan called for a two-person assistance with bed mobility, CNA C stated she did not look at the care plan, adding it did not occur to me. CNA C reported she had worked at the facility for five years and this incident never occurred before. A review of Resident #102's care plan revealed the following, in part: ADLs: (Resident #102) has an ADL (Activities of Daily Living) self-care deficit performance deficit (related to) dementia . Bed Mobility: [NAME] required extensive assistance by 2 staff to turn and reposition in bed as necessary. A review of the care plan revision timeline revealed the following: Bed Mobility: (Resident #102) requires extensive assistance by 1 staff to turn and reposition in bed (every) 2 hours and as necessary, Revision Date: 6/21/2022. Bed Mobility: (Resident #102) requires extensive assistance by 2 staff to turn and reposition in bed as necessary, Revision Date: 9/20/2022. Bed Mobility: (Resident #102) requires extensive assistance by 2 staff to turn and reposition in bed as necessary, Revision Date: 11/21/2022. During an interview on 2/10/2022 at 3:34 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated care plans should be checked by staff at the beginning of each shift, prior to caring for the residents, to determine if any changes have been made. The DON reported she was aware of the incident involving Resident #102 rolling off the bed while being repositioned by CNA C. When asked if the CNA C should have used another staff to assist in turning Resident #102, the DON stated she was unsure what level of assistance the Resident was care planned for at that time. The DON confirmed, staff should be following resident care plans to ensure safe care. A review of the facility policy titled Accident and Supervision, revealed the following, in part: Each resident will receive adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. This includes: 3. Implementing interventions to reduce hazard(s) and risk(s) . Definitions: Accident refers to any unexpected or unintentional incident, which results in injury or illness to a resident . Implementation of Interventions - using specific interventions to try to reduce a resident's risks form hazards in the environment. The process includes: . Documenting interventions (e.g., plans of action developed by the Quality Assurance Committee or care plans for the individual resident) . Resident specific approaches may include . Implementing specific interventions as par of the plan of care.
Dec 2022 11 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #56 A review of the Progress Notes section of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the following: 10/31/2022 (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #56 A review of the Progress Notes section of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the following: 10/31/2022 (8:15 a.m.) Incident Note . Heard yelling out- entered room and observed resident lying on the floor alongside her bed, head @ foot of bed and feet @ head of bed, on her right side . She was very incontinent of urine, in her PJ's, w/o (without) footwear on, alarm in place, not sounding . During an interview on 11/29/22 at 3:24 p.m., Family Member (FM) X stated Resident #56 had falls a few days after her admission to the facility and ended up with two black eyes and bruised ribs with one out of place on August 19th, 2022. FM X stated she felt there were not enough staff to watch everybody. FM X stated she was ready to move Resident #56 out of the facility, but felt the staffing and care was much better now. A review of the incidents for Resident #56 revealed the following: A review of the incident report dated 6/10/22 at 6:30 p.m., revealed Resident #56 was heard yelling and was found lying on her back with blood coming from her right eyebrow. Non-skid shoes/socks were implemented after this fall. A review of the incident report dated 8/21/22 at 8:50 p.m., revealed Resident #56 was observed on the floor in front of the clean linen room for the unit. Resident # 56 was unable to say what she was trying to do. There was no new intervention identified in this incident following the fall. A review of the incident report dated 8/31/22 at 9:35 a.m., revealed Resident #56 was observed lying on her back, calling for help in the doorway of her room, and had fallen and hit her head. The incident report went on to discuss Resident #56 was persistently complaining of needing to go to the bathroom. Resident #56 was toileted after the fall and had a bowel movement. A review of the incident report dated 10/31/22 at 7:13 a.m., revealed Resident #56 was heard yelling out and upon entering the room was found lying on the floor next to her bed on her right side. On 11/29/22 at approximately 4:05 p.m., during an interview, the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked if non-skid shoes and socks would be a baseline care planning intervention for fall risk reduction. The DON stated yes, but Resident #56 would be one to take them off. The DON went on to stated Resident #56 was very ambulatory and often took herself to the bathroom. When asked if the other two interventions on her fall care plan should be baseline interventions, the DON agreed they would be considered baseline. On 11/29/22 at 4:15 p.m., during a follow-up interview, the DON acknowledged the care plans were not where they needed to be and were in the process of being cleaned up. When asked if she felt a toileting program would be appropriate, the DON agreed a toileting program would be appropriate for Resident #56. The DON also acknowledged encouragement of a resident who lacks cognitive ability to use a call light should not be encouraged to use the call light as an intervention and would not be appropriate. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #56, revealed short term and long term memory issues and Resident #56 was severely cognitively impaired. A review of the care plan High risk for falls, with an initiation date of 6/17/22, had interventions which included the following: Anticipate and meet (Resident #56)'s needs. Initiated on 6/17/22. Be sure (Resident #56)'s call light is within reach and encourage (Resident #56) to use it for assistance as needed. Initiated on 6/17/22 and revised on 11/18/22. Non-skid socks or shoes with non slip soles. Initiated on 6/10/22. Provide activities that promote exercise and strength building where possible. Provide 1:1 activities if bedbound. Initiated on 6/10/22. There were no other care planning interventions to address the falls sustained by Resident #56 on 8/21/22, 8/31/22 or 10/31/22. Deficient Practice #2 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent an elopement from the facility for One Resident (#67) of two residents reviewed for elopement. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for further elopements. Findings include: Resident #67 During an observation and interview on 11/28/22 at 2:01 p.m., Resident #67 was perseverating on going out to look at a fallen tree across the street. Resident #67 was upset that he was told he could not go and look at this tree that fell down. Resident #67 did not present as cognitively intact and demonstrated word salad communication at times during the interview. A review of an Elopement incident dated 10/14/22, revealed Front Desk Staff FF had let Resident #67 out of the facility. Staff FF thought Resident #67 was a visitor and let him out when Resident #67 identified himself as a visitor and stated he needed to go outside and get the keys out of his car. Five staff were on the unit at the time of the incident and the incident occurred while staff were getting residents ready for dinner per witness statements. A review of a Behavior Note dated 10/14/22 at 8:58 p.m., revealed the following: During dinner today, (Resident #67) was actively exit seeking. With redirection he sat down to eat his soup. This nurse was at the med cart prepping medication when I heard CNA ([Certified Nurse Aide] HH) yellout(sic) hey that's (Resident #67)! to which this nurse looked up and saw (Resident #67) walking outside in the parking lot with his walker .I talked to the front desk asking how hegot(sic) out without the alarm going off to which he stated (Resident #67) knocked on the door and told the front desk he was a visitor and needed to go out to his car and grab his keys, to which the front desk let him out and entered the code to the door, so the alarm did not go off .The front desk was unaware of who (Resident #67) was and did in fact believe he was a visitor . Author Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) GG During an interview on 11/30/22 at 8:06 a.m., the DON was asked why there was nothing in the body of the policy to address elopement prevention, only what to do when an elopement occurs. The DON acknowledged the policy should include education to staff on how to prevent elopements from happening in the first place, and to make sure they are not letting out residents without supervision. During this interview, Receptionist II proceeded to show this surveyor a binder kept at the receptionist desk which contained pictures of all the residents at the facility. Receptionist II stated the facility has always had this binder at the desk as far as she knew. The DON stated she was not aware of this binder being located at the reception desk. Both the DON and Receptionist II agreed staff who sat at the desk should be aware of the binder and check it before letting anyone off the units and out of the building. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 3:49 p.m., LPN GG confirmed Staff FF had let Resident #67 off the unit and out of the facility under the premise he was a visitor and not an employee. LPN GG also confirmed Resident #67 was .very skillful in his exit seeking . and that she had educated Staff FF to please make sure to ask the nurse for the unit before letting anyone off the unit. A review of the care plan Elopement risk, for Resident #67, with an initiation date of 8/12/12 had the following interventions: 1:1 staff as necessary when agitated and exit seeking Initiated on 8/15/22. A name tag will be made up for (Resident #67) to be clipped to the back of his shirt to alert people that he is a resident of (facility). Initiated on 10/18/22. A picture of (Resident #67) is posted throughout the facility. He will also wear a picture/resident ID tag(to be provided). Initiated on 8/12/22. Call administrators cell phone number when agitated and unable to redirect so he can speak with him. Initiated on 8/12/22. Distract (Resident #67) from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, book. (Resident #67) prefers: Pepsi, talking about his past, Bingo, old shows and movies (TV land and westerns). Initiated on 8/12/22. Monitor location every 15 min. (minutes) Document wandering behavior and attempted diversional interventions in behavior log. Initiated on 8/12/22. Provide structured activities: toileting, walking inside and outside, reorientation strategies including signs, pictures and memory boxes. Initiated on 8/12/22. (Resident #67) triggers for wandering/elopement are looking for his car, getting [NAME](sic), getting to work, etc (Resident #67) behaviors is de-escalated by redirecting and listed interventions. Initiated on 8/12/22. The care plan provided by the facility did not show any new interventions to address Resident #67's specific elopement concern with staff not recognizing him and letting him out of the building. There was no education provided to all staff when this occurred to prevent new and agency staff from making the same mistake as Staff FF. There were agency staff working in the building at the time of this survey. Staff also failed to provide 1:1 supervision per the care plan when he was identified as actively exit seeking just prior to the incident during the dinner meal. This citation has 2 deficient practice statements (DPS) and pertains to intakes # MI00130986, #MI00132283 and #MI00125389. Deficient Practice #1 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure thorough fall investigations were completed, interventions were in place, and new interventions were initiated to prevent falls for three Residents (#56,#62, and #66) out of six Residents reviewed for falls. This deficient practice resulted in repeated falls and a fall with fracture for Resident #62. Findings include: Resident #62 On 11/28/22 at 11:33 p.m., Resident #62 (R62) was observed up in her wheelchair near the door of her room in the hallway. R62 was attempting to self propel herself into her room. She was noted with a wheelchair alarm and a seat belt in place. R62 was asked how she was doing but did not respond. At this time, RN K and CNA G were both at the nurses station, out of view of R62 going into her room alone. CNA G was noted to be using his cell phone under the desk. On 11/29/22 at 12:27 p.m., R62 was observed self propelling in her wheelchair with her seat belt on back into her room. On 11/30/22 at 12:45 p.m., R62 was observed up in her wheelchair with her seat belt on. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA L) was observed putting the footpedals on R62's wheelchair. R62 was wearing slip on slippers with no back to the slipper. On 11/30/22 at approximately 4:21 p.m., R62 was observed in her wheelchair alone self propelling toward her bed and taking her slippers off leaving just her white socks on. On 12/1/22 at 11:08 a.m., R62 was observed up in her wheelchair in the common area outside of her room self propelling. R62's seat belt as not in place and the right food pedal was still on the wheel chair. A review of R62's medical record revealed she admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and repeated falls. A review of her 9/6/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed she scored 0/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating severely impaired cognition. This review showed she did not walk during the review period, required the extensive assistance of two plus staff for transfers, and used a wheelchair. A review of her previous MDS dated [DATE] revealed she scored 10/15 on the BIMS assessment, indicating moderately impaired cognition, walked and transferred with the extensive assistance of one staff member, and used just a walker. A review of a Physical Restraint/Alarm Evaluation/ Re-Evaluation for R62 dated 9/27/22 revealed the following: . Gets out of bed, stands from chair, recent hip fx (fracture) . Recommended three day trial of least restrictive physical restraint/alarm: Date : (blank) X Seat belt . There were no reminders checked off regarding the consent, order or care plan, and the final recommendation section was blank. There was no staff signature or signature date. A review of R62's fall Investigation and Investigation forms revealed the following: On 6/6/22 at 6:50 p.m., This nurse was in the nursing station getting report from (name of LPN R). We heard an alarm going off in the distance. I entered (R62's) room and observed (R62) sitting on the floor. (CNA J) was first in the room and saw the fall from the doorway. (R62) had stood up from her w/c and fell on her bottom . The Incident review form included the Intervention/Corrections implemented as Don't leave R62 unattended in her room (she does wheel herself in there so staff will need to be observant). On 6/11/22 at 1:45 p.m. was a fall in the Residents bathroom. LPN R had a gait belt around R62 but was unable to stop the resident from falling. On 7/1/22 at 4:40 a.m., (R62) was found by (CNAV) during bed checks. Resident was face down on floor . A review of CNA V's statement for this event revealed, .She (R62) was laying on her stomach next to bed . her pad alarm was in bed under her and did not activate (it was on). We did not hear anything and 2 of the 3 CNA's on unit were sitting in that side of living room close to room . and noted she last checked on the resident two hours prior. The Incident Review form noted, Her alarm was on but not in the proper place- she had moved them . Ensure alarms are in place during rounds. Review of the care plan revealed that the intervention to ensure alarms were out of R62's reach was already initiated on the care plan as of 1/27/21, and was revised on 5/3/22, and therefore should have been in place. On 7/5/22 at 2:00 a.m.(R62) observed on the floor on her right side . head under head of bed . red area at right hip, slight pain on palpation . shrinkage noted at the time of EMS exam . on call physician called, okay to send out for right hip evaluation . A review of the Incident Review form revealed, (CNA N) had just done a purposeful round and the alarm was on. When (R62) fell it was turned off. It was functional. The first thought was to place the alarm out of her reach but the cords are not log enough . the final decision was to put hip protectors on her. A review of CNA Ns statement revealed, Was in nurses station opening (name of EMR) to chart and check residents heart a loud crash noise ran to residents room and found her on the floor . On 7/9/22 at 6:40 p.m., .(CNA P), she states '(R62) is on the floor' this nurse entered the room and (R62) was observed on the floor on her left side . the alarm pad was observed between (R62's) legs and a towel around it. The alarm was 'on' but was not sounding due to the towel . The Incident Review form intervention was, Do not put a towel around the safety alarm. This was already a care planned intervention initiated in May 2022, that was not implemented prior to this fall. On 7/22/22 at 8:15 p.m., Nursing description: Walked by (R62's) room and witnessed her on floor of her room . (R62) has an indwelling foley catheter and the drainage bag was attached to the bed when she got up. She recently had an increased (sic) in her Sinemet d/t (due to) frequent falls . An email statement was attached to the report written by LPN U which revealed, This writer found (R62) on the floor she was sitting on her R (right) side with both hands on the floor . Her foley catheter bag was still attached to the bed . At the time of the fall she was lying in bed with slipper socks on but the alarm was not turned back on by the CNA when (R62) was last repositioned . There was no documentation of who the CNA was that failed to turn the alarm on and no indication if they were disciplined or educated. The intervention per the Incident Review form revealed, If (R62) is restless at night bring her out of her room for better observation and to lower her risk of falls. On 8/21/22 at 9:25 p.m., Heard (CNA J) calling out, 'Fall' . (R62) lying beside her bed with her right hand hanging onto the side rail. Her upper body and head were elevated off the floor. Blood was dripping from her right elbow . checked over again once back in bed. (R62) started to c/o (complain of) pain in her right upper leg. Pain was 10/10 when leg was palpated or moved slightly . EMS called @ (at) 2240 (10:40 p.m.) and here by 2250 (10:50 p.m.) . EMT's examined and questioned (R62) . pain was now 1/10 . she denied significant pain . Decision made not to send her to (Name of Hospital) . Foley tubing pulled taut when she got up. Hip protectors checked and on @ all times. They were not on . A statement from CNA J revealed, I heard bed alarm and saw call light flashing. Ran to (R62's) room and she was on the floor . I pull(sic) the alarm and call light out of the way and yelled for the nurse . A summary of the incident revealed, .The following Monday morning .she was still having pain of 10 out of 10 and ordered a 3-view X-ray of her right hip and a 2-view x-ray of her right femur. The results came back as a displaced fracture of the right femoral neck. She was then transported to (name of Hospital) for repair . The interventions for this fall are to place the foley bag in a basin on the floor. This is so when she gets up it is not hooked to the bed . She does have hip protectors ordered. At the time of the fall they had been taken to laundry and were drying . On 9/22/22 at 4:35 p.m., (LPN R) called to (R62's) room by (CNA P), (R62's) electric recliner was in the standing position. (R62) was lying on her left side on the floor in front of her chair, eye glasses lying on the floor lens missing . noted 3 cm wide bump on her forehead left of center . redness to left patella (knee) . A review of a witness statement with no name or date of writing revealed, At nurses station: Last saw (R62) at 4:20 pm - place ice pack on R (right) hip for c/0 pain. A review of a written summary for this event revealed, . It was apparent that (R62) had taken the control and lifted the chair into an upright position and then slid out onto her left knee and forehead. The lift control was removed and will be kept out of her reach . A review of the care plan revealed no intervention was initiated to keep the recliner control out of reach. On 9/26/22 at 5:15 p.m., (R62) was in the west living room. Sitting after an activity with a group of others. (LPN R) was in and out of the living room, passing medications. (R62's) alarm went off (LPN R) went to the alarm and saw (R62) holding herself off the floor by holding the wheel chair handle of the wheel chair in front of her . (R62's) feet and lower legs were caught in the foot pedals of her wheel chair . A review of the incident summary for this fall revealed, . Her feet were under her wheelchair foot pedals . There was (sic) 4 staff present on the floor at the time. The intervention was to have (R62) in line of sight anytime she is in the wheelchair . No new interventions regarding not leaving R62 with her foot pedals on the wheelchair unattended or when not being pushed. There was also no indication in the report if R62 had removed her own seat belt, or if it had not been placed back on by staff. On 11/25/22 at 7:25 a.m., (Nurses summary left blank) . other info: (R62) was attempting to get out of bed by herself. Alarm was sound but staff was unable to get to her before her knees were on the mat beside her bed. She was barefoot . Review of a witness statement by CNA M revealed, I was in the nurses station talking about Tksgvng (Thanksgiving) w/ (RN K) . Her (R62's) light went off, our convo (conversation) came to a stop as we made our way to (R62's) room. Her bed was all the (sic - way) to the floor her mat was in place, but her knees touch the mat. That was her fall. Under the section of when the resident was last checked, CNA M wrote, Last rounds. On 12/1/22 at 11:11 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding R62's falls. When asked about the 7/1/22 fall where it indicated CNA's were sitting in the common area when it occurred, the DON made no comment. The DON was asked about the multiple falls (7/1/22 and 7/5/22 for example) where R62 was accused of turning her alarms off despite the care planned intervention from 2021 to keep the bed alarm out of reach. The DON stated, I don't remember if we got a longer cord? I don't remember to be honest. When asked about the 7/9/22 fall (alarm was wrapped in a towel), the DON stated, I don't know why they wrap it in a towel. Anyway's I talked to them and said don't do that . The DON was asked if since it was a previous fall intervention not to do that, if the CNA who had done it was disciplined or educated one on one for not following the care plan. The DON stated, It does (happen) if we can identify who it was (that did it), but I can't write everybody up if you don't know. When asked about the 7/22/22 fall (CNA did not turn alarm back on) the DON reported she didn't recall that fall and may not have been at the facility during that time. When asked about the 8/21/22 fall (hip protectors were not put on), the DON stated, That was (CNA J) . they (hip protectors) were both in the laundry room, one was drying and the other in a basket. After that we put two more pairs in the treatment room. When asked about there not being a discipline or education in CNA J's record for neglecting to follow the care plan and the fall resulting in a fracture, the DON just stated, She got educated. When asked if R62 was wearing appropriate footwear during the 9/22/22 fall, the DON reported, If you didn't see it (documentation) it probably wasn't there We generally make people take those (nonskid slippers) home. The ones you put your foot in and it just slides in, those are dangerous too. When asked if R62 had her alarming seat belt in place during the 9/26/22 fall as it was not noted in the report, the DON reported initially the belt was just a normal seat belt that didn't alarm. When asked about the foot pedals being left on if staff weren't around, the DON reported that she didn't know, but that staff have to have them on to push her. When asked about the 11/25/22 fall the DON indicated she was still investigating it. When asked about the concern of staff sitting at the nurses station and residents being found on the floor because the alarms are not answered in time, the DON reported the facility had already recognized that as an issue and were going to be fixing that. When asked about the intervention of R62 not having access to the recliner control, the DON provided no comment. A review of R62's fall care plan initiated on 6/6/21 revealed the following: .a seat belt will be placed on (R62's) wheelchair (9/28/22) .be sure (R62's) call light is within reach and encourage the (sic) her to used it . (6/6/21) . Bed alarm while in bed in addition continue to activate chair alarm when up. Place bed alarm control box out of (R62's) reach @ (at) all times. (initiated 1/27/21, revised 5/3/22). Do not leave (R62) in her room unattended in her w/c (wheelchair). She tends to self transfer to her recliner or bed. (6/7/22). Do not wrap alarm pad in a towel or place anything around it, the pressure/weight will prevent the alarm from sounding (7/9/22) . If she is awake at that time she should be assisted with morning care and brought out to the dining room (11/25/22) . Ensure seatbelt alarm is turned on when in w/c (9/29/22). Ensure that (R62) is wearing appropriate footwear-tennis shoes, when ambulating with her walker (initiated 6/6/21, revised 11/21/22). Ensure the alarms are in place during rounds (7/7/22) . Frequent purposeful rounds when (R62) is in her room (Initiated 5/20/22, revised 11/21/22). Gripper socks when in bed (8/22/22) . Hip protectors at all times (7/6/22) . If (R62) is restless bring her out of her room at night to better observe her and lower her risk of falling (initiated 7/22/22, revised 8/1/22). (R62) has 2 pair of hip protectors - if both are in laundry there are 2 spare pair in the household and a new pair in storage (9/19/22) . (R62) has been placed on high risk fall list. Her light is a priority (initiated 5/7/22, revised on 11/21/22) .(R62) uses a bed alarm on the back of her recliner and a chair alarm on the seat of her recliner. Make sure both are on when (R62) is in her recliner (6/21/22). (R62) uses pancake alarm. Ensure the device is in place and working properly (6/6/21). Make sure chair alarm is on and in working order (12/21/21). Make sure that (R62) has two cough drops on her bedside table (initiated 10/5/21, revised 11/21/22). Mat to be placed beside (R62's) bed while in it (8/22/22) . Safety alarm is not to be placed under cushions. blankets, or other items, as the additional weight/pressure prolongs the alarming (initiated 3/23/22, revised 9/27/22) . Between 7/1/22 and 12/1/22, R62 had eight falls. During three of the falls (7/22/22, 8/21/22, and 11/25/22), care planned interventions were not implemented and the 8/21/22 fall resulted in a fall with fracture and a decline in physical status. Two other falls documented R62 as turning her own fall alarm off, despite previous interventions to place the bed alarm box out of reach. Resident #66 On 11/28/22 at 11:36 a.m., Resident #66 (R66) was observed in her wheelchair near the staff bathroom. R66 was wearing a seatbelt and there was an alarm on her wheelchair as well. R66 was asking about the staff bathroom and when asked if she needed to go to the bathroom she stated she did. On 11/29/22 at 12:27 p.m., R66 was observed up in her wheelchair with the seatbelt on in the common area and hallway of her unit. Resident was being guided to the dining area for lunch. On 11/30/22 at 12:45 p.m., R66 was observed seated at the dining room table. She started to push her wheelchair backward and undid her seatbelt which started to alarm, and exclaimed Its loud! CNA M went over to R66 and stated, You keep unplugging it that's why it's being loud. Put it back together. R66 buckled the seatbelt and pushed R66 back toward the table. R66 started, to say I don't which CNA M interrupted with Do you need to do something? R66 quietly stated, Well no. CNA M informed R66 that she had not finished her lunch. On 11/30/22 at 4:20 p.m., R66 was in the common area of the unit and was observed unplugging her seat belt. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) R encouraged R66 to re-buckle her seat belt. LPN R stated to R66, Can you hook that up? Do you know why its on? to which R66 stated, Because they don't want me getting out. Approximately two minutes later R66 unplugged her seat belt again, and CNA O asked her to keep her seat belt on. R66 then asked this CNA O who was carrying a load of laundry to a room if she could help her and the CNA O responded No. On 11/30/22 at approximately 4:24 p.m., R66 was asked was observed aimlessly self propelling in the common area. When asked if there were any activities or things for her to do, R66 stated, Not really. A review of R66's medical record revealed she admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, adjustment disorder, adult failure to thrive, and history of falling. A review of the most recent 11/1/22 Significant Change MDS Assessment revealed she scored 3/15 on the BIMS assessment, indicating severely impaired cognition and had no falls since readmission or the previous assessment. R66 was assessed as needing extensive assistance of two staff for toileting and bed mobility, and extensive assistance of one staff for ambulation. A review of her MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed she required only supervision of one staff for toileting and bed mobility, no supervision or assistance for transfers, and just supervision of one staff for ambulation requiring no mobility devices. A review of a Facility Reported Incident (FRI) investigation for R66 for a Fracture of Unknown Source on 10/25/22 revealed the following: .At around 2130 (9:30 p.m.) (RN W) heard (CNA J) call out for help. (RN W) and (CNA P) responded to her call and observed (CNA J) supporting (R66) in the doorway to her room. (CNA J) stated that (R66) had cried out and said she could not walk. When (CNA J) heard her she was standing in the doorway. (R66) had been able to walk from her bed to the doorway without calling out. (R66) was very unsteady and complained of right knee pain. (R66) denied that anything happened and said she did not fall . once in bed (RN W) stated that (R66) again pointed to her kneed but then ran her hand up her thigh indicating that area hurt as well . The following morning (CNA M) called for (LPN R) to come to (R66's) room as she was having pain and she could not sit up or move her right leg without crying out . She (R66) had facial grimacing and was reluctant to move . There was no bruising or redness or any visible indication that she may have fallen . EMS transported (R66) to (name of Hospital) . an x-ray was done which revealed a mildly displaced fracture of the femoral neck without dislocation . (R66) had surgical repair of her hip at (Name of Hospital) on 10/25/22 and tolerated it well . This investigation did not have a conclusion section to discuss the investigation of the possible cause of the injury. A review of the witness statement written by RN S on the morning R66 was found unable to walk revealed, .(LPN R) stated (R66) has not been able to get out of bed this morning - and she (is) screaming in pain when R (right) thigh/hip is palpated . This RN attempted to palpate area - (R66) screamed in pain . no markings to show of any type of fall. Staff state no fall - (R66) stated 'I Fell' but unable to say how or when. (R66) is confused at baseline . A witness statement written by CNA J written 10/25/22 revealed, In living room with another resident when I heard (R66) yelling she needed help because she can't walk. Ran to her she at doorway was standing and tipping side ways. I put my arms around her and steady her and yelled for help. Waited for other staff to help assist/walk her to her bed . when asked what happened or if she fell she said No I don't know what happen (sic). This statement revealed R66 was last checked at 8:30 p.m. (an hour prior) and was noted to be sleeping at the time. A review of R66's incident and accident reports revealed the following: 11/6/22 4:50 p.m. (R66) had been sleeping in the recliner in the west lounge. This nurse (LPN R) and (CNA H) heard (R66's) chair alarm sounding, (LPN R) and (CNA H) were in the nurse's station and went running to the west lounge, before reaching the lounge there was a loud noise, found (R66) on her knees f[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure competency evaluation was completed per state law for two Residents (#56 & #67) of four residents reviewed for advance directives. T...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure competency evaluation was completed per state law for two Residents (#56 & #67) of four residents reviewed for advance directives. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for a Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) acting on behalf of residents unnecessarily, and potentially making life ending decisions against resident's wishes. Findings include: Resident #56 A record review on 11/28/22 at 3:25 p.m., revealed a Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST), signed and dated on 6/6/22 by Family Member (FM) X. There was no evidence in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) to suggest a competency evaluation had been completed by two physicians as required by state law. There was also no DPOA paperwork available to view in the EMR. On 11/28/22 at approximately 4:45 p.m., a request was made for the facility to provide evidence of DPOA paperwork and competency evaluations to show FM X was legally able to make medical decisions for Resident #56. During an interview on 11/29/22 at 3:00 p.m., Social Services (SS) BB presented this surveyor with DPOA paperwork from another state for Resident #56. SS BB stated she thought the paperwork stated the medical DPOA was assigned to the daughter (FM X). The paperwork reviewed designated FM X as Resident #56's health care representative, but she was not granted medical DPOA for Resident #56. SS BB stated the following line meant the DPOA was active: I have executed this Financial and Medical Power of Attorney on this 7 day of July, 2020. SS BB was informed this line in the document simply acknowledged the DPOA paper work was signed as being legally enforceable if the DPOA was ever needing to be activated, not that the DPOA was already activated. SS BB was informed the state required signatures from two separate physicians to establish competency or lack thereof. SS BB stated there was no documentation of Resident #56 being evaluated by two physicians for capacity to consent. Resident #67 On 11/28/22 at 4:34 p.m., a review of the EMR revealed only one physician signature had been obtained to establish Resident #67 lacked capacity to consent. On 11/28/22 at approximately 4:45 p.m., the facility was asked to provide a second signature from a physician determining Resident #67 lacked capacity to consent. During an interview on 11/29/22 at 3:00 p.m., SS BB stated the DPOA paperwork language indicated activation required only the primary physician was needed to evaluate for competency to activate the medical DPOA. A review of the document revealed the DPOA required only the signature of the primary physician was required for activation. SS BB was informed state law still required two physicians must sign to determine a resident lacks the capacity to consent. A request for the policy on Advance Directives was requested. No policy was received from the facility by the time of exit on 12/1/22 at 12:30 p.m.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

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 that restraint evaluations with appropriate in...

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 that restraint evaluations with appropriate indications for use and physicians orders were in place for two Residents (#62 and #66) out of two residents reviewed for restraints. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for injury or feelings of loss of freedom. Findings include: Resident #62 On 11/28/22 at 11:33 p.m., Resident #62 (R62) was observed up in her wheelchair near the door of her room in the hallway. R62 was attempting to self propel herself into her room. She was noted with a wheelchair alarm and a seat belt in place. R62 was asked how she was doing but did not respond. On 11/29/22 at 12:27 p.m., R62 was observed self propelling in her wheelchair with her seat belt on back into her room. On 11/30/22 at 12:45 p.m., R62 was observed up in her wheelchair with her seat belt on. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA L) was observed putting the footpedals on R62's wheelchair. R62 was wearing slip on slippers with no back to the slipper. A review of R62's medical record revealed she admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and repeated falls. A review of her 9/6/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed she scored 0/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating severely impaired cognition. This review showed she did not walk during the review period, required the extensive assistance of two plus staff for transfers, and used a wheelchair. A review of her previous MDS dated [DATE] revealed she scored 10/15 on the BIMS assessment, indicating moderately impaired cognition, walked and transferred with the extensive assistance of one staff member, and used just a walker. A review of R62's physician orders revealed no order for the use of the seat belt restraint. A review of a Physical Restraint/Alarm Evaluation/ Re-Evaluation for R62 dated 9/27/22 revealed the following: . Gets out of bed, stands from chair, recent hip fx (fracture) . Recommended three day trial of least restrictive physical restraint/alarm: Date : (blank) X Seat belt . There were no reminders checked off regarding the consent, order or care plan, and the final recommendation section was blank. There was no staff signature or signature date. On 11/30/22 at 3:26 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked about the unfinished assessment and lack of signature for R62's restraint assessment as well as the lack of physician order for use of the restraint. The DON reported it was her mistake, and that the assessment was scanned before she could finish it or sign it. The DON reported she knew the restraint needed a physician order, but that it was missed. A review of R62's fall care plan initiated on 6/6/21 revealed the following: .a seat belt will be placed on (R62's) wheelchair (9/28/22) . A review of R62's care plan for the seat belt was initiated on 11/3/22 and revealed, (R62) uses a seat belt alarm d/t (due to) inability to ambulate independently since her hip fracture . (Interventions) I often forget that I cannot stand independently so please respond quickly if my alarm rings (11/3/22) . Resident #66 On 11/28/22 at 11:36 a.m., Resident #66 (R66) was observed in her wheelchair near the staff bathroom. R66 was wearing a seatbelt and there was an alarm on her wheelchair as well. R66 was asking about the staff bathroom and when asked if she needed to go to the bathroom she stated she did. This surveyor went to the nurses station to report R66's request for assistance. On 11/28/22 at 12:38 p.m., R66 was observed at a dining table waiting for the lunch meal with her seat belt on. On 11/29/22 at 12:30 p.m., R66 was observed being pushed up to dining room table in wheelchair with seat belt on by RN K. On 11/30/22 at 12:45 p.m., R66 was observed seated at the dining room table. She started to push her wheelchair backward and undid her seatbelt which started to alarm, and exclaimed Its loud! CNA M went over to R66 and stated, You keep unplugging it that's why it's being loud. Put it back together. R66 buckled the seatbelt and pushed R66 back toward the table. R66 started, to say I don't which CNA M interrupted with Do you need to do something? R66 quietly stated, Well no. CNA M informed R66 that she had not finished her lunch. On 11/30/22 at 4:20 p.m., R66 was in the common area of the unit and was observed unplugging her seat belt. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) R encouraged R66 to re-buckle her seat belt. LPN R stated to R66, Can you hook that up? Do you know why its on? to which R66 stated, Because they don't want me getting out. Approximately two minutes later R66 unplugged her seat belt again, and CNA O asked her to keep her seat belt on. R66 then asked this CNA O who was carrying a load of laundry to a room if she could help her and the CNA O responded No. A review of R66's medical record revealed she admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, adjustment disorder, adult failure to thrive, and history of falling. A review of the most recent 11/1/22 Significant Change MDS Assessment revealed she scored 3/15 on the BIMS assessment, indicating severely impaired cognition and had no falls since readmission or the previous assessment. R66 was assessed as needing extensive assistance of two staff for toileting and bed mobility, and extensive assistance of one staff for ambulation. A review of her MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed she required only supervision of one staff for toileting and bed mobility, no supervision or assistance for transfers, and just supervision of one staff for ambulation requiring no mobility devices. The 9/27/22 MDS had no alarms or restraints documented, but the 11/1/22 MDS revealed she had three alarms in place daily (bed, chair, and other). A review of R66's medical record revealed she was found to have a right femoral fracture on 10/25/22 after a potential unwitnessed fall 10/24/22. R66 had surgical repair of the fracture and was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of R66's physicians orders revealed no order for a seat belt or seat belt alarm. A review of a Physical Restraint/Alarm Evaluation/Re-evaluation assessment for R66 signed on 10/28/22 revealed the following: X admission . Current least restrictive physical restraint/alarm in place: X tab alarm. X sensor pad . Gets out of bed, stand from chair, odes not call for help, does not remember she broke her up . Recommend three day trial of least restrictive physical restraint/alarm: Date: 10/28/22: X seat belt . X institute consent form as necessary. X Add to care plans, treatment sheets at time of trial recommendation and final recommendation. This was a three-day trial assessment and the Final Recommendation portion was blank. A document titled, Physical Restraints Record of Informed Consent for R66 showed Verbal consent POA . was listed under the signature dated 10/28/22, but the form was not completed with a check of whether consent was or wasn't given, and did not include the type of restraint or reason for use. A review of a progress note for R66 revealed, 11/29/22 . (R66) did remove her seat belt a few times this shift, redirect to buckle and she complied. She also complained about the alarm sounding, re-assured that it was there for her safety. A review of R66's falls care plan initiated 4/7/22 revealed, (R66) is high risk for falls . (Interventions) A belt alarm in my wheelchair may help me remember to only get up with assistance (10/28/22) . I have had a hip fracture and may forget I need assistance .(10/27/22) . The Resident needs activities that minimize the potential for falls while providing diversion and distraction. While (R66) is in the wheelchair, please provide activity that (R66) enjoys doing like folding laundry or cleaning tables. She typically is at fall risk because she is trying to do these things while standing up from her wheelchair to reach an item .(11/9/22) . A review of R66's seat belt care plan initiated 11/3/22 revealed, (R66) has a seat belt alarm r/t (related to) inability to ambulate indecently (sic?) d/t her recent hip fracture . (Interventions) I can release the seat belt by myself but please reposition me and offer to toilet me every 2 hours (11/3/22). If I am attempting to get up from my wheelchair please take me for a walk with my gait belt, walker, and a w/c following me (11/3/22). When my alarm goes off please respond quickly (11/3/22). There were only those three interventions. On 12/1/22 at approximately 11:31 a.m., the DON was asked about the lack of physician's order for R66 and reported that it had been missed. A review of the facility policy titled, Use of Restraints dated 3/14 revealed the following, Restraints shall only be used for the safety and well-being of the residents and only after other alternatives have been tried unsuccessfully. Restraints shall only be used to treat the resident's medical symptom(s) and never for discipline or staff convenience, or for the prevention of falls . 5. Restraints may only be used if/when the resident has a specific medical symptom that cannot be addressed by another less restrictive intervention AND a restraint is required to: a. treat the medical symptom; b. protect the residents safety; and c. help the resident attain the highest level of his/her physical or psychological well-being. 6. Prior to placing a resident in restraints, there shall be a pre-restraining assessment and review to determine the need for restraints . 8. Restraints shall only be used upon the written order of a physician and after obtaining consent . the order shall include the following: a. the specific reason for the restraint (as it relates to the resident's medical symptom); b. How the restraint will be used to benefit the resident's medical symptom); and c. The type of restraint, and period of time for the use of the restraint
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

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 an allegation of potential abuse toward one Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of potential abuse toward one Resident (#66) was investigated and reported out of five residents reviewed for abuse. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for continued, unidentified abuse and the potential for harm. Findings include: Resident #66 A review of R66's medical record revealed she admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, adjustment disorder, adult failure to thrive, and history of falling. A review of the most recent 11/1/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed she scored 3/15 on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating severely impaired cognition and was not presenting any behavioral concerns. A review of an Employee Disciplinary Notification for Certified Nures Aide (CNA) J dated 4/14/22 revealed the following: Verbal warning . Minor Infractions: X Inappropriate Communication with Residents/Families/Visitors . There was an interaction between you and a resident with dementia that turned argumentative and in turn upset the resident. As a CNA on a dementia unit you need to understand that their thoughts are real to them and those thoughts are not based on reality . It is also not appropriate to make statements such as you are getting paid to care for them and then continue to argue with the resident using inappropriate language . We realize that burnout occurs however we cannot transfer that to our residents thorough (sic) our actions . If not then you will need to be more cognizant of what your residents are dealing with and meet them at that level, not argue or belittle, and treat them with respect. This was signed by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/19/22 but under the employee signature it was written Ref (refused) to sign. A review of an employee concern form written on 4/13/22 by CNA T with an incident date of 4/12/22. The written statement included the following in part, . I (CNA T) overheard (R66) telling (CNA J) that (R66) was upset that her family would leave her hear and that (R66) just wanted to go home. (CNA J) said something along the lines of 'you have no choice but to stay here' which (R66) replied with 'the he** I am.' (CNA J) then said to (R66) 'are you swearing at me? That is SO disrespectful, don't swear at me.' (R66) was confused and that just escaladed (sic) (R66's) frustration and confusion . (R66) was following her (CNA J) asking her why she was treating her that way and why she needs to stay here. (CNA J) was hollering at (R66) 'I am paid to take care of you and you will be staying here, you have no choice. Take it up with your family an./or your DR (daughter) in the AM.' I (CNA T) could not listen to (CNA J) argue with (R66) anymore . I grabbed (R66's) hand and asked her if she would come walk with me. (CNA J) was still trying to argue with (R66) . (R66) kept asking why someone would treat her that way . I have not seen this side of (R66) since she has arrived her. (R66's) feelings were extremely hurt . This isn't abnormal behavior for (CNA J) to be rude and short with residents . On 11/30/22 at 4:18 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked if the altercation between R66 and CNA J was reported to the state agency. The DON stated, Probably not. When asked about CNA J not signing the statement, the DON stated, No, they usually don't. They think if they don't sign it then it (the write up) doesn't count. On 11/30/22 at 4:24 p.m., R66 was observed in her wheelchair in the common area of her unit. When asked if she liked the staff who took care of her, R66 stated, Some I do, some I don't. When asked if the staff were ever mean to her or treated her unkindly, R66 stated, Well sometimes they say things that aren't nice. When asked if she reported it to anyone, R66 stated, No, because you know where it will go and they (staff) might get worse, and then you're just stuck here. R66 would not provide any of the names of the staff she was referring to. On 12/1/22 at approximately 11:31 a.m., the DON was asked for an investigation regarding the CNA J and R66 altercation from May 2022. The DON reported that it wasn't substantiated. When asked if she had an investigation regarding the incident, the DON reported she did not have a written one. When asked to provide CNA Js statement regarding the event, the DON reported she didn't have one and that CNA J had refused to sign the write up or say what happened, but that she didn't say it in that manner. The DON stated about CNA J, (CNA J) gets defensive and tough . She gives good care and is rough around the edges and sometimes its taken as being rude. The DON was asked if R66 was interviewed and reported that R66 didn't remember the incident and did not have a statement for her. A review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation dated October 2022 revealed, .Alleged Violation is a situation or occurrence that is observed or reported by staff, resident, relative, visitor or others but has not yet been investigated an, if verified, could be indication of noncompliance with Federal requirements related to mistreatment, exploitation, neglect, or abuse . A. An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect, or exploitation occur . A. The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure written information was provided to two Resident/Representatives (#11 & #13) of three reviewed for written notice of bed hold. This ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure written information was provided to two Resident/Representatives (#11 & #13) of three reviewed for written notice of bed hold. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for residents/representatives being unaware of incurring expenses related to reserve payment. Findings include: Resident #11 A review of the Progress Notes, in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR), for Resident #11, revealed the following: 11/27/2022 10:33 (a.m.) Nurses Notes Late Entry: . Resident (#11) . This nurse note that he was shallow breathing and appeared to be in distress. Vital signs:165/77 (blood pressure), 97.3 (temperature), 102 (heart rate), 26 (respirations), 85-90% (oxygen saturation) on room air. He exhibited absence of lung sounds in bilat. (bilateral) lower bases an decreased in bilat. upper lobes. He was shallow breathing and struggling . Sound Physicians was notified and wanted him sent to (local Hospital) ER (emergency room) for eval (evaluation) . The ambulance arrived at 1135 (11:35 a.m.) and left with him, via a gurney, at 1145 (11:45 a.m.) . (DON [Director of Nursing]) . requested this nurse call the ER and have them test him for Legionnaires d/t (due to) his HX (history) of this and it being active w(with)/in this building . A review of the EMR revealed no evidence of a written bed hold notice provided to Resident #11 or Resident Representative. On 11/30/22 at 2:38 p.m., during an interview, Registered Nurse (RN) CC was asked if there was evidence of a written bed hold notice provided to Resident #11 or the Resident Representative. RN CC stated she was reminded by facility leadership that she was responsible for ensuring the written bed hold notice was provided to residents /resident representatives. RN CC acknowledged she had missed providing these as part of her responsibilities. Resident #13 A review of the Progress Notes, in the EMR, for Resident #13, revealed the following: 9/18/2022 (3:06 p.m.) Infection Note . Sound physicians contacted and orders received to . (local hospital) for eval (evaluation) . A review of the facility documentation related to the hospitalization of Resident #13 revealed she was sent out for respiratory arrest on 9/18/22. Further review determined the concern was distress and not arrest. There was no evidence of written notice of a bed hold presented to the Resident (#13)/Resident Representative in the EMR. On 11/30/22 at 10:36 a.m., during an interview, Registered Nurse (RN) CC was asked to provide evidence of written notice for the facility bed hold policy being provided to Resident #13 or a Resident Representative. On 11/30/22 at 2:38 p.m., during a follow-up interview, RN CC stated she was reminded by facility leadership she was the staff person responsible for providing notifications for bed hold policy. RN CC stated this was part of her job and acknowledged she missed this required task. A review of the facility policy, Bed Hold, dated 12/2008, read in part: 1. When the resident has a temporary absence from the (facility), (facility) will hold a bed open for the resident based on the resident/responsible party's request to do so. This will be done based on a reasonable expectation that the resident will return and (facility) has received payment for the absent period. 2. Written information concerning (facility) Bed Hold Policy will be provided to the resident/responsible party upon admission to (facility) and whenever the resident is transferred and/or admitted to another facility . . 4. Acceptance or denial of the offering of a bed hold will be documented in the resident's record. The family will be requested to sign the bed hold agreement form indicating acceptance or refusal. If a bed hold is requested, the facility will require a five-day advance deposit billed at the daily rate. The bed hold starts on the day the resident leaves the facility. If determined, during the five-day bed hold period, that resident is not able to come back to (facility) for whatever reason, please note that the bed hold charges will still be applicable up through the day that the resident returns to (facility). If the resident returns before the five days are exhausted, then the bed hold deposit may be credited toward the next absence from (facility) or refunded during the monthly billing cycle.
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 F0657 (Tag F0657)

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 revise care plans for 2 Residents (#56 & #67) of 18 residents revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise care plans for 2 Residents (#56 & #67) of 18 residents reviewed for care planning. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for further incidents related to falls and elopements. Findings include: Resident #56 A review of the Progress Notes section of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the following: 10/31/2022 (8:15 a.m.) Incident Note . Heard yelling out- entered room and observed resident lying on the floor alongside her bed, head @ foot of bed and feet @ head of bed, on her right side . She was very incontinent of urine, in her PJ's, w/o (without) footwear on, alarm in place, not sounding . During an interview on 11/29/22 at 3:24 p.m., Family Member (FM) X stated Resident #56 had falls a few days after her admission to the facility and ended up with two black eyes and bruised ribs with one out of place on August 19th, 2022. FM X stated she felt there were not enough staff to watch everybody. FM X stated she was ready to move Resident #56 out of the facility, but felt the staffing and care was much better now. A review of the incidents for Resident #56 revealed the following: A review of the incident report dated 6/10/22 at 6:30 p.m., revealed Resident #56 was heard yelling and was found lying on her back with blood coming from her right eyebrow. Non-skid shoes/socks were implemented after this fall. A review of the incident report dated 8/21/22 at 8:50 p.m., revealed Resident #56 was observed on the floor in front of the clean linen room for the unit. Resident # 56 was unable to say what she was trying to do. There was no new intervention identified in this incident following the fall. A review of the incident report dated 8/31/22 at 9:35 a.m., revealed Resident #56 was observed lying on her back, calling for help in the doorway of her room, and had fallen and hit her head. The incident report went on to discuss Resident #56 was persistently complaining of needing to go to the bathroom. Resident #56 was toileted after the fall and had a bowel movement. A review of the incident report dated 10/31/22 at 7:13 a.m., revealed Resident #56 was heard yelling out and upon entering the room was found lying on the floor next to her bed on her right side. On 11/29/22 at approximately 4:05 p.m., during an interview, the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked if non-skid shoes and socks would be a baseline care planning intervention for fall risk reduction. The DON stated yes, but Resident #56 would be one to take them off. The DON went on to stated Resident #56 was very ambulatory and often took herself to the bathroom. When asked if the other two interventions on her fall care plan should be baseline interventions, the DON agreed they would be considered baseline. On 11/29/22 at 4:15 p.m., during a follow-up interview, the DON acknowledged the care plans were not where they needed to be and were in the process of being cleaned up. When asked if she felt a toileting program would be appropriate, the DON agreed a toileting program would be appropriate for Resident #56. The DON also acknowledged encouragement of a resident who lacks cognitive ability to use a call light should not be encouraged to use the call light as an intervention and would not be appropriate. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #56, revealed short term and long term memory issues and Resident #56 was severely cognitively impaired. A review of the care plan High risk for falls, with an initiation date of 6/17/22, had interventions which included the following: Anticipate and meet (Resident #56)'s needs. Initiated on 6/17/22. Be sure (Resident #56)'s call light is within reach and encourage (Resident #56) to use it for assistance as needed. Initiated on 6/17/22 and revised on 11/18/22. Non-skid socks or shoes with non slip soles. Initiated on 6/10/22. Provide activities that promote exercise and strength building where possible. Provide 1:1 activities if bedbound. Initiated on 6/10/22. There were no other care planning interventions to address the falls sustained by Resident #56 on 8/21/22, 8/31/22 or 10/31/22. Resident #67 On 11/28/22 at 2:01 p.m., during an observation and interview attempt, Resident #67 was perseverating on going out to look at a fallen tree across the street. Resident #67 was upset that he was told he could not go and look at this tree that fell down. Resident #67 did not present as cognitively intact and demonstrated word salad communication at times during the interview. A review of an Elopement incident dated 10/14/22, revealed Front Desk Staff FF had let Resident #67 out of the facility. Staff FF thought Resident #67 was a visitor and let him out when Resident #67 identified himself as a visitor and stated he needed to go outside and get the keys out of his car. A review of a Behavior Note dated 10/14/22 at 8:58 p.m., revealed the following: During dinner today, (Resident #67) was actively exit seeking. With redirection he sat down to eat his soup. This nurse was at the med cart prepping medication when I heard CNA ([Certified Nurse Aide] HH) yellout(sic) hey that's (Resident #67)! to which this nurse looked up and saw (Resident #67) walking outside in the parking lot with his walker .I talked to the front desk asking how hegot(sic) out without the alarm going off to which he stated (Resident #67) knocked on the door and told the front desk he was a visitor and needed to go out to his car and grab his keys, to which the front desk let him out and entered the code to the door, so the alarm did not go off .The front desk was unaware of who (Resident #67) was and did in fact believe he was a visitor . Author Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) GG During an interview on 11/30/22 at 8:06 a.m., the DON was asked why there was nothing in the body of the policy to address elopement prevention, only what to do when an elopement occurs. The DON acknowledged the policy should include education to staff on how to prevent elopements from happening in the first place, and to make sure they are not letting out residents without supervision. During this interview, Receptionist II proceeded to show this surveyor a binder kept at the receptionist desk which contained pictures of all the residents at the facility. Receptionist II stated the facility has always had this binder at the desk as far as she knew. The DON stated she was not aware of this binder being located at the reception desk. Both the DON and Receptionist II agreed staff who sat at the desk should be aware of the binder and check it before letting anyone off the units and out of the building. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 3:49 p.m., LPN GG confirmed Staff FF had let Resident #67 off the unit and out of the facility under the premise he was a visitor and not an employee. LPN GG also confirmed Resident #67 was .very skillful in his exit seeking . and that she had educated Staff FF to please make sure to ask the nurse for the unit before letting anyone off the unit. A review of the care plan Elopement risk, for Resident #67, with an initiation date of 8/12/12 had the following interventions: 1:1 staff as necessary when agitated and exit seeking Initiated on 8/15/22. A name tag will be made up for (Resident #67) to be clipped to the back of his shirt to alert people that he is a resident of (facility). Initiated on 10/18/22. A picture of (Resident #67) is posted throughout the facility. He will also wear a picture/resident ID tag(to be provided). Initiated on 8/12/22. Call administrators cell phone number when agitated and unable to redirect so he can speak with him. Initiated on 8/12/22. Distract (Resident #67) from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, book. (Resident #67) prefers: Pepsi, talking about his past, Bingo, old shows and movies (TV land and westerns). Initiated on 8/12/22. Monitor location every 15 min. (minutes) Document wandering behavior and attempted diversional interventions in behavior log. Initiated on 8/12/22. Provide structured activities: toileting, walking inside and outside, reorientation strategies including signs, pictures and memory boxes. Initiated on 8/12/22. (Resident #67) triggers for wandering/elopement are looking for his car, getting [NAME](sic), getting to work, etc (Resident #67) behaviors is de-escalated by redirecting and listed interventions. Initiated on 8/12/22. The care plan provided by the facility did not show any new interventions to address Resident #67's specific elopement concern with staff not recognizing him and letting him out of the building.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate monitoring and assessment of a pres...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate monitoring and assessment of a pressure ulcer for one Resident (#32) of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for unidentified worsening of the pressure ulcer, delayed healing and infection. Findings include: Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including stroke, left side hemiparesis, neurogenic bladder, and urinary tract infections. A review of Resident #32's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/20/2022, revealed the Resident required extensive, two-person assistance with bed mobility and toileting (including management of an indwelling, urinary catheter). An observation of perineal (area of body surrounding genitals) care on 11/30/2022 at 11:33 a.m., revealed an indwelling, urinary catheter leading from Resident #32's penis to a securing device attached to the Resident's left upper thigh and leading to a urine collection bag attached to the Resident's left, lower bedframe. An observation of the catheter insertion site at the urethral meatus (opening of the urethra located at tip of penis) revealed the urethra was eroded (worn away) beginning at the meatus and cleaving down the full thickness of the inferior (lower) aspect of the glans (head of penis). A dark red, dried substance was observed on the proximal catheter tubing and on the left side portion or Resident #32's glans of his penis. Registered Nurse (RN) Y reported the dried substance was blood. RN Y confirmed the presence of the tear in Resident #32's urethra and reported the wound was normal for him (Resident #32). RN Y was unsure what caused the wound. A review of Resident #32's physician progress note, dated 4/21/2022, revealed the following, in part: Just prior to exam today, was noted to have inferior, urethral meatus tear . slight bleeding. Denies remembering when this occurred. He states he thinks bleeding started a couple days ago . Diagnosis, Assessment and Plan: . Urethral tear, meatus from Foley (indwelling, urinary catheter). Local wound care. Not a candidate for closure . A review of Resident #32's electronic medical record (EMR), including all skin assessment, wound care notes, skilled nursing assessments, treatment administration records and progress notes from 4/01/2022 through 12/01/2022 revealed no documentation of wound care or wound assessments for Resident #32's urethral wound. Review of the EMR from 2/01/2022 through 12/01/2022 revealed no documentation of a traumatic injury resulting in injury of Resident #32's urethra. During an interview on 12/01/2022 at 8:19 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) reported Resident #32's urethral erosion should be assessed by nursing staff on a regular basis and documented in the EMR to allow for identification of delayed healing and infection. The DON stated all skin abnormalities should be documented on weekly skin assessments. During an interview on 12/01/2022 at 9:18 a.m., Physician EE reported Resident #32's urethral erosion was noted several months ago. Physician EE stated urethral erosion was a result of pressure from the catheter tubing lying against the urethral wall. When asked the importance of regular assessments of the wound, Physician EE confirmed regular nursing assessment of the wound was important to identify worsening or infection. On 12/01/2022 at approximately 11:00 a.m., the facility wound care nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) DD reported she was unaware of Resident #32's urethral erosion. LPN DD stated she did not provide care or assessment of the wound, including measurements to evaluation healing or worsening of the wound. A review of the facility policy titled Pressure Ulcer Treatment, revised 6/13/2017, revealed the following, in part: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the care of existing pressure ulcers and prevention of additional pressure ulcers. The pressure ulcer treatment program should focus on the following strategies: Assessing the resident and the pressure ulcer(s) . The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: Any change in the resident's condition. All assessment data (i.e., color, size, pain, drainage, etc.) when inspecting the wound.
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 indwelling, urinary catheter equipment was main...

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 indwelling, urinary catheter equipment was maintained in a sanitary manner for one Resident (#43) of two residents reviewed for catheter care. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for contamination of catheter equipment with infectious agents and urinary tract infection. Findings include: Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including dementia and urinary retention. A review of Resident #43's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed the Resident required extensive, one-person assistance with transfers and toileting (including management of an indwelling, urinary catheter). An observation on 11/30/2022 at 8:40 a.m., revealed Resident #43 self-propelling in a wheelchair from the lounge area of the locked, dementia care unit toward the dining room. Resident #43's catheter tubing was observed to be leading from the Resident to a drainage bag attached under the seat of the wheelchair. The catheter tubing was observed to be dragging on the floor under the wheelchair. Resident #43 was observed to park the chair at a table in the dining room with the catheter tubing resting directly on the floor and her right foot resting directly on top of the catheter tubing. Further observation revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) R approach Resident #43 and inquire if the Resident was ready for her medications. LPN R was kneeling in front of Resident #43 with the catheter tubing resting on the floor and directly in front of the LPN. LPN R arose and began to walk to the medication cart at which time a query was made as to what the appropriate placement of Resident #43's catheter tubing should be. LPN R looked back at Resident #43 and confirmed the catheter tubing was resting directly on the floor. LPN R stated the tubing should be secured in a manner to prevent touching the floor in order to prevent cross contamination and infection. LPN R was observed securing Resident #43's catheter tubing under the Resident's wheelchair and off the floor. A review of the facility policy titled Catheter Care, provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) and last reviewed 3/2022, revealed no direction as to positioning of catheter tubing or drainage bags. During an interview on 12/01/2022 at 1:10 p.m., the DON reported staff were to ensure catheter bags and tubing were maintained and positioned off the floor to prevent contamination and infection.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure competency was evaluated for two Certified Nurse Aides (CAN's) employed by the facility reviewed for competency evaluations. This de...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure competency was evaluated for two Certified Nurse Aides (CAN's) employed by the facility reviewed for competency evaluations. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for CNAs to lack training and skills needed to care for residents who reside in the facility. Findings include: On 11/29/22 at approximately 2:30 p.m., training, in-services, and competency evaluations for CNA G and CNA H who were current employees were requested. On 11/30/22, the files that contained competency evaluations for CNAs were reviewed. There was no evidence that CNA G or CNA H had a competency evaluation verified by staff at the facility, prior to being employed. It was confirmed that both CNA G and CNA H were employees being used by a third-party agency. CNA G Skills Checklist completed by CNA G, dated 10/21/22 marked himself as minimal experience for care for a combative patient, care for confused patient, application of protective devices: bed alarms, and chair alarms. CNA H Skills Checklist completed by CNA H, dated 6/30/2022 marked herself as no experience for tympanic temperature, maintain patient dignity and privacy at all times, pulse, respirations, shampoo, dental care, assist patient with urinal, bedside commode, foley catheter, care for a confused patient, care for a combative patient, care for patient with DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order, hand hygiene, standard/universal precautions, droplet precautions, personal protective equipment, bed alarm, and bed position. An interview was conducted with CNA H via telephone on 11/30/22 at 2:22 p.m. CNA H stated that she completed the Skills Checklist herself and received no training from the facility prior to starting her employment. An interview was conducted with Human Resources (HR) I on 11/30/22 at 2:40 p.m. HR I stated that all new employees receive training from current employed staff for two shifts at minimum. HR I was asked to provide documentation that this occurred for CNA G and CNA H and was unable to do so. When asked about the Skills Checklist completed by CNA G and CNA H evaluating their own performance prior to employment, HR I stated that she did not know this was completed by the individuals.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

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 treat two Residents (#36 & #66) with dignity and respe...

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 treat two Residents (#36 & #66) with dignity and respect of 18 residents reviewed for dignity. This deficient practice resulted in a lack of personal dignity and feelings of embarrassment or hopelessness based on the reasonable person. Findings include: Resident #36 (R 36) On 11/30/22 at approximately 1:00 p.m., the lunch meal was observed down the 300 hallway. During this time, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) G was observed at the far right table of the main dining room assisting R 36 with his lunch tray. CNA G was noted to be looking down at a cell phone which was placed underneath the table, holding it with his right hand with the open screen of the phone visible. CNA G then proceeded to look at his phone and was not assisting R 36 with his lunch. During this continued observation, CNA G then placed his cell phone back in his pocked, grabbed a spoon that was on R 36's tray with food, and proceeded to make 'airplane' noises while placing the spoon closer to R36's mouth. R 36 refused to eat the contents on the spoon. Review of R 36's 10/25/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he required extensive one person assist for meals. Review of the facility's Employee Handbook updated on 12/31/21 read, in part, .Employees are not to carry their personal mobile device(s) of any nature on their person .Personal devices MAY NOT be used in households .Staff shall not utilize their personal devices for the purpose of charting . On 11/28/22 at 11:28 a.m., CNA G was observed at the nurses station using his phone under the desk. Resident #66 On 11/28/22 at 11:36 a.m., Resident #66 (R66) was observed in her wheelchair near the staff bathroom. R66 was wearing a seatbelt and there was an alarm on her wheelchair as well. R66 was asking about the staff bathroom and when asked if she needed to go to the bathroom she stated she did. This surveyor went to the nurses station to report R66's request for assistance. Registered Nurse (RN K) was observed at the medication cart. CNA G was again observed sitting at the nurses station using his cell phone under the desk. RN K was notified of R66's need for toileting assistance. A review of R66's medical record revealed she admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, adjustment disorder, adult failure to thrive, and history of falling. A review of the most recent 11/1/22 MDS assessment revealed she scored 3/15 on the BIMS assessment, indicating severely impaired cognition and was not presenting any behavioral concerns. A review of an Employee Disciplinary Notification for CNA J dated 4/14/22 revealed the following: Verbal warning . Minor Infractions: X Inappropriate Communication with Residents/Families/Visitors . There was an interaction between you and a resident with dementia that turned argumentative and in turn upset the resident. As a CNA on a dementia unit you need to understand that their thoughts are real to them and those thoughts are not based on reality . It is also not appropriate to make statements such as you are getting paid to care for them and then continue to argue with the resident using inappropriate language . We realize that burnout occurs however we cannot transfer that to our residents thorough (sic) our actions . If not then you will need to be more cognizant of what your residents are dealing with and meet them at that level, not argue or belittle, and treat them with respect. This was signed by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 4/19/22 but under the employee signature it was written Ref (refused) to sign. A review of an employee concern form written on 4/13/22 by CNA T with an incident date of 4/12/22. The written statement included the following in part, . I (CNA T) overheard (R66) telling (CNA J) that (R66) was upset that her family would leave her hear and that (R66) just wanted to go home. (CNA J) said something along the lines of 'you have no choice but to stay here' which (R66) replied with 'the he** I am.' (CNA J) then said to (R66) 'are you swearing at me? That is SO disrespectful, don't swear at me.' (R66) was confused and that just escaladed (sic) (R66's) frustration and confusion . (R66) was following her (CNA J) asking her why she was treating her that way and why she needs to stay here. (CNA J) was hollering at (R66) 'I am paid to take care of you and you will be staying here, you have no choice. Take it up with your family an./or your DR (daughter) in the AM.' I (CNA T) could not listen to (CNA J) argue with (R66) anymore . I grabbed (R66's) hand and asked her if she would come walk with me. (CNA J) was still trying to argue with (R66) . (R66) kept asking why someone would treat her that way . I have not seen this side of (R66) since she has arrived her. (R66's) feelings were extremely hurt . This isn't abnormal behavior for (CNA J) to be rude and short with residents . On 11/30/22 at 4:18 p.m., the DON was asked if the altercation between R66 and CNA J was reported to the state agency. The DON stated, Probably not. When asked about CNA J not signing the statement, the DON stated, No, they usually don't. They think if they don't sign it then it (the write up) doesn't count. On 11/30/22 at 4:24 p.m., R66 was observed in her wheelchair in the common area of her unit. When asked if she liked the staff who took care of her, R66 stated, Some I do, some I don't. When asked if the staff were ever mean to her or treated her unkindly, R66 stated, Well sometimes they say things that aren't nice. When asked if she reported it to anyone, R66 stated, No, because you know where it will go and they (staff) might get worse, and then you're just stuck here. R66 would not provide any of the names of the staff she was referring to. On 12/1/22 at approximately 11:31 a.m., the DON was asked for an investigation regarding the CNA J and R66 altercation from May 2022. The DON reported that it wasn't substantiated. When asked if she had an investigation regarding the incident, the DON reported she did not have a written one. When asked to provide CNA Js statement regarding the event, the DON reported she didn't have one and that CNA J had refused to sign the write up or say what happened, but that she didn't say it in that manner. The DON stated about CNA J, (CNA J) gets defensive and tough . She gives good care and is rough around the edges and sometimes its taken as being rude. The DON was asked if R66 was interviewed and reported that R66 didn't remember the incident and did not have a statement for her. A review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights Guidelines for All Nursing Procedures dated 8/2016 revealed, 1. Prior to having direct-care responsibilities for residents, staff must have appropriate in-service training on resident rights, including: . b. Resident dignity and respect . A review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation dated October 2022 revealed, .Alleged Violation is a situation or occurrence that is observed or reported by staff, resident, relative, visitor or others but has not yet been investigated an, if verified, could be indication of noncompliance with Federal requirements related to mistreatment, exploitation, neglect, or abuse . A. An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect, or exploitation occur . A. The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies .
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 and interview the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen resulting in an increased potential for cross contamination of food and foodborne illness, potenti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen resulting in an increased potential for cross contamination of food and foodborne illness, potentially affecting all residents who receive meal services out of the facility's total census of 66 residents. Findings include: 1. On 11/28/22 at 10:39 AM, Chef, staff A, was observed taking off gloves, adjusting their face mask, and putting on a new pair of gloves without washing their hands prior to taking a temperature of, and plating a hamburger for lunch service. On 11/28/22 at 10:53 AM, Dietary Aide, staff C, was observed donning gloves prior to washing their hands after touching refrigerator door handles, prep counters, and their face mask prior to handling and portioning fruit cups for the days lunch service. On 11/28/22 at 11:09 AM, and at 11:16 AM, Dietary Aide, staff D, was observed removing and donning new pairs of gloves prior to washing their hands while handling and storing clean equipment and utensils. On 11/28/22 at 11:39 AM, and 11:52 AM Dietary Aide, staff E, was observed in the Elm kitchenette removing and donning new pairs of gloves prior to washing their hands during the assembly, plating, and serving of meals. On 11/28/22 at 11:33 AM, Dietary Manager, staff F, was observed in the Pine kitchenette removing and donning new pairs of gloves prior to washing their hands during the assembly, plating, and temperature verification for the day's lunch service. On 11/28/22 at 11:55 AM, the surveyor inquired with the Registered Dietitian, staff B, on the hand hygiene expectations for staff when they choose to use gloves as a hand barrier to which they replied, wash their hands before they put them on. At this time the surveyor requested the facility's hand hygiene policy to review to which staff B replied, let me see what I can find. Upon exiting the facility, the surveyor did not receive a hand hygiene policy to review as requested. Review of 2017 U.S. Public Health Service Food Code, Chapter 2-301.14 When to Wash directs that: FOOD EMPLOYEES shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms as specified under § 2-301.12 immediately before engaging in FOOD preparation including working with exposed FOOD, clean EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS, and unwrapped SINGLE-SERVICE and SINGLE-USE ARTICLESP and: (H) Before donning gloves to initiate a task that involves working with FOOD; P and (I) After engaging in other activities that contaminate the hands.P 2. On 11/28/22 at 11:12 AM, on a counter next to the clean equipment storage rack an unlabeled bulk container containing a white powder and scoop was observed. At this time the surveyor inquired with the Registered Dietitian, staff B, on if they if they were aware of what the contents were in this container to which they replied, it should have been labeled. I think it's probably flour or powdered sugar. I'll have to check with the cooks. On 11/28/22 at 11:14 AM, an unlabeled bulk container containing a brown powder was observed. At this time the surveyor inquired with staff B on if they if they were aware of what the contents were in this container to which they replied, that should be cocoa powder. I'll move the labels closer for my staff. Review of 2017 U.S. Public Health Service Food Code, Chapter 3-302.12 Food Storage Containers, Identified with Common Name of Food directs that: Except for containers holding FOOD that can be readily and unmistakably recognized such as dry pasta, working containers holding FOOD or FOOD ingredients that are removed from their original packages for use in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, such as cooking oils, flour, herbs, potato flakes, salt, spices, and sugar shall be identified with the common name of the FOOD. 3. On 11/28/22 at 12:22 PM, three bag in a box style containers of juice were observed stored in a cabinet underneath a plumbing drain trap in the Pine unit's dining room. At this time the surveyor inquired with the Registered Dietitian, staff B, on if it is normal to store the juice containers in this cabinet to which they replied, I believe they normally are stored in the cabinet next to this one because of the drain. I'll move them over now. On 11/28/22 at 12:29 PM, four bag in a box style containers of juice were observed stored in a cabinet underneath a plumbing drain trap in the Oak unit's dining room. Upon observation, staff B was observed by the surveyor relocating the juice containers to the neighboring cabinet. Review of 2017 U.S. Public Health Service Food Code, Chapter Storage under drain lines 3-305.12 Food Storage, Prohibited Areas directs that: FOOD may not be stored: (F) Under sewer lines that are not shielded to intercept potential drips;
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
  • • 42% turnover. Below Michigan's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 5 harm violation(s), $57,490 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 29 deficiencies on record, including 5 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $57,490 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Michigan. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (35/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 35/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Maples Benzie County Medical Care's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Maples Benzie County Medical Care an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Maples Benzie County Medical Care Staffed?

CMS rates Maples Benzie County Medical Care's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Maples Benzie County Medical Care?

State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at Maples Benzie County Medical Care during 2022 to 2025. These included: 5 that caused actual resident harm and 24 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Maples Benzie County Medical Care?

Maples Benzie County Medical Care 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 78 certified beds and approximately 77 residents (about 99% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Frankfort, Michigan.

How Does Maples Benzie County Medical Care Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Maples Benzie County Medical Care's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Maples Benzie County Medical Care?

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 Maples Benzie County Medical Care Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Maples Benzie County Medical Care has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in 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 Maples Benzie County Medical Care Stick Around?

Maples Benzie County Medical Care has a staff turnover rate of 42%, 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 Maples Benzie County Medical Care Ever Fined?

Maples Benzie County Medical Care has been fined $57,490 across 3 penalty actions. This is above the Michigan average of $33,654. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Maples Benzie County Medical Care on Any Federal Watch List?

Maples Benzie County Medical Care 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.