CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure prompt m...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure prompt mail and newspaper delivery on Saturdays for all 49 residents that resided in the facility. This deficient practice resulted in resident dissatisfaction and unhappiness with the facility delaying Saturday delivered mail until the following Monday. Findings include:
On 7/11/22 at 2:09 PM, a Resident Council meeting took place with 13 residents participating. At this meeting, the residents stated their mail was not delivered on Saturdays. Resident #41 stated they have brought up the Saturday mail delivery many times, but no one has addressed this concern. Resident #41 stated she subscribed to a newspaper and did not want to receive the Saturday paper on Monday when it was delivered. Other residents also expressed they would like Saturday mail to be delivered when it arrived.
The medical record for Resident #41 contained a Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] which included a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating intact cognition.
Resident Council Minutes dated 4/6/22 were reviewed and read in part: New Business of Mail being delivered on Saturday has been a hit and miss. Sometimes we get it, other times we wait until Monday.
Resident Council Minutes dated 5/2/22 were reviewed and mail delivery was listed in the old business section without resolution. New Business included: Mail not being delivered on the weekends. The Concerns/Questions/Complaints included: Mail not being delivered on the weekends.
Resident Council Minutes dated 6/13/22 were reviewed and included in part: Old Business included: Mail not being delivered on the weekends. The Concerns / Questions / Complaints included: (Resident #41): Mail not being delivered on the weekend or often late. Activity director has explained to (Resident #41) many times the mail arrives late on weekends, occasionally activity department is notified of its arrival or nursing department locks mail in front office for good reason. (Resident #41) has been reminded to ask the nursing staff later in the day for her mail.
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 9:06 AM, the Activity Director (Staff) K said the mail was sporadically delivered on the weekend. Staff K said the mail was sometimes locked up and sometimes forgotten to be delivered. Staff K confirmed Resident #41 did receive a newspaper and was cognitively intact and knew it was missing.
The facility's undated policy titled: Communications Within and External to the Facility read in part, The facility will ensure the resident has the ability to send and receive mail, letters, packages and other materials.
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to e...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an environment free from physical restraints without appropriate assessment, appropriate consent, and physician order for one Resident (#51) out of one Resident reviewed for restraints. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for injury and feelings of entrapment. Findings include:
On 7/10/22 at 3:40 PM, Resident #51 was observed restrained with a seatbelt (lap restraint) in a wheelchair propelling herself in the hallway.
On 7/10/22 at 4:03 PM, Resident # 51 was again observed in a wheelchair with the same lap restraint. This surveyor asked Resident #51 if she could release the seat belt. The resident was unable to comprehend this request and stated, I do not understand you. She continued propelling herself down the hall slowly and without purpose.
A review of Resident #51's medical record revealed an original admission date to the facility on 7/2/2019 with diagnoses including a primary diagnosis of early onset Alzheimer disease, anxiety disorder, panic disorder, psychotic disorder, depressive disorder, weakness, restlessness, and agitation. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #51 was assessed by staff to be severely cognitively impaired and did not have a restraint in use. A review of the current Physicians Orders revealed no order for the use of the lap restraint. There was also no specific restraint assessment to address the use of the seatbelt as it restricted her movement and how to monitor its use and safety.
Resident #51's care plan included a problem of falls with an intervention that included, I have a self-releasing seatbelt and a pad alarm applied to my w/c (wheelchair). Alarms will increase opportunity to remind me to call/ask for help. Date Initiated: 04/20/2020.
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 11:04 AM, Social Services (Staff) E said the Social Workers were not involved in restraint decisions.
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 11:28 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) discussed the lap restraint as a reminder for Resident #51 not to stand up. The DON was unsure when the lap restraint had been put into place stating, She (Resident #51) has been here a long time. The DON had reviewed the medical records (both electronic and paper) but could not find that Resident #51 had been assessed for the use of the lap restraint.
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 11:32 AM, the MDS Registered Nurse (RN) D stated, I don't see an order for the seat belt in the electronic medical records. No current order for a seat belt was found by the end of the survey. RN D also could not locate a consent for this restraint and stated, I do not see a consent in the electronic (record) but it could be in her paper (medical record). I believe she used to be able to release it. RN D agreed Resident #51 could no longer release this lap restraint.
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 11:56 AM, RN C stated, I did not find anything in the chart on her (Resident #51's) seatbelt. RN C also did not find a consent or a physician order for the lap restraint and said Resident #51 has had one as long as I have been here since November of 2020.
The undated facility policy titled: Restraint Free Environment read in part, Physical Restraint refers to any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material, or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement . Physical restraints may be used in emergency care situations for brief periods to permit medically necessary treatment that has been ordered by a practitioner . The resident's record needs to include documentation that less restrictive alternatives were attempted to treat the medical symptom but were ineffective, ongoing re-evaluation of the need for the restraint, and the effectiveness of the restraint in treating the medical symptom. The care plan should be updated accordingly to include the development and implementation of interventions, to address any risks related to the use of the restraint.
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Employment Screening
(Tag F0606)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00128258.
All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT).
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure facility staff had not been...
Read full inspector narrative →
This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00128258.
All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT).
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure facility staff had not been found guilty of abuse, including misappropriation of property and/or mistreatment by a court of law for one Employee (former Staff W) out of three contracted staff reviewed for completion of background checks prior to employment. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for abuse, misappropriation, and mistreatment of all vulnerable residents in the facility. Findings include:
During a telephone interview on 7/10/22 at 6:32 p.m., [Staff W] acknowledged working in the facility, although they had a prior criminal (felony) record involving misappropriation. Staff W said they reported the prior felony record to their employer (Contractor X) prior to hire. Due to a delay, the background check was not completed for approximately six months, during which time Staff W continued to work at the facility.
Review of the undated and unsigned Employment Application, revealed Staff W, listed a popular social media site as the Referral Source, and listed no references on the application.
Review of the [State] Workforce Background Check Consent and Disclosure, dated 12/9/21, revealed Staff W self-disclosed their past conviction history on the form to [Contractor X], which would have determined them to be ineligible for employment by the nursing home facility.
Staff W worked in the nursing home until 6/3/22, after delivery of the [State] Workforce Background Check, dated 6/2/22 to their employer. The Workforce Background Check included the following, in part: The above-named applicant/employee (Staff W] is NOT ELIGIBLE to work in a job that involves direct access or provides direct services to a patient or resident in a nursing home .
Review of the Dining Services Agreement, dated 7/28/21, revealed the following responsibilities related to the contractual agreement between the facility and the [Contractor X], .With respect to management and labor for full service dining service [Contractor X] shall provide . Background checks for [Contractor X] employees, at its cost, in compliance with applicable federal and state law .
Review of the Housekeeping and Laundry Service Agreement, dated 7/28/21, revealed the following, in part: . 7. Personnel . [Contractor X] will at all times during the Term and any Renewal Term conduct background checks on all personnel provided by [Contractor X] to perform the Services described herein, in accordance with applicable law. [Contractor X] will give Facility access to each such background check report, and the Facility will take reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality of all such background checks .
Review of [Contractor X's] Pre-Screening and On-Boarding Process, received from [Contractor X's] Regional Manager L on 7/18/22 at 11:29 a.m., revealed the following, in part: . District Manager . Run/Monitor background check results. a. Upon receipt of results, forwards a copy to [Human Resources] .
Review of the facility's Abuse and Neglect Policy and Procedure, dated 1/10/22, revealed the following, in part: .A criminal background check will be conducted on all prospective employees as provided by the facility's policy on criminal background checks. A significant finding on the background check will result in denied employment consistent with the criminal background check policy in accordance with State and Federal Regulation .
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00128258
All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Times (EDT).
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement their abuse policy by fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00128258
All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Times (EDT).
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement their abuse policy by failure screen prospective employee background checks, reference checks, and employment histories for three staff members (Staff A, W and Y), of three staff reviewed for background screening prior to employment in the facility. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for abuse, including misappropriation and mistreatment to occur, affecting all residents in the facility. Findings include:
During a telephone interview on 7/10/22 at 6:32 p.m., [Staff W] acknowledged working in the facility, although they had a prior criminal (felony) record involving misappropriation. Staff W said they reported the prior felony record to their employer {Contractor X) prior to hire. Due to a delay, the background check was not completed for approximately six months, during which time Staff W continued to work at the facility.
Review three Employment Applications, provided by Contractor X, revealed the following, in part:
1. Staff W: References, Previous Residents, Illegal Use of Drugs, Date and Signature were not completed. No information was provided. No references check completed. The Background check not completed prior to active employment.
2. Staff Y: Absent Employment History, Previous Residents, and Illegal Use of Drugs. The only reference listed was the first name of another facility employee. There was no documentation was present showing any references were checked for this employee.
3 Staff A: Absent References.
Review of the Housekeeping and Laundry Service Agreement, dated 7/28/21, revealed the following, in part: . 7. Personnel . [Contractor X] will at all times during the Term and any Renewal Term conduct background checks on all personnel provided by [Contractor X] to perform the Services described herein, in accordance with applicable law. [Contractor X] will give Facility access to each such background check report, and the Facility will take reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality of all such background checks .
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 11:39 a.m., Regional Manager L for [Contractor X] acknowledged there had been a mistake with Staff W's background check. Regional Manager L said Staff W had a hire date of 12/13/21. Following review of their Employment Application Regional Manager L confirmed no reference checks were completed and confirmed Staff W had self-disclosed a previous criminal conviction on the Background Check application. Regional Manager L stated, Based upon what HR (Human Resources) told me, they (Staff W) would not have been eligible to be working in the facility.
Regional Manager L also reviewed the Employment Applications of Staff A and Staff Y and confirmed no references were on either application. Regional Manager L agreed reference checks should have been completed for all employees. When asked who was responsible for completing reference checks, Regional Manager L stated, The onsite manager (Staff A) should be doing the references checks. [Contractor X] should have done the references checks for [Staff A].
During an interview on 7/12/21 at 1:00 p.m., The Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was asked about expectations for contractors who employee facility staff completing reference and background checks. The NHA stated, It is my expectation that [Contractor X] completed reference checks and background checks timely on prospective employees for their company. The NHA agreed that facility staff should not work in the facility prior to completion of a background check.
Review of the facility's Abuse and Neglect Policy and Procedure, dated 1/10/22, revealed the following, in part: .A criminal background check will be conducted on all prospective employees as provided by the facility's policy on criminal background checks. A significant finding on the background check will result in denied employment consistent with the criminal background check policy in accordance with State and Federal Regulations .
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Resident #51
A review of Resident #51's medical record revealed a transfer to the hospital on 4/17/22. There was not a written notification of transfer sent to Resident #51's representative.
During a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Resident #51
A review of Resident #51's medical record revealed a transfer to the hospital on 4/17/22. There was not a written notification of transfer sent to Resident #51's representative.
During an interview on 7/11/22 at approximately 4:00 PM, Social Services (Staff) E stated the nurse usually alerted the resident representative verbally when a transfer occurred and they were not aware of a written notification.
During an interview on 7/11/22 at 5:31 PM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated he did not send notice and did not know of the notification, the NHA acknowledged notification of the Ombudsman, but said the written notification for the resident representatives was a system which was not currently in place.
The undated facility policy titled: Transfer and Discharge read in part, Emergency Transfers/Discharges - initiated by the facility for medical reasons, or for the immediate safety and welfare of a resident . J. Provide transfer notice as soon as practicable to resident and representative.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notice of facility transfers to residents' representatives and regional ombudsman for two residents (#2 and #51) of four residents reviewed for transfers and/or discharges. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for residents' representative's unawareness and/or unnecessary transfers/discharges. Findings include: (All times reflect Eastern Standard Times)
Resident #2
Review of Resident #2's April 2022 progress notes revealed several falls and facility provided Action Summary print date 7/11/22, showed two, separate emergency hospital transfers on 4/7/22. Review of Social Services (SS) E electronically sent, April 2022 Emergency Transfer Monthly Report, showed Resident #2 was not included.
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 2:13 p.m., SS E verified Resident #2's two, emergency hospital transfers were not provided to the Ombudsman's Office and Resident #2's responsible party was not notified in writing.
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** All times are recorded in Eastern Standard time.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to dev...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** All times are recorded in Eastern Standard time.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop comprehensive Care Plans for three Residents (#40, #42, and #45) of 16 residents reviewed for the development of Care Plans. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for limited person-centered care interventions, resulting in resident frustration, or the potential for functional or psychosocial decline. Findings include:
Resident #45
Resident #45's face sheet revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (a form of dementia), kidney failure, depression, history of COVID (an easily transmittable viral disease), malnutrition and repeated falls.
On 7/11/22 at 10:11 a.m., Resident #45 reported facility residents wander into her room, including Resident #40 and Resident #16, who come into her room and take items from her drawers, and violate her privacy. Resident #45 reported Resident #40 crawls down the hallway on the floor from his room into her room. Resident #45 reported she had told staff on multiple occasions, and there had been no change in the situation, which made her feel frustrated and uncomfortable. Resident #45 denied any stolen items or misappropriation, and reported the items were returned by staff.
Review of Resident #45's Care Plan revealed no interventions related to Resident #45 requesting more privacy in her room, related to wandering residents, or protection of her property.
During an interview on 7/11/22 at 1:34 p.m., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) JJ was asked about residents wandering into Resident #45's room. CNA JJ confirmed Resident #40 does crawl on the floor and wander into other resident rooms and take items, as does Resident #16, who propels herself with a wheelchair. CNA JJ was asked if this bothered Resident #45, and affirmed Resident #45 does get upset about it, and comforts her. When asked about any staff interventions, CNA JJ reported that they try to watch but they can't stop these residents. She did not verbalize any person-centered interventions to stop the wandering behaviors of Resident #40 or Resident #16, and had not notified management of Resident #45's concerns.
During an interview on 7/11/22 at 2:01 p.m., Resident #40's nurse, Registered Nurse (RN) O was asked if he wandered into other resident rooms by crawling. RN O reported Resident #40 is only in his bed on and off at night and is frequently wandering into other resident rooms on Resident #45's hall. She reported Resident #40 startles more than steals, as he does not have the ability to make decisions as his cognition changes often. She does not believe Resident #45 stole any items, and anything taken was always returned.
An observation on 7/11/22 at approximately 1:45 p.m. revealed Resident #40's room was on the same resident hallway as Resident #45, on the same side of the hall, about 2 or 3 rooms away.
An observation on 7/11/22 at 1:52 p.m. revealed Resident #16 rapidly propelling her wheelchair down a hallway by grabbing onto the railing of the hall. Resident #16 appeared agitated and her face was in a scowl. Other observations revealed her wandering on the resident units and demonstrating exit-seeking behaviors, with redirection by staff.
An observation on 7/11/22 at approximately 8:30 a.m. revealed Resident #40 was observed on the unit, ambulating with a stooped posture, holding the hall railing. Resident #40 was observed walking across the hall from his room and entering a room across the hall.
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 11:07 a.m., the Rehabilitation Director, Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) II was asked if they had observed Resident #40 wandering on the resident care units. PTA II affirmed Resident #40 does demonstrate wandering behaviors, sometimes into other resident rooms, and staff including himself did their best to redirect Resident #40 when they saw it occurred. PTA II reported Resident #40 was care planned to maneuver on the floor per his preference, or ambulate with support/assistance in the facility. They planned to follow up with facility management to address Resident #45 concern. The Director of Nursing (DON) was soon after informed of this concern, and acknowledged they would follow up with Resident #45, and address Resident #45's Care Plan.
Resident #40
Review of Resident #40's face sheet revealed Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, lung disease, heart failure, anxiety, and depression.
Review of Resident #40's current Care Plan, accessed 7/20/22, showed Resident #40 was charted as independent with bed mobility, transfers, and walking/ambulation, since 4/05/22.
Review of Resident #40's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/06/22, revealed Resident #40 required two-person assistance for bed mobility and transfers, and supervision and one-person assistance for walking.
During an interview on 7/19/22 at 11:59 a.m., the Director of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) II, was asked the level of assistance Resident #40 required for mobility. PTA II reported Resident #40 required contact guard assistance (touch assistance for occasional stabilization) to handheld assist for mobility (ambulation), and contact guard assistance to stand by assistance [standing next to resident] for transfers, due to impaired balance, decreased postural control (stooped posture with decreased base of support), and decreased safety awareness. PTA II confirmed Resident #40 may at times lower himself to the floor and crawl on the floor intermittently, which was in his Care Plan.
Review of Resident #40's Physical Therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE], showed Resident #40 required contact guard assistance to stand by assistance with all functional transfers upon discharge, supervision or touching assist with sit to stand, and walking 10 feet to 50 feet with supervision or touching/steadying assistance or contact guard assistance. It was further noted Resident #40 demonstrated performance inconsistencies given cognitive impairment, impulsiveness, agitation, or pain.
Review of Resident #40's most recent PT evaluation dated 6/09/22 showed Resident #40 continued to required assistance (partial/moderate) for transfers and mobility, which were the most recent records provided upon request.
Observations, interviews, and record review confirmed Resident #40's mobility Care Plan was not accurate, and did not reflect Resident #40's current level of function.
An observation on 07/10/22 at 3:39 p.m. revealed Resident #40 in his room, sleeping soundly in his bed. A stand up power recliner chair was observed with a two-button electric remote control in the right side pocket of fabric brown chair. Resident #40 was not observed in the chair during the time period of the survey.
Review of Resident #40's Care Plan showed Resident #40 had vision impairment, cognitive impairment, and emotional impairment, with mood swings, agitation, and intermittent acting out behaviors. There was no mention of the stand up power recliner chair in the Care Plan, which would be expected as they are a medical device.
Resident #42
Review of Resident #42's face sheet revealed Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, pneumonia, and metabolic encephalopathy (an alteration in brain function), and anxiety.
Review of Resident #42's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/12/22, revealed Resident #42 required extensive two-person assistance for bed mobility and transfers, and was unable to ambulate.
An observation on 7/10/22 at 3:53 p.m. showed Resident #42 was seated upright in a tall recliner manual wheelchair, with family member (FM) KK in the room. Resident #42 did not respond to questions, or activate his call light upon request. FM KK reported Resident #42 struggled to respond due to his Parkinson's disease, and experienced episodes of freezing, when he was unable to move or talk due to the diagnosis. A stand up power recliner chair with an electric remote control was observed in their room. The remote control was on the seat of the chair. It was obvious Resident #42 would not be able to safely operate the chair remote, and the chair could place him at risk for injury. Resident #42 was not observed seated in this chair during the survey time period.
Review of Resident #42's Care Plan revealed Resident #42 had marked cognitive impairment and decision making, with functional decline was anticipated in mobility activities of living, communication, and weight due to the progression of the disease process. There was no mention of the stand up power recliner chair in the Care Plan, which would be expected as they are a medical device.
During an interview on 7/13/22 at approximately 12:33 p.m., PTA II confirmed Resident #40 and Resident #42 would be unable to operate these stand up power recliner chairs safely, and they would follow up with the facility. Additional staff confirmed neither resident was sitting in these recliner chairs, or operating them, and there were no observations of such during the survey time period, as they preferred other options.
During an interview on 7/13/22 at 1:00 p.m. with Maintenance Director Staff (MD) EE and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), they understood and promptly addressed this concern with family agreement, and the remote features were disengaged from these chairs, and any similar chairs in the facility as appropriate.
Review of the policy, Comprehensive Care Plans, 2021, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to develop a comprehensive person-centered plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. Person-centered care means to focus on the resident as the locus of control and support the resident in making their own choices and having control over their daily lives .
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** .
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time.)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to appropriately ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time.)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to appropriately revise and update care plans to reflect resident status for two Residents (#44 and #253) of 16 Residents reviewed for care plans. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for lack of implementation of appropriate interventions. Findings include:
Resident #44
A review of Resident #44's Medical Record revealed an original admission date of 12/8/2021 with diagnoses including rheumatoid arthritis, protein-calorie malnutrition, right heart failure and dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/13/22, revealed no significant weight loss or weight gain over the past six months. Resident #44 scored 3 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating severe cognitive impairment.
A review of Resident #44's weights revealed volatile weights with an overall trend of an increase from January 2022 to July 2022. However, a significant weight loss was noted from 4/25/22 with a weight of 182.8 pounds to 5/9/22 with a weight of 168.0 pounds (an 8% loss in a month). No change was made to the care plan.
The Chronic Heart Failure (CHF) care plan dated 12/10/21 for Resident #44 had one focus: I am receiving a NAS (No Added Salt)diet related to hypertension and CHF (Chronic Heart Failure), one goal of: Will be adequately nourished through review date, and one intervention: Provide diet as ordered. The focus, the goal and the intervention were all dated 12/10/21 and had no additions or updates evident on the care plan.
The nutritional care plan for Resident #44 had one goal documented as, Will be adequately nourished through review date, dated 12/8/21 without updates and one intervention Dining: Prompt/Cue dated 3/7/22. No updates or reviews were evident on the care plan.
Resident #253
A review of Resident #253's Medical Record revealed an admission date of 12/15/2021 with diagnoses including fracture of the first lumbar vertebra, history of falling, adult failure to thrive, chronic kidney disease, and pain. The MDS assessment, dated 3/14/22, revealed Resident #253 had incurred two falls since admission and weighed 111 pounds which was a significant weight loss from 136 pounds on the previous MDS dated [DATE].
The medical recorded revealed on 2/12/22, Resident #253 had fallen and was found sitting on the floor. On 3/5/22, the resident was again found on the floor. While interventions had been added to the care plan for the 2/21/22 fall, an interview on 07/19/22 at 12:01 PM with the MDS Registered Nurse (RN) D revealed the fall care plan for Resident #253 had not been updated with interventions to prevent further falls after the 3/5/22 fall.
The nutrition care plan for Resident #253 dated 12/15/21 had one goal: (Resident #253) will maintain current nutritional status through review date one intervention Dining: Dependent initiated on 12/15/21 and changed to Dining: Prompt/Cue on 12/16/2021. No other updates or reviews were evident on the care plan even after the documented 23.7 pound weight loss from 1/15/22 to 2/8/22 (a significant change of 17% in less than one month.)
Resident #253 was assessed by the Registered Dietitian on 2/14/2022 and the progress note recommended the addition of Mighty Shakes (fortified dietary supplement) BID (two times per day), add whole milk, extra butter to all trays and supercereal (fortified cereal) at breakfast. These recommendations were not added to the care plan.
During an interview on 7/19/22 at 1:08 PM, Regional Dietary Manager (DM) P stated since Resident #253 was no longer in the facility, DM P could not verify what was actually served.
The undated facility policy titled: Nutritional Management included 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 .
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 2:40 PM, the DM A stated she did not do any clinical documentation or care planning.
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 2:42 PM, RN D, said the Registered Dietitian reviewed weights, did initial assessments, but did not write care plans.
The undated facility policy titled: Fall Prevention Program read in part, 9. When any resident experiences a fall, the facility will: . e. Review the resident's care plan and update as indicated.
The undated facility policy titled: Comprehensive Care Plans read in part, The care planning process will include an assessment of the resident's strengths and needs, and will incorporate the resident's personal and cultural preferences in developing goals of care .Other factors identified by the interdisciplinary team, or in accordance with the resident's preferences, will also be addressed in the plan of care . The comprehensive care plan will be prepared by an interdisciplinary team, that includes, but is not limited to: A registered nurse with responsibility for the resident. A member of the food and nutrition services staff .
.
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** .
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a recapi...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a recapitulation of stay was completed for one Resident (#253) out of two closed records reviewed for discharge documentation. This deficient practice resulted in lack of key departmental pieces of the recapitulation of the Resident's stay including course of illness (significant weight loss) and the potential for unmet care needs after discharge . Findings include:
A review of Resident #253's medical record revealed she discharged home from the facility on 3/14/22.
The Social Services (Staff) E progress note of 3/14/2022 read in part: Resident transferred to (name of facility) today. Her daughter (name deleted) and a friend came to pick her up. All information was sent .
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 3:11 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) D stated the discharge recapitulation of stay signed as 4/6/22 for discharge on [DATE] was incomplete as the social services and dietary sections of the form were completely blank.
A review of Resident #253's Medical Record revealed an admission date of 12/15/2021 with diagnoses including fracture of the first lumbar vertebra, history of falling, adult failure to thrive, chronic kidney disease, and pain. The Minimum Data Assessment (MDS) assessment, dated 3/14/22, revealed Resident #253 had incurred two falls since admission and weighed 111 pounds and indicated a significant weight loss while not on a physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen from 136 pounds on the previous MDS dated [DATE]. This was a significant weight loss of 23.7 pounds from 1/15/22 to 2/8/22 (or 17% in less than one month.)
During an interview on 7/19/22 at 11:40 AM, Staff E reviewed the medical record and observed social services and dietary had not documented on the IDT (Interdisciplinary Team): Discharge Summary and agreed it was incomplete.
The facility undated policy titled: Transfer and Discharge read in part, When the facility anticipates discharge, a resident must have a discharge summary that includes, but is not limited to, the following: (i) A recapitulation of the resident's stay that includes, but is not limited to, diagnoses, course of illness/treatment . (ii) A final summary of the resident's status
The facility undated policy titled: Discharge Summary and Plan of Care read in part, Upon discharge of a resident (other than in emergency to hospital or death) a discharge summary will be provided to the receiving care provider. The Discharge Summary should include: a. An overview of the resident's stay that includes but not limited to: diagnoses, course of illness/treatment . b. A final summary of the resident's status at the time of discharge that is available for release to authorized persons and agencies, with the consent of the resident or resident's representative.
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** All times are recorded in Eastern Standard Time.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** All times are recorded in Eastern Standard Time.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide quality of care for one Resident (#40) of four residents reviewed for Quality of Care, which resulted in multiple falls and wandering behaviors for Resident #40. This deficient practice resulted in Resident #40 not achieving their highest practicable level of well-being, with the potential for worsening of condition and continued functional decline. Findings include:
Resident #40
Review of Resident #40's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/06/22, revealed an admission to the facility on 8/23/16, with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, heart failure, lung disease, anxiety, and depression. Resident #40 required extensive two-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing, and supervision and one-person assistance for walking. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was unable to be administered, indicating Resident #40 demonstrated severe cognitive impairment. The behavior section of the MDS assessment was not marked for any adverse behaviors, including wandering behaviors. The falls section showed two falls with no injury, two falls with minor injury, and no falls with major injury. It was noted Resident #40 was not on hospice or palliative care.
An observation on 7/13/22 at 9:36 a.m. revealed Resident #40's name and picture were noted on the facility elopement posting (out of public view) at the nurse's station.
Review of Resident #40's Elopement/Wandering Care Plan, accessed 7/20/22, revealed, I am an elopement risk/wanderer, date initiated: 09/29/2020. I will not leave facility unattended .Distract me from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, book Wander alarm applied .Wander alert: ankle .
During an observation on 7/11/22 at approximately 8:30 a.m., Resident #40 was observed ambulating on a unit hall holding onto the hallway rail with a stooped posture, with his head looking down and his back bent forward at the neck. No staff were observed in the area. Additional observations during the survey revealed Resident #40 standing and ambulating in the facility without staff assistance, placing him at risk for falls.
During an observation on 7/19/22 beginning at 9:10 a.m. Surveyor was unable to locate Resident #40 in the facility, including in Resident #40's room, on any facility hallway, in the activity/dining room, at the nurse's desk, or in common areas. Surveyor did not see any nursing staff on the floor to ask, so Surveyor walked into the facility dining room where staff were located. At approximately 9:15 a.m., Surveyor asked the Activity Director, (Staff) K, who was in the dining room, if they had seen Resident #40 recently, and Staff K reported they had not. Staff K did not accompany Surveyor to search for Resident #40, or send any other staff to search for Resident #40. Surveyor exited the dining room, and again did not see Resident #40 in their room or in the facility. At 9:20 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked to assist to locate Resident #40. The DON walked into Resident #40's room with Surveyor to do a more thorough search, and Resident #40 was located beyond his bed in the bathroom, past the toilet, behind the bathroom door, positioned on his back in a bathtub, which was not visible from the doorway. Resident #40's head was lifted off the bottom of the tub, and his knees were flexed in the tub, and he was trying to lift himself out of the tub but was unable. The DON immediately obtained nursing staff assistance, and several staff arrived, including the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), who also observed Resident #40 in the bathtub. Nursing staff assisted Resident #40 to transfer out and walk to his bed, and no injury was reported. The NHA and nursing management staff reported they had planned to relocate Resident #40 to another room, which was done after the incident.
Review of Resident #40's updated Care Plan showed the following intervention after the incident, I [Resident #40] was moved to a room without a bathtub, and will continue to be in a room without a bathtub. Date initiated: 7/19/22.
During an observation on 7/19/22 at 11:06 a.m., Resident #40 was seated in a lounge chair outside the activity room. Resident #40 did not appear to be in any pain, and no grimacing was noted. Resident #40 could not answer a question about the incident or if he was injured. Resident #40 was visually observed to have no obvious signs of injury, bruising, or pain, including on the back of his head. The DON soon after reported there was no injury found. Surveyor noted concern with Staff K not obtaining another staff to assist in a search for Resident #40, when Surveyor was unable to locate Resident #40 beginning at 9:10 a.m The DON and Staff K understood the concern, and Staff K acknowledged going forward they would ask another staff to assist if they were unavailable to locate a resident.
On 7/11/22 at 10:11 a.m., Resident #45 reported facility residents frequently wandered into her room, including Resident #40, who came into her room and took items from her drawers. Resident #45 added this violated her privacy. Resident #45 stated Resident #40 crawled down the hallway on the floor from his room into her room, as he was on the same hall. Resident #45 reported she had told staff on multiple occasions, and there had been no change in the situation, which made her feel frustrated and uncomfortable. Resident #45 denied any stolen item, and reported the items were later returned by staff.
During an interview on 7/11/22 at 1:34 p.m., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) JJ was asked about residents wandering into Resident #45's room. CNA JJ confirmed Resident #40 did crawl on the floor and wandered into other resident rooms and took items, as did Resident #16, who propelled herself with a wheelchair. CNA JJ was asked if this bothered Resident #45, and affirmed Resident #45 did get upset about it, and said she comforted her when this occurred. Asked about any staff interventions, and reported nursing staff tried to watch but said they couldn't stop these two wandering residents (#40 and #16). CNA JJ did not verbalize any person-centered interventions to stop the wandering behaviors of Resident #40 or Resident #16, and had not notified management of Resident #45's concerns.
During an interview on 7/11/22 at 2:01 p.m., Resident #40's nurse, Registered Nurse (RN) O was asked if Resident #40 had wandered into other resident rooms by crawling on the floor. RN O reported Resident #40 was only in his bed on and off at night and was frequently wandering into other resident rooms on Resident #45's hall. She reported Resident #40 startles more than steals, as Resident #40 did not have the ability to make decisions as his cognition changed often. RN O stated she didn't believe Resident #45 had stolen any items, and the items which were taken were always returned to the residents.
An observation on 7/11/22 at approximately 1:45 p.m. revealed Resident #40's room was on the same resident hallway [200 hallway] as Resident #45, on the same side of the hall, a few rooms away.
During an interview on 7/19/22 at 11:59 a.m., the Director of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) II, was asked the level of assistance Resident #40 required for mobility. PTA II reported Resident #40 required contact guard assistance (touch assistance for occasional stabilization) to handheld assist for mobility (ambulation), and contact guard assistance to stand by assistance [standing next to resident] for transfers, due to impaired balance, decreased postural control (stooped posture with decreased base of support), and decreased safety awareness. PTA II confirmed Resident #40 may at times lower himself to the floor and crawl on the floor intermittently, which was in his Care Plan.
Review of Resident #40's Physical Therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE], showed Resident #40 required contact guard assistance to stand by assistance with all functional transfers upon discharge, supervision or touching assist with sit to stand, and walking 10' (feet) to 50' with supervision or touching/steadying assistance or contact guard assistance. It was further noted Resident #40 demonstrated performance inconsistencies given cognitive impairment, impulsiveness, agitation, or pain.
Review of Resident #40's Physical Therapy Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 6/09/22, showed Resident #40 required partial or moderate assistance for sit to stand, partial or moderate assistance for functional transfers, and walked 10' to 50' with partial to moderate assistance. This documentation was received from PTA II, and was the most current documentation received for physical therapy services upon request during the survey.
The following additional documentation was found in Resident #40's Electronic Medical Record [EMR], showing Resident #40 demonstrated other incidents of wandering behaviors and lack of supervision and assistance with ambulation:
Review of Resident #40's progress note, dated 5/26/22 at 23:38 [11:38 p.m. Central Standard Time (CST)], revealed, Resident [#40] walking in and out of resident's rooms throughout tour. Yelling Somebody help me noted from the 200 hallway. This resident [#40] entered a female occupant's room [unnamed/no room number] where the occupant started screaming for help d/t [due to] this resident [#40] being in the room. This resident [#40] began mocking the female resident and began yelling somebody help me. This resident [#40] then began to repeat staff verbiage when attempting to redirect resident out of the room .This resident [#40] continued to enter other residents' rooms and became angry by aggressively squeezing staff's hands, digging fingertips into staffs' hands, and/or forearm, growling, and showing his teeth. This resident was resistant to leaving the other residents rooms when redirection attempts were made. Staff will continue to monitor this resident [#40].
Review of Resident #40's Accident and Incident Report, dated 5/04/22, revealed, Upon entering room [ROOM NUMBER] [another resident's room], the resident [#40] was noted to be lying in a supine position in front of the closed door leading to the hallway, head towards bed 1, gripper socked feet towards the bathroom wall. The resident was noted to be elevating his right arm .[and had a] skin tear [to his] right elbow .Notes: 5/11/22. Redirect [Resident #40] from other resident rooms while he is ambulating independently. This note showed staff were aware Resident #40 was ambulating independently with staff knowledge, and wandering into other resident rooms.
Review of Resident #40's progress note, dated 4/21/22 at 6:34 a.m (CST). revealed, Resident [#40] going in and out of other residents rooms all tour. Resident [#40] yelling at staff when attempts at redirection are made. Resident [#40] ignoring staff when redirecting out of other resident's rooms. Resident [#40] becoming angry very quickly .
Review of Resident #40's Fall Care Plan revealed, I am at risk for falls related to balance/gait disturbances and history of falls. Date initiated: 11/27/20. I will not sustain serious injury through the review date . The Care Plan showed fall interventions to prevent falls, updated since this date.
The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) was reviewed for Resident #40's falls, including accident and incident reports, nursing progress notes, and physician notes, from 7/15/22 through 12/13/22, to reflect dates, types, and frequency of falls, as noted below:
6/29/22: Fall with laceration to back of head, witnessed.
6/18/22: Fall with no injury, witnessed.
6/06/22: Fall with no injury, unwitnessed.
5/09/22: Fall with laceration to head, witnessed.
5/06/22: Fall with no injury, witnessed.
5/04/22: Fall with skin tear R elbow, unwitnessed.
4/23/22: Fall with no injury, witnessed.
4/22/22: Fall with no injury, unwitnessed.
4/19/22: Fall with no injury, unwitnessed.
4/12/22: Fall with no injury, unwitnessed.
4/11/22: Fall noted over weekend, no other details noted.
3/28/22: Fall with no injury, unwitnessed.
3/23/22: Fall with no injury, unwitnessed.
2/20/22: Fall with abrasion to head, bruise eye, unwitnessed.
12/22/22: Fall with no injury, unwitnessed.
12/13/22: Fall with abrasion to head, unwitnessed.
It was noted the majority of the falls happened in the afternoon or night, and there was no documentation in the EMR including in nursing, care conference, or physician notes to reflect why the pattern of high frequency of falls was occurring, or how to prevent additional falls. Ten of the 15 falls noted were unwitnessed, and with the majority occurring in the afternoon or during the night. A lack of supervision or assistance with mobility may have contributed to the unsupervised falls.
Review of Resident #40's care conference notes during this same time period showed the number of falls during the time period were often noted, but there were not discussions on fall prevention.
Review of Resident #40's current Care Plan, accessed 7/20/22, showed Resident #40 was charted as independent with bed mobility, transfers, and walking/ambulation, since 4/05/22.
This discrepancy in Resident #40's mobility status which differed from the Care Plan, the MDS assessment, and the Physical therapy documentation/recommendations may have contributed to a lack of supervision of Resident #40 during functional mobility. Resident #40 was observed ambulating ad lib in the facility intermittently during the survey, or by holding onto the hallway rails unassisted, which placed Resident #40 at increased risk for falls, and may have contributed to wandering behaviors. Additionally, there was no evidence of coordination of care found upon review of the EMR related to falls and wandering behaviors.
On 7/20//22 at approximately 11:00 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked about Resident #40's multiple falls, wandering behaviors, and quality of life concerns. The DON acknowledged the falls and wandering behaviors had occurred, however did not acknowledge deficient practice.
A policy was requested related to quality of care, with none provided by survey exit, and confirmed they did not have this policy.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate catheter care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#5) and failed to a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate catheter care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#5) and failed to address constipation concerns per physician orders for two Residents (#5 and #2) of two residents reviewed for elimination needs. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for cross-contamination, infection, and discomfort. Findings include: (All times represent Eastern Standard times)
Resident #5
Review of Resident #5's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/27/22, showed the following diagnoses: urinary tract infection, constipation, stroke, heart failure, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 13/15 which reflected intact cognition. Resident #5 required one staff physical assistance for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, and had an indwelling urinary catheter.
During a transfer observation on 7/13/22 at 10:21 a.m., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) H used a sit-to-stand transfer device, had clipped Resident #5's urinary drainage bag to the top right portion of the lift which caused the contents of the urinary drainage bag to be level with Resident #5's shoulder. Yellow urine with visible white sediment drained from the urinary drainage bag through the catheter tubing towards Resident #5's body.
During an interview on 7/13/22 at 11:15 a.m. both the Director of Nursing (DON) and Registered Nurse (RN) D confirmed Resident #5 had a previous hospitalization in May 2022 and again in June 2022 for urinary tract infections.
The DON confirmed Resident #5's urinary drainage bag should have been kept below the level of the bladder to prevent backflow of urine to the bladder.
Review of Resident #5's electronic medical record (EMR) showed no record of a bowel moment (BM) for five consecutive days beginning on 6/27/22, 6/28/22, 6/29/22, 6/30/22, and 7/1/22.
Review of constipation physician standing orders, revised 7/2018, read in part, MOM (milk of magnesia) 30 cc (cubic centimeters) at HS (bedtime) in 3 days, add Sena (sp) Plus 1 tablet BID (twice a day). If no results by a.m. (morning), give Dulcolax suppository. If no results, charge nurse to do bowl (sp) assessment. Fleets enema may then be given. If no results SSE (soaps suds enema) x 1 may be given. Notify Physician if no results .
Review of Resident #5's June 2022 and July 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) reflected the absence of any MOM administration, the absence of the increase of Senna Plus dosage, the absence of a Dulcolax suppository, Fleets enema, and a SSE.
Review of Resident #5's 28 paged Care Plan, reviewed on 7/10/22, reflected a diagnosis of constipation but did not include a care plan focus, goals, or interventions for constipation.
Resident #2
Review of Resident #2's MDS assessment, dated 6/27/22, reflected the following diagnoses: diabetes, heart failure, transient ischemic attack (stroke), and vascular dementia. Resident #2 required one staff physical assist for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use and was incontinent of bowel/bladder. The BIMS score was 6 which indicated severely impaired cognition.
Review of Resident #2's EMR showed no record of a bowel movement for four consecutive days beginning 7/10/22, 7/11/22, 7/12/22, and 7/13/22.
Review of Resident #2's July 2022 MAR reflected only one dose of MOM was administered on 7/13/22 at 1703 (5:03 p.m.-Central Time) during the four consecutive days of no BMs. Resident #2 had a recorded BM on 7/14/22.
Review of Resident #2's 32 paged Care Plan, reviewed on 7/10/22, reflected a diagnosis of chronic idiopathic constipation but did not include a care plan focus, goals, or interventions for constipation.
During an interview on 7/13/22 at 11:15 a.m., the DON confirmed nurses should have implemented physician standing orders for Resident #5's and Resident #2's periods of prolonged constipation. The DON was unable to locate any evidence a bowel assessment was completed for either Resident #5 or Resident #2 during the same interview.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
This pertains to intake #MI00127617. (All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time.)
Based on interview, and record review ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
This pertains to intake #MI00127617. (All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time.)
Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to obtain and confirm accurate weights per facility policy and perform complete nutritional assessments for three Residents (#40, #44 and #253) of six residents reviewed for nutritional status. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for weight changes to go undetected, delayed interventions, continued weight loss or gain, and physical decline. Findings include:
Resident #44
A review of Resident #44's medical record revealed an original admission date of 12/8/2021 with diagnoses including rheumatoid arthritis, protein-calorie malnutrition, right heart failure and dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/13/22, revealed no significant weight loss or weight gain over the past six months. Resident #44 scored 3 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating severe cognitive impairment.
A review of Resident #44's weights revealed a significant weight loss 4/25/22 from a weight of 182.8 pounds compared to 5/9/22 with a weight of 168.0 pounds (an 8% loss in less than a month). No reweigh was taken to verify the weight loss until 5/29/22 contrary to the facility policy which indicated residents with weight loss would be weighed weekly.
The Weight Summary log in the medical record listed the following weights in pounds:
4/4/22=180.0
4/11/22=181.5
4/18/22=182.1
4/25/22=182.8
5/9/22 = 168.0
5/29/22=169.2
The medical record contained a DIET: Quarterly Nutritional Update dated 3/7/22 with data such as height, weight and diet order etc. entered, but the Assessment section was blank.
The medical record also contained a DIET: Quarterly Nutritional Update form dated 6/9/22 with data such as height, weight and diet order etc. entered, but the Assessment section was again blank.
The nutritional care plan for Resident #44 had one goal documented as, Will be adequately nourished through review date, dated 12/8/21 and one intervention Dining: Prompt/Cue dated 3/7/22. No updates or reviews were evident on the care plan.
Resident #253
A review of Resident #253's Medical Record revealed an admission date of 12/15/2021 with diagnoses including fracture of the first lumbar vertebra, history of falling, adult failure to thrive, chronic kidney disease, and pain. The MDS assessment, dated 3/14/22, revealed Resident #253 weighed 111 pounds which indicated a significant weight loss while not on a physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen from 136 pounds on the previous MDS dated [DATE].
The Weight Summary log in the medical record listed the following weights in pounds:
12/17/21=135.0
1/1/22=136.2
1/15/22=135.2
2/8/22=111.5
2/15/22=114.7
2/22/22=109.5
2/22/22=110.0
3/1/22=105.3
3/4/22=107.6
3/8/22=110.5
While Resident #253 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], the first weight obtained by the facility was not until 1/1/22 contrary to the facility policy of a weight on admission and then weekly for four weeks. The log indicated a weight 12/17/21 which was documented as Historical or from past history. Resident #253 had a documented weight loss of 23.7 pounds from 1/15/22 to 2/8/22 (a significant loss of 17% in less than a month.)
Resident #253 was assessed in a progress note by the Registered Dietitian on 2/14/2022 recommending the addition of Mighty Shakes (fortified dietary supplement) BID (two times per day), add whole milk, extra butter to all trays and supercereal (fortified cereal) at breakfast. These recommendations were not added to the care plan.
During an interview on 7/19/22 at 1:08 PM, Regional Dietary Manager (Contracted Staff P) stated since Resident #253 was no longer in the facility, Contracted Staff P could not verify what was actually served.
The medical record contained a form titled, DIET: Quarterly Nutritional Update dated 2/25/22 included data such as height, weight, diet order, and Assessment section was totally blank.
The nutrition care plan for Resident #253 dated 12/15/21 had one goal of (Resident #253) will maintain current nutritional status through review date, and one intervention of Dining: Dependent initiated on 12/15/21 and changed to Dining: Prompt/Cue on 12/16/2021. No other updates or reviews were evident on the care plan even after the documented significant 17% weight loss in less than one month.
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 2:40 PM, the Dietary Manager (DM) A stated she did not do any clinical documentation or care planning.
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 2:42 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) D, said the Registered Dietitian reviewed weights, did initial assessments, but did not write care plans or do quarterly assessments. RN D stated she filled in the data for the quarterly reviews but did not know who filled in the assessment section. She was unsure why the quarterly assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #253 was completely blank.
The undated facility policy titled: Weight Monitoring read in part, Based on the resident's comprehensive assessment, the facility will ensure that all residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range . The facility will utilize a systemic approach to optimize a resident's nutritional status. This process includes:
a.
Identifying and assessing each resident's nutritional status and risk factors
b.
Evaluating/analyzing the assessment information
c.
Developing and consistently implementing pertinent approaches
d.
Monitoring the effectiveness of interventions and revising them as necessary
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. The care plan should address the following, to the extent possible:
a.
Identified causes of impaired nutritional status
b.
Reflect the resident's personal goals and preferences
c.
Identify resident-specific interventions
d.
Time frame and parameters for monitoring
e.
Updated as needed such as when the resident's condition changes, goals are met, interventions are determined to be ineffective or a new causes of nutrition-related problems are identified.
f.
If nutritional goals are not achieved, care planned interventions will be reevaluated for effectiveness and modified as appropriate .
A weight monitoring schedule will be developed upon admission for all residents:
a.
Newly admitted residents - monitor weight weekly for 4 weeks
b.
Residents with weight loss - monitor weight weekly
c.
If clinically indicated - monitor weight daily .
Resident #40
Review of Resident #40's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/06/22, revealed an admission to the facility on 8/23/16, with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, heart failure, lung disease, anxiety, and depression. Resident #40 required extensive two-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing, and supervision and one-person assistance for walking. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was unable to be administered, indicating Resident #40 demonstrated severe cognitive impairment. Resident #40's weight was 175 pounds, and his height was 73; the nutritional assessment was marked for no significant weight loss.
A review of Resident #40's weights retrieved from dietary notes revealed a significant weight loss from 3/09/22, with a weight of 181 pounds to 7/06/22, with a weight of 158 pounds, (a 12.7% weight loss in a near six month period).
Review of Resident #40's weight record, provided by Registered Nurse (RN) D, revealed a most recent weight on 7/16/22 of 147.3#. Resident #49's continued to demonstrate a pattern of significant weight loss.
Further review of Resident #40's weight record provided by RN D revealed a variation in weight, on 2/21/22 of 204.6# in a wheelchair, and on 2/22/22 of 174.6# in a wheelchair. There was no reweight until 3/07/22 of 181.2#; and no evidence of weekly weights until after 3/07/22.
Review of Resident #40's DIET: Quarterly Nutritional Updates, dated 5/31/22, and 2/28/22, revealed the assessment sections were blank.
Review of Resident #40's nutritional Care Plan, accessed 7/13/22, revealed, (Focus) Nutrition: date initialed: 9/14/21: (Goal)I will maintain nutritional status through review date. Date initiated : 9/14/21. (Intervention) Dining independent . There were no updates or interventions to address Resident #40's significant weight loss, and strategies to abate.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to perform blood glucose test controls for one Resident (#30) of one resident reviewed for blood glucose testing. This deficient...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to perform blood glucose test controls for one Resident (#30) of one resident reviewed for blood glucose testing. This deficient practice had the potential for inaccurate blood glucose results. Findings include: (All times represent Eastern Standard Time)
During an observation on 7/11/22 at 2:33 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) N performed a blood glucose fingerstick on Resident #30. LPN N explained the glucometers were not shared among residents, that each resident had their own monitors which were stored in the nurses' medication carts. The test strip bottle (UJ21MA23F) did not contain a handwritten expiration date. LPN N was asked to show the control log. LPN N opened a few medication drawers and was unable to locate one.
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 9:39 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) and RN D confirmed no glucose monitor control logs were completed facility-wide. When asked for a copy of the glucometer manufacturer's instructions, RN D said the facility did not currently have one but referred this Surveyor to the internet.
Review of (brand name) Blood Glucose Monitoring System revision 12/14, read in part, When you first open a control solution bottle, record the discard date (date opened plus three (3) months) .You should do a control solution test: *When you want to practice the test procedure using the control solution instead of blood * When using the meter for the first time * Whenever you open a new vial of test strips * If the meter or test strips do not function properly * If your symptoms are inconsistent with the blood glucose .* If you drop or damage the meter.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to preserve the personal privacy and confidentiality of care for four reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
.
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to preserve the personal privacy and confidentiality of care for four residents (#25, #29, #50, and #51) in the main dining room and failed to serve all residents at the same table causing residents to wait (#14 and #15). This deficient practice resulted in the lack of privacy, feelings of despair and being left out with the potential to affect all residents dining in the main dining room. Findings include:
On 7/11/22 at 8:15 AM, residents were observed in the dining room waiting for the breakfast meal. By 8:51 AM, 14 residents had been assembled and were waiting for breakfast to be delivered. At 9:04 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) M entered the dining room and without offering privacy took the blood pressure of Resident #25. At 9:28 AM, in the presence of other staff and residents, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) N administered medication to Resident # 51. At 9:33 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) O administered medications to Resident #25 without the benefit of privacy. At 9:39 AM, Resident #50 was being assisted with breakfast and LPN N interrupted the meal to administer medications to this resident.
At 9:06 AM on 7/11/22, a cart with resident breakfast trays was delivered to the dining room, and staff began to serve the residents. Three tables were observed to have some residents with breakfast and others at the table sitting and waiting for their meal. At 9:24 AM, the cart was empty, and the second cart had not arrived. Most tables had some residents eating and others waiting. One table had two residents eating and the other resident who had been waiting wandered away. One table had two residents eating and the other resident had laid her head on the table and closed her eyes. One table had five residents who needed meal assistance, but only one resident had been served. The second breakfast cart of meals arrived at 9:25 AM. At 9:33 AM, Resident #15 who was seated at the first table served, finally received his breakfast. His tablemates were finished with the meal. Resident #15 stated it took the staff a long while to get his breakfast. At 9:45 AM, Resident #14 was observed to be the last served at her table and the only remaining resident at that table. Resident #14 had fallen asleep while she waited, and her tablemates ate. She now started eating while dirty trays cluttered her table and there was no opportunity for socialization.
During lunch observations on 7/11/22 at 12:35 PM, once again the meal was not served to every resident at a table. CNA M said the trays were served in the order they arrived in the cart.
On 7/19/22, an email request for the dining service policy was made to the Regional Dietary Manager (DM) P and Registered Nurse (RN) C. DM P provided a policy titled: Meal Distribution dated 9/1/21 which read in part, The nursing staff will be responsible for verifying meal accuracy and the timely delivery of meals to residents/patients. RN C responded that there was not a facility specific policy for meal distribution.
Resident #29
During an observation on 7/12/22 at 9:20 a.m., Resident #29 was seated in the dining room surrounded by other residents having breakfast. Resident #29 asked Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) H for toileting assistance. CNA H said, Why didn't you go before (coming to the dining room)? Resident #29 responded, Because I didn't have to go. CNA H told Resident #29, You're going to have to wheel yourself because you don't have foot pedals (for the wheelchair). I can't push you unless you have them on. Resident #29 very slowly began self-propelling themselves out of the dining room.
During an interview on 7/13/22 at 10:45 a.m., the observation involving Resident #29 with CNA H was discussed with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON confirmed Resident #29 was not treated in a dignified manner and staff should have assisted them with their toileting needs.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** All times are recorded in Eastern Standard Time.
This citation has four deficient practice statements:
Based on observation, i...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** All times are recorded in Eastern Standard Time.
This citation has four deficient practice statements:
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to:
1.
Provide adequate supervision to prevent two vulnerable Residents (#16 and #40) from demonstrating wandering behaviors, resulting in Resident #40 found located by Surveyor in their resident room bathtub, and Resident #16 and #40 from wandering unsupervised into other residents' rooms, taking personal items, including Resident #45's room. This deficient practice resulted in the risk of serious injury for Resident #40, and feeling of frustration for Resident #45, with the potential for missing items and misappropriation.
2.
Prevent a fall for one Resident (#5) of four residents reviewed for falls and accidents, resulting in a skin tear for Resident #5. This deficient practice had the potential to result in a serious injury for Resident #5.
3.
Provide safe wheelchair transport for one Resident (#16) of sixteen residents reviewed for safety and supervision, when Resident #16 was observed being pushed in their wheelchair without foot pedals in an unsafe manner by facility staff. This deficient practice placed Resident #16 at risk for an accident or injury.
4.
Ensure the dining room floor, where residents were present, was dry when wet floor cleaning was actively in process and provide appropriate safety signs.
Findings include:
Resident #40
Review of Resident #40's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/06/22, revealed an admission to the facility on 8/23/16, with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, heart failure, lung disease, anxiety, and depression. Resident #40 required extensive two-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing, and supervision and one-person assistance for walking. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was unable to be administered, indicating Resident #40 demonstrated severe cognitive impairment. The behavior section of the MDS assessment was not marked for wandering behaviors.
An observation on 7/13/22 at 9:36 a.m. revealed Resident #40's name and picture were noted on the facility elopement posting (out of public view) at the nurse's station.
Review of Resident #40's Care Plan, accessed 7/20/22, revealed, I am an elopement risk/wanderer, date initiated: 09/29/2020. I will not leave facility unattended .Distract me from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, book Wander alarm applied .Wander alert: ankle .
During an observation on 7/11/22 at approximately 8:30 a.m., Resident #40 was observed ambulating on a unit hall holding onto the hallway rail with a stooped posture, with his head looking down and his back bent forward at the neck. Additional observations during the survey revealed Resident #40 standing and ambulating in the facility without staff assistance, placing him at risk for falls.
During an observation on 7/19/22 beginning at 9:10 a.m. Surveyor was unable to locate Resident #40 in the facility, including in his room, on any facility hall, in the activity room, at the nurse's desk, or in common areas. Surveyor did not see any nursing staff on the floor to ask, so Surveyor walked into the facility dining room where staff were located. At approximately 9:15 a.m., Surveyor asked the Activity Director (Staff) K, who was in the dining room, preparing to assist with the meal, if they had seen Resident #40 recently, and Staff K reported they had not. Surveyor exited the dining room, and again did see Resident #40 in their room or in the facility. At 9:20 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked to assist to locate Resident #40. The DON walked into Resident #40's room with Surveyor to do a more thorough search, and Resident #40 was located beyond his bed in the bathroom, past the toilet, behind the bathroom door, positioned on his back in a bathtub in his room bathroom that was not easily visible. Resident #40's head was lifted off the bottom of the tub, and his knees were flexed in the tub, and it appeared he was trying to lift himself out of the tub. The NHA and management staff reported they had planned to relocate Resident #40 to another room.
Review of Resident #40's updated Care Plan showed the following intervention after the incident, I was moved to a room without a bathtub, and will continue to be in a room without a bathtub. Date initiated: 7/19/22.
During an observation on 7/19/22 at 11:06 a.m., Resident #40 was seated in a lounge chair outside the activity room. He did not appear to be in any pain, and no grimacing was noted. He could not answer a question about the incident or if he was injured. The DON soon after reported there was no injury found. Surveyor noted concern with Staff K not obtaining another staff to assist in a search for Resident #40 when Surveyor was unable to locate Resident #40 beginning at 9:10 a.m The DON and Staff K understood the concern, and Staff K acknowledged going forward they would ask another staff to assist if they were unavailable to locate a resident if they were otherwise engaged.
During an interview on 7/19/22 at 11:59 a.m., the Director of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) II, was asked the level of assistance Resident #40 required for mobility. PTA II reported he required contact guard assistance (touch assistance for occasional stabilization) to handheld assist for mobility (ambulation), and contact guard assistance to stand by assistance for transfers, due to impaired balance, decreased postural control (stooped posture with decreased base of support), and decreased safety awareness. PTA II confirmed Resident #40 may at times lower himself to the floor and crawl on the floor intermittently, which was in his Care Plan.
During an interview on 7/19/22 at 12:09 p.m., Resident #40's Occupational Therapist, Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) OO, also confirmed Resident #40 required one-person assistance for safety with mobility, due to marked cognitive impairment, and decreased strength, and postural/trunk control.
Review of Resident #40's progress note, dated 5/26/22 at 23:38 [11:38 p.m.] (CST), revealed, Resident [#40] walking in and out of resident's rooms throughout tour. Yelling Somebody help me noted from the 200 hallway. This resident entered a female occupant's room [unnamed/no room number] where the occupant started screaming for help d/t [due to] this resident [#40] being in the room. This resident [#40] began mocking the female resident and began yelling somebody help me. This resident [#40] then began to repeat staff verbiage when attempting to redirect resident out of the room .This resident [#40] continued to enter other residents' rooms and became angry by aggressively squeezing staff's hands, digging fingertips into staffs' hands, and/or forearm, growling, and showing his teeth. This resident was resistant to leaving the other residents rooms when redirection attempts were made. Staff will continue to monitor this resident [#40].
Review of Resident #40's progress note, dated 4/21/22 at 6:34 a.m. (CST) revealed, Resident [#40] going in and out of other residents rooms all tour. Resident [#40] yelling at staff when attempts at redirection are made. Resident [#40] ignoring staff when redirecting out of other resident's rooms. Resident [#40] becoming angry very quickly .
Review of Resident #40's Accident and Incident Report, dated 5/04/22, revealed, Upon entering room [ROOM NUMBER], the resident was noted to be lying in a supine position in front of the closed door leading to the hallway, head towards bed 1, gripper socked feet towards the bathroom wall. The resident was noted to be elevating his right arm .skin tear right elbow .Notes: 5/11/22. Redirect from [Resident #40] other resident rooms while he is ambulating independently.
Resident #45
Resident #45's face sheet revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (a form of dementia), kidney failure, depression, history of COVID (an easily transmittable viral disease), malnutrition and repeated falls.
On 7/11/22 at 10:11 a.m., Resident #45 reported facility residents frequently wandered into her room, including Resident #40, and Resident #16, who came into her room and took items from her drawers, and violated her privacy. Resident #45 reported Resident #40 crawled down the hallway on the floor from his room into her room. Resident #45 reported she had told staff on multiple occasions, and there had been no change in the situation, which made her feel frustrated and uncomfortable. Resident #45 denied any stolen items or misappropriation, and reported the items were later returned by staff.
Review of Resident #45's Care Plan revealed no interventions related to Resident #45 requesting more privacy in her room, related to wandering residents, or protection of her property.
During an interview on 7/11/22 at 1:34 p.m., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) JJ was asked about residents wandering into Resident #45's room. CNA JJ confirmed Resident #40 did crawl on the floor and wandered into other resident rooms and took items, as did Resident #16, who propelled herself with a wheelchair. CNA JJ was asked if this bothered Resident #45, and affirmed Resident #45 did get upset about it, and comforted her when this occurred. When asked about any staff interventions, CNA JJ reported nursing staff tried to watch but said they couldn't stop these residents. CNA JJ did not verbalize any person-centered interventions to stop the wandering behaviors of Resident #40 or Resident #16, and had not notified management of Resident #45's concerns.
During an interview on 7/11/22 at 2:01 p.m., Resident #40's nurse, Registered Nurse (RN) O was asked if Resident #40 had wandered into other resident rooms by crawling on the floor. RN O reported Resident #40 was only in his bed on and off at night and was frequently wandering into other resident rooms on Resident #45's hall. She reported Resident #40 startles more than steals, as Resident #40 did not have the ability to make decisions as his cognition changes often. RN O stated she didn't believe Resident #45 had stolen any items, and the items which were taken were always returned.
An observation on 7/11/22 at approximately 1:45 p.m. revealed Resident #40's room was on the same resident hallway as Resident #45, on the same side of the hall, about 2-3 rooms away.
An observation on 7/11/22 at 1:52 p.m. revealed Resident #16 rapidly propelling her wheelchair down a resident hallway by grabbing onto the rail of the hall. Resident #16 appeared agitated and her face was in a scowl. Other observations during the survey revealed Resident #16 wandering on the resident units and demonstrating exit-seeking behaviors, with redirection by staff.
An observation on 7/11/22 at approximately 8:30 a.m. revealed Resident #40 was observed on the unit ambulating with a stooped posture, holding the facility rail. Resident #40 was observed walking across the hall from his room and entering another resident's room across the hall. Resident #40 stayed in the room until staff arrived soon after and redirected Resident #40 out of the room.
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 11:07 a.m., the Rehabilitation Director, Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) II was asked if they had observed Resident #40 wandering on the resident care units. PTA II affirmed Resident #40 did demonstrate wandering behaviors, sometimes into other resident rooms, and staff including himself did their best to redirect Resident #40 when they saw it occurred. PTA II reported Resident #40 was care planned to maneuver on the floor per his preference, or ambulate with support/assistance in the facility. PTA II planned to follow up with facility management to address Resident #45's concern. The DON was soon after informed of this concern, and acknowledged they would follow up with Resident #45, and update Resident #45's Care Plan.
Review of the policy, Elopement and Wandering Residents, 2021, received from the NHA, revealed, This facility ensures that residents who exhibit wandering behavior and/or at risk for elopement receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents, and receive care in accordance with person-centered plan of care addressing unique factors contributing to wandering or elopement risk. Wandering is random or repetitive locomotion that may be goal-directed (e.g. the person appears to be searching for something such as an exit or non-goal directed or aimless) .3. The facility shall establish a systematic approach to monitoring and managing residents at risk for elopement or unsafe wandering including identification and assessment of risk, evaluation, and analysis of hazards and risks, implementing interventions to reduce hazards and risks, and monitoring for effectiveness and modifying interventions when necessary .4 a. Residents will be assessed for risk of elopement and unsafe wandering upon admission and throughout their stay by the interdisciplinary team. b. The interdisciplinary team will evaluate the unique factors contributing to the risk in order to develop a person-centered care plan d. Adequate supervision will be provided to help prevent accidents or elopements .
Resident #16
Review of Resident #16's MDS assessment, dated 4/17/22, showed the following major diagnoses: dementia, arthritis, coronary heart disease, and renal insufficiency. Resident #16 required one staff assistance for bed mobility, transfers, and locomotion in a wheelchair. The BIMS score was 1/15 which reflected severe cognitive impairment.
During an observation on 7/12/22 at 11:24 a.m., Activity Director (Staff) K pushed Resident #16's wheelchair away from an exit door across from the nurses' desk towards the dining room. Staff K pushed Resident #16's wheelchair which was not equipped with foot pedals. Staff K placed only one hand on the back of the wheelchair on the left handle when Resident #16 was propelled. Resident #16 was instructed to lift their legs when the wheelchair was propelled.
Resident #5
Review of Resident #5's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/27/22, showed the following diagnoses: urinary tract infection, constipation, stroke, heart failure, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 13/15 which reflected intact cognition. Resident #5 required one staff physical assistance for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, and had an indwelling urinary catheter. No prior fall history was noted on the same MDS assessment.
Review of Resident #5's Progress Note, dated 7/4/22 at 8:28 a.m. (Central) read in part, laying on floor on left side next to bed, blankets around feet. Noted 2 skin tears to left elbow assessment completed left hip red.
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 10:53 a.m., the DON and Registered Nurse (RN) D were asked to provide any additional documentation to the Incident and Accident Report, Fall with Injury dated 7/4/22 at 06:45 (a.m.). The DON said, There is none. The DON confirmed the fall occurred from the bed to the floor. When asked if the left side rail and/or indwelling catheter contributed to the fall, the DON said she was unable to answer since no additional details were provided. Both the DON and RN D agreed the root cause of the fall was unable to be determined since a full investigation into Resident #5's fall on 7/4/22 was not completed.
Review of the facility's Fall Prevention Program undated, read in part, When a resident experiences a fall, the facility will: Obtain witness statements in the case of injury.
During an observation on 7/18/22 at approximately 9:45 a.m., Staff A was using an auto scrubber machine to clean the floors while residents were present (both seated and walking). No wet floor sign was visible at the dining room entrance nor in the area where the floor was visibly wet.
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 11:02 a.m., Regional Manager (Staff) L confirmed the dining room floor was cleaned after breakfast and before the first scheduled activity by Staff A who was using an auto scrubber. Staff L confirmed the wet floor sign was placed incorrectly and the wet floor posed a fall risk for residents who were present in the dining room and/or for residents who entered the dining room while the floor was being cleaned.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT).
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT).
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure bed rails were used appropriately for two Residents (#3 & #37) of 16 sample residents reviewed for bed safety. The facility failed to:
1. Assess the residents for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation.
2. Review risks and benefits with the resident and/or resident representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation.
3. Obtain physician orders for the use of bed rails, and
4. Obtain signed informed consent for the use of bed rails.
This deficient practice resulted in the potential for unsafe sleep, resident entrapment, injury and death and had the potential to affect all residents using bedrails in the facility. Findings include:
Resident #3
Observation of 7/10/22 at 2:49 p.m., found Resident #3 sitting in bed attempting to self-transfer from the bed to the wheelchair. Bilateral mobility bed rails were observed on Resident #3's bed.
Observation on 7/11/22 at 10:12 a.m., found Resident #3 sitting in their wheelchair, with the call light positioned on the bed outside the reach of the Resident. Bilateral bed rails positioned on the bed.
Review of Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/27/22, revealed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with active diagnoses that included: coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, arthritis, and depression. Resident #3 scored 10 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflection of moderately impaired cognition. Resident #3 required extensive, one-person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, and dressing, and used a wheelchair for mobility in the facility.
Review of Resident #3's complete medical record, including the paper chart (hard chart) on 07/11/22 at 12:41 p.m., revealed an incomplete Evaluation for Use of Bed Rails. An Assist Rail Screener for bed rails was completed on 7/11/22 at 06:40 [6:40 a.m. Central Standard Time (CST)].
Review of Resident #3's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) retrieved from the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) on 7/10/22 at 2:38 p.m. (Central Daylight Savings Time) found no physician order for the installation and use of bed rails for Resident #3.
Review of Resident #3's Care Plans, retrieved on 7/10/22 at 2:40 p.m., found no interventions related to use of bed rails by Resident #3.
No Bed Rail Assessment (completed prior to the start of the recertification survey), or documentation showing resident or resident representative education of the risks/benefits of bedrails, or signed consent for use of bedrails, were found in Resident #3's medical record.
During interviews on 7/11/22 at 11:51 a.m. and 12:20 p.m., the MDS Registered Nurse (RN) D said bed rails had been discussed with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) the previous day, on 7/10/22, following the start of the facility's recertification survey. RN D said there was a list of all the Residents with bed rails, but she would have to pull it out of the garbage. RN D said the list was thrown away that morning after going through all the individuals and checking everyone for completion of bed rail documentation. RN D said there were three or four Residents without the proper documentation for bed rails . The list provided by RN D included Resident #3 and Resident #37. RN D stated, Some nurses didn't have orders (Physician Orders for bed rails). I was going around looking today (7/11/22) to make sure they were compliant.
During a telephone interview on 7/19/22 at 8:21 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed neither Maintenance Director EE, Infection Preventionist C, MDS Nurse D, the DON or any other staff member had completed entrapment zone measurements on the beds, as they were unaware that it needed to be done. The DON stated, After our discussion last week (about bed safety), we got more information, and I just gave the maintenance director a stack of information (on bed safety) to get them started (on the bed measurements).
Resident #37
Observation on 7/10/22 at 3:00 p.m., found Resident #37's bed with bilateral mobility bed rails installed.
Observation on 7/11/22 at 09:57 a.m., found bilateral mobility bed rails installed on Resident #37's bed.
Review of Resident #37's MDS assessment, dated 6/6/22, revealed Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with active diagnoses that included: cancer, heart failure, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Resident #37 scored 12 of 15 on the BIMS reflective of slightly impaired cognitive function. Resident #37 required limited, one-person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene.
Review of Resident #37's complete medical record revealed an Assist Rail Screener for bed rails was completed on 7/11/22 (following the start of the survey). The document was signed and locked (showing completion) on 7/11/22 at 05:47 (5:47 a.m. CST).
Review of Resident #37's Physician Orders and Care Plans also revealed a Physician Order for Assist rails for increased mobility and transfers was added on 7/11/22, and the Care Plan Focus, Goals, and Interventions were all added to Resident #3's Comprehensive Care Plans on 7/11/22.
Bed rail consents were requested from Infection Preventionist/Registered Nurse (RN) C on 7/13/22 at 12:35 p.m.
During an observation and interview on 7/13/22 at 12:41 p.m., RN C confirmed no bed rail consent forms signed by the individual Residents or Resident Representatives had been found in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for Resident #3 or Resident #37. RN C, in the presence of this Surveyor reviewed the medical paper charts for Resident #3 and Resident #37 and acknowledged no consent forms were present in the medical records. RN C stated, I am pretty sure they don't exist.
During an interview on 7/13/22 at 1:00 p.m., when asked about completion of bed assessments for safety and documentation of entrapment zone measurements, Maintenance Director EE said no entrapment zone bed rail measurements had been completed by them, and no documentation was available. Maintenance Director EE said he was unaware of any bed measurements completed by the previous Maintenance Director and was unsure who in the facility would have performed them.
Review of the Proper Use of Side Rails policy, revised February 2022, revealed the following, in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to utilize a person-centered approach when determining the use of side rails, also known as bed rails. Alternative approaches are attempted prior to installing a side or bed rail . Obtain informed consent from the resident, or the resident representative for the use of bed rails, prior to installation/use . Determine whether or not the side/bed rail is a restraint . e. Document the medical diagnosis, condition, symptom, or functional reason for the use of the side/bed rail. f. Obtain physician orders for the use of side/bed rails.4. The facility will assure the correct installation and maintenance of bed rails, prior to use. This includes . e. Inspecting and regularly checking the mattress and bed rails for gaps and areas of possible entrapment. f. Checking rails regularly to make sure they are still installed correctly and have not shifted or loosened over time. 5. The use of side rails will be specified in the resident's plan of care. a. Side rails that are permanently installed on the bed frame shall not be used, even incidentally, without proper assessment, informed consent, and physician orders .6. The facility will provide ongoing monitoring and supervision of side rail/bed rail use for effectiveness, assessment of need and determination when the side rail/bed rail will be discontinued. Responsibilities are specified as follows: a. Direct care staff will be responsible for care and treatment in accordance with the plan of care. b. A nurse assigned to the resident will complete reassessments in accordance with the facility's assessment schedule, but not less than every 6 months, upon a significant change in status, or a change in the type of bed/mattress/rail. c. The interdisciplinary team will make decisions regarding when the side/bed rail will be used or discontinued, or when to revise the care plan to address any resident effects of the rail. d. The maintenance director of designee, is responsible for adhering to routine maintenance and inspection schedule for all bed frames, mattresses, and rails.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0728
(Tag F0728)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that four Training Nurse Aides (TNAs), identified as Staff T, Staff M Staff U and Staff V out of seven, current TNAs whose competenc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that four Training Nurse Aides (TNAs), identified as Staff T, Staff M Staff U and Staff V out of seven, current TNAs whose competency training files were reviewed, had received the facility's required two-week competency evaluation prior to working independently on the floor. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for staff incompetency and/or unmet resident care needs. Findings include: (All times reflect Eastern Standard Time)
During the sufficient and competent nurse staffing review on 7/10/22 at 3:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Staff S it was identified the facility utilized TNAs due to staffing challenges incurred with the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 7/18/22 at 10:02 a.m., the previous DON and current Infection Preventionist/Registered Nurse (RN) C said she previously maintained the TNAs' two-week competency checklists and was in the process of training the current DON of the responsibility.
During an interview on 7/10/22 at 11:02 a.m., [NAME] Clerk/Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) F said she made the daily shift schedules for the nursing staff. When asked if special consideration was made when scheduling the TNAs, CNA F indicated the TNAs after completing their Temporary Nurse Aide Skills Competency Checklist were considered trained to work independently as other CNAs.
On 7/18/22 at 1:11 p.m., Staff S said the facility did not have a separate job description for the temporary nurse aides who were working under the COVID waiver.
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 1:28 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was asked to differentiate between the TNAs and CNAs job duties. The NHA explained the TNAs were independently able to perform duties covered on the Temporary Nurse Aide Skills Competency Checklist that were signed off after a two week training period by a CNA. The NHA was asked to identify all current TNAs working in the facility since the staffing list provided to this Surveyor (which included most recent hire date and position) identified the TNAs and CNAs.
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 2:39 p.m., RN C explained all TNAs hired received two weeks of training before their competencies were assessed and checked off. RN C provided TNAs competencies for Staff G, Staff I and Staff R and said four other TNAs had no record of completion (identified as Staff T (hire date 3/1/22), Staff U (hire date 5/5/22), Staff M (hire date 1/7/21) and Staff V (hire date 9/8/20). Staff C confirmed all currently working TNAs should have completed competencies on file.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0711
(Tag F0711)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #253
A review of Resident #253's Medical Record revealed an admission date of 12/15/2021 with diagnoses including fract...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #253
A review of Resident #253's Medical Record revealed an admission date of 12/15/2021 with diagnoses including fracture of the first lumbar vertebra, history of falling, adult failure to thrive, chronic kidney disease, and pain. The MDS assessment, dated 3/14/22, indicated a significant weight loss while not on a physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen. Resident #253 discharged to another facility on 3/14/22.
During an interview on 7/19/22 at 10:28 AM, RN D said she had reviewed the medical record and did not find any physician progress notes or assessments. RN D said the physician had virtually (via telemed) visited Resident #253 on the date of admission [DATE]) with NP CC but did not create a progress note until the late entry on 2/8/22. RN D found no provider (physician or nurse practitioner) notes other than the late entry in the medical record.
During an interview on 7/19/22 at 12:51 PM, the DON presented a stack of NP CC Patient encounter notes. The DON said these notes were not in the medical record, but NP CC printed them out from her records. This surveyor then stated, So no one in the facility had access to them? The DON replied, That is correct.
Resident #40
Review of Resident #40's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/06/22, revealed an admission to the facility on 8/23/16, with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, heart failure, lung disease, anxiety, and depression. Resident #40 required extensive two-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing, and supervision and one-person assistance for walking. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was unable to be administered, indicating Resident #40 demonstrated severe cognitive impairment. The falls section showed two falls with no injury, two falls with minor injury, and no falls with major injury.
Review of Resident #40's physician progress notes in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) on 7/11/22 revealed no physician notes. Requested notes were received on 7/12/22, and included printed nurse practitioners notes by NP MM, which reportedly had not been scanned into the EMR. NP MM's notes showed regular visits from February, 2022 through June, 2022. It was noted there were no physician visits by physician, only visits by NP MM.
Resident #40's physician notes by physician were second requested on 7/19/22. One physician note was received dated 3/30/22 from the MDS Registered Nurse, (RN) D. Additional requests from RN D yielded two earlier physician notes from 2021 (September and October 2021), however no additional notes were provided. It was confirmed by RN D there were no visits by physician since 3/30/22, or between October, 2021, and March, 2022. RN D understood the concern.
Review of the EMR and records received confirmed alternate physician visits were not provided timely or consistently per regulatory requirements.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician visit progress notes were signed and dated and present in the electronic medical record (EMR) or physical chart for four Residents (#3, #37, #40 and #253) of four residents reviewed for physician visits. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for the lack of coordination of care between the physician and the facility affecting all 49 residents. Findings include:
Resident #3
Review of Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/27/22, revealed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with active diagnoses that included: coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, arthritis, and depression. Resident #3 scored 10 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflection of moderately impaired cognition. Resident #3 required extensive, one-person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, and dressing, and used a wheelchair for mobility in the facility.
Review of Physician Progress Notes (including Nurse Practitioner (NP) Progress Notes) on 7/18/22 2:57 p.m., revealed the following recently added Physician and/or NP Progress Notes:
NP Progress Note Effective 6/30/22, Created 7/15/22
NP Progress Note Effective 5/31/22, Created 7/15/22
NP Progress Note Effective 5/26/22, Created 7/15/22
NP Progress Note Effective 5/4/22, Created 7/15/22
NP Progress Note Effective 4/18/22, Created 7/15/22
NP Progress Note Effective 4/14/22, Created 7/15/22
NP Progress Note Effective 4/12/22, Created 7/15/22
NP Progress Note Effective 4/5/22, Created 7/15/22
NP Progress Note Effective 3/23/22, Created 7/15/22
NP Progress Note Effective 3/16/22, Created 7/15/22
NP Progress Note Effective 3/14/22, Created 7/15/22
Former Physician Progress Note (no longer employeed by the facility), 2/7/22
No Physician Visits from Physician LL ( Physician through [Company Name] Telemedicine Services Agreement, dated 12/1/21) were documented in Resident #3's EMR or paper chart.
Resident #37
Review of Resident #37's MDS assessment, dated 6/6/22, revealed Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with active diagnoses that included: cancer, heart failure, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Resident #37 scored 12 of 15 on the BIMS reflective of slightly impaired cognitive function.
Review of Resident #37's Physician Progress Notes on 7/12/22 at 11:27 a.m., found no Physician Progress Notes in the facility EMR for Resident #37.
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 10:45 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and NP MM confirmed that no Physician or NP visit progress notes would be found in the resident's paper charts or in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). They explained that the current system for documentation of Physician Visits was not compatible with the EMR program utilized for medical documentation in the facility, and a paper copy of the visits had not been put into each resident's paper chart for review.
NP MM said copies were made from her physician visit documentation program and brought in for the facility (on 7/12/22) for placement into the resident's paper charts. NP MM also said from that day (7/12/22) moving forward, they were going to enter the Physician Visit Progress Note into the Progress Note section of the facility's EMR program.
The NHA and NP MM agreed that availability of Physician Visit documentation for each resident was essential for continuity of care and for medical and nursing staff to have access to the Physician Progress Notes for noted changes or identified concerns.
Review of the undated Physician Visits and Physician Delegation policy, revealed the following, in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to ensure the physician takes an active role in supervising the care of residents. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines:
1. The Physician should: .
c. Review the resident's total program of care including medications and treatments at each visit.
d. Date, write and sign a progress note for each visit .
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
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 drugs and biologicals by 1) ensuring proper tem...
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 drugs and biologicals by 1) ensuring proper temperature controls for two of two medication room refrigerators; 2) safely securing narcotic medications were double-locked; 3) improperly preparing and storing medications with staff food and personal items. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for improper storage temperatures for drugs and biologicals and reduced efficacy of medications/biologicals, potential medication and narcotic drug diversion, and potential cross-contamination during medication preparation. Findings include: (All times represent Eastern Time)
An observation of the facility's only medication room was made on 7/12/22 at 11:30 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON). The door behind the nurses' desk provided one of two entrances into the medication room. Upon entering the room, the following was noted: 1. Two cardboard boxes containing punch-pack medications cards were stored directly on the floor to the left side of the room. 2. The counter had plexi-glass covering dual sinks making handwashing inaccessible in this location. 3. A large, black, unzipped purse was located on the counter next to a saltshaker and pastry. 4. Sitting on top of a box of Albuterol Sulfate Inhalation Solution was a denture cup which was positioned between the saltshaker, stapler, and a container of disinfecting wipes. 5. Directly underneath the wall-mounted soap dispenser was a personal black, drink thermos which obstructed its use. 6. Two additional denture containers were on the top right corner of the sink next to a power-strip and a personal manicure set. The DON confirmed food and personal items were not acceptable where medications were prepared and stored.
During the same observation, the DON was asked to read the current refrigerator temperature for the refrigerator located on top of the same counter. The DON recalled a reading of 11.2 Celsius. When asked to convert the reading to Fahrenheit, the DON was unable. Upon looking at acceptable temperature ranges on the July 2022 log for a reading of 11.2 Celsius, it was determined to be out of range (52.16 F). The DON said the thermometer's probe was improperly found in the refrigerator door. The DON said the refrigerator needed defrosting. Visible ice formation was seen once medications were removed from the top shelf. The DON confirmed too many medications were improperly stored in the refrigerator. The following medications were accounted for in the small sized refrigerator:
1. Lorazepam (narcotic) oral solution 2 mg (milligram)/mL (milliliter) 30 mL bottles-quantity 12
2. Humulin-N (insulin) injectable 10 mL -quantity 7 vials
3. Humulin-R (insulin) injectable 10 mL-quantity 8 vials-visible ice formations seen within one clear, plastic bag
4. Levemir (insulin) pens-quantity 8
5. Lantus (insulin) pens-quantity 7
6. Novolog (insulin) pens-quantity 6
Review of the Vaccine Storage Temperature Log located on the same refrigerator showed recordings were omitted for two consecutive days: July 9th and 10th, 2022. The DON said the expectation was to check and record the refrigerator temperatures twice each day.
During the same medication room observation on 7/12/22 beginning at 11:30 a.m., the back portion of the room was observed. A cardboard box of ProSource (nutritional supplements) was stored directly on the floor. A second entrance door was noted. A second small sized refrigerator was noted on the counter to the left of the sink which contained three shelves. The refrigerator was found unlocked and contained Resident #51's Lorazepam (narcotic) Oral Concentrate 2 mg/mL- 30 mL two bottles. Additional items were found: 1. one vial of Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative (PPD) - used to test for tuberculosis exposure that was opened and undated 2. Lantus 3. eye drops 4. Marinol (antiemetic) and 4. Monoclonal antibodies (used to treat COVID-19). The DON confirmed the PPD vial should have been dated once opened with a 30 day expiration noted on the vial. The DON also confirmed the second refrigerator should have been locked due to Resident #51's narcotics.
The same second refrigerator contained a Vaccine Storage Temperature Log for July 2022 which was missing readings for two consecutive days on July 9th and 10th.
To the right of the refrigerator was a small sink. The DON said nurses' preparing medication would use this sink in the medication room since the other sink was covered by plexi-glass. The sink contained no water residue, and the garbage can located to the right of the sink contained a Snickers candy bar wrapper, [NAME] thickened nectar container, Starbucks can of double shot espresso, and a syringe wrapper. The DON confirmed nurses had prepared medications in the room that morning.
Review of the facility's policy Medication Storage revised 7/11/22, read in part, It is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications .will be stored in the medication room .according to the manufacturer's recommendations and sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, .segregation, and security .a. Schedule II drugs and back-up stock of Schedule III, IV and V medications are stored under double-lock and key. b. Scheduled II controlled medications are to be stored within a separately locked permanently affixed compartment when other medications are stored in the same area, such as in refrigerator .Refrigerated Products: .Temperatures are maintained within 36-46 degrees F. Charts are kept on each refrigerator and temperature levels are recorded daily .
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
.
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a qualified Certified Dietary Manager was in place to lead the dietary departmen...
Read full inspector narrative →
.
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a qualified Certified Dietary Manager was in place to lead the dietary department as required. This deficient practice resulted in the potential lack of oversite and leadership in the operation of the dietary department which could impact all 49 of the nursing home residents. Findings Include:
A tour of the kitchen was conducted on 07/10/22 at 2:20 PM. Dietary Aide (Staff) SS was putting dishes through the dish machine. He said he was new (second day on the job) and was not exactly sure of the procedure to take dish machine temperatures or what the temperatures should be. Staff SS said, We just tell (the Dietary Manager (DM) A). The dish machine temperature log was reviewed, and the last two days on the log were not filled in. Several items in the refrigerator were older than the manufactures Use by date. Staff RR stated several times she was not sure how long to keep food items. Many food items were not dated with an opened date or a use by date. Staff RR was asked when the items had been opened, and she stated, I don't really know. A cook (Staff) QQ was asked about the reach-in freezer shelves caked with several inches of ice. Staff QQ stated, This is not really what I do.
During the tour of the kitchen at 2:54 PM, the DM A arrived and was asked about the proper temperature of the dish machine. DM A did not know temperature standards and said, (Staff Q) is my lead. I do not take temps. She does. When asked how DM A would know to correct Staff Q, she did not answer.
During an interview on 7/11/22 at 8:58 AM, DM A acknowledged she had not begun the certification process of becoming a certified dietary manager, but in fact was the head of laundry and housekeeping departments and was just promoted to also be over the dietary department. DMA said she had just signed up for the class on 7/8/22. DM A indicated she worked for a contracted company.
On 7/11/22 at 10:16 AM, Regional Dietary Director (Contracted Staff P) arrived and reviewed tour issues and indicated DM A was the Dietary Manager but was unsure about her credentials.
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 9:47 AM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) did not have paperwork for the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) course for DM A. The NHA said he believed DM A had enrolled in the course, but the contract company would have that paperwork.
As of the end of the survey, no paperwork was presented indicating DM A was a qualified Certified Dietary Manager.
The FDA Food Code 2013 states: 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:
(C) Responding correctly to the inspector's questions as they relate to the specific FOOD operation. The areas of knowledge include:
(11) Explaining correct procedures for cleaning and SANITIZING UTENSILS and FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT
also
2-103.11 Person in Charge.
The PERSON IN CHARGE shall ensure that:
(J) EMPLOYEES are properly SANITIZING cleaned multiuse EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS before they are reused, through routine monitoring of solution temperature and exposure time for hot water SANITIZING, and chemical concentration, pH, temperature, and exposure time for chemical SANITIZING;
.
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
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional ...
Read full inspector narrative →
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by:
A. Failing to effectively date mark potentially hazardous ready-to-eat food products.
B. Failing to maintain food contact surfaces and non-food contact surfaces in a sanitary manner.
C. Failing to effectively clean food service equipment.
This deficient practice has the potential to result in food borne illness among any or all of the 49 residents in the facility. Findings include:
An unannounced tour of the kitchen was conducted on 07/10/22 at 2:20 PM. The following observations were made:
- The dish machine temperature log was reviewed, and the last 2 days on the log were not filled in.
- The THREE-COMPARTMENT SINK LOG to measure temperatures and chemical concentration effectiveness for July 2022 was posted and was completely blank.
- Dietary Staff RR observed a container of lactose free 2% milk with manufactures use by date of 7/8/22. Staff RR stated I think it is bad. It is bulging. Staff RR said the milk belonged to a resident, but she would throw it out.
- A container of mayonnaise was observed to be opened and had no dating. Staff RR was unsure of how long to keep it.
- The refrigerator contained 3 thickened dairy drinks labeled 7/5. Staff RR said, That date is when it arrived in the building and was labeled. Also thickened apple juice had no open date or use by date. Staff RR was asked when the container was opened and when it should be discarded, she replied, I don't really know.
- Dietary cook (Staff QQ) said all food needed a label with an opened date and a use by date. She observed the thickened lemon water read opened 7/6 but did not have a use by date and a container of thickened orange juice had no opened date or use by date. A bag of sliced cheese had no label with identifier, or open date, or use by date.
- The dry storage room had opened food items of coconut, chocolate, and noodles unlabeled and resting in bins with crumb debris and loose food in the bottom of the bins.
- Boxes of bread were lying on the floor. Dietary Staff Q stated, We are trying to get more shelving.
- A refrigerated unit had a long line of a pink dried on substance on the bottom shelf. The Dietary Manager (DM A) was asked what the substance was and she answered, meat juice?
- There were large rolling bins of flour and sugar which were not labeled or dated with opened date or use by date. DM A stated, I put the flour in awhile ago. Scoops were observed inside the bins immersed in the flour and sugar. The top of the sugar bin had a red sticky substance dried on to the lid.
- The walls next to the dish machine were covered with areas of a black mold-like growth adhering to them.
- The food mixer was observed to have dried on white food stuck to the undercarriage. Staff Q stated it had not been used that day.
- The meat slicer was covered with a garbage bag. A dried piece of food appeared to be stuck to the blade. DM A stated, It is not as clean as it should be. That is probably a piece of ham.
- The sanitizer for cleaning the surfaces of the department was discussed and the dietary staff was unsure how to mix the product to fill the spray bottle containers.
During a subsequent tour of the kitchen the following day on 7/11/22 at 10:16 AM with the Regional Dietary Manager (DM) P observations included:
- The flour and sugar bins continued to have scoops immersed in the bins.
- The refrigerated unit continued to have a long line of a pink dried-on substance on the bottom shelf which the dietary staff had identified as meat juice.
- The range and oven hood had furry areas with potential to fall in food being prepared on the range. There wase dried brown debris inside the light covers in this hood area. There was a sticker affixed to the hood that read Next cleaning June 2022.
- The knife rack on the side of the range was observed to be sticky with grease, dust and a piece of dried food resting on it.
- Several utensils in a drawer were not cleanable with wooden handles no longer sealed, pieces of spatulas missing or cracked which would allow germs to harbor. These were immediately thrown out.
During an observation of the conference room refrigerator on 7/12/22 at 7:29 AM, DM P noted several opened expired carbonated beverages, a gallon sized clear baggie of a beige soft unidentifiable substance without a label, opened date, or use by date, 5 opened undated containers of thickened beverages, and a sheet pan of undated cinnamon rolls with a piece of parchment paper covering which read, do not eat. (Several rolls were missing). This refrigerator had a sign on the door which read, Please date everything BEFORE Storing in Resident Fridge.
During an observation of the medication room refrigerator on 7/12/22 at 7:37 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) C said this was the refrigerator for items used for medication pass not to store medications. It held an opened undated snickers coffee creamer, cranberry juice dated as opened 7/3, and a thickened orange juice container dated as opened 6/29. DM P said he would throw out the undated items.
The FDA Food Code 2013 states:
3-501.17 (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. (B) Except as specified in (E) -(G) of this section, refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and PACKAGED by a FOOD PROCESSING PLANT shall be clearly marked, at the time the original container is opened in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT and if the FOOD is held for more than 24 hours, to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES, sold, or discarded, based on the temperature and time combinations specified in (A) of this section and: (1) The day the original container is opened in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT shall be counted as Day 1; and (2) The day or date marked by the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date if the manufacturer determined the use-by date based on FOOD safety.
And
4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood-Contact Surfaces, and Utensils.
(A) EQUIPMENT FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES and UTENSILS shall be clean to sight and touch.
(B) The FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of cooking EQUIPMENT and pans shall be kept free of encrusted grease deposits and other soil accumulations.
(C) NonFOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, FOOD residue, and other debris.
And
4-602.11 Equipment Food-Contact Surfaces and Utensils.
(A)EQUIPMENT FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES and UTENSILS shall be cleaned:
(E) Except when dry cleaning methods are used as specified under § 4-603.11, surfaces of UTENSILS and EQUIPMENT contacting FOOD that is not TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD shall be cleaned:
(1) At any time when contamination may have occurred;
And
4-602.13 Nonfood-Contact Surfaces.
NonFOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be cleaned at a frequency necessary to preclude accumulation of soil residues.
And
6-501.12 Cleaning, Frequency and Restrictions.
(A)
PHYSICAL FACILITIES shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep them clean.
.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0841
(Tag F0841)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
.
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time.)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medical director was providing oversight and support to the facility e...
Read full inspector narrative →
.
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time.)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medical director was providing oversight and support to the facility effecting all 49 vulnerable Residents residing in the facility. This deficient practice resulted in a lack of medical director involvement for accident and supervision concerns and the potential for inadequate care. Findings include:
During an interview on 7/19/22 at 10:35 AM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated the QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) committee met at least quarterly. The NHA reviewed the meeting sign in sheets and noted of the 10 meetings documented from 5/27/21 through 6/29/22 only three meetings: 5/27/21, 9/8/21, and 3/30/22, had the required members in attendance. The Medical Director (MD) L attended only three of the 10 QAPI meetings.
On 7/19/22 at approximately 4:58 p.m., the NHA and the DON, were informed the Immediate Jeopardy had been identified related to Resident #38's facility elopement into the community on 6/22/22 at approximately 6:10 p.m., and an earlier elopement on 5/16/22. The immediate jeopardy template was delivered verbally and in writing via email to the NHA and DON during this meeting, per State Agency management directive.
During a follow up interview with the NHA on 7/20/22, at approximately 10:04 a.m., with facility management team present, the NHA confirmed the above elements were in place for past noncompliance.
During a telephone interview on 7/20/22 at 12:15 PM, the MD LL stated he was based out of state but worked with the NHA frequently via phone and had spoken with the NHA just last week and said hi to him this week when the NHA had walk by the telemed screen. When asked about his role at the facility, MD LL stated, he participated in the quality meetings and quality improvement plans. MD LL stated the last quarterly QAPI meeting he had attended was on 3/30/2022. MD LL also said, Nurse Practitioner (NP) CC told me seconds ago about the unfortunate elopement and citation.
During an interview on 7/20/22 at 2:49 PM, the NHA stated he did not even think to include the Medical Director in the Immediate Jeopardy, the facility abatement plan, or QAPI for this resident with two elopements and had not consulted the Medical Director.
The facility policy Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement dated 3/31/22 read in part, It is the policy of this facility to develop, implement, and maintain an effective, comprehensive, data-driven QAPI program that focuses on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life . 2. The QAA Committee shall be interdisciplinary and shall: a. consist at a minimum of: . The Medical Director .b. Meet at least quarterly .
.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
.
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee met at l...
Read full inspector narrative →
.
(All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee met at least quarterly with the required committee members. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for ineffective coordination of medical care and delayed resolution of facility issues placing all 49 residents of the facility at risk for quality care concerns. Findings include:
During an interview on 7/19/22 at 10:35 AM, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated the QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) committee met at least quarterly. The NHA reviewed the meeting sign in sheets and noted the committee members in attendance. Of the 10 meetings documented from 5/27/21 through 6/29/22 only three meetings: 5/27/21, 9/8/21, and 3/30/22, had the required members in attendance. The Medical Director (MD) LL attended only three of the 10 QAPI meetings. The Director of Nursing attended 8 of the 10 meetings.
During a telephone interview on 7/20/22 12:15 PM, MD LL stated the last quarterly QAPI meeting he had attended was on 3/30/2022.
The facility policy Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement dated 3/31/22 read in part, It is the policy of this facility to develop, implement, and maintain an effective, comprehensive, data-driven QAPI program that focuses on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life . 2. The QAA Committee shall be interdisciplinary and shall: a. consist at a minimum of: i. The Director of Nursing Services; ii. The Medical Director .b. Meet at least quarterly .
.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
.
During lunch observation in the main dining room on 7/18/22 at 12:30 PM, the residents were observed to arrive in the dining room, be assisted to the tables and were served lunch. No residents were ...
Read full inspector narrative →
.
During lunch observation in the main dining room on 7/18/22 at 12:30 PM, the residents were observed to arrive in the dining room, be assisted to the tables and were served lunch. No residents were observed to be assisted with hand hygiene. At 1:05 PM, CNA M was asked if the residents were assisted with washing their hands. CNA M stated, We try to wash and toilet everyone prior to coming down to the dining room before breakfast, but we do not wash resident's hands prior to meals. CNA M said all residents should have clean hands and agreed that one resident who often tends to crawl on the floor really needs his hands washed.
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 1:25 PM, the DON stated, the facility previously had a program to wash hands of residents prior to meals, but agreed that the system may no longer be in place.
The undated facility policy titled: Hand Hygiene read in part, Hand hygiene is indicated and will be performed under the conditions listed in, but not limited to, the attached hand hygiene table. This table included: Before and after eating.
All times are Eastern Daylight Saving Time (EDT) unless otherwise noted.
These deficiencies pertain to Intake #MI00128258.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the implementation of a complete infection control (IC) program as evidenced by the failure to:
1. Implement transmission-based precautions (TBP) as required for facility residents.
2. Ensure facility staffed donned proper personal protective equipment appropriately.
3. Completely and accurately maintain infection control surveillance logs.
4. Properly screen staff for COVID-19, and ensure facility staffed donned proper personal protective equipment appropriately.
5. Perform hand hygiene to prevent transmission of infectious organisms.
These deficient practices resulted in the potential spread of COVID-19 and other infectious organisms throughout the facility. Findings include:
1. Transmission Based Precautions
Review of the July 2022 Infection Control Monitoring log identified Resident #11 with a urinary tract infection that met McGeers Criteria (classification system used to define infections) and was identified as an ESBL (Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases) infection with enzymes that make bacterial infections harder to treat with antibiotics. The infection was identified on 7/6/22, and treatment with an antibiotic was ordered for seven days. The Infection Control Monitoring log Effective column was absent any documentation.
During an interview on 7/13/22 at 9:55 a.m., when asked about Resident #11's infection on the July Infection Control Monitoring log, and what TBP should be used for care of Resident #11 with potential exposure to body fluids and secretions. IP C said facility staff wear an isolation gown and gloves any time they may came in contact with the urine of Resident #11.
When asked if TBP signage and appropriate PPE was placed outside Resident #11's room door, IP C stated, I am pretty sure there is no signage for modified contact isolation. I don't think they set up any of that (signage, PPE outside door, garbage inside door) honestly . I did not see any isolation signage or PPE outside of [Resident #11's] room.
IP C said the nurse on duty on that wing or the third nurse on the schedule was responsible for setting up the isolation (TBP) and PPE bin and acknowledged those things had probably not been done. IP D said there was probably not a dirty garbage container inside Resident #11's room for disposal of dirty (used) PPE.
During an observation on 7/13/22 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #11's room entrance, door, and room interior were observed by IP C and this Surveyor. No PPE was placed outside the door, no inside garbage can was available for disposal of dirty PPE, and no TBP signage was present to identify the presence of necessary precautions related to an infectious organism.
During an interview on 7/13/22 at approximately 10:12 a.m., when asked if PPE had been placed outside of Resident #11's room during the last week, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) H said there had not been any PPE outside of the room.
Review of the facility Transmission Based Precautions policy, dated 11/17/21, revealed the following, in part: .Transmission-based precautions are a group of infection prevention and control practices that are used in addition to standard precautions for residents who may be infected or colonized with infectious agents that require additional control measures to prevent transmission effectively . 3.Contact Precautions-
a. Intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents, including epidemiologically important microorganisms, which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the resident or the resident's environment .
c. Healthcare personnel caring for residents on Contact Precautions wear a gown and gloves for all interactions that may involve contact with the resident or potentially contaminated areas in the resident's environment.
d. Donning personal protective equipment (PPE) upon room entry and discarding before exiting the room is done to contain pathogens .
2. [NAME] Appropriate PPE
During an observation on 7/12/22 at 1:40 p.m., Staff OO was observed, upon return from lunch when access to the locked facility was provided by an exiting unidentified staff member, and the call bell did not alert the receptionist to answer the door. Staff OO was seated at a desk in the large foyer adjoining the Nursing Home Administrator's (NHA's) and Business Office Manager's office with the blue surgical face mask beneath her chin. Upon entrance of this Surveyor, Staff OO pulled the face mask up over her nose.
During an observation on 7/18/22 at 10:20 a.m., found, Activity Aide (Staff) NN sitting in the office with door open, and a blue surgical mask positioned under the chin.
During an observation on 7/18/22 at 10:30 a.m., found Housekeeping Supervisor A walking in the hallway near the nurse's station with a blue surgical mask below the nose, covering only the mouth.
During an observation on 7/18/22 at 10:50 a.m., Activity Director K was observed in a shared office with the door open, without a face mask.
Review of the facility's undated Personal Protective Equipment policy, revealed the following, in part: .Indications/considerations for PPE use: a. Gloves:
i. Wear gloves when direct contact with blood, body fluids, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, or potentially contaminated surfaces or equipment is anticipated.
ii. Perform hand hygiene before donning gloves and after removal. Gloves are not a substitute for hand hygiene .
b. Gowns:
i. Wear gowns to protect arms, exposed body areas, and clothing from contamination with blood, body fluids, and other potentially infectious material .
v. Dispose of gown into appropriate waste receptacle .
c. Face protection:
i. Wear a mask to protect the face from contamination with blood, body fluids, and other potentially infectious materials during tasks that generate splashes or sprays .
d. Respiratory protection:
i. Wear a NIOSH-approved N95 or higher-level respirator to prevent inhalation of pathogens transmitted by the airborne route .
c. The charge nurse shall check isolation supply carts twice per shift (such as beginning and halfway point), and replenish as needed .
3. Maintenance of Infection Control Surveillance Logs
During an interview on 7/12/22 at 7:37 a.m., IP C was asked why the Infection Control Logs and Vaccination Logs were completed in pencil, with erasures visible on the logs. IP C said it was easier to erase people from the logs to keep an accurate count of vaccinated staff when staff were no longer employees of the facility.
During an interview on 7/13/22 at 9:39 a.m., IP C confirmed Resident #5 had been identified with an infection of the great right toe in May of 2022, but no entrys on the May 2022 IC Surveillance Log or Mapping sheet were found for Resident #5. When asked why Resident #5 was not on the May 2022 Infection Control Surveillance Log, IP C stated, Because I messed up . I just didn't put it on the list . IP C also confirmed Resident #5 had a urinary tract infection that was identified by urinalysis on 6/21/22. Review of the June 2022 Infection Control Surveillance Log with IP C revealed Resident #5 was not documented on June 2022 IC Surveillance Log, or on the IC Mapping sheet completed by IP C. When asked why Resident #5 was not on the June 2022 Infection Control Surveillance Log, IP C said she did not know why.
When asked about any infections for Resident #22, IP C confirmed Resident #22 had an eye infection that did not appear on the April 2022 Infection Control Surveillance Log or IC Mapping. IP C stated, (I) don't know why I didn't add Resident #22 to the line listing and mapping. She came back from the hospital and that was the only time I know that they had an eye infection . When asked if hospital acquired infections were added to the IC Surveillance Log upon readmission to the facility, IP C stated, I have done it every other time, so I don't know why I wouldn't have done it then.
Review of the facility undated Infection Prevention and Control Program policy, revealed the following, in part: Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines:
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 diseases for all residents, staff, volunteers, visitors, and other individuals providing services under a contractual arrangement based upon a facility assessment and accepted national standards.
b. The Infection Preventionist serves as the leader in surveillance activities, maintains documentation of incidents, findings, and any corrective actions made by the facility and reports surveillance findings to the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee.
c. The RNs and LPNs participate in surveillance through assessment of residents and reporting changes in condition to the residents' physicians and management staff, per protocol for notification of changes and in-house reporting of communicable diseases and infections.
4. Standard Precautions:
a. All staff shall assume that all residents are potentially infected or colonized with an organism that could be transmitted during the course of providing resident care services .
5. Isolation Protocol (Transmission-Based Precautions):
a. A resident with an infection or communicable disease shall be placed on transmission-based precautions as recommended by current CDC guidelines .
4. Screen Staff for COVID-19
During an observation on 7/12/22 at 1:40 p.m., Staff OO was observed upon return from lunch, when access to the locked facility was provided by an exiting unidentified staff member, and the call bell did not alert the receptionist to answer the door. Staff OO was seated at a desk in the large foyer adjoining the Nursing Home Administrator's (NHA's) and Business Office Manager's office with the blue surgical face mask beneath her chin. Upon entrance of this Surveyor, Staff OO pulled the face mask up over their mouth and nose. Staff OO was responsible for COVID-19 screening of all staff and visitors entering the facility through the front door on Staff OO's scheduled workdays.
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 9:05 a.m., IP C confirmed Staff OO had tested positive for COVID-19 on 7/13/22. Staff OO had reported symptoms of a sore throat on 7/12/22, tested for COVID-19 with a negative result. IP C reported being informed a household family member of Staff OO had tested positive for COVID-19 on 7/6/22, but that COVID-19 direct contact exposure had not been reported to the facility. IP C stated, [Staff OO] did not even tell me [Family Member] was positive (for COVID-19) until [Staff OO] tested positive for COVID-19 (on 7/13/22) . Staff OO had reported she had always worn her face mask while in the facility, and that is the reason IP C felt this was not an outbreak. When informed Staff OO had been observed in the facility with face mask below their chin, IP C stated, That changes the outbreak status and that I have to go and check (test) residents and staff (for COVID-19).
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 10:15 a.m., the COVID-19 Screening logs for 7/6, 7/11, 7/12. and 7/13 were reviewed by IP C and this Surveyor. The COVID-19 Screening logs showed Staff OO reported no COVID-19 exposure on 7/6, 7/11, or 7/13, even though a close family member was diagnosed with COVID-19 on 7/6/22. On 7/12/22 Staff OO reported a sore throat, exposure to her family member with COVID-19, and tested negative. The screening logs show she did not report exposure on the other days, even though it had the COVID-19 exposure existed at that time. The IP C confirmed she was never notified of the exposure to COVID-19 even after Staff OO reported symptoms and exposure on 7/12/22. IP C agreed had she been aware of the exposure to COVID-19 and symptoms of a sore throat, Staff OO would have been required to wear a KN-95 or N-95 mask as further protection during the potential incubation period.
Review of the facility Novel Coronavirus policy, dated 8/11/21, revealed the following, in part: Interventions to prevent the introduction of respiratory germs into the facility: . f. Assess visitors and healthcare personnel, regardless of vaccination status, for symptoms of COVID-19, a positive viral test for COVID-19 or who meets criteria for quarantine or exclusion from work. This can include, but is not limited to: i. Individual screening on arrival at the facility . g. Healthcare personnel (HCP), even if fully vaccinated should report any of the above criteria (fever and/or symptoms of COVID-19, diagnosis of COVID-19 infection in the prior 10 days, and confirmation they have not been exposed to others with COVID-19 infection during the prior 14 days) . h. Visitors meeting any of the 3 above criteria should generally be restricted from entering the facility until they have met criteria to end isolation or quarantine, respectively . Ensure proper social distancing, wearing facemask, and hand hygiene are followed . iv. Implement heightened surveillance activities. Notify the health department promptly about any of the following: a) one or more residents or healthcare personnel (HCP with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection . Restrict employees from work in accordance with current DCD guidelines for HCPs . Promote easy and correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by: i. Posting signs on the door or wall outside the resident room that clearly describe the type of precautions needed and required PPE. ii. Make PPE, including facemask, eye protection, gowns, and gloves available immediately outside of the resident's room. iii. Position a trash can near the exit inside any resident room to make it easy to discard PPE . k. Staff will wear a well-fitting facemask and practice physical distancing at all times while in the facility .
5. Hand Hygiene
During an observation on 7/18/22 at 8:36 a.m., Social Services (Staff) E entered the dining room, touched an unidentified resident with her bare left hand and exited the dining room without performance of hand hygiene.
During an observation on 7/18/22 at 8:43 a.m., Activity Aide NN performed hand hygiene, then pulled eyeglasses out of her front scrub top pocket, opened her eyeglasses with bare hands, and placed them on her head. No hand hygiene was performed prior to retrieval and delivery of a meal tray to a resident. No residents in the dining room were cued, encouraged, or observed to perform hand hygiene prior to their breakfast meal.
During an interview on 7/18/22 at 9:05 a.m., IP C confirmed hand hygiene should be performed by facility staff between physical contact, such as hugging, each resident, and after touching a resident prior to exiting the dining room. IP C said hand hygiene surveillance had been performed in the facility hallways/rooms, but not in the dining room.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0909
(Tag F0909)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT).
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure facility beds were regularly inspected to identify areas of p...
Read full inspector narrative →
All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT).
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure facility beds were regularly inspected to identify areas of possible entrapment for two Residents (#3 and #37) of two sample residents reviewed for bed safety. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for unsafe sleep, resident entrapment, injury and death and had the potential to affect all 49 vulnerable residents in the facility. Findings include:
Resident #3
Observation of 7/10/22 at 2:49 p.m., found Resident #3 sitting in bed attempting to self-transfer from the bed to the wheelchair. Bilateral mobility bed rails were observed on Resident #3's bed.
Observation on 7/11/22 at 10:12 a.m., found Resident #3 sitting in their wheelchair, with the call light positioned on the bed outside the reach of the Resident. Bilateral bed rails positioned on the bed.
Review of Resident #3's complete medical record, including the paper chart (hard chart) on 07/11/22 at 12:41 p.m., revealed an incomplete Evaluation for Use of Bed Rails. A Assist Rail Screener for bed rails was completed on 7/11/22 at 06:40 [6:40 a.m. Central Standard Time (CST)].
No Bed Rail Assessment (completed prior to the start of the recertification survey), or documentation showing resident or resident representative education of the risks/benefits of bedrails, or signed consent for use of bedrails, was found in Resident #3's medical record.
Resident #37
Observation on 7/10/22 at 3:00 p.m., found Resident #37's bed with bilateral mobility bed rails installed.
Observation on 7/11/22 at 09:57 a.m., found bilateral mobility bed rails installed on Resident #37's bed.
Review of Resident #37's complete medical record revealed an Assist Rail Screener for bed rails was completed on 7/11/22 (following the start of the survey). The document was signed and locked on 7/11/22 at 05:47 (5:47 a.m. CST).
During an interview on 7/13/22 at 1:00 p.m., when asked about completion of bed assessments for safety and documentation of entrapment zone measurements, Maintenance Director EE said no entrapment zone bed rail measurements had been completed by them, and no documentation was available. Maintenance Director EE said he was unaware of any bed measurements completed by the previous Maintenance Director and was unsure who in the facility would have performed them.
During a telephone interview on 7/19/22 at 8:21 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed neither Maintenance Director EE, Infection Preventionist C, MDS Nurse D, the DON or any other staff member had completed entrapment zone measurements on the beds, as they were unaware that it needed to be done. The DON stated, After our discussion last week (about bed safety), we got more information, and I just gave the maintenance director a stack of information (on bed safety) to get them started (on the bed measurements).
Review of the Proper Use of Side Rails policy, revised February 2022, revealed the following, in part: .4. The facility will assure the correct installation and maintenance of bed rails, prior to use. This includes . e. Inspecting and regularly checking the mattress and bed rails for gaps and areas of possible entrapment . Responsibilities are specified as follows: . d. The maintenance director of designee, is responsible for adhering to routine maintenance and inspection schedule for all bed frames, mattresses, and rails.