Iron River Care Center

330 Lincoln Avenue, Iron River, MI 49935 (906) 265-5168
For profit - Corporation 69 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
30/100
#287 of 422 in MI
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

Iron River Care Center has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall performance. Ranked #287 out of 422 nursing homes in Michigan, they fall in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and they are the second of only two options in Iron County, meaning there is little choice for families. The trend is worsening, as the facility has increased its issues from 15 in 2023 to 17 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength, with a turnover rate of 0%, well below the state average, but the facility has concerning fines of $43,973, which exceed 79% of Michigan facilities. While there is average RN coverage, significant incidents have been reported, including failure to prevent resident-to-resident abuse, which resulted in physical harm, and inadequate care for pressure injuries that led to further health complications for residents. Overall, while staffing seems stable, the facility struggles with serious deficiencies that families should carefully consider.

Trust Score
F
30/100
In Michigan
#287/422
Bottom 32%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
15 → 17 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$43,973 in fines. Higher than 79% of Michigan facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 41 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Michigan. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
56 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 15 issues
2024: 17 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Michigan average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Federal Fines: $43,973

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 56 deficiencies on record

3 actual harm
Dec 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation is related to Intake MI00148048 an MI00148473 Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation is related to Intake MI00148048 an MI00148473 Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure comfortable temperatures for a homelike environment for four Residents (#1, #2, #3, & #4) of four residents reviewed for comfortable temperature and homelike environment., resulting in expressions of physical discomfort. Findings include: Resident #1 (R1) Review of R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on [DATE], with active diagnoses including: arthritis, coronary artery disease (CAD), and Alzheimer's disease. R1 scored a 13 of 15 on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of intact cognition. During an interview on 12/23/24 at approximately 10:15 a.m., R1 stated, It was cold in here a couple days ago . it has been cold in here for quite some time and it was cold in here a week ago when the weather changed . the staff have been wearing extra clothes and jackets to stay warm. Resident #2 (R2) Review of R2's MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on [DATE], with active diagnoses including hypertension, depression, anxiety disorder, and Alzheimer's disease. R2 scored a 8 of 15 on the BIMS assessment reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. During an interview on 12/23/24 at 10:27 a.m., R2 stated, It has been cold in here since I moved here a little over a month ago .I have a large towel at the base of my window in my room because I could feel cold air coming in, I told them and someone from maintenance is supposed to fix it but they never came back to my room to do anything. During an observation on 12/23/24 at 10:30 a.m., this surveyor went into R2's room and observed a towel/bath blanket at the base of the window and when the towel was lifted the cold air could be felt coming into the room. Resident #3 (R3) Review of R3's MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on [DATE], with active diagnoses including heart failure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and thyroid disorder. R3 scored a 14 of 15 on the BIMS assessment reflective of intact cognition. During an interview on 12/23/24 at 10:40 a.m., R3 stated, the staff is wearing jackets to stay warm . it is the coldest in here from midnight to seven a.m. I have told the staff and management here and nothing has changed, I wear my winter coat all the time just to stay warm . I have kept a log of the cold days and one of the maintenance guys has taken the temperature of my room and it has been 67 and 65 degrees in my room . they just won't fix the heat. Resident #4 (R4) Review of R4's MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 3/4/21, with diagnoses including hypertension, diabetes mellitus and depression. R4 scored a 14 of 15 on the BIMS assessment reflective of intact cognition. During an interview on 12/23/24 at 12:50 p.m., R4 stated, It is cold in here . during the night and early morning it is the worst . I wear a hat on my head when I get cold and have lots of extra blankets . they don't seem to ever get it warm enough in here and there is always a draft, there is a draft by my window and if we keep the bedroom door open it feels colder. During an interview on 12/23/24 at 10:50 a.m., maintenance (Staff A) stated, We have known the temperature in the facility is low and the heaters at the end of the hallways have not been working . During an observation on 12/23/24 at 10:52 a.m., Staff A used a temperature gun to read the temperatures down the 100, 200, and 300 wings and revealed the following: the temperature on a wall on the 100 wing was recorded at 67 degrees. A temperature in a resident room on the 100 hallway was recorded at 65 degrees. The temperature on the wall in the hallway and in a resident room on the 200 wing was recorded at 68 degrees. A temperature in the hallway and in a resident room on the 300 wing was recorded at 68 degrees. During a telephone interview on 12/23/24 at 11:04 a.m., Maintenance Director (Staff) B stated, We first notice a problem with the heat about a week and a half ago .I don't know why the temperatures would be low today. During an interview on 12/23/24 at 11:15 a.m., Social Services Designee C stated, R3 has complained to me about how cold he is, and he usually wears his winter coat all day. During a telephone interview on 12/23/24 at 11:29 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated the temperature in the facility has to be 72 degrees. During an interview on 12/23/24 at 11:52 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) E stated, I have noticed it is cold in the hallway and it gets very cold in the facility . there have been a couple times I have worn my winter jacket to keep warm . it has been colder lately and the residents have been complaining . I have told the nurses and they tell us to dress the residents with long sleeved clothes. During an observation on 12/23/24 at 11:59 a.m., this Surveyor saw a long crack at the bottom of the door leading to the outside. The door was located at the end of the 300 hallway. During an observation on 12/23/24 at 12:01 p.m., this Surveyor saw a long crack at the bottom of the door leading to the outside. The door was located at the end of the 100 hallway. During an interview on 12/23/24 at 12:05 p.m., CNA D stated, The residents have complained about it being cold and I have told maintenance . there has been a draft at the ends of the hallways . there have been staff that wear jackets during their shift . the residents complain in the evening as I usually work that shift. During an interview on 12/23/24 at 12:16 p.m., Staff A stated, We know about the gaps under the doors on the end of the 100 and 300 wings and we usually will put blankets at the bottom of the doors. During an interview on 12/23/24 at 12:18 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated, I was not aware of the cracks under the doors. Review of facility policy titled, Safe and Homelike Environment date reviewed/revised 1/1/24, read in part . the facility will maintain comfortable and safe temperature levels .in resident areas between 71 and 81 degrees.
Aug 2024 16 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0551 (Tag F0551)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure legal guardianship was renewed and active for one Resident (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure legal guardianship was renewed and active for one Resident (#41) declared incompetent by a court of law, of two residents reviewed for advance directives, resulting in the potential for unauthorized decisions made on the Resident's behalf. Findings include: All times recorded in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), unless otherwise noted. Resident #41 (R41) Review of R41's electronic medical record revealed a court document titled Report of Physician or Mental Health Professional, dated and signed by the court appointed physician on [DATE] deeming R41 not presently able to make informed decisions in the following areas: determining where to live; consenting to supportive services; handling personal financial affairs; and authorizing or refusing medical treatment. The prognosis for improvement in the individual's conditions is poor. Review of the Order Regarding Appointment of Temporary Guardian of Incapacitated Individual, dated and signed on [DATE], revealed Family Member (FM) J was designated as R41's temporary guardian with all authority and responsibilities granted and imposed by law. Further review of the document revealed this temporary guardianship shall terminate on [DATE]. Review of R41's most recent Care Directives, dated [DATE], revealed the directives were signed by FM J. On [DATE] at 1:30 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was asked who to direct inquires to regarding advanced directives and resident guardianship. The NHA stated to direct inquiries to Registered Nurse (RN) K and the Director of Nursing (DON). On [DATE] at 1:33 p.m., RN K was asked to provide R41's current guardianship paperwork. On [DATE] at 1:45 p.m., the DON reported the facility did not have R41's current guardianship paperwork. The DON confirmed R41's temporary guardianship had expired and FM J was still listed as decision maker and actively making decisions on R41's behalf. The DON reported she contacted FM J to inquire about updated guardianship paperwork. The DON stated FM J would not be supplying a copy to the facility and he directed the facility to call the courthouse where the paperwork was filed to obtain a current copy. The DON reported obtaining the paperwork from the court would take a few days. Current, active guardianship paperwork, designating FM J as R41's legal guardian, was not provided prior to the end of the survey on [DATE]. Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights Regarding Treatment and Advance Directives, last reviewed [DATE], revealed the following, in part: during the care planning process, the facility will identify, clarify and review with the resident or legal representative whether they desire to make any changes related to any advance directive. The policy did not include a process for ensuring resident's legal guardianship was current and valid.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide responses to concerns/grievances for 4 Confidential Residents (CR301, CR302, CR303, CR305) reported during the Resident Council sur...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide responses to concerns/grievances for 4 Confidential Residents (CR301, CR302, CR303, CR305) reported during the Resident Council survey task. This deficient practice has the potential to result in unresolved resident concerns and a decreased quality of life. Findings include: (All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time unless otherwise noted.) During a confidential group meeting on 8/27/24 at 11:00 a.m., CR301 stated, we have a lot of the same complaints during resident council and they don't get taken care of. CR302 CR303, and CR305 all agreed. CR302 stated, We have the same concerns every month during resident council .we never hear anything back from the concerns we have, nothing changes. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 8:51 a.m., the Activity Director reviewed the resident council minutes and stated, I am not doing a very good job of reviewing the concerns and documenting them .I guess I could do a better job in charting the concerns or when they are reviewed with the resident council. Review of facility policy titled Resident Council Meeting last revised dated, 6/22/24 .read in part, the Activity Director shall be designated .to serve as a liaison .the liaison shall be responsible for .responding to written requests from the group meetings .the facility shall act upon concerns and recommendations .and communicate decisions to the council. The Resident Council meeting minutes were reviewed. The 6/12/24 meeting minutes New Business included a quote by one of the residents which read, The food tastes good and much improved, but it is still cold. There was not a Resident Council meeting in the month of July 2024. The Resident Council meeting minutes dated 8/1/24 revealed the Old Business section was the same as the Old Business from the 6/12/24 meeting and the items discussed as new business from that 6/12/24 meeting had not been carried forward. Many of the concerns brought up at the last meeting 6/12/24 including cold food were not noted in the 8/1/24 minutes as discussed or resolved. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report and allegation of potential sexual abuse between two Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report and allegation of potential sexual abuse between two Residents (Residents #3 and #205) of four residents reviewed for abuse. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for undetected abuse. Findings include: (All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time unless otherwise noted.) Resident #3 (R3) Review of R3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 2/24/23, with active diagnoses that included: anxiety disorder, depression, heart failure, and hypertension. R3 scored 8 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #205 (R205) Review of R205's MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 3/23/20, with active diagnoses that included: coronary artery disease, hypertension, non-Alzheimer's dementia, and depression. R205 scored a 3 of 15 on the BIMS assessment reflective of severe cognitive impairment. Review of a resident grievance form, dated 3/2/24, under the section, Nursing Grievances, read in part . R3 stated, R205 tried to get into my bed again at 1 o'clock in the morning. R3 screamed and they just keep telling me that R205 is harmless .everyday R205 tries to get into my bed .this needs to stop. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 9:34 a.m., Social Services Designee I stated R205 was going into R3's room .I did report it to the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). During an interview on 8/28/24 at 9:57 a.m., the DON stated, I did not personally report the event .I don't know if it was reported by the NHA .I can't tell you if it was reported to the SA. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 10:07 a.m., the NHA stated I did not find any investigation into this grievance . it was not reported. Review of R3's and R205's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed no documentation of the event. Review of facility policy titled Resident and Family Grievances date reviewed/revised . 2/1/24, read in part .for investigations regarding allegations of .abuse .a report of the investigative results will be submitted to the State Survey Agency. Review of facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation date reviewed/revised . 4/15/24, read in part . The facility will designate an Abuse Prevention Coordinator in the facility who is responsible for reporting allegations to the state survey agency and other officials in accordance with state law .The facility will have written procedures that include reporting all alleged violations to the .state agency.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of potential sexual abuse between two Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of potential sexual abuse between two Residents (Residents #3 and #205) of four residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: (All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time unless otherwise noted.) Resident #3 (R3) Review of R3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 2/24/23, with active diagnoses that included: anxiety disorder, depression, heart failure, and hypertension. R3 scored 8 of 15 on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #205 (R205) Review of R205's MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 3/23/20, with active diagnoses that included: coronary artery disease, hypertension, non-Alzheimer's dementia, and depression. R205 scored a 3 of 15 on the BIMS assessment reflective of severe cognitive impairment. Review of a resident grievance form, dated 3/2/24, under the section, Nursing Grievances, read in part . R3 stated, R205 tried to get into my bed again at 1 o'clock in the morning. R3 screamed .they just keep telling me that R205 is harmless .everyday R205 tries to get into my bed .this needs to stop. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 10:07 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated I did not find any investigation into this grievance. Review of R3's and R205's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed no documentation of the event. Review of facility policy titled Resident and Family Grievances date reviewed/revised . 2/1/24, read in part . The NHA and/or Social Service Designee have been designated as the grievance official. The grievance official is responsible for .leading any necessary investigations by the facility .report any allegations involving .abuse .immediately to the NHA. Review of facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation date reviewed/revised . 4/15/24, read in part . An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse .or reports of abuse .occur .written procedures for investigations include identifying staff responsible for the investigation .investigating different types of alleged violations .providing complete and thorough documentation of the investigation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

All times are in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) unless otherwise noted. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written transfer notification to the Resident and/or Resident'...

Read full inspector narrative →
All times are in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) unless otherwise noted. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written transfer notification to the Resident and/or Resident's Representative for two Residents (R7 and R15) of three residents reviewed for facility initiated transfers. Findings include: Resident #7 (R7) was transferred to the hospital on 7/19/24. The medical record did not indicate a written notification of transfer was provided to R7 or R7's resident representative. Resident #15 (R15) was transferred to the hospital on 6/27/24. The medical record did not indicate a written notification of transfer was provided to R15 or R15's resident representative. On 8/28/24 at 12:45 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) conveyed the facility did not issue the written notifications to R7 or R15 or their resident representatives when the residents were transferred to the hospital. On 8/28/24 at 2:40 p.m., the Corporate Director of Clinical Services (DCS) confirmed written notifications of transfer were required and provided a policy Transfer and Discharge (including AMA) dated 8/7/22. The policy read, in part: .transfer/discharge notice will be provided to the resident and the resident's representative .when the transfer or discharge is effected because .an immediate transfer or discharge is required by the resident's urgent medical needs .the notice must be provided to the resident, resident's representative if appropriate, and LTC (Long Term Care) ombudsman as soon as practicable before the transfer or discharge .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

All times are in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) unless otherwise noted Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (R7 and R15) of three residents reviewed for hospi...

Read full inspector narrative →
All times are in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) unless otherwise noted Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (R7 and R15) of three residents reviewed for hospital discharges, were provided with written notification of the bed hold policy. Findings include: Resident #7 (R7) was transferred to the hospital on 7/19/24. The medical record did not indicate the bed hold policy was provided to R7 or R7's resident representative. Resident #15 (R15) was transferred to the hospital on 6/27/24. The medical record did not indicate the bed hold policy was provided to R15 or R15's resident representative. On 8/28/24 at 12:45 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) said the facility did not provide the bed hold policy to R7 or R15 or their representatives when the residents were transferred to the hospital. The facility policy Bed Hold Policy dated 5/28/24 read, in part: .At the time of transfer for hospitalization or therapeutic leave, the facility will provide to the resident and/or the resident representative written notice which specifies the duration of the bed-hold policy and addresses information explaining the return of the resident to the next available bed .
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered and trauma-i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered and trauma-informed care plan for one Resident (#41) of one resident reviewed for mood and behaviors, resulting in the potential for psychosocial distress and decreased quality of life. Findings include: All times recorded in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), unless otherwise noted. Resident #41 (R41) R41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of R41's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/9/2024, revealed severe cognitive impairment and was assessed as being easily annoyed and short tempered . 12-14 days (nearly every day), during the assessment look back period. R41 was assessed as exhibiting the following behavior symptoms 1-3 days of the look back period: physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others (e.g., hitting, kicking, pushing, scratching, grabbing .); verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others (e.g., threatening others, screaming at others, cursing at others); and other behavioral symptoms not directed toward others (e.g., physical symptoms such as hitting or scratching self, pacing, rummaging, disrobing in public, throwing or smearing food or bodily wastes, verbal/vocal symptoms like screaming, disruptive sounds). During an interview on 8/27/2024 at 10:21 a.m., R41's spouse, Family Member (FM) J reported R41 was easily angered, agitated and often lashed out at others out of fear. FM J stated he believed the behavior stemmed from a history of severe physical abuse at the hands of R41's former partner. R41 reported the facility was aware of R41's history of abuse and what he believed to be the resulting behavioral symptoms. FM J reported R41 may misinterpret hurried activities and sudden movements toward her as aggressive and threatening. Review of R41's electronic medical record (EMR) from date of admission on [DATE] through 8/27/2024, revealed no documented trauma assessment upon admission or any time after admission for R41. Review of R41's comprehensive care plan revealed no focus area, goals or person-centered interventions related to her history of trauma, physical abuse or potential triggers. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 9:21 a.m., Social Services Director, (SW) I reported she was aware of R41's history of abuse. SW I stated she had lengthy discussions with FM J about R41's history, but a trauma assessment was never conducted as she was new to the Social Services role. During a review of R41's EMR at the time of the interview, SW I confirmed R41 was never assessed for past trauma and an appropriate care plan, including focus area, goals and interventions was never developed for trauma-informed care. SW I stated every resident with a history of trauma or current trauma should be assessed and appropriate, person-centered interventions put in place to address the resident's needs and avoid re-traumatization. Review of the facility policy titled Trauma Informed Care, last reviewed 6/29/2023, revealed the following, in part: Trauma result from an event, series of events or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life-threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individuals' functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being. Common sources of trauma may include, but are not limited to . physical, sexual, mental, and/or emotional abuse (past or present) . A trauma-informed approach to care delivery recognizes the widespread impact and signs and symptoms in residents and incorporates knowledge about trauma into care plans, policies, procedures and practices to avoid re-traumatization . The facility will use a multi-pronged approach to identifying a resident's history of trauma . asking the resident about triggers that may be stressors or may prompt recall of a previous traumatic event, as well as screening and assessment tools, history and physical, the social history/assessment . the facility will collaborate with resident trauma survivors, the resident's family, friends, the primary care physician and any other health care professionals (such as psychologists and mental health professionals) to develop and implement individualized care plan interventions .
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe resident handling during transfers for one Resident (#1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe resident handling during transfers for one Resident (#18) of one resident reviewed for accidents, resulting in a skin tear and the potential for serious injury. Findings include: All times recorded in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), unless otherwise noted. Resident 18 (R18) R18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including dementia, difficulty walking and muscle weakness. Review of R18's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed she required substantial/maximal assistance with sitting to standing, chair/bed-to-chair, toilet and shower/tub transfers. Further review of R18's MDS assessment revealed she had severe cognitive impairment and highly impaired hearing. Review of R18's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the following: 8/25/2024 6:35 p.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT), Incident Note: This writer went in to give the resident her am medication as [Certified Nursing Assistant, CNA N] was just completing her am [morning] cares. [CNA N] expressed she [R18] got a skin tear. I noted that her clothing was on and had long sleeves, I asked the [CNA N] where the skin tear was and noted that her left arm sleeve had blood coming through the fabric. [CNA N] said her arm hit the side of the door jam [sic] when she was bringing her into the bathroom. I then asked why her clothes were put on after the skin tear. [CNA] expressed that the resident was, all over the place. [CNA N] expressed that she was in a hurry. Resident is labile this morning, she is usually very talkative, but she said nothing thus far, since being up. She would not open her eyes when I asked her questions about pain. She took her meds and then put her head down and closed her eyes in her w/c [wheelchair], at this time. I assessed the wound and questioned the [CNA N] as I did not understand why the resident's clothing sleeve was over the skin tear as it is quite large. I cleansed the area and applied steri strips, even though the skin had been pushed together from her long sleeve shirt that was applied after the injury. I then covered it with a non-stick dressing and wrapped with kerlix. Review of R18's incident report titled New Skin Condition, dated 8/25/2024, revealed the following: [CNA N], 8/25/2024 . was transferring [R18] into bathroom, resident became limp, and I hurried onto toilet because I didn't want her to fall . she was unable to sit straight . noticed skin tear on left arm. I'm assuming she hit door jam. Had to get [two] more [CNAs] to get her off [toilet]. [(LPN)Licensed Practical Nurse O], 8/25/2024 . noted a large skin tear to the left forearm, with dark purple bruising surrounding the whole area . resident was transferred with the sit to stand machine, her [care plan] states a [total mechanical lift] is to be used due to the last fall she had out of the sit to stand. Further review of R18's EMR revealed the following: 6/12/2024 3:15 p.m. CDT, Incident Note Late Entry: This writer was summoned to resident's room, noted resident lying on the floor next to her bed and another was holding up her head. Noted a bump forming to the right back side of head. Per [CNA P], she was using the sit to stand lift and when she turned to put the resident in the chair, resident slid out and fell. This writer was summoned to resident's room, noted resident lying on the floor next to her bed and another nurse was holding up her head. Noted a bump forming to the right back side of head. Per [CNA P], she was using the sit to stand lift and when she turned to put the resident in the chair, resident slid out and fell. Resident was assessed and noted that she had no complaints with ROM, noted that her hips were equally aligned, and she did not have any s/s (signs/symptoms) of pain. VSS [vital signs stable]. Ice was applied to the bump forming on the right side of the back of her head and it did flatten out after 1.5 hours of ice application & [and] did note discoloration/pinkish/red/bruise. Review of R18's incident report titled Fall with Injury, dated 6/12/2024, revealed the following: [LPN O], 6/12/2024, I was summoned to the resident's room by the [CNA P] who was the witness to the fall out of the sling on the sit to stand assistive transfer lift . Resident was lying on her right side next to her bed. The lift sling was observed to be still attached to the lift on the left side. Further review of R18's EMR revealed no therapy evaluation for determination of appropriate transfer status following R18's fall from the sit to stand lift on 6/12/2024 or prior to the incident during use of the sit to stand lift when transferred to the toilet on 8/25/2024. Review of R18's care plan revealed the following: Alteration in physical functioning . I have generalized weakness, as well as limitations with upper and lower extremity [range of motion], Date Initiated: 3/18/2020 . Interventions/Tasks: Extensive assist x 1 with transfers via sit to stand, Date Initiated: 3/18/2020, Date Resolved: 8/05/2024 Transfer assist x 2 with Hoyer [total mechanical lift]. Dated initiated: 11/07/2020 . It was noted in review of R18's care plan, the intervention for use of the total mechanical lift for R18's transfers initiated on 11/07/2020, was added after the intervention for the use of the sit to stand lift was initiated on 3/18/2020 and remained active following resolution of the use of the sit to stand lift on 8/05/2024. Further review of R18's care plan revealed the following: At risk for falls [due to] decreased mobility/generalized weakness, limitations with [range of motion], [history] of falls and poor hearing and vision, Date Initiated: 3/18/2020 . Interventions/Tasks: Total assist x 2 with transfers. Use Hoyer [total mechanical lift] with sling. Date Initiated: 3/18/2020. Date Canceled: 8/27/2024. It was noted the intervention for use of the total mechanical lift was not canceled until after both of R18's incidents during transfer with the sit to stand lift on 6/12/2024 and 8/25/2024. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 2:24 p.m., the DON reported she was unaware R18 was care planned for use of a total mechanical lift for transfers and fall prevention. The DON stated she was unsure why there were conflicting interventions on R18's care plan. The DON reported the cause of the fall from the sit to stand on 6/12/2024 was determined to be inappropriate attachment of the sling to the lift and stated CNA P did not ensure the sling was secured to the lift prior to initiating the transfer and R18 was unable to support herself. During an interview on 8/28/2024 at 3:20 p.m., CNA P confirmed she alone was transferring R18 to the toilet when R18 fell from the sit to stand lift on 6/12/2024. CNA P stated the sling came loose and pulled away from the lift, dropping R18 and breaking the buckle around the brace secured around the Resident's torso. R18 was unable to bear weight or hold onto the lift handles. CNA P reported she was unsure what R18's care planned transfer status was at the time of the fall and added but we always used the sit to stand lift. During review of R18's therapy evaluations on 8/28/2024 at 2:34 p.m., with Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) Q, revealed R18 was evaluated on 1/13/2023 and 3/9/2023. PTA Q reported R18 was determined to need substantial/maximal assistance. When asked what was meant by substantial/maximal assistance, PTA Q reported the use of two-person assistance with either the sit to stand or total mechanical lift, whichever was care planned for use during R18's transfers. Review of the facility policy titled Safe Resident Handling/Transfers, reviewed on 6/15/2023, revealed the following, in part: It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents are handled and transferred safely to prevent or minimize risks for injury and provide and promote a safe, secure and comfortable experience for the resident while keeping the employees safe in accordance with current standards and guidelines . Resident lifting and transferring will be performed according to the resident's individual plan of care .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** All times are in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) unless otherwise noted. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** All times are in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) unless otherwise noted. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (R15) of three residents reviewed for urinary catheters had physician orders for the catheter and a care plan for the catheter. Findings include: Resident #15 (R15) was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with an indwelling urinary catheter. The diagnoses of R15 included but were not limited to retention of urine, history of urinary tract infections, and urosepsis (an infection that moves from the urinary tract into the bloodstream). On 8/28/24, the physician's orders in R15's medical record were reviewed for information regarding the urinary catheter. There was no physician's order for the catheter. There were no physician's orders for the frequency or indication for catheter changes, and no orders for changing the urinary drainage bag. The care plans for R15 did not contain a plan of care for the urinary catheter. There were no interventions regarding the care of the catheter to provide staff with direction to maintain the catheter. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 8/28/24 at 2:07 p.m. The DON said a physician's order is required for a resident to have a urinary catheter, and an order was required for the frequency of catheter changes and drainage bag changes. The DON confirmed residents who have catheters needed to have a care plan for the catheter. The DON reviewed R15's medical record and said the orders and care plan were not entered when R15 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. The policy Indwelling Catheter Use and Removal dated 5/3/24 read, in part: .It is the policy of this facility to ensure that indwelling urinary catheters .are justified or removed according to regulations and current standards of practice .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure completion of trauma assessments and failed to identify beha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure completion of trauma assessments and failed to identify behavioral triggers for one Resident (#41) out of one resident reviewed for mood and behaviors with a history of physical abuse, resulting in inaccurate information available to Mental Health professionals and the potential for uninformed and misguided care. Findings include: All times recorded in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), unless otherwise noted. Resident #41 (R41) R41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of R41's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/9/2024, revealed she had severe cognitive impairment and was assessed as being easily annoyed and short tempered . 12-14 days (nearly every day), during the assessment look back period. The MDS assessment revealed R41 exhibited the following behavior symptoms 1-3 days of the look back period: physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others (e.g., hitting, kicking, pushing, scratching, grabbing .); verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others (e.g., threatening others, screaming at others, cursing at others); and other behavioral symptoms not directed toward others (e.g., physical symptoms such as hitting or scratching self, pacing, rummaging, disrobing in public, throwing or smearing food or bodily wastes, verbal/vocal symptoms like screaming, disruptive sounds). During an interview on 8/27/2024 at 10:21 a.m., R41's spouse, Family Member (FM) J reported R41 was easily angered, agitated and often lashed out at others out of fear. FM J stated he believed the behavior to stem from a history of severe physical abuse at the hands of R41's former partner. R41 reported the facility was aware of R41's history of abuse and what he believed to be resulting behavioral symptoms. FM J reported R41 may misinterpret hurried activities and sudden movements toward her as aggressive and threatening. Review of R41's electronic medical record (EMR) from date of admission on [DATE] through 8/27/2024, revealed no documented trauma assessment upon admission or any time after admission for R41. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 9:21 a.m., Social Services Director, (SW) I reported she was aware of R41's history of abuse. SW I stated she had lengthy discussions with FM J about R41's history but a trauma assessment was never conducted as she was new to the Social Services role. SW I stated she was unaware R41 did not have a trauma assessment upon admission. SW I reported R41 was recently assessed by a Mental Health provider due to increased behavioral symptoms. A review of R41's Mental Health provider HPI [History of Present Illness], note, dated 7/08/2024, with SW I at the time of the interview, revealed the following: Per SW [Social Worker] she has been talking to herself more than usual, also not eating well . Histories & Habits . Dementia . Social History Comments: No further med or family [history] available at this time . Psychiatric Social History: Have you experienced any form of abuse: Emotional abuse: No. Physical abuse: No. Sexual abuse: No . History, coordination and Counseling with: Patient, Nursing, Social Worker. Provider exchanged information with above identified persons in order to access, obtain history develop a diagnostic impression and provide treatment recommendations with the goals of facilitating resident-centric integration of care activities having the well being and needs of the resident as the focus. SW I reported R41 had severe cognitive impairment and is a poor historian and most days not able to answer questions in meaningful ways. SW I reported the information regarding R41's history of abuse was important in determining treatment needs and should have been conveyed to the Mental Health provider at the time of the referral. SW I stated since R41's EMR had no documentation of R41's history, this information was not relayed to the Mental Health provider. Review of the facility policy titled, Trauma Informed Care, last reviewed 6/29/2023, revealed the following, in part: The facility will use a multi-pronged approach to identifying a resident's history of trauma, as well as his or her cultural preferences. This will include asking the resident about triggers that may be stressors or may prompt recall of a previous traumatic event, as well as screening and assessment tools such as the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), admission Assessment, the history and physical, the social history/assessment, and others . The facility will collaborate with resident trauma survivors, and as appropriate, the resident's family, friends, the primary care physician, and any other health care professionals (such as psychologists and mental health professionals) to develop and implement individualized care plan interventions . Trauma-specific care plan interventions will recognize the interrelation between trauma and symptoms of trauma such as substance abuse, eating disorders, depression, and anxiety. These interventions will also recognize the survivor's need to be respected, informed, connected, and hopeful regarding their own recovery .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

During a confidential group interview on 8/27/24 at 10:00 a.m., CR301 stated I got cold pancakes this morning .the food is always cold. CR303 stated the food is cold. CR304 stated the food is warm but...

Read full inspector narrative →
During a confidential group interview on 8/27/24 at 10:00 a.m., CR301 stated I got cold pancakes this morning .the food is always cold. CR303 stated the food is cold. CR304 stated the food is warm but not hot. This citation pertains to intake MI00144174. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure palatable meals at satisfactory temperatures were served to four Residents (R42, and three residents in a confidential group interview) of 14 residents sampled for issues related to the dining experience. This deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact Residents' oral intake, weight, and worsen their medical condition. Findings include: (All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time unless otherwise specified.) On 8/26/24 at 12:50 PM, the tray line for the lunch meal was underway. The cook (Staff L) was asked for her record of food temperatures. No temperatures were recorded for the lunch she was serving. Staff L said, I didn't record temps. I forgot. Staff L was asked to take the temperatures of the food on the tray line. The meat loaf measured 160 degrees, cauliflower was 152 degrees, potatoes were 129 degrees, carrots were 118 degrees, and the pureed meat was 130 degrees. Staff M stated the holding temperature must not fall below 135 degrees and instructed the cook to take action on the food that was not hot enough. On 8/26/24 at approximately 1:00 PM, the temperature log for the previous dinners were reviewed with Dietary Manager (Staff M). No food temperatures were recorded for 8/21, 8/22, 8/23, 8/24, or 8/25. Staff M stated there have been complaints of cold food in the past. On 8/26/24 at 1:32 PM, Resident 42 (R42) was observed in his room waiting for his meal. R42 stated, The food is usually cold by the time it gets to me. I have nothing else to do but eat it cold. The electronic medical records for R42 were reviewed and revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status evaluation score of 15 out of 15 indicating intact cognition. The Resident council meeting minutes were reviewed. The 6/12/24 meeting minutes New Business included a quote by one of the residents which read, The food tastes good and much improved, but it is still cold. The facility policy titled Food Safety Requirements dated as reviewed/revised 8/19/24, read in part: Food safety practices shall be followed throughout the facility's entire food handling process. This process begins when food is received from the vendor and ends with delivery of the food to the resident. Elements of the process include the following: . Preparation of food, including thawing, cooking, cooling, holding, and reheating . When preparing food, staff shall take precautions in critical control points in the food preparation process to prevent, reduce, or eliminate potential hazards . Cooking - foods shall be prepared as directed until recommended temperatures for the specific foods are reached. Staff shall refer to the current FDA Food Code and facility policy for food temperatures as needed . Holding - staff shall monitor food temperatures while holding for delivery to ensure proper hot and cold holding temperatures are maintained. Staff shall refer to the current FDA Food Code and facility policy for food temperatures as needed. The 2017 Food Code specifies in 3-501.16 Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Hot and Cold Holding. (A) Except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, or when time is used as the public health control as specified under §3-501.19, and except as specified under (B) and in (C ) of this section, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD shall be maintained: (1) At 57C (135oF) or above, except that roasts cooked to a temperature and for a time specified in 3-401.11. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the return or destruction of Resident medicati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the return or destruction of Resident medications brought in from home and previously opened for nine Residents out of the total facility population of 54 Residents. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for medication diversion, and administration of undated, opened medications with the potential for reduced efficacy and cross-contamination of infectious organisms. Findings include: All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST) unless otherwise noted. During an observation on 8/28/24 at 3:21 p.m., four pink bins with individual Resident medication bottles, boxes, patches, tubes, drops, and powders were found in the medication storage room upper wall cabinets. The four pink bins contained the following items: 1st Bin: Five opened, undated, unlabeled tubes of topical medication; one opened, undated bottle of stoma powder; and one opened, undated bottle of antifungal medication. 2nd Bin: Four prescription bottles for R46, including Eliquis (anticoagulant), Lisinopril (antihypertensive), Extra Strength Pain Relief PM (Acetaminophen 500 mg with Diphenhydramine HCL 25 mg), and Metformin (for blood sugar control). 3rd Bin: A seven-day, daily pill [NAME] container marked as Five in a plastic container with unidentified pills. No resident identification was present. 4th Bin: 10 medication bottles, an Omeprazole box, and individually sealed medications that were unlabeled and not inventoried. The Residents identified by the facility for these medications included: R1, R51, R37, R31, R500, R501, R502, and R503. During an interview on 8/28/24 at approximately 3:25 p.m., when asked about the medications found in the unlocked cabinets, Registered Nurse (RN) K stated, They should not be here. They (medications) should have been sent home with the Residents, or they should have been discarded. During an interview on 8/28/24 at approximately 4:16 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator and Corporate Director of Clinical Services A acknowledged the open, unlabeled and un-inventoried medications should not have been retained for an indeterminate amount of time in the facility medication room. Review of the Medication Storage policy, revised 1/17/24, revealed the following, in part: .Unused Medications: The medication room is routinely inspected by the consultant pharmacist for discontinued, outdated, defective, or deteriorated medications with worn, illegible, or missing labels. These medications are destroyed in accordance with our Destruction of Unused Drugs Policy. Review of the Destruction of Unused Drugs policy, revised 4/8/24, revealed the following, in part: .Unused, unwanted and non-returnable medications should be removed from their storage area and secured until destroyed .
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** A review of R9's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 3/1/23, with active diagn...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** A review of R9's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 3/1/23, with active diagnoses that included: anxiety disorder, depression, dementia, hypertension, and Alzheimer's disease. R9 scored 11 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of moderately impaired cognition. Review of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) reealed that resident was perscribed Quetiapine fumarate (antipsychotic) and Sertraline (antidepressant). Review of (EMR) did not reveal a monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR) completed by a licensed pharmacist for January 2024, March 2024, April 2024, June 2024, and July 2024. During an interview on 8/27/24 at 3:52 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that she could not find the Medication Regimen Review that was completed by the pharmacist in the EMR for January 2024, March 2024, April 2024, June 2024, and July 2024. Review of facility policy titled Medication Regimen Review date reviewed/revised . 8/1/24, read in part . the drug regimen of each resident is reviewed at least once a month by a licensed pharmacist .the MRR is a thorough evaluation of the medication regiment of a resident with the goal of promoting positive outcomes and minimizing adverse consequences and potential risks associated with mediation .the pharmacist shall document either manually or electronically that each medication regimen review has been completed. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure completion of monthly medication regimen reviews for four Residents (#41, #43, #46 and #9) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, resulting in the potential for administration of unnecessary or inappropriate medications and adverse effects of administered medications. Findings include: All times recorded in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), unless otherwise noted. Resident #41 (R41) Review of R41's Medication Regimen Review(s),' found in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the following: 7/23/2024 at 10:24 p.m. Medication Regimen Review completed. One or more recommendations were made for this resident. To see these and other recommendations please refer to the Director of Nursing [DON] monthly consultation report. Further review of R41's EMR revealed no consultation report indicating what the pharmacist recommendations were, when it was received by the facility and provider, or how and when the facility followed up on the recommendations. R43 Review of R43's Medication Regimen Review(s),' found in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the following: 7/23/2024 at 10:23 p.m. Medication Regimen Review completed. One or more recommendations were made for this resident. To see these and other recommendations please refer to the Director of Nursing [DON] monthly consultation report. Further review of R43's EMR revealed no consultation report indicating what the pharmacist recommendations were, when it was received by the facility and provider, or how and when the facility followed up on the recommendations. R47 Review of R47's Medication Regimen Review(s),' found in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the following: 7/23/2024 at 10:24 p.m. Medication Regimen Review completed. One or more recommendations were made for this resident. To see these and other recommendations please refer to the Director of Nursing [DON] monthly consultation report. Further review of R47's EMR revealed no consultation report indicating what the pharmacist recommendations were, when it was received by the facility and provider, or how and when the facility followed up on the recommendations. On 8/27/2024 at 4:30 p.m., a request was made to the DON for the monthly consultation reports for R41, R43 and R47, including facility follow-up to the pharmacist's recommendations, as referenced in the EMR, for R41, R43, and R47 on 7/23/2024. On 8/28/24 at 1:37 p.m. the DON reported she receives the monthly recommendations from the pharmacy, prints the recommendations to present to the providers, who in return follow up with a new order or reason why they did not follow the pharmacy recommendation. The DON stated after the provider reviewed the recommendations the pharmacy reviews are returned to her to follow through with order input and documentation. The pharmacy recommendation forms are then presented to the medical records department for scanning into the respective resident's EMR. The DON confirmed she did not have the requested pharmacy recommendation forms for R41, R43 or R47, as previously requested, and could not account for when the recommendations were received and if follow up was conducted in a timely manner or at all. When asked how the facility ensures monthly medication regimen reviews were completed with appropriate follow-up for all residents, the DON reported she reviews a listing of resident's reviewed on a quarterly (every three month) basis. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Regimen Review, last reviewed 8/01/2024, revealed the following, in part: Written communications from the pharmacist shall become a permanent part of the resident's medical record.
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately report Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) information to CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). This deficient practice resu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately report Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) information to CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). This deficient practice resulted in the facility triggering for excessively low weekend staffing with the potential to affect all 54 residents. Findings include: (All times are recorded in Eastern Daylight Time unless otherwise noted.) Review of the CMS PBJ Staffing Data Report FY (fiscal year) Quarter 2 2024 (January 1- March 31) revealed the metric Excessively Low Weekend Staffing Triggered with Submitted Weekend Staffing is excessively low with infraction dates being : 1/6/24, 1/7/24, 1/13/24, 1/14,24, 1/20/24, 1/21/24, 1/27/24, 1/28/24, 2/3/24, 2/4/24, 2/10/24, 2/11/24, 2/17/24, 2/18/24, 2/24/24, 2/25/24, 3/2/24, 3/3/24, 3/9/24, 3/10,24, 3/16/24, 3/17/24, 3/23/24, 3/24/24, 3/30/24, and 3/31/24. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 12:47 p.m., Business Office Manager/Human Resources G stated, I submit the PBJ information, but the system generates the information .I don't review the data. During an interview on 8/28/24 at approximately 3:15 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated, I don't know why we would trigger for low weekend staffing. Review of facility policy titled Payroll Based Journal, provided to this surveyor on 8/28/24 .read in part, It is the policy of this facility to electronically submit .complete and accurate direct care staffing information . the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), Human Resource Director, and Director of Nursing (DON) are responsible for verifying accuracy of the staffing data that is submitted to CMS using various facility audit forms.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure required members of the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee met at least quarterly, resulting in the potential for decreased quality of care for all 54 residents living in the facility. Findings include: All times recorded in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), unless otherwise noted. Review of the QAPI committee meeting attendance logs with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Corporate Director of Clinical Services, Registered Nurse (RN) A on 8/28/2024 at 4:23 p.m., revealed meetings were held on 8/14/2023, 1/30/2024, and 5/01/2024. Further review of the attendance logs revealed the following: 8/14/2023: Medical Director or designee not in attendance. 1/30/2024: Medical Director or designee not in attendance. Review of the facility policy titled, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI), last reviewed 4/22/2024, revealed the following, in part: The QAPI program includes the establishment of a Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee and a written QAPI Plan. The QAA Committee shall be interdisciplinary and shall consist at a minimum of: the Director of Nursing Services; the Medical Director or his/her designee; at least three other members of the facility's staff, at least one of which must be the Administrator, Owner, a Board Member or other Individual in a leadership role; and the Infection Preventionist.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** All times are in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) unless otherwise noted. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** All times are in Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) unless otherwise noted. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), 2. Post visual alerts at the entry for staff and visitors regarding information for hand hygiene and source control, and; 3. Post the process for everyone entering the facility of the recommended actions to prevent transmission of COVID-19 in accordance with standards of practice and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations for COVID-19, during an outbreak. Findings include: On 8/26/24, at approximately 12:30 p.m. the door to the facility's main entrance was observed closed for construction for the pouring of a concrete slab. The door at the end of the 100 unit was being utilized for entering and exiting the facility until construction was completed. On 8/26/24 at 12:30 p.m., Staff B said there was one resident who was positive for COVID-19. Staff B did not know when the resident tested positive or on which unit the resident who tested positive resided. Staff B said everyone who entered the facility was required to wear a mask while in the building. No visual alert was posted at the entry door to convey information regarding the use of source control, personal protective equipment (PPE), or performing hand hygiene. There was no identifiable process, posting, or visual alert to make everyone entering the facility aware of recommended actions or guidance to prevent transmission to others if they had: a positive viral test for SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19), symptoms of COVID-19, or close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was a table to the left of the entry door containing a box of surgical masks and a box of N-95 masks. No hand sanitizer was available on the table. A hand sanitizer dispenser was located on the wall approximately 12 - 15 feet from the entry door past two residents' rooms. There was no waste receptacle for disposing of masks when exiting the facility. On 8/26/24 at 1:45 p.m. the doors to rooms [ROOM NUMBER] had observed signage posted indicating isolation precautions. The doors to the three rooms were open to the hallway. On 8/26/24 at 3:01 p.m., isolation signage was observed posted on the door to room [ROOM NUMBER]. The doors to the four rooms in isolation were open to the hallway with residents in the hallway outside the doors. The Infection Preventionist (IP) said there were five residents who had tested positive for COVID-19. The IP said Resident #36 (R36) tested positive on 8/23/24, and Residents #3 (R3), #43 (R43), #30 (R30), and #18 (R18) had tested positive on 8/26/24. The IP said the residents who had tested positive for COVID-19 all resided on the 200 unit. On 8/27/24 at 7:28 a.m., The 100 hall door being used for entrance and exit from the facility still did not have hand sanitizer, a waste receptacle, directions for the use of PPE or hand hygiene, or postings for recommended actions and guidance for people entering the facility if they experienced a positive viral test for SARS-CoV-2, symptoms of COVID-19, or close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection. On 8/27/24 at 8:40 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) C was observed walking up the 200 unit, opened the door at the end of the unit, exited the unit wearing the same mask she was wearing on the affected unit, and did not performing hand hygiene. On 8/27/24 at 8:41 a.m., Staff E was observed entering the building from the door at the end of the 200 unit. Staff E walked the length of the 200 unit without wearing a mask and exited the 200 unit without a mask. Staff E was asked why she was not wearing a mask. Staff E responded, I just walked in. I just got to work. She then exited through another door. Housekeeper F was present and explained, The main entrance is closed right now so staff is using one of the side doors, either on 100 hall or 200 hall. At 8:47 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) reported signage was placed outside the door at the end of 200 hall directing staff to utilize another door. On 8/27/24 at 8:49 a.m., R36, who had tested positive for COVID-19, was observed in his wheelchair on the 200 unit hallway with two other residents within six feet of R36. R36 was coughing openly and repeatedly without covering his mouth. On 8/27/24 at 9:18 a.m., Resident #13 (R13) was observed ambulating in the hallway. CNA D called for CNA C for assistance with R13. CNA C exited room [ROOM NUMBER] wearing gloves she was wearing in room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA C went into room [ROOM NUMBER] where R13 resided with R36. CNA C obtained a wheelchair and took it to R13. CNA C placed her hand, still donned in the glove she had been wearing in room [ROOM NUMBER], around R13's arm and guided R13 into the wheelchair. CNA C went back into room [ROOM NUMBER] wearing the same pair of gloves and without performing hand hygiene. On 8/27/24 at 9:30 a.m , CNA D was observed through an open doorway assisting R36 in their room with positioning. R36 was openly coughing without covering his mouth. CNA D was not wearing eye protection. An observation was made of CNA D who exited the room, doffed the gown and gloves, and performed hand hygiene but did not remove the N-95 mask used while assisting R36 who was COVID-19 positive. CNA D exited the room and immediately walked down the hall and entered room [ROOM NUMBER] wearing the same mask used in R36's room. The resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was placed on isolation precautions on 8/28/24 due to the resident showing signs and symptoms of COVID-19. On 8/28/24 at 7:39 a.m., the 100 unit door utilized for entry and exit from the facility still did not have a visual posting to convey information regarding the use of source control, personal protective equipment (PPE), or instructions for performing hand hygiene. There remained no identifiable process, posting, or visual alert to make everyone entering the facility aware of recommended actions or guidance to prevent transmission to others if they had: a positive viral test for SARS-CoV-2, symptoms of COVID-19, or close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The table to the left of the entry door had a box of surgical masks but no hand sanitizer or waste receptacle. The IP was interviewed on 8/28/24 at 8:42 a.m. The IP said staff were to wear gloves, gown, eye protection, and an N-95 mask when they are with residents who tested positive for COVID-19. The IP said only N-95 masks were required when working with residents on the unit who had not tested positive for COVID-19. The IP said surgical masks were being required on the other units in the building. The IP was asked about removing PPE when exiting a room after caring for a resident with COVID-19. The IP said staff should remove all PPE before exiting the room, perform hand hygiene, and put on a new mask immediately upon exiting the room. The IP said it was not permissible to wear the same PPE, including N-95 mask, from the room of a resident with COVID-19 into the hallway or into another resident's room. The IP confirmed staff were not to wear gloves from the care of one resident to another resident. The IP confirmed the facility adheres to CDC recommendations and guidelines to determine infection prevention and control practices and policies. The facility policy Covid Prevention and Response was reviewed with the IP. The policy included the need to post visual alerts regarding source control, recommended PPE, instructions for anyone entering the facility if they had a positive viral test for SARS-CoV-2, symptoms of COVID-19, or close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The IP said there should have been signage posted but admitted she had not posted anything at the 100-unit door that was being used for entrance and exit from the facility. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) updated guidelines of 6/24/24 Infection Control Guidance: SARS-CoV-2 at https://www.cdc.gov/covid/hcp/infection-control/index.html, state the following, in part, regarding COVID-19 recommendations: .Ensure everyone is aware of recommended IPC [infection prevention and control] practices in the facility . .Post visual alerts (e.g., signs, posters) at the entrance .these alerts should include instructions about current IPC recommendations (e.g., when to use source control and perform hand hygiene) . .Establish a process to make everyone entering the facility aware of recommended actions to prevent transmission to others if they have any of the following three criteria: a positive viral test for SARS-CoV-2, symptoms of COVID-19, or close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection (for patients and visitors) or a higher-risk exposure (for healthcare personnel) . .Provide guidance (e.g. posted signs at entrances .) about recommended actions for patients and visitors who have any of the above three criteria [a positive viral test for SARS-CoV-2, symptoms of COVID-19, or close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection] . .HCP (Health Care Personnel) who enter the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection should .use .N95 filters or higher, gown, gloves, and eye protection (i.e., goggles or a face shield that covers the front and sides of the face) .
Aug 2023 15 deficiencies 3 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent resident to resident abuse for 2 residents (Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent resident to resident abuse for 2 residents (Resident #46, & Resident #37) of 6 residents residents reviewed for abuse. This deficient practice resulted in Resident #30 twisting Resident #46's right wrist causing pain, fear and increased anxiety, and Resident #42 perpetrating physical abuse to Resident #37 and another resident unknown with the potential for further continued abuse of residents residing in the facility to go unrecognized and the potential for further harm. (All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST) unless otherwise noted.) Findings include: Resident #46 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #46, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: generalized anxiety. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #46, with a reference date of 6/20/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10/15 which indicated Resident #46 was mildly cognitively impaired. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 10:30 AM., Resident #46 reported Resident #30 has come into her room on multiple occasions. Resident #46 reported Resident #30 had come into her old room before she moved into this new room. Resident #46 reported that not that long ago, maybe a few weeks Resident #30 was in her room and fell asleep in her bed while Resident #46 was out with family. Resident #46 reported her (Family Member (FM) H) requested the bedding was changed after (Resident #30) slept in her bed. Resident #46 reported not long after that day, another day Resident #30 came back into her room while she was sitting in her (Resident #46's) recliner. Resident #46 reported both her and her roommate Resident #15 were yelling out for staff to come and get Resident #30 out of their room. Resident #46 reported when she went to stand up, she (Resident #46) grabbed onto her walker with her right hand. Resident #46 stated (Resident #30) grabbed onto my right arm/wrist twisting it and squeezing my wrist very hard. Resident #46 reported she started to holler out you are hurting me, stop you are hurting me. Resident #46 reported her right arm/wrist hurt for days afterwards and had some bruising. Resident #46 stated my wrist (right) hurt so bad because last year I fell and broke that arm, so it already had an injury . Resident #46 reported she is very afraid of (Resident #30) and has been for a while now . Resident #15 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #15, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: generalized anxiety disorder. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #15, with a reference date of 7/1/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15 which indicated Resident #15 was cognitively intact. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 10:45 AM., Resident #15 reported a month or so ago Resident #30 entered her room and Resident #30 headed towards her (Resident #15's) roommate Resident #46. Resident #15 reported her roommate Resident #46 was sitting down in her own recliner. Resident #15 reported Resident #46 yelled for help and told Resident #30 to leave their (Resident #15 & Resident #46's) room. Resident #15 reported once Resident #46 started to yell out for staff help Resident #30 walked up to Resident #46 who was reaching for her walker attempting to stand up. Resident #15 reported she saw Resident #30 grabbing onto Resident #46's right wrist and twisting Resident #46's wrist while she (Resident #30) was squeezing Resident #46's right wrist. Resident #15 reported at that time both herself (Resident #15) & Resident #46 were yelling for staff's assistance. Resident #15 reported it took a few staff members to get Resident #30 out of their room and Resident #46 was crying during the incident and saying you are hurting me. Resident #15 reported after the incident Resident #46's right wrist was in a lot of pain, and she (Resident #15) could see bruises on Resident #46's right wrist the following day. Resident #15 reported Resident #30 continues to enters her room often, despite the stop sign on the doorway. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 4:35 PM., Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A reported she was not aware of any incident of Resident #30 going into Resident #15 & #46's room and/or any concerns from Resident #15 & #46. NHA A reported she would look for any notes and or grievance forms regarding any incidents with these residents. NHA A reported she had just started as the new NHA at the facility and recalls a Care Conference meeting with family members of Resident #46 's towards the end of June/early July 2023. NHA A reported she does not recall the details of anything concerning from the care conference meeting with Resident #46's family member(s). Requested pertinent documentation on 8/16/23 at 4:45 PM., from NHA A including incident accident reports, concern/grievance forms, care conference notes and any information in regards to Resident #30's altercation with Resident #46. During a phone interview on 8/17/23 at 12:10 PM., FM H reported in late June 2023 another female resident (name omitted Resident #30) entered Resident #46's bedroom and grabbed her (Resident #46) by her right wrist/arm twisting and squeezing it. FM H reported it was very concerning that just anyone can walk in her (Resident #46's) room and do as they please. FM H reported Resident #46 suffers from anxiety, and when something triggers her (Resident #46), anxiety symptoms are panic attacks, tearfulness, stomach issues and at times Resident #46 needs a lot more reassurance from family members. FM H reported Resident #46 has changed rooms 3 times to get farther away from Resident #30. FM H reported Resident #30 has repeatedly entered Resident #46's room and has been found sleeping in Resident #46's bed. FM H reported Resident #46 has many family members that are in the facility often, and the family members are very involved with Resident #46's care. FM H reported there have been multiple calls from Resident #46 to family members about how afraid, and anxious Resident #30 makes Resident #46 feel. FM H reported she has been in the facility enough times along with other family members who have seen Resident #30's behaviors of going in and out of resident rooms, trying to get out of the doors, and lashing out at other residents and staff. FM H reported she had concerns about Resident #30 and wondered if staff are doing enough not only to protect Resident #46 and other residents, but also keeping Resident #30 safe from other residents who may lash out at Resident #30 when she goes into other rooms. FM 'H reported she requested a meeting after the incidents in June 2023. FM H reported a Care Conference was held and (NHA A) did not seem to be hearing my concerns. FM H stated (NHA A) and the other staff present told me my mom (Resident #46) was exaggerating the incident . FM H reported there was no exaggeration of the incident, everyone knows what Resident #30's behaviors are, and staff and management should be keeping a closer eye on Resident #30 for everyone's safety. FM H stated My mother (Resident #46) always says don't say anything because I (Resident #46) will get in trouble . It breaks my heart I had her put here (the facility) to be safe, and right now I don't feel it is very safe . FM H reported she and Resident #46 have requested many times the last few weeks from nurses and management a copy of the incident reports from Resident #30 sleeping in her (Resident #46's) bed, and grabbing her (Resident #46's) right wrist, and have not received the reports, let alone any communications about the incidents. FM H stated (Resident #46) is [AGE] years old, and was driving up until she (Resident #46) admitted here. I don't want my mom to live her last years in pain, fear and misery this has been a very difficult time for our family, we should not have to be this worried and fearful for (Resident #46) safety . Resident #30 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #30, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: dementia, severe, with agitation. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #30, with a reference date of 6/11/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00/15 which indicated Resident #30 was severely cognitively impaired. Further review of the MDS assessment Behavior Symptom - Presence & Frequency revealed Resident #30 coded for #1. Wandering - Presence & Frequency Has the resident wandered .#1. Behavior of this type occurred 1 to 3 days . In a 7 day look back period Review of Resident #30's Care Plans revealed: 1/26/21 Focus- I (Resident #30) am an elopement risk/wanderer r/t (related to) dx (diagnosis) of dementia. I have a hx (history) of wandering into other resident rooms which significantly intrudes on other residents' privacy or activities Interventions: Staff to redirect me (Resident #30) out of other resident rooms and to my room or common area-Date Initiated: 11/16/2022 Redirect me (Resident #30) to my room or a common area before I enter into other resident's rooms-Date Initiated: 07/25/2023 7/05/2021 Focus-I (Resident #30) have potential to demonstrate physical/verbal behaviors such as swearing at other residents, going through my roommates' belongings, unplugging my roommates TV and becoming combative and slapping other resident that may be making noise, walking next to me or the general area. I (Resident #30) am very impulsive and unpredictable. I (Resident #30) do not single out certain residents or staff. I (Resident #30) can become physically and verbally combative without escalations or warning signs r/t Dementia with behavioral disturbances. I (Resident #30) can also become possessive over certain chair or couches. per family I prefer to sleep on a couch . 3/28/2023 Focus-I (Resident #30) have a behavior problem r/t dementia. I (Resident #30) have hx of breaking items, pushing things off tables and on to the floor, taking food off of other resident plates, taking other resident snacks out of their hands. I (Resident #30) will state I didn't do anything if asked about behaviors During an interview on 8/23/23 at 1:51 PM., MDS-RN (MDS/RN) V reported she recalled a month or so ago there was an incident when Resident #30 had to be removed from Resident #46's room. MDS/RN V reported it was about Resident #30 grabbing Resident #46's wrist. MDS/RN V reported she could not remember all the details of the incident. In an observation on 8/23/23 at 3:01 PM., Resident #30 was in main dining room attempting to push on the exit door to go outside. Resident #30 began to walk around the dining area, and then sat down on a chair. Resident #30 was noted to be tearful. In an observation on 8/23/23 at 3:16 PM., Resident #30 was walking near the nurse's station attempting to get into the medication cart. Resident #30 was randomly touching items on the nursing station counter, medication cart and then proceeded to attempt to open doors for shower rooms, conference room, and service hall entry door. Resident #30 then started to touch and pull on the hand sanitizer dispenser on the wall. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O came out of dining area, walked around the nurses' station, and noticed Resident #30 at the hand sanitizer dispenser. CNA O attempted to redirect Resident #30 with some difficulty at first, after approximately 10 minutes Resident #30 complied with CNA O's attempts at redirection and Resident #30 agreed to sit down in a wheelchair. Resident #30 was noted to be tearful during this observation. During an interview on 8/23/23 at 4:04 PM., Registered Nurse (RN) L reported there was an incident with Resident #46 and another resident (RN L could not recall 2nd residents name) a few months ago. The other resident wandered into Resident #46's room and staff had to intervene once they heard Resident #46 hollering for help. RN L reported Resident #46 does not typically exhibit behaviors. RN L reported she thinks the incident had to do with the other resident grabbing and twisting Resident #46's arm. During an interview on 8/23/23 at 4:39 PM., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) S reported Resident #30 had entered Resident #46's room a few months back and fell asleep in Resident #46's bed. LPN S reported she did not recall all the details but does remember that Resident #46 was out of the facility with family, and when they (FM H and Resident #46) returned to the facility they were upset because they wanted the bedding changed after Resident #30 had fallen asleep in the bed. LPN S reported not long after that something else happened where Resident #30 went into Resident #46's room again, and some sort of altercation happened. LPN S reported Resident #46 does not exhibit many behaviors at all but does get anxious when Resident #30 gets near her (Resident #46). LPN S reported Resident #46 is afraid of Resident #30. During an interview on 8/24/23 at 9:11 AM., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) J reported there was an incident that Resident #30 went into Resident #46 room and slept in her bed. CNA J reported Resident #30 has a lot of behaviors and has many altercations with other residents. CNA J reported Resident #30 often wanders into other residents' rooms, lashes out and hit other residents, and has hit family members visiting residents who reside in the facility. CNA J reported Resident #46 does not have many behaviors, if any at all. CNA J reported Resident #46 can be anxious at times, but typically because a wandering resident is close to her doorway or trying to get into her room. CNA J reported she has worked with Resident #46 since her admission in late 2022, and to her knowledge has never hit, or become combative with any staff or other residents. CNA J reported Resident #46 was very pleasant, had a lot of family involvement and often went out of the facility with family and her friends. During an interview on 8/24/23 at 9:20 AM., CNA/SS P reported she now works as the Social Services (SS) staff member. SS P reported in her first week of being in the role of Social Services it was brought to her attention that Resident #30 had grabbed Resident #46's wrist. SS P reported shortly after hearing of the incident a meeting was held with NHA A, Director of Nursing (DON) B and Resident #46's FM H. SS P reported FM H was concerned about Resident #46's safety, and the fact that Resident #46 was afraid of Resident #30 and wanted us to ensure safety for Resident #46. SS P reported she has not had any behaviors from Resident #46 besides at times anxiety is increased. SS P reported Resident #30 has had multiple incidents/altercations with residents including a family member. Review of Resident #46's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed documentation of: Nurse Practitioner (NP) Q 6/27/2023 09:06 onsite note .Chief Complaint: Chief complaint: patient (Resident #46) is seen today for right wrist pain .This is a [AGE] year-old female patient (Resident #46) who is seen today per nurse request .Patient (Resident #46) is a very concerned about her right wrist and forearm as she states that she is continuing to have pain in the area. She (Resident #46) said that her wrist and arm were twisted and twisted hard, and she (Resident #46) is not able to use her fingers like she did prior to that incident During an interview on 8/24/23 at 11:20 AM., Nurse Practitioner (NP) Q reported on 6/27/23 she had completed an examination of Resident #46. NP Q reported she (Resident #46) told me on 6/27/23 that a resident came into her room recently and she (Resident #46) was asking her (the other resident) to leave and then the other resident grabbed her (Resident #46's) wrist hard and twisted it. NP Q reported she did not know who the other resident was, but she (NP Q) did report to upper management. NP 'Q reported she has not heard of any behaviors from Resident #46 but at times has increased anxiety especially when residents who wander get close to her doorway or try to get in her room. NP Q stated she (Resident #46) was anxious just talking about it . that day she told me she (Resident #46) was fearful and anxious, she looked anxious about it NP Q reported she made sure the nurse (did not recall what nurse) knew about her (Resident #46's) anxiety at the time of her (NP Q's) visit and then ordered an x-ray of (Resident 46's) wrist. During an interview on 8/24/23 at 12:16 PM., MDS-RN V was re-interviewed and reported she was in attendance of a meeting with a few members (NHA A, CNA/SS, and FM H). MDS-RN V reported the meeting was regarding Resident #30 entering Resident #46's on multiple occasions, once falling asleep in her bed, and another time when Resident #30 entered and grabbed Resident #46's wrist. MDS-RN V stated I (MDS-RN V) know (NHA A) had spoken to Resident #46 and Resident #46 explained what happened to her wrist. MDS-RN V reported Resident #46 told (NHA A) that it was Resident #30 who grabbed and hurt her wrist. Resident #37 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #37, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: autistic disorder. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #37, with a reference date of 6/24/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 04/15 which indicated Resident #37 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of an Incident/accident for Resident #37 revealed: 6/7/2023 Writer was in nursing office and heard yelling coming from the nurses desk/dining room entrance area r/t (related to) an altercation happening between two residents. Writer and fellow nurse ran to the dining room (both arriving at the same time) and observed .(Resident #42) holding (Resident#37's) right arm telling him (Resident #37) to stop yelling like that Resident Description: (Resident #37) .He pinched me . Resident #42 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #42, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: unspecified dementia, severe with psychotic disturbance. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #42, with a reference date of 5/21/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03/15 which indicated Resident #42 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of an Incident/accident for Resident #42 revealed: 6/7/2023 Writer was in nursing office and heard yelling coming from the nurses desk/dining room entrance area r/t an altercation happening between two residents. Writer and fellow nurse ran to the dining room (both arriving at the same time) and observed (Resident #42) holding (Resident#37's) right arm telling him to stop yelling like that Resident Description: The only comment resident (Resident #42) gave writer at the time of the incident was this guy (Resident #37) shouldn't be in here yelling at people like that . Review of an Incident/accident for Resident #42 revealed: On 6/22/23 About 0730 CNA called for assist 100 hallway outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. Writer observed resident (Resident #42) intertwined with CNA and resident 1435 (unknown resident). CNA states they were inside room assisting when they heard (Resident #42) state I'm gonna punch you in the gut .CNA opened door and saw (Resident #42's) hand make contact with 1435 (unknown resident) stomach (surveyor noted discrepancy on the incident/accident report with resident identifier 1435, unable to locate resident 1435 in facility electronic medical record (EMR) .). During an interview on 8/23/23 at 3:30 PM., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N reported Resident #42 had a lot of behaviors, was difficult to redirect, and at times he has struck out at other residents and staff. CNA N reported the staff had to keep a very close eye on Resident #42 along with quite a few other residents such as Resident #30 who were known to wander and roam into to other residents personal space. CNA N reported both Resident #30 and Resident #42 have had multiple resident to resident altercations with other residents, and both Resident #30 and Resident #42 sometimes just randomly would lash out. Review of the policy, Abuse and Neglect, reviewed 07/11/23, revealed: It is the policy of the facility to encourage and support all residents, staff, families, visitors, volunteers and resident representatives in reporting any suspected acts of abuse, neglect, exploitation, involuntary seclusion or misappropriation of resident property from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. This includes but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion and any physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. The term abuse (abuse, neglect, exploitation, involuntary seclusion or misappropriation of resident property from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation) will be used throughout this policy unless specifically indicated .Reporting .It is the policy of this facility that abuse allegations (abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property) are reported per Federal and State Law. The facility will ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. In addition, local law enforcement will be notified of any reasonable suspicion of a crime against a resident in the facility .Serious Bodily injury: The term serious bodily injury is defined as an injury involving extreme physical pain; involving substantial risk of death; involving protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or requiring medical intervention such as surgery, hospitalization, or physical rehabilitation .Serious Bodily Injury reporting - 2 Hour Limit: If the events that cause reasonable suspicion and allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury to a resident, the covered individual shall report the suspicion immediately, but not later than 2 hours after forming the suspicion .All other injury reporting - Within 24 Hours: If the events that cause the reasonable suspicion do not result in serious bodily injury to a resident, the covered individual shall report the suspicion not later than 24 hours after forming the suspicion .Harm is a negative outcome that has compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach the highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services .
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficiency is related to Complaint Intakes MI00131768 and MI00136585. Based on observation, interview, and record review, t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficiency is related to Complaint Intakes MI00131768 and MI00136585. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care to prevent skin breakdown, promote healing, and prevent infection related to pressure injuries for two Residents (R104 and R155) out of two residents reviewed for pressure injuries. This deficient practice resulted in harm to R104 when their pressure ulcer wound infection progressed to organ failure, and the development of facility acquired pressure injuries for both R104 and R155. Findings include: All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST) unless otherwise noted. Resident R104 Review of R104's MDS assessment, dated [DATE], revealed R104 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with active diagnoses that included: stroke, heart failure, coronary artery disease (CAD), hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), malnutrition, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). R104 scored 9 of 15 on the BIMS, reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. Skin conditions identified in Section M - Skin Conditions of the MDS assessment revealed R104 had one Stage II, and one Unstageable pressure injury. Section E0800. Rejection of Care - Present & Frequency was documented on the [DATE] MDS assessment as 0. Behavior not exhibited. R104 required extensive, one-person physical assistance with bed mobility. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 5:44 p.m., Family Member (FM) EE reported the facility Nurse Practitioner (NP) Q had told FM EE that R104 had gone septic (when an infection-fighting process turns on the body, causing the organs to work poorly) from (infected) pressure injuries. FM EE stated, [NP Q] acknowledged that [R104's] rapid decline was due to the wounds (infected pressure injuries). FM EE said she was unaware that [R104] had significant wounds (pressure injuries). FM EE, also an advanced practice medical clinician, stated, I assumed and put my trust in them that they would do the right thing in putting a barrier on the wound and change (R104's) position. FM EE stated, We (family members) were the ones that ended up turning (repositioning) him, because nursing care was not there. That is when we discovered how bad the wounds were. I don't believe they even had dressings . The one on his hip was necrotic (covered with black eschar). The tissue was black and dead and there was a foul odor. He was laying directing on the sacral wound . They told us to wear gloves when we touched him . I would have expected the wounds to have dressings (applied to them) and the wounds to have been debrided . seeing how severe it was, it was concerning . Observation of undated photographs provided by Complainant FF showed the following: Photo 1: appeared to be a large right trochanter (hip) pressure injury covered with blackish eschar, making the wound unstageable. Photo 2: a small heel pressure injury, scabbed over with residual yellow colored topical ointment/liquid similar to iodine color on the wound. Photo 3: a large, coccyx/sacral pressure injury with black eschar, yellowish slough, and irregular wound edges. Wound was bordered by pink, inflamed skin with apparent infectious process. No dressing was visible on the wound, and the bedding underneath the R104 was partially saturated with bloody, and brownish puss. This wound appeared to be unstageable. Photo 4: a picture of the large coccyx/sacral pressure injury from the side view, showing the tissue swelling and discoloration around the area of the wound. Review of a [DATE] Incident Reported related to development of multiple Stage II pressure injuries, one to coccyx and one under the right gluteal fold, revealed the following, in part: [RN V] assessed the area and documented in the Skin and Wound application the presence of the two (new) pressure injuries. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:58 p.m., the DON was asked to review R104's last six months of nursing progress notes for any documentation from the nursing staff that R104 had refused turning and repositioning. The DON reviewed progress notes from [DATE] through [DATE], and following her review said that no documentation of [R104's] refusal to turn or reposition was found in any of the six months of nursing notes.). When asked what nursing staff would be expected to do if a CNA reported [R104] had refused turning and repositioning, the DON stated, I would expect the nurses to make a progress note. When asked if it would also have been documented as a refusal in the Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) documentation on turning and repositioning, the DON stated, Honestly, I don't know if they can document a refusal on turning and repositioning. The DON confirmed the CNA Task to document on resident repositioning was not set up for documentation. When asked how I would know [R104] refused repositioning, or was just not repositioned by facility staff, the DON looked at me silently, and after a silent delay stated, I get what you are saying. When asked what documentation was available as evidence to show R104's refusal to turn and reposition, the DON remained silent and did not answer. At this same time the DON was asked to review R104's coccyx/sacral wound where there were two separate openings, one below the sacral wound that showed a depth was present but was not documented on the Skin and Wound documentation. The DON agreed there were two wounds visible on this picture, one above and one below. When a copy of the wound documentation was requested, the DON stated, I really don't know about wounds because I don't do the wounds. I honestly don't know how to print this. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:18 p.m., the DON was asked for what physician orders were in place at the time of identification of R104's greater trochanter (right hip) wound. The DON reviewed R104's physician orders, prior to his expiration in the facility on [DATE], and when the review was completed, the DON stated, I don't see one (physician order for greater trochanter pressure injury treatment). Review of R104's Physician Orders between [DATE] and [DATE], provided by the facility on [DATE], revealed the following, in part: 1. Apply betadine to pressure ulcer on medial aspect of left heel. Cover with 4x4 and wrap with gauze every day shift for wound care. Start Date [DATE], End Date [DATE]. 2. Apply Butt Paste to open areas surrounding coccyx BID (twice daily), every day and evening shift for Pressure ulcers. Start Date [DATE], End Date [DATE]. 3. Coccyx Ulcer: Cleanse with wound wash, Apply skin prep around wound. Apply Medi honey to yellow necrotic area. Cover with 4x4 and change QD every day shift. Start Date [DATE], End Date [DATE]. 4. Dolphin (Specialty pressure reduction mattress), Order Date [DATE], NO Start Date, End Date [DATE]. 5. Dressing change to unstageable pressure ulcer Right hip. Cleanse with NS (normal saline), apply skin prep over area, cover with an Allevyn. Change every 48 hours every day shift every other day for pressure ulcer. Start Date [DATE], End Date [DATE]. 6. Dressing change to unstageable pressure ulcer right hip. Cleanse with NS, apply skin prep around wound bed, cover wound bed with Medi honey and 4x4 gauze every day shift for pressure ulcer. Start Date [DATE], End Date [DATE]. 7. HOSPITALIZATION FOR ACUTE TREATMENT IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE PHYSICIAN. Start Date [DATE], End Date [DATE]. 8. NO intravenous hydration. YES, to IV antibiotic Therapy. Order Date [DATE], NO Start Date, End Date [DATE]. Review of R104's Pressure Injury Timeline, provided by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on [DATE] at 12:15 p.m. [Central Daylight Savings Times (CDST)] revealed the following information: [DATE], Coccyx Pressure - Kennedy terminal ulcer Unstageable (Note: Photo observation of two separate wound areas: coccyx with visible depth, and sacral enlarged with slough and eschar.) [DATE], Coccyx Pressure - Kennedy terminal ulcer Unstageable 3.91 cm 2.16 cm (Note: Two wounds present in photo, coccyx pressure injury and sacral pressure injury.) [DATE], Coccyx Pressure Stage 2 0.51 cm 0.39 cm (Note: photo shows dressing covering sacral area previously reddened and coccyx pressure injury.) [DATE], Coccyx Pressure Stage 2 0.81 cm 0.59 cm [DATE], Coccyx Pressure Stage 2 0.39 cm 0.39 cm [DATE], Coccyx Pressure Stage 2 0.77 cm 0.55 cm [DATE], Coccyx Pressure Stage 2 0.71 cm 0.63 cm [DATE], Coccyx Pressure Stage 2 0.9 cm 0.73 cm Re-opened Sep 19, 2022, Coccyx Pressure Stage 2 0 cm 0 cm Resolved. [DATE], Coccyx Pressure Stage 2 0.79 cm 0.39 cm [DATE], Coccyx Pressure Stage 2 0.92 cm 0.43 cm [DATE], Coccyx Pressure Stage 2 0.61 cm 0.3 cm [DATE], Coccyx Pressure Stage 2 0.46 cm 0.79 cm [DATE], Right Trochanter Pressure Unstageable 2.25 cm 4.08 cm (Note: Photo observation shows wound bed all necrotic with dark eschar.) [DATE], Right Trochanter Pressure Unstageable 3.34 cm 5.74 cm [DATE], Right Trochanter Pressure Unstageable 5.35 cm 4.22 cm [DATE], Right Trochanter Pressure Unstageable 3.33 cm 2.44 cm [DATE], Right Trochanter Pressure Unstageable 4.53 cm 5.67 cm [DATE], Right Trochanter Pressure Deep Tissue Injury 5.67 cm 7.21 cm New (Note: showed a photo of R104's right trochanter with a deep purple bruise inside a much larger reddened and abraded right hip. Appears to have resulted from a fall or trauma injury to the right hip. The dimensions as listed on the Wound Evaluation revealed an area of 29.96 centimeters (cm), length of 5.67 cm and with of 7.21 cm.) Review of R104's right trochanter Wound Evaluations revealed the following, in part: 1. [DATE] showed a photo of an open wound, covered with yellowish slough, with an apparent depth to the wound that was not measured. 2. [DATE], showed a photo of the right trochanter with two separate wound areas on the right hip partially covered in slough. 3. [DATE], showed a photo of the right trochanter, significantly enlarged (measurements: area: 16.38 cm2, Length 5.35 cm, Width 4.22 cm) with two separate areas open, with visible in the photo with an unmeasured depth. 4. [DATE], showed a photo of the entire greater trochanter area with dark, necrotic eschar covering the entire, previously multiple wound areas. Measurements of: Area 13.25 cm2, Length 3.34, Width 5.74. Significant worsening of wound visibly apparent in the photo. Review of Physician visits for R104 between 10/2023 and 4/2023 revealed physician visits were performed on [DATE] and [DATE] for R104. Review of R104's Care Plans revealed the following: 1. Focus: I have had a Cerebral Vascular Accident (Stroke), Date Initiated: [DATE] . Interventions . Turn and Reposition q (every) 2 hours and PRN (as needed), Keep body in good alignment. Date Initiated: [DATE], Canceled Date: [DATE] (date of expiration). 2. Focus: Bowel/Bladder . I am only to wear blue incontinence pads, no underwear, briefs, or pullups as they can cause pressure injuries. Date Initiated: [DATE], Cancelled Date: [DATE]. 3. Focus: Hx of reoccurring pressure injury to my coccyx and heels r/t hx of pressure injury, immobility, poor nutrition, and failure to thrive. I have unavoidable pressure injury to left heel and coccyx r/t refusal to eat refusal of medications and noncompliance with turning and repositioning program. Date Initiated: [DATE], Cancelled Date: [DATE] . Interventions/Tasks: Avoid positioning me on my coccyx area. I am often noncompliant with reposition wedge. Remind me the importance of keeping pressure off coccyx. Date Initiated: [DATE], Cancelled [DATE] . Follow facility policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of my skin breakdown. Date Initiated [DATE], Cancelled Date [DATE]. 4. Focus: Comfort Measures Only . Date Initiated [DATE], Date Cancelled: [DATE]. 5. Focus: ADLs (Activities of Daily Living . BED MOBILITY: I am an Assist x 1, Date Initiated: [DATE], Cancelled Date: [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:44 p.m., RN V was asked for any evidence to show R104 refused turning and repositioning by facility staff. RN V said there was no task for turning and repositioning that was documented by the CNAs. When asked how a CNA would document that R104 did refused turning and repositioning, RN V said they (CNAs) would have to tell their nurse who would do a progress note. RN V stated, Apparently they (CNAs) do not document turning and repositioning at all . During an interview on [DATE] at 11:35 a.m., CNAs CC and N confirmed they had provided direct care to R104 when he was in the facility. When asked how they had documented R104's refusal to turn and reposition, CNA CC and N looked puzzled, individually, and then looked at each other with a questioning look, eyes raised. CNA N stated, He didn't refuse. CNA CC also said he never refused. When asked if CNA CC and CNA N believed R104 was consistently repositioned by facility staff, both said they did not think he was always repositioned. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:46 p.m., NP Q was asked what she had told the family regarding R104's sudden decline prior to his death on [DATE]. NP Q said they would need to review notes related to R104. NP Q said R104 had the pressure injuries four, five, and six months prior to his death. NP Q said R104 refused a lot of turning, which had been reported to her by the nursing staff she rounded with. NP Q stated, I was very open and honest with the family that the infected pressure ulcers were the cause of the decline (R104's rapid decline) . it developed rather quickly. NP Q said it looked like a terminal Kennedy ulcer to her, and agreed the right great trochanter, and coccyx/sacral wound were all unstageable. NP Q stated, There was thought about antibiotics. There was discussion about going to the wound clinic. When asked if those discussions were documented, NP Q turned her head from side to side, and stated, I hope I documented that. When asked if the pressure ulcer wound infections were a factor in R104's organ failure (including renal and heart failure), NP Q paused and stated, It is a combination of all three (pressure ulcer infection, renal and heart failure). One (the pressure ulcer infection) led to the other two (renal and heart failure). When asked to clarify that the pressure ulcer wound infections lead to R104's organ failure, NP Q acknowledged that was her belief. Resident #155 During an observation on [DATE] at 12:06 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D assisted R155 to stand for an observation of a potential pressure injury following a staff transfer. A pressure ulcer dressing was applied to the coccyx area this morning by [NP Q]. Observation of the coccyx area revealed a small, circular Stage II pressure injury on R155's left, interior buttock cheek. The pressure injury had no drainage, and no slough was present on the wound. R155 stated, It was really killing me back there (left buttock) . After repositioning it really hurt. During an interview on [DATE] at approximately 12:15 p.m., NP Q confirmed she had examined R155 that day and applied a dressing to a Stage II pressure injury on R155's left inner buttock. NP Q confirmed it was not a sacral or coccyx wound but would be considered a left inner buttock pressure injury. Review of R155's Care Plans, with the following interventions all updated [DATE], revealed the following, in part: - I have pressure injury to buttock. Date Initiated: [DATE]. - Interventions will be put in place to prevent decline in wound and maintain my comfort. - Administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness. - Assess me and attempt to determine underlying cause of wound, alleviate causes if possible. - Assess/record/monitor wound healing per facility policy. Measure length, width and depth where possible. Assess and document status of wound perimeter, wound bed and healing progress. Report improvements and declines to the MD. - Educate me/family/caregivers as to causes of skin breakdown; including transfer/positioning requirements; importance of taking care during ambulating/mobility, good nutrition, and frequent repositioning. - Encourage fluids with each interaction. Review of R155's Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Foot cradle for end of bed at all times, every shift for skin integrity. -Order Date: [DATE] 19:29 (7:29 p.m. CDST) Cleanse coccyx wound with wound wash, apply skin prep around area, apply Lidocaine 4% cream to wound, cover with Allevyn. every day shift every 2 day(s) for coccyx wound until healed. Start Date: [DATE] 0600 (6:00 a.m., CDST) Cleanse coccyx wound with wound wash, apply skin prep around area, cover with Allevyn. every day shift every 2 day(s) for coccyx wound until healed. -Start Date: [DATE] -D/C (discontinue) Date: [DATE] During an interview on [DATE] at 9:42 a.m., Resident #155 reported they sustained a pressure ulcer (on [DATE]), shortly after their admission to the facility, when they were positioned in bed incorrectly with the bed pad, causing shearing of their buttocks skin. Resident #155 described the incident as follows: I could feel the [skin] tear after they [nursing staff] lifted the edges of the [bed] pad, and it felt like a knife going in. They were going to roll me to the center of the bed, and [when] they pulled on the pad, I said, 'Oh my goodness,' and after that they started using a [wound treatment] cream. Resident #155 reported the new pressure ulcer was still present, and was located a bit lower than the tailbone, and clarified, It hurts. As soon as I move the wrong way, then I feel it again. My son and daughter know. They [family] were very disappointed in it [the development of the pressure ulcer]. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:55 p.m., R155 was sitting in a recliner, with bilateral feet elevated on the recliner footrest. When asked about any sores on her bottom, R155 stated, Well I talked to the Doctor (NP Q) who said that they were going to try lidocaine on a patch to help with the pain from the pressure injury. R155 said they had not started the lidocaine and the pressure injury was still painful. R155 said they had not been in to do the dressing changes, since the dressing was changed last week. R155 said she had asked if they could take the foam dressing off at night and that is what they had been doing. R155 said they had not put any lidocaine on her dressing as she had not had pain relief. R155 said when the staff sat her straight up in bed or in the chair, she sits right on the pressure injury, and it is really painful then. The resident said she knew they were not supposed to sit her straight up, but all the staff didn't know that. Review of R155's Physician Visit Progress Notes revealed the following: [DATE] Physician Visit - review of integumentary - no mention of any pressure injuries. [DATE] Physician Visit NP - Asked to see pressure injury HPI: This is a [age] female with a history of COPD and heart failure is seen today per nurse request to assess open area on the left buttocks. The area was originally a shearing wound of unknown etiology. Over the past 24 hours staff report that the wound has become larger. Patient states that she is having pain in the area where the wound is present. She states that she has a hard time staying off of the area when she is up in her wheelchair and reclining chair. She states that she needs the head of the bed elevated at 45 degrees in order to breathe at night and it is very uncomfortable for her to lay on her side . The nurses were applying butt paste to the area bid and prn, but the wound has increased in size and depth and requires a different treatment . NP .Integumentary: Stage 2 pressure ulcer on left buttocks. Measured by nurses using the PCC wound app - (0.63 x 0.59 cm) x 0.1 cm, wound with 90% granulation tissue and 10% yellow slough, no drainage noted, no warmth or evidence of infection noted .1.: Pressure ulcer of left buttock, stage 2. Abrasion left buttocks with no stage II pressure ulcer. Wound was being treated with butt paste, but it has increased in size . Staff instructed to report any change in status of the wound to this provider . Review of R155's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) on [DATE] 01:04 p.m., revealed the left inner buttock cheek pressure injury was described as a coccyx wound. The sacral bruising was identified as a Stage II sacral pressure injury on [DATE] by NP Q. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:22 p.m., the DON asked to review Skin and Wound Documentation and provide date of First development of R155's left buttock wound. The DON reviewed the computer screen silently, as she tried to determine when the wound originated for R155. The DON stated, No, I do not see a skin and wound documentation for [DATE]) . I guess I can't be sure when this started. Review of the Wound History Screen on the DON computer showed R155's left inner buttock wound was initially assessed by RN V 14 days ago, on [DATE]. [Regulatory Compliance Officer G] updated 155's Wound Evaluation 5 days previous on [DATE]. Measurements were 0.31 area, 0.76 cm length, and 0.55 cm width. The Photo taken on [DATE] showed an abrasion pressure injury with top layer of skin off R155's left interior buttock cheek. The photo taken on [DATE] included measurements of 0.63 cm length x 0.59 cm width. R155's right interior buttock pressure injury was listed as new on [DATE]. When asked when the wound started, the DON stated, It appeared that it started on the 8th, when that (the initial wound) was found. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:35 p.m., RN V said R155's right interior buttock cheek wound started as an abrasion. RN V confirmed the second, [DATE] photo of the wound appeared more like a pressure injury. RN V confirmed that the CNAs are responsible to report any new skin changes. RN V stated, I think that they (CNAs) interpret that if it (wound) was there (already), they would not have to report any changes in a previously identified skin concern. During an observation on [DATE] at 3:34 p.m., Resident R155 was laying on her right side in bed. The old dressing, which was not dated or initialed was removed from R155's right buttock. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) S confirmed there was no date or dressing on the dressing removed from R155.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation relates to Intake #MI00138093. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide effective safe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation relates to Intake #MI00138093. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide effective safety interventions to prevent two falls with major injury (a hip fracture with surgical fixation, and a non-operable femur fracture) for one Residents (#154) of six residents reviewed for falls. This deficient practice resulted in surgical intervention, hospitalization, functional and medical decline, and increased pain requiring additional opioid pain medication. Findings include: All times are noted in Eastern Daylight Time unless otherwise noted. Review of Resident #154's Emergency Department transfer report, dated 05/20/23 at 2309 [11:09 p.m. report time] revealed, [Hospital EMS] is dispatched to [facility] to transport a female patient [Resident #154] with possible broken hip to [hospital] . Upon immediate response arrived to find the patient [Resident #154] lying supine in bed on 3L [Liters] O2 [Oxygen] via NC [nasal cannula]. Patient states she was walking without her walker when she fell , landing into a wall and then falling to the ground. Patient hit head on a radiator, denies loss of consciousness, blurred vision, or headache. Patient states she got up and was unable to bear weight on the right side Staff heard pt fall in bedroom. Stated she fell while trying to open her window without using her walker . Review of Resident #154's emergency room History and Physical report, dated 05/20/23 at 2302 [11:02 p.m.], revealed, Patient [Resident #154] presents to emergency department via EMS [ambulance] after she had a mechanical fall. [Resident #154] states that she could not find her walker and 1 of the nurses was looking for when she tried to get up and go ahead walking. She tripped and fell injuring her right hip and also hit the right side of her scalp .Medical Decision Making: Closed nondisplaced [properly aligned] intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, initial encounter, acute illness or injury. Contusion of scalp. Going to [higher acuity hospital for surgery] hospital emergency department .X-ray hip and pelvis shows a right hip fracture. CT head is read negative . Review of Resident #154's Emergency Department transfer report, dated 05/20/23 at 2309 [11:09 p.m. report time] revealed, [Hospital EMS] is dispatched to [facility] to transport a female patient [Resident #154] with possible broken hip to [hospital] . Upon immediate response arrived to find the patient [Resident #154] lying supine in bed on 3L [Liters] O2 [Oxygen] via NC [nasal cannula]. Patient states she was walking without her walker when she fell , landing into a wall and then falling to the ground. Patient hit head on a radiator, denies loss of consciousness, blurred vision, or headache. Patient states she got up and was unable to bear weight on the right side Staff heard pt fall in bedroom. Stated she fell while trying to open her window without using her walker . Review of Resident #154's acute hospital stay Discharge summary, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #154 had a discharge diagnosis of Fall with right intertrochanteric hip fracture, status post short intramedullary nail placement [internal fixation to repair the fracture], metastatic lung cancer .COPD without exacerbation, oxygen dependent, chronic atrial fibrillation [heart rhythm irregularity] . Anticipated discharge date was noted as 05/26/23. During a phone interview on 8/11/23 at 4:33 p.m., Family Member (FM) BB reported Resident #154 had a fall with a hip fracture at the facility on 5/20/23, when there was no walker at Resident #154's bedside, and the nursing aide left. Resident #154 was left unattended when they went to get find a walker. FM BB reported they observed Resident #154 could not stand up properly on admission to the facility on 5/18/23 and had been given a walker by physical therapy to transfer, due to leg weakness and debility from pneumonia, malnutrition and other medical conditions. FM BB clarified they knew Resident #154 was at high risk for falls, and her room was hot and Resident #154 got up and tried to open the window, and slipped and hit her head on the radiator, and sustained had a hip fracture, which required surgical intervention. FM BB reported during their visits, Resident #154 often waited up to 30 minutes for their call light to be answered. FM BB stated staff would complain about Resident #154 having their call light on, and Resident #154 would call her spouse in the night, as her call light wasn't being answered. FM BB added Resident #154 had a second fall on 6/3/23 out of bed, without injury, and a third fall on 6/6/23, when she fractured her femur, which was non-operable due to Resident #154's medical frailty. FM BB explained Resident #154 required five stiches to her head after the fall on 6/5/23, was hospitalized , and did not return to the facility. FM BB conveyed they were unclear how this third fall occurred out of bed, as they did not believe Resident #154 was strong enough to get out of bed herself. FM BB reported all of Resident #154's falls occurred when she was left alone, without a walker, and had inadequate supervision. FM BB reported they had asked for additional fall interventions, such as bedrails or an alternative mattress but none were provided, although reportedly promised to them by the facility management. Review of Resident #154's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/20/23, revealed Resident #154 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen), lung disease, heart failure, depression, and malnutrition. The assessment revealed Resident #154 was 65 tall and weighed 84# upon admission. The assessment showed Resident #154 required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, walking, and toileting. Resident #154 was admitted on opioid [narcotic, controlled classification] pain medication. Review of #154's MDS assessment, dated 5/29/23, revealed Resident #154 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with a new diagnoses of hip fracture and surgical repair with fixation [securing of joint]. The assessment revealed Resident #154 required extensive two-person assistance with bed mobility and toileting, and was unable to perform transfers or walking, and showed Resident #154 was occasionally incontinent of urine, and was incontinent of bowel. The assessment revealed Resident #154 required additional days of opioid pain medications. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment revealed a score of 10/15, which showed Resident #154 had moderate cognitive impairment. The assessment showed Resident #154 required use of a walker for functional mobility. Review of Resident #154's Accident and Incident Report, dated 5/20/23 at 19:50 p.m. (7:50 p.m.), revealed Resident #154 was found lying on the floor on their right hip at the end of their bed in front of the window, facing the window. Resident complained of right hip pain 10/10 pain (with 10 being the highest), and reported she hit her head on the heater vent. Her right leg was described as shorter than the left, and she was unable to move her right leg without severe pain. She was wearing regular socks and was ambulating without her front wheeled walker. Resident #154 stated she was trying to open the window and lost her balance. The staff named as present was Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) X. Review of Resident #154's progress note, dated 05/20/23 at 22:20 (10:20 p.m.), by Registered Nurse (RN) V, revealed Resident #154 was ambulating without assistance and fell and hit her head and her right hip while trying to open the window in her room, and was sent to the Emergency Department. The note revealed Resident #154's spouse was notified, along with physician and the Administrator. Review of facility documentation provided related to this incident via emails and multiple requests from the team leader showed no interviews or witness statements by CNA X or RN V related to this fall/incident on 05/20/23. Review of Resident #154's progress noted, dated 05/26/23 at 18:44 [6:44 p.m.], revealed, Resident [#154] was a return admit to our facility after surgical repair of a right hip fracture at 1430 [2:30 p.m.] today via ambulance .Resident [#154] has two surgical wounds covered with bandages to right thigh, uses bed pan .husband visiting at this time . Review of Resident #154's Fall Care Plan, accessed 7/24/23, revealed, I am at risk for falls at home with injury, rt [related to] fx [fracture] with surgical repair, weakness, SOB [short of breath] overestimation of ability Ensure that I am wearing appropriate footwear (non-skid socks] when ambulating or mobilizing in w/c .I utilize a FWW [front wheeled walker] for ambulation; ensure it is placed near my bed to prompt me to use it and ask for assistance . Review of Resident #154's Mobility (activities of daily living) Care Plan, accessed 7/24/23, revealed, Mobility. 05/18/23 .Ambulation: assist with FWW. Date initiated: 05/18/23 .Mobility device: Walker. Date initiated: 05/18/23. Transfers: Physical Assist x 1. Date initiated: 05/18/23 . Review of Resident #154's fall assessment report, dated 5/20/23 at 22:22 [10:22 p.m.] revealed a score of 80, which showed Resident #154 was deemed a high fall risk, given any score above 45 was designated as high fall risk. Review of Resident #154's pain assessment, dated 5/20/23 at 20:00 [8:00 p.m.], revealed pain at the right trochanter (hip) at sharp pain with movement and 10/10 pain [with 10 as the highest pain]. Review of Resident #154's Accident and Incident Report, dated 6/5/23 at 01:51 a.m by RN W, revealed, .We [nursing staff] were at the nurse's station and heard a 'thump'. Resident [#145] was sitting on the floor in her room in front of the closet, facing the window. She had a 3 cm [centimeter] laceration above her right eye. She complained of pain [radiating] from her right hip to right knee. [Resident #145 was] unable to bear weight on right leg. [Resident #145 was] Assisted to bed. Cleansed and applied ice pack to laceration above eye .Orders to send to ED [emergency department] for evaluation. Report called to ED 911 called and resident out with ambulance .[Resident #145] was wearing grippy socks and a hospital gown at the time of the fall .Resident [#145] stated she was attempting to toilet herself but later stated she was going [walking] to the closet] . Pain level was 2/10. The intervention in this fall report was: 06/05/23: I utilize a FWW [front wheeled walker] for ambulation; ensure it is placed near my bed to prompt me to use it when ambulating independently. This intervention revealed Resident #145 did not have their walker designated on the Care Plan until 06/05/23, after their third fall, although physical therapy designated use of the walker for transfers and mobility at the time of therapy evaluations on 05/18/23 and 05/26/23 and during subsequent sessions per their documentation, interviews, and therapy progress notes. Review of RN W's witness statement, dated 06/05/23, revealed, Staff [nursing staff] heard a 'thump' and went to investigate. Resident [#154] was sitting on the floor in front of her closet, facing the window. There were no additional witness statements provided, and no additional description of incident, per request. During a phone interview on 08/22/23 at 8:34 a.m., Resident #154's Power of Attorney (POA) Y, was asked about Resident #154's falls at the facility. POA Y reported the first time Resident #154 fell at the facility (on 5/20/23) and fractured her hip, she did not have a walker in her room, which concerned them. POA Y reported the staff were not answering the call light timely, and just prior to the fall (the same day) Resident #154 called him because she had waited 45 minutes for assistance. POA Y stated, [Resident #154] should have been supervised more and had her walker with her. POA Y reported [Resident #154] had been given a walker upon arrival to the facility by physical therapy, on 5/18/23, and should have been wearing gripper socks during one of the falls (on 05/20/23) and required use of a walker for transfers and ambulation during her stay. During an interview on 8/23/23 at 9:34 a.m., the Rehabilitation Director, Physical Therapy Assistant U, was asked about Resident #154's falls, and when the walker was provided. PTA U reported Resident #154 was evaluated by Physical Therapy on 5/18/23, and confirmed they treated her frequently during therapy. PTA U recalled a walker being provided to Resident #154 in their room upon evaluation on 5/18/23, as they had reviewed the physical therapy evaluation and had treated Resident #154 before their fall on 5/20/23. PTA U stated, Every day we came to transfer [Resident #154] she had a walker in her room. When asked if Resident #154 should have been wearing gripper socks when she fell on 5/20/23, PTA U affirmed Resident #154 should have always had on gripper socks, as her gait was unsteady at times. Review of Resident #154's Physical Therapy progress note, dated 05/19/23, and reviewed with PTA U, showed Resident #154 was using a FWW during the treatment, and PTA U confirmed they should have always had a walker during transfers in their room. PTA U reported Resident #154 was very unsafe without the walker, and staff had been instructed to transfer Resident #154 with the walker, including during their entire stay, for functional transfers with staff assistance. Review of Resident #154's nursing progress note, dated 5/18/23, at 20:15 [8:15 p.m.] revealed, Resident [#154] arrived with husband from [hospital]. [Resident #154] ambulates with SBA [stand by assistance] and walker .Stage 1 pressure area to coccyx. A & O x 3 [alert and oriented x three spheres], able to verbalize. Continent of B & B [bowel and bladder]. Further review of Resident #154's Care Plan revealed there was no Care Plan intervention added for Resident #154 to have their walker available for transfers until 6/5/23, after the second fall with major injury (femur fracture, non-operable). A telephone call was placed on 8/23/23 at 11:27 AM to interview RN W regarding Resident #154's falls on 5/20/23 and on 6/5/23, however no call was returned by the end of the survey. A telephone call was placed on 08/23/23 at 11:32 a.m. to interview CNA X regarding Resident #154's fall on 5/20/23. No call was returned by survey exit on 08/24/23. Surveyor reviewed schedule of staff working on 06/05/23 night shift at the time of Resident #154's fall on 6/5/23. RN V verified this was the shift the fall occurred, which was verified by the incident report time. The schedule showed CNA P, CNA J, and CNA Z were working on the night shift on 6/5/23 when the second fall with major injury occurred for Resident #154. A telephone call was placed on 8/24/23 at 07:57 a.m. to interview CNA Z regarding the incident (as they worked the night shift on 8/24/23), with no call returned by the end of the survey. During an interview on 8/24/23 at 9:04 a.m., CNA J was asked about Resident #154's fall with major injury on 6/5/23 and had no recollection of the incident. During an interview on 8/24/23 at 9:10 a.m., the nursing aide schedule dated 6/5/23 for the night shift was reviewed with CNA P. CNA P acknowledged they were working on 6/5/23 on the shift when the incident occurred but had absolutely no recall of the details of Resident #154's fall. CNA P verified they were working in the building as a CNA and on shift (6/5/23) when the fall occurred. The schedule on 6/5/23 did not specifically designate who was assigned to Resident #154's hall. CNA P reported all staff shared resident responsibilities, and this was why the schedule did not designate who was working on Resident #154's hall (the 300 hall). During an interview on 8/24/23 at 10:12 a.m., RN V was asked about Resident #154's fall on 5/20/23. RN V reported they were on shift doing medication pass when one of the aides heard yelling and a thump and went into [Resident #154's] room and notified them Resident #154 was on the ground by the window. RN V confirmed Resident #154 reported they were trying to open the window and CNA X was working when the incident occurred. RN V clarified CNA X reported they had left Resident #154 alone, as they went to look for Resident #154's walker, and thus the fall was unwitnessed. RN V confirmed Resident #154 should have had her walker by the bedside, as she used a walker for mobility at that time, since admission, and understood the concern with Resident #154 not having the walker readily available and not wearing gripper socks. RN V denied any abuse occurred and reported Resident #154 did not have a roommate at that time. RN V reported no abuse concerns were discovered or reported to them by family or staff. RN V denied any staffing concerns when the fall occurred. Surveyor requested documentation of Resident #154's daily pain levels during this interview and did not receive this information by time of survey exit. RN V reported they did know the details of Resident #154's fall on 06/05/23, as RN W was the nurse who worked on 6/5/23, and they no longer worked at the facility. During an interview on 8/24/23 at 11:52 a.m., Nurse Practitioner (NP) Q was asked about Resident #154's falls, and not having the walker at the bedside. NP Q reported they knew the walker was supposed to be at the bedside for Resident #154 and understood the concerns, as they understood Resident #154 required a walker during their stay for safe transfers and assisted ambulation. Review of the policy, Fall Prevention Program, revised 8/1/2022, revealed, Policy: Each resident will be assessed for fall risk and will receive care and services in accordance with their individual level of risk to minimize the likelihood of falls .1. The facility utilizes a standardized assessment for determining a resident's fall risk . The nurse will .initiate interventions on the resident's baseline care plan, in accordance with the resident's level of risk .5 a. Implement universal environmental interventions that decrease the risk of resident falling .b. Implement routine rounding schedule. c. Monitor for changes in resident's cognition, gait, ability to rise/sit, and balance. d. Encourage residents to wear shoes or slippers with non-slip soles [such as gripper socks] .High risk protocols: a. The resident will be placed on the facility's Fall Prevention Program. i. Indicate fall risk on care plan .Provide interventions that address unique risk factors measured by the risk assessment toll: medication, psychological, cognitive status, or recent change in functional status. Provide additional interventions as directed by the resident's assessment, including but not limited to: i. Assistive devices. ii. Increased frequency of rounds (supervision). iii. Sitter [1:1 supervision], if indicated. iv. Medication regimen review. v. Low bed. vi. Scheduled ambulation or toileting assistance . Review of the policy, Abuse and Neglect, reviewed 7/11/23, revealed: .Harm is a negative outcome that has compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach the highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain resident privacy in 2 residents(Resident #15 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain resident privacy in 2 residents(Resident #15 and #46) reviewed for privacy, resulting in increased anxiety and the likelihood of prolonged feelings of embarrassment, fear and increased anxiety. Findings include: Resident #15 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #15, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #15, with a reference date of 7/1/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15 which indicated Resident #15 was cognitively intact. In an interview on 8/16/23 at 10:30 AM., Resident #15 was in her room laying in her bed. Resident #15 reported the large red and white velcro stop sign was draped across the entrance doorway to their (Resident #46-roommate) room because Resident #30 repeatedly has come into their room without their permission. Resident #15 reported she told staff members about Resident #30 coming into Resident #15's room to get into Resident #46-roommate's bed. Resident #15 reported at the time (approximately June 2023) her roommate (Resident #46) was out of the facility with her family. Resident #15 reported she (Resident #15) should not have to worry about anyone let alone Resident #30 entering their room without their permission. Resident #15 reported it was embarrassing to be required to have a stop sign on her door just to keep others out. Resident #15 stated it makes me feel frustrated, and as if something is wrong with me or us (included Resident #46-roommate). Resident #15 reported she has talked with nurses and management, but nothing has changed. Resident #15 stated there are times Resident #30 still comes in their room, because Resident #30 walks around, and is able to remove the sign. Resident #15 reported she must call out loudly because it takes too long for staff to come down to remove Resident #30 from the room. Resident #15 reported in June 2023 Resident #30 was in her room while Resident #46-roommate was out with family, so long that Resident #30 fell asleep in Resident #46's bed . for quite a while. Resident #15 reported after Resident #30 woke up, she then got into Resident #46-roommate's recliner. Resident #15 reported when Resident #46 returned to their room from a family outing, Resident #46's family member went to management and had to ask for clean bedding. Resident #15 reported its upsetting to her that the staff's response to these situations was to put the stop sign on her door, instead of keeping a closer eye on residents who continuously try to get into her room. Resident #15 reported this made her feel more anxious, especially because on another day in June 2023 Resident #30 entered her room and grabbed her roommate's (Resident #46) wrist, twisting it and caused bruising. Resident #15 stated that's a whole other situation. In an interview on 8/16/23 at 4:35 PM., Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A reported she was not aware of any incident of Resident #30 going into Resident #15 & #46's room and/or any concerns from Resident #15 & #46. NHA A reported she would look for any notes and or grievance forms in regards to any incidents. NHA A reported she had just started as the new NHA at the facility, and recalled a Care Conference meeting with family members of Resident #46 towards the end of June. NHA A reported she did not recall the details of anything concerning from the care conference meeting. Resident #46 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #46, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: generalize anxiety. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #46, with a reference date of 6/20/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10/15 which indicated Resident #46 was mildly cognitively impaired. During an interview on 8/17/23 at 11:02 AM., Resident #46 reported she had gone out with her family a few weeks ago and upon returning to the facility it was brought to her (Resident #46) and Family Member (FM) H's attention that Resident #30 had come into her room, fell asleep in her (Resident #46) bed and then sat in her recliner. Resident #46 reported she does not appreciate anyone in her bed, or her personal space inside her room. Resident #46 reported her, and her roommate (Resident #15) are very close and look out for one another. Resident #46 reported she was afraid of Resident #30. During a phone interview on 8/17/23 at 12:10 PM., FM H reported in late June 2023 she (FM H) had taken Resident #46 out of the facility which family often did with Resident #46. When she (FM H) returned to the facility, a staff member (unknown) informed her and Resident #46, while they were out of the facility, Resident #30 had entered Resident #46's room and fell asleep in her bed. FM H reported she requested Resident #46's bedding changed. FM H reported staff changed the bedding, but with hesitation at first. FM H reported it was very concerning that . just anyone can walk in her (Resident #46's) room and do as they please. FM H reported Resident #46 suffered from anxiety, and when something triggered her anxiety, Resident #46's symptoms were panic attacks, tearfulness, which required a lot of reassurance from family members. FM H reported the stop sign should not have to be there if staff were keeping a closer eye on the residents that have dementia, behaviors or enter rooms that are not their own. FM H reported another incident between Resident #30 & Resident #46 occurred shortly after Resident #30 was found sleeping in Resident #46's bed. FM H reported she met with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A for a meeting and at that time (Late June or early July 2023) .FM H stated (NHA A) and the other staff present told me my mom (Resident #46) was exaggerating the incident . During an interview on 8/17/23 at 12:50 PM., Registered Nurse (RN) M reported she heard something about a few incidents with Resident #30 going into Resident #15 & Resident #46's room. RN M reported Resident #30 had a lot of incident of going into other residents rooms, and resident to resident altercations. Resident #30 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #30, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: dementia, severe, with agitation. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #30, with a reference date of 6/11/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00/15 which indicated Resident #30 was severely cognitively impaired. Further review of the MDS assessment Behavior Symptom - Presence & Frequency revealed Resident #30 coded for #1. Wandering - Presence & Frequency Has the resident wandered .#1. Behavior of this type occurred 1 to 3 days . In a 7 day look back period According to the comparison MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed: Behavioral Symptom - Presence & Frequency Resident #30 was coded for #2 Behavior of this type occurred 4 to 6 days, but less than daily. C. Other behavioral symptoms not directed toward others (e.g., physical symptoms such as hitting or scratching self, pacing, rummaging, public sexual acts, disrobing in public, throwing, or smearing food or bodily wastes, or verbal/vocal symptoms like screaming, disruptive sounds . Review of Resident #30's Care Plans revealed: 1/26/21 Focus- I (Resident #30) am an elopement risk/wanderer r/t (related to) dx (diagnosis) of dementia. I have a hx (history)of wandering into other resident rooms which significantly intrudes on other residents' privacy or activities Interventions: Staff to redirect me (Resident #30) out of other resident rooms and to my room or common area-Date Initiated: 11/16/2022 Redirect me (Resident #30) to my room or a common area before I enter into other resident's rooms-Date Initiated: 07/25/2023 7/05/2021 Focus-I (Resident #30) have potential to demonstrate physical/verbal behaviors such as swearing at other residents, going through my roommates' belongings, unplugging my roommates TV and becoming combative and slapping other resident that may be making noise, walking next to me or the general area. I (Resident #30) am very impulsive and unpredictable. I (Resident #30) do not single out certain residents or staff. I (Resident #30) can become physically and verbally combative without escalations or warning signs r/t Dementia with behavioral disturbances. I (Resident #30) can also become possessive over certain chair or couches. per family I prefer to sleep on a couch . 3/28/2023 Focus-I (Resident #30) have a behavior problem r/t dementia. I (Resident #30) have hx of breaking items, pushing things off tables and on to the floor, taking food off of other resident plates, taking other resident snacks out of their hands. I (Resident #30) will state I didn't do anything if asked about behaviors. In an observation on 8/23/23 at 3:01 PM., Resident #30 was in main dining room attempting to push on the exit door to go outside. Resident #30 began to walk around the dining area, and then sat down on a chair. Resident #30 was noted to be tearful. In an observation on 8/23/23 at 3:16 PM., Resident #30 was walking near the nurse's station attempting to get into the medication cart. Resident #30 was randomly touching items on the nursing station counter, medication cart and then proceeded to attempt to open doors for shower rooms, conference room, and service hall entry door. Resident #30 then started to touch and pull on the hand sanitizer dispenser on the wall. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O came out of dining area, walked around the nurses' station, and noticed Resident #30 at the hand sanitizer dispenser. CNA O attempted to redirect Resident #30 with some difficulty at first, after approximately 10 minutes Resident #30 complied with CNA O's attempts at redirection and Resident #30 agreed to sit down in a wheelchair. Resident #30 was noted to be tearful during this observation. During an interview on 8/23/23 at 3:30 PM., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) O reported Resident #30 had a lot of behaviors. CNA O reported Resident #30 did wander around the facility, including other resident rooms, attempted to open exit doors, office doors, and the service hall door. CNA O reported it was difficult to redirect Resident #30 at times, especially out of other resident rooms. CNA O reported all staff were aware of Resident #30's behaviors. During interviews from 8/16/23-8/24/23 at 5:00 PM., this surveyor requested from NHA A , Director of Nursing (DON) B and other members of the facilities management team via verbal, written emails throughout the survey for the information/documentation for any and all incidents regarding Resident #15, Resident #30 and Resident #46 to no avail. Review of a email request response from this Surveyor to NHA A requesting documentation in regard to Resident #30 entering Resident #15 & Resident #46's room and sleeping in Resident #46's bed dated 8/23/23 revealed: I (NHA A) had interviewed (Resident #46) her roommate (Resident #15), (Resident #30), and met with the family (Resident #46 ' s) for a care conference as I was still transitioning into the role I relied on the team for assistance . Review of a facility Policy: titled Resident Rights with a revision date of 6/29/23 revealed: Policy-The facility will inform the resident both orally and in writing, in a language that the resident understands, of his or her rights and all rules and regulations governing resident conduct and responsibilities during the stay in the facility Resident rights .The resident has the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility . 7. Privacy and confidentiality. The resident has a right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records. a. Personal privacy includes accommodations, medical treatment, written and telephone communications, personal care, visits, and meetings of family and resident groups, but this does not require the facility to provide a private room for each resident. b. The resident has a right to secure and confidential personal and medical records. i. The resident has the right to refuse the release of personal and medical records except as provided at §483.70(i)(2) or other applicable federal or state laws. 8. Safe environment. The resident has a right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to appropriately revise and update care plans to reflect resident s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to appropriately revise and update care plans to reflect resident status for three Residents (#18, #20 and #40) of 14 Residents reviewed for care plans. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for implementation of interventions which were no longer appropriate and the potential for related complications from choking and/or aspiration. Findings include: (All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST) unless otherwise noted.) Resident # 18 A review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 2/3/23 with diagnoses including protein-calorie malnutrition, severe dementia with psychotic disturbance and depressive disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 0 of 15 signifying severely impaired cognition. The current Physician Orders for Resident #18 indicated a regular diet, with puree texture and nectar thick consistency liquids and had been ordered to start 7/6/23. The care plan for Resident #18 included two nutritional concerns: - NURTITION (sic): I have unplanned/unexpected weight loss r/t (related to) Acute illness, Poor food intake, refusal to eat or drink fluids. I have a hx (history) of refusing meals due to no appetite or stating nothing sounds good. Date Initiated: 01/11/2023. Interventions included: I am NPO (Nothing by mouth) per DPOA (Durable Power of Attorney) due to EOL (End of Life). DPOA agreed to nectar thick liquids if I desire. Date Initiated: 07/04/2023. And - NUTRITION: I am receiving a PUREED therapeutic diet related to comfort cares, difficulty swallowing. Date Initiated: 07/21/2023. Interventions included: I am comfort cares only, family POA (Power of Attorney) would like me to eat and take some medications as tolerated. Date Initiated: 07/21/2023. During an interview on 8/18/23 at 1:37 PM, Regional Clinical Director Registered Nurse (RN) C stated Resident #18 was comfort and this (diet) has changed. RN C noted NPO with nectar thick liquids was still on the care plan and said that was an error. Resident #20 A review of Resident #20's medical record revealed an admission date of 7/12/19 with diagnoses including severe dementia with psychotic disturbance, anxiety disorder, deafness, and depressive disorder. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Cognitive Patterns Section C indicated the Brief Interview for Mental Status should not be conducted as the resident is rarely/never understood. The current Physician Orders for Resident #20 included No Added Salt (NAS) diet mechanical soft with ground meats texture, and nectar consistency liquids. The care plan for Resident #20 included a focus of: NUTRITION: I am receiving a therapeutic diet of NAS, mechanical soft ground meats related to a DX (diagnosis) of Hypertension and difficulty chewing. I am at risk for imbalance nutrition r/t deafness and mute secondary to dx of ID and dementia. Date Initiated: 04/17/2020. Interventions included: Provide diet as ordered. Date Initiated: 04/17/2020. The care plan did not specify the resident needed nectar consistency liquids. Resident #40 A review of Resident #40's medical record revealed an admission date of 6/29/23 with diagnoses including morbid obesity, diabetes mellitus, and heart failure. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 12 out of 15 signifying moderate cognitive impairment. The current Physician Orders for Resident #40 included No Added Salt, Carb (Carbohydrate) Controlled, Regular texture, NPO (Nothing By Mouth)/Fluid Restriction consistency with Fluid Restriction: 2000 cc . The care plan for Resident #40 included a focus of: NUTRITION: I am receiving a therapeutic diet (NAS) related to dx of hypertension, CHF (chronic heart failure) and CKD (chronic kidney disease) . Date Initiated: 06/15/2022. Interventions included: Provide diet as ordered. Date Initiated: 06/15/2022. The care plan did not specify the resident needed a fluid restricted diet as outlined in the above order. During an interview on 8/18/23 at 1:52 PM, RN C said she had entered the orders for Resident #40 after their hospital stay on 6/26/23 and she did not adjust the care plan. The facility policy titled: Comprehensive Care Plans dated as reviewed/revised: 8/4/2022 read in part, It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care 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. .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake #MI00132047. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake #MI00132047. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide services to meet professional standards of care for two Resident (#18, #10) of three residents reviewed for standards of practice. This deficient practice resulted in delayed removal of staples on Resident #18's head for over seven weeks, with the potential for infection, pain, and adverse medical outcomes, and lack of assessment for appropriate wheelchair seating and positioning for Resident #10, resulting in discomfort, decreased mobility, risk of pressure ulcers, and other adverse outcomes. Findings include: All times are noted in Eastern Daylight Time unless otherwise noted. Resident #18 Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/22/22, revealed Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including dementia, thyroid disorder, atrial fibrillation (heart rhythm disorder), and depression. Resident #18 required limited, one-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers, and walking, and extensive one-person assistance for dressing, toileting, and hygiene. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment revealed a score of 10/15, which showed Resident #18 had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of a complaint received by the State Agency (S.A.) on 10/10/22 revealed Resident #18's family discovered Resident #18 had staples in her head, which were supposed to be removed 10 to 14 days after placement (on 7/16/22), when Resident #18 fell and sustained a head laceration, requiring staple closure of the wound. The complainant noted the staples were not removed by the facility until 9/6/22, per their discovery and request. Review of Resident #18's progress note, dated 07/17/22, revealed, .Resident [#18] was sent out 07/16/23 for a fall, laceration to the back of the head. Staples placed in the emergency room . Review of Resident #18's hospital records, received 08/24/23, revealed, .07/16/2022. ED [Emergency Department] in [local hospital name] .07/16/2022 18:18 [6:18 p.m.]: Please bring the patient back tomorrow for repeat CT [imaging] scan of her head .if at any point her mentation changes .Staples should be removed in 10 days . During a phone interview on 8/17/23 at 4:42 p.m., FM AA confirmed when they found out the staples were still in Resident #18's head several weeks later (discovered on 09/05/22 after a fall in 07/20220, they spoke with the facility doctor [name unknown] and Nurse Practitioner (NP) Q, and had them removed right away. FM AA stated, I can't believe someone [staff] would not have discovered them [staples] . During an interview on 8/24/23 at approximately 11:29 a.m., NP Q was asked by Surveyor with survey team present if they recalled staples being left in Resident #18's head, discovered on 09/05/22 by family, and removed on 09/06/22. NP Q affirmed they were aware of the incident, and the facility including nursing management had a meeting about the concern. NP Q stated, Seven weeks is too long [for the staples to be in Resident #18's head]; NP Q acknowledged if staples were left in a person's head too long, they could scab over, and may have hurt being removed. NP Q reported they had discussed the concerns with Resident #18's family, and confirmed the staples were removed at the facility approximately seven weeks after they were placed (during 07/2022). NP Q acknowledged staples should generally be removed in 10-14 days, per standards of practice, and understood the concern . NP Q conveyed there was the potential for infection and pain with removal or additional adverse outcomes. Review of the nursing reference, Lippincott Manual of Nursing Practice, 11th Edition, Wolters Kluwer, Copyright 2014, revealed on Page 15: .Standards of practice. General principles. 1. The practice of professional nursing has standards of practice setting minimum levels of acceptable performance for which its practitioners are accountable .Theses standards provide patients with a means of measuring the quality of care they receive. Standards of practice were developed .and have been updated regularly to include general standards as well as standards for each nursing specialty .The standards describe what nursing is, what nurses do, and the responsibilities for which nurses are accountable . Review of the article, Patient education: Stitches and staples (The Basics) - UpToDate, August, 2023, accessed 09/06/23 at 10:20 a.m., revealed, What are staples? Another way doctors can close cuts is with staples. Staples that go in the body are different from those used on paper. To put staples in, doctors use a special stapler .Staples need to be taken out after a certain amount of time, just like non-absorbable stitches. How do I know if I need stiches or staples? A doctor or nurse will have to look at your cut to decide. In general, you will need stiches or staples if your cut is wide, jagged, or goes deep enough through your skin. A cut will heal on its own without stiches or staples, but they help a cut heal faster and leave less of a scar .When will my stiches or staples be taken out? The doctor who puts in the stiches or staples will tell you when to see you doctor or nurse to have them taken out .Staples usually stay in for 7 to 14 days. Staples need to be taken out with a special staple remover . Resident #10 Review of the MDS assessment, dated 05/18/23, revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including heart failure and dementia. Resident #10 required extensive two-person assistance for bed mobility, limited one-person assistance for transfers, extensive two-person assistance for dressing and toileting, and one-person assistance to propel their wheelchair. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 9:58 a.m., Resident #10 reported her wheelchair was not moving properly and my back is hurting. Resident #10 explained this was the third wheelchair she had tried while a resident at the facility, and therapy was not involved in providing her a wheelchair. Resident #10 stated, They [facility staff] know I'm having trouble with it; everyone knows here [the nursing staff]. It hurts my right shoulder, and the back seat is slung, and it hurts my back and neck. Surveyor observed Resident #10 in their bariatric manual wheelchair. The seat width appeared to be about 20 wide, with a significantly slung seat back, which rounded Resident #10's shoulders, and caused internal rotation (rounded shoulders). Resident #10's wheelchair was observed without a cushion. At that time, Resident #10 reported she did not want a cushion, as her feet would not touch the ground, and showed Surveyor where the seat was cutting into the back of her legs, with a bed pad over the edge. Resident #10 reported she had cuts to the back of her legs, but they resolved when her aide put the bed pad underneath her, which extended over the canvas seat edge. It was observed if the wheelchair seat was lowered 1-2 inches, Resident #10 would have been able to use a wheelchair cushion, which was essential for pressure relief, and a standard of practice for wheelchair seating. This would have prevented the canvas seat edge from cutting into the back of Resident #10's legs. Resident #10 was asked how often she sat up in her wheelchair, and reported she sat up in her wheelchair all day. Thus, there were minimal opportunities for pressure relief and full offloading. Resident #10 demonstrated how her wheelchair would not turn well, and stated she struggled to self-propel her wheelchair. Resident #10 reported she would like to just get rid of it and her family was ordering her another wheelchair, and said, I'm tired of asking here [at the facility]. Review of Resident #10's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) showed Resident #10 had pressure ulcers on her buttocks during February 2023, which had since resolved. Resident #10 remained at risk for development of pressure ulcers. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 11:08 a.m., the Rehabilitation Director, Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) U, was asked about Resident #10's wheelchair. PTA U reported this was the first day (8/16/23) they had learned of any concerns with Resident #10's wheelchair, and the therapy department would complete a screening. Surveyor asked for any documentation once this was completed. Soon after, PTA U followed up with Surveyor, and reported Resident #10's family member was going to buy them a wheelchair, and therapy would not be involved as insurance did not cover a new wheelchair, per the facility social services designee, Staff P, who would order Resident #10 a new wheelchair. Therapy stated they did not plan to fit the wheelchair. Review of Resident #10's Physical Therapy (and Occupational Therapy notes) documentation, received from PTA U, revealed Resident #10 received physical therapy from 09/01/22 until 12/08/22. The evaluation, progress notes, and discharge summary revealed wheelchair seating and positioning had not been addressed. PTA U confirmed this post their review, and reported their staff were not involved in wheelchair seating and positioning with Resident #10. During an observation on 8/16/23 at 2:30 p.m., Resident #10 was observed in their wheelchair. While there was room for about 1 space on each side of the wheelchair seat laterally, it was noted the chair narrowed at the armrests and was flush against Resident #10's chest/sides, with the potential for a pressure area. Resident #10 clarified this is where the wheelchair was tight, and it was difficult to do transfers and uncomfortable at times. Resident #10 newly reported she would consider getting a wheelchair cushion, given her discomfort in the chair, and reported she needed a wider wheelchair. During an interview on 8/18/23 at 9:16 a.m., PTA U reported they would follow up and see if insurance would cover a new wheelchair for Resident #10, and occupational therapy would be screening Resident #10. During an interview on 8/18/23 at 3:51 p.m., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) GG was asked if they were aware Resident #10 was having discomfort in her wheelchair. CNA GG reported they worked with Resident #10 regularly and acknowledged Resident #10 was uncomfortable in her wheelchair, stating, Her issue was the prongs [anchoring the wheelchair seat canvas to the wheelchair frame] were hitting her legs and rubbing her legs .and I put pads over these bars to try to protect her legs. [Resident #10] told us, the staff, many times that it was rubbing against her inner thigh, it did not cut her but was irritating her .I knew she was uncomfortable in the chair. We've [floor staff] have been trying to accommodate the chair to make her more comfortable. [Resident #10] mentioned to me the back being uncomfortable but I didn't know what I could do about it. I did not directly tell the nurse; I tried to fix in on my own. I tried to comfort her. CNA GG was asked if they told therapy about their concerns, and responded, No, I should have done that .I have offered her pillows and cushions. Normally I would think and go talk to therapy about positioning . During an interview on 8/18/23 at 4:09 p.m., CNA O reported they cared for Resident #10 frequently and were asked about any wheelchair concerns. CNA O responded, The one [wheelchair] before was from her family; it was too narrow. I knew it was too small as I set her in and out of it. Her hips were hitting the sides of the wheelchair last week. I did not tell therapy or the nurses as it's not my place to tell them. [Resident #10] bought the new chair and she was trying it out. I probably could have went to therapy to resize her chair . During an interview on 08/23/23 at 7:44 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) S was asked if they were aware of any concerns with Resident #10's wheelchair. LPN S confirmed they were Resident #10's nurse regularly and had not heard of any concerns. When asked if Resident #10's nursing aides should have informed them of Resident #10's seating and positioning concerns including discomfort, LPN S indicated this would be expected. During an interview on 8/23/23 at 9:58 a.m., Resident #10 stated, The green one [a prior wheelchair] was too small for me, as my son already bought me this one, and I can't sit, it was too tight. It was a while back. And then there was a wide one here, they ordered it [the facility] and it was the wrong size. Resident #10 opened her arms very wide, to a width of at least 26. Resident #10 reported, My right shoulder is still sore from the wheelchair, and stated she puts a salve on her shoulder daily. It was observed there was still no wheelchair cushion in Resident #10's wheelchair, despite therapy screening Resident #10. During an interview on 08/23/23 at 2:39 p.m., Occupational Therapist (OT) JJ was asked about Resident #10s' wheelchair, since they had done a screening. OT JJ reported they had adjusted the wheelchair prior when the wheelchair depth was a concern, and once they placed Resident #10 into the new wheelchair, they had not heard of any concerns, however had no documentation of this intervention. OT JJ acknowledged staff should have referred Resident #10 back to therapy, given her ongoing complaints of discomfort in the wheelchair. OT JJ was asked if Resident #10 had a wheelchair cushion. OT JJ reported they could not recall this. Surveyor conveyed the concern with no wheelchair cushion, and lack of adequate pressure relief, given Resident #10 required assistance for repositioning, and history of pressure ulcers. OT JJ then reported Resident #10 may have had a cushion beneath her .they could not recall. During an interview on 8/23/23 at 2:45 p.m., OT KK was asked about Resident #10's wheelchair seating and positioning, as they had done the screening. OT KK concurred with OT JJ, stating, Yes, we should have known [been made aware of Resident #10's discomfort in her wheelchair] and they could have made adjustments and lowered the seat, which could have made a difference. OT KK was also unaware there was no wheelchair cushion in Resident #10's wheelchair, after the screening. OT KK reported they had no documentation of this to provide this Surveyor, as they had followed up with nursing. This documentation was requested, and not received by the end of the survey. During an observation on 8/23/23 at 2:48 p.m., Resident #10's wheelchair was measured. The chair was 20 wide at seat base and only 18 wide at the armrests, hitting her breasts on both sides. Resident #10 was asked if this was comfortable. Resident #10 stated, No. I should have a 23 wide chair like they measured. Resident #10 reported Staff P was assisting them with ordering a new wheelchair. During an interview on 8/23/23 at 3:03 p.m., Social Services designee (SS), Staff P was asked about ordering Resident #10 a new wheelchair, or for any follow-up. Staff P stated, I did follow up with her today about that. The last time I talked to her and said maintenance could adjust it, she said her cousin could do that. Afterwards, she said a wheelchair could be ordered here and I had the measurements, and I was going to talk to Maintenance Director, Staff F, and the Scheduler, Staff HH, to order her a wheelchair. There was no mention of therapy assisting or coordination in ordering or fitting Resident #10 with an alternate wheelchair. Surveyor asked for a process to clarify how wheelchair ordering and seating and positioning were addressed at the facility. Staff P stated, I don't have one. Staff P reported they oversaw ordering wheelchairs, with Staff F and Staff HH assisting with the process, as they were newer to their role. Staff P looked at their notes and said on 8/16/23, Resident #10 said her cousin would buy the new wheelchair, and showed Surveyor a handwritten note page when she reviewed Resident #10's wheelchair with her. The handwritten note read, How is it uncomfortable? Where? The front right wheel doesn't turn, arms are too high, too wide, feet in air, sore back, doesn't want a (unable to read), cousin will buy chair, states she doesn't want this chair fixed. (measurements) hip to hip, 23, knee to floor, 16, back to front, 17 depth, back rest, curved. When Surveyor asked if these measurements were for the current wheelchair or for a new wheelchair, Staff P reported they could not recall which. When asked how they would ensure the wheelchair would be the proper fit if Resident #10's cousin ordered the wheelchair, given the history of wheelchairs not fitting her properly, Staff P had no response. When asked if insurance would pay for Resident #10 to have a new wheelchair, Staff P acknowledged they participated in wheelchair ordering and insurance concerns, however stated, I don't know. Staff P reported while this was in their job responsibilities, they had never ordered a wheelchair. During an interview on 8/23/23 at approximately 4:50 p.m., Staff F and Staff HH were asked about their involvement in wheelchair fitting and ordering. Both reported they were involved in wheelchair fitting, and reported sometimes housekeeping staff were involved after hours. Both reported therapy services did not fit new incoming residents for wheelchairs; they did. Staff HH later returned and reported they ordered wheelchairs for residents from a catalog as needed. Staff HH was asked if they had a background in seating and positioning, and they reported they had not received any training in this area. When asked for a process for wheelchair seating, fitting, and positioning, Staff F reported the whole facility was involved but could not be more specific. Staff HH initially reported they had a wheelchair in the facility for Resident #10, who reportedly refused the wheelchair but they later reported insurance would not cover her wheelchair, but they would see about ordering Resident #10 a wheelchair. By survey exit on 8/24/23, it was clear post multiple interviews there was limited interdisciplinary communication regarding wheelchair seating and positioning, lack of clarity of assigned roles of who ordered the wheelchairs, who completed seating and positioning, who addressed fit of wheelchairs, and lack of a clear process in place. There were concerns with lack of therapy referral for Resident #10 who had ongoing seating and positioning needs, and family purchasing wheelchairs over the past year without therapy input, resulting in Resident #10 experiencing poor fitting wheelchairs, and no wheelchair cushion, placing her at risk for skin breakdown. Surveyor was unable to locate any staff who oversaw wheelchair seating and positioning by time of survey exit, despite requests from all involved staff to speak to someone in charge of the process. No documentation was received by survey exit despite request on 8/24/23 end of day from therapy regarding their screening and/or evaluations for Resident #10's wheelchair and seating and positioning needs. It remained unclear by survey exit if Resident #10 would be receiving an alternate wheelchair or wheelchair cushion, given their expressed wishes and reported discomfort and poor positioning in their current wheelchair, which was corroborated by multiple interviews. Or if insurance would cover an alternate wheelchair, the facility would provide a wheelchair, and if therapy would be assisting further with wheelchair seating and positioning, per standards of practice. Review of the article, Wheelchair Cushions - Rehab & Community Care Medicine Magazine (rehabmagazine.ca), accessed 09/06/23, revealed, .Wheelchair cushions can provide comfort for increased sitting time, stability to help with performing everyday tasks such as reaching and mobility in the chair, and protection against pressure sore development . Review of the article, Wheelchair Fitting - Physiopedia (physio-pedia.com), accessed 09/06/23, revealed, A properly fitted wheelchair provides comfortable seating and good back support, improving posture and ultimately optimizing function. It has been estimated that 80-90% of individuals are not properly fitted in their current wheelchair as their bodies and needs change over time. A wheelchair that does not fit properly may lead to pressure ulcers, poor posture, reduced balance, difficulty propelling the wheelchair, and difficulty with transfers .Wherever possible, the same person who carried out the assessment should carry out the fitting. A wheelchair fitting for a wheelchair user who needs additional postural support takes longer because additional fittings may be needed. Always check the fit with the wheelchair stationary, and then while the wheelchair user self-propels or is pushed. Process: Wheelchair fitting should always be carried out in the following order: check size and adjustments, check posture, check pressure, check fit while the wheelchair user is moving .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure ongoing assessment and monitoring for weight fluctuations for two Residents (#40, and #50) of 7 residents reviewed for nutritional needs. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for further clinical compromise. Findings include: (All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST) unless otherwise noted.) Resident #40 A review of Resident #40's medical record revealed an admission date of 6/29/23 with diagnoses including morbid obesity, diabetes mellitus, and heart failure. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15 signifying moderate cognitive impairment. The current Physician Orders for Resident #40 included No Added Salt (NAS), Carb (Carbohydrate) Controlled, Regular texture, NPO (Nothing By Mouth)/Fluid Restriction consistency with Fluid Restriction: 2000 cc . On 8/16/23 at 9:45 AM, Resident #40 was observed to have a 1/2 bottle (24 oz- ounces) of brand name pop on his bedside table. There were four more 24 oz brand name bottles of pop on his windowsill and 12 oz of water in an insulated mug on his bedside table. The diet tray card indicated a fluid restriction was ordered of 2000 cc/day. Resident #40 stated: I put myself on a diet and am cutting down and trying to lose weight. He said he knew he was supposed to limit his fluid intake and said he controlled fluids on his own. During an interview on 8/18/23 at 10:20 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) M stated she did not document fluid intake for Resident #40. RN M stated the Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) document meal intake, but fluid given at medication time, and fluids in the resident's room such as bedside water and other liquids were not documented. During an interview on 8/18/23 at approximately 10:30 AM, CNA K confirmed she documented meal tray fluid intake but added, He (Resident #40) has bottles (of beverages) in his room, but that is not counted on the meal intake. During an interview on 8/18/23 at 1:37 PM, Regional Clinical Director (RN) C said she had entered the orders for Resident #40 after their hospital stay on 6/26/23 and she did not adjust the care plan to include the fluid restriction. The care plan for Resident #40 included a focus of: NUTRITION: I am receiving a therapeutic diet (NAS) related to dx of hypertension, CHF (chronic heart failure) and CKD (chronic kidney disease) . Date Initiated: 06/15/2022. Interventions included: Provide diet as ordered. Date Initiated: 06/15/2022. The care plan did not specify the resident needed a fluid restricted diet nor did it include the breakdown of fluid delivery between the dietary and the nursing departments. The facility policy titled Fluid Restriction dated as reviewed/revised on 6/30/22 read in part: 1. The nurse will obtain and verify the physician's order for the fluid restriction and an order written to include the breakdown of the amount of fluid per 24 hours to be distributed between the food and nutrition department and the nursing department and will be recorded on the medication record or other format as per facility protocol. 2. The fluid restriction distribution will take into consideration the amount of fluid to be given at mealtimes, snacks, and medication passes. 4. Water will not be provided at the bedside unless calculated into the daily total fluid restriction. Resident #50 A review of Resident #50's medical record revealed an admission date of 4/17/23 with diagnoses including severe dementia with agitation, chronic pain syndrome, abnormal weight loss, heart failure, anorexia, diabetes mellitus and tremors. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Cognitive Patterns Section C indicated the Brief Interview for Mental Status should not be conducted as the resident is rarely/never understood. The current Physician Orders for Resident #50 included No Added Salt (NAS), Regular texture, Thin consistency (liquids). On 8/16/23 at 9:26 AM, Resident #50 was observed in the main dining room holding a bowl with liquid and attempting to eat the contents with a fork. Staff were assisting, but resident was difficult to re-direct. The medical record revealed Resident #50 weighed 163.4 pounds upon admission 4/17/23. and Further weights taken for Resident #50 from 4/24/23 through 8/1/23 all were consistently recorded as 157 pounds (plus or minus ~2.5 pounds). In August there was a weight on 8/1/23 of 159.2 pounds and then not another weight until 8/14/23 recorded as 146.2 pounds (a 13 pound weight loss or an 8% loss in two weeks.) No re-weights were found to follow up on the accuracy of this weight loss. During an interview on 8/18/23 at 1:00 PM, Dietary Manager (DM ) EE stated Resident #50 had a 5% weight loss and she had consulted with the Registered Dietitian last month. DM EE said, I have not checked back on her weight. They usually get weights one time a month . If the resident is not doing ok, (nursing staff) do it (weigh) every couple of weeks. DM EE was not aware if Resident #50's current weight continued to reflect a weight loss. During an interview on 8/18/23 at 1:47 PM, RN C stated, There should have been a re-weight on this one. RN C looked through the chart and could not find a re-weight. During a telephone interview on 8/21/23 at 2:49 PM, Registered Dietitian (RD) FF stated there were not specific parameters for obtaining accurate weights. RD FF said without re-weight parameters follow up was difficult. The facility policy titled Weight Monitoring dated as reviewed/revise 10/27/22 did not include guidance on re-weight parameters. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0712 (Tag F0712)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician visits were completed as required for two Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician visits were completed as required for two Residents (R45 and R104) out of four residents reviewed for timeliness of physician visits. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for unidentified and unaddressed medical care needs. Findings include: All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Times (EDST) unless otherwise noted. R45 Review of R45's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/18/23, revealed R45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with active diagnoses that included: cancer, peripheral vascular disease, end-stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease, stroke, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder and depression. The facility indicated the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was unable to be completed but R45 was documented with severe cognitive impairment. Review of R45's Practitioner Notes, which documented the physician and nurse practitioner visits for R45 in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a physician visit was completed and documented on 10/11/22 by Physician DD. The next physician visit was completed on 3/13/23, approximately five months later, by Physician DD. R104 Review of R104's MDS assessment, dated 3/12/23, revealed R104 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with active diagnoses that included: stroke, heart failure, coronary artery disease (CAD), hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), malnutrition, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). R104 scored 9 of 15 on the BIMS, reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. Review of R104's Practitioner Notes, revealed a physician visit by Physician DD was completed and documented in the EMR on 10/11/22 for R104. The next physician visit was completed on 3/13/23, approximately five months later, by Physician DD. Review of the Physician Visits and Physician Delegation policy, reviewed 8/10/2022, 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 .b. The resident must be seen at least once every 30 calendar days for the first 90 calendar days after admission and at least every 60 days thereafter by a physician or physician delegate as appropriate by State law. 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. This will be located in the Progress Notes section of the EMR . 2. The Director of Nursing (DON) or designee should: a. Conduct monthly audits for timeliness of physician visits. b. Contact the physician regarding an overdue physician's visit. Record the physician's response regarding the overdue visit in the nurse's notes. c. Notify the Medical Director of the need to make a visit, for the attending physician, if he/she is unable to visit . During an interview on 8/16/23 at 2:29 p.m., when asked about the timeliness of physician visits for R104, Nurse Practitioner (NP) Q said they would like to have [Physician DD] speak to that. NP Q confirmed a physician visit performed in January of 2023 would have been a 90-day physician visit, but there was no physician visit documented in R104's EMR for January of 2023. NP Q said Physician DD had a medical assistant who was working with him to keep his physician visits on time. When asked to confirm the lack of 60-day physician visits, NP Q said she consistently saw the residents within the timeframe that they needed to be seen but had no response to the lack of timely physician visits for R104 in the EMR. During an interview on 8/24/23 at 11:28 a.m., NP Q confirmed there had been issues with the timeliness of Physician DD's 60-day physician visits. When asked about the lack of physician visit documentation between October 2022 and March of 2023 for R45 and R104, NP Q acknowledged that timeframe between physician visits did not meet the regulation timeframe for every 60 days and stated, I understand your concern.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide fluids in the prescribed texture/consistency ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide fluids in the prescribed texture/consistency for two Residents (Resident #18 and #20) and did not provide food in the proper form serving mechanical soft rather than pureed food for one Resident (Resident #18) of 2 residents reviewed for food/beverages served in proper form. This deficient practice resulted in the delivery of fluids and food of inappropriate consistency for the prescribed diet with the potential for choking and aspiration (accidental breathing of food or fluid into the lungs, which can cause pneumonia). Findings include: (All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST) unless otherwise noted.) Resident # 18 A review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 2/3/23 with diagnoses including protein-calorie malnutrition, severe dementia with psychotic disturbance and depressive disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 0 of 15 signifying severely impaired cognition. The current Physician Orders for Resident #18 indicated a regular diet, with puree texture and nectar thick consistency liquids and had been ordered to start 7/6/23. On 8/16/23 at 4:22 PM, it was observed that Resident #18 was in bed resting. There was regular water (not thickened) in a tumbler with a straw at her bedside table. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) DD was observed passing water. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 4:34 PM, CNA DD said she had given Resident #18 regular water and had not thickened it to a nectar consistency. On 8/17/23 at 8:25 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) M was observed passing medications. Resident #18 was heard to request a cup of coffee and RN M went down the hall to obtain the requested coffee. Resident #18 was observed to be reading the paper and had regular (not thickened) water at her bed side with an estimated 1/4th cup remaining. RN M returned with regular (not thickened) coffee and was asked about the diet order. RN M replied, She (Resident #18) had a change in condition and her order was changed. I did give coffee and regular water with meds as well. The medical record was reviewed, and it was confirmed the current Physician orders indicated Resident #18 had a diet order as of 7/6/23 for Puree with nectar thick liquids. The provider progress notes on 7/27/23 included: .female (Resident #18) with late stage dementia and on comfort measures is seen today . Patient was determined to be comfort measures over 3 weeks ago but over the past several days she has become more awake and alert. She was receiving PT/OT (Physical and Occupational therapy) up until last week when it was discontinued because she was mostly nonresponsive. Today she is very alert and wants to get up and move as well as to eat and drink what she wants. She is currently on thickened liquids and pureed foods as she was recently evaluated by ST (Speech therapy) and advancing her diet would increase risks of aspiration. Patient is requesting that she be reevaluated by the therapist as patient is more alert and wanting thin liquids and non pureed foods. The Registered Dietitian progress note written on 7/13/2023 read in part: Note Text: Review of cares. Res (Resident #18) diet as advanced to pureed the day following my last review, res now receives extensive to maximum assist with all intake. Intake is about 25% since return from hospital. Res was alert and visiting relatives when I saw her today. She told me that she liked her oatmeal this morning and we will send supercereal daily. Family reported that she drank all of her tomato soup at supper as well. Appears frail, adequately hydrated today, in good spirits. Offer energy and protein dense options where possible, continue pureed foods and thickened liquids. On 8/17/23 the Dietary Manager (DM) EE was asked to print the diet tray card to indicate what was served to Resident #18. The tray card printed was a mechanical soft diet with thin (regular) liquids. DM EE stated the dietary department did not have a puree order with nectar thick liquids. During a telephone interview on 8/21/23 at 2:49 PM, Registered Dietitian (RD) FF stated he was familiar with Resident #18. RD FF said he was aware that there were some issues with the diet order. The care plan for Resident #18 included two nutritional concerns: - NURTITION (sic): I have unplanned/unexpected weight loss r/t (related to) Acute illness, Poor food intake, refusal to eat or drink fluids. I have a hx (history) of refusing meals due to no appetite or stating nothing sounds good. Date Initiated: 01/11/2023. Interventions included: I am NPO (Nothing by mouth) per DPOA (Durable Power of Attorney) due to EOL (End of Life). DPOA agreed to nectar thick liquids if I desire. Date Initiated: 07/04/2023. And - NUTRITION: I am receiving a PUREED therapeutic diet related to comfort cares, difficulty swallowing. Date Initiated: 07/21/2023. Interventions included: I am comfort cares only, family POA (Power of Attorney) would like me to eat and take some medications as tolerated. Date Initiated: 07/21/2023. During an interview on 8/18/23 at 1:37 PM, Regional Clinical Director Registered Nurse (RN) C stated Resident #18 was comfort and this (diet) has changed. RN C noted NPO with nectar thick liquids was still on the care plan and said that was an error. Resident #20 A review of Resident #20's medical record revealed an admission date of 7/12/19 with diagnoses including severe dementia with psychotic disturbance, anxiety disorder, deafness, and depressive disorder. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Cognitive Patterns Section C indicated the Brief Interview for Mental Status should not be conducted as the resident is rarely/never understood. The current Physician Orders for Resident #20 included No Added Salt (NAS), mechanical soft with ground meats texture diet, and nectar consistency liquids. On 8/16/23 at 4:40 PM, Resident # 20 was observed with CNA DD to have regular (not thickened) water at his bedside. CNA DD was passing water for the second shift and said Resident # 20 should be on thickened liquids and stated she had to go back to the kitchen to make his water (meaning she would mix water with a thickening agent to change the consistency to a nectar thick consistency.) On 08/17/23 at 8:32 AM, Resident #20 was observed again to have regular (not thickened) water at his bedside. On 8/16/23 at 4:44 PM, DM EE was asked to print the diet tray card to indicate what was served to Resident #20. The tray card printed was a mechanical soft diet, no added salt with nectar thickened liquids. The care plan for Resident #20 included a focus of: NUTRITION: I am receiving a therapeutic diet of NAS, mechanical soft ground meats related to a DX (diagnosis) of Hypertension and difficulty chewing. I am at risk for imbalance nutrition r/t deafness and mute secondary to dx of ID and dementia. Date Initiated: 04/17/2020. Interventions included: Provide diet as ordered. Date Initiated: 04/17/2020. The care plan did not specify the resident needed nectar consistency liquids. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the electronic medical record contained accurate documentati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the electronic medical record contained accurate documentation for one Resident (R1-50) out of three residents reviewed for the comprehensive plan of care. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for unmet care needs related to the inaccuracy of the medical record. Findings include: All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST) unless otherwise noted. Review of R1-50's Incident and Accident reports between September 22, 2023, and October 10, 2023, revealed one fall without documented injury on 9/26/23. The Incident/Accident report documented a fall with no injury with Predisposing Environmental Factors of Wet Floor (box was checked), and Predisposing Situation Factors of Improper Footwear and Ambulating without Assist (boxes were checked). During an interview on 10/10/23 at 3:10 p.m., when asked about further details of the wet floor in R1-50's room as a potential causative factor for the fall the Director of Nursing (DON), in the presence of the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) , another Survey team member, and RN/MDS Coordinator V, said the nurse who completed the Incident/Accident report was a new nurse and she must have accidentally clicked the wrong button, because the floor wasn't wet. When asked why there was also a Note on the Fall without Injury that included: Notes: 9/26/2023 Ensure my floor is free from spills and I am wearing proper footwear the DON had no response. The RN/MDS Coordinator stated, The predisposing factors says the floor is wet, so then I put in the 'ensure my floor is free from spills and I am wearing proper footwear'. When asked when R1-50's Care Plan was last updated, RN V stated, I don't know. When asked if she had updated R1-50's care plans on the day of this interview, RN V confirmed she had updated R1-50's care plans the day of the interview (10/10/23). RN V stated, The NOTE section (on the Incident/Accident report) was not done, so I did that today (10/10/23). RN V stated, Sometimes the (Incident/Accident) forms sit around for a while and care plans are not updated right away. When asked if she had changed the date from the date of the medical record change (10/10/23) to 9/26/23 (the date of the incident) RN V acknowledged she had changed the date on the care plan and the note on the incident/accident report to the day of the incident (9/26/23) in the electronic medical record (EMR). RN V confirmed the EMR documentation of any resident's care plan could be changed to any date you wanted to reflect in the resident's medical record. Only by reviewing the EMR History Report would the actual date of the record change be identifiable. During a telephone interview on 10/11/23 at 11:10 a.m., RN OO confirmed she had completed the Incident/Accident report for R1-50 on 9/26/23. RN OO said R1-50 was not cognitively intact and could not tell her what had happened that caused the fall. RN OO said the floor was wet because R1-50 had spilled her water mug on the floor. RN OO said she no longer worked at the facility because she had concerns with the lack of resident charting, the lack of proficient charting, and inadequate policy training. RN OO said she called the facility on 9/28/23 and told them she would not be returning to work in the facility. Review of R1-50's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/1/23 revealed R1-50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: fracture of the right pubis, non-Alzheimer's dementia, and wandering. R1-50 was documented as unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) due to resident is rarely/never understood and was noted to have severely impaired cognition. Review of R1-50's Care Plans revealed the following fall interventions, in part: Ensure my floor is dry and free from spills. Date Initiated: 09/26/2023 . Ensure that I am wearing appropriate footwear (describe correct client footwear i.e., non-skid socks or shoes) when ambulating. Date Initiated: 09/26/23 . Review of R1-50's Care Plan History report revealed the Original Care Plan Item of Ensure my floor is dry and free from spills was created on 10/10/2023 by Registered Nurse (RN)/MDS Coordinator V. No changes had been made since the last review, and no changes were completed prior to the last review. During an interview on 10/10/23 at 4:00 p.m., Regional Chief Operation Officer MM and the NHA were informed of the facility failure to ensure R1-50's EMR was accurately documented by facility staff when dates were manually altered in the Resident's Care Plans and on the Incident/Accident report by RN V. When asked if Regional Staff MM understood the concern, she did not respond. During a telephone call made to this Surveyor's personal telephone on 10/11/23 at 7:16 a.m., Corporate Compliance Officer (Consultant) G said they had heard about the concern related to the care plan changes on 10/10/23, and she anticipated she would be called in to be interviewed, which she was not. Consultant G said she had information she would like to provide to the survey team. Consultant G confirmed she would provide the information she wished to submit, to the Survey Team Lead still on site on 10/11/23, after Consultant G was informed this Surveyor was no longer available for this survey. No documentation, verbal or written, was provided to the survey team to provide explanation of the manual date changes in R1-50's medical record.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Inake: MI00138093 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report to the State Age...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Inake: MI00138093 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report to the State Agency resident to resident abuse for 2 residents (Resident #46, & Resident #37) of 6 residents residents reviewed for abuse, resulting in Resident #30 grabbing on to and twisting Resident #46's right wrist causing pain, fear and increased anxiety, Resident #42 being involved in 2 separate incidents of resident to resident abuse and the potential for continued abuse and falls with major injury of residents residing in the facility to go unrecognized and the potential for further harm. (All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST) unless otherwise noted.) Findings include: Resident #46 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #46, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: generalized anxiety. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #46, with a reference date of 6/20/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10/15 which indicated Resident #46 was mildly cognitively impaired. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 10:45 AM., Resident #46 reported Resident #30 came into her room while she was sitting in her Resident #46's recliner. Resident #46 reported both her and her roommate Resident #15 were yelling out for staff to come and get Resident #30 out of their room. Resident #46 reported when she went to stand up, she (Resident #46) grabbed onto her walker with her right hand. Resident #46 stated (Resident #30) grabbed onto my right arm/wrist twisting it and squeezing my wrist very hard. Resident #46 reported she started to holler out you are hurting me, stop you are hurting me. Resident #46 reported her right arm/wrist hurt for days afterwards and had some bruising. Resident #46 stated my wrist (right) hurt so bad because last year I fell and broke that arm, so it already had an injury .Resident #46 reported she is very afraid of (Resident #30) and has been for a while now . Resident #15 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #15, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: generalized anxiety disorder. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #15, with a reference date of 7/1/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15 which indicated Resident #15 was cognitively intact. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 10:45 AM., Resident #15 reported a month or so ago Resident #30 entered her room headed towards her (Resident #15's) roommate Resident #46. Resident #15 reported her roommate Resident #46 was sitting down in her own recliner. Resident #15 reported Resident #46 yelled for help and told Resident #30 to leave the room. Resident #15 reported she saw Resident #30 grabbing onto Resident #46's right wrist and twisting Resident #46's wrist while she (Resident #30) was squeezing Resident #46's right wrist. Resident #15 reported Resident #46 was crying during the incident and saying you are hurting me. Review of Resident #46's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed documentation of: Nurse Practitioner (NP) Q 6/27/2023 09:06 onsite note .Chief Complaint: Chief complaint: patient (Resident #46) is seen today for right wrist pain .This is a [AGE] year-old female patient (Resident #46) who is seen today per nurse request .Patient (Resident #46) is a very concerned about her right wrist and forearm as she states that she is continuing to have pain in the area. She (Resident #46) said that her wrist and arm were twisted and twisted hard, and she (Resident #46) is not able to use her fingers like she did prior to that incident During an interview on 8/24/23 at 11:20 AM., Nurse Practitioner (NP) Q reported on 6/27/23 she had completed an examination of (Resident #46). NP Q reported she (Resident #46) told me on 6/27/23 that a resident came into her room recently and she (Resident #46) was asking her (the other resident) to leave and then the other resident grabbed her (Resident #46's) wrist hard and twisted it. NP Q reported she did not know who the other resident was, but she (NP Q) did report to upper management. NP Q stated she (Resident #46) was anxious just talking about it . that day she told me she (Resident #46) was fearful and anxious, she looked anxious about it Resident #30 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #30, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: dementia, severe, with agitation. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #30, with a reference date of 6/11/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00/15 which indicated Resident #30 was severely cognitively impaired. Further review of the MDS assessment Behavior Symptom - Presence & Frequency revealed Resident #30 coded for #1. Wandering - Presence & Frequency Has the resident wandered .#1. Behavior of this type occurred 1 to 3 days . In a 7 day look back period Review of Resident #30's Care Plans revealed: 1/26/21 Focus- I (Resident #30) am an elopement risk/wanderer r/t (related to) dx (diagnosis) of dementia. I have a hx (history) of wandering into other resident rooms which significantly intrudes on other residents' privacy or activities Interventions: Staff to redirect me (Resident #30) out of other resident rooms and to my room or common area-Date Initiated: 11/16/2022 Redirect me (Resident #30) to my room or a common area before I enter into other resident's rooms-Date Initiated: 07/25/2023 7/05/2021 Focus-I (Resident #30) have potential to demonstrate physical/verbal behaviors such as swearing at other residents, going through my roommates' belongings, unplugging my roommates TV and becoming combative and slapping other resident that may be making noise, walking next to me or the general area. I (Resident #30) am very impulsive and unpredictable. I (Resident #30) do not single out certain residents or staff. I (Resident #30) can become physically and verbally combative without escalations or warning signs r/t Dementia with behavioral disturbances. I (Resident #30) can also become possessive over certain chair or couches. per family I prefer to sleep on a couch . 3/28/2023 Focus-I (Resident #30) have a behavior problem r/t dementia. I (Resident #30) have hx of breaking items, pushing things off tables and on to the floor, taking food off of other resident plates, taking other resident snacks out of their hands. I (Resident #30) will state I didn't do anything if asked about behaviors In an email correspondence between this surveyor and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A received 8/23/23 at 12:38 PM., NHA A indicated there was no investigation or reporting to the State Agency of the incident between Resident #30 and Resident #46. Resident #37 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #37, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: autistic disorder. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #37, with a reference date of 6/24/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 04/15 which indicated Resident #37 was cognitively severely cognitively impaired. Review of an Incident/accident for Resident #37 revealed: 6/7/2023 Writer was in nursing office and heard yelling coming from the nurses desk/dining room entrance area r/t (related to) an altercation happening between two residents. Writer and fellow nurse ran to the dining room (both arriving at the same time) and observed .(Resident #42) holding (Resident#37's) right arm telling him (Resident #37) to stop yelling like that Resident Description: (Resident #37) .He pinched me . Resident #42 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #42, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: unspecified dementia, severe with psychotic disturbance. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #42, with a reference date of 5/21/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03/15 which indicated Resident #42 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of an Incident/accident for Resident #42 revealed: 6/7/2023 Writer was in nursing office and heard yelling coming from the nurses desk/dining room entrance area r/t an altercation happening between two residents. Writer and fellow nurse ran to the dining room (both arriving at the same time) and observed (Resident #42) holding (Resident#37's) right arm telling him to stop yelling like that Resident Description: The only comment resident (Resident #42) gave writer at the time of the incident was this guy (Resident #37) shouldn't be in here yelling at people like that . Review of an Incident/accident for Resident #42 revealed: On 6/22/23 About 0730 CNA called for assist 100 hallway outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. Writer observed resident (Resident #42) intertwined with CNA and resident 1435 (unknown resident). CNA states they were inside room assisting when they heard (Resident #42) state I'm gonna punch you in the gut .CNA opened door and saw (Resident #42's) hand make contact with 1435 (unknown resident) stomach (surveyor noted discrepancy on the incident/accident report with resident identifier 1435, unable to locate resident 1435 in facility electronic medical record (EMR) .). During an interview on 8/23/23 at 3:30 PM., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N reported (Resident #42) has a lot of behaviors and is difficult to redirect at times he has struck out at other residents and staff. CNA N reported we have to keep a very close eye on him (Resident #42) along with quite a few other residents such as (Resident #30) who are known to wander and roam into to other residents personal space. CNA N reported both (Resident #30 and Resident #42) have had multiple resident to resident altercations with other residents, and both (Resident #30 and Resident #42) sometimes just randomly will lash out. CNA N reported she was unsure if the incidents have been reported to the State Agency. CNA Nstated all accusations of abuse are to be reported to (NHA A) and the State . In an email correspondence between this surveyor and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A received 8/23/23 at 12:38 PM., NHA A indicated there was no investigation or reporting to the State Agency of the incident between Resident #30 and Resident #46, nor was there reporting and investigation completed for Resident #37 and Resident #42 . further review of the email between this surveyor and NHA A revealed: from NHA A to this surveyor Regarding (Resident #46) I (NHA A) was new to the building and it was not a situation that was brought to my attention at suspected abuse. I had interviewed (Resident #46, Resident #15 and Resident #30) and met with the family (Resident #46's) for a care conference as I was still transitioning into the role I relied on the team for assistance on 8/24/23 at approximately 4:45 PM., the conclusion of the survey, no documentation, reporting information, root cause analysis or investigation for the allegations of abuse for Resident #46 and Resident #37, or the unknown resident (resident 1435) were provided to this surveyor prior to the exit conference with facility key personal including NHA A.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake: #MI00138093. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report to the State ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake: #MI00138093. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report to the State Agency resident to resident abuse for 2 residents (Resident #46, & Resident #37) of 6 residents residents reviewed for abuse, resulting in Resident #30 grabbing on to and twisting Resident #46's right wrist causing pain, fear and increased anxiety, Resident #42 being involved in 2 separate incidents of resident to resident abuse and the potential for continued abuse and falls with major injury of residents residing in the facility to go unrecognized and the potential for further harm. (All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST) unless otherwise noted.) Findings include: Resident #46 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #46, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: generalized anxiety. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #46, with a reference date of 6/20/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10/15 which indicated Resident #46 was mildly cognitively impaired. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 10:45 AM., Resident #46 reported (Resident #30) has come into her room on multiple occasions. Resident #46 reported (Resident #30) had come into her old room before she moved into this new room. Resident #46 reported (Resident #30) came into her room while she was sitting in her (Resident #46's) recliner. Resident #46 reported both her and her roommate (Resident #15) were yelling out for staff to come and get (Resident #30) out of their room. Resident #46 reported when she went to stand up, she (Resident #46) grabbed onto her walker with her right hand. Resident #46 stated (Resident #30) grabbed onto my right arm/wrist twisting it and squeezing my wrist very hard. Resident #46 reported she started to holler out you are hurting me, stop you are hurting me. Resident #46 reported her right arm/wrist hurt for days afterwards and had some bruising. Resident #46 stated my wrist (right) hurt so bad because last year I fell and broke that arm, so it already had an injury . Resident #46 reported she is very afraid of (Resident #30) and has been for a while now . Resident #15 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #15, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: generalized anxiety disorder. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #15, with a reference date of 7/1/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15 which indicated Resident #15 was cognitively intact. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 10:45 AM., Resident #15 reported a month or so ago (Resident #30) entered her room headed towards her (Resident #15's) roommate (Resident #46). Resident #15 reported her roommate (Resident #46) was sitting down in her own recliner. Resident #15 reported (Resident #46) yelled for help and told (Resident #30) to leave the room. Resident #15 reported she saw (Resident #30) grabbing onto (Resident #46's) right wrist and twisting (Resident #46's) wrist while she (Resident #30) was squeezing (Resident #46's) right wrist. Resident #15 reported (Resident #46) was crying during the incident and saying you are hurting me. Review of Resident #46's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed documentation of: Nurse Practitioner (NP) Q 6/27/2023 09:06 onsite note .Chief Complaint: Chief complaint: patient (Resident #46) is seen today for right wrist pain .This is a [AGE] year-old female patient (Resident #46) who is seen today per nurse request .Patient (Resident #46) is a very concerned about her right wrist and forearm as she states that she is continuing to have pain in the area. She (Resident #46) said that her wrist and arm were twisted and twisted hard, and she (Resident #46) is not able to use her fingers like she did prior to that incident During an interview on 08/24/23 at 11:20 AM., Nurse Practitioner (NP) Q reported on 6/27/23 she had completed an examination of (Resident #46). NP Q reported she (Resident #46) told me on 6/27/23 that a resident came into her room recently and she (Resident #46) was asking her (the other resident) to leave and then the other resident grabbed her (Resident #46's) wrist hard and twisted it. NP Q reported she did not know who the other resident was, but she (NP Q) did report to upper management. NP 'Q reported she has not heard of any behaviors from (Resident #46) but at times has increased anxiety especially when residents who wander get close to her doorway or try to get in her room. NP Q stated she (Resident #46) was anxious just talking about it . that day she told me she (Resident #46) was fearful and anxious, she looked anxious about it NP Q reported she made sure the nurse (did not recall what nurse) knew about her (Resident #46) anxiety at the time of her (NP Q's) visit and then ordered an x-ray of (Resident 46's) wrist. Resident #30 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #30, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: dementia, severe, with agitation. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #30, with a reference date of 6/11/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00/15 which indicated Resident #30 was severely cognitively impaired. Further review of the MDS assessment Behavior Symptom - Presence & Frequency revealed Resident #30 coded for #1. Wandering - Presence & Frequency Has the resident wandered .#1. Behavior of this type occurred 1 to 3 days . In a 7 day look back period Review of Resident #30's Care Plans revealed: 1/26/21 Focus- I (Resident #30) am an elopement risk/wanderer r/t (related to) dx (diagnosis) of dementia. I have a hx (history) of wandering into other resident rooms which significantly intrudes on other residents' privacy or activities Interventions: Staff to redirect me (Resident #30) out of other resident rooms and to my room or common area-Date Initiated: 11/16/2022 Redirect me (Resident #30) to my room or a common area before I enter into other resident's rooms-Date Initiated: 07/25/2023 7/05/2021 Focus-I (Resident #30) have potential to demonstrate physical/verbal behaviors such as swearing at other residents, going through my roommates' belongings, unplugging my roommates TV and becoming combative and slapping other resident that may be making noise, walking next to me or the general area. I (Resident #30) am very impulsive and unpredictable. I (Resident #30) do not single out certain residents or staff. I (Resident #30) can become physically and verbally combative without escalations or warning signs r/t Dementia with behavioral disturbances. I (Resident #30) can also become possessive over certain chair or couches. per family I prefer to sleep on a couch . 3/28/2023 Focus-I (Resident #30) have a behavior problem r/t dementia. I (Resident #30) have hx of breaking items, pushing things off tables and on to the floor, taking food off of other resident plates, taking other resident snacks out of their hands. I (Resident #30) will state I didn't do anything if asked about behaviors Resident #37 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #37, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: autistic disorder. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #37, with a reference date of 6/24/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 04/15 which indicated Resident #37 was cognitively severely cognitively impaired. Review of an Incident/accident for Resident #37 revealed: 6/7/2023 Writer was in nursing office and heard yelling coming from the nurses desk/dining room entrance area r/t (related to) an altercation happening between two residents. Writer and fellow nurse ran to the dining room (both arriving at the same time) and observed .(Resident #42) holding (Resident#37's) right arm telling him (Resident #37) to stop yelling like that Resident Description: (Resident #37) .He pinched me . Resident #42 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #42, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: unspecified dementia, severe with psychotic disturbance. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #42, with a reference date of 5/21/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03/15 which indicated Resident #42 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of an Incident/accident for Resident #42 revealed: 6/7/2023 Writer was in nursing office and heard yelling coming from the nurses desk/dining room entrance area r/t an altercation happening between two residents. Writer and fellow nurse ran to the dining room (both arriving at the same time) and observed (Resident #42) holding (Resident#37's) right arm telling him to stop yelling like that Resident Description: The only comment resident (Resident #42) gave writer at the time of the incident was this guy (Resident #37) shouldn't be in here yelling at people like that . Review of an Incident/accident for Resident #42 revealed: On 6/22/23 About 0730 CNA called for assist 100 hallway outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. Writer observed resident (Resident #42) intertwined with CNA and resident 1435 (unknown resident). CNA states they were inside room assisting when they heard (Resident #42) state I'm gonna punch you in the gut .CNA opened door and saw (Resident #42's) hand make contact with 1435 (unknown resident) stomach (surveyor noted discrepancy on the incident/accident report with resident identifier 1435, unable to locate resident 1435 in facility electronic medical record (EMR) .). During an interview on 8/23/23 at 3:30 PM., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) N reported (Resident #42) has a lot of behaviors and is difficult to redirect at times he has struck out at other residents and staff. CNA N reported we have to keep a very close eye on him (Resident #42) along with quite a few other residents such as (Resident #30) who are known to wander and roam into to other residents personal space. CNA N reported both (Resident #30 and Resident #42) have had multiple resident to resident altercations with other residents, and both (Resident #30 and Resident #42) sometimes just randomly will lash out. CNA N reported she was unsure if the incidents have been reported to the State Agency. CNA Nstated all accusations of abuse are to be reported to (NHA A) and the State . In an email correspondence between this surveyor and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A received 8/23/23 at 12:38 PM., NHA A indicated there was no investigation or reporting to the State Agency of the incident between Resident #30 and Resident #46, nor was there reporting and investigation completed for Resident #37 and Resident #42 . further review of the email between this surveyor and NHA A revealed: from NHA A to this surveyor Regarding (Resident #46) I (NHA A) was new to the building and it was not a situation that was brought to my attention at suspected abuse. I had interviewed (Resident #46, Resident #15 and Resident #30) and met with the family (Resident #46's) for a care conference as I was still transitioning into the role I relied on the team for assistance on 8/24/23 at the exit of the survey, no documentation, reporting information or investigation for the allegations of abuse for Resident #46 and Resident #37 were provided to this surveyor.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary, home-like environment, resulting in the potenti...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary, home-like environment, resulting in the potential for pest harborage conditions and a non-home-like environment. (All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST) unless otherwise noted.) Findings include: In an observation on 8/16/23 at 8:27 AM., noted the privacy curtains in room [ROOM NUMBER] were both heavily soiled with multiple stains in various areas of the curtain. In an observation on 8/16/23 at 8:29 AM., noted the privacy curtains in room [ROOM NUMBER] were both heavily soiled with multiple stains in various areas of the curtains. In an observation on 8/16/23 at 8:32 AM., noted the window curtains in room [ROOM NUMBER] were tattered and torn around the edges with threads hanging loose. The top portion of the curtains hooks (to attach the curtains to slider rod) were noted to be missing on both curtains in the middle area, leaving the curtain hanging loosely. Both curtains appeared tattered and worn and overall dingy appearance. In an observation on 8/16/23 at 8:43 AM., noted both privacy curtains in room [ROOM NUMBER] were both soiled with multiple stains in various areas of the curtain. The curtains on the window were noted to be torn and tattered along the edges with threads hanging loose. The hooks at the top of the window curtains were noted to be missing, and the curtains appeared old and dingy. In an observation on 8/16/23 at 9:08 AM., noted the window curtains in room [ROOM NUMBER] were tattered and torn around the edges with threads hanging loose. The top portion of the curtains (hooks) were noted to be missing on both curtains in the middle area leaving the curtain hanging loosely. Both curtains appeared tattered and worn and overall dingy appearance. Both privacy curtains were noted to be heavily soiled with multiple stains on them. The floor in room [ROOM NUMBER] was upswept under the beds, around the edges of the room, and the floor was sticky when walked on. In an observation on 8/16/23 at 9:18 AM., noted both privacy curtains in room [ROOM NUMBER] were heavily soiled with stains in various areas of the curtains. In an interview on 8/16/23 at 10:12 AM., Environmental Services Staff (EVS) T reported privacy curtains should be changed when noticeably soiled, and it is the reasonability of the EVS to do so. EVS T reported the window curtains probably should be replaced, and new ones ordered. EVS T reported they were unsure if the facility had new curtains somewhere, or if the facility needed to order new ones to replace the older ones. EVS T reported the floors in resident rooms and common areas should be swept daily, mopped daily and as needed, the floors should not be Sticky to walk on. In an interview on 8/23/23 at 8:15 AM., EVS Lead E reported the environment should be clean and homelike for all residents. EVS E reported privacy curtains usually get changed over on a room cleaning rotation and when they are visibly soiled, and he does not believe the facility has new curtains on stock for resident rooms. EVS E reported the window curtains are older and should be replaced with new ones. Review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2003, Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities page 71, read in part, The transferral of microorganisms from environmental surfaces to patients is largely via hand contact with the surface. Although hand hygiene is important to minimize the impact of this transfer, cleaning and disinfecting environmental surfaces as appropriate is fundamental in reducing their potential contribution to the incidence of healthcare-associated infections. Review of a facility Policy: titled Resident Rights with a revision date of 6/29/23 revealed: Policy-The facility will inform the resident both orally and in writing, in a language that the resident understands, of his or her rights and all rules and regulations governing resident conduct and responsibilities during the stay in the facility . 8. Safe environment. The resident has a right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment .
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by: A. Faili...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by: A. Failing to ensure that potentially hazardous foods were kept free from contamination, labeled, dated, and discarded on or before the expiration date. B. Failing to ensure food preparation surfaces in the dietary department were properly disinfected. C. Failing to properly clean and disinfect dishes and utensils. This deficient practice had the potential to result in food borne illness among any or all the 52 residents in the facility. Findings include: (All times noted are Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST) unless otherwise noted.) During a dietary department tour on 8/15/23 at 1:56 PM with the Dietary Manager (DM) EE the following observations were made in the dry storage room: - French fried onions were opened and clipped and had no date when the product had been first opened or when it should be used by. When asked when this product was opened, DM EE did not know. DM EE was unsure if the opened dates or the use by dates needed to be marked on any opened food package. - Dried scalloped potatoes were opened and marked 8/7 but DM EE was not sure when this product should be used by. - Jello had an open date of 4/21, but no use by date. - A dented can of tuna was observed on the shelf. DM EE stated that this dented can should not be placed on the shelving for use. - Graham crackers were open to air and had no seal. The following observations were made in the reach in freezer: - Salmon patties were opened and dated 4/28 and had no use by date. - Chicken thighs were opened, had no label, were not dated when opened, and had no use by date. - Bologna was opened, had no label, was not dated when opened, and had no use by date. - Shredded Chicken was opened, had no label, and had no use by date. - Shredded Turkey was opened, had no label, and had no use by date. - Salisbury steaks were opened and had no use by date. The following observations were made in the reach in refrigerator: - Yogurt in a quart container was expired and marked best by 8/6/23 - Whipped topping had no date. - Meatloaf was in a to-go container without a label, or a date prepared or a use by date. - Raw ground meat was in a container dated 8/9 and had no use by date. - Liquid eggs in a carton, had no open date or use by date. - Mustard had a manufacture date best by 5/30/23. - Sweet and sour sauce had an opened date of 3/9/23. - Thickened orange juice had a manufacture date best by 7/2023. - Almond milk was opened and was labeled with the first name of a resident. It had no opened date or use by date. - Coleslaw dressing was hand marked 11/29 (DM EE stated that was 11/29/22). The following observations were made in the snack refrigerator: - Thickened apple juice was opened and had no opened date and did not have a use by date. - Thickened cranberry juice was opened and had no opened date and did not have a use by date. When asked how long refrigerated items which had been opened were kept, DM EE stated: We keep opened refrigerated foods for 6 days. During the same tour of the dietary department, a sugar bin on wheels was observed with purple spots inside the container embedded in the sugar. DM EE stated beet juice must have spilled into the bin when staff were preparing the beets. DM EE did not know when the sugar bin had been cleaned last. The label on top of the sugar bin was dated 1/23 and use by 4/27. The DM EE said, I don't know if it was cleaned out then. The flour bin on wheels was dated 5/23 and dated use by 4/27. DM EE stated the year was not usually included when date marking. The powdered sugar bin was directly on the floor of the kitchen and contained a scoop inside. There was also a barley container directly on the floor. DM EE said, We do not use that. The container with sanitizer used for cleaning of working surfaces was tested by DM EE and registered 50 parts per million (ppm). DM EE was not sure about the procedure for testing the sanitizer buckets but stated 50 ppm was low and the concentration should be 200 ppm. A cleaning cloth was in this bucket. When DM EE was asked if we could assume it was currently in use, DM EE replied yes. The dishwasher temperatures were observed, and the wash was registering at 100 degrees, rinse at 157 degrees and sanitizer level at 200 ppm. DM EE stated the wash temperatures should be at least 120 degrees. Dishes were being washed at below acceptable temperatures. The August 2023 log for the low temperature dish machine included columns for temperatures and sanitation concentrations. It was observed no data was recorded for 8 evening meals of 14 reviewed. All the July 2023 data on the same log had no deviation of data for all 31 days. (Every breakfast, lunch, and dinner meal had the wash temperatures of135, rinse temperatures of 155 and ppm of200. The FDA Food Code 2017 States: - 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking. (A) Except when PACKAGING FOOD using a REDUCED OXYGEN PACKAGING method as specified under § 3-502.12, and except as specified in (E) and (F) of this section, refrigerated, READY-TO_EAT, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and held in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 5ºC (41ºF) or less for a maximum of 7 days. The day of preparation shall be counted as Day 1 - 3-307.11 Miscellaneous Sources of Contamination. FOOD shall be protected from contamination that may result from a factor or source not specified under Subparts 3-301 - 3-304.14 Wiping Cloths, Use Limitation. (A) Cloths in-use for wiping FOOD spills from TABLEWARE and carry-out containers that occur as FOOD is being served shall be: (1) Maintained dry; and (2) Used for no other purpose. (B) Cloths in-use for wiping counters and other EQUIPMENT surfaces shall be: (1) Held between uses in a chemical sanitizer solution at a concentration specified under § 4-501.114; The facility policy titled Date marking for food Safety dated as implemented on 11/1/22 read in part: Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines for Staffing: 1. Refrigerated, ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food (i.e. perishable food) shall be held at a temperature of 41°F or less for a maximum of 7 days. 2. The food shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed or discarded. 3. The individual opening or preparing a food shall be responsible for date marking the food at the time the food is opened or prepared. 4. The marking system shall consist of a color-coded label, the day/date of opening, and the day/date the item must be consumed or discarded. 5. The discard day or date may not exceed the manufacturer's use-by date, or four days, whichever is earliest. The date of opening or preparation counts as day 1. (For example, food prepared on Tuesday shall be discarded on or by Friday.) 6. The Head Cook, or designee, shall be responsible for checking the refrigerator daily for food items that are expiring, and shall discard accordingly. 7. The Dietary Manager, or designee, shall spot check refrigerators weekly for compliance, and document accordingly. Corrective action shall be taken as needed. .
Jul 2022 24 deficiencies
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.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s), $43,973 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 56 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $43,973 in fines. Higher than 94% of Michigan facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (30/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 30/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Iron River Care Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Iron River Care Center an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Michigan, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Iron River Care Center Staffed?

CMS rates Iron River Care Center's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Iron River Care Center?

State health inspectors documented 56 deficiencies at Iron River Care Center during 2022 to 2024. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm and 53 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Iron River Care Center?

Iron River Care Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 69 certified beds and approximately 51 residents (about 74% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Iron River, Michigan.

How Does Iron River Care Center Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Iron River Care Center's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1 and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Iron River Care Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Iron River Care Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Iron River Care Center has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Michigan. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Iron River Care Center Stick Around?

Iron River Care Center has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Iron River Care Center Ever Fined?

Iron River Care Center has been fined $43,973 across 2 penalty actions. The Michigan average is $33,519. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Iron River Care Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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