Greentree of Hubbell Rehabilitation and Health

52225 B Avenue, Hubbell, MI 49934 (906) 296-3301
For profit - Corporation 55 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
18/100
#375 of 422 in MI
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Greentree of Hubbell Rehabilitation and Health has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided at this facility. It ranks #375 out of 422 nursing homes in Michigan, placing it in the bottom half of all facilities, and #3 out of 4 in Houghton County, meaning only one local option is better. Although the facility is improving, having reduced its issues from 24 to 3 over a year, it still has a concerning number of reported deficiencies, including a serious incident where a resident suffered burns due to unattended hot liquids and another case where residents developed pressure ulcers requiring advanced treatment. Staffing is rated average, with a 49% turnover rate, but it has a good level of RN coverage, exceeding that of 77% of Michigan facilities. Notably, the absence of fines is a positive aspect, but the overall picture reflects both strengths and weaknesses that families should carefully consider.

Trust Score
F
18/100
In Michigan
#375/422
Bottom 12%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
24 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
49% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 46 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Michigan. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
56 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 24 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Michigan average (3.1)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 49%

Near Michigan avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

The Ugly 56 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Sept 2025 3 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** This citation pertains to Intake# 2561427.Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide ade...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake# 2561427.Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision in 2 of 4 residents (Resident #4 and Resident #5), reviewed for accidents and hazards, resulting in R5 sustaining a 2nd-3rd degree burn when hot liquid hazards were left unattended.Findings include: Per the Bureau of Health Systems Burn Hazards Related to Heated Surfaces in Long Term Care Facilities ALERT dated 5/12/1999, Sustained skin contact with surfaces of equipment that have temperatures in excess of 107 degrees Fahrenheit can cause burns. Caution is required when exposing patients to warmed surfaces, particularly when they are helpless .Where the (heating) system is operating as designed .staff training and resident care policies to reduce the chance of exposure may also be appropriate .Resident #4Review of an admission Record revealed R4 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: Alzheimer's disease.Review of a MDS assessment for R4, with a reference date of 7/28/25 revealed a BIMS score of 04/15 which indicated R4 was cognitively impaired.Further review of R4's MDS section GG-Functional Abilities revealed R4 was coded 04-Supervision.for: Eating: The ability to use suitable utensils to bring food and/or liquid to the mouth and swallow food and/or liquid once the meal is placed before the resident.Supervision or touching assistance - Helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity. Assistance may be provided throughout the activity or intermittently.In an observation of the main dining room on 9/16/25 at 12:10 PM, R4 self-propelled her wheelchair to an open 3-tiered cart loaded with 3 discarded resident lunch trays with various amounts of uneaten food on each tray. R4 took a large piece of chicken breast off this cart and began eating it as she moved through the dining room. R4 dropped approximately half of the chicken onto the floor after taking a few big bites. R4 then proceeded back to the 3-tiered cart helping herself to vegetables off another meal tray without any staff noticing. R4 then went over to the 3-tiered cart again and began to eat food from each of the meal trays left on the cart. At 12:17 PM, R4 went back over to the 3-tiered cart and started eating mashed potatoes using her fingers. During this time, only one staff member was present in the dining room and took no action. No staff noticed R4 self-propelling through the dining room making multiple trips to the 3-tiered cart and eating food which had been rejected by other residents.In an observation on 9/16/25 at 12:32 PM., CNA O noticed R4 at the meal cart and redirected her and asked if R4 wanted more food and if she (R4) was still hungry. R4 responded that she was still hungry. CNA O proceeded to go assist another resident and get R4 a cup of coffee.In an interview on 9/16/25 at 12:40 PM., CNA O reported R4 should have a mechanical soft diet, with no large, or dry pieces of meat because she has difficulty swallowing. CNA O reported there are not enough staff to keep eyes on all the residents, to keep them safe and properly groomed. CNA O reported she let the kitchen know that R4 was still hungry and they were going to make something for her.In an observation on 9/16/25 at 12:50 PM., the Maintenance Director/CNA G delivered a sandwich to R4 and walked away R4 began eating the sandwich, this surveyor noted sizable chunks of chicken breast falling from the sandwich, which was made of white bread, chicken chunks and very little substance that appeared to be mayonnaise. R4 appeared to be struggling to keep the sandwich together, much of it fell into pieces on the floor and then R4 proceeded to stuff the sandwich underneath a blanket while self-propelling out of the dining room. No staff were present in the dining room at this time.In an observation in the hallway on 9/16/25 at 1:00 PM., CNA J noticed R4 with the sandwich falling from her blanket, and hands. CNA J intervened and redirected R4 by asking R4 if she wanted to go to her room. R4 was agreeable and taken to her room. CNA J was noted coming back from R4's room with a handful of what was left of the chicken sandwich and then knocking on the kitchen door. CNA J was greeted by kitchen staff, and then CNA J reminded kitchen staff of R4's diet restrictions.In an interview on 9/16/25 at 1:05 PM., CNA J reported there are not enough staff in the facility to keep residents safe. CNA J reported she had just filed a grievance form for R4 regarding staff/dietary staff not following R4's diet order. CNA J reported R4 was on a mechanical soft diet, and could not meats, and anything dry or she would choke. CNA J reported R4 has difficulty swallowing. CNA J stated we are running around so much that things are getting missed, overlooked and we cannot keep going at this pace or something really bad is going happen, she could have choked to death. CNA J reported the grievance/concern form she filed was because R4's chicken patty was not prepared per her dietary restrictions, so the kitchen took the sandwich with the chicken patty back, then turned around cut up the patty into large chunks and gave it back to her (R4).Review of a facility Concern/Grievance form dated 9/9/25 revealed: Description of Grievance/Concern-Kitchen staff gave a resident (R4) a full chicken patty when she's mechanical soft and upon asking for a new sandwich for (R4) they cut up previous sandwich and gave it back .During an interview on 9/16/25 at 1:20 PM., CNA M reported there are a lot of staffing challenges for the nursing departments as well as all shifts. CNA M reported she has had to care for Residents that are 2 person assists by herself because there was no one available to assist because everyone is so busy, and the shift are always running short handed. CNA M reported it is difficult to care for the residents in the facility and not cut some corners because there is not enough time and staff. CNA M stated it breaks my heart; I feel the resident's deserve better care than we can provide.Review of R4s Care Plan dated 6/24/24 revealed: Resident Diet .IDDSI Level 6 -soft bite sized/Mechanical soft texture . (IDDSI- International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative).Resident #5Review of an admission Record revealed R5 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: Dementia. Review of a MDS previously defined just need MDS assessment for R5, with a reference date of 6/30/25 revealed a BIMS score of 00/15 which indicated R5 was severely cognitively impaired.Further review of R5's MDS section GG-Functional Abilities revealed R5 was coded as a #2. Eating- A. The ability to use suitable utensils to bring food and/or liquid to the mouth and swallow food and/or liquid once the meal is placed before the resident.02-Substanital/maximal assistance- 02. - Helper does MORE THAN HALF the effort. Helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort.In an observation on 9/12/25 at 12:30 PM., R5 was seated in the dining room with no staff assistance. R5's lunch plate was 90% full, and she was asleep. Only one staff member was present assisting another resident.During an interview on 9/12/25 at 1:45 PM., Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) A reported R5 sustained a burn to her stomach and to her upper thighs earlier in the day. ADON A reported she was waiting for a physician order to treat the burn, currently she had a standing order to put burn cream on the burn and cover it with a gauze. ADON A reported R5 spilled her coffee during breakfast.Review of R5's Progress Notes read in part: 9/12/25 at 8:52 AM., Note Text: Went to dining room to check for residents and observed this resident who indicated she was all wet. Brought resident to floor so she could be changed when CNA stated, Oh, she may have spilt her coffee. On inspection, residents spilled coffee and had some reddened areas to right abdomen and top of legs. top of left leg with some peeling skin and resident indicated painful. reddened areas to right breast, upper right abdomen, tops of both legs with left one peeling. resident dressed into loose clothes and cool compress applied.Review of R5's Skin Evaluation photos dated 9/12/25 in the facility Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed: photos of R5's upper thigh area/groin to have a substantial area of reddened with multiple large (quarter sized) blisters. This surveyor did not note any measurements at this time in the EMR.Review of R5's Care Plan read in part: I have a nutritional problem or potential nutritional problem. Date Initiated: 03/28/2025.I like coffee with all meals, like it black, ensure it is in a 2 handled cup with lid. Date Initiated: 03/28/2025.Review of R5's progress notes read in part: 9/12/2025 09:39 IDT (interdisciplinary team) Note Text: IDT reviewed resident's coffee burn incident. handled spout cup with lid for coffee has been implemented. Staff education provided. OT .Review of R5's progress notes read in part: 9/12/2025 12:10 Secure Conversations Messages: Subject: interventions for burns 9/12/2025 09:38 AM ADON -may we have an order for 2 handled spout cup with lid for coffee?In a phone interview on 9/16/25 at 5:10 PM., CNA J reported last week R5 was burned by hot coffee because she (CNA J) was running around trying to get everyone set up for breakfast and the facility was short staffed. CNA J reported R5 was seated at the dining room table, and she (CNA J) went to get coffee for her, the kitchen handed her a cup of coffee, and she knew it was too hot, so she went to get ice cubes and a lid because R5 was supposed to have a lid on her coffee. CNA J reported she added the ice cubes; while walking back to get a lid for the coffee she was distracted by another resident needing something and she (CNA J) just dropped off the cup of coffee to R5 without putting a lid on it. CNA J reported another staff noticed she (R5) was wet, and she shouldn't have been because she was just changed before breakfast. CNA J realized the cup of coffee was spilled and R5 was taken back to her room, and it was noticed initially there was red on her breast, and right stomach which then went all the way down to her upper legs which had some immediate blistering on her left thigh. CNA J stated I take full responsibility for that mistake, I have no problem admitting I made a mistake. I made the mistake because we don't have enough staff to manage that many residents on our daily assignments, and remember everything, it is impossible to do that under the conditions we are working. I am so sorry.I feel absolute horrible .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake #2561427Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake #2561427Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain resident dignity in three residents (Resident #1, #3 and #4) of five residents review for dignity.Findings include:According to [NAME], [NAME] A.; [NAME], [NAME] Griffin; Stockert, [NAME]; Hall, [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing - E-Book (Kindle Locations 50742-50744). Elsevier Health Sciences. Kindle Edition.Personal hygiene affects patients' comfort, safety, and well-being. Hygiene care includes cleaning and grooming activities that maintain personal body cleanliness and appearance. Personal hygiene activities such as taking a bath or shower and brushing and flossing the teeth also promote comfort and relaxation, foster a positive self-image, promote healthy skin, and help prevent infection and disease .During an initial tour of the facility on 9/12/25 at 3:30 PM., it was observed that multiple residents were unkept and appeared disheveled. Many residents were observed to have food crumbs/spillage on their shirts as well as in their laps while seated in their wheelchairs near the nurse's station between the 3 units.Resident #1 (R1)Review of an admission Record revealed R1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: seizure disorder/epilepsy.Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for R1, with a reference date of 9/2/25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00/15 which indicated R1 was severely impaired - never/rarely made decisions. Further review of the MDS section GG-Functional Abilities revealed R1 was coded a 2 for Personal Hygiene-02. Substantial/maximal assistance - Helper does MORE THAN HALF the effort. Helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort. Personal Hygiene-The ability to maintain personal hygiene, including combing hair, shaving, applying makeup, washing/drying face and hands (excludes baths, showers, and oral hygiene) .In an observation on 9/12/25 at 3:45 PM., R1 was sitting up in his wheelchair near the nurse's station. R1 appeared disheveled, his shirt was soiled with dried food, in his lap there were food crumbs, his fingernails were noted to be long with dirt and grime buildup underneath the tip of the nail.In an interview on 9/12/25 at 4:00 pm Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) E reported staffing could be a lot better. CNA E reported staff were mandated almost weekly for most CNAs. CNA E reported the staff typically work 8-hour shifts, but most of the time they end up staying over for another 4 hours, and a lot of the time they are mandated to work the entire shift for a total of 16 hours. CNA E reported there are a lot of staff calling in which makes the units run short. CNA E reported it is difficult to watch over all the residents, complete their care with compassion and not rush through it. CNA E reported many residents get upset and frustrated which is understandable. CNA E reported there are staff in different roles who also have CNA licenses, but they rarely help with the time consuming things such as bathing, nail care, assisting with feeding dependent residents, and overall ADL's (Activities of Daily Living). CNA E reported we do have to cut corners on resident care, until they hire more staff, residents unfortunately will not get the care they deserve.In an interview on 9/12/25 at 4:00 PM., 9/12/25., CNA K reported staff are mandated a lot. CNA K reported things were missed, and at times we do have to cut corners such as nail care, overall hygiene and call light wait times. CNA K reported it was very difficult to get everyone fed at lunch especially the residents who need assistance with feeding. CNA K reported More staff is needed, we are getting burned out and it makes it difficult to see the residents who are the ones who end up suffering because we rush through their care, they get upset and voice that to us. CNA K reported, Some residents get so upset they cry or refuse care because they are so mad. CNA K reported, If the facility cannot hire more staff than perhaps it's time to think about getting some agency staff in here to help. end quote here) CNA K reported many staff were calling in or quitting because of the mandates.Resident #3Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #3 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: Multiple Sclerosis.Review of a MDS assessment for R3, with a reference date of 8/25/25 revealed a BIMS score of 15/15 which indicated R3 was cognitively intact.Further review of R3's MDS section GG-Functional Abilities revealed R3 was coded 01-Dependent - Helper does ALL the effort. Residents do none of the effort to complete the activity. Or the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required for the residents to complete the activity . FOR Toileting Hygiene: The ability to maintain perineal hygiene, adjust clothes before and after voiding or having a bowel movement. If managing an ostomy, include wiping the opening but not managing equipment. AND 01 FOR Shower/Bathe self: The ability to bathe self, including washing, rinsing, and drying self (excludes washing of back and hair). Does not include transferring in/out of tub/shower.In an observation/interview on 9/16/25 at 11:20 AM., R3 was lying in his bed noted to have very dry skin on his face which was peeling. R3's fingernails were not trimmed and had dirt and grime underneath the tips of his fingernails. R3 reported they haven't been trimmed in a while. R3's bedding was soiled in various areas, with stains, food crumbs and dried liquid stains. R3 reported that he had soiled himself on more than one occasion and waited for extended periods of time for staff to respond to his call light. R3 reported at times he does refuse care because staff are rushing around and he does not want to be cared for when staff are rushing and rude, because the facility is very short staffed. R3 reported he had waited over an hour for his call light to be answered. R3 reported he was frustrated and at times angry. R3 stated There should be no excuse any resident should have to holler out for help or be treated poorly. R3 reported he heard other residents hollering and he refused his care so that staff can assist other residents that might need more help than he does. R3 It makes me sad, and angry that we have to be treated this way, the staff are nice they are doing the best they can, there are just not enough of them to give good care.Resident #4 (R4)Review of an admission Record revealed R4 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: Alzheimer's disease.Review of a MDS assessment for R4, with a reference date of 7/28/25 revealed a BIMS score of 04/15 which indicated R4 was cognitively impaired.Further review of R4's MDS section GG-Functional Abilities revealed R4 was coded a 2 for Personal Hygiene-02. Substantial/maximal assistance - Helper does MORE THAN HALF the effort. Helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort. Personal Hygiene-The ability to maintain personal hygiene, including combing hair, shaving, applying makeup, washing/drying face and hands (excludes baths, showers, and oral hygiene) .In an observation on 9/16/25 at 12:10 PM., R4 was noted in the dining room self-propelling her wheelchair. R4's appearance was disheveled, and her hair was matted up in the back. R4's fingernails had a buildup of dirt, grime and food stuck underneath the nail bed.In an observation on 9/16/25 at 4:00 PM., R4 was noted in her bedroom sitting in her wheelchair. R4's appearance was disheveled, and her hair was matted up in the back. R4's fingernail had a buildup of dirt, grime and food stuck underneath the nail bed R4's appearance was unchanged from 9/16/25 at 12:10 PM to 9/16/25 at 4:00 PM.Review of a facility policy titled: Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity with a revision date of 8/2/25 read in in part as: Policy: 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 residents quality of life by recognizing each residents individuality. Compliance Guidelines: 1. All staff members are involved in providing care to residents to promote and maintain resident dignity and respect resident rights .Review of a facility job description titled: Certified Nursing Assistant revealed: Position Purpose Provides certified nursing assistant services to assigned residents in accordance with care plans, facility policies and procedures and at the direction of supervisor(s). Major Duties and Responsibilities Provides supportive services to nurse(s) and other staff as needed and performs duties as assigned. Assists resident with or perform activities of daily living for residents in accordance with care plans and established policies and procedures. Assists resident with lifting, turning, moving, positioning, and transporting into and out of beds, chairs, bathtubs, wheelchairs, lifts, etc. Coordinates dining room services at assigned mealtimes, including set-up and clean-up, meal tray delivery, feeding assistance, and documentation of meal intake. Delivers nutritional supplements to residents at assigned times and provides assistance as necessary to ensure intake. Documents intake accordingly.
CONCERN (E) 📢 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 F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake# 2561427.Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide suf...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake# 2561427.Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to meet resident needs in 4 of 5 residents (Resident #1, #3, #4, and #5) reviewed for sufficient staffing, resulting in a 3rd degree burn for Resident #5, missed grooming and hygiene, a lack of supervision of residents at risk for choking, extended call light wait times and with the potential for all residents to be affected.Findings include: Burnout is the condition that occurs when perceived demands outweigh perceived resources ([NAME] et al., 2013a). It is a state of physical and mental exhaustion that often affects health care providers because of the nature of their work environment. Over time, giving of oneself in often intense caring environments sometimes results in emotional exhaustion, leaving a nurse feeling irritable, restless, and unable to focus and engage with patients ([NAME] et al., 2013b) .Compassion fatigue impacts the health and wellness of nurses and the quality of care provided to patients .When a nurse experiences ongoing stressful patient relationships, he or she often disengages ([NAME] et al., 2011) .It is not uncommon for nurses who are experiencing compassion fatigue to become angry or cynical and have difficulty relating with patients and co-workers (Young et al., 2011). [NAME], [NAME] A.; [NAME], [NAME] Griffin; Stockert, [NAME]; Hall, [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing - E-Book (Kindle Locations 1671-1672). Elsevier Health Sciences. Kindle Edition.Resident #1 (R1)Review of an admission Record revealed R1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: seizure disorder/epilepsy.Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for R1, with a reference date of 9/2/25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00/15 which indicated R1 was severely impaired - never/rarely made decisions.In an observation on 9/12/25 at 3:45 PM., R1 was noted sitting up in his wheelchair near the nurse's station. R1 appeared disheveled, his shirt was soiled with dried food, in his lap there were food crumbs, his fingernails were noted to be long with dirt and grime buildup underneath the tip of the nail.In an interview on 9/12/25 at 4:00 pm Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) E reported staffing could be a lot better. CNA E reported staff get mandated almost weekly for most CNAs. CNA E reported the staff typically work 8-hour shifts, but most of the time they end up staying over for another 4 hours, and a lot of the time they are mandated to work the entire shift for a total of 16 hours. CNA E reported there are a lot of staff calling in which makes the units run short. CNA E reported it is difficult to watch over all the residents, complete their care with compassion and not rush through it. CNA E reported many residents get upset and frustrated which is understandable. CNA E reported there are staff in different roles who also have CNA licenses, but they rarely help with the time consuming things such as bathing, nail care, assisting with feeding dependent residents, and overall ADL's (Activities of Daily Living). CNA E reported we do have to cut corners on resident care, until they hire more staff, residents unfortunately will not get the care they deserve.In an interview on 9/12/25 at 4:00 PM., 9/12/25 at 3:55 PM., CNA K reported staff are mandated a lot. CNA K reported things to get missed, and at times we do have to cut corners such as nail care, overall hygiene and call light wait times. CNA K reported it was very difficult to get everyone fed at lunch especially the residents who need assistance with feeding. CNA K stated: more staff are needed, we are getting burned out and it makes it for residents who are the ones suffering because we rush through their care, they get upset and voice that to us. CNA K reported some residents get so upset they cry or refuse care because they can get very upset. CNA K reported if the facility cannot hire more staff than we might need agency staff to help. CNA K reported many staff a call in or quit because of the mandates.During an interview on 9/16/25 at 10:00 AM., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) H reported the facility was so short staff it was difficult to find time to complete resident assessments, pass medications on time, and assist the CNAs with any care for the residents. LPN H reported staff are mandated a lot, they were getting burned out and it directly affect resident care.Resident #3Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #3 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: Multiple Sclerosis.Review of a MDS assessment for R3, with a reference date of 8/25/25 revealed a BIMS score of 15/15 which indicated R3 was cognitively intact.Further review of R3's MDS section GG-Functional Abilities revealed R3 was coded 01-Dependent - Helper does ALL the effort. Residents do none of the effort to complete the activity. Or the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required for the residents to complete the activity . FOR Toileting Hygiene: The ability to maintain perineal hygiene, adjust clothes before and after voiding or having a bowel movement. If managing an ostomy, include wiping the opening but not managing equipment. AND 01 FOR Shower/Bathe self: The ability to bathe self, including washing, rinsing, and drying self (excludes washing of back and hair). Does not include transferring in/out of tub/shower.In an observation/interview on 9/16/25 at 11:20 AM., R3 was lying in his bed noted to have very dry skin on his face which was peeling. R3's fingernails were not trimmed and had dirt and grime underneath the tips of his fingernails. R3 reported they haven't been trimmed in a while. R3's bedding was soiled in various areas, with stains, food crumbs and dried liquid stains. R3 reported that he had soiled himself on more than one occasion and waited for extended periods of time for staff to respond to his call light. R3 reported at times he did refuse care because staff were rushing around and he did not want to be cared for when staff were rushing and rude, because the facility was very short staffed. R3 reported he had waited over an hour for his call light to be answered. R3 reported he gets frustrated and at times angry. R3 stated there should be no excuse any resident should have to holler out for help or be treated poorly. R3 reported he heard other residents hollering and he refused his care so that staff could assist other residents that might need more help than he does. R3 stated it makes me sad, and angry that we have to be treated this way, the staff are nice they are doing the best they can, there are just not enough of them to give good care.Resident #4Review of an admission Record revealed R4 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: Alzheimer's disease.Review of a MDS assessment for R4, with a reference date of 7/28/25 revealed a BIMS score of 04/15 which indicated R4 was cognitively impaired.Further review of R4's MDS section GG-Functional Abilities revealed R4 was coded 04-Supervision.for: Eating: The ability to use suitable utensils to bring food and/or liquid to the mouth and swallow food and/or liquid once the meal is placed before the resident.Supervision or touching assistance - Helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity. Assistance may be provided throughout the activity or intermittently.In an observation of the main dining room on 9/16/25 at 12:10 PM, R4 self-propelled her wheelchair to an open 3-tiered cart loaded with 3 discarded resident lunch trays with various amounts of uneaten food on each tray. R4 took a large piece of chicken breast off this cart and began eating it as she moved through the dining room. R4 dropped approximately half of the chicken onto the floor after taking a few big bites. R4 then proceeded back to the 3-tiered cart helping herself to vegetables off another meal tray without any staff noticing. R4 then went over to the 3-tiered cart again and began to eat food from each of the meal trays left on the cart. At 12:17 PM, R4 went back over to the 3-tiered cart and started eating mashed potatoes using her fingers. During this time, only one staff member was present in the dining room and took no action. No staff noticed R4 self-propelling through the dining room making multiple trips to the 3-tiered cart and eating food which had been rejected by other residents. In an observation on 9/16/25 at 12:32 PM., CNA O noticed R4 at the meal cart and redirected her and asked if R4 wanted more food and if she (R4) was still hungry. R4 responded that she was still hungry. CNA O proceeded to go assist another resident and get R4 a cup of coffee.In an interview on 9/16/25 at 12:40 PM., CNA O reported R4 should have a mechanical soft diet, with no large, or dry pieces of meat because she has difficulty swallowing. CNA O reported there are not enough staff to keep eyes on all the residents, to keep them safe and properly groomed. CNA O reported she let the kitchen know that R4 was still hungry and they were going to make something for her.In an observation on 9/16/25 at 12:50 PM., the Maintenance Director/CNA G delivered a sandwich to R4 and walked away R4 began eating the sandwich, this surveyor noted sizable chunks of chicken breast falling from the sandwich, which was made of white bread, chicken chunks and very little substance that appeared to be mayonnaise. R4 appeared to be struggling to keep the sandwich together, much of it fell into pieces on the floor and then R4 proceeded to stuff the sandwich underneath a blanket while self-propelling out of the dining room. No staff were present in the dining room at this time.In an observation in the hallway on 9/16/25 at 1:00 PM., CNA J noticed R4 with the sandwich falling from her blanket, and hands. CNA J intervened and redirected R4 by asking R4 if she wanted to go to her room. R4 was agreeable and taken to her room. CNA J was noted coming back from R4's room with a handful of what was left of the chicken sandwich and then knocking on the kitchen door. CNA J was greeted by kitchen staff, and then CNA J reminded kitchen staff of R4's diet restrictions.In an interview on 9/16/25 at 1:05 PM., CNA J reported there are not enough staff in the facility to keep residents safe. CNA J reported she had just filed a grievance form for R4 regarding staff/dietary staff not following R4's diet order. CNA J reported R4 was on a mechanical soft diet, and could not meats, and anything dry or she would choke. CNA J reported R4 has difficulty swallowing. CNA J stated we are running around so much that things are getting missed, overlooked and we cannot keep going at this pace or something really bad is going happen, she could have choked to death. CNA J reported the grievance/concern form she filed was because R4's chicken patty was not prepared per her dietary restrictions, so the kitchen took the sandwich with the chicken patty back, then turned around cut up the patty into large chunks and gave it back to her (R4).Review of a facility Concern/Grievance form dated 9/9/25 revealed: Description of Grievance/Concern-Kitchen staff gave a resident (R4) a full chicken patty when she's mechanical soft and upon asking for a new sandwich for (R4) they cut up previous sandwich and gave it back .During an interview on 9/16/25 at 1:20 PM., CNA M reported there are a lot of staffing challenges for the nursing departments as well as all shifts. CNA M reported she has had to care for Residents that are 2 person assists by herself because there was no one available to assist because everyone is so busy, and the shift are always running short handed. CNA M reported it is difficult to care for the residents in the facility and not cut some corners because there is not enough time and staff. CNA M stated it breaks my heart; I feel the resident's deserve better care than we can provide.Review of R4s Care Plan dated 6/24/24 revealed: Resident Diet .IDDSI Level 6 -soft bite sized/Mechanical soft texture . (IDDSI- International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative).In a phone interview on 9/16/25 at 5:10 PM., CNA J reported last week R5 was burned by hot coffee because she (CNA J) was running around trying to get everyone set up for breakfast and the facility was short staffed. CNA J reported R5 was seated at the dining room table, and she (CNA J) went to get coffee for her, the kitchen handed her a cup of coffee, and she knew it was too hot, so she went to get ice cubes for it. CNA J reported she added the ice cubes; while walking back to get a lid for the coffee she was distracted by another resident needing something and she (CNA J) just dropped off the cup of coffee to R5 without putting a lid on it. CNA J reported another staff noticed she (R5) was wet, and she shouldn't have been because she was just changed before breakfast. CNA J realized the cup of coffee was spilled and R5 was taken back to her room, and it was noticed initially there was red on her breast, and right stomach which then went all the way down to her upper legs which had some immediate blistering on her left thigh. CNA J stated I take full responsibility for that mistake, I have no problem admitting I made a mistake. I made the mistake because we don't have enough staff to manage that many residents on our daily assignments, and remember everything, it is impossible to do that under the conditions we are working. I am so sorry.I feel absolute horrible . According to [NAME], [NAME] A.; [NAME], [NAME] Griffin; Stockert, [NAME]; Hall, [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing - E-Book (Kindle Locations 1589-1592). Elsevier Health Sciences. Kindle Edition.Time management, therapeutic communication, patient education, and compassionate implementation of bedside skills are just a few of the essential skills you need. It is important for your patients to leave the health care setting with a positive image of nursing and a feeling that they received quality care. Your patients should never feel rushed. They need to feel that they are important and are involved in decisions and that their needs are met .
Dec 2024 19 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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00147055. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain consent for psychotropic medications prior to initiating them for one Resident (#8) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00147055. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain consent for psychotropic medications prior to initiating them for one Resident (#8) of five residents reviewed for psychoactive medications. Findings include: Resident #8 (R8) Review of R8's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed initial admission to the facility on 8/24/23 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, delusional disorders, anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of R8's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/26/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicative of severe cognitive impairment. On 12/10/24 at 2:35 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with Complainant/Guardian L who stated the facility was not communicating with him regarding treatment decisions despite having guardianship. Review of R8's EMR revealed the following pharmacy orders: 1. Quetiapine fumarate Oral Tablet [an antipsychotic medication] 50 MG (milligrams), give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to depression. Date initiated: 11/10/23 - present day. 2. Sertraline HCl (hydrochloride) Oral Tablet 50 MG [an antidepressant medication], give 50 mg by mouth in the morning related to depression. Date initiated: 4/27/24. On 5/25/24, Sertraline HCl Oral Tablet was increased to 100 MG. On 12/11/24 at 12:22 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding written consents for mood altering medications. The DON replied, We found out they've [consents] been a problem and they've been getting missed . It's something we've been working on. On 12/11/24 at 12:40 PM, an interview was conducted with Social Services Designee (SSD) G who verified medication consents had been identified as a, problem area. SSD G stated she had recently started calling resident families for consents. Review of Consent for Use of Psychoactive Medications forms revealed Complainant L gave verbal consent for both quetiapine fumarate and sertraline use on 12/11/24, approximately 1 year and 8 months after initiation, respectively. Review of facility policy titled, Unnecessary Drugs-Without Adequate Indication for Use, reviewed 8/5/24, read, in part: .the attending physician will assume leadership in medication management by developing, monitoring, and modifying the medication regimen in collaboration with residents and/or representatives . Review of facility policy titled, Use of Psychotropic Medication, reviewed 7/15/24, read, in part: .Residents and/or representatives shall be educated on the risks and benefits of psychotropic drug use, as well as alternative treatments/non-pharmacological interventions .
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 F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00147055. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care confere...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00147055. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were scheduled on a quarterly basis and the responsible party was notified for one Resident (#8) of 14 residents reviewed for resident rights. This deficient practice resulted in the failure to include the responsible party in the development of a person-centered plan of care. Findings include: Resident #8 (R8) Review of R8's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed initial admission to the facility on 8/24/23 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, delusional disorders, anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of R8's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/26/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicative of severe cognitive impairment. On 12/10/24 at 2:35 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with Complainant/Guardian L who stated he was not being afforded the opportunity to participate in regular care conferences for R8. Complainant/Guardian L estimated he had been involved in two care conferences since R8's admission on [DATE]. Review of R8's EMR revealed the following dates of care conferences since 8/24/23: 5/23/24, 10/3/24, and 12/6/24. On 12/10/24 at 4:26 PM, an interview was conducted with Social Service Designee (SSD) G who stated, there used to be a problem with regular care conferences under previous administration. SSD G stated care conferences should be conducted for every resident at least quarterly (every 3 months). On 12/10/24 at 4:50 PM, an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) who verified 9 and 5 months elapsed had occurred between R8's care conferences since admission, despite a quarterly requirement. The NHA stated a care conference process was not in place when new management took over. Review of facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, reviewed 10/11/23, read in part: .The comprehensive care plan will be prepared by an interdisciplinary team, that includes, but is not limited to .the resident and the resident representative . the comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS assessment .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

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 perform a resident assessment for one Resident (#36) of one residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to perform a resident assessment for one Resident (#36) of one resident reviewed for self-administration of medication resulting in a resident self-administering medication without appropriate assessments. Findings include: Resident #36 (R36) A review of R36's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 2/24/22, with diagnoses that included: peripheral vascular disease (PVD) or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). R36 scored a 15 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of intact cognition. Review of facility document titled, Medication Self Administration Screening dated 7/23/24, read in part . Complete this assessment prior to resident initiation of self-administration of medication and with any medication order changes, change in function/condition that might affect the resident's ability to safely self-administer medications. Ongoing assessment should occur at a minimum of quarterly . Review of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for R36 did not reveal any subsequent assessments following 7/23/24. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 3:09 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) E stated, we complete quarterly assessments on residents who are able to self-administer medications. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 7:21 a.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) E stated, If a resident requests to self-administer medications we add a new evaluation and fax the doctor to see if they agree with it .we assess the residents quarterly or if they have a change in cognition . we did miss the quarterly assessment for [R36]. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 7:37 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) H stated, the assessments of residents to self-administer medications are completed quarterly . Review of facility policy titled, Resident Self-Administration of Medication date reviewed/revised 1/15/24, read in part . A licensed nurse will complete the Medical Self-Administration screening tool in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) .a re-assessment for safety at a minimum should be considered by the interdisciplinary team for the following .quarterly.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide incontinence briefs in an appropriate style and size to meet the needs and preferences of two Residents (#23 & #26) o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide incontinence briefs in an appropriate style and size to meet the needs and preferences of two Residents (#23 & #26) out of 14 sample residents. This deficient practice resulted in resident discomfort and dissatisfaction. Findings include: Resident #23 (R23) During an interview and observation on 12/10/24 at 9:07 a.m., R23 voiced dissatisfaction with wearing incontinence briefs that did not fit. R23 said the brief size had gone from a XXL (2 Extra Large) to a Large size which did not fit. R23 stated, They are supposed to go around your belly. It (incontinence brief) goes underneath my belly and lower back - it covers the crotch. I have been complaining . to Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)/Scheduler Q for at least a week. R23 lifted the gown they were wearing to show their incontinence brief was not positioned around the waist, with coverage only of R23's pubic area. Observation of the brief package in R23's closet, found only size Large incontinence briefs in the closet. Resident #26 (R26) During an observation and interview on 12/11/24 at 10:29 a.m., in the presence of Registered Nurse (RN) H and CNA Q, R26 was observed in an incontinence brief that appeared small. When asked about the incontinence brief, R26 stated, I don't like these (incontinence style briefs). It is uncomfortable. It gets all bunched up on the back end of your fanny. R26 said they were told they had to wear the incontinence style briefs because the pull-up style of brief did not hold enough urine (necessitating more frequent changes with a pull-up style brief). Observation of the incontinence briefs in R26's closet found size Large briefs stored for the Resident's use. No pull-up style incontinence briefs were observed in R26's closet. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 12:15 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) E acknowledged the current incontinence briefs used by the facility required an accurate waist measurement to determine the size of the brief. ADON E said staff were told they should be doing an accurate waist measurement to determine the appropriate size brief for each resident and ask the resident if they are comfortable. ADON E said the size and type of brief worn should be the Resident's choice. ADON queried both R23 and R26, completed waist measurements and determined R23 fit in an XL or a 2XL. When R23 was asked by ADON E, which brief size was preferred, they said XL because they had lost some weight. ADON E confirmed R26 said they wanted to wear a pull-up style incontinence brief during the day and at night. ADON E stated, I passed that along to staff as well. I told the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) that it was a deficiency concern. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 8:09 a.m., the NHA acknowledged that all team members had advised the NHA of potential deficiency concerns. The NHA expressed understanding of the Resident's right to wear an incontinence brief in the appropriate size and style. Review of Rights of Residents in [State Name] Nursing Facilities, Copyright 2022, revealed the following, in part: You have a right . to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of your needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents .
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 F0567 (Tag F0567)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00147055. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain authorization prior to the withdrawal of personal funds for one Resident (#8) of 14 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00147055. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain authorization prior to the withdrawal of personal funds for one Resident (#8) of 14 residents reviewed for resident rights. Findings include: Resident #8 (R8) Review of R8's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed initial admission to the facility on 8/24/23, with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, delusional disorders, anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of R8's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/26/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicative of severe cognitive impairment. On 12/10/24 at 2:35 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with Complainant/Guardian L who stated the facility withdrew five hundred dollars from R8's trust fund and applied the sum to the facility bill without authorization. Complainant/Guardian L stated, The money was in that account for her [R8] to get haircuts, go shopping, buy snacks .stuff like that. It wasn't supposed to go towards a bill. On 12/10/24 at 3:10 PM, an interview was conducted with Business Officer Manager (BOM) N who verified she was responsible for management of resident finances. BOM N verified she did not have a receipt for the five-hundred-dollar withdrawal because she stated the facility had received verbal consent from Complainant/Guardian L. On 12/11/24 at 10:07 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with BOM N regarding the typical process for withdrawals from resident funds. BOM N stated the usual process for withdrawal is to have a receipt or written documentation of the transaction. BOM N recollected, I should have done that in this case .I'll know in the future. On 12/11/24 at 4:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) who confirmed the need for written authorization prior to the withdrawal of money from resident accounts. Review of facility policy titled, Transactions Involving Resident Funds, undated, read in part: It is the practice of this facility that anytime there is a transaction involving resident funds, the resident must be provided with a receipt of such transaction. Copies of each transaction are filed in the business office . The Business Office Manager, or his/her designee, is responsible for providing residents with receipts for withdrawals and for requested or needed personal items when such funds are withdrawn from the resident's personal funds account managed by the facility.
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 F0568 (Tag F0568)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00147055. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide quarterly resident trust fund financial statements for one Resident (#8) of 14 resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00147055. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide quarterly resident trust fund financial statements for one Resident (#8) of 14 residents reviewed for resident rights. Findings include: Resident #8 (R8) Review of R8's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed initial admission to the facility on 8/24/23 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, delusional disorders, anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of R8's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/26/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicative of severe cognitive impairment. On 12/10/24 at 2:35 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with Complainant/Guardian L who stated, The facility had not sent a quarterly resident trust fund statement despite several requests. On 12/11/24 at 10:07 AM, an interview was conducted with BOM N regarding the typical process for sending out quarterly statements. BOM N stated, The facility recently started using their own EMR system to manage resident fund accounts, and the next quarterly statement is [due up]. BOM N explained prior to this system, the facility used a management service which she did not have access to in order to verify quarterly statements were sent. On 12/11/24 at 4:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) who stated, I will reach out to the management service to ascertain if quarterly statements were sent out. No quarterly statements were provided to this surveyor by the time of survey exit. Review of facility policy titled, Resident Personal Funds, undated, read, in part: .The individual financial record must be available to the resident through quarterly statements and upon request .
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 F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Resident #205 (R205) A review of a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form for R205 was reviewed and revealed the effective date of coverage for R205 skilled services ended on 10/15/24 and the fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Resident #205 (R205) A review of a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form for R205 was reviewed and revealed the effective date of coverage for R205 skilled services ended on 10/15/24 and the formed was signed on 10/14/24. Review of facility policy titled, Advance Beneficiary Notices, reviewed 8/23/24, read, in part: .to ensure that the resident, or representative, has enough time to make a decision whether or not to receive the services in question and assume financial responsibility, the notice shall be provided at least two days before the end of a Medicare covered Part A stay or when all of Part B therapies are ending .the notice shall be written legibly in a language and /or format that the resient/reresentative understands .the notice shall be hand-delivered as possible to obtain beneficiary or representative signature .the notice shall be prepared with an original and at least two copies. The facility shall retain the original and give a copy to the resident/representative .a copy must be provided to the residnet/representative immediately after signing it This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00147055. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a 48-hour notice of termination of Medicare benefits for three Residents (#8, #204, and #205) of 4 residents reviewed for beneficiary notifications. This deficient practice resulted in the inability for residents to appeal their non-coverage decision in a timely fashion. Findings include: Resident #8 (R8) Review of R8's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed initial admission to the facility on 8/24/23 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, delusional disorders, anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of R8's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/26/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicative of severe cognitive impairment. On 12/10/24 at 2:35 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with Complainant/Guardian L who stated he was not notified when R8's Medicare benefits were ending. Complainant/Guardian L stated he requested the notification several times from the facility without success. On 12/11/24 at 10:10 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) M who verified she was responsible for the issuance of beneficiary notifications. RN M was asked for all notifications issued to R8 since admission. On 12/11/24 at 10:14 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) P who stated R8 received skilled physical and occupational therapy services under Medicare Part B from 7/10/24 - 9/5/24. DOR P stated R8 was discharged from therapy services when she reached maximum functional potential. On 12/11/24 at 10:30 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with RN M who stated there was no record of a beneficiary notification issued to R8 or her representative since admission. Resident #204 (R204) On 12/12/24 at 12:43 p.m., a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form for R204 was reviewed which revealed the effective date of coverage for R20 skilled services ended on 11/5/24. The formed was signed on 11/4/24.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or resident representative in writing with the reason for a transfer out of the facility for one Resident (#49) of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or resident representative in writing with the reason for a transfer out of the facility for one Resident (#49) of four residents reviewed for transfer and/or discharge. Findings include: Resident #49 (R49) Review of R49's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed initial admission to the facility on 7/18/24 with diagnoses including right ankle fracture, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of R49's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/24/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicative of intact cognition. On 12/11/24 at 10:12 AM, an interview was conducted with R49 who stated she had been hospitalized three times since initial admission to the facility. R49 did not recall signing a transfer notification document prior to any hospitalization. Review of the facility census verified R49 was sent to an acute care hospital three times since admission from 7/25/24 - 8/5/24, 8/10/24 - 9/6/24, and 9/21/24 - 9/27/24. Review of R49's progress notes revealed the following: 1. 7/25/24 at 1:44 PM: .resident will be transported to [hospital] .after surgical dressing was removed .and dehiscence of surgical incision was noted . 2. 8/10/24 at 6:00 PM: .resident was observed shaking uncontrollably with cyanosis [bluish-purple discoloration] noted upper & lower lips, and bilateral fingertips. Resident short of breath, reported she felt cold Emergency services contacted, and resident transported by ambulance to [local emergency room] for evaluation . 3. 9/21/24 at 9:29 AM: Received order .to send resident to the ER [emergency room] for evaluation and treatment . On 12/11/24 at 10:16 AM, an interview was conducted with Social Services Designee (SSD) G regarding transfer and discharge requirements. SSD G stated she was unfamiliar with the transfer notification process. Review of the EMR for R49 revealed no written transfer notice prior to any hospitalization. Review of facility policy titled, Transfer and Discharge, reviewed 8/7/24, read in part: .Emergency Transfers/Discharges .provide a notice of transfer .to the resident and representative .
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to update or revise care plans after multiple falls for one Residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update or revise care plans after multiple falls for one Residents (#50) of fourteen residents reviewed for care planning. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for further falls, and the potential for injury. Findings include: Resident #50 (R50) Review of R50's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 8/6/24, with active diagnoses that included: dementia, diabetes, hypertension, and anemia. Further review of the MDS assessment revealed R50 rarely or is never understood and rarely or never makes decisions. Review of facility incident reports revealed R50 had one fall in August on 8/28/24, two falls in October on 10/10/24 and 10/18/24, and two falls in November on 11/18/24 and 11/19/24. The care plan for R50 was not revised after any of the falls. Review of R50's care plan revealed baseline care plan initiated on 8/7/24, revised on 9/12/24 after R50 fell on 9/11/24, and revision on 11/11/24 after R50 fell on [DATE] During an interview on 12/11/24 at 12:35 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, we look at the fall and find out what happened .we meet as a team and discuss the fall and we implement interventions in their care plan. Review of facility policy titled Incidents and Accidents date reviewed/revised 2/7/24, read in part . The purpose of incident reporting .include assuring that appropriate and immediate interventions are implemented, and corrective actions are taken to prevent recurrences and improve the management of resident care.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Resident #54 (R54) Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for R54, dated 8/13/24, revealed admission to the facility on 8/7/24 with active diagnoses that included: hypertension, heart failure, f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Resident #54 (R54) Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for R54, dated 8/13/24, revealed admission to the facility on 8/7/24 with active diagnoses that included: hypertension, heart failure, fracture, and coronary artery disease. R54 scored a 14 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of intact cognition. Review of facility document titled Nursing Evaluation- admission assessment dated 8/7/24 revealed R54 did not have a pressure ulcer. Review of facility document titled Skin Evaluation on 8/14/24, 8/15/24, and 8/22/24 revealed R54 did not have a pressure ulcer. Review of Progress notes dated 8/23/24, revealed, resident has a wound on coccyx. Review of facility document titled Skin and Wound Evaluation dated 8/30/24, revealed a Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the coccyx that measured 4.7 cm long and 1.1 cm wide. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 10:31 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, R54 did not have any pressure ulcers on admission and then developed one while at the facility .she was a frail lady and had very bony prominences, we should have had an air mattress in place for R54 earlier or upon admission and we did not .the air mattress wasn't in place until after the pressure ulcer developed .we did not educate the Resident regarding the risk of pressure ulcers developing if Resident did not turn in bed .I can't explain how R54 did not have one and then it became a stage 2 so fast. Review of facility policy titled Pressure Injury Prevention and Management date reviewed/revised 11/12/23, read in part . The facility shall establish and utilize a systematic approach for pressure injury prevention and management, including prompt assessment and treatment .basic interventions could include .redistributing pressure .provide appropriate pressure re-distributing support surfaces. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain infection control per standards of practice and failed to implement interventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure injuries for three Residents (R11, R26, and R54) out of three Residents reviewed for pressure injuries. This deficient practice resulted in the development of facility acquired pressure injuries, and the potential for delayed wound healing. Findings include: Resident #11 (R11) During a pressure injury wound observation on 12/10/24 at 3:16 p.m., R11's chronic ,Stage III wound treatment was completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) J. LPN J, donned in a gown and gloves, retrieved her personal cell phone from inside her scrubs, underneath the donned isolation gown. The cell phone was used to call a nurse for an item necessary for the dressing change. LPN J donned clean gloves, and then made a second call on the personal cell phone , using her clean gloves. LPN J requested a little cup (small, plastic medication cup) for their wound solution. LPN J used the same, now dirty gloves from handling the cell phone to reach into the plastic storage bag with all the wound supplies and retrieved additional 4 x 4 gauze pads. LPN J opened the sterile gauze pads with her dirty gloves and continued to cleanse the wound with wound cleanser using the same dirty gloves. LPN J removed their dirty gloves, reached into their scrub pockets to retrieve a black permanent marker, and then place the marker back into their scrub top with bare hands. LPN J touched R11's bed linens with their bare hands and stated, I am going to cover you until she gets back here. LPN J used the cell phone again with bare hands that were in scrub pockets and touched the Residents' linens. On 12/10/24 at 3:24 p.m., a small bottle of hand sanitizer was delivered to R11's room by Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) E. LPN J disinfected their hands with the hand sanitizer, and donned clean gloves prior to placing one sterile 4 x 4 into the wound solution in the medication cup and inserted the 4 x 4 into R11's Stage III pressure injury with her gloved fingers. LPN J picked up the sterile foam dressing package with her dirty gloves, opened the package and dropped the foam dressing on R11's bed linens. After drying the area surrounding the wound, and application of skin prep, LPN J picked up the foam dressing from R11's bed linens and place the dressing on R11's sacrum. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 11:36 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) said nurses were able to use their cell phones if it was work related, however the nurse should remove their dirty gloves, disinfect [their] hands, and don clean gloves (after contact with the phone). The DON also agreed the products in the wound supply bag would be contaminated if the nurse placed their dirty gloved hands in the bag, and the wound gauze would have been contaminated by using dirty gloves that had contacted the personal cell phone. The DON agreed R11's foam wound dressing should have been placed on a barrier not on the bed linens. Review of the Hand Hygiene policy, reviewed/revised 8/5/2024, revealed the following, in part: Policy: All staff will perform proper hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors. This applies to all staff working in all locations within the facility . Staff will perform hand hygiene when indicated, using proper technique consistent with accepted standards of practice .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 . Resident #26 (R26) During an interview on 12/10/24 at 11:25 a.m., when asked about any skin concerns, R26 stated, I have an area on my tailbone that is sore. During a wound care observation on 12/11/24 at 10:29 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) H performed wound care on a Stage II pressure injury on R26's coccyx. When the bed linens were removed to begin wound care, R11's bilateral heels were observed in contact with the bed mattress, with the right heel, red, spongy, and fairly blanchable as described by RN H. On 12/11/24 at 10:50 a.m., Review of the [Facility Name] Standing Orders, provided by ADON E on 12/11/24 at 10:50 a.m., revealed the following, in part: Pressure Ulcer Treatment - Document on Wound/Skin Healing Record when identified and weekly thereafter . Stage I and SDTI:(Suspected Deep Tissue Injury): Protect area from shear, moisture, friction and pressure; may apply moisture barrier cream PRN or use a foam dressing, check daily . On 12/11/24 at 11:26 a.m., review of the Pressure Injury Prevention and Management policy , dated 11/12/2023, revealed the following, in part: .Evidence-based interventions for prevention will be implemented for all residents who are assessed at risk or who have a pressure injury present. Basic or routine care interventions could include, but are not limited to: i. Re-distribute pressure (such as repositioning, protecting and/or offloading heels, etc.). ii. Minimize exposure to moisture and keep skin clean . iii. Provide appropriate, pressure-redistributing, support surfaces . During an interview on 12/11/24 at 11:28 a.m., when asked about prevention and treatment of pressure injuries for R26, the DON. stated, I am fairly confident that [R26] has an air mattress. I am going to go and check right now, to verify that. Upon the DON's return it was confirmed that [R26 ]did not have an air mattress. The DON stated, I went into the dining room and asked [R26] if they would be accepting of an air mattress, and they agreed. I spoke with [Maintenance Director D] and we are going to get [R26] an air mattress. I think she needs one - especially with the foot. (heel redness and sponginess). I don't know if she was offered an air mattress, and I can't guarantee that there is a progress note detailing any previous refusal. The DON agreed R26's heels should have been elevated without an air mattress on the bed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 an accident for one Resident (#46) of fou...

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 an accident for one Resident (#46) of four residents reviewed for accidents/hazards which resulted in the potential for further burns, pain, and disfigurement. Findings include: Resident #46 (R46) Review of R46's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on [DATE], with active diagnoses that included: diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, depression, and hypertension. R46 scored a 15 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of intact cognition. During an observation on 12/10/24 at 8:32 a.m., R46 had a scab on his right middle finger. This Surveyor queried R46 regarding the scab on his middle finger. R46 stated, I burned myself when I was smoking .I smoked the cigarettes down to the filter and the staff didn't notice what I was doing .I was told that if I do it again, they will take my smoking privilege away from me. Review of R46's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) dated 10/29/24, read in part .Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) reported findings, this nurse assessed the following: blister on right medial second finger and scabs on right third finger. Resident reported the cause is ash from his cigarettes falling onto his fingers. This nurse will pass this on to administration .blister wound acquired in house; it is unknown how long the wound has been present. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 7:40 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) H stated, [R46] was outside and was burned on the cigarette [R46] was holding .we have to watch [R46] more closely .we did a re-evaluation for safe smoking and talked with [R46] about being more careful. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 7:47 a.m., Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) E stated, I do not have any incident or accident reports for R46 .I did hear about a blister but not why [R46] had one .I did a re-evaluation assessment for smoking and told R46 to pay attention to how much cigarette is left and to be more careful. Review of facility policy titled Incidents and Accidents date reviewed/revised 2/7/24, read in part .It is the policy of this facility for staff to .report, investigate, and review any accidents or incidents that occur and .involve a resident .the following incidents/accidents require an incident/accident report .for unobserved injuries .documentation should include the date, time, nature of the incident, location, initial findings, immediate interventions, notification, and orders obtained or follow-up interventions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #38 (R38) Review of R38's MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 4/15/22, with active diagn...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #38 (R38) Review of R38's MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 4/15/22, with active diagnoses that included: Alzheimer's disease, dementia, depression, anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia. R38 scored 11 of 15 on the BIMS reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Physician order for R38 to receive olanzapine (antipsychotic) 5 mg (milligram) tablet in the evening. During an interview on 12/11/24 at approximately 11:54 a.m., Social Services Designee G stated, I do not have a consent signed for Olanzapine from the Legal Guardian of R38. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 1:32 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, R38 has not had an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessment since 3/10/22. .Residents and/or representatives shall be educated on the risks and benefits of psychotropic drug use, as well as alternative treatments/non-pharmacological interventions . Residents who use psychotropic drugs shall also receive non-pharmacological interventions to facilitate reduction or discontinuation of the psychotropic drugs .Residents who receive an antipsychotic medication will have an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) test performed on admission, quarterly, with a significant change in condition, change in antipsychotic medication, PRN or as per facility policy The resident's response to the medication(s), including progress towards goals and presence/absence of adverse consequences, shall be documented in the resident's medical record .The resident's symptoms and therapeutic goals shall be clearly and specifically identified and documented . Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain consent, document the use of non-pharmacological approaches, and routinely monitor the response and/or effects of psychotropic medications for three Residents (#8, #33, and #38) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Resident #8 (R8) Review of R8's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed initial admission to the facility on 8/24/23 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, delusional disorders, anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of R8's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/26/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicative of severe cognitive impairment. Review of R8's EMR revealed the following pharmacy orders: 1. Quetiapine fumarate Oral Tablet [an antipsychotic medication] 50 MG (milligrams), give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to depression. Date initiated: 11/10/23 - present day. 2. Sertraline HCl (hydrochloride) Oral Tablet 50 MG [an antidepressant medication], give 50 mg by mouth in the morning related to depression. Date initiated: 4/27/24. On 5/25/24, sertraline HCl Oral Tablet was increased to 100 MG. Review of R8's EMR revealed the following Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIM) assessment dates: 9/2/23, 2/25/24, 5/23/24, and 8/23/24. Review of R8's plan of care revealed the following focus initiated 6/12/24: I use psychotropic medications r/t [related to] anxiety, depression, dementia. The following interventions were listed: 1. Administer medications as ordered. Monitor for side effects and effectiveness. 2. Consult with pharmacy, MD [medical doctor] to consider dosage reduction when clinically appropriate. 3. Education the family about risk, benefits, and the side effects and/or toxic symptoms of psychoactive medication drugs being given. R8's plan of care did not list specific medication side-effects for which to monitor, non-pharmacological interventions, nor targeted behaviors. On 12/11/24 at 12:22 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding written consents and adverse consequence monitoring for psychotropic medications. The DON replied, We found out they've [consents] been a problem and they've been getting missed . It's something we've been working on. The DON stated AIM assessments should be completed quarterly and verified R8 was missing an assessment in December of 2023 as well as November of 2024. The DON verified only non-pharmacological interventions that targeted R8's dementia diagnosis rather than the psychotropic medications were listed in the plan of care. On 12/11/24 at 12:40 PM, an interview was conducted with Social Services Designee (SSD) G who verified medication consents had been identified as a, problem area. SSD G stated she had recently started calling resident families for consents. Review of Consent for Use of Psychoactive Medications forms revealed Complainant/Guardian L gave verbal consent for both quetiapine fumarate and sertraline use on 12/11/24, approximately 1 year and 8 months after initiation, respectively. Review of facility policy titled, Use of Psychotropic Medication, reviewed 7/15/24, read, in part: Resident #33 (R33) Review of R33's EMR revealed initial admission to the facility on 6/12/23, with diagnoses including anxiety disorder, Parkinson's disease, dementia with mood disturbance, dementia with anxiety, metabolic encephalopathy, vascular dementia, bipolar disorder, depression, and adjustment disorder. Review of R33's most recent MDS assessment, dated 10/28/24, revealed a BIMS was not able to be completed due to severely impaired cognition. Review of R33's Physician Order Recap, retrieved 12/10/24 at 4:04 p.m., revealed the following pharmacy orders for psychoactive medications without justification for continued use without 14-day PRN (as needed) stop dates: 1. Lorazepam (Ativan) Oral Tablet 0.5 mg (Lorazepam). Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for agitation. Date Initiated: 4/4/23. No End Date. 2. Lorazepam Oral Tablet 0.5 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for anxiety until 5/7/2024 23:59 (11:59 p.m.). Give one 0.5 mg tablet every 4 hours as needed for anxiety. Date Initiated: 11/20/2023, End Date 5/7/2024. 3. Haloperidol Oral Tablet 0.5 mg (Haloperidol). Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for agitation or nausea until 11/8/2024 23:59. Give one 0/5 mg tablet every 6 hours as needed for agitation or nausea. Date initiated: 11/20/23 - 11/8/2024. 4. Quetiapine fumarate Oral Tablet 25 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for mood disorder. Start Date 12/9/23. No End Date. The following medication dose changes were ordered: a. Start Date 10/1/24 - quetiapine fumarate 25 mg by mouth one time a day for wandering, restlessness, and anxiety. b. Start Date 9/30/24 - quetiapine fumarate 50 mg by mouth at bedtime for insomnia. c. Start Date 12/6/24 - quetiapine fumarate 50 mg. Give 50 mg by mouth two times a day for agitation re-eval (re-evaluate) agitation in 4 weeks (1/3/25). 5. Trazodone HCL Oral Tablet 150 mg. Give 75 mg by mouth at bedtime related to bipolar disorder. Start Date 5/29/24. The following medication dose changes were ordered: a. Trazodone HCl Oral Tablet 50 mg. Give 1.5 tablet by mouth at bedtime related to unspecified dementia, unspecified severity with other behavioral disturbance. Start Date: 4/26/24. 6. Duloxetine HCl Oral Capsule Delayed Release Particles 40 mg. Give 1 capsule by mouth for depression. Start Date 1/27/24. Review of R33's Informed Consent for Psychoactive Medications, provided by the facility on 12/11/24, found the following consents for psychoactive medications including: 1. Trazodone, dated 12/4/24, Specific Condition to be treated: Depression . Antidepressant . Telephone authorization of Resident noted. 2. Seroquel (quetiapine fumarate), dated 12/4/24, Specific Condition to be treated: Dementia with Behavioral Features Antipsychotic . Telephone authorization of Resident Representative noted. 3. Cymbalta (duloxetine HCL) Oral Capsule Delayed Release, dated 12/4/24, Specific Condition to be treated: Depression Antidepressant Telephone authorization of Resident Representative noted. 4. Lorazepam, dated 12/4/24, Specific condition to be treated: Generalized Anxiety Disorder . Anti-Anxiety . Telephone authorization of Resident Representative noted. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 1:06 p.m., when asked for all of R33's active, signed Consents for Use of Psychoactive Medication Therapy for the previous year, SSD G said that no previous consents had been found prior to the newly signed documents of 12/4/24. No signed consent was available for review regarding R33's use of Haloperidol (antipsychotic medication) while in the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate less than 5 percent for one Resident (#27) of four residents reviewed for medication administr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate less than 5 percent for one Resident (#27) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. This deficient practice resulted in two medication errors observed, out of 26 opportunities for error and a medication error rate of 7.69 percent, and had the potential for inaccurate dosing and administration of insulin. Findings include: Resident #27 (R27) Observation of medication administration performed by Registered Nurse (RN) I for R27, found the following medication errors: On 12/12/24 at 8:35 a.m., RN I failed to disinfect the humalog [short acting insulin] qwikpen [brand name pen injection device]) hub prior to placement of the insulin needle onto the pen. The pen was primed with two units of insulin, by placing the pen downward over the medication cart garbage can. When asked if the insulin pen hub and been disinfected prior to application of the insulin needle, RN I acknowledged they had not cleaned the hub. RN I re-started the process preparing the humalog insulin pen for administration of 14 units of fast-acting insulin to R27 on 12/12/24 at 8:37 a.m. RN I removed the insulin pen needle, disinfected the hub, placed a new insulin needle on the pen, but then failed to prime the insulin pen. RN I dialed the pen up to 14 units and was ready to administer the insulin to R27. On 12/12/24 at approximately 8:40 a.m., RN I prepared R27's lantus [long-acting insulin] solostar [brand name pen injection device] by priming the insulin pen with 2 units of insulin, with the pen facing again downward over the medication cart garbage can. RN I removed the primed needle, re-cleansed the pen hub, replaced the insulin pen needle, and dialed the pen up to 10 units. When asked why insulin pens were primed prior to administration of insulin to a resident, RN I stated, You don't want to be shooting air (with no insulin primed into the needle). You want to give the proper dose. On 12/12/24 at 8:48 a.m., RN I requested assistance/advice from Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) E regarding the insulin pens. ADON E recommended dialing down to two units, priming the pens and re-dialing up to the accurate doses to be administered. While priming the 14 units on the humalog qwikpen, RN I stated, I had the wrong needle on the (insulin) pen. It popped off when I primed. During an interview at this same time, ADON E acknowledged the errors in administration completed by RN I during preparation of the insulin pens prior to administration of insulin to R27. Review of the humalog qwikpen Instructions for Use, Copyright 2012, received from the facility on 12/12/24 at 9:55 a.m., revealed the following, in part: Wipe the Rubber Seal (hub) with an alcohol swab . Push the capped needle straight onto the pen and turn the needle forward until it is tight . Prime before each injection. Priming ensure the Pen is ready to dose and removes air that may collect in the cartridge during normal use. If you do not prime before each injection, you may get too much or too little insulin. Turn the Dose Knob to select 2 units. Hold your Pen with the Needle pointing up. Tap the Cartridge Holder gently to collect air bubbles at the top. Hold your Pen with Needle pointing up. Push the Dose Knob in until it stops, and 0 is seen in the Dose Window . Select your dose . The dose can be corrected by turning the Dose Knob in either direction until the correct dose lines up with the Dose Indicator . Inject your [insulin] . Review of the lantus solostar Instructions for Use, revised July 2015, and received from the facility on 12/12/24 at 9:55 a.m., revealed the following, in part: . Wipe the Rubber Seal (hub) with alcohol . Line up the needle with the pen, and keep it straight as you attach it (screw or push on, depending on the needle type). Perform a Safety Test. Always perform the safety test before each injection. Performing the safety test ensures that you get an accurate dose by: ensuring the pen and needle work properly (and) removing air bubbles. Select a dose of 2 units by turning the dosage selector . Hold the pen with the needle pointing upwards. Tap the insulin reservoir so that any air bubbles rise up towards the needle. Press the injection button all the way in. Check if insulin comes out of the needles tip . Select the dose . if you turn past your dose, you can turn back down . Insert the needle into the skin .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #46 (R46) Review of R46's MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #46 (R46) Review of R46's MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included: diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, depression, and hypertension. R46 scored a 15 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment reflective of intact cognition. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 7:59 a.m., Social Services Designee G stated, We complete the advanced directives on admission .I am surprised I did not fill out a new advanced directive for R46 .I don't have one completed .I should have done one when R46 was admitted .we review advanced directives quarterly. Resident #50 (R50) Review of R50's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 8/6/24, with active diagnoses that included: dementia, diabetes, hypertension, and anemia. Further review of the MDS assessment revealed R50 rarely or is never understood and rarely or never makes decisions. Review of facility document provided by Social Services Designee G revealed only one witness instead of two witnesses. Review of facility policy titled Communication of Code Status date reviewed/revised 2/21/24, read in part . It is the policy of this facility to adhere to resident rights to formulate advance directives .the residents code status will be reviewed at least quarterly. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure advance directives related to code status were accurately and timely completed for four Residents (R6, R26, R46, and R50) out of a total sample of 14 residents reviewed for advance directives. This deficient practice resulted in absent or improperly documented resident's code status. Findings include: Resident #6 (R6) Review of R6's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/4/24, revealed admission to the facility on 5/1/24 with active diagnoses that included the following: dementia, anxiety, and respiratory failure. R6 scored 15 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of intact cognition. Review of R6's Electronic Medical Record on 12/10/24 at 11:47 a.m., found no documentation of an Advance Directive. On 12/10/24 at 4:25 p.m., R6's Code Status form was received from Social Services Designee (Staff) G. The document was signed by Staff G, as a witness on 5/2/24, with only one witness signature on the form. The Resident's Legal Guardian signed the form on 5/3/24. Of note, the Code Status form was witnessed by facility Staff G prior documentation of R6's Guardian on 5/3/24. Resident #26 (R26) Review of R26's MDS assessment, dated 11/19/24, revealed admission to the facility on 1/31/24, with active diagnoses that included the following: heart failure, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), pneumonia, and respiratory failure. R26 scored 15 of 15 on the BIMS, reflective of intact cognition. On 12/10/24 at 4:25 p.m., Staff G provided a Code Status form for R26, signed and dated by R26, and two witnesses on 12/10/24. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 4:25 p.m., Staff G was asked for the previous Code Status form for R26, showing the Residents DNR (do-not-resuscitate) status from admission until that day, 12/10/24. Staff G stated, I was unable to find that one. We re-did this whole form today.' The form provided on 12/10/24 at 4:25 p.m., was dated 12/10/24 and signed by R26 and two facility staff witnesses that same day.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an observation on 12/9/24 at 4:10 p.m., There was a strong odor of urine outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] down B hall. Durin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an observation on 12/9/24 at 4:10 p.m., There was a strong odor of urine outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] down B hall. During an observation on 12/10/24 at 7:26 a.m., There was a strong odor of urine down B hall. During an observation on 12/11/24 at 9:08 a.m., there was a strong smell by R7's bed and R7 was up in their wheelchair. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 9:16 a.m., housekeeping aide O stated, The strongest odor in the facility is the smell of urine. On 12/9/24 at 3:19 PM, R20 was observed sleeping in bed. A cork bulletin board was observed hanging off a tack strip attached to the wall over the head of R20's bed. On 12/9/24 at 3:45 PM, a cork bulletin board was observed leaning against the wall near the head of R34's bed. R34 stated the cork board became unsecured when she was sitting in her room a couple week ago and was subsequently hanging from the wall with only one screw. R34 stated a staff member eventually took the bulletin board down and leaned it against the wall. On 12/11/24 at 10:02 AM, an interview was conducted with Staff D regarding the process for maintenance requests. Staff D stated maintenance concerns were recorded in a binder in the main facility hallway and were periodically reviewed by maintenance staff. Once the request was completed, maintenance staff then signed off in the binder, indicating its completion. Review of the maintenance binder did not list bulletin board repair requests in either R20 or R34's rooms. On 12/11/24 at 10:20 AM, R20's room was observed with Staff D. The cork bulletin board was again observed to be hanging off the tack strip which was adhered to the wall over the head of R20's bed. Staff D initially stated, That could fall on his [R20's] head. Staff D stated he was not notified of the state of R20's cork bulletin board and it was not to his standards. Staff D immediately removed the cork bulletin board from the wall. On 12/11/24 at 10:25 AM, R34's room was observed with Staff D. The cork bulletin board was again observed to be leaning against the wall below its previous hanging spot. Staff D stated he was not informed the bulletin board fell and was being stored in the room. Staff D agreed with this surveyor regarding lack of acceptable decorative aesthetic standards and stated he would try to find a replacement for the cork bulletin boards throughout the facility. On 12/11/24 at 4:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) regarding resident room aesthetic expectations. After reviewing the state of the bulletin boards in both R20 and R34's rooms, the NHA agreed it did not meet expectations. The NHA stated the damaged bulletin boards should have been documented in the maintenance binder to ensure the appropriate staff was alerted to repair them in a timely manner. Review of facility policy titled, Resident Rights, reviewed 8/19/24, read, in part: .the resident has a right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment . Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary, clean, homelike environment for all 53 facility residents. This deficient practice resulted in unpleasant odors, rooms that were aesthetically unpleasing, and resident dissatisfaction with their environment. Findings include: During an observation and interview on 12/9/24 at 3:57 p.m., a strong odor of urine and feces was present surrounding the Hall B nurses' station, on both the resident room hall, and the hall outside of the kitchen and dining room. During an interview at this time, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Q was asked about the strong, pungent odor of urine and feces. CNA Q said they were unable to smell anything because of an issue with their sinuses, but indicated perhaps someone resident had recently received a brief change. During an observation on 12/10/24 at 9:46 a.m., the resident shower room on A Hall was emitting a strong odor of urine when the shower room door was opened by CNA Q, and an unidentified Resident wheeled into the room filled with a strong, pungent odor of urine and/or feces. During an interview at this time, CNA Q was asked why the shower room smelled so strongly or urine? CNA Q stated, I don't know I am just getting in here (with a Resident). CNA Q said they would look in the garbage, and then stated, Yeah, there is a dirty brief in here. During an observation of R26's room on 12/11/24 at 9:00 a.m., found the window draperies were fastened together with a metal, paper binder clip to provide closure of the bottom portion of the draperies. The upper top of the draperies was separated by approximately one to two feet, and it appeared that the drapes were unable to be moved along the drapery rod to close. When asked how R26 felt about the curtains not closing, R26 stated, I wish they would close. I don't know why they haven't been able to fix them (so they close). During an observation and interview on 12/11/24 at approximately 10:05 a.m., Maintenance Director (Staff) D was asked about the strong smell of urine near the B Hall nurses' station. Staff D said he initially could not smell the odor of urine, but upon standing in the same position as this Surveyor, was able to smell the odors and questioned if perhaps the urine odor was coming out of the air vents. During an observation and interview on 12/11/24 at 10:10 a.m., Staff D accompanied this Surveyor to R26's room, and acknowledged the paper-clipped draperies were not aesthetically pleasing in the room. Staff D said staff should have notified him about the condition of the drapes and he would have fixed them. During an observation and interview on 12/11/24 at approximately 10:13 a.m., Staff D accompanied this Surveyor into room [ROOM NUMBER], where the room draperies were found to be hanging awkwardly. Drapery pins, to secure the drapes to the drapery rod, were missing or unattached, and no pull-cord was found to open and close the draperies. Staff D acknowledged the draperies hanging awkwardly were not conducive to a homelike environment and said they would be corrected. On 12/9/24 at approximately 2:30 PM, during the initial tour, noxious odors were noted throughout the B side corridor, beginning near resident room [ROOM NUMBER] through resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The odors were a combination of urine and bowel waste. The same odors were noted again at approximately 3:00 PM and 3:30 PM. An interview with Staff D was conducted at approximately 3:30 PM concerning the odors. Staff D stated he was unable to detect the odor. On 12/10/24 at approximately 7:42 AM noxious odors were noted again in the B side corridor. The odors were a combination of urine and bowel and permeated from resident room [ROOM NUMBER] to resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. An interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) H concerning the odors, and stated he thought the odors were due to the garbage just being taken out. At approximately 7:52 AM an interview was conducted with ADON E who stated she thought the odors were emanating from the soiled utility room. The door to the soiled utility room was opened and a wave of increased intensity of odors rushed from the room into the corridor. ADON E stated that a number of residents were known to be incontinent and may be contributing to the pervasive odors.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff had the appropriate competencies and skills to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services. This d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff had the appropriate competencies and skills to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services. This deficient practice has the potential to result in unsafe practices occurring in the kitchen and dietary services and could affect all 53 residents. Findings include: On 12/9/24 at approximately 4:20 PM, the three compartment sink was observed being used to wash, rinse and sanitize food contact surfaces. An interview with Kitchen Manager (KM) A was conducted at this time. KM A acknowledged she did not know the proper testing procedure to ensure the proper concentration of sanitizing chemical was present to sanitize food contact surfaces. On 12/10/24 at approximately 9:30 AM, [NAME] C was observed conducted dish washing activities at the three compartment sink. When asked to demonstrate the testing procedure to ensure proper concentration of sanitizing chemicals in the sink, [NAME] C was unable to demonstrate the procedure properly. When asked if KM A had provided any training related to this procedure, [NAME] C stated No. On 12/10/24 at approximately 10:10 AM, during an interview, KM A indicated she had not yet completed the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) program. KM A stated she had been enrolled in the program for approximately two years and had only completed one of the ten modules required for completion. All ten modules are required pre-requisites to write the certification exam. It was further learned KM A had been in the position of manager of dietary services for almost three years. A review of KM A's produced credentials revealed she had completed a Certified Food Manager (CFM) course. The FDA Food Code identifies an acceptable level of education for a person in charge of a food service operation as: 2-102.11 Demonstration. Based on the RISKS inherent to the FOOD operation, during inspections and upon request the PERSON IN CHARGE shall demonstrate to the REGULATORY AUTHORITY knowledge of foodborne disease prevention, application of the HAZARD Analysis and CRITICAL CONTROL POINT principles, and the requirements of this Code. The PERSON IN CHARGE shall demonstrate this knowledge by: (A) Complying with this Code by having no violations of PRIORITY ITEMS during the current inspection; Pf (B) Being a certified FOOD protection manager who has shown proficiency of required information through passing a test that is part of an ACCREDITED PROGRAM
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

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 provide food in a manner that was a palatable (prefera...

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 food in a manner that was a palatable (preferable) in temperature and/or form for 10 Residents (#2, #5, #6, #9, #14, #23, #26, #27, #38, & #46) of 14 sample residents in the facility reviewed for food. This deficient practice resulted in frustration with meals and the potential for weight loss and diminished nutrition. Findings include: Resident #2 (R2), Resident #5 (R5), Resident #14 (R14), Resident #26 (R26), Resident #27 (R27), Resident #38 (R38), Resident #46 (R46) During a group interview on 12/10/24 at 1:30 p.m., seven R2, R5, R14, R26, R27, R38 and R46 all agreed the food was not palatable due to cold temperatures of food. R26 stated, the food is cold, and we have told them about the food and nothing has changed. R2 stated, the other day we had pizza, and it was cold. R46 stated, the food here sucks, the noodles we had today were undercooked and cold .the food is very bland. R5 stated, the food is cold and there is no flavor .today I received a hard boiled egg with the shell on it and I can't peel the egg, but no one helped me. Resident #6 (R6) On 12/10/24 at 8:30 a.m., R6's meal tray delivery was observed. R6 was heard, as they sighed while looking at the breakfast meal plate that included two cold, hard-boiled eggs with the shell intact. When asked why they sighed, R6 stated, They gave me hard-boiled eggs with the shells on. R6 pressed their call light and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) E arrived to assist. R6 asked ADON E to remove the shells from the eggs because R6 had arthritis in their hands. R6 raised their hands to show the disfigured, arthritic fingers on both hands. This Surveyor observed ADON E don gloves and watched her struggle to remove all the egg fragments from R6's two hard-boiled eggs. The egg surfaces remained scattered with visible egg shells when ADON E was finished with the shell removal. ADON E left the room, and R6 was asked about the presence of egg shells on the hard-boiled eggs. R6 stated, There are always going to be shells on the egg when peeled, because with gloves to peel the egg you are not going to get all the shells off. Resident #9 (R9) On 12/10/24 at 12:06 p.m., R9 walked out into the Hall with their meal tray and stated, This is the worst meal I have eaten in my life. There is pasta as a side with no sauce, cheese, or anything. The cauliflower has [NAME] parts and I have to cut it with a fork and it was too hard. The zucchini was mush and awful. The chicken was ok. I ate it but I hope that I don't get diarrhea or something. It was so awful . Observation of the tray at that same time found what appeared to be plain, white elbow macaroni without sauce, mushy appearing zucchini, and cauliflower with [NAME] stems. Resident #23 (R23) During an interview on 12/10/24 at 1:13 p.m., when asked about food in the facility, R23 said they had lost a significant amount of weight while in the facility because the food was so bad. On 12/11/24 at 11:59 a.m., Kitchen Manager (KM) A was asked about the breakfast service on 12/10/24 when unpeeled, cold, hard-boiled eggs were served to residents. KM A stated, I have never even eaten a hard-boiled egg warm. The staff were supposed to peel the eggs for the residents that couldn't (peel it themselves). When asked about what facility residents or staff were supposed to do if the eggs were hard to peel and shells remained on the eggs, KM A said she had not thought about that. Review of the Week 5 Menus, received from KM A on 12/11/24 at 12:05 p.m., revealed Hot Cereal, Hard Boiled Egg, Sausage Link, and Toast on the 12/10/24 breakfast menu. The menu listed hard-boiled egg, but did not say with shell on (unpeeled). Lunch on 12/10/24 listed Lemon Pepper Chicken, Buttered Noodles, Chateau Veg (vegetable blend), and Bread Pudding. On 12/10/24 at approximately 11:50 AM, lunch meal trays were observed being delivered to residents' in their rooms. Staff were observed removing trays from an un-insulated, metal wheeled cabinet, containing plates with insulated lids but no insulated bases. The cart contained 14 prepared meal trays. Staff M was requested to remove the lid covering the plate she had removed from the cart. With the lid removed from the plate the temperature of chicken, pasta and vegetables was measured using an infrared thermometer. The surface temperature of the food was read to be 102°F to 104°F. A second tray, removed by another staff was measured in the same way and found to have temperatures of 104°F to 106°F. At approximately 12:30 PM, lunch trays were observed being delivered to residents sitting at tables in the dining room. The trays were being removed from an un-insulated metal wheeled cart containing 27 trays. As food was delivered and the insulated covers removed from the plates, temperatures were measured using an infrared thermometer. Temperatures were found to range between 102°F and 109°F. An interview with a resident in the dining room was conducted and asked how her food was. The resident responded It's edible.
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. This deficient practice has the potential to result in food borne illness among any and all 53 residents of the facility. Findings include: On 12/9/24 at approximately 3:25 PM, a snack cart was observed in the hallway near resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. No staff were observed near or around, tending to the cart. The cart had an uncovered Lexan container, sitting on the top shelf with ice cubes and tongs. At approximately 3:40 PM, during an interview, Activity Aide (AA) F confirmed he was passing snacks to residents and the container of ice cubes was used to fill resident drinking water cups. When asked if he had been instructed to ensure the ice cubes were protected from contamination by covering or other means, AA F stated he had not been instructed to cover the ice cubes. The FDA Food Code 2017 states: 3-307.11 Miscellaneous Sources of Contamination. FOOD shall be protected from contamination that may result from a factor or source not specified under Subparts 3-301 -3-306. On 12/10/24 at approximately 11:30 AM observations of the noon meal service were completed in the kitchen. Two hamburger patties were observed in a stainless steel pan, sitting in the well of the steam table. The temperature of the patties was measured with a metal stem digital probe thermometer and found to be 120°F. An interview with [NAME] C was conducted at this time. [NAME] C indicated he had taken the cooked patties from the refrigerator and placed them directly into the steam table well. [NAME] C confirmed he had not properly re-heated the product to 165°F for 15 seconds prior to placing into the steam table. [NAME] C indicated he was not aware of the requirement to reheat food to 165°F for 15 seconds before the food could be served, and was not aware the steam table was not to be used for the heating of food. [NAME] C was unaware the steam table was only for the maintenance of food temperature once initial required heating temperatures had been reached. The FDA Food Code 2017 states: 3-403.11 Reheating for Hot Holding. (A) Except as specified under ¶¶ (B) and (C) and in ¶ (E) of this section, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD that is cooked, cooled, and reheated for hot holding shall be reheated so that all parts of the FOOD reach a temperature of at least 74°C (165°F) for 15 seconds On 12/9/24 at approximately 4:20 PM, the three compartment sink in the kitchen was observed being used to wash, rinse and sanitize food preparation utensils, including spoons, whips, and pans. Kitchen Manager (KM) A was requested to demonstrate the process used to ensure adequate concentration of sanitizer was present in the solution. Prior to testing, [NAME] D stated she had just tested it and it should be fine. KM A proceeded to remove a strip of QT 40 (Quaternary Test Paper) test strip, and dipped it in the sink for approximately seven seconds while swishing it back and forth. KM A removed the strip, compared it to the color guide and reported a concentration of about 400 parts per million (ppm). [NAME] D was then asked to demonstrate her procedure for testing the sink solution. [NAME] D removed a section of QT 40 test strip, placed in the water and swished through the solution for approximately 4 seconds, and reported a concentration of about 150. Neither staff member measured the temperature of the water. Both staff were requested to read the directions for using the strips to test the solution. Both staff admitted they were not aware the strip was to be held in the solution without agitation, or that the solution being tested was to be between 65 and 75 °F to have an accurate test. The water temperature was measured using a probe thermometer and found to be 94 F. The sink solution was then measured with a non-temperature dependent QAC (Quaternary Ammonium Compounds) strip and found to have a concentration of Quat (Quaternary Ammonium) (Quaternary Ammonium) (Quaternary Ammonium) (Quaternary Ammonium) (Quaternary Ammonium) (Quaternary Ammonium) between 50-100 ppm. A review of the container of quaternary sanitizer revealed the concentration for proper sanitizing was 200-300 ppm. On 12/10/24 at approximately 10:20 AM the three compartment sink in the kitchen was observed being used for cleaning cooking utensils. An interview was conducted with [NAME] C which revealed he was conducting the dish washing in the sink. [NAME] C was then requested to demonstrate the procedure used to show the sanitizing solution was at the proper concentration. [NAME] C removed a section of test strip from the QT 40 strip dispenser. [NAME] C placed the strip in the sink, held it for 10 seconds, removed it and read it at 400 ppm. This surveyor measured the temperature of the water and found it to be 114°F. The interview with [NAME] C revealed he had not been instructed on the proper procedure for testing the sanitizing solution, and was not aware the test strips were accurate only between the range of temperatures 65-75°F. The FDA Food Code 2017 states: 4-302.14 Sanitizing Solutions, Testing Devices. A test kit or other device that accurately measures the concentration in MG/L of SANITIZING solutions shall be provided. and 2-102.11 Demonstration. Based on the RISKS inherent to the FOOD operation, during inspections and upon request the PERSON IN CHARGE shall demonstrate to the REGULATORY AUTHORITY knowledge of foodborne disease prevention, application of the HAZARD Analysis and CRITICAL CONTROL POINT principles, and the requirements of this Code. The PERSON IN CHARGE shall demonstrate this knowledge by: (A) Complying with this Code by having no violations of PRIORITY ITEMS during the current inspection; Pf (B) Being a certified FOOD protection manager who has shown proficiency of required information through passing a test that is part of an ACCREDITED PROGRAM;Pf or (C) Responding correctly to the inspector's questions as they relate to the specific FOOD operation. The areas of knowledge include: (1) Describing the relationship between the prevention of foodborne disease and the personal hygiene of a FOOD EMPLOYEE; Pf (2) Explaining the responsibility of the PERSON IN CHARGE for preventing the transmission of foodborne disease by a FOOD EMPLOYEE who has a disease or medical condition that may cause foodborne disease; (3) Describing the symptoms associated with the diseases that are transmissible through FOOD; Pf (4) Explaining the significance of the relationship between maintaining the time and temperature of TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD and the prevention of foodborne illness; Pf (5) Explaining the HAZARDS involved in the consumption of raw or undercooked MEAT, POULTRY, EGGS, and FISH; Pf (6) Stating the required FOOD temperatures and times for safe cooking of TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD including MEAT, POULTRY, EGGS, and FISH; Pf (7) Stating the required temperatures and times for the safe refrigerated storage, hot holding, cooling, and reheating of TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD; Pf (8) Describing the relationship between the prevention of foodborne illness and the management and control of the following: (a) Cross contamination, Pf (b) Hand contact with READY-TO-EAT FOODS, Pf (c) Handwashing, Pf and (d) Maintaining the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT in a clean condition and in good repair; Pf (9) Describing FOODS identified as MAJOR FOOD ALLERGENS and the symptoms that a MAJOR FOOD ALLERGEN could cause in a sensitive individual who has an allergic reaction. Pf (10) Explaining the relationship between FOOD safety and providing EQUIPMENT that is: (a) Sufficient in number and capacity, Pf and (b) Properly designed, constructed, located, installed, operated, maintained, and cleaned; Pf (11) Explaining correct procedures for cleaning and SANITIZING UTENSILS and FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT; Pf (12) Identifying the source of water used and measures taken to ensure that it remains protected from contamination such as providing protection from backflow and precluding the creation of cross connections
CONCERN (F)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the environment was safe, sanitary and functional for resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the environment was safe, sanitary and functional for residents, staff and the public, potentially affecting all 53 residents. Findings include: On 12/9/24 at approximately 3:00 PM, exit door, identified as Exit #4 was observed with a gap between the threshold and the bottom of the door. This gap allowed cold air and potentially insects and other vermin entrance into the building. On 12/10/24 at approximately 10:15 AM, an interview with Maintenance Director (Staff) D was conducted who confirmed the door was in disrepair and needed to be replaced. On 12/9/24 at approximately 3:30 PM a community shower room located near resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a vertical wall, separating the toilet and shower enclosure. The wall was missing eight 6 x 6 ceramic tiles, exposing sharp edges which could potentially result in lacerations or other injury to residents or staff. On 12/10/24 at approximately 10:30 AM an interview with Staff D confirmed the missing tiles and stated replacements were not able to be found and the remaining tiles would be removed. On 12/11/24 at approximately 8:30 AM, an observation of the shower room confirmed the remaining ceramic tiles had been removed which left the underlying drywall board exposed. MD D stated he was looking for other materials to cover the unsealed backing board. On 12/10/24 at approximately 8:30 AM, an observation of the dish washing area in the kitchen revealed an atmospheric vacuum breaker connected to the submerged inlet of the garbage disposal. The vacuum breaker was not intact with the top bell housing missing, potentially contributing to a failure in the device in a negative pressure event in the potable water supply system. This would result in the back flow of contaminated liquids from the disposal into the drinking water supply for the entire building.
Apr 2024 5 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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to MI00142942. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a call lig...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to MI00142942. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a call light was within reach for one visually impaired resident (R16) of three residents reviewed for call light use. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for fear and feelings of helplessness, frustration and anxiety. Findings include: R16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including legal blindness, dementia, anxiety and depression. Review of R16's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 1/23/2024, revealed R16 used a manual wheelchair and was dependent on staff for wheelchair mobility and required substantial/maximal assistance with transfers. Further review of the MDS assessment revealed R16 had highly impaired vision and scored 14 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating she was cognitively intact. An observation on 4/15/2024 at 2:25 p.m. revealed R16 sitting in a wheelchair in her room, facing the wall near the head of her bed with an over bed table directly in front of her. R16 reported being legally blind and requiring staff assistance for toileting and mobility. When asked how she asked for assistance, R16 was observed patting her hands around her lap and the table in front of her. R16 stated she was attempting to find the call light. Further observation revealed R16's call light wrapped around the left upper grab bar of the resident's bed, on the opposite side of the over bed table from where the resident was sitting. The call light was observed to be out of reach of the resident. When asked how often she is unable to find the call light, R16 stated she often is unable to locate the call light. On 4/16/2024 at 1:25 p.m. while standing in the hallway near the Hall-A nurse's station, a resident could be heard calling, can someone help me, repeatedly. Upon inspection of the direction of the voice, an observation revealed R16 sitting in her room in a wheelchair with the over bed table positioned in front of her, as per the previous observation on 4/15/2024 at 2:25 p.m. R16 was rocking gently back and forth in her wheelchair calling, can someone help me. A lunch tray was observed on the over bed table in front of the resident. R16 reported she finished lunch and would like to go back to bed but required staff assistance. R16 was observed patting around her lap and the over bed table with her hands and reported she did not know where her call light was. Further observation revealed R16's call light lying on the floor approximately two feet in front of the resident and on the opposite side of the over bed table from where the resident was positioned. When asked if she would like assistance calling for help, R16 stated I wish I could do it myself. Further observation with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) C on 4/16/2024 at 1:28 p.m. revealed R16 still seated per the previous observation with the call light still on the floor approximately two feet in front of the resident and on the opposite side of the over bed table from where R16 was positioned. R16 reported to LPN C she could not find her call light and she would like to go back to bed. LPN C picked the call light up off the floor and activated the light for assistance transferring R16 back to bed. When asked if there was a device present to secure the call light near the resident, LPN C proceeded to inspect the call light cord and found a small metal clip for securing the light. The clip was observed to be at the opposite end of the cord from the activation button, near the entry point of the cord into the wall. In an interview immediately following the observation, LPN C confirmed R16 was unable to see the call light due to having severe visual impairment. During an interview on 4/16/2024 at 2:00 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) reported call lights should always be accessible to residents. The DON confirmed R16 had severe visual impairment and the call light should be secured near the resident to ensure accessibility.
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 F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intakes MI00142825 and MI00143791. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intakes MI00142825 and MI00143791. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure privacy and dignified treatment during the provision of care for two residents (R12 and R15) of three residents reviewed for dignity. Findings include: R12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, anxiety and depression. Review of R12's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 1/09/2024, revealed R12 was dependent on staff for upper and lower body dressing, personal and toileting hygiene, repositioning, and mobility. Further review of the MDS assessment revealed R12 was assessed as always incontinent of bladder and bowel and had severe cognitive impairment. An observation on 4/16/2024 at 11:21 a.m. revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) H and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) providing incontinence care to R12. Upon completion of care, CNA H left the room and immediately returned and reported she needed to recheck R12 for cleanliness. CNA H stood to the right of R12's bed while the NHA assisted from the left side of R12 and removed the resident's pants, unfastened R12's brief and tucked the brief between the resident's upper thighs, exposing R12's pubic area. The NHA then left R12's bedside to retrieve a clean brief from the resident's closet while CNA H proceeded to cleanse R12's peri-area then walked to the sink behind the head of R12's bed to wash her hands. R12 was observed to be lying in bed, naked from the waist down while CNA H was at the sink performing hand hygiene and the NHA was looking for a brief in the closet. Both CNA H and the NHA were out of R12's sight while she was lying on the bed exposed from the waist down. R15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease. Review of R15's most recent MDS assessment, dated 2/8/2024, revealed R15 was independent for toileting hygiene and was occasionally incontinent of bladder and bowel. Further review of R15's MDS assessment revealed R15 had severe cognitive impairment. An observation from the hallway outside the B-Hall shower room, on 4/16/2024 at 1:10 p.m., revealed R15 sitting on the toilet with CNA J standing directly in front of the seated resident. Further observation revealed R15's pants and brief were pulled down below her knees, exposing the resident's lower body as she sat on the toilet. The privacy curtain was not drawn and the door to the shower room was fully ajar, causing R15 to be fully visible from the hallway. During the observation, Maintenance Director (Staff) L was observed walking down B-Hall, looking into the shower room where R15 was seated on the toilet with her pants and brief pulled down. Staff L was heard mumbling R15's name and observed shaking his head before walking into the shower room next to the resident seated on the toilet and drawing the privacy curtain. Staff L then exited the shower room. During an interview on 4/16/2024 at 2:00 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) reported all residents should be cared for in a manner that preserves the resident's dignity. The DON stated ensuring dignity as a standard of practice which included the provision of privacy while toileting and covering exposed body parts while performing other tasks during bathing and incontinence care. A review of the facility policy titled Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity, provided by the NHA and dated 2/07/2023, revealed the following, in part: It is the practice of this facility to protect and promote resident rights and treat each resident with respect and dignity . 1. All staff members are involved in providing care to residents to promote and maintain resident dignity . 12. Maintain resident privacy.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00142941. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00142941. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were maintained in a safe, clean, and homelike manner for two Residents (R13 and R19) of three residents reviewed. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for feelings of worthlessness, embarrassment and loss of dignity. Findings include: R13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, anxiety and depression. A review of R13's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 1/9/2024, revealed R13 had severe cognitive impairment. A review of R13's care plan revealed the following, in part: Focus: I have a self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) dementia, Parkinson's. Date Initiated: 12/23/2023 . Interventions/Tasks: My mattress is on the floor and I will crawl off my mattress across the floor independently . R19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bipolar disorder and depression. A review of R19's most recent MDS assessment, dated 3/25/2024, revealed R19 was cognitively intact. An observation on 4/16/2024 at 8:05 a.m. revealed R13's mattress positioned directly on the floor in her room. The mattress was not covered by sheets, or a mattress protector and an uncovered pillow was resting on top of the mattress. A fall mat was folded in half and placed on the floor in the left corner of R13's room, while another fall mat was lying on the floor directly to the right of the mattress, with the mattress resting on top of the fall mat. Further observation revealed the mattress and the fall mat on the right were positioned askew on the floor with a portion of the mattress resting under the privacy curtain and protruding into R19's portion of the room. The floor surrounding R13's mattress was observed to be visibly soiled and multiple shoe prints could be seen on the dirty floor. A sticking sound was noted while walking on the visibly soiled floor surrounding R13's mattress. An observation on 4/16/2024 at 8:18 a.m., revealed R19 sitting on the edge of her bed on the opposite side of the privacy curtain from R13's portion of the room. Further observation revealed R13's mattress and fall mat protruding from under the privacy curtain and into R19's portion of the room. The floor on R19's side of the room was visibly soiled with dirt and a sticking sound was noted upon walking on the floor. The wall to the left of R19's dresser was observed to have deep gouges where paint and drywall were removed and there was an uncovered utility box directly to the left of R19's dresser, approximately 12 inches above the floor. Further observation revealed a screw protruding out approximately one inch from the top portion of the utility box. Inside the utility box was a gray cord. During an interview at the time of the observation, R19 was asked if the condition of her room and the protrusion of R13's mattress into her living space bothered her. R19 reported she preferred R13's mattress remain out of her living space as it was difficult to maneuver her wheelchair around the mattress on the floor. R19 stated she reported the concern to staff in the past but it didn't' do any good. Immediately following the observation, Certified Nurse Aide Supervisor (CNA) F was queried as to why R13's mattress was directly on the floor. CNA F reported R13 consistently crawled out of bed and slept on the floor, therefore she was care planned to have her mattress directly on the floor. CNA F stated R13 often crawled around on the floor in her room. During an observation at the time of the interview, CNA F confirmed R13's uncovered mattress was protruding under the privacy curtain and into R19's portion of the room. During an interview on 4/16/2024 at 8:23 a.m., Maintenance and Housekeeping Director (Staff) L was called to R13 and R19's room. Staff L inspected the wall near R19's dresser and reported he was unaware of the uncovered outlet box and of the amount of disrepair in R13 and R19's room. Staff L stated the utility box contained an old phone cable and should have a cover over the opening in the wall. Staff L confirmed the floor in the room was visibly soiled including the area surrounding R13's mattress. Staff L reported staff should be alert to soiled floors and any needs reported to housekeeping for priority clean up and if housekeeping was unavailable, all staff have access to housekeeping supplies and equipment. During an interview on 4/16/2024 at 8:25 a.m., Housekeeping Aide (Staff) T reported she did not receive notification from staff of the visibly soiled floor in R13 and R19's room, therefore she did not prioritize the room for cleaning. During an interview on 4/16/2024 at 8:32 a.m., Housekeeping Aide (Staff) S stated R13 and R19's room was last cleaned on 4/15/2024. Staff S did not remember what time she cleaned the room on 4/15/2024. Staff S reported she did not receive notification R13 and R19's floor was visibly soiled and in need of cleaning after servicing the room on 4/15/2024. A review of the facility Maintenance Log, for the dates 1/01/2024 through 4/16/2024, provided by Staff L, revealed no log entry for the problem of the uncovered outlet box or the deep gouges in the wall of R13 and R19's room. During an interview on 4/16/2024 at 4:00 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Regional Administrative Consultant (Staff) A reported upon this Surveyor's observations of R13 and R19's room, maintenance staff were instructed to begin a facility-wide inspection of all utility outlets and housekeeping staff were instructed to begin twice daily cleaning of R13 and R19's room. The NHA confirmed R13's mattress rested directly on the floor and the Resident often crawled out of bed onto the floor therefore staff should be alert as to the condition of the floor in R13's room.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00142941 and MI00143791. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00142941 and MI00143791. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure safe transfers for two Residents (R13 and R18) of three residents reviewed for safety during transfers. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for falls and injury. Findings include: R13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including dementia, Parkinson's disease, muscle weakness and abnormalities of gait/mobility. Review of R13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/15/2024, revealed R13 required substantial/maximal assistance to transfer from sitting to standing and had two or more falls since admission. Further review of the MDS assessment revealed R13 had severe cognitive impairment. An observation on 4/15/2024 at 1:45 p.m., revealed R13 being assisted to the toilet in the shower room on B-Hall by Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) G and CNA D. R13 was observed to be fully seated at approximately 80 degrees in a high-back wheelchair positioned in front of the toilet. CNA D stood behind R13's wheelchair while CNA G stood in front of R13's wheelchair and asked the Resident to grab his hands. R13 was observed placing her hands in CNA G's hands and CNA G was observed holding onto R13's hands and pulling R13 to standing position. CNA G did not use a gait belt to assist R13 to transfer from sitting to standing position. CNA D continued to stand behind R13's wheelchair and did not assist with the transfer. A review of R13's care plan revealed the following, in part: Focus: I have an ADL [Activities of Daily Living] self-care performance deficit related to dementia, Parkinson's. Date Initiated: 12/23/2023 . Interventions/Tasks: Transfer - Extensive assistance of 1 stand pivot. Encourage resident to assist with using arms to push to stand . Date Initiated: 12/23/2023. A review of R13's Fall Risk Evaluation, dated 4/06/2024, revealed R13 was at high risk for falls. R18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including severe dementia with other behavioral disturbance. A review of R18's MDS assessment, dated 4/17/2024, revealed R18 required substantial/maximal assistance to transfer from sitting to standing and had one fall since admission. Further review of the MDS assessment revealed R18 had severely impaired cognition. An observation on 4/16/2024 at 8:49 a.m., revealed CNA K assisting R18 to transfer from a wheelchair to the bed. R18 was seated in the wheelchair with her right side next to the head of her bed. CNA K stood in front of R18, placed her arms under the Resident's arms then pulled R18 to standing position then pivoted so the back of R18's thighs were touching the mattress. CNA K then lowered the resident to seated position on the bed. CNA K did not use a gait belt or any other assistive device during the transfer. During an interview immediately following the observation, CNA K reported she was unsure of what level of assistance R18 needed during transfers. CNA K reported she did not receive a report from the previous shift and did not know what R18's care planned interventions were regarding ADL assistance and transfer status. A review of R18's care plan revealed the following, in part: Focus: I have an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t [sic]. Date Initiated: 4/12/2024 . Interventions/Tasks: Transfers - Assist x 1, utilize gait belt and FWW [front-wheeled walker] for transfers. Date Initiated: 4/12/2024. A review of R18's Fall Risk Evaluation, dated 4/13/2024, revealed R18 was at high risk for falls. During an interview on 4/16/2024 at 2:00 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) reported the use of gait belts while transferring residents was a standard of practice. The DON stated staff should be checking the care plan when unsure of resident's transfer status prior to transferring a resident. A review of the facility policy titled Safe Resident Handling/Transfer, provided by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and last reviewed 6/25/2023, revealed the following, in part: It is the policy of this facility to ensure that resident are handled and transferred safely to prevent or minimize risks for injury and promote a safe, secure and comfortable experience for the resident while keeping the employees safe in accordance with current standards and guidelines . Handling aids may include gait belts, transfer boards and other devices . Resident lifting and transferring will be performed according to the resident's individual plan of care .
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

This citation pertains to intake MI00143791. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to perform pre-employment and pre-admission screenings for tuberculosis (a contagious infection a...

Read full inspector narrative →
This citation pertains to intake MI00143791. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to perform pre-employment and pre-admission screenings for tuberculosis (a contagious infection affecting the lungs) based on current professional guidelines. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for exposure and transmission of tuberculosis to susceptible residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 4/17/2024 at 9:53 a.m., the staff tuberculosis (TB) screening document binder was reviewed with Office Manager (Staff) E. Upon review of a selection of staff beginning work in January 2024 through April 2024, it was noted no TB screening information was found for the sampled employees. Staff E reported the head of each department was responsible for ensuring appropriate TB screening for newly hired staff. Once completed, the screenings documented were provided to Staff E for filing in the binder. Staff E confirmed she did not have TB screenings for the following staff members who began working inside the facility in April 2024: Dietary Aide (Staff) N, first day of work in facility: 4/15/2024. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Q, first day of work in facility: 4/12/2024. CNA R, first day of work in facility: 4/12/2024. CNA O, first day of work in facility: 4/14/2024. Housekeeping Aide (Staff) P, first day of work in facility: 2/28/2024. During an interview on 4/17/2024 at 10:00 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) reported she was also the interim Infection Preventionist for the facility. The NHA reported she recognized concerns with the facility's TB screening process during an infection control audit a couple weeks ago, although no changes to the process were made as of the date of this survey. The NHA reported she checked with each department head to inquire if any TB screening information was obtained prior to the sample staff beginning work in the facility. The NHA confirmed there was no TB screening information found for Staff N, CNA Q, CNA R, CNA O or Staff P. A review of the electronic medication records (EMR's) was conducted for residents with an initial admission date within the past 30-day period prior to the survey dated 4/17/2024. The following residents did not have information in the EMR regarding TB screening prior to admission: Resident 18 (R18), initial admission date: 4/10/2024. R22, initial admission date: 4/09/2024. R23, initial admission date: 4/01/2024. R24, initial admission date: 4/04/2024. R25, initial admission date: 3/27/2024. During an interview on 4/17/2024 at 10:45 a.m., the NHA confirmed R18, R22, R23, R24 and R25 were not screened for TB prior to or since admission to the facility. The NHA reported the staff responsible for ensuring TB screening of newly hired staff and newly admitted residents did not understand the process for TB screening. Review of the facility policy titled Administration and Interpretation of Tuberculin Skin Tests, provided by the NHA and last reviewed 3/18/2024, revealed the following, in part: This facility administers and interprets tuberculin skin tests (TST) in accordance with current CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines and/or state/federal regulations. Healthcare Personnel: Should receive a baseline individual TB risk assessment, symptom screening and TB testing (e.g. TB skin test or TB blood test) upon hire/pre-placement . Residents: Residents should be screened for TB in accordance with CDC recommendations . This may consist of an intradermal skin test, a blood test, a chest x-ray, or other methods recommended by the public health authority . Review of the CDC guideline titled TB Screening and Testing of Health Care Personnel, last updated 8/30/2022, revealed the following, in part: All U.S. health care personnel should be screened for TB upon hire (i.e., preplacement). TB screening is a process that includes: A baseline individual TB risk assessment; TB symptom evaluation; A TB test (e.g., TB blood test or a TB skin test; and Additional evaluation for TB disease as needed. Review of the CDC guideline titled Who Should be Tested for TB Infection, last reviewed 4/14/2016, revealed the following, in part: Certain people should be tested for TB infection because they are at higher risk for being infected with TB bacteria, including: People who live or work in high-risk settings (for example: correctional facilities, long-term care facilities or nursing homes, and homeless shelters) . Health-care workers who care for patients at increased risk for TB disease .
Dec 2023 11 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and services to prevent new pressur...

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 treatment and services to prevent new pressure ulcers from developing for two Residents (#22 and #29) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care. This deficient practice resulted in multiple newly facility acquired pressure injuries which subsequently required debridement, use of antibiotics and the use of a wound vac. Findings include: Resident #22 (R22) On 12/18/23 at 8:45 AM, an interview was conducted with R22 who was observed lying in her bed wearing a hospital gown and covered with a white bed sheet. R22 was observed with a wound vac on the left side of her bed on the floor which was connected to her lower abdominal area. R22 was asked how long she had the wound vac and if she came into the facility with it on her original admission and replied, No. I did not have this wound on my abdomen or the wound vac on admission and I have had it for a little over a month. I just hate this thing. I don't get up out of bed and in my chair because I must drag this thing around with me everywhere I go. Review of R22's admission record, date printed 12/17/23, revealed an original admission to the facility on 5/16/23, with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, anemia, need for assistance with personal care, and absence of the right leg below the knee (amputation). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/22/23, revealed her to be at risk for developing pressure ulcers and not having any existing pressure ulcers upon her original admission. A review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 11/22/23, revealed her to be at risk for developing pressure ulcers, to have one existing facility acquired stage three pressure ulcer, and to be cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. On 12/19/23 at 11:00 AM, an observation was made of R22 lying in her bed in her room. R22 was noted to have her wound vac at the left side of her bed. R22 was asked if she had any other wound and if she was able to turn and reposition by herself and replied, Yes. I will show you. I used to have a wound on my left back side, but I think it is healed now. R22 was observed to roll by herself on to her right side and was observed to have a dressing on her left upper hip/buttock area with a date on the dressing 12/12/23 with initials AS. R22 was asked when the dressing was to be changed and replied, Oh. I forgot all about that one. It is healed, but I like the dressing there for protection and it is changed every three days. On 12/29/23 at 11:20 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) N was asked to observe R22 in her room and the dressing. RN N stated she was not aware of a dressing in that area, and she was only aware of the wound vac. RN N was asked if the dressing should be changed and replied, I would have to look at the orders. Review of R22's skin wound evaluation, dated 9/20/23, revealed R22 was observed to have a stage one pressure ulcer develop on her left lateral thigh measuring 5.5 cm (centimeters) x 4.0 cm, and it developed in the facility. Review of R22's skin wound evaluations for wound of the left lateral thigh between 9/20/23 through 12/19/23, revealed missing evaluations on 11/1/23, 11/8/23, 11/15/23, 11/22/23, 11/29/23, and 12/6/23. Review of R22's treatment administration record (TAR), dated December 2023, revealed the lack of an order for current dressing observed to be dated for 12/12/23. Review of R22's skin and wound evaluation, dated 10/4/23, revealed a new stage two pressure ulcer of the left lower quadrant abdominal area and measured 6.2 cm x 2.1 cm and no depth recorded. Review of physician faxed communication, dated 10/4/23, read in part, .open area on underside (of abdominal area). Measuring 5 cm x 3 cm - area was cleansed with (name brand) wound cleaner - 3 x 3 opti-foam applied - please advise on tx (treatment) if you wish something else .(physician response) Continue care as above. Notify if, worsening - increased in size, tenderness or redness . Review of R22's care plan, dated 10/4/23, read in part, Focus: I have a stage 3 (pressure ulcer) to my left abdominal area .Goal: Interventions will be put in place to prevent decline in wound and maintain my comfort. Interventions/Tasks: Administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness. Assess me and attempt to determine underlying causes of wound .Assess/record/monitor wound healing per facility policy. Measure length, width, and depth .Assess and document status of wound perimeter, wound bed and healing progress .Wound vac per wound clinic to abdominal wound, change per wound clinic orders, monitor per facility protocol (11/6/23) . *Note: R22's care plan lacked any focus, goal, or intervention/tasks related to her being at risk for developing pressure ulcers as indicated on her MDS admission and quarterly assessments. Review of R22's progress note, dated 10/29/23, read in part, .No skin issues noted at this time, see wound nurse documentation for on going. Review of R22's treatment administration record (TAR), dated October 2023, revealed orders for: Open area underside of abdominal skirt: Cleanse area with (name brand) wound cleaner, apply opti-foam. Change every other day and prn (as needed). If soiled, until healed .In the morning on even days, start 10/6/23. Review of TAR for treatment sign out dressing changes for the above order revealed, treatments left blank and or not completed on days of 10/10/23, 10/18/23, 10/30/23. and 11/2/23. Review of R22's TAR, dated November 2023, revealed orders for: Perform wound care procedure to wound vac of left lower abdomen three times weekly as follows: remove drape and all foam from wound bed, cleanse wound bed and peri wound with normal saline and gauze. Cleanse skin around wound with chloraprep (if available) and apply skin prep, then cover skin around wound with drape. Reapply wound vac dressing set wound vac to 125 mm Hg. One time a day every Mon, Wed, Fri for Wound Care, start date 11/6/23. Review of TAR for treatment sign out dressing changes for the above order revealed, treatments 11/8/23, 11/10/23, 11/13/23, and 11/15/23 marked with a 9 indicating to other/see nurse note, and on 11/22/23, 11/24/23, and 12/4/23 left blank and or not completed. Review of R22's skin wound evaluations for wound of the left lower quadrant abdominal area between 10/4/23 through 12/19/23, revealed missing evaluations on 11/1/23, 11/8/23, 11/15/23, 11/22/23, 11/29/23, and 12/6/23. Incomplete evaluation on 11/27/23, revealed wound of the left lower quadrant abdominal area, stage three pressure ulcer, and measured 15.3 cm x 5.3 cm and n/a (not applicable) for depth. Review of R22's progress note, dated 10/31/23, read in part, .This RN spoke with scheduling services from (local hospital) regarding Resident's procedure tomorrow morning scheduled for 0830 arrival time . Review of R22's progress note, date 11/1/23, read in part, .left lower abdominal wound debridement were performed. Roll gauze wet to dry dressing placed and covered with ABD (abdominal) pad and tape. This RN instructed to replace dressing with wound vac tomorrow 11/2/2023. Resident stable and had left the hospital in route returning to facility. Review of R22's wound clinic note, dated 11/9/23, read in part, .(name) nurse to change the wound vac dressing on M-W-F until patient follow up appointment on 11/22/23 at 11:30am (11:30 a.m.) with (wound care physician name) in the wound clinic . Review of R22's progress note, date 11/9/23, read in part, .Resident upset with wound vac .resident in tears stating I never wanted this I can't do anything, can't move, can't get up on the commode . Review of R22's progress note, date 11/15/23, read in part, .Wound vac not changed due to functioning properly . Review of R22's wound clinic plan of care note, dated 11/29/23, read in part, .Patient missed her last wound clinic appointment and has been in ER (emergency room) last week for the wound, she does not have the wound vac on upon arrival today and hasn't had it on since the ER visit last week .Old dressing removed from left lower abdominal wound with foul odor, large amount of foul, purulent drainage, patient states she hasn't been feeling well, has a low grade fever, pulse elevated and blood pressure lower than her normal. The wound bed is approximately 50% slough and necrotic tissue, the rest of the wound bed is pale pink, not healthy. (Wound care physician's name) is in to see and examine the patient, photos and measurements taken, a decision is made to have patient admitted for wound infection and possible sepsis .Progress/Lack of Progress: Lack of progress, there is a foul odor and foul, purulent drainage, patient is feeling ill, low grade fever upon arrival that did elevate later in the visit to 101.3 degrees Fahrenheit, patient complained of feeling cold, she is covered with blankets . Review of R22's weekly skin assessments between 11/1/23 through 12/11/23, revealed a lack of any weekly skin assessment during this time period. Review of R22's census, dated 5/16/23 through 12/4/23, revealed a hospitalization on 11/29/23 (stop billing) through 12/4/23 (activate billing) related to a wound infection. (Progress notes were reviewed during this time period and lacked any notes of R22 being transferred out or reason why R22 was transferred to the local hospital.) Review of R22's wound clinic plan of care, dated 12/13/23, read in part, .Progress/Lack of Progress: Lack of progress is seen today with pale wound bed and not much for granulation . Review of R22's wound care clinic progress note, dated 12/13/23, read in part, .Follow-up for incision and debridement of lower abdominal wound is area of Pannus. Patient had an abdominal wound measuring 9 x 6 x 5 cm with overlying eschar in need of debridement. Patient was last seen 11/29/23 .The patient had an abdominal wound measuring 4 x 2 cm in size with associated foul-smelling odor. There was a surrounding area of induration and erythema. Necrotic infected tissue was removed revealing a total wound size of 9 x 6 x 5 cm in size .Since I saw the patient last, she was brought back to the operating room for an additional incision and debridement due to significantly infected wound. Additional necrotic tissue was removed in the operating room, the patient's wound was cleaned and a wound vac was reapplied as an inpatient. She has subsequently been discharged back to the nursing home and has been following up with the wound care nursing every Monday-Wednesday-Friday .Today in the Wound Clinic, the patient's wound measures 5.1 x 15.4 x 2.8 cm .Patients 2nd incision and debridement . Review of physician nursing home progress note, dated 12/13/23, read in part, .Was in the hospital for further surgical treatment of abdominal wound. Initially hospitalized for this on November 1st (2023) and then hospitalized again due to further advancement of wound 11/29 through 12/4 . Review of R22's progress note, date 12/13/23, read in part, .during hospital stay to address infected wound . Review of R22's wound clinic plan of care, dated 12/13/23, read in part, .Spoke with (facility name) to see if the machine can be increased to 150 mm Hg (millimeters of mercury). Staff to check on this .Progress/Lack of Progress: Lack of progress is seen today with pale wound bed and not much for granulation - will see if we can increase suction . Resident #29 (R29) On 12/17/23 at 11:15 AM, an observation was made of R29 sitting up in his geri-chair in the B-Hall area near the nurses station. R29 was unable to be interviewed at the time due to his cognition. Review of R29's admission record, date printed 12/17/23, revealed an original admission to the facility on 8/24/21, with medical diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, anemia, dependence of devices, and dementia. A review of the annual MDS, dated [DATE], revealed him to be at risk for developing pressure ulcers and not having any existing pressure ulcers. MDS quarterly review, dated 11/7/23, revealed him to be at risk for developing pressure ulcers, to have one existing facility acquired stage two pressure ulcer, and to be cognitively impaired, unable to complete BIMS, and rarely or never understood. On 12/18/23 at 10:20 AM, an observation was made of R29 sitting up in his geri-chair near the B-Hall nurses' station. Several staff were noted to walk by and not acknowledge his presence. R29 appeared to be sleeping and his eyes were closed. On 12/18/23 at 2:42 PM, an observation was made of R29 sitting up in his geri-chair near the B-Hall nurses' station. R29 appeared to be resting with his eyes were closed. On 12/18/23 at 3:00 PM, a request was made of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) N to observe wound care on R29. LPN N stated that wound care was completed on night shift and was unsure if she would have time to accommodate this Surveyor. *Wound care was not observed at this time per request. On 12/19/23 at 11:13 AM, an observation was made of R29 sitting up in his geri-chair near the B-Hall nurses' station. On 12/19/23 at 1:25 PM, an observation was made of R29 sitting up in his geri-chair near the B-Hall nurses' station. On 12/19/23 at 1:31 PM, an observation was made of Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) I and CNA H removed R29 from B-Hall to his room and transferred him via Hoyer lift into his bed. CNA H was asked how often R29 was turned and repositioned and replied, We try and turn and reposition him every one to two hours. CNA H was asked how long R29 was to be up in his geri-chair during the day and replied, He is care planned to be up for meals and then returns to his bed after meals around 30 minutes to an hour and then we get him back up for the next meal. On 12/19/23 at 1:33 PM, a request was made of RN S to observe wound care for R29. RN S stated that night shift routinely completes this but would ensure an observation opportunity was provided for this Surveyor. RN S was asked which staff was responsible for skin and wound evaluations and measurements and replied, The wound care nurse but I feel like maybe I should be measuring and have not measured any wounds. On 12/19/23 at 1:40 PM, an observation was made of R29's wound care, which was performed by RN S. R29's dressing was removed, the wound was cleaned, and the wound was observed. R29's coccyx area was without any eschar or slough and had nice pink tissue on the wound bed. R29's wound was about the size of a large chicken egg (6 to 6.5 x 4 to 4.5 cm) and had a depth of what appeared to be 2 - 2.5 cm depth. R29's wound was through the epidermis and dermis layers of skin. RN S was asked how he felt the wound looked and what stage he would classify the wound at and replied, It looks better than it did. It no longer has eschar or slough. I would stage it as a stage three pressure ulcer. Review of R29's care plan, dated 10/17/23, read in part, Focus: I am at for skin alterations r/t (related to) decreased mobility, requiring increased staff assist, and some mixed incontinence of B/B (bowel and bladder) .I have an .pressure injury to coccyx area and pressure injuries to left heel and right lateral malleolus r/t limited mobility, incontinence .Coccyx wound infection .Goal: I will have no complication through review date. Coccyx wound infection will resolve by next review date. Interventions/Tasks: Administer antibiotics for coccyx wound infection per physician order (12/11/23) .Administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness (10/17/23). Assess/record/monitor wound healing. Measure length, width and depth where possible. Assess and document status of wound perimeter, wound bed and healing progress .Bilateral heel protectors (11/8/23) .I need to turn/reposition at least every 2 hours, more often as needed (10/17/23) .I will have a skin assessment by nurse weekly and prn (as needed) (12/15/23) .Wound care consult order received (11/21/23). Review of R29's weekly skin assessments, dated 7/1/23 through 12/17/23, revealed missing weekly skin assessments on 7/3/23, 7/10/23, 7/31/23, 8/7/23, 8/14/23, 8/21/23, 8/28/23, 9/4/23, 9/11/23, 9/18/23, 10/2/23, 10/9/23, 10/23/23, 10/30/23, 11/6/23, 11/13/23, 11/20/23, 11/27/23, 12/4/23, and 12/11/23. Review of physician fax communication, dated 10/14/23, read in part, Resident has an open area on bottom of scrotum. The area is about 0.6 inches in diameter, has a scab, is red and looks irritated. Another open area on bottom of left glute does not have a defined border, looks purple and red in color, area is about 1 inch in diameter, area is irritated as well. Powder was put on areas, no opti-foam though. What would you like to do? Please advise. (Physician response) Please have the wound nurse see him and advise appropriate dressing. In the meantime, he needs to be rotated every ½ hour to avoid the gluteal pressure sore being worse. *Note: Care plan was not updated to reflect new turning and repositioning physician recommendations. Review of R29's skin and wound evaluation, date 10/16/23, revealed the development of a facility acquired pressure ulcer stage II on his coccyx, measured 2.4 x 2.0 cm and no depth recorded, no drainage, edges attached, and goal of care: healable. Review of physician fax communication, dated 10/23/23, read in part, Resident wound to coccyx is now black with eschar. Could we get an order to try aquacell AG covered with opti-foam. Change daily and prn? (Physician response) Yes. As above. Review of R29's skin and wound evaluation, date 11/7/23, revealed the developed facility acquired pressure ulcer stage II on his coccyx was now unstageable per facility documentation, measured 4.2 x 2.9 cm and no depth recorded, light exudate with serous drainage, slough (no percentage recorded), and eschar (no percentage recorded). Review of R29's skin and wound evaluation, date 11/21/23, revealed the developed facility acquired pressure ulcer stage II on his coccyx now unstageable per facility documentation, measured 3.7 x 2.4 cm and 1.0 cm depth recorded, moderate exudate with sanguineous drainage, slough (no percentage recorded), and eschar (no percentage recorded). Review of R29's skin and wound evaluation, date 11/27/23, revealed the developed facility acquired pressure ulcer stage II on his coccyx now unstageable per facility documentation, measured 7.0 x 4.6 cm and no depth recorded, moderate exudate with sanguineous drainage, slough (no percentage recorded), and eschar (no percentage recorded). *In review of the photo of the wound there is clearly a depth to the wound that was not measured and worsened from the prior depth measurement. Review of R29's physician orders, dated October 2023, revealed, Opti-foam to coccyx. Change every other day and prn. Every day shift every other day for wound care. Start date 10/18/23. *Note: no as needed sign out and R29 known to be incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of R29's physician orders, dated November 2023, revealed, To coccyx daily and prn: Clean area, apply aquacell AG, cover with opti-foam. One time a day for wound care. Start date 10/24/23. Review of the TAR for November 2023, revealed missing dressing changes on 11/22, 11/27/23 and 11/29/23. *Note: no new or changed wound care orders after this order. No as needed dressing changes signed out in addition to regular dressing changes. Review of R29's census, date printed 12/19/23, revealed a stop billing on 11/20/23 and activate billing on 11/22/23 and then another stop billing on 12/13/23 and activate billing on 12/15/23. In review of the TAR for November 2023, dressing changes were being marked as completed on 11/21/23 and for December 2023, revealed dressing changes were being marked as completed on 12/14/23 when R29 was absent from the facility. Review of physician fax communication, dated 12/3/23, read in part, Resident coccyx ulcer smells odorous .(Physician response) 1.) If possible please culture the wound. 2.) Start Augmentin 400mg/5ml - 2 tsp. po, BID x 10 days (10 ml [800 mg] by mouth, twice daily for ten days). Review of R29's skin and wound evaluation, date 11/7/23, revealed the development of a second facility acquired pressure ulcer stage II on his right lateral malleolus, measured 1.1 x 0.8 cm and no depth recorded, no drainage, edges attached, and goal of care: healable. No further skin and wound evaluations were recorded for the coccyx wound after the date of 11/27/23 and no further skin and wound evaluations for the right lateral malleolus after 11/29/23. No wound measurements for the month of December 2023 were recorded in EMR at the time of the survey date exit on 12/19/23. On 12/19/23 at 8:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). The NHA was asked what her expectations were for wound care documentation, dressing changes, and skin assessments and replied, I would expect all dressing changes to be completed and signed out in the treatment record, skin wound measurements and skin assessments are completed weekly and recorded, and any missing documentation should have a nurses note for the reason why it was incomplete. The NHA was asked how long wound care treatment changes are made and referred this Surveyor to the wound care nurse who was not in today but would be in tomorrow. On 12/19/23 at 9:45 AM, the Survey team was made aware that the Director of Nursing wound is not available today and wound not be in the facility and if we needed anything to reach out to the NHA. On 12/19/23 at 11:10 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA E regarding showers and skin assessments. CNA E is the supervisor for all facility CNA's. CNA E CNA E was asked when skin assessments are scheduled for and replied, They are done on shower days each week by the nurses. CNA E further stated that the assessments had been discontinued in March 2023 and a new one was implemented but could not describe the process. CNA E replied, The CNA's takes the resident to the shower room and then calls the nurse to observe the skin and then documents the findings. On 12/19/23 at 11:40 AM, an interview was conducted with Wound Care Nurse / RN T who was asked how often wounds get measured and how often skin assessments are to be completed and by whom and replied, Residents with wounds get weekly measurements and skin sweep assessments are completed weekly with showers by nurses. RN T was asked if there was any reason a Resident would miss wound measurements, dressing changes, or skin assessments and replied, Well, I guess only if they refuse or are absent from the facility. Lately, it has been hit or miss. RN T was asked why wound measurements and skin assessments were not performed weekly for R22 and R29 and replied, A few weeks ago I had to work the floor so they did not get done. RN T was asked if she was a full-time employee or a part-time employee and replied, I work part-time. RN T was asked how long R22 has had the wound on her abdominal area and replied, She acquired it at the facility. RN T was asked how long R22 has had her wound vac and when the last time she observed R22's wound and replied, It has been awhile since I observed her wound. She has the dressing changed every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. RN T was asked if she was the nurse who applied the dressing to R22's left lateral thigh area and replied, I am not sure I did work last week. I guess it could have been me. RN T was asked about the initials on the dressing and if the dressing for wound cares should have physician orders and replied, Yes, all dressings should have physician orders. RN T was asked if she could provide orders for R22's dressing change to that area and replied, I would have to check. RN T returned and stated that R22 did not have orders for the dressing. RN T was asked how long the dressing should be left on and when it should be changed and replied, I think is was to be changed every three days. RN T was reminded that the original date on the dressing was 12/12/23 and should have been replaced but lacked an order to be changed. RN T stated that last week another facility nurse took over wound care. RN T was asked if she was trained by her and if this nurse knew how to take pictures of the wounds and fill out the appropriate assessments and replied, She knows how to take pictures. I do not know if she has done any evaluations yet. She knows where the evaluations are in the computer charting system. I did not train her yet. Review of facility policy titled, Wound Treatment Management, dated 10/27/22, read in part, Policy: To promote wound healing of various types of wounds, it is the policy of this facility to provide evidence-based treatments in accordance with current standards of practice and physician orders. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Wound treatments will be provided in accordance with physician orders, including the cleansing method, type of dressing, and frequency of dressing change. 2. In the absence of treatment orders, the licensed nurse will notify physician to obtain treatment orders. This may be the treatment nurse, or the assigned licensed nurse in the absence of the treatment nurse. 3. Dressing changes may be provided outside the frequency parameters in certain situations: a. Feces has seeped underneath the dressing. b. The dressing has dislodged. c. The dressing is soiled otherwise or is wet . 8. The effectiveness of treatments will be monitored through ongoing assessment of the wound. Considerations for needed modifications include: a. Lack of progression towards healing. b. Changes in the characteristics of the wound (see above) . Review of facility policy titled, Skin Assessment, dated 10/7/2022, read in part, Policy: It is our policy to perform a full body skin assessment as part of our systematic approach to pressure injury prevention and management. This policy includes the following procedural guidelines in performing the full body skin assessment. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. A full body, or head to toe, skin assessment will be conducted by a licensed or registered nurse upon admission/re-admission and weekly thereafter. The assessment may also be performed after a change of condition or after any newly identified pressure injury .7. Documentation of skin assessment: a. Include date and time of the assessment, your name, and position title. b. Document observations (e.g. skin conditions, how the resident tolerated the procedure, etc.). c. Document type of wound. d. Describe wound (measurements, color, type of tissue in wound bed, drainage, odor, pain). e. Document if resident refused assessment and why. F. Document other information as indicated or appropriate. Review of facility policy titled, Skin Audits by Nursing Assistance, dated 10/27/22, read in part, Policy: It is our policy to communicate changes in skin condition to appropriate personnel as part of our systematic approach for pressure injury prevention and management. This policy establishes responsibilities of nursing assistants in communicating changes in skin condition. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Nursing assistants shall inspect all skin surfaces during bath/shower and report any concerns to the resident's nurse immediately after the task. 2. Nursing assistants shall also report changes in skin condition that are noted during any care procedure .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #38) of one resident rev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #38) of one resident reviewed for self-administration of medication was clinically assessed, care planned, and had physician orders for the self-administration of medication. This deficient practice resulted in a lack of an assessment for safe medication administration, inaccurate documentation of medication administration, and the potential for medication mismanagement. Findings include: Resident #38 (R38) Review of R38's EMR revealed an initial admission to the facility on 2/24/22 with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease (a slow, progressive circulation disorder), glaucoma (an eye disease) and history of falling. R38's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating intact cognition. During an interview on 12/17/23 at 1:47 PM, R38 stated she gives herself her own eye drops. She pointed to her bedside table with five vials which she indicated were her eye drops. R38 stated, The nurse wanted to give me eye drops, but had given me the wrong drops a while ago so I do my own (eye medication). R38 stated, They missed my eye drops so many times, I took over. During a medication pass observation with R38 on 12/18/23 at 9:19 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) did not administer any eye drops. The five vials of eye drops were on the bedside table of R38. The DON stated eye drops were given by the nurse on the evening shift. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) and current Physician Orders for R38 were reviewed and five eye drop medications were prescribed and documented as follows: - Pred Forte Ophthalmic Suspension (Prednisolone Acetate (Ophth) Instill 1 drop in left eye three times a day for Glaucoma unsupervised self-administration Every hour while awake. Order Date11/01/2023. This medication was signed as given U-SA (Unsupervised - Self-Administered) for the 18 days of the current month. - Rhopressa Ophthalmic Solution 0.02 % (Netarsudil Dimesylate) Instill 1 drop in left eye at bedtime for glaucoma may keep at bedside. Order Date 09/22/2023. This medication was signed as given by nursing personnel for the 18 days of the current month. - Brimonidine Tartrate Solution 0.2 %. Instill 1 drop in left eye two times a day for Glaucoma unsupervised self-administration Shake bottle before use. Separate eye drop administration by 5 minutes between products. Order Date 09/22/2023. This medication was signed as given U-SA (Unsupervised - Self-Administered) for the 18 days of the current month. - Cosopt Solution 22.3-6.8 MG/ML [milligrams per milliliter] (Dorzolamide HCl-Timolol Mal) Instill 1 drop in both eyes two times a day for glaucoma unsupervised self-administration Shake bottle before administration. Hold finger pressure to inner corner of the eye for 1 to 2 minutes. Order Date 04/12/2023. This medication was signed as given U-SA (Unsupervised - Self-Administered) for the 18 days of the current month. - Latanoprost Solution 0.005 % Instill 1 drop in right eye at bedtime for Glaucoma Separate eye drop administration by 5 minutes between products. Order Date: 07/02/2022. This medication was signed as given by nursing personnel for the 18 days of the current month. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 9:56 AM, the bedside table of R38 again was observed with five vials of eye medication present. R38 again stated she does all her eye drops and does not allow any nurse to administer eye drops. During an interview on 12/19/23 at 8:49 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) N stated, If a resident had potential to self-administer their meds, we would get a doctor's order and would do an evaluation. The electronic medical record was reviewed, and no evaluation was found to assess R38's ability to self-administer her medications. During an interview on 12/19/23 at 8:59 AM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) reviewed the Physician's orders for R38 and did not find an order for resident self-administration for eye drops on 2 of the 5 eye medications. The NHA also reviewed the care plan and did not find interventions for R38 to self-administer any medications. In the Physician progress note for R38 on 11/29/23, there were only four eye medications listed as currently ordered and no indication by the physician any medication was to be administered by the resident. During an interview on 12/19/23 at 9:18 AM, R38 was asked if the evening nurse administered the eye medication, or if the nurse observed any eye drop administration. R38 stated, I do all of my drops. I have taken this over. They do not watch as I have to wait 5 minutes between each drug. I do all of them. I do not want them to touch my eyes. R38 was surprised that any nurse would sign the medical record as administering or observing the eye drops being administered as she stated this did not occur. There was a care plan focus concern of I have impaired visual function r/t (related to) glaucoma. Date Initiated: 02/24/2022. This care plan had no medication interventions. The care plan did not indicate the resident could self-administer her prescription eye medication. There was a care plan focus concern of I have an ADL (Activities of Daily Living) Self Care Performance Deficit r/t h/o (history of) right hip fracture, weakness, and the need for assistance with cares. Date Initiated: 02/24/2022. This care plan did not indicate the resident could self-administer her prescription eye medication. The facility policy titled: Medication Administration and dated as last reviewed 7/11/22, read in part: Policy: Medications are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to appropriately care plan and implement interventions for two (Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to appropriately care plan and implement interventions for two (Resident #38 and #47) of 12 residents reviewed for comprehensive care planning. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for unmet nutritional needs and unsafe self-administration of medications. Findings include: Resident #47 (R47) Review of R47's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed initial admission to the facility on 6/2/23 with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, and depression. R47's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, indicative of moderate cognitive impairment. Review of R47's weight history revealed R47 weighed 218.8 lbs. (pounds) on 6/5/23 and weighed 192.4 lbs. on 12/4/23, for a total weight loss of 26.4 lbs. This resulted in a 12.1% weight loss in an approximate 6-month period. On 12/19/23 at 12:38PM, a phone interview was conducted with R47's Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA), R regarding R47's weight loss. DPOA R said that the facility was not encouraging R47 to eat, stating, They [facility] need to try to push her to eat a little more . Review of R47's care plan did not identify nutritional risks or interventions regarding weight loss. Review of facility policy titled, Nutritional Management, revised 8/19/22, read in part: 4. Care plan implementation: a. The resident's goals and preferences regarding nutrition will be reflected in the resident's plan of care. b. Interventions will be individualized to address the specific needs of the resident . Review of facility policy titled, Weight Monitoring, revised 9/14/23, read in part: 3. Information gathered from the nutritional assessment and current dietary standards of practice are used to develop an individualized care plan to address the resident's specific nutritional concerns and preferences . .4. Interventions will be identified, implemented, monitored, and modified (as appropriate), consistent with the resident's assessed needs, choices, preferences, goals, and current professional standards to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status . Resident #38 (R38) Review of R38's EMR revealed an initial admission to the facility on 2/24/22 with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease (a slow, progressive circulation disorder), glaucoma (an eye disease) and history of falling. R38's most recent MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 indicating intact cognition. Current Physician medication orders included: - Pred Forte Ophthalmic Suspension (Prednisolone Acetate (Ophth) Instill 1 drop in left eye three times a day for Glaucoma unsupervised self-administration Every hour while awake. Order Date11/01/2023. - Rhopressa Ophthalmic Solution 0.02 % (Netarsudil Dimesylate) Instill 1 drop in left eye at bedtime for glaucoma may keep at bedside. Order Date 09/22/2023. - Brimonidine Tartrate Solution 0.2 %. Instill 1 drop in left eye two times a day for Glaucoma unsupervised self-administration Shake bottle before use. Separate eye drop administration by 5 minutes between products. Order Date 09/22/2023. - Cosopt Solution 22.3-6.8 MG/ML [milligrams per milliliter] (Dorzolamide HCl-Timolol Mal) Instill 1 drop in both eyes two times a day for glaucoma unsupervised self-administration Shake bottle before administration. Hold finger pressure to inner corner of the eye for 1 to 2 minutes. Order Date 04/12/2023. - Latanoprost Solution 0.005 % Instill 1 drop in right eye at bedtime for Glaucoma Separate eye drop administration by 5 minutes between products. Order Date: 07/02/2022. During an interview on 12/17/23 at 1:47 PM, R38 stated she gives herself her own eye drops. She pointed to her bedside table with five vials which she indicated were her eye drops. R38 stated, The nurse wanted to give me eye drops, but had given me the wrong drops a while ago so I do my own (eye medication). R38 stated, They missed my eye drops so many times, I took over. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 9:56 AM, the bedside table of R38 again was observed with five vials of eye medication present. R38 again stated she does all her eye drops and does not allow any nurse to administer eye drops. The care plan focus concern of I have impaired visual function r/t (related to) glaucoma. Date Initiated: 02/24/2022 had no medication interventions. The care plan did not indicate the resident could apply her prescription eye medication. The care plan focus concern of I have an ADL (Activities of Daily Living) Self Care Performance Deficit r/t h/o (history of) right hip fracture, weakness, and the need for assistance with cares. Date Initiated: 02/24/2022 did not indicate the resident could apply her prescription eye medication. During an interview on 12/19/23 at 8:59 AM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) reviewed the Physician's orders for R38 and did not find an order for resident self-administration for eye drops on 2 of the 5 eye medications. The NHA also reviewed the care plan for R38 and did not find interventions for R38 to self-administer any medications. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

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 a recapitulation of stay was completed for one Resident (R...

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 a recapitulation of stay was completed for one Resident (R13) out of one closed record reviewed for discharge documentation. This deficient practice resulted in lack of key departmental pieces of the recapitulation of the Resident's stay and the potential for unmet care needs after discharge. Findings include: The medical record was reviewed for R13 and revealed an admission on [DATE] for orthopedic aftercare (physical therapy) following a displaced fracture of the upper arm/shoulder and other diagnoses including end stage renal disease and insulin dependent diabetes. R13 was discharged home on [DATE]. The discharge plan and recapitulation of stay documentation revealed the clinical (nursing) section, the activity department section, and the social services department section were blank. During an interview on 12/19/23 at 10:19 AM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated she was aware R13 had an incomplete discharge summary as she had reviewed the chart and had been asked questions from the family on equipment needs. The NHA noted at the time of her review only the dietary department had completed their section of the discharge summary. The facility policy on Transfer and Discharges dated as reviewed/revised on 8/7/22 read in part: .Anticipated Transfers or Discharges - resident-initiated discharges. a. Obtain physicians' orders for transfer or discharge and instructions or precautions for ongoing care. b. A member of the interdisciplinary team completes relevant sections of the Discharge Summary. The nurse caring for the resident at the time of discharge is responsible for ensuring the Discharge Summary is complete and includes, but not limited to, the following: iii. A recap of the resident's stay that includes diagnoses, course of illness/treatment or therapy, and pertinent lab, radiology and consultation results. iv. A final summary of the resident's status. v. Reconciliation of all pre-discharge medications with the resident's post-discharge medications (both prescribed and over the counter). vi. A post discharge plan of care that is developed with the participation of the resident, and the resident's representative(s) which will assist the resident to adjust to his or her new living environment. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 3 of 4 sampled residents (R8, R30, and R34) were free from unnecessary medications resulting in doses of antipsyc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 3 of 4 sampled residents (R8, R30, and R34) were free from unnecessary medications resulting in doses of antipsychotic medications without justification. Findings include: Resident #8(R8) On 12/19/23 at 11:00 a.m., review of R8's electronic medical record (EMR) admission medical diagnoses stated in part: depression, unspecified, adult failure to thrive, other specified anxiety disorders. A review of the December 2023 medication administration record (MAR) was reviewed to have orders of Haloperidol Oral tablet 0.5 mg(milligram), give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for agitation or nausea, order dated 11/13/23. Lorazepam oral tablet 0.5mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for anxiety, order dated 11/12/23. On 12/19/23 at 11:30 a.m., review of the pharmacy medication review binder regarding R8's psychotropic medications revealed a recommendation on 11/22/23 to discontinue, add stop date to prn (as needed) or no change to the medications Haloperidol 0.5 mg tablet and Lorazepam 0.5mg tablet, that are ordered for R8 and are on their December MAR. These medication orders exceed the 14-day CMS guidelines for prn psychotropic medications. There was no evidence documenting the physician had addressed this pharmacy recomendation. Resident #30 (R30) On 12/17/23 at 4:00 p.m., review of R30's EMR revealed order dated 10/21/23 for Clonazepam oral tablet 1 mg, give 0.5 tablet by mouth every three hours as needed for anxiety and Clonazepam oral tablet 1 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth every 24 hours as needed for anxiety. On 12/18/23 at 7:00 a.m., during a review of R30's progress notes and MAR, R30 had no administration of prn clonazepam 0.5mg from December 5-9th. Both clonazepam 0.05mg and 1mg were administered December 12-19th. Progress notes did not indicate the behaviors that require usage of clonazepam. Review of R30's care plan in part stated I have undesirable behaviors r/t (related to) intermittent explosive behaviors interventions include educate resident when screaming that this is into appropriate and disrupts other residents. If (R30) continues to scream to leave resident safely and close the door, if (R30) starts to escalate with behaviors: divert (R30) attention by discussing (R30) interests such and news, gardening. Offer to dial Help prn if social services assistant is not available and I need someone to talk to. I use an anti-anxiety medications r/t anxiety D/O (disorder) and insomnia. Interventions include Monitor/record occurrence of for target behavior symptoms irritability and insomnia and document per facility protocol. Give anti-anxiety medications ordered by physician. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness. On 12/18/23 at 9:14 a.m., during an interview, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) M stated R30's behaviors varied and R30 could yell and scream for hours until they got what they wanted and has called 911 several times during these episodes. On 12/18/23 at 12:32 p.m., R30's door was observed partially closed with R30 yelling. LPN M stated R30 was demanding to speak to SSD (social services director), and they were trying to locate SSD for R30. On 12/18/23 at 3:15 p.m., a review of the pharmacy medication review binder from 11/22/23 showed R30's medications were designated to be discontinued, add stop date to prn use, or no change at this time to the medications Clonazepam Oral 1, Tablet Give 1 tablet by mouth every 24 hours as needed for anxiety AND Give 0.5 tablet by mouth every 3 hours as needed for anxiety with order date 10/21/23. These medications are ordered for R30 and are on their December MAR. These medication orders exceed the 14-day CMS guidelines for prn psychotropic medications.There was no evidence documenting the physician had addressed this pharmacy recomendation. On 12/19/23 at 8:47 a.m., the NHA stated that their expectation of physicians and staff were to have the medication changes reviewed and completed within 30 days, before next pharmacy review. This expectation is not noted in their medication review policy from 7/11/22. The policy was noted to state Facility staff shall act upon all recommendations according to procedures for addressing medication regimen review irregularities. The NHA stated all corrected medications were to be addressed and updated in the residents MAR. This information was not confirmed, as the DON was absent on 12/19/23 and could not be interviewed regarding the process of inputting new/changed orders or what the process was when the physician had seen or signed any of the recommended changes from 11/22/23. Resident #34 (R34) On 12/19/23 at 10:00 a.m., review of the EMR for R34 revealed medical diagnoses upon 6/7/21 admission which continued to be active, and included dementia . without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. There was no medical diagnosis of depression in R34's EMR. On 12/19/23 at 10:10 a.m., review of R34's December 2023 MAR showed an order dated 4/30/22 of Trazodone HCL (hydrochloride) tablet 50mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth in the evening r/t unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance. Trazodone has been administered to R34 12/1 to 12/18. R34's medical diagnosis of dementia, without behavioral disturbance, does not match r/t diagnosis used in R34's MAR of dementia with behavioral disturbance. Nursing staff were unable to state the reason behind the different diagnoses; the DON was unavailable for interview. On 12/19/23 at 10:30 a.m., review of R34's care plan states in part: I use an antidepressant medication as ordered r/t depression and adjustment to the facility. Interventions administer antidepressant medications as ordered by physician. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness Q-shift. Trazodone HCL tablet 50mg black box warning. Educate the resident/family/caregivers about risks, benefits and the side effects and/or toxic symptoms of anti-depressant drugs. There was not a medical diagnosis for R34 of depression.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent a serious medication error for one Resident (#20) of five residents reviewed for medication administration. This defic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent a serious medication error for one Resident (#20) of five residents reviewed for medication administration. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for serious diabetic related complications. Findings include: On 12/18/23 at 8:15 AM, a medication administration was observed with the Director of Nursing (DON)/Registered Nurse (RN). The following was observed: The DON was observed preparing morning medication pass and included insulin for Resident #20 (R20). The DON was observed injection the insulin detemir 35 units in R20's right arm by dialing down the insulin pen from 35 units to 0 units. The DON held the injection site for two seconds and removed the pen quickly. At no time was the plunger mechanism depressed to administer the insulin. The DON did not follow-up with the physician regarding this medication error prior to the survey exit. On 12/18/23 at 8:25 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON was asked about the administration of R20's insulin detemir pen and if it was per the manufactures instructions to only hold for two seconds and dial the insulin pen down from 35 units to 0 units during administration process, and responded, That is the only way I find I can do it. He (R20) will only take the insulin in his arm. The DON agreed that dialing the insulin pen down was not per the manufacturer's instructions or recommendations. The observed process failed to administer most or all of the process and the DON was not observed doing anything to correct the error following the administration observation.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a medication administration error rate less than 5%, for 13 of 32 medication administrations. This deficient practic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a medication administration error rate less than 5%, for 13 of 32 medication administrations. This deficient practice resulted in a medication error rate of 40.63%, with the potential for medical complications related to resident medication treatments for various conditions. Findings include: On 12/18/23 at 8:15 AM, a medication administration was observed with the Director of Nursing (DON)/Registered Nurse (RN). The following was observed: The DON was observed preparing morning medication pass and included insulin for Resident #20 (R20). The DON was observed injection the insulin detemir 42 units in R20's right arm by dialing down the insulin pen from 35 units to 0 units. The DON held the injection site for two seconds and removed the pen quickly. On 12/18/23 at 8:25 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON was asked about the administration of R20's insulin detemir pen and if it was per the manufactures instructions to only hold for two seconds and dial the insulin pen down from 35 units to 0 units during administration process, and responded, That is the only way I find I can do it. He (R20) will only take the insulin in his arm. The DON agreed that dialing the insulin pen down was not per the manufacture instructions or recommendations. On 12/18/23 at 12:40 PM, the DON was asked if she had completed all her morning medication pass for Residents on B-Hall and replied, Yes. The DON was asked if she had completed Resident #12's (R12) morning medication pass and replied, Oh, no. I did not get her yet. She is a 7:00 AM to 11:00 AM medication pass. On 12/18/23 at 1:00 PM, a medication administration was observed with the DON. The following was observed: The DON was observed preparing morning medication pass for Resident #40 (R40). The DON had prepared three oral medications for R40 and took them to R40's room and dispensed them to R40 who took her pills orally. Review of R40's medication administration record (MAR) for 12/18/23, revealed the date and time stamp of medication administration to be at 1:06 PM, which was an hour and six minutes past the allowed time frame for medication pass per facility policy and physician orders. On 12/18/23 at 1:15 PM, a medication administration was observed with the DON. The following was observed: The DON was observed preparing morning medication pass for Resident #12 (R12). The DON had prepared eight oral medications and one eye drop medication for R12 and took them to R12's room and dispensed them to R12 who took her pills orally and eye drops were administered by the DON. Review of R12's medication administration record (MAR) for 12/18/23, revealed the date and time stamp of medication administration to be at 1:32 PM, which was an hour and thirty-two minutes past the allowed time frame for medication pass per facility policy and physician orders. On 12/18/23 at 1:25 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON confirmed that medications are to be given up to an hour before and an hour after they are ordered per physicians' orders and facility policy. On 12/18/23 at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). The NHA was asked what her expectations were regarding medication pass, times, and administration and confirmed that medications should be given during the prescribed time and are allowed an hour early and an hour past but no later unless the resident is absent from the facility and medications should be dispensed per facility policy and or manufacture recommendations. Review of facility policy titled Medication Administration, dated 7/11/22, read in part, Policy: Medications are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection . 11. Compare medication source .with MAR to verify resident name, medication name, form, dose, route, and time. a. Refer to drug reference material if unfamiliar with the medication, including its mechanism of action or common side effects. b. Administer within 60 minutes prior to or after scheduled time unless otherwise ordered by physician. c. If other than PO route, administer in accordance with facility policy for the relevant route of administration (i.e., injection, eye, ear, rectal, etc.) . Review of facility policy Administration of Injections, dated 7/7/2022, read in part, Injections are administered by licensed nurses as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice . Review of medication package insert for insulin detemir, titled How to use (name brand insulin) Flex Pen, obtained from website: US22LV00014_LEV_FlexPen_Quick_Guide.pdf (mynovoinsulin.com), read in part, .5.) Give Your Injection .Inject the dose by pressing the green push-button all the way in until the 0 lines up with the pointer. Keep the needle in the skin for at least 6 seconds, and keep the green push-button pressed all the way in until the needle has been pulled out . Review of facility policy titled, (pharmacy name) Policy and Procedure Manual, dated May 2019, read part, .5.12: INSULIN PEN INJECTION ADMINISTRATION Purpose: The appropriate and safe administration of insulin will aid in the management of Diabetes Mellitus by the control of blood sugar levels. Procedure: . 10. Wipe the injection site with an alcohol swab and allow the area to dry. Insert the needle into the skin. 11. Press the button all the way until the dose selector is back to zero. Keep the needle in the skin for 10 seconds .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

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 maintain medication storage room free of expired medi...

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 maintain medication storage room free of expired medications, properly dispose of controlled substances, and securely store medications, for one of one medication rooms and two of two medication carts reviewed for medication storage. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for administration of medications with reduced intended effect and the potential for drug diversion. Findings include: On 12/18/23 at 10:00 AM, an inspection was conducted on the B-Hall medication cart. In the second drawer beneath the medication cards an observation was made of one loose fluoxetine 20 mg (milligram) pill, one small piece of a white pill unable to be identified, and one brexpiprazole 2 mg. One loose aspirin 81 mg pill, and an insulin pen with an opened date of 10/25/23 (which expired on 11/21/23) were located in the top drawer. In the bottom drawer in a clear medication cup there was a used fentanyl patch (behind a single locked medication compartment). On 12/18/23 at 10:10 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) N. RN N was asked if loose pills should be left in the medication cart, if expired medication should be left in the active medication cart, and if the controlled substance patch should be left in the bottom drawer of the medication cart under a single lock and replied, No. The resident with the insulin pen is not even here. The night nurses have a check off sheet for expired medications and routine medication cart checks that is completed each night. There should be no loose pills, expired medications, and I should have wasted that narcotic patch with the other nurse when I removed it right away. RN N called out to License Practical Nurse (LPN) M for a narcotic waste and LPN M replied, Oh! I have one in my cart too that needs to be wasted. RN N was asked if she could provide the night nurse medication cart nightly check off sheet and was unable to locate the check off sheet. On 12/18/23 at 11:00 AM, an inspection was conducted of the medication storage room with LPN M. In the refrigerator of the medication storage room an observation was made of a box of tuberculin purified protein derivative 10 ml (milliliter) solution, lot number 2CA93C1, with an opened date of 10/15/23. LPN M was asked how long the solution was good for using after being opened and replied, Definitely not that long. On 12/18/23 at 2:12 PM, an observation was made of A-hall medication cart A-Hall with this Surveyor and a second Surveyor who verified medication cart A was unlocked and unattended by nursing staff. Nursing staff LPN M' was behind a closed resident door (room [ROOM NUMBER]) for five minutes. On 12/18/23 at 2:17 PM, an interview was conducted with LPN M. LPN M was asked about the medication cart being unlocked and unsupervised by her and replied, Yes, it is unlocked. I never do that. I am sorry. On 12/17/23 at 3:45 PM, an inspection was conducted on the B-Hall medication cart. In the second drawer beneath the medication cards an observation was made of one loose buspirone 7.5 mg tab. In the bottom drawer two glucose testing solutions with an open date of 9/11/23. LPN M was asked how long the glucose testing solutions were good for, who was responsible for keeping track of expired medications and biologicals, who was responsible for cleaning the medication cart, and medication room, and replied, I am not sure how long the glucose testing solution is ok to use after opening. The night nurses do the glucometer checks and cart cleaning. They have a check off list. LPN M was asked to provide the check off list for medication cart cleaning and expired medications and was unable to locate the check off sheet. On 12/17/23 at 5:10 PM, an interviewed was conducted with the Director of Nurisng (DON). The DON confirmed that no loose pills should be kept in the medication carts, no expired medication should be kept in the active medication stock, and medications should be discarded if expired. The DON confirmed that narcotics should be wasted immediately and not kept in medication carts for a later destruction and if they should be double locked. The DON was asked if she knew where the night nurse check off sheets were kept and replied, On the medication carts in the binders. The DON was unable to locate a check off sheet on either cart and replied, Oh, you know they probably used the last one and did not ask me for a new one. I will print some off and add them to the binders. Review of facility document titled, Night Shift Nurse Duties, read in part, .nightly, accu-check quality controls, document, nightly, check insulin reorder as needed so don't run out, document, Wednesday, check A side med cart for OTC (over the counter) outdates, replace as needed, Thursday, check B side med cart for OTC outdates, replace as needed . Review of facility policy titled, Accuchecks, dated 10/13, read in part, .Procedure: Actual Control Testing. Checking the performance of the .glucometer will be done nightly during the NOC (night) shift by the NOC shift nurse .2. Check dates on control label or test strips. Do not use if control is 3 months past open date . Review of facility policy titled, Destruction of Unused Drugs, dated 7/8/2022, read in part, Policy: All unused, contaminated, or expired prescription drugs shall be disposed of in accordance with state laws and regulations (refer to any state-specific requirements) .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: .2. Unused, unwanted and non-returnable medications should be removed from their storage area and secured until destroyed . Review of facility policy titled, (pharmacy name) Policy and Procedure Manual, dated May 2019, read part, .3.3: CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES: Policy: . c. Place medication in appropriate storage area as designated by the facility. Schedule II-V controlled substance medications (and any other medications that the facility requires a more stringent control) will be kept in a locked area in the medication cart designated for that purpose, separate from other medication .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient competent dietary staff were employed to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and n...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient competent dietary staff were employed to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service. This deficient practice was evidenced by dietary staff who were untrained in maintaining and ensuring a sanitary dietary environment, potentially affecting all 47 residents in the form of a food borne illness outbreak. Findings include: During a tour of the kitchen on 12/18/23 at approximately 7:55 AM, the dietary personnel were observed serving breakfast on the tray line. The cook (Staff D) was not wearing any head covering or hair restraint while serving the resident's meals. The cook was asked why he did not have a hair restraint on, and he replied, I was not told (to wear a hairnet) and I don't even know where they are. During an interview on 12/18/23 at approximately 12:45 PM, Business Office Manager Staff P stated, Staff D had been hired two weeks prior on 12/04/23. Staff D's hiring paperwork was presented and the form titled Facility Orientation Checklist in his personnel folder was blank including the line I have reviewed the Dress Code Policy. There also was an Online learning/training guide in Staff D's file with courses to take before beginning employment. The form was not completed and had no username or password in the blanks for the employee to begin the courses. During an interview on 12/18/23 at 12:54 PM, the Dietary Manager (Staff A) said when she hired Staff D she wasn't sure if (Staff D) would be a cook or an aide so no job description was given/explained to Staff D. A job description for a Cook was reviewed and it was to be signed and a copy to be placed in the employee's personnel file. No job description was found in Staff D's personnel file. During an interview on 12/18/23 at approximately 1:15 PM, Staff D stated he had just started working at this facility. He said he had a stack of paperwork he had taken home and was given to read. He said he had not done any on-line classes. During an interview on 12/19/23 at 11:41 AM, Staff P stated the 6 online training courses including Infection Control - Basic Concepts and Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation needed to be completed prior to starting work. During an interview on 12/19/23 at 11:45 AM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) said she would expect the dietary employees would be oriented and have a completed orientation checklist prior to starting work. The facility policy titled Dietary Employee Personal Hygiene undated, unreviewed, and unsigned read in part: . All dietary staff must wear hair restraints (e.g., hairnet, hat and/or beard restraint) to prevent hair from contacting food. The FDA Food Code 2017 States: - 2-402.11 Effectiveness. (A) Except as provided in (B) of this section, FOOD EMPLOYEES shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that covers body hair, that are designed and worn to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed FOOD; .
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, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by: A. Faili...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by: A. Failing to properly clean and sanitize dishes and utensils. B. Failing to ensure food preparation surfaces in the dietary department were properly sanitized. C. Failing to ensure that food items were dated, discarded on or before the expiration date, and kept free from contamination due to debris or due to thawing and refreezing. D. Failing to ensure employees practiced effective sanitation practices for food safety. This deficient practice had the potential to result in food borne illness among any or all 47 residents in the facility. Findings include: During a dietary department tour on 12/17/23 at 10:50 AM with Dietary Staff U, the sanitizing bucket used to clean working surfaces was observed with a cleaning cloth floating in the solution. Staff U tested the solution in the bucket and the quat test strip registered 0 parts per million (ppm) of sanitizer. Staff U stated There is something wrong with this (sanitizing solution). Staff U then tested the 3-compartment sink currently in use and had been used to sanitized cooking pots, utensils, and food preparation equipment. Again, the strip registered 0 ppm of sanitizer present in the sink. Staff U then obtained an unopened spool of quat testing strips and again tested the 3-compartment sink. Staff U said that 0 ppm indicated the equipment she had washed which were drying on the counter had not been sanitized as the sanitizer concentration should be 200 ppm. The dietary tour continued, and the standing food mixer was found to have a large glop of white substance on the undercarriage near where the mixing beaters were inserted. Staff U surmised this was probably muffin batter that had dried on from a previous day. There was a potential the dried glop could fall into the next batch of food mixed in the mixer. The oven hood system was found to have a greasy build up including strings of dust dangling from the lights over the area where food was being prepared on the stove for the lunch meal. The drip pan under the gas stove burners had dark brown noodle debris. Staff U was unsure when the drip pan had been last cleaned. At 11:16 AM on 12/17/23, the Dietary Manager (Staff A) joined the tour and observed the stove griddle resting on the floor and said, It should not be on the floor. Further observations were made: - A refrigerated partial gallon jar of dill pickles was dated opened 9/27 and out 10/27/23. - A refrigerated partial gallon of Italian dressing was dated 9/21 and had no use by date. - A refrigerated partial gallon of mayonnaise was dated 9/4 but had no use by date. - A partial bag of powdered Alfredo Sauce mix was dated as opened 6/25/22 and stamped with manufacturer date of Best by 9/2023. - A partial container of baking powder was stamped with a manufacturer date of Best by 4/21/22. - A partial container of baking soda was stamped with a manufacturer date of 11/2021. A scoop was laying inside the container immersed in the product. - The liquid thickening agent also was observed with a serving scoop laying inside the container immersed in the product. - A large partial bag of flour had two styrofoam disposable cups, being used as scoops which were laying inside the container immersed in the product. These scoops were observed to have pieces of the Styrofoam material missing from the lips and edges. An interview with Staff could not confirm where the missing pieces of Styrofoam were. - A partial container of shortening was dated 1/23/23 and had no use by date. On 12/17/23 at 11:50 AM, the walk-in freezer housed in a separate garage was toured with Staff A. Outside the door of the freezer there was a taped paper sheet titled: Garage Freezer Temp Log for December 2023. Seven spaces had been left blank without recorded freezer temperatures. Inside the freezer, a large mound of ice approximately 5 inches tall, 20 inches wide, and 30 inches long was observed on the floor of the unit. An ice waterfall was observed on each of the four shelves with boxes of food product frozen in the ice. A large heavy piece of cloth covered in dirt, leaves, and ground debris was pulled from under one of the freezer shelving units. Staff A said, This is not supposed to be here. She then pulled it out. When asked why there was evidence of thawing in the freezer, Staff A said this happened frequently and we have to chip it (the ice cascade) out about once a month. It was explained the freezer door was often left open when food was delivered. Staff A felt the food did not thaw out, but the temperature was not consistently monitored for safe temperatures as evidenced by the temperature log with seven unmonitored blanks for the first 16 days of the month of December 2023. During a tour of the kitchen on 12/18/23 at approximately 7:55 AM, the dietary personnel were observed serving breakfast on the tray line. The cook (Staff D) was not wearing any head covering or hair restraint while serving the resident's meals. The cook was asked why he did not have a hair restraint on, and he replied, I was not told (to wear a hairnet) and I don't even know where they are. The FDA Food Code 2017 States: - 2-402.11 Effectiveness. (A) Except as provided in (B) of this section, FOOD EMPLOYEES shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that covers body hair, that are designed and worn to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed FOOD; - 3-305.11 Food Storage. (A) Except as specified in (B) and (C) of this section, FOOD shall be protected from contamination by storing the FOOD: (1) In a clean, dry location; (2) Where it is not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination; - 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking. (A) Except when PACKAGING FOOD using a REDUCED OXYGEN PACKAGING method as specified under § 3-502.12, and except as specified in (E) and (F) of this section, refrigerated, READY-TO_EAT, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and held in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 5ºC (41ºF) or less for a maximum of 7 days. The day of preparation shall be counted as Day 1 - 3-307.11 Miscellaneous Sources of Contamination. FOOD shall be protected from contamination that may result from a factor or source not specified under Subparts 3-301 - 3-304.14 Wiping Cloths, Use Limitation. (A) Cloths in-use for wiping FOOD spills from TABLEWARE and carry-out containers that occur as FOOD is being served shall be: (1) Maintained dry; and (2) Used for no other purpose. (B) Cloths in-use for wiping counters and other EQUIPMENT surfaces shall be: (1) Held between uses in a chemical sanitizer solution at a concentration specified under § 4-501.114; - 3-305.11 Food Storage. (A) Except as specified in (B) and (C) of this section, FOOD shall be protected from contamination by storing the FOOD: (1) In a clean, dry location; (2) Where it is not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination; - 4-101.11 Characteristics. Materials that are used in the construction of UTENSILS and FOODCONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT may not allow the migration of deleterious substances or impart colors, odors, or tastes to FOOD and under normal use conditions shall be: P (A) Safe; (B) Durable, CORROSION-RESISTANT, and nonabsorbent; (C) Sufficient in weight and thickness to withstand repeated WAREWASHING; (D) Finished to have a SMOOTH, EASILY CLEANABLE surface; and (E) Resistant to pitting, chipping, crazing, scratching, scoring, distortion, and decomposition. - 4-201.11 Equipment and Utensils. EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS shall be designed and constructed to be durable and to retain their characteristic qualities under normal use conditions, - 4-903.11 Equipment, Utensils, Linens, and Single-Service and Single-Use Articles. (A) Except as specified in (D) of this section, cleaned EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS, laundered LINENS, and SINGLE-SERVICE and SINGLEUSE ARTICLES shall be stored: (1) In a clean, dry location (2) Where they are not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination; and (3) At least 15 cm (6 inches) above the floor. - 6-501.11 Repairing. PHYSICAL FACILITIES shall be maintained in good repair. - 6-501.12 Cleaning, Frequency and Restrictions. (A) PHYSICAL FACILITIES shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep them clean. The facility policy titled: Date Marking for food Safety dated as reviewed on 10/11/23 read in part: Policy: The facility adheres to a date marking system to ensure the safety of ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food . The food shall be clearly marked to indicate the date prepared and the date by which the food shall be consumed or discarded. The date shall include the month, day, and year. The individual opening or preparing a food shall be responsible for date marking the food at the time the food is opened or prepared. The marking system shall consist of a color-coded label, the day/date of opening, and the day/date the item must be consumed or discarded. The discard day or date may not exceed the manufacturer's use-by date, or four days, whichever is earliest. The facility policy titled: Food Safety Requirements which was undated, unreviewed, and unsigned read in part: Policy: . Food will also be stored, prepared, distributed and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety . Facility staff shall inspect all food, food products, and beverages for safe transport and quality upon delivery/receipt and ensure timely and proper storage . Refrigerated storage - foods that require refrigeration shall be refrigerated immediately upon receipt or placed in freezer, whichever is applicable. Practices to maintain safe refrigerated storage include .Monitoring food temperatures and functioning of the refrigeration equipment daily and at routine intervals during all hours of operation; . All equipment used in the handling of food shall be cleaned and sanitized and handled in a manner to prevent contamination. Staff shall follow facility procedures for dishwashing and cleaning fixed cooking equipment . The facility policy titled: Dietary Employee Personal Hygiene undated, unreviewed, and unsigned read in part: . All dietary staff must wear hair restraints (e.g., hairnet, hat and/or beard restraint) to prevent hair from contacting food.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to record or post the nursing staffing information including total number and actual hours worked for licensed and unlicensed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to record or post the nursing staffing information including total number and actual hours worked for licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care. This deficient practice resulted in the inability of residents and visitors to determine the number of staff available to provide resident care and had the potential to affect all 47 residents in the facility. Findings include: On 12/17/23 at approximately 11:00 AM, the staff was asked to show the posting for the staff present and working. No record of the total number and actual hours for the nursing staff was provided. On 12/18/23 at 8:04 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) M stated the names of the staff working were on the white board only. LPN M said there was a binder behind the desk, but she could not find the binder. The staff began to look for the binder, and it was eventually found at the nursing station on a shelf. The binder included dated sheets titled 24-Hour Staffing Sheet with first names of Charge Nurse and CNAs (Certified Nursing Aides). Some names included scheduled times, and some did not. These sheets did not have the required: - facility name, - the total number and the actual hours worked by Registered Nurses (RNs), LPNs, or CNAs, the staff directly responsible for resident care per shift, or - the Resident census. The sheets were not posted in a prominent place which was readily accessible to residents and visitors for viewing. During an interview on 12/19/23 at 9:14 AM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated there was not a facility policy on staff posting. She did state, I know you have to save them for one year. .
Nov 2023 3 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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide respectful and dignified care to three Residents (R3, R7, and R11) of 13 sample residents reviewed for resident right...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide respectful and dignified care to three Residents (R3, R7, and R11) of 13 sample residents reviewed for resident rights. This deficient practice resulted in resident dissatisfaction with care, increased anxiety, frustration, and humiliation. Findings include: This deficiency pertains to Intakes: MI00137715 and MI00138855. During an interview on 11/2/23 at 2:12 p.m., when asked if any residents had complaints regarding disrespectful or undignified care being provided by Registered Nurse (RN) W, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) V stated, Just about everybody. The residents complain that [RN W] is waking them up for nonsense in the middle of the night. CNA V provided the names of R3, R7, and R11 as residents who frequently voiced concerns about her treatment of them. Review of all of the identified Residents (R3, R7, and R11) found they were their own responsible party and were considered cognitively intact and able to make their own decisions. R3 During an interview on 11/2/23, R3 stated, I have had to tell [RN W] to get out (of my room). She is pushy. A few days ago, she was helping me get ready for bed . She was rush, rush, rush, and saying 'I have 25 people to take care of and she was aggressive . She left me nude with the door open . I told them I won't have [RN W] in my room . I have had to go to the bathroom, and they would leave, and they would not come back for 25 minutes to as long as 1.5 hours (later). R7 On 10/31/23 at approximately 1:00 p.m., R7 was observed as he was pulled backward down the hall toward the shower room, covered in bed linens. R7's bare feet were seen placed on a cloth incontinence pad (sometimes called a Granny Pad), dragging on the floor all the way down the hall. R7's room was on the far end of the A Hall and the shower room was on the end closest to the nurse's station. During an interview on 11/1/23 at 3:15 p.m., when asked about dignified care R7 stated, The shower room is disgusting, and they don't have a proper shower chair. My feet are dragging on the floor all the way to the shower room. The (shower) room smells like sh*t . During an interview on 11/1/23 at 3:38 p.m., R7 was asked if staff were respectful. R7 stated, [RN W] need to go to a place where she doesn't work with people. She just doesn't have the capacity. [RN W] came in here last night after 20 minutes (call light was on). It was 1:30 in the morning. R7 said he told RN W he had been waiting a long time, especially since it was 1:30 a.m., and she then stated, If you don't like it then I will leave your room then. She knew State (the State Agency) was here, so she put my [incontinence brief] on without any further interactions. R7 stated, RN W is just a nasty, nasty person. R11 During an interview on 10/31/23 at 12:39 p.m., when asked how the care they were provided had been, R11 stated, Unacceptable . I sat here one day for 4.5 hours in that corner by the bathroom in my wheelchair. The last 1.5 hours I had a wet and dirty brief on. I just lost it. I told two aides, 'this was unacceptable'. It was frustrating and embarrassing . I pressed my call light after two hours up in the wheelchair. Nobody came until 4.5 hours later . I had a problem with [RNW], and she was supposed to be banned from my room. She came in here one night - late at night - probably 11:00 p.m., with the commode and put it right in front of the end of the bed and told me to use the commode. I wasn't even practicing with therapy. I was not getting out of bed by myself. I told the [Director of Nursing (DON)] and she was banned from my room . During an interview on 11/2/23 at 4:29 p.m., when asked about any resident complaints regarding disrespectful treatment by RN W both the Nursing Home Administrator ( NHA) and the DON said they were not aware of any concerns. Review of the Rights of Residents in [State Name] Facilities, dated 11/28/2016, revealed the following, in part: 'Respect and Dignity: You have a right to be treated with respect and dignity, including . The right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of your needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents .
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

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 dining assistance for one dependent 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 dining assistance for one dependent Resident (R1) of four residents reviewed for provision of activities of daily living (ADL's). This deficient practice resulted in feelings of frustration, anxiety, and dissatisfaction with not being provided required level of meal and fluid intake assistance. Findings include: This deficiency pertains to Intakes MI00138821, MI00138855 and MI00140045. During an interview on 11/1/23 at 1:15 p.m., Complainant B said R1 had telephoned them on 9/16/23 and reported facility staff had not assisted R1 with eating. When asked if R1 was reliable with the information provided, Complainant B stated, He is reliable to me as a witness . he said that he cannot feed himself anymore. Review of R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/19/23, revealed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE] with active diagnoses that include heart failure, atrial fibrillation, anxiety disorder, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ([Formerly Lou GehrigsDisease.] chronic debilitating, progressive and incurable disease of the nervous system). R1 did not complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) but was documented as Independent with consistent/reasonable cognitive skills for daily decision making. R1 required extensive one person assistance, per the MDS, for eating. During an observation and interview on 10/31/23 at 11:38 a.m., R1 was observed with the following breakfast items on the over bed table: two, handled cups with a pink beverage, a glass of milk, a handled cup of coffee, an intact (nothing broken off or eaten) sausage and egg croissant on a plate with an adaptive spoon, and an untouched bowl of cereal. R1 stated, Nobody came in here to feed me. A water mug/cup was not observed on the over bed table. R1 stated, I didn't have any water since yesterday. My mouth is pasty. They drop my food off and leave me. I have Lou Gehrigs(disease) and I can't hold the cups. They don't help me . I yell and scream all morning long - yelling for help, help, help, and they do nothing. I said I want a drink of water. She (unidentified staff member) said I am not going to bring you any water talking not me like that. They did not bring me any water . I think they are trying to kill me by not giving me any water . not feeding me. During an interview on 10/31/23 at 12:12 p.m., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) P confirmed R1 was asleep when she delivered the breakfast meal tray at approximately 8:00 a.m. that morning. CNA P said R1 did not have any water to drink in his room, and she had been in the room a couple of times due to the call light ringing. CNA P stated, I offered him part of his breakfast sandwich. I broke a piece off (of the croissant) and he did not eat it. During observation and interview on 10/31/23 at 12:14 p.m., the intact croissant breakfast sandwich was again observed on R1's over bed table. When asked about CNA P offering him a broken off piece of the croissant, R1 stated, That is a lie. During an observation and interview on 10/31/23 at 12:24 p.m., R1 was heard yelling for help with the room door closed. When asked what R1 needed, he stated, My throat is so dry. I need some water. I can't hardly talk it is so dry. R1 confirmed no water was provided for him to drink. During an interview on 10/31/23 at 12:39 p.m., R11, who resided on the same hall as R1 was asked about the provision of fresh, daily drinking water. R11 stated, I have to ask for water if I want water. We don't get fresh water on certain shifts. During an observation and interview on 10/31/23 at 1:02 p.m., R1 was found alone in his room. A lunch tray and been delivered by CNA P and remained on the over bed table on the meal tray. All food was out of reach of the resident, the meal plate remained covered, the beverages and fruit were covered, and the potato chips were unopened. No water was present on the over bed table. No staff were observed in the room to assist the resident, and no food was eaten. During an interview on 10/31/23 at 1:13 p.m., when asked who was responsible for passing of fresh water to facility residents, Registered Nurse (RN) I said she did not know, but it had been done before she came onto her shift. RN I stated, I truly believe these residents do not get the care they deserve because we have three residents that are ringing (their call lights) all the time down on the far end. During an interview on 10/31/23 at 1:39 p.m., R1 stated, to this Surveyor, Will you give me water so I can talk here. During an interview on 10/31/23 at 2:25 p.m., both RN I and RN F said A Hall did not have enough staff to meet resident needs because of the individual care needs of four residents on the hall, including R1. RN I stated, It breaks my heart for these people (residents) because of the care they give here . You rush it (care) so fast you don't know what you are doing because you don't have enough staff. During an observation on 11/1/23 at 1:43 p.m., there were beverages from breakfast noted left on the over bed table, including white milk that was not cool to the touch. No staff were present to assist with the lunch meal, which was sitting on a meal tray on the over bed table, untouched. The lunch meal tray included an uneaten pasty, a covered fruit cup, a two-handled cup filled with green beans, pink liquid resembling juice, and milk. An adaptive plate and silverware were present, which were unable to be used by R1. During an interview on 11/1/23 at 1:46 p.m., CNA Q confirmed it was very hard to meet the resident needs because, .There are people who need help frequently, and people that need a drastic amount of care because there are people who can't do much for themselves and it makes it hard to get to them (all). During an interview on 11/2/23 at 4:29 p.m., The Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the higher acuity on the A Hall, and said they were currently working on a solution. When asked if they understood this Surveyor's concerns with ensuring R1 was timely and consistently provided dining assistance, the NHA nodded her head up and down in agreement. Review of the facility Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) policy, revised 7/18/22, revealed the following, in part: .Care and services will be provided for the following activities of daily living .4. Eating to include meals and snacks .A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene .
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a complete infection control program to help prevent the development and transmission of communication diseases and infections. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a complete infection control program to help prevent the development and transmission of communication diseases and infections. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for the spread of communicable and infectious diseases within all 46 vulnerable residents within the facility. Findings include: During observations on 10/31/23 at 11:53 a.m. and 12:12 p.m., and 11/1/23 at 2:06 p.m. R1 and R12, respectively, were observed coughing with audible chest congestion. During an interview on 11/1/23 at 2:09 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) I was asked which residents had been tested for COVID-19 based on symptoms they exhibited, such as coughing and congestion. RN I stated, I don't think any of them (were tested for COVID-19). On 11/1/23 at 2:13 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked to provide the October 2023 infection control (IC) line listing of residents with diagnoses or symptoms of infections or communicable diseases. The DON said she was unable to print the computerized infection control line listing showing the signs and symptoms of the individuals on the list and directed this Surveyor to RN R. During an interview on 11/1/23 at 2:15 p.m., when asked for the infection control line listing to be printed for October 2023, RN R stated, That will be [the DON]. The DON provided an IC line listing without any resident symptoms identified. When asked the last entry on the printed IC line listing for R13, and an onset date of 10/30/23, the DON stated, [R13] is a UTI (urinary tract infection). When asked how this Surveyor would know it was a UTI from the IC line listing, the DON said because no signs and symptoms had been entered in the line listing, and the Infection column was not populated as a UTI, you would be unable to tell what type of infection or communicable disease process R12 was affected by. The DON said R1 was offered COVID-19 testing that morning, but declined. The DON confirmed R1 was not listed on the IC line listing with any signs and symptoms although he had been coughing with congestion. The DON acknowledged R1 should have been placed on the IC line listing for October 2023. Review of the one-page, printed IC line listing for October 2023 revealed the following: 1. Etiology column was blank for all entries. 2. Status was populated with Suspected for all entries. 3. Evaluation and Diagnostic columns were both populated with N for no. 4. Current Prescription columns populated only for 6 of 16 residents. 5. Infection column was populated with Empty for all 16 residents. 6. Second Infection column was populated with Unknown for all 16 residents. During this same interview on 11/1/23 at 2:15 p.m., the DON said she had last completed an IC line listing with signs and symptoms in June of 2023 with use of a handwritten paper line listing. During an interview on 11/1/23 at 2:25 p.m., the DON said she was performing the Infection Preventionist (IP) duties for infection control with the assistance of RN R. The DON also acknowledged that standardized infection criteria, such as McGeer's criteria had not been completed since June of 2023. RN R said she was not doing any infection control documentation, nor was she performing any IP duties. During an interview on 11/1/23 at 2:32 p.m., RN R said she had completed the electronic IC line listing training but had not completed the IC line listing since July of 2023. RN R stated, I add the diagnosis, but I have not been adding symptoms. You have to do a manual created case for residents with symptoms reflective of COVID-19 . I know I didn't manually order or enter resident signs and symptoms. The DON, still present during this interview, also confirmed she had not entered any COVID-19 symptoms manually. When asked how any of the IC computerized monthly reports could be accurate if resident signs and symptoms were omitted, the DON stated, I understood [RN R] was doing it. During an interview on 11/2/23 at 4:29 p.m., the DON and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) confirmed no resident signs and symptoms of infection or communicable disease had been entered into the computerized IC line listings and reports since July of 2023. The DON confirmed she had not documented completion of McGeer's criteria for determination of infection since June of 2023, nor had she completed accurate surveillance mapping of infections since June of 2023. The DON and NHA confirmed there were no monthly summaries completed that would accurately show the status of infections within the facility since June of 2023. The DON acknowledged that only diagnosed infections being treated with antibiotics were listing on the IC line listing, and no symptoms of communicable disease would have been entered on the line listing. No infection mapping had been completed. There was no accurate, active surveillance, correlation, and analysis of infection control data between June and October of 2023. Both the NHA and DON expressed understanding of this IC deficiency. Review of the Infection Prevention and Control Program policy, revised 4/19/23, revealed the following, in part: 1. The designated Infection Preventionist is responsible for oversight of the program and serves as a consultant to our staff on infectious diseases, resident room placement, implementing isolation precautions, staff and resident exposures, surveillance, and epidemiological investigations of exposures of infectious diseases . 3. Surveillance: a. A system of surveillance is utilized for prevention, identifying, reporting, investigating, and controlling infections and communicable disease for all residents, staff, volunteers, visitors, and other individuals providing services .based upon a facility assessment and accepted national standards .
Jun 2023 3 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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

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 that facility failed to timely address and document resident and/or responsib...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review that facility failed to timely address and document resident and/or responsible party grievances for one Resident (R1) out of three residents reviewed for resident rights related to grievances. This deficient practice resulted in the delayed return or reimbursement for lost, misplaced, and/or damaged personal property, resident dissatisfaction, and feelings of frustration. Findings include: The deficiency pertains to Complaint Intake #MI00134304, which alleged in part: It was alleged that the facility failed to locate the resident's missing personal items. During a telephone interview on 5/31/23 at 9:18 a.m., Complainant A said reimbursement was being sought for R1's personal chair that was in another resident's room with multiple urine stains. Complainant A said R1's personal four-wheeled walked was not found prior to R1 transferring to another facility in May of 2023, and R1's bottom dentures were dropped and broken by facility staff, which were never replaced. Complainant A said the facility admitted they were dropped and broken by staff. Complainant A stated, When I went to go and get her stuff together, I said, 'OK, we want to go through the list of her stuff.' [Social Service Designee (Staff) B] said I didn't have to go through the list - just to go and get it (R1's belongings). I could not check her stuff because they (facility staff) had boxed it all up, so I couldn't say if I had everything or not . Complainant A said the personal recliner reimbursement and replacement of the missing four-wheeled walker and broken dentures were their main concerns they wanted addressed. Complainant A sent a text message to this Surveyor with a photo of the stained recliner that appeared off-white with grey and black triangles, and said the picture was taken shortly after the recliner was found in another resident's room with urine stains. During an interview on 5/31/23 at 9:47 a.m., Staff B confirmed Complainant A had filled out multiple Concern/Complaint Forms, including the following: 1. 10/17/22, concern initiated by family, recliner from room - Black/grey with white [NAME]. Facility follow-up was assigned to the maintenance department on 10/18/22. No details of action take, staff member assigned, resolution of concern, notification of resolution of outcome of looking into the compliant, complainant satisfaction, or form completion signature was present on the form. Those areas were absent any documentation. 2. 10/17/22, concern initiated by family, missing robe, missing gray sweat pant outfit, documented as clothes not found but continue to look. Complainant A was not satisfied with the outcome and wanted the items found. 3. 10/17/22, concern initiated by family, orthotic/diabetic shoes, awaiting where we are with this . Action taken by facility: 1. Awaiting script for her diabetic shoes. 4. 12/19/23, concern initiated by other staff. Area of Concern: lower dentures were damaged during cares when they were dropped on the floor. No Resolution of Concern was documented to show resolution of this grievance concern. 5. 1/17/23, concern initiated by Resident Representative, Feels facility should pay for broken dentures. Wants her (R1) sent to dentist immediately for denture replacement. Facility Follow-up: Need to make dental appt. (appointment). Resolution of Concern: Yes, Dental appt made [Dental Office] Monday 2/20/23 9:45 a.m. 6. 2/9/23, concern initiated by Resident representative, Resident needs a new pair of diabetic shoes. Facility follow-up: Call to schedule appt with [Orthotics Company]. Resolution of concern: Appointment made for March 20th, 1 p.m. Staff B was asked about the 10/17/22 concern form related to R1's recliner, and the absence of documentation. Staff B stated, I am not sure why it (recliner) was removed out of her (R1's) room, because that was before I came (to work in the facility). Another resident was using it when [Complainant A] asked for it back. They took the chair back [from Resident #2 (R2)], and they cleaned it, and it wasn't really cleaned well enough. It really looked pretty bad (with urine stains). [Complainant A] wanted the facility to replace the chair. Staff B said she was unsure of the status of the chair replacement/reimbursement. Staff B acknowledged R1 needed a new pair of diabetic shoes, and the process started with the 10/17/22 Concern form, followed-up with another 2/9/23 Concern form that prompted the scheduling of R1's first orthotic appointment on 3/20/23 at 1:00 p.m., five months following the initial identification of Complainant A's concern. Staff B agreed the delay of five months in scheduling an appointment did not address the concerns identified timely. When asked about R1's broken bottom dentures (1/17/23 Concern Form), Staff B stated, I was told that an aide dropped them on the floor and broke them. I was told that by facility staff in one of the morning meetings . [Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)] agreed they needed to be replaced. Staff B said the first dental appointment was scheduled for 2/20/23 at 9:45 a.m. Staff B stated, I think there might have been a problem with that appointment because staff are supposed to bring me a slip if they (resident) have another appointment, and I did not get that slip. May 8th, 2023, she went back to the [dental office] at 8:15 a.m., and I know she needs two more appointments . when she (R1) d/c'd (discharged ) I erased them (two other appointments) because she had to have three (dental) appointments. Staff B agreed this resident care need was not addressed timely, and R1 went for at least five months without bottom dentures. Review of Staff B's resident appointment calendars February through May 2023 revealed the following appointments for R1: 1. 2/20/23 9:45 a.m. - Dental Appointment 2. 3/20/23 1:00 p.m. - Orthotic Appointment 3. 4/24/23 11:00 a.m. - Orthotic Appointment 4. 5/8/23 8:00 a.m. - Dental Appointment Staff B said if appointments were cancelled or not attended, they would be crossed out in the appointment book. Staff B confirmed no appointments were crossed out for R1. Review of R1's Inventory of Personal Effects, dated 1/22/21, and signed by R1 revealed the following items, in part: .1/22/21, Recliner, dropped off at facility . 1 (one) walker), 1 cane . On 5/31/23 at 10:15 a.m., R2 was observed sitting in a recliner in her room. The recliner matched the photo provided of R1's recliner, as depicted in the photo provided to this Surveyor on 5/31/23, of an off-white recliner with grey and black triangles. During an interview at this same time, R2 was asked about the recliner she was sitting in. R2 said the recliner did not belong to her, and stated, I had it (that recliner), and then they took it away from me, and then they (facility staff) gave it back. During interviews on 5/31/23 at 11:10 a.m., and 11:33 a.m., Staff D and Staff E respectively, both confirmed they had never observed R1 sitting in her recliner prior to the recliner being moved out of the room, when R1 moved to a two-person room with no room for the recliner. Review of R1's admission and Financial Agreement, signed by R1 on 1/29/21, revealed the following, in part: Loss of Personal Property: The Facility will not be responsible for theft, destruction, or other loss of money, papers, clothing, jewelry, dentures, eyeglasses, hearing aids, or other personal property unless the property was delivered to and accepted in writing by a Facility representative or the loss was caused by the Facility's gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Review of the Resident and Family Grievances policy, implemented 2/1/23, revealed the following, in part: Procedure: .b. The staff member receiving the grievance will record the nature and specifics of the grievance on the designated grievance form or assist the resident or family member to complete the form. i. Take any immediate actions needed to prevent further potential violations of any resident right. ii. Report any allegations involving neglect, abuse, injuries of unknown source, and/or misappropriation of resident property immediately to the administrator and follow procedures for those allegations . In accordance with the resident's right to obtain a written decision regarding his or her grievance, the Grievance Official will issue a written decision on the grievance to the resident or representative at the conclusion of the investigation. The written decision will include at a minimum: i. The date the grievance was received. ii. The steps taken to investigate the grievance. iii. A summary of the pertinent findings or conclusions regarding the resident's concern(s). iv. A statement as to whether the grievance was confirmed or not confirmed. v. Any corrective action taken or to be taken by the facility as a result of the grievance. vi. The date the written decision was issued . 12. The facility will make prompt efforts to resolve grievances . (includes facility acknowledgement of a complaint/grievance and actively working toward resolution of that complaint/grievance). During an interview on 6/1/23 at 9:46 a.m., Staff D confirmed R1's urine-stained chair was a [Brand Name] currently selling for 999 dollars at a local furniture store. The NHA, also present during the interview, said R1's concerns needed to be addressed. When asked about the incomplete documentation of the Concerns/Complaint forms for R1, the NHA stated You will find most of them (concern/complaint forms) incomplete. The NHA acknowledged she was aware of the incomplete documentation of the concern/complaint forms and said that was something that needed to be corrected.
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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure footcare, including skin assessments and podiat...

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 footcare, including skin assessments and podiatry care, and dental services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice and resident care plans for two Resident (R1 and R3) out of three residents reviewed for quality of care. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for worsening of condition, eating difficulties, dignity concerns and unaddressed medical needs. Findings include: This deficient pertains to Intakes MI00134522 and MI00134304. Resident R1 Review of Complainant A's allegations included the following, in part: She (R1) is missing her bottom dentures. She (R1) is not happy that she cannot eat normally and does not have her teeth in. Her dignity is bothered and her eating. A(n) aide dropper (sic) her bottom dentures and broke them. The facility will not replace them. They keep trying to find someone to take her insurance and get an appointment and cannot. However, they broke them (bottom dentures), and they should pay to replace them . 1. It is alleged the facility failed to obtain dental services for the resident (R1). 2. It was alleged a facility staff dropped and broke the resident's dentures (R1). During a telephone interview on 5/31/23 at 9:18 a.m., when asked to provide additional details related to R1's dentures, Complainant A stated, Appointments were being missed (dental), and they dropped her teeth before Christmas (of 2022), and she still does not have the bottom dentures . One of the workers dropped them. I was told they dropped them. They (facility administrative staff) admitted to them (bottom dentures) being dropped and the social worker would know that . She R1 left the facility about a week ago (transferred to another long-term care facility) . During an interview on 5/31/23 at 9:47 a.m., Social Services Designee (Staff B) was asked about R1's broken bottom dentures. Staff B stated, I was told that an aide dropped them on the floor and broke them. I was told that by facility staff in one of the morning meetings . [Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)] agreed they needed to be replaced. Staff B said the first dental appointment was scheduled for 2/20/23 at 9:45 a.m. Staff B stated, I think there might have been a problem with that appointment because staff are supposed to bring me a slip if they (the resident) have another appointment, and I did not get that slip. May 8th, 2023, she (R1) went back to the [dental office] at 8:15 a.m., and I know she needs two more appointments . when she (R1) d/c'd (discharged from the facility) I erased them (two other appointments) from my calendar because she had to have three (dental) appointments. Staff B agreed this resident care need was not addressed timely, and R1 went for at least five months without bottom dentures. Staff B said the other dental appointments had been scheduled for June and July 2023 and that information had been shared with R1's personal representative. During the same interview on 5/31/23 at 9:47 a.m., Staff B said Maintenance Director (Staff) D did bring R1's broken bottom dentures to a dentist who said they could not be repaired. She was unaware of which dentist had examined R1's bottom dentures. Review of Staff B's resident appointment calendars February through May 2023 revealed the following dental appointments for R1: 1. 2/20/23 9:45 a.m. - Dental Appointment 2. 5/8/23 8:00 a.m. - Dental Appointment Staff B said if appointments were cancelled or not attended, they would be crossed out in the appointment book. Staff B verified no appointments were crossed out for R1. During an interview on 5/31/23 at 11:10 a.m., Staff D confirmed he had brought R1's bottom dentures to a [Dental Office] in a nearby village. When asked which dentist had examined the teeth and determined they were not able to be repaired, Staff D stated, They [Dental Office] must have called the social worker, which I believe was [a previous social worker]. During an interview on 5/31/23 at 1:37 p.m., the NHA confirmed she had been informed in the morning meeting (date unknown) that facility staff had dropped R1's bottom dentures. The NHA stated, Then there was a length of time between her (R1's) first visit (to dentist) and her second visit. We were going to pay (for the bottom dentures) even though she is not (currently a resident). The NHA acknowledged there was quite a delay in the provision of dental care and confirmed the Resident (R1) did not have her dentures when she discharged from the facility on 5/24/23. Review of the Rights of Residents in Michigan Nursing Facilities, dated 11/28/16, revealed the following, in part: . You shall not be denied appropriate care on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual preference, or source of payment. Resident R3 Review of R3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments, dated 3/16/23, revealed R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had active diagnoses that included: cirrhosis (severe scarring of the liver), diabetes mellitus, non-Alzheimer's dementia, and chronic peripheral vascular disease. R3 had a colostomy (a hole (stoma) in the abdominal wall allows waste to leave the body. A colostomy bag attaches to the stoma to collect the waste.) R3 required extensive two-person assistance with toilet use and dressing and limited two-person assistance with personal hygiene. R3 scored 14 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of intact cognition. Review of Anonymous Complainant C's intake allegations included the following, in part: . R3's feet were found to have a build-up of debris. His toenails were so long that they were growing into his toes. The nails were trimmed at the doctor office and his feet were soaked to get rid of debris . 1. It was alleged the facility failed to provide adequate and appropriate foot care . (R3). 2. It was alleged the facility failed to provide regular oral care to the resident (R3). During a telephone interview on 5/31/23 at 11:46 a.m., anonymous Complainant C reported R3 had complained of foot pain during an appointment on January of 2023. Complainant C reported: I took R3's shoes off and the condition of his feet was less than poor. His toenails were very, very long. There was tons of stuff (debris) in between his toes, so I decided I was going to bathe his legs. I was washing his legs, and I noticed on one of his left foot toes, one of the toenails was so long it was growing down into the toe . I asked him when the last time was the facility had addressed his feet, and he (R3) said it had been a long time. The condition of his feet when I took his shoes off - they were really, really, bad . He was complaining of oral pain. I asked him to let me see his teeth. His teeth were black, and it looked like he had not had oral care in a long time . During an interview at approximately 2:00 p.m., the MDS/Registered Nurse (RN) H provided documentation for R3's medical record for review, including care Plans, Physician Order Summary Report, MDS assessments, Face Sheet (admission Record), Progress Notes, and Wound Care Documentation. RN H was also asked to provide evidence of any podiatry care or dental care for R3. Upon delivery of the printed documentation, RN H provided a small piece of paper that noted R3 had no podiatry or dental appointments since his last admission on [DATE]. During a telephone interview on 5/31/23 at 2:10 p.m., Physician F was asked if R3's long toenails were the cause (most influential factor) in the development of R3's third, left toe osteomyelitis, and subsequent amputation. Physician F stated, I could not conclusively say the toenail would have caused the amputation if the other concerns were not also present (peripheral vascular disease and diabetes mellitus) .With all three (long toenail, peripheral vascular disease and diabetes mellitus) it was a perfect storm (for the development of the toe infection, osteomyelitis, and partial toe amputation) . During an interview on 6/1/23 at 4:04 p.m., standards of care for diabetic individuals was discussed with the NHA and the DON. The DON agreed a diabetic standard of care would include foot care and an annual eye exam. The NHA and DON also discussed the failure of the facility to identify any podiatry care or dental care for R3. The NHA stated, When we need to look up things like that (previous specialized appointments) we go to [RN H] because she is so good with [Electronic Medical Record (EMR)] and so fast. If she said there was not something in the medical record, I would trust that. Review of R3's Care Plans revealed the following, in part: 1. I have oral/dental health problems r/t (related to) poor oral hygiene. Date Initiated 11/21/2019 . Interventions/Tasks: Coordinate arrangements for dental care, transportation as needed/as ordered. Date Initiated: 11/21/2019 .Provide mouth care as per ADL (activities of daily living) personal hygiene. Date Initiated: 11/21/2019. All Dental Care Plan interventions were initiated on 11/21/2019, with no care plan update to reflect resident-specific dental care needs. 2. I have an ADL Self Care Performance Deficit r/t alcohol induced persisting Dementia. Date Initiated 12/12/2022 . Interventions/Tasks: .Skin Inspection: I require SKIN inspection Weekly and PRN (as needed). Observe for redness, open areas, scratches, cuts, bruises, and report changes to the Nurse. Date Initiated: 12/12/2022 . BATHING: Check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Report any changes to the nurse. Date Initiated: 12/12/2022 . 3. I have Diabetes Mellitus. Date Initiated 2/8/23 (following partial third left toe amputation) . Interventions/Tasks: Check all of body for breaks in skin and treat promptly as ordered by doctor . Inspect feet daily for open areas, sores, pressure areas, blisters, edema or redness .Refer to podiatrist/foot care nurse to monitor/document foot care needs and to cut long nails. All interventions in this care plan were initiated on 3/7/23. 4. I have a surgical wound located on the left foot 3rd toe r/t DM, noncompliance . Dated Initiated: 2/6/23. Interventions/Tasks . Treat as per order by WCC (Wound Care Clinic) . Wound care to measure weekly .Date Initiated (for all interventions) 2/6/23. 5. I have peripheral vascular disease. Date Initiated 12/11/2020 . Interventions/Tasks . Educate the resident on the importance of proper foot care including proper fitting shoes, wash, and dry feet thoroughly, keep toenails cut, inspect feet daily, daily change of hosiery and socks . If resident has thick nails, corns, calluses, refer to podiatrist . Monitor the extremities for s/sx (signs and symptoms) of injury, infection, or ulcers. All interventions were initiated on 12/11/2020. Review of R3's Physician Order Summary Report, 12/31/2022 through 5/31/2023 revealed the following active physician order: 1. May see facility dentist, podiatrist, and eye doctor PRN. Order Date 3/13/2022. During an interview and observation on 6/2/23 at 9:25 a.m., R3 was asked about podiatry, vision, and dental care provided while in the facility. R3 said he had an eye appointment about a year ago, and they thought he may need glasses, but he did not get any. R3 did not remember when he last saw a podiatrist, but said it was a long time ago. When asked about a dental appointment for his teeth, R3 opened his mouth and said, What teeth? No teeth were visible on the top, and the bottom teeth were all dark grey and appeared to be just the stubs of the original bottom teeth. R3 said he was supposed to get dentures, but he did not get any, so he has been eating soft foods, like the oatmeal and corned beef hash today, because he cannot chew his food very well. He said he had not been to the dentist in a long time and could not remember when the last time was. During an interview on 6/2/23 between 10:12 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., R3's Skin Assessments and Wound Evaluations dated between 12/9/22 and 6/2/23 were reviewed with the DON. The DON acknowledged and agreed that Skin Evaluations (Assessments) present in the EMR for R3 were all incomplete and lacked required documentation from 1/1/23 through 6/2/23. No Skin Evaluations were found in R3's complete medical record for January 2023, prior to the development of an infection in R3's 3rd, left toe. Skin Evaluations were not completed weekly, as per R3's care plan. The dates of R3's Skin Evaluations reviewed with the DON included the following: 12/9/22, 2/9/23, 2/25/23, 3/1/23, 3/15/23, 3/23/23, and 3/30/23. The facility attempted to locate Shower Sheets for R3, previously implemented and discontinued, for January 2023. After review of all Shower Sheets no evidence was found to show R3 received any skin assessments in January 2023. The complete medical record was reviewed, and the facility (NHA and DON) acknowledged and agreed they did not have any documentation showing R3 had any skin assessments performed for January 2023. During an interview on 6/2/23 at 11:14 a.m., the NHA and DON were interviewed regarding R3's lack of skin assessments, incomplete and lack of appropriately timed (greater than one week apart) skin evaluations since January 2023. Both the NHA and DON agreed skin assessments for R3 should have been performed weekly due to his PVD and DM diagnoses. Review of the Skin Assessment policy, reviewed 10/7/22, revealed the following, in part: Policy: It is our policy to perform a full body skin assessment as part of our systematic approach to pressure injury prevention and management. This policy includes the following procedural guidelines in performing the full body skin assessment. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: A full body, or head to toe, skin assessment will be conducted by a licensed or registered nurse upon admission/re-admission and weekly thereafter. The assessment may also be performed after a change of condition or after any newly identified pressure injury . 7. Documentation of skin assessment: a. Include date and time of the assessment, your name, and position title. b. Document observations . c. Document type of wound. d. Describe wound (measurements, color, type of tissue in wound bed, drainage, odor, pain). e. Document if resident refused assessment and why. f. Document other information as indicated or appropriate. During and interview on 6/2/23 at 1:11 p.m., the NHA said facility staff had look through all the January 2023 Shower Sheets and found no skin assessment sheets for [R3]. The NHA and DON expressed full understanding and agreement with the deficiencies reviewed during the exit conference. No questions or complaints were voiced by the NHA or DON.
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 F0691 (Tag F0691)

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: 1. Colostomy care consistent with profession...

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: 1. Colostomy care consistent with professional standards of practice, 2. Physician orders specific to colostomy care, and 3. A comprehensive person-centered care plan addressing colostomy care for one Resident (R3) out of one resident reviewed for colostomy care. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for improper colostomy care and use of inadequately sized colostomy supplies. Findings include: This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00134522, which included the following allegation: It was alleged the facility failed to provide ostomy (created opening in the abdominal wall) care as ordered by the physician. Review of anonymous Complainant C's reported concerns included the following, in part: [R3] also has an Ostomy appliance that was hurting (R3). It was looked at and was leaking a strange substance. It was determined that the substance was a mixture of fecal matter and breakdown of the appliance itself. This is caused by the appliance being left on and not properly changed. Review of R3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments, dated 3/16/23, revealed R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had active diagnoses that included: cirrhosis (severe scarring of the liver), diabetes mellitus, non-Alzheimer's dementia, chronic peripheral vascular disease. R3 had a colostomy (a hole (stoma) in the abdominal wall allows waste to leave the body. A colostomy bag attaches to the stoma to collect the waste.) R3 required extensive two-person assistance with toilet use and dressing and limited two-person assistance with personal hygiene. R3 scored 14 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of intact cognition. During a telephone interview on 5/31/23 at 11:54 a.m., Complainant C confirmed they had observed R3's ostomy (colostomy) leaking all over themselves. Complainant C stated, It was just pretty bad. When we asked [R3], he stated that it had not been changed in a long time .I know that we have used some bags from our facility when he comes here, and they (the colostomy bags he was wearing) have been in pretty bad condition. If it was in bad condition, we would change it when he comes here. During an interview on 5/31/23 at 8:30 a.m., R3 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in his room. When asked about the colostomy, observed on the left mid-abdomen, R# stated, I didn't have enough bags (colostomy bags). R3 said that up until about two weeks ago, he did not have enough colostomy bags for regular changes, because his colostomy was always leaking. When asked if he picked at his colostomy wafer and bag, R3 stated, I only pick at it when it comes loose and is leaking (stool). During an observation and interview on 5/31/23 at 1:20 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) G was asked to inventory the number of colostomy appliances (bags and wafers (which attached to the resident's skin) for R3's stoma (created opening in the abdominal wall). Current total inventory supplies in the facility included the following: 1. Five (5) - 70-millimeter (mm), (2 ¾ inch) wafers. 2. 18 - 70 mm, 2 ¾ inch colostomy pouches/bags. Review of colostomy supplies ordered for R3 provided by Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Supervisor I revealed the following colostomy supplies were ordered specifically for R3: 1. One box (10 pouches/bags) 2 ¾ inch, 70 mm, shipped 2/24/23. 2. Two boxes (20 pouches) 2 ¾ inch, 70 mm, shipped 4/18/23. 3. Two boxes 2 ¾ wafers, without tape, shipped 4/26/23. 4. One Box (colostomy kit with wafer and bag) 4-inch flange, up to 3.5- inch opening, shipped 4/26/23. 5. Two boxes (20 pouches) 2 ¾ inch flange, shipped 5/23/23. 6. Two boxes (colostomy kits) 4-inch flange, up to 3.5-inch opening, shipped 5/31/23. The last order of colostomy kits, shipped on 5/31/23 did not arrive prior to a required colostomy appliance change observation on 6/1/23. CNA I was asked to highlight all orders since 1/1/23 specific to R3's colostomy. CNA I provided R3's documentation on 6/2/23 at 10:29 a.m. Review of R3's Wound Care Clinic Visit Report, dated 11/30/22, revealed the following Notes, in part: Ostomy - use flat appliance with adhesive border (wafer) larger than 70 mm to allow better adhesion. The 70 mm (wafer) fits around but does not leave much border for adhesion. During an observation of colostomy care by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) T on 6/1/23 at 2:50 p.m., found R3's colostomy wafer was detached at the bottom of the stoma site, and fecal matter was present on his shirt, sweatpants, incontinence brief, and abdomen. R3 had stuffed toilet paper underneath the colostomy appliance to absorb stool leakage from the site. R3's stoma appeared exceptionally large, and the stoma appeared to be in contact with the sides of the wafer ring (that attached to the colostomy pouch). LPN T removed R3's dirty clothing, cleansed the abdomen and stoma prior to preparing a new wafer for application around R3's stoma. When asked how she knew what circumference was required to cover R3's stoma, LPN T stated, I have to go (cut) all the way to the outer ring (plastic ring that the colostomy pouch attaches to). LPN T acknowledged there was no wafer adhesion on the skin, prior to the outer ring - which could allow for seepage of stool onto R3's skin surrounding the stoma. LPN T said the facility (CNA Supervisor I) had ordered larger wafers, which would provide better coverage of the skin surrounding the stoma, but they had not arrived. Therefore, she was using the same 2 ¾ inch wafer (opening for stoma was 2 ¾ inches) as previously used. When asked if there was a physician order for the colostomy change, LPN T said she was not sure, but was performing the task as she was instructed/shown. Review of R3's Physician Order Summary found no physician order related to R3's colostomy, including size of colostomy supplies, schedule for routine colostomy appliance changes, or staff responsible for performance of the colostomy appliance change since 12/31/2022. Review of R3's Comprehensive Care Plans revealed the following: I have a Colostomy, Date Initiated: 9/17/22. Change ostomy bag and wafer per orders. Date Initiated: 03/14/22. Empty Ostomy bag every shift and as needed. If resident able to tolerate, empty bag in resident bathroom with fan on to decrease odor. Date Initiated: 03/14/2022. Encourage and remind me not to pick at my colostomy wafer. Date Initiated: 04/13/2023. Monitor Surround skin for signs of breakdown, notify nurse if noted. Date Initiated: 03/14/022. No resident-specific information related to the size of the ostomy wafers and bags was documented. Review of R3's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for December 2022 through June 2023 found no nursing documentation of colostomy appliance changes. Review of Nursing Progress Notes, found the following documentation, pertaining to R3's colostomy: 3/13/22 13:14 (1:14 p.m.) - Resident re-admitted to facility from [Regional Hospital] .Ostomy functioning with loose BM . 11/30/22 16:01 (4:01 p.m.) - . The colostomy was leaking toward the bottom since the adhesive was folded. Found the appliance lacked structure. Wound Care clinic replaced with a larger appliance (70 mm) but recommends facility uses a larger one to accommodate the stoma. 12/30/22 06:00 (6:00 a.m.) - Resident's colostomy changed this AM. 1/23/23 00:21 (12:21 a.m.) - Resident's colostomy changed . 2/2/23 14:36 (2:46 p.m.) - Reinformed (sic) colostomy wafer with paper tape. Author: Director of Nursing (DON) 3/7/23 09:16 (9:16 a.m.) - Colostomy changed. 4/13/23 14:23 (2:23 p.m.) - .Colostomy wafer is changed daily r/t resident picking at . (Care Conference Note) 4/15/23 11:53 a.m. - .upon entering his room he was noted to be picking at his colostomy water as it had detached from his skin. New wafer applied. 4/15/23 15:08 (3:08 p.m.) - .Changed residents' wafer, and reinforced edges with hypafix. 4/17/23 12:53 p.m. - .wafer was detached from his abd (abdomen). New wafer applied. 4/25/23 10:02 a.m. - . Colostomy bag and wafer changed today. 4/29/23 12:02 p.m. - .Colostomy bag and wafer changed today. 5/24/23 14:13 (2:13 p.m.) - .Colostomy wafer changed. Review of the facility policy, Ostomy Care - Colostomy, Urostomy, and Ileostomy, implemented 6/30/22, revealed the following, in part: It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents who require colostomy . services receive care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. As part of the comprehensive assessment and care planning process, a licensed nurse will determine the actual type of ostomy through physical assessment, medical record review, and collaboration with the attending physician . 3. Ostomy care will be provided by licensed nurses and/or certified nursing assistants under the orders of the attending physician. 4. The resident's goals and preferences for care and treatment of the ostomy will be used to formulate a plan of care for the ostomy (i.e., self-care, dependent care). 5. The frequency of pouch changes and the products required for changing ostomy devices will be noted on the resident's person-centered care plan . 9. The comprehensive care plan will reflect any special products or pouching techniques needed to prevent or manage any skin breakdown surrounding the ostomy . 11. For ongoing pouching problems or other problems associated with the ostomy, appropriate referrals will be made, such as to surgeons, urologists, gastroenterologist, or ostomy nurses. During an interview on 5/31/23 at 2:50 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), DON, and MDS/RN H were asked about colostomy care for R3. All three agreed there were no physician orders specifying the size of the colostomy wafer/bag and no frequency noted for colostomy changes in either the physician orders or Resident R3's care plans. The DON and RN H reviewed the colostomy changes in the progress notes and acknowledged there were long time periods where no colostomy changes were documented. The DON and RN agreed the MAR and TAR did not document colostomy care or changes. The NHA asked CNA Supervisor I if there were any larger colostomy wafers for R3's use, per the Wound Clinic's 11/30/22 recommendation. CNA Supervisor I said they had ordered some larger wafer/bags yesterday (5/30/23) because RN S had told them that there was hardly any adhesive surrounding the stoma to secure the wafer to the skin. CNA Supervisor I said they were unaware of any order addressing a larger stoma size. The NHA stated, So [RN S] based it (need for larger colostomy supplies) on nursing assessment, not on physician orders. During an interview on 6/2/23 at 1:11 p.m., during the exit conference, the NHA and DON expressed full understanding and agreement with the deficiencies identified during the survey.
Feb 2023 3 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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Complaint Intake #MI00133855. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Complaint Intake #MI00133855. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#4) was free from physical restraints imposed for purposes of convenience, out of nine residents sample residents reviewed for restraints. This deficient practice in physical restraint of Resident #4, without a physician order, restraint assessment, care planned interventions, or signed authorization/consent for application of the restraint resulting in restriction of freedom of movement and the potential for injury. Findings include: During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 5:29 p.m., the complaint allegations were reviewed with Confidential Complainant U. Complainant U said Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) V had restrained Resident #4 with a gait belt while they were sitting in a wheelchair. CNA V was removed from the floor, reassigned to another position in the facility, but continued to cover open shifts on the floor as a CNA. Complainant U stated, [They - CNA V] should not be working with facility residents when [they] restrained [Resident #4] like that. The Resident died on [DATE] and was unavailable for observation or interview. Review of Resident #4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #4 had diagnoses that included the following, in part: depression. Non-Alzheimer's dementia, cancer, and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #4 required extensive, two-person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and was totally dependent upon staff for bathing. Section O of the MDS assessment revealed Resident #4 did not use any form of restraint of alarm. Review of Resident #4's complete electronic medical record (EMR) found no physician order, signed consent, restraint assessment, or care plan interventions related to the use of a restraint. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:51 p.m., Staff H was asked about her knowledge of staff's use of restraints on facility residents. Staff H stated, [Resident #4] was on B side . I have been told not to mention this to the State Surveyors . I heard that it happened twice. That [CNA V] tied up [Resident #4] with the gait belt. [CNA V] took that belt and wrapped it around the wheelchair to keep [Resident #4] from getting up . shortly later [CNA V] was in the kitchen . and now she is back on the floor because there is no staff. To us . why would you have someone back on the floor. That is not right to the residents' and to me, that is not right. Why would you do that? . everyone knows this has happened . During an interview on [DATE] at 3:00 p.m., Staff O provided this Surveyor with digital photos of Resident #4 pictured restrained with a gait belt. The Resident was viewed sitting in a wheelchair, with the gait belt clasp positioned behind the back of the wheelchair, outside of the Resident's reach. The resident's face was not visible, but the Resident appeared very small and thin, and was covered partially with a blanket. Staff O stated, It (gait belt restraint of Resident #4) happened two days in a row. Staff O said they had contacted their supervisor about the restraint concern on both occasions. Staff O confirmed, by review of her telephone pictures and messages, the restraint of Resident #4 occurred on the night shift of [DATE]th and [DATE]th. Staff O said the picture was taken the second night it was observed. Staff O said Corporate Compliance Officer T and the former DON told her to say nothing if the State surveyors asked about this incident. Staff O stated, Not to answer the question. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 1:47 p.m., regarding the restraint of Resident #4, Staff N stated, I got a message from Staff O, and they sent me a picture of [Resident #4] in the wheelchair. You can see (their) torso and the gait belt around her. Staff O said Again, seriously? The first night it happened I reported it to [the DON at that time]. I showed the pictures to [Corporate Compliance Officer T]. [Corporate Compliance Officer T] said, If they (State surveyors) ask you if you have them (photographs) you better not show them because you will get in trouble . During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 2:25 p.m., Staff P said they were informed of the unauthorized restraint of Resident #4 by another staff member. Staff P said Staff B had informed them of CNA V restraining the Resident (#4). Staff P stated, There was another night the same thing (restraint of Resident #4) happened. [Resident #4] was little but had a lot of behaviors. [Resident #4] was very confused, and it was very unsafe for her at night when there was no management there are things that go on that they are not going to tell management about . If I had to look at safety the one who was at risk was [Resident #4], that (restraint) presents a huge safety risk . I educated them that two aides were not supposed to be on break at the same time and leave just one aide on the floor . CNA V admitted that (they) had restrained the Resident (#4) . It was wrong. There was no order for restraints whatsoever. There was not one order. [Resident #4's] care plan did not have anything in it at all (about restraints) . I don't feel CNA V has the patience to be in the position (they) are to take care of residents with behaviors . When asked about Staff P's satisfaction with the results of the facility investigation related to Resident #4 being restrained, Staff P stated, I was absolutely not satisfied. I would have substantiated it, and I still feel strongly about it . During an interview on [DATE] at 9:29 a.m., Staff Y confirmed a facility investigation had been performed related to CNA V's restraint of Resident #4. Staff Y stated, I was told there was an allegation, and what the outcome was, and it didn't affect anything (her employment). Telephone contact with CNA V was attempted on [DATE] at 9:47 a.m., and [DATE] at 9:58 a.m. The response was a digital The telephone number you are trying to reach is not accepting calls at this time. On [DATE] at 3:34 p.m. CNA V was contact by telephone with the correct telephone number, provided by the facility that same day. When asked about application of the gait belt as a restraint to Resident #4, CNA V stated, I know it was a restraint and I should not have used it. So, I was trying to get her to stay in one spot so I could get (take care of) [another Resident] . I thought we got along on night shift. I didn't realize that I couldn't trust anyone. I wasn't expecting anyone to stab me in the back (by reporting me) . Back in December they had me on a five-day suspension .I understand it (application of a restraint) was wrong of me to do that . I was trying to make sure [Resident #4] wouldn't get out of the chair. I know it was a restraint and that is not allowed . Review of CNA V's personnel file found no documentation of any education, verbal or written disciplinary action, or documentation of a five-day suspension during the investigation. No disciplinary action was present in the CNA's chart. Review of the undated Facility Reported Incident Five-Day Summary, the following conclusion: [CNA V] acknowledges the one-time improper use of the gait belt on [Resident #4] to prevent a fall. [CNA V] understand the call light should have been answered by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Q, Hospitality Aide R, or CNA O. The facility finds no indication of abuse occurred with Resident #4. [CNA V] . During an interview on [DATE] at 4:00 p.m. the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) confirmed she had reviewed the investigation file related to CNA V's restraint of Resident #4. The NHA said there were several things that were missing from the investigation. The NHA expressed understanding of this Surveyors concerns as CNA V had applied a gait belt (restraint) to Resident #4 for her convenience, that was not easily removed, and it prevented the Resident from standing or moving out of the wheelchair. The NHA was unaware that CNA V had been covering shifts on the floor as a CNA, following this allegation of abused related to application of a restraint to Resident #4. The NHA agreed CNA V should not be working on the floor with facility residents. When asked if CNA V was audited and her behavior monitored and documented following the investigation, the NHA stated, I am not away of any documentation showing CNA V was observed and monitored. Review of the [Facility Name] Abuse and Neglect Policy and Procedure revised [DATE], found in the Investigative File revealed the following, in part: . Policy: . Resident will be free from chemical or physical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience that are not required to treat resident symptoms . Staff will be supervised to identify inappropriate behaviors while caring for or in attendance with residents . All staff must cooperate during the investigation to assure the resident is fully protected . The alleged perpetrator will immediately be removed, and resident protected. Employees accused of alleged abuse will be immediately removed from the facility and will remain removed pending the results of a thorough investigation . Examine, assess, and interview the resident and other residents potentially affected immediately to determine any injury and identify any immediate clinical interventions necessary. Notify resident physician .
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (F) 📢 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 F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #9 Review of Resident #9's EMR revealed admission to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hypertension and m...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #9 Review of Resident #9's EMR revealed admission to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hypertension and muscle weakness. Review of the [DATE] MDS assessment revealed she required extensive two person physical assist for bed mobility, toileting use, and personal hygiene and had an incomplete BIMS. Review of Resident #9's Tasks, accessed on [DATE], revealed a lack of a turning and positioning task. Review of Resident #9's MDS, dated [DATE], section E0800 Rejection of Care Presence and Frequency, revealed no rejection of cares. On [DATE] at 8:30 AM, Resident #9 was observed in her room. Resident #9 was lying in her bed on her back with a pillow on her left side and no call light was observed to be within her reach or visible to her. Review of Resident #9's Care Plan revealed the following: . Focus: I have MASD (moisture associated skin damage) to coccyx/sacrum r/t incontinence .Interventions/Tasks - Keep skin clean and dry .Focus: [Resident Name] is at risk for falls r/t weakness, confusion from dementia, decreased mobility .Interventions/Tasks - Be sure [Resident Name] call light is within reach she is not always able to use call light so please check often to see if she has any needs .Focus: [Resident Name] has impaired Mobility r/t weakness and decreased cognition .Interventions/Task - Bed Mobility: requires staff assist x 1-2 for all bed mobility .Focus: I am Always incontinent of bowel and bladder .Interventions/Task - BREIF USE: I use disposable briefs. Incontinence care: Check/change me every 2-3 hours and as needed . On [DATE] at 11:50 AM, Resident #9 was observed in her room. Resident #9 was in the exact same position during the observation of her at 8:30 AM. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) X was ask if surveyor could observe Resident #9's skin on her backside and LPN X responded, Yes, I will go in with you now. LPN X entered Resident #9's room with surveyor at that time. LPN X was looking for the bed remote to lay Resident #9 flat so she could move her in a position to view Resident #9's backside. LPN X could not find the call light of the remote and then found the call light at the foot of the bed and on the floor out of Resident #9's reach. During this same observation of Resident #9's skin on her backside, LPN X had pulled the sheets back and it was noted that Resident #9's pants were pulled down below her buttocks and near her knees. LPN X was asked when the last time she or anyone else had been in the room to check on Resident #9 and responded, I am not sure if and when the Certified Nurse Aides had been in to see her yet, but I gave her medication this morning. LPN X confirmed that Resident #9 was in the same position she seen her when she did morning medication pass. LPN X had exposed the front and back skin under the brief of Resident #9, and it was noted to have a strong foul smell, be discolored, and very full of urine. Resident #9's skin on her buttocks revealed signs of being left sitting in her urine for a very long-time post voiding and her skin was wrinkled, dented, mild redness and areas where it was white from being wet for an extended period of time. LPN X was asked if she could see Resident #9's current skin condition and confirmed that Resident #9 was left incontinent for an extended period. On [DATE] at 12:30 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA N, regarding Resident #9 and her ADL care. CNA N was asked if Resident #9 had a turning and repositioning task and responded, No. CNA confirmed that Resident #9 should have a turning and repositioning task as she can not complete the task on her own and to ensure she is turned and repositioned every two hours. CNA N was asked if there was any reason why Resident #9 was not assisted into her wheelchair this morning and brought to the dining room for breakfast. CNA N responded, No. That is all on me and my partner. On [DATE] at 1:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON confirmed that Resident #9 should have a turning and repositioning task and that it is unacceptable for resident to be left in a brief soaked for an extended period of time. On [DATE] at 3:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). The NHA agreed that dependent residents with mobility problems such as turning and repositioning and incontinence care should have a triggered task to ensure residents are being checked and changed and repositioned. The NHA voiced her displeasure that Resident #9 was left in urine for an extended period of time and the condition of her skin. Review of the policy, Activities of Daily Living, revised [DATE], revealed, The facility will, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and consistent with the resident's needs and choices, ensure a resident's abilities in ADLS do not deteriorate unless deterioration is unavoidable. Care and services will be provided for the following activities of daily living: 1. Bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care .3. A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene .5. The facility will maintain individual objectives of the care plan and periodic review and evaluation . This citation pertains to Intakes #MI00134132,#MI00133855, #MI00132414, and #MI00132407, Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies to meet resident care needs for all 51 residents. This deficient practice resulted in delayed or omitted showers, infrequent incontinence check and changes, when staff did not respond timely to their needs. This deficiency has the potential to affect all 51 vulnerable facility residents. Findings include: Upon entrance into the facility on [DATE] at 2:34 p.m., floor staff present working the A and B halls included the following: two Licensed Practical Nurses, one for A Hall and one for B hall. Two Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) on A Hall and two CNAs (with one leaving at 3:00 p.m.) on B Hall, and a Hospitality aide. CNA AA said they were sharing the CNA from the other hall, because there was only going to be three aides on the floor after 3:00 p.m. Staff were observed rapidly attempting to complete cares. Review of the 24 Hour Staffing Sheet for [DATE], revealed two CNAs on both the A and B Halls for the day shift, and one Hospitality Aide (S), two CNAs on the night shift. No CNA was documented as scheduled or working on the 24 Hour Staffing Sheet. Hospitality Aide S also worked full-time as maintenance staff in the building, was not a certified nurse aide, and was not scheduled to start a CNA class until March of 2023. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:51 p.m., when asked about staffing levels, Staff H stated, It has been short-staffing, with afternoons and nights being the worst . Staffing has been bad for months . During a repeat interview on [DATE] at 8:20 a.m., Staff H said that both Staff B and Staff S (maintenance staff) had been working the floor as CNAs. Staff H said Staff B and Staff S .are both working the floor helping the CNAs reposition (residents) and doing CNA duties when they are working the floor. They are not only passing waters and answering call lights. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:00 p.m., when asked about staffing, Staff CC stated, The schedule has been a little tough. I have managed to finagle and get people to cover. Staff CC had worked day shift on [DATE] and returned following this Surveyor's entrance into the building. During a telephone interview with Complainant U, on [DATE] at 5:29 p.m., Complainant U confirmed the facility had been short-staffed, especially on the weekends. Complainant U stated, There are times when Maintenance Director B and Maintenance Staff S have been on the floor working as hospitality aides, but they are not certified (aides). During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 1:47 p.m., former Staff N said they had quit working at the facility because they did not have enough staff on the floor. Staff N said the facility was not staffed like it should have been, and they were working all day long and then working all night long. Staff N stated, They are not taking care of these residents like they need to be taken care of. I have been here for [many] years, and I have never seen it (staffing) so bad as it is now. I could not handle it. I would walk through the hallways, and people would be left in bed, and people not changed. I knew they (staff) were burned out, but the residents only have us. I couldn't take it anymore . Staff N confirmed Maintenance Director B and Maintenance Staff S were working as hospitality aides. Staff N stated, .They are not supposed to be hands on . Staff N said four aides on day shift was not enough. Staff N stated, I feel terrible for the residents living there. We got cited for the showers (not getting done) . and truthfully, they sometimes still don't get done . During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 2:25 p.m., Staff P reported Maintenance Director B was not certified, and not enrolled in a CNA class as of the weekend beginning [DATE]. Maintenance Staff S was working as a Hospitality Aide. Both Maintenance Staff members were used to fill shifts for CNAs in the facility. Staff P stated, [Staff B and Staff S] have huge hearts and they are not going to sit there and do nothing when residents need assistance . Staff B could not work the floor (at that time) because he was not a CNA, and he was not enrolled in a CNA class . They are working at night while having to do their job in the day. That presents a safety risk. Staff S is the only one that can drive the bus . Review of the 24 Hour Staffing Sheets for [DATE] through [DATE] (weekend) revealed the following shifts were documented as: [DATE]: Staff S worked with name on Side B CNA designation. [DATE]: Staff B worked with name under Side B CNA (10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.) [DATE]: Staff S worked with name under Side B CNA (10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.) [DATE]: Staff B worked with name under Side B CNA beginning at 6:00 p.m. (end time not noted). Staff S worked with name under Side B CNA (10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.). During an interview on [DATE] at 5:00 p.m., Staff B confirmed there was a night shift that both he and Staff S worked the night shift together in the facility. Staff B said his CNA certification expired in 2015. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:33 p.m., Resident #2, stated, They don't have enough people on the floor. They are running this place with two or three people at night . I don't like maintenance men (Staff B and Staff S) coming into the room (to help me) . I would rather sit in my own urine and feces than have them come in . During an interview on [DATE] at 3:34 p.m., when asked about staffing, Staff V stated, To be honest, the staffing sucks. Everyone is basically getting mandated or doing 12-16 hours a day . We are having to work with less people. Even on afternoons we would be working with two nurses and three aides. Sometimes that is not enough - especially when you have the constant wanderers trying to exit seek, or the one-on-one (supervision residents) climbing out of their chairs. That (short staffing) is why we have so many falls because we don't have eyes to keep an eye everywhere . During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 11:11 p.m., Staff X was asked about staffing. Staff X stated, I came in to do a 16 (hour shift) one day because they had no staff and I witnessed dinner, and I was appalled. They are putting trays in front of people, and they are not helping them eat . Observation of the staff on the floor on [DATE] at 8:15 a.m., found LPN J, manning the A Hall medication cart. During an interview at this same time, LPN J said she had come from a sister facility, approximately two hours away, and had never previously worked in the facility, nor was she familiar with any of the facility residents. The B Hall medication cart was manned by the Director of Nursing (DON). Review of the [DATE] 24 Hour Staffing Sheet, revealed Charge Nurse A was the LPN from the sister facility, unfamiliar with facility residents, Charge Nurse B was blank (with no staff noted), Charge Nurse 7p-7a was blank (with no staff noted). On [DATE] at 9:50 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN)/Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator L was observed on the B Hall medication cart, having replaced the DON. On [DATE] at 9:50 a.m., review of the B Hall medication cart Controlled Substance Shift Inventory sheet revealed the DON had not signed for the change of shift, controlled substance count at 0700 (7:00 a.m.), nor had the DON or RN L signed for the controlled substance count and documentation when RN L replaced the DON on the B Hall medication cart that morning. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:30 a.m., the DON was asked to review the Controlled Substance Shift Inventory sheet for the B Hall medication cart. The DON confirmed neither RN L or the DON had signed the form to document the narcotics had been counted by both the outgoing and oncoming nurses. The DON stated, That is what happens when you are unfamiliar with things and said that was the second time she had taken over a medication cart in the facility since beginning employment approximately two weeks previous. The DON confirmed she and RN L were passing medications on the B Hall because staffing was short and there was no nurse available to take the shift. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:10 p.m., Resident #1 confirmed he was not getting showers as scheduled, not even once a week. He said he did refuse one time, because there was no hot water, and he did not want a shower in cold water. Resident #1 stated, The staff try to do the best they can, but there are just not enough of them to take care of all of the residents. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:10 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) agreed Hospitality Aides should not be providing direct care to the residents and acknowledged that staffing had been a challenge. The NHA said no policy was available for the Hospitality Aides, but they would continue to look for one. No policy was provided prior to the end of the survey on [DATE]. Review of the Facility Assessment, updated [DATE], revealed the following, in part: .Certified Nurse Aides - With our growing census we have increased nursing assistant staffing to a minimum of 5 nursing assistants on day shift, 4 on afternoon, and three on night shift. At times, adjustments must be made based on acuity or behavioral needs of the residents (for a decreased need or acuity) .
Nov 2022 9 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Deficient Practice Statement (DPS) has two parts: A and B. A This deficiency is related to Intake #MI00130574. Based on ob...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Deficient Practice Statement (DPS) has two parts: A and B. A This deficiency is related to Intake #MI00130574. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent an elopement from the facility resulting in Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) for one Resident (R54), of one resident reviewed for elopement. This deficient practice resulted in Immediate Jeopardy (IJ), with the likelihood of serious harm, injury, or death when R54's location was identified and reported being on a State Highway by an unidentified passing motorist. Findings include: During interviews conducted on 10/25/22 with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N, CNA P, CNA Q, Maintenance Director (Staff) B, and CNA P at 11:17 a.m., 11:26 a.m., 12:08 p.m., 12:09 p.m., and 12:26 p.m. respectively, all confirmed R54 had eloped, unwitnessed and unsupervised from the facility. Staff could not identify the date and/or time of the elopement, the staff who returned the resident, nor the motorist who reported the resident near the State Highway. CNA P stated, [R54] made it to the road (State Highway) . traffic was actually stopped for her . It was summer, right after we got the brand new (exit) doors . It was a mess. We had to call [Staff B] in town, and told him we believed the doors were not working (alarming) .The two girls (staff) that brought [R54] back said they found [R54] in the road with traffic stopped to prevent hitting her . Staff Q confirmed she was working the day R54 eloped from the facility. Staff Q stated, [R54] was found in the road with traffic stopped. Staff B stated, [R54] got out (eloped) door 5, where smokers generally go out. Staff B said there was a mechanism in the door that failed, resulting in no alarm sounding. Staff B said nobody (no staff) knew R54 was gone from the building and confirmed he had also heard that traffic was stopped on the State Highway to prevent hitting [R54] in the road. Review of R54's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/27/22, revealed R54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: anxiety disorder, weakness, atrial fibrillation, arthritis, and osteoporosis. R54 scored 8 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. Wandering - Presence and Frequency was documented as 1. Behavior of this type occurred 1 to 3 days during the assessment period. R54 required limited one -person assistance with locomotion in and off the unit and used a walker or wheelchair for locomotion. During an interview on 10/25/22 at 2:10 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) were asked for a copy of the incident report for R54's elopement from the building to determine the exact date of R54's unsupervised exit. Witness statements from all parties involved and the staff list for people working on the date of the elopement were requested. The DON confirmed the elopement had not been reported to the State Agency and said there was no information the facility could provide, as no witness statements were obtained, no incident report was completed, and no date was documented in the medical record. This Surveyor requested any, and all documentation of R54's elopement. During an interview on 10/25/22 at 2:20 p.m., the NHA, DON, and Staff B entered the Survey team meeting room. The NHA stated, That (elopement) was not my understanding of what happened. [R54] was found on the facility property. The NHA confirmed the incident had not been reported nor investigated, and noted she was not in the building at the time of the elopement and did not speak directly to any staff. The DON confirmed there was no report to the State Agency, no incident report, no investigation, no witness statements, and no progress notes in the electronic medical record (EMR) to indicate that R54 had eloped from the building. During a telephone interview on 10/25/22 at 2:48 p.m., R54's Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) R was asked if notification of an elopement from the building had been reported to DPOA R. DPOA R stated, [R54] did get out once, but they did let us know about that . It was someone who lived nearby that brought her back. During an interview on 10/26/22 at 10:36 a.m., the NHA was asked for the date of the elopement. The NHA stated, I don't know, but I may be able to find out. When asked how she would be able to find the date of the elopement, the NHA stated, When it happened [the DON] and I talked (and perhaps texted) about it on the phone. During an interview on 10/26/22 at 11:00 a.m., the DON confirmed she had spoken with the NHA on the day of the elopement, identified as 7/19/22 per the DON. When asked about an Elopement care plan, the DON stated, [R54] should have had an elopement care plan. The DON reviewed the 6/22/22 (Admission) Wander Guard Evaluation Assessment and confirmed no care plan interventions related to wandering were added for R54. The DON also reviewed R54's Care Plans and found no care plan for wandering. The DON stated, [R54] doesn't have a care plan for wandering. When asked why no progress notes, incident report, investigation, or witness statements were completed, the DON said the former NHA, the current NHA, and the DON had talked about it and decided not to report the incident because she was found on facility property (Important to note that the facility also owns a building on the corner of the roads that R54 was found). The DON confirmed that staff did not see her leave the building, and no documentation of the event occurring. The DON expressed understanding of this Surveyor's concern with the elopement and the lack of documentation and investigation of the incident. The DON confirmed a family member (of the DON), Activity Aide (AA) S, had been one of the staff members to find R54. The DON said she did not want the family member contacted for an interview. During an interview on 10/26/22 at 11:03 a.m., Staff B confirmed the courtyard gates were to be closed during the summer. Staff B stated, The gates were to be closed in July (of 2022), but they were broken because staff pushed them outward the wrong way and broke the gates. They should have been closed when [R54] went out (eloped). During an interview on 10/26/22 at 1:29 p.m., the NHA said the elopement happened on 7/24/22 instead of the 19th. The NHA said she had reviewed her phone and the DON had provided the wrong date The NHA provided the Facility Staffing Sheet for 7/24/22 at this same time. Review of R54's complete EMR found no written documentation to show evidence that R54 eloped from the building on 7/24/22, prior to identification and facility notification of Immediate Jeopardy related to R54's unsupervised elopement from the facility. Facility administration repeatedly denied any documentation was available for review, related to R54's elopement until 10/27/22, and the Immediate Jeopardy Template had been received (on 10/26/22). Documents never provided by the facility included the incident report, progress notes, and the facility investigation identifying date of elopement, time of elopement, name of motorist reporting elopement, and names of staff who returned R54 to the facility. Typed Witness Statements were received on 10/27/22. During an interview on 10/27/22 at 9:10 a.m., the DON provided nine (9) typed Witness Statements signed by both the individual staff member and the DON, all dated 7/24/22. All statements said no door alarm was heard prior to R54's elopement from the building on 7/24/22. When asked why the DON had not provided the Witness Statements with this Surveyors' multiple requests for documentation regarding this elopement, the DON stated, I forgot that I had gotten the statements - I forgot all about it. During an observation on 10/27/22 at 10:15 a.m., the elopement path was walked by survey team members. Exit was through door five and through the gait to the alleyway. The gate was found closed with a latch and bungee cords. The gate was manually opened, and survey team members walked westward up the alleyway toward the State Highway until the sidewalk was reached. Looking south, the break in the fence between the dining room exit door and the sidewalk was observed, where staff had exited to find R54. Staff would have not been able to see the resident on the road from inside of the dining room, as the dining room was at a lower elevation than the sidewalk, and partially blocked by the apartment building. Review of Activity Aide (AA) T's Witness Statement, that was documented as obtained as soon as [R54] was back in the building (on 7/24/22) by [the DON] . revealed the following, in part: AA T was in the dining room working on a puzzle with a resident when AA S came into the dining room and said 'A gentleman just came to the door and asked if we had an escapee as there is a confused woman in a w/c (wheelchair) near the road' . AAs T and S exited using the dining room door and when they got to the sidewalk, they looked toward the apartment buildings (north) and noted [R54] to be sitting in her w/c on the edge of the road, right up to the sidewalk . and cars had pulled over to the side of the road . No Witness Statement was available from AA S. During the interview on 10/27/22 at approximately 9:15 a.m., the NHA and DON confirmed no root cause analysis was completed as part of a facility investigation to prevent further elopements. The DON said nursing staff performed a post-elopement assessment, but it was not documented in the medical record. The DON agreed any physical assessment completed should be documented in the EMR. No post-elopement physical assessment was found in the EMR. The NHA and DON confirmed door five was not latching properly and acknowledged there was a problem with the exit door alarm. The DON and NHA confirmed facility staff went out through door three, through the dining room, which was a different exit than door five used by R54. The NHA stated, She was a moderate elopement risk (score of 4), but one or two days before, she had started with more exit seeking. [R54] hadn't attempted to leave, had never attempted to exit seek prior to the [new medication] starting. The DON agreed that R54 had NO exit seeking before the start of the [new medication] on 7/22/22. Review of a Nursing: Wander Risk Evaluation, dated 6/29/2022, with a Lock Date of 7/19/22, revealed R54 was a High Risk for wandering, with a Score of 19. This 6/29/22 Wander Risk Evaluation completed seven days after the 6/22/22 Wander Risk Evaluation documented R54 Has attempted to leave OR has successfully eloped; OR demonstrates exit seeking behaviors, with Additional Risk Factors of Number of reported elopement attempts in the past 12 months of 15. Remarkably different from the admission Wander Assessment that documented R54 had zero elopement attempts in the past 12 months. Review of R54's Care Plans, found no Wandering/Elopement Risk care plans in effect until 7/19/22, although a high-risk score for wandering of 19 on 6/29/22, Lock Date of 7/19/22. No Wandering Care Plans were identified in the EMR by the DON on 11/26/22 at 11:00 a.m., when R54's EMR was reviewed in the presence of this Surveyor. During a follow up interview on 10/31/22 at 7:56 a.m., Maintenance Director B confirmed an electrical company had changed out the panic bar on door 5 on 7/20/22. Maintenance Director B stated, There was a screw inside the strike (plate) that came loose. I don't know when it came loose (between 7/20/22 and 7/24/22) . There was a spring on the screw and the screw or latch failed . The gate (blocking exit from the courtyard) should have been closed but the gate was broken . Review of the Elopements and Wandering Residents, policy, revised 6/2022, revealed the following, in part: .'Elopement' occurs when a resident leaves the premises or a safe area without authorization (i.e., an order for discharge or leave of absence) and/or any necessary supervision to do so .1. The facility is equipped with door locks/alarms to help avoid elopements. 2. Alarms are not a replacement for necessary supervision. Staff are to be vigilant in responding to alarms in a timely manner . Adequate supervision will be provided to help prevent accidents or elopements . If the resident is not located in the building or on the grounds, Administrator or designee will notify the police department and serve as the designated liaison between the facility and the police department. The administrator or designee should also notify the company's corporate office . Appropriate reporting requirements to the State survey agency shall be conducted. 6. Procedure Post-Elopement: a. A nurse will perform a physical assessment, document, and report findings to physician . c. A social service designee will re-assess the resident and make any referrals for counseling or psychological/psychiatric consults . g. Documentation in the medical record will include findings from nursing and social service assessments, physician/family notification, care plan discussions, and consultant notes as applicable. The IJ was identified during the Recertification Survey on 10/26/22 at 12:20 p.m. It began on 7/24/22 at 11:00 a.m., when R54 exited Door 5, unwitnessed and unsupervised. The Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 10/26/22 at 1:45 p.m. A verbal request was made of the Facility for a written immediacy abatement plan at this same time. The Facility Removal Plan, read, 1.) A headcount of all residents was conducted to ensure all residents are accounted for. 2.) All exterior doors have been tested to ensure proper working function of door alarms. 3.) Elopement policy and procedure was reviewed, and no changes were made. 4.) Education with all staff will be conducted today 10/26/22 by on elopement policy and procedure. This will be conducted in person and over the phone for staff who are not working today. Administrator and DON will be educated by Director of Clinical Operations, Administrator and DON will educate management team and Management team will educate their department's staff. 5.) Education with all staff will be conducted today 10/26/2022 to ensure courtyard gate remains closed at all times. This will be conducted in person and over the phone for staff who are not working today. 6.) Resident #54 was successfully discharged from the facility on 8/15/22 to her home. 7.) Resident #54's physician and family were updated. 8.) Resident #54's medical record was reviewed and no injury or change in baseline is noted. 9.) Complete investigation into Resident #54's elopement will be conducted. 10.) Reviewed current binder of elopement risk residents to ensure assessments, care plans, and pictures are up to date. 11.) Audits of the alarm functionality of all exterior doors will be conducted daily for 1 week and 3 times a week for 3 weeks. 12.) Quarterly Elopement drills will be conducted as scheduled. 13.) Resident Elopement assessments will continue to be conducted upon admission, quarterly, annually, upon significant change and as needed. Completion Date: 10/26/22 On 10/27/22 an onsite verification of immediacy removal revealed the above interventions had been implemented. This was confirmed through observations and interviews. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 10/26/22, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope and severity of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that had the potential to affect all residents with wandering behaviors due to the inability to verify staff education, all policy review/updates, system changes, and sustained compliance. B. Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure a safe resident environment as evidenced by hot water temperatures at resident room sink fixtures exceeding 120°F. This deficient practice has the potential to result in scalding injury to any of the 52 residents due to exposure of hot water. Findings include: On 10/24/22 between 3:30 PM and 4:30 PM the temperature of the water being supplied to faucets in resident room sinks was measured with a digital metal stem probe thermometer. Hot Water supplied from the faucets was measured to be 126°F in resident rooms on the B side hall and included rooms: 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, & 30. Not all resident rooms were available to be observed due to privacy concerns. Rooms on the A side hall included 1, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, with hot water temperatures ranging between 123°F and 126°F. On 10/24/22 at 4:35 PM, an interview was conducted with Maintenance Supervisor MS B , while in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The temperature of the hot water was measured by this surveyor using the metal probe thermometer, and MS B using the facility's infrared hand held thermometer. The water temperature was measured to be 124°F by the metal probe thermometer and 114°F using the infrared device. At 4:45 PM observations were made with MS B at the water heaters used to supply the hot water to each of the halls. Side A's water heater was observed with a thermometer mounted on the exit line and read a temperature of 124°F. The B side water heater was also equipped with a thermometer on the exit pipe and read a temperature of 127°F. MS B stated he had not looked at the water heater mounted thermometers, rather had only used the infrared device to measure the water temperature in the stream from the faucet.
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** This citation pertains to intakes MI00128334 and MI00129853. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility fai...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intakes MI00128334 and MI00129853. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate monitoring and assessment for change in condition for one Resident (#22) of five residents reviewed for quality of care. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for unidentified changes and worsening in condition, and delay in treatment. Findings include: Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), heart failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), and septicemia (systemic, life-threatening response to infection). A review of Resident #22's most recent, complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/3/2022, revealed Resident #22 scored 14 out of 15 (14/15) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating he was cognitively intact. A review of the vital signs section of Resident #22's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the following: Temperature: 10/6/2022 at 4:00 a.m. - 100.0 (degrees Fahrenheit) 10/23/2022 at 5:30 p.m. - 100.9 (degrees Fahrenheit) Blood Pressure: 06/2022 at 3:37 p.m. - 91/43 mmHg (manual reading) 10/14/2022 at 9:54 p.m. - 78/59 mmHg (manual reading) 10/15/2022 at 4:30 a.m. - 93/40 mmHg (manual reading) 10/25/2022 at 3:03 a.m. - 96/46 mmHg (manual reading) Oxygen Saturation: 9/23/2022 at 1:54 a.m. - 84% (room air) Further review of Resident #22's EMR, including daily skilled nursing assessments, progress notes and the medication and treatment administration records, revealed no nursing assessment or recheck of Resident #22's vital sign readings to correspond with the referenced vital sign readings. During an interview on 10/31/2022 at 3:13 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) reported systolic (top number) blood pressure readings of 90 or below and diastolic readings (bottom number) of 60 or below were triggered as abnormal readings by the EMR and warranted an assessment by nursing to include a physical assessment and acquirement of a new set of vital signs to confirm or dispute the original readings. In addition, the DON stated temperature readings above 99.0 degrees Fahrenheit and oxygen saturation readings below 90% also warranted a nursing assessment and recheck of vital signs. The DON reviewed Resident #22's EMR, including progress notes, daily skilled nursing assessments, point of care and the MARs (medication administration records) and TARs (treatment administration records) for September and October 2022. The DON confirmed the referenced vital sign readings were outside of Resident #22's normal readings. The DON also confirmed there were no nursing assessments or documented recheck of Resident #22's vital signs to correspond with the abnormal values. The DON stated an assessment is necessary when abnormal vital signs are obtained to determine if the Resident had an infection or other change in condition. A review of the facility policy titled Vital Signs, last reviewed/revised 06/2022, revealed the following, in part: Nurse Aides may be assigned responsibility for obtaining routine vital signs and reporting abnormal findings to the nurse. Licensed nurses are responsible for knowing the usual range of a resident's vital signs, analyzing and interpreting routine vital signs and notifying the physician of abnormal findings. 4. Acceptable ranges for adults: Temperature: 96.8 - 100.4 (degrees Fahrenheit) . Blood Pressure: average <120/<80 mmHg (less than 120/80 mmHg) . Oxygen saturation: >90% .
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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00130128. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure app...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00130128. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure appropriate and accurate assessment of pressure injuries for one Resident (#42) of seven residents reviewed for pressure injuries. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for unidentified development and worsening of wounds. Findings include: Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) (a progressive, neuromuscular disease). A review of Resident #42's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/24/2022, revealed the Resident required extensive, two-person assistance for bed mobility, personal hygiene and bathing. Resident #42 scored 15 out of 15 (15/15) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status, indicating the Resident was cognitively intact. An observation on 10/24/2022 at 4:01 p.m., revealed Resident #42 lying in bed with his head elevated approximately 45 degrees. Resident #42's bed was covered with an overlayed, air mattress. Resident #42 reported he had a pressure sore on his buttocks that worsened after admission to the facility. A review of a wound center consult note, retrieved from Resident #42's electronic medical record (EMR) and dated 9/15/2021 at 4:19 p.m., revealed the following, in part: Wound Assessment(s): Wound #1, ischial (sit bone) is an unstageable pressure injury . and has received a status of unhealed. Initial wound encounter measurements are 2.2 cm (centimeters) lengths x 2.1 cm width x 0.2 cm depths, with an area of 4.62 sq cm (square centimeters) . The wound margin is defined and unattached. The peri wound skin color is normal . does not exhibit signs or symptoms of infection . Active problem: Pressure ulcer of right buttock, unstageable. A review of the EMR revealed the following Skin Evaluations, for Resident #42 from admission on [DATE] through 1/26/2022: 10/03/2021 at 2:17 p.m.: Any existing ulcers? Yes . Site: coccyx . 2 cm diameter x 1 cm deep. It was noted no description of the wound bed or peri wound area was included in the assessment. 11/29/2021 at 6:41 p.m.: Any existing ulcers? No. resident has excoriated area on left gluteal maximus. 12/06/2021 at 5:29 p.m.: Any existing ulcers? Yes . Site: sacrum . dry area on coccyx, no drainage or redness noted. It was noted no measurements of the wound were documented. 12/30/2022 at 6:38 p.m.: Any existing ulcers? Yes . Site: coccyx . wound with open area . he still has wound to his coccyx. It was noted no description of the wound bed or peri wound area or measurements of the wound were documented. 1/10/2022 at 11:02 a.m.: Any existing ulcers? Yes . Site: coccyx . resident continues to have Stage II (2), 1.8 x 1.1 cm ulcer with no drainage, no slough noted, no odor or redness. A review of a wound center consult note, retrieved from Resident #42's EMR and dated 1/26/2022 at 2:57 p.m., revealed the following, in part: Wound #2 is a Stage 3 pressure injury . initial wound encounter measurements are 1.2 cm length x 0.7 cm width x 0.3 cm depth, with an area of 0.84 sq cm . The wound margin is epibole (dry, rolled wound edges). Wound bed has no slough (dead tissue) present . (patient) known to (wound center) from prior assessment in 9/2021 . wound seen at that time healed; now has new issue at the coccyx . Further review of Resident #42's EMR and all wound and skin evaluations provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) from January 2022 through the survey exit date on 11/01/2022, revealed no documented assessments of Resident #42's coccyx wound from the time of the wound center evaluation on 1/26/2022 until 4/13/2022. A review of the NSG: Skin Evaluation, dated 4/13/2022 at 12:42 p.m. and signed by the DON on 10/15/2022, revealed the following: Specify Other: stage III (3) to sacrum 2.2x2.1x0.2 wound bed is pink/red with granulation present, edges are rolled peri wound is pink dry/scaly follows wound care as ordered . Further review of the NSG: Skin Evaluation(s), provided by the DON revealed evaluations completed from 4/13/2022 through 7/20/2022 were all signed by the DON on 10/15/2022. It was noted Resident #42's coccyx wound increased in size from when the wound was last evaluated by the wound center on 1/26/2022 to documentation of the wound on 4/13/2022. An observation of Resident #42's wound care on 10/27/2022 at 10:54 a.m., provided by Registered Nurse (RN) V and RN W revealed a pressure injury, approximately 2 cm length x 1 cm wide located on the coccyx (tailbone). The wound edges were rolled under. There were two open areas distal to the wound bilaterally with red wound beds, each approximately 2 cm length x 2 cm width. RN W reported she was the Wound Care Nurse for the facility and worked one day per week to evaluate and measure resident's wounds. Resident #42 was lying on his right side with RN V standing on the left side of the Resident's bed to perform wound care. After RN V cleansed the area, RN W leaned over Resident #42 from the right side of the bed, pointed a camera phone at the wound and snapped a photo. RN W stated the application on the phone measured the wound. When asked if the application measured the depth of the wound, RN W stated to a point. RN V then completed wound care and covered Resident #42's wound. In an interview immediately following the observation, RN W reported she would review the photo of Resident #42's wound in order to provide a description and measurements of the wound. A review of the Skin & Wound Evaluation, created 10/27/2022 at 10:55 a.m., revealed the following, in part: Stage III (3), sacrum . Length 1.5 cm, Width 0.5 cm, Depth 0.2cm . Edges: Rolled edges, edge appears curled under, Surrounding tissue: erythema, redness of the skin . excoriated . fragile . It was noted the document was edited and signed by the DON on 10/31/2022. During an interview on 10/31/2022 at 3:13 p.m., the DON confirmed there were no documented wound assessments for Resident #42's coccyx wound from 1/26/2022 until 4/13/2022. The DON stated the NSG: Skin Evaluation(s), were used to document wounds until July 2022 when the facility changed to documenting wounds on the Skin & Wound Evaluation(s). The DON was queried regarding all of Resident #42 weekly NSG: Skin Evaluation(s), from 4/13/2022 through 7/20/2022 being completed and signed by her on 10/15/2022. The DON stated she was solely responsible for wound care during the referenced timeframe and all notes were written in a notebook and all entered into the EMR on 10/15/2022. When asked why the Skin & Wound Evaluation, dated 10/27/2022 at 10:55 a.m., was re-opened and signed by her on 10/31/2022, the DON stated the camera app used to measure wounds did not measure depth of wounds, therefore she evaluated Resident #42's wound for depth on 10/31/2022. The DON reported this as the usual process. When asked if her assessment should be documented on a separate evaluation to accurately reflect the date of her assessment, the DON stated she always opened the previous assessment documented by RN W and made changes as necessary to measurements and wound description. The DON confirmed the possibility of the wound changing in size and description from the time of RN W's assessment and her assessment. The DON confirmed the possibility of the documentation not accurately reflecting the Resident's condition. A review of the facility policy titled Pressure Injury Prevention and Management, last revised on 10/12/2022, revealed the following, in part: Licensed nurses will conduct a full body skin assessment on all residents upon admission/readmission, weekly and after any newly identified pressure injuries. Findings will be documented in the medical record. Assessments of pressure injuries will be performed by a licensed nurse and documented in the PCC Wound App along with pictures .Monitoring: The Director of Nursing, or designee, will review all relevant documentation regarding skin assessments, pressure injury risks, progression towards healing and complains at lease weekly, and document a summary of findings in the medical record.
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

This citation pertain to intake MI00130128 Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate lighting in 11 of 15 observed resident rooms, (#'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 20, 25, 26, 29,...

Read full inspector narrative →
This citation pertain to intake MI00130128 Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate lighting in 11 of 15 observed resident rooms, (#'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 20, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32) as evidenced by non-functional or failed wall night lights. This deficient practice has the potential to create an unsafe environment for 17 residents (#'s 2, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 40, 41, 46, 51, & 53) occupying these rooms. Findings include: On 10/25/22 between 7:30 AM and 9:00 AM, observations were made of resident rooms. The following rooms were identified as having recessed wall night light fixtures that appeared non-functional. (room #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 20, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32). At 9:00 AM an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) B who verified the switch was on for the night light fixtures in these rooms and the rooms identified had bulbs which were not functional. MS B stated audits were supposed to be conducted on a monthly basis, but was sure the audits had not been completed during the previous month.
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake #MI00130128. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to consist...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake #MI00130128. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently provide necessary assistance for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for five Residents (#7, #11, #29, #31, and #53) out of eight residents reviewed for ADL care. This deficient practice resulted in missed showers, long, jagged fingernails, overgrown toenails, and feelings of frustration and uncleanliness, with the potential for unmet care needs, lack of personal hygiene, and infection. Findings include: Resident #7 Review of Resident #7's face sheet revealed Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including cerebral palsy (a neurological disorder affecting muscle tone, balance, and movement), functional quadriplegia (inability to move limbs, requiring extensive assistance with ADL care), cerebral vascular accident (stroke), and macular degeneration (central field vision impairment). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/26/22, revealed Resident #7 required extensive two-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting, and total assistance for bathing. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment revealed a score of 13/15, which indicated Resident #7 had intact cognition. During an interview on 10/27/22 at 2:25 p.m., Resident #7 reported when there was only one aide working, he did not receive his shower, which happened frequently. Resident #7 stated he wanted showers twice a week, per his scheduled showers, and he did not consider bed baths an adequate replacement for missed showers. Resident #7 said he sometimes waited in bed all morning for his shower, and when the afternoon approached and he had still not received his shower, he would then ask to get up (out of bed). He added he did not refuse showers, but he would not wait until the afternoon to receive his shower, as he did not like lying in bed all day. Review of Resident #7's shower schedule, received on 10/27/22 from the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed Resident #7 was scheduled to receive showers twice per week, on Tuesdays and Fridays, on the day shift. Review of Resident #7's shower log, for the past 30 days, accessed 11/01/22, revealed Resident #7 received 4 showers, and was marked for 3 refusals. It was noted Resident #7 received a shower on 10/25/22 (Tuesday) but did not receive a shower on 10/29/22 (Friday), as scheduled, or after. Review of Resident #7's census report, accessed 11/01/22, revealed no hospitalizations or facility discharge during the 30 day look back period. During an interview on 10/31/22 at 4:45 p.m., Resident #7 stated with the DON present he was not offered a shower on Friday (10/27/22), per his wishes and schedule. Resident #7 requested he receive showers at least twice a week in the mornings, between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. The DON understood the concern and reported they would Care Plan Resident #7's showers in this time range on his scheduled shower days. Review of Resident #7's ADL Care Plan, accessed 11/01/22, revealed, .Bathing: [Resident #7] requires staff to assist with bathing. Date initiated: 10/19/21 . Resident #11 Review of Resident #11's face sheet revealed Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnoses of total knee replacement, muscle weakness, abnormal gait, and depression. Review of Resident #11's MDS assessment, dated 8/07/22, revealed Resident #11 required two person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and hygiene, and one-person assistance with bathing. Review of Resident #11's BIMS assessment revealed a score of 13/15, which indicated Resident #11 had intact cognition. During an interview on 10/27/22 at approximately 12:13 p.m., Resident #11 reported the first two weeks she was at the facility she did not receive a shower, and said recently she waited two weeks before she received another shower. Resident #11 stated, I felt cruddy. I felt dirty. Resident #11 reported bed baths helped somewhat but she preferred to receive showers twice a week, per her shower schedule. Resident #11 reported she had not received a shower since last Saturday (10/22/22), and was supposed to receive a shower on Tuesday (10/25/22). Resident #11 said no one had offered to make up her showers when they were missed, including this past week. Resident #11 added she had to use animal clippers to clip her toenails, as she had asked staff to clip them, and they would not since she was diabetic, but had not addressed her request for assistance. Resident #11 reported she could clip the toenails on her left foot, but could not reach the toenails on her right foot, and asked Surveyor to observe her right toenails. She reported she used to see a podiatrist but there had not been one at the facility. During an observation on 10/27/22 at approximately 1:25 p.m., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) J removed Resident #11's right sock, and her third toenail were observed overlapping the toepad by at least ¼, and the third toenail curled to the left. CNA J agreed it appeared long. Resident #11's nurse arrived at 1:35 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) K, who also observed and agreed Resident #11's third toenail appeared long, and needed to be trimmed. LPN K reported facility residents were not receiving routine footcare by a podiatrist as in the past, only scheduled visits. LPN K stated, We try to keep an eye on them, the diabetics [slang term for residents who have diabetes and would require routine foot inspection]. LPN K reported she would speak to the DON and see if Resident #11 had a podiatry appointment, and soon after indicated Resident #11 had an appointment on November 10th (2022). Review of Resident #11's shower schedule revealed Resident #11 was scheduled for showers on Tuesdays and Saturdays during the day shift. Review of Resident #11's shower log, for the past 30 days, accessed 11/01/22, revealed Resident #11 was marked as not receiving a shower, and was marked for one refusal. Review of Resident #11's census report, accessed 11/01/22, revealed no hospitalizations or facility discharge during the 30 day look back period. Review of Resident #11's ADL Care Plan, accessed 11/01/22, revealed, .Bathing: Max [maximum] Assist. Date initiated: 08/01/22 . The Care Plan did not mention footcare or toenail trimming, including the Diabetic section of the Care Plan. During an interview on 10/31/22 at 3:52 p.m., Resident #11 reported she did not receive a shower on Saturday (10/29/22), her scheduled shower day. She reported it bothered her as she wanted a shower. She stated, One day a week would work, and I didn't get even one last week, and said it was over a week, at least nine days since she had received a shower. Resident #11 stated she had asked staff about getting her toenails clipped prior to last week [during the annual survey], and said, It only happened as you [Surveyor] brought it up, that's why. I had tried [to see a podiatrist] and it hadn't happened . During an interview on 10/31/22 at 4:13 p.m., the DON was asked to review Resident #11's shower log with Surveyor. The DON reported they recalled Resident #11 receiving at least one shower, and perhaps the aides were not documenting when showers were provided. The DON was asked if there were any environmental concerns that would have rendered the facility unable to provide resident showers. The DON reported the water heater mixing valve had rendered no hot water for one day recently, but stated it was not even a full day, and denied any other environmental concerns which would have affected showers not being provided. The DON reported they understood the concerns, and had not been aware Resident #11 had wanted a podiatry visit until the concern was brought to their attention last week by LPN K. The DON confirmed the podiatry appointment had been scheduled for Resident #11 on November 10th (2022) at that time. Resident #31 Review of Resident #31's face sheet revealed Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hip fracture, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, depression, and dementia. Review of Resident #31's MDS assessment, dated 09/11/22, revealed Resident #31 required one-person assistance for bed mobility, hygiene, and bathing, and two-person assistance for transfers. Review of Resident #31's BIMS assessment revealed a score of 9/15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. During an observation on 10/27/22 at 12:16 p.m., Resident #31's fingernails appeared lengthy and discolored, with some of her nails curling over the pads of her fingers. They appeared ¼ to ½ in length, with the thumb nails each ½ in length. When asked if she liked her fingernails at this long length, Resident #31 reported they should be trimmed. When asked about bathing, Resident #31 reported she liked showers more than baths. During an interview on 10/31/22 at 3:36 p.m., Activity Aide, CNA L, was asked to observe Resident #31's fingernails. CNA L agreed they appeared long and needed to be trimmed, and reported they would return later to trim Resident #31's nails. When asked if this was a concern, CNA L reported Resident #31 could scratch herself, and nail trimming was typically done on shower days. Resident #31 was pleasant and agreeable during both observations while in bed in their room. Review of Resident #31's shower schedule, received from the DON on 10/27/22, revealed her showers were scheduled Mondays and Fridays during the day shift. Review of Resident #31's shower log, for the past 30 days, accessed 11/01/22, revealed 3 showers, and 1 refusal. Review of Resident #31's census report, accessed 11/01/22, revealed no hospitalizations or facility discharges during the 30 day look back period. Review of Resident #31's Care Plan, accessed 11/01/22, revealed, I am at risk for skin alterations .Avoid scratching .keep fingernails short .Date initiated: 07/25/22. Bathing: Dependent: Date initiated: 04/15/22 . During an interview on 10/31/22 at 4:33 p.m., Resident #31's shower log was reviewed with the DON, and the DON reported they understood the concern Resident #31 was not receiving showers twice a week. During an observation on 10/31/22 at 4:51 p.m., the DON observed Resident #31's nails, and stated, Yes, her nails are long, and agreed they understood the concern. Resident #53 Review of Resident #53's face sheet revealed Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, dementia, congestive heart failure, and depression. Resident #53's MDS assessment, dated 10/12/22, revealed Resident #53 required one-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, hygiene, and bathing. The BIMS assessment revealed a score of 5/15, which indicated Resident #53 had severe cognitive impairment. During an observation on 10/27/22 at 1:40 p.m., Resident #53 was seated in his wheelchair in his room. His fingernails appeared long and jagged, appearing they needed to be trimmed. Resident #53 was asked about the appearance of his nails, and responded, Yeah, they need to be clipped. Resident #53 did not recall if he received baths or showers, or when he received them. During an observation on 10/31/22 at 3:26 p.m., Resident #53 was seated in his wheelchair, and his fingernails remained long and jagged. They appeared the similar in appearance to the 10/27/22 observation, and had not been trimmed. During an interview on 10/31/22 at 3:36 p.m., Activity Aide, CNA L was asked to observe Resident #53's fingernails. CNA L agreed Resident #53's nails were long and needed to be trimmed. When asked what could happen with long nails, CNA L reported Resident #53 could scratch himself or other residents. CNA L reported nail trimming was typically done on shower days. CNA L confirmed Resident #53 was pleasant and agreeable, and not resistant to cares. Review of Resident #53's shower schedule, received from the DON on 10/27/22, revealed his showers were scheduled on Tuesdays and Fridays during the afternoon shift. Review of Resident #53's shower log for the past 30 days, accessed 11/01/22, revealed no showers, and no refusals. Review of Resident #53's census report, accessed 11/01/22, revealed Resident #53 was out of the facility (at the hospital) from 10/01/22 until 10/07/22, which was later confirmed by the DON. Review of Resident #53's Care Plan, accessed 11/01/22, revealed, Bathing: Assist. Date initiated: 10/10/22 .Skin Inspection: I require SKIN inspection (FREQ [frequent]). Observe for redness, open areas, scratches, cuts, bruises .Personal hygiene: Assist . During an interview with the DON on 10/31/22 at 4:23 p.m., the DON reviewed Resident #53's shower log, and was asked about no showers being marked for Resident #53 during the 30 day look back period. The DON reported the shower aides may have not been documenting showers, although they could not confirm this. When asked about Resident #53's nails needing to be trimmed, the DON reported they should be trimmed during/on shower days. The DON reported they understood the concern. During an observation on 10/31/22 at 4:42 p.m., the DON observed Resident #53's nails and reported, Yes, they [his fingernails] are still long. Review of Resident #7's, #11's, #31's, and #53's progress notes, from 9/01/22 through 11/01/22, revealed no mention of refused showers, or other reason showers would have been missed. Resident #29 Review of Resident #29's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed admission to the facility on 3/3/322 with diagnoses including hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Review of the 9/9/22 MDS assessment revealed he required extensive one person assist for personal hygiene and received an 8/15 on the BIMS score indicating he was mildly cognitively impaired. On 10/25/22 at 9:08 a.m., Resident #29 was observed sitting in his wheelchair beside his bed. Resident #29 was noted to have long fingernails, with food and dirt stuck underneath. After a brief discussion with Resident #29, this surveyor asked Registered Nurse (RN) M about the condition of Resident #29's nails. RN M stated, I noticed how long they were the other day, sometimes he (Resident #29) refuses nail care, but we will have to try again. On 10/26/22 at 9:15 a.m., Resident #29 was again observed in his room sitting in his wheelchair watching television. Resident #29's nails were the same size length and showed the same about of food and dirt underneath the nails as yesterdays observation. On 10/27/22 at 8:45 a.m., Resident #29 was observed sitting in his wheelchair in his room watching television. Resident #29's nails again were the same size in length and remained dirty with food and dirt underneath the nail. This surveyor asked Resident #29 if he would like to have his nails trimmed and Resident #29 agreed. Review of Resident #29's Care Plan revealed the following: .Focus: I am at risk for skin alternations r/t (related to) decreased mobility, history of redness under abdominal folds, and occasional incontinence .Interventions/Tasks: Avoid scratching and keep hands and body parts excessive moisture. Keep fingernails short. Date Initiated: 7/25/22 . Review of Resident #29's Tasks showed no documentation that fingernail care was offered by staff members. Review of the policy, Activities of Daily Living, revised June, 2022, revealed, The facility will, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and consistent with the resident's needs and choices, ensure a resident's abilities in ADLS do not deteriorate unless deterioration is unavoidable. Care and services will be provided for the following activities of daily living: 1. Bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care .3. A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene .5. The facility will maintain individual objectives of the care plan and periodic review and evaluation .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored under appropriate temperature controls in one medication room refrigerator, out ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored under appropriate temperature controls in one medication room refrigerator, out of one medication refrigerator reviewed during the medication storage task. This deficient practice resulted in medications being stored a higher temperature than directed per manufacturer's instructions and the facility medication storage policy, and the potential for reduced efficacy of drugs and biologicals. Findings include: During an observation with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) U, on 10/31/22 at 8:45 a.m., the medication storage room behind the nurses' station on Hall B, found the refrigerator thermometer temperature at 50 degrees Fahrenheit (F). LPN U stated, It was 47 or 48 degrees, so I turned it up (to cool more), but I must have turned it the wrong way, so the temperature went up instead. Review of the Temperature Log for Refrigerator - Days 16-31, revealed LPN U had recorded a refrigerator temperature of 45 degrees on 10/31/22 at 7:00 a.m. No documentation was present on the form showing the refrigerator had been out of range, in the ACTION: Write any out-of-range temps (above 46 degrees or below 36 degrees here: column. Instructions on the top of the form revealed the following, in part: Take action if temp is out of range - too warm (above 46 F) or too cold (below 36 F). 1. Label exposed vaccine do not use, and store it under proper conditions as quickly as possible. Do not discard vaccines unless directed to by your state/local health department and/or the manufacturer(s). 2. Record the out-of-range temps and the room temp in the Action area on the bottom of the log. 3. Notify your vaccine coordinator or call the immunization program at your state or local health department for guidance. 4. Document the action taken on the attached Vaccine Storage Troubleshooting Record. During an observation of the medication room on 10/31/22 at 9:03 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) V and LPN U were present. An inventory, of all medications in the medication refrigerator when the refrigerator was observed at 50 degrees Fahrenheit, was requested. During an observation and interview on 10/31/22 at 9:33 a.m., LPN U entered and exited the medication room. LPN U stated, I may have turned it (medication refrigerator) up more than I realized. When asked what temperature the medication refrigerator currently was, LPN U stated, It is still about 49 degrees. I don't know if it (medication refrigerator) is working right or not. During an observation and interview on 10/31/22 at 9:47 a.m., Maintenance Director (Staff) B arrived to check the medication room refrigerator temperature. Staff B said the refrigerator was new and was recently placed in the medication storage room. Staff B asked LPN U if she had turned the temperature down on the refrigerator. LPN U stated, I don't know, I may have turned it up. When asked if all staff were to adjust the refrigerator temperature, Staff B said facility staff were to notify him if the refrigerator temperature was out of range. When asked if LPN U had notified him that she had changed the temperature on the refrigerator, Staff B stated, No she did not. Staff B said if the temperature was high or low then the nurse could change it if she notified him. LPN U the said the refrigerator was not high or low. When asked why the temperature had been changed on the fridge, if the temperature was not out of range, LPN U stated, I think 47 or 48 degrees is kind of high so I thought I would turn it down a little lower. When asked if 47 and/or 48 degrees are out of range, LPN U stated, I supposed that is. LPN U confirmed she had not notified Staff B of the out-of-range refrigerator temperature prior to, or following adjusting the refrigerator temperature, resulting in an observed temperature of 50 degrees F. Review of an inventory list compiled by the facility on 10/31/22 of medications, biologicals, and vaccines present in the medication room refrigerator when it was observed at 50 degrees Fahrenheit (F), included the following: The following items will need to be replaced at the facility from a faulty fridge temp (temperature). 3 [long-acting insulin] pens 3 [ Name Brand fast-acting insulin] pens 2 [Name Brand fast-acting insulin] pens 2 [Name Brand insulin] vials 1 [Name Brand long-acting insulin] pen 3 boxes of flu (influenza) vaccine 1 bottle of [Name Brand ophthalmic] sol (solution) 0.02% 1 bottle of [Name Brand glaucoma medication] 0.2% 1 bottle of [Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative for tuberculosis testing] 1 bottle of [brimonidine/timolol] eye drops 1[Name Bran long-acting basal insulin] pen 1 bottle of prednisolone acetate. Review of one [Name Brand] fast-acting insulin pen, Instructions for Use, included the following guidance: .Store unused [Name Brand] insulin pens and vials in the refrigerator at 36 degrees F to 46 degrees F until expiration. Review of the Medication Storage policy, revised 6/2022, revealed the following, in part: It is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on our premises will be stored in the pharmacy and/or medication rooms according to the manufacturer's recommendations and sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, light, ventilation, moisture control, segregation, and security . 1. General Guidelines: a. All drugs and biologicals will be stored in locked compartments (i.e., medication carts, cabinets, drawers, refrigerators, medication rooms) under proper temperature controls . 6. Refrigerated Products: a. All medications requiring refrigeration are stored in refrigerators located in the pharmacy and at each medication room. b. Temperatures are maintained within 36-46 degrees F (Fahrenheit). Charts are kept on each refrigerator and temperature levels are recorded daily by the charge nurse or other designee. c. In the event that a refrigerator is malfunctioning, the person discovering the malfunction must promptly report such finding to Maintenance Department for emergency repair .
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

This citation will have two statement of deficieny: A and B. A. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure transmission based precaution (TBP) sourced laudry was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
This citation will have two statement of deficieny: A and B. A. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure transmission based precaution (TBP) sourced laudry was handled in a manner which reduced the risk of transmission of disease. This deficient practice has the potential to result in TBP being transmitted to any and all 52 residents in the facility. Findings include: On 10/25/22 at approximately 9:25 AM, observations of the laundry facilities were made with Environmental Services director ES E and Laundry Aide (LA) D. An interview with both ES E and LA D was conducted at this time trying to ascertain the process for identifying and handling of transmission based precaution (TBP), or isolation sourced laundry. During the interview, the TBP was more defined as those linens being sourced from a Clostridium Difficile (C.diff), Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), or Covid positive resident room. ES E stated she thought red bags were used to identify these sourced linens to laundry staff, but LA D stated the facility had always used yellow bags for this identification. LA D stated no colored bags identifying TBP sourced laundry had been used I over a year. She further stated she was never sure if any laundry was coming from a contaminated resident room. LA D was asked about special cycles which were to be used during the washing of TBP sourced laundry, and LA D described the process of selecting cycle 4 for these linens. When asked if this had been used in the absence of seeing any yellow or red bags, LA D stated No. When asked about the difference between what Cycle 4 and the other cycles, LA D stated she thought there was more bleach. When asked about regular testing of the cycle to ensure adequate bleach levels were achieved, LA D stated they had not conducted any tests in a few years. LA D presented a note book with paper forms which documented the concentration of the bleach during Cycle 4. The last entry for this test was June of 2018. LA D stated We used to test that, but we stopped. We don't have any strips any more, and we haven't had them in a long time. On 10/25/22 at approximately 10:45 AM, the facility was requested to provide the policy and procedure for the handling of TBP sourced laundry. On 10/26/22 at approximately 8:50 AM, two policies were presented related to the handling of TBP sourced laundry. Both policies were generic in nature and printed from Internet based policy development websites. Neither policy presented was specific to this facility's handling of TBP linens and did not identify the specific collection, transport and cleaning, including what sanitizing process and testing method would be used to ensure these linens were properly disinfected prior to the return to resident areas. The policies provided included: 1. Laundry: {facility name]}, date implemented 06/2021; Date Reviewed/Revised: 6/2022 with a footnote at the bottom of the page stating: © copyright 2022 The Compliance Store, LLC. All rights reserved. 2. contaminated Laundry. No date or other identifying information. This was clearly an Internet website, as the website hyperlinks were highlighted on the two pages provided. B. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive Water Management Plan (WMP) to address the control and spread of Legionella bacteria in the facility water system, in accordance with QSO 17-30 Hospitals/CAHs/NH, Revised 7-6-2018. The facility failed to Develop and implement a water management program that considers the ASHRAE 188 (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) tool kit. The failure to develop a comprehensive Water Management Plan has the potential for the proliferation and transmission of Legionella in the circulating water of the building and the spread of Legionella infections in all 52 residents. Findings include: On 10/25/22 at approximately 1:00 PM, an interview with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) B was conducted for purposes of learning the facility's process to control Legionella and other water borne pathogens in the water system and review the Water Management Plan (WMP) MS B stated the facility had not developed any plan for the identification of risks, control or mitigation of such. MS B presented test results from samples collected in the building and analyzed for Legionella bacteria. When asked what the limits of acceptable test results would be, MS B stated I don't know. MS B stated the facility had contracted with a company to direct water management activities, but was not aware of any WMP being developed for the facility. The following components were absent from the facility: A. Designation of a Water Management Team (WMT), identifying names and their roles. B. An assessment of the facility's water system to identify risk locations such as areas of stagnation or low flow, disinfection level and/or temperature control. C. Identification of control points where effective monitoring and mitigation measures can used. D. Identification of critical limits related to the risk areas identified and which can be controlled. E. Implementation of regular scheduled monitoring program collecting data on limits set. F. An evaluation process to determine how the WMP is functioning. G. An annual review of the plan and collected information to ensure the plan was effective.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0923 (Tag F0923)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper exhaust ventilation was provided to 13 of 42 resident r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper exhaust ventilation was provided to 13 of 42 resident room's bathrooms. This deficient practice has the potential to result in decreased air flow and increased foul and unpleasant odors in resident areas affecting any or all of the 52 residents in the facility. Findings include: On 10/24/22 at 3:45 PM foul and pungent odors were noted in the corridor of the B side hall. Exhaust ventilation in resident bathrooms was investigated to determine if the exhaust system was functional. Using a paper towel, held against the ceiling or wall mounted grate covering the duct in the bathrooms, it was determined the exhaust was not functional, as the paper towel was not held in place, as it should have been in the presence of a negative pressure and air flow from ventilation fans. On 10/25/22 at approximately 8:50 AM, the absence of exhaust ventilation was confirmed using the same technique as above in resident room bathrooms on the B side hall. On 10/25/22 at approximately 9:30 AM an interview was conducted with Maintenance Supervisor B was conducted in the presence of room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom. The absence of any air flow was confirmed by MS B. At approximately 10:00 AM, MS B stated the motor on the roof had burned out which resulted in the failure of the exhaust system. On 10/26/22 at approximately 4:30 PM MS B reported that the motor for the ventilation had been replaced and exhaust had been restored. On 10/26/22 at approximately 8:45 AM, the exhaust ducts in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and 34 was tested for functioning. There was not any air flow noted and a paper towel placed against the grate of the duct was not able to be held. At approximately 9:20 AM an interview with MS B was conducted regarding the exhaust. MS B stated that part of the exhaust motor had not been installed correctly the previous day. MS B verified that individual room bathrooms had not been checked to confirm the exhaust was functional in the resident bathrooms after installation of the new motor.
CONCERN (F)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the meals were served according to the posted menu, and failed to document the request for alternate meals, with ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the meals were served according to the posted menu, and failed to document the request for alternate meals, with the potential to affect all 52 residents residing in the facility. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for dissatisfaction with meals and the potential for weight loss. Findings include: A confidential resident council was conducted on 10/25/22 at 2:00 p.m. When discussing the meal choices at the facility, the residents stated the following: Confidential Resident (CF) #50 stated: It's not as good as the last facility I was at. We don't know how to get a substitute meal if we don't like the main one. The portions are all over the place depending on who is cooking. Sometimes you don't get enough. If you don't like it, you don't get anything else. It changes all the time (the meal). CF #51 stated: Portion sizes vary all the time. If I don't want the meal they have given, I send it back, but I don't get anything in return. I just won't eat that meal that day. CF #52 stated: It's ok, but if you don't like the meal you don't get anything else. CF #53 stated, If the main meal is something I don't like, I usually request a sandwich. Sometimes I don't get it. On 10/24/22 at 4:20 PM, Dietary [NAME] (DC) F was observed preparing the evening meal for service. The steam table was observed with two hotel pans (12 ¾ x 20 3/4) of tater-tot casserole. These were the only pans observed on the steam table. An interview was conducted with DC F at this time and asked what vegetable was being served. DC F replied he had just added a couple of bags of California mix vegetables to the casserole. When asked if the two pans of hot food was adequate for all 52 people in the facility, DC F replied I hope so. A review of the menu for the evening meal was conducted and learned the evening meal for 10/24/22 was the observed tater tot casserole and spinach as the vegetable. An interview was again conduced with DC F. When asked about the spinach, DC F stated he did not know if the facility had it. Also reviewed was a menu which identified alternate food availability for residents who preferred not to eat the main menu items. This menu was posted in the corridor, inside a glass case with the daily menus. Alternate food choices included hot dogs, hamburgers, PBJ sandwich, meat and cheese sandwiches. The facility provided no evidence that the alternate food items were offered or served to any residents. On 10/25/22 at approximately 11:15 AM, an interview was conducted with the Dietary Manager (DM) A and the nursing home administrator (NHA). The previous evening's meal was discussed along with the absence of the spinach. DM A stated she did not know why the spinach was not prepared and stated the spinach was available to be prepared and served. DM A and the NHA were requested to provide the kitchen production sheets, which would document the actual food served, the amounts of each of the principle ingredients of the menu items served, and the number of residents who received the meals. On 10/25/22 at 3:45 PM, the facility notified the survey team this documentation did not exist, and the facility did not document the amount of food prepared, served and saved. The facility confirmed this absence of documentation included the alternate food selections and could not quantify the number of meals served, the amount of protein or servings of vegetables actually served to the residents.
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

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 56 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (18/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 18/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Greentree Of Hubbell Rehabilitation And Health's CMS Rating?

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

How is Greentree Of Hubbell Rehabilitation And Health Staffed?

CMS rates Greentree of Hubbell Rehabilitation and Health's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Greentree Of Hubbell Rehabilitation And Health?

State health inspectors documented 56 deficiencies at Greentree of Hubbell Rehabilitation and Health during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 52 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Greentree Of Hubbell Rehabilitation And Health?

Greentree of Hubbell Rehabilitation and Health is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 55 certified beds and approximately 48 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Hubbell, Michigan.

How Does Greentree Of Hubbell Rehabilitation And Health Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Greentree of Hubbell Rehabilitation and Health's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Greentree Of Hubbell Rehabilitation And Health?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Greentree Of Hubbell Rehabilitation And Health Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Greentree of Hubbell Rehabilitation and Health has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Michigan. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Greentree Of Hubbell Rehabilitation And Health Stick Around?

Greentree of Hubbell Rehabilitation and Health has a staff turnover rate of 49%, 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 Greentree Of Hubbell Rehabilitation And Health Ever Fined?

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

Is Greentree Of Hubbell Rehabilitation And Health on Any Federal Watch List?

Greentree of Hubbell Rehabilitation and Health 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.