CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Someone could have died · 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:
1. Consistently complete bed rail assessments to det...
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:
1. Consistently complete bed rail assessments to determine resident initial need and continued use for bed rails.
2. Assess all residents with bed rails for risk of entrapment and ensure the absence of bed entrapment zones through consistent and scheduled measurement by facility staff,
3. Ensure compatibility between facility bed frames and bed rails,
4. Follow the manufacturer's recommendations for installation and maintenance of bed rails,
5. Ensure the presence of, and compliance with physician orders for bed rails, and/or
6. Ensure informed consent was obtained prior to installation of bed rails for seven Residents (#1, #19, #22, #31, #33, #34, and #46) of seven residents reviewed for bed rails, resulting in immediate jeopardy (IJ). These deficient practices resulted in the likelihood of entrapment, serious injury or harm, and/or death, for any facility resident using bed rails without assessment of appropriateness for medical condition and safety.
Findings include:
Resident #46
Review of Resident #46's MDS assessment, dated 08/30/22, revealed Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, kidney disease, and sepsis (a severe systemic infection). Resident #46 required limited one-person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, and toileting. The BIMS assessment revealed a score of 9 out of 15, which indicated Resident #46 had moderate cognitive impairment.
An observation on 09/21/22 at 9:02 a.m. revealed Resident #46 seated sitting upright on the edge of her bed eating breakfast. Her bed had a T-bar bedrail attached to the bedframe on both sides in the middle of her bed. There was no manufacture's labeling or identification observed on the bedrail. The bedrail was older and worn in appearance, with the top horizontal handle square-shaped, sticking out at least 6 on each side beyond the vertical anchor pole at each end. This style appeared would be a hazard if the occupant fell onto the bedrail due to the large prongs sticking out from each side of the bedrail handle.
Review of Resident #46's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed no resident-centered bedrail assessment to justify safe use of the bedrail, no informed consent by the resident representative, no physician orders, and no zones of entrapment measurements.
During an interview on 09/21/22, Resident #46's Unit Manager, Registered Nurse, RN Y, was asked about the missing documents. RN Y confirmed they were not completed and had earlier made the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) aware the facility policy/process was not being followed respective to expectations for bedrail standards of practice.
During an interview on 09/22/22 at 5:11 p.m., the NHA was asked about the type of bedrail, and safety of this type of bedrail, given the concerns observed. The NHA confirmed they did not have manufacturer's directions for the bedrail, and could not verify when it was installed, or if it was safe for Resident #46.
Further review of the EMR showed Resident #46 had three recent falls in her room. The accident and incident report dated 08/21/22 showed Resident #46 was found sitting upright on the floor at her bedside, with her back resting on the bed. Resident #46 reported at that time she was trying to stand up from her bed and slipped onto her bottom. She denied injury and no injury was found by staff. A nursing progress note dated 09/25/22, revealed Resident #46 fell while ambulating to her bed from her bathroom, and was found seated on her buttocks at her bedside, without injury. Two of the three falls staff found Resident #46 by her bed.
Review of a document titled, Enabler Bar Documentation, provided by the Environmental Services Director, Staff E, on 09/26/22, dated 06/22/22, revealed the type of device, T-Bar, and four locations on bed/measurement, labeled 1 - 4. Items 1. and 2. were checked. Both showed, Gap in bar between bar and mattress ½ (handwritten in). No other zones of entrapment were measured, per standards of practice related to bedrails. There was no additional documentation to show measurements taken for four additional days, per standards of practice and facility policy.
During an interview on 09/26/22 at approximately 4:45 p.m., the Environmental Services Director, Staff E, confirmed they would accompany Surveyors to take measurements of the T-bar bedrails, and the measurements of any bedrail gaps, per regulatory and standards of practice guidelines.
During an interview on 09/27/22 at 2:57 p.m., the Director of Rehabilitation Services, Physical Therapist (PTA) CC, was asked about Resident #46's safety with the use of the T-bar bedrail, which had since been removed by the facility on 09/26/22. PTA CC reported while Resident #46 had used the T-bar bedrail for bed mobility and transfers, he acknowledged the grab bar style appeared outdated and was a safety concern, given one bar sticking out the bed occupant could possibly catch their neck or arm on the bar. PTA CC reported the enabler bars with the curved edges would be much safer for the bed occupant. PTA CC confirmed Resident #46 was at risk for falls due to an overall medical decline, falls since facility admission, and poor compliance with safety recommendations to ambulate and transfer with assistance.
Resident #19
During an observation and interview on 09/21/22 at 10:45 a.m., Resident #19 was found in bed during peri care, with bilateral mobility bed rails (enabler/assist bed rails). Resident #19 verbalized the hallucination of cats being hung by their ears on the telephone line visible outside the room window. No trapeze was present on Resident #19's bed.
Review of Resident #19's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/5/22, revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the most recent re-admission on [DATE]. Active diagnoses included: stroke, hemiplegia (paralysis of left dominant side of Resident #19's body) and muscle weakness. Resident #19 scored 12 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #19 required extensive two-person assistance with bed mobility, with a resident transfer not performed during the assessment period. The MDS assessment documented A. Bedrail . Used Daily . in Section P0100. Physical Restraints.
Review of Resident #19's Enabler Bar Documentation, dated 6/22/22, by maintenance staff, revealed the following bed rail documentation: Enabler bars need to be measured for gaps in bar and between the bar and the mattress every time a device is applied, or if the resident changes beds or mattresses or type of enabler bar used. Documentation will be kept in the Bedrail Book in Maintenance Department. Type of Device: T-Bar (checked) . Location on bed/Measurement: 1. Top right, Gap in bar between bar and mattress, 0 (zero) in (inches). 2. Top left, Gap . 0 inches.
Review of Resident #19's Care Plans revealed the following, in part:
I have Bilateral T-Bars on my bed to assist me with bed mobility.
Date Initiated: 02/15/2022
Created by: [Registered Nurse (RN) X]
Review of Resident #19's Resident Bed Rail/Assist Bar/TBar Consent Form, dated and signed 3/10/22, revealed the following, in part:
1. Please initial one of the following statements of your choice for assistive devices.
_____The option of bedrails/assist bars has been offered to me and I choose not to have them at this time.
_____I choose to use the following device to assist with bed mobility and security when I am in bed.
Device Requested ___Right Side ___Left Side ___ TBar ___Assist Bar ___Half Bed Rail .
No initials, checks, or notations showed selection of any of the choices presented on Resident #19's Bed Rail Consent form. The bed rail consent form included the following general information: I am responsible for treatment decisions of the above-named resident. I have been advised that I may request that bed rails/assist/tbars be installed on the resident's bed. The risk and alternatives to using bed rails/assist bars/tbars, as they apply to this resident's particular condition and circumstances, have been clearly explained to me.
I understand that, in addition to this signed consent form authorizing the use of bed rails for this resident, a written order from the physician, specifying the medical rationale and circumstances for use, must be obtained prior to the installation of this medical treatment device.
It is also my understanding that the Facility will periodically review and re-evaluate the resident's need for bed rails/assist bars/tbars and that the resident, responsible party, and attending physician will be consulted in this matter.
With all the above information in mind, I consent to the installation and utilization of bed rails for the care of the above-named resident, consistent with the written orders of the attending physician .
Review of Resident #19's Physician Orders related to bed rails, read as follows: Order Date: 3/10/22 14:50 (2:50 p.m.), Resident may use bilateral TBar/assist bars on her bed along with her trapeze to aide with bed mobility and repositioning. Diagnosis: weakness, pain, obesity.
Review of Resident #19's Bed Rails Clinical Guidance form, dated 4/27/22, revealed the following, in part:
Implementation Plan:
1. Have you anticipated and planned for the Resident getting out of bed at night for such things as hunger, thirst, restroom, restlessness/pain, and/or need for skin care/hygiene? NO .
6. Have you considered the use of floor mats for residents that are prone to rolling out of bed? NO .
9. Evaluate and document the effect of these interventions: Resident . has a trapeze on her bed and has requested T-bar/assist bars to help mover (sic) herself about in bed. [Resident #19] is obese has difficulty even with T-bars moving about in bed. Uses Hoyer lift to transfer.
Education provided included:
1. Resident issues that often result in bed rail use include memory disorders, impaired mobility, risk for injury, nocturia/incontinence, and sleep disturbances.
4. Strangling, suffocating, other bodily injury, and death can occur when a resident is caught between bed rails or between bed rails and mattress .
Implementation: .
5. What steps have you taken to move to lesser restrictive devices? BLANK - no information provided. Signed Date: 4/27/22.
Review of the User-Service Manual, copyright 2020, for Resident #19's bed, a [Name Brand, Model Bed], revealed the following, in part: To avoid injury, read user's manual before using . Warning: Possible Injury or Death. If a resident/patient's mental or physical condition could lead to resident/patient entrapment, the mattress support platform should be left in the flat position when unattended. Failure to do so could result in injury or death . Warning: An optimal bed system assessment should be conducted on each resident by a qualified clinician or medical provider to ensure maximum safety of the resident. The assessment should be conducted within the context of, and in compliance with, the state and federal guidelines related to the use of bed system entrapment guidance, including the Clinical Guidance for the Assessment and implementation of Side Rails, published by the Hospital Bed Safety Workgroup of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration . Warning: Possible Injury or Death. Do not use any replacement parts not manufactured, marketed, or provided by [Name Brand] Healthcare on any [Name Brand] bed. Use of unapproved replacement parts may result in injury or death .If using accessories not manufactured, marketed, or provided by [Name Brand] Healthcare . consult with the manufacturer for compatibility and limitations prior to use. Failure to do so may result in injury or death . Entrapment zones involve the relationship of components often directly assembled by the healthcare facility rather than the manufacturer. Therefore, compliance is the responsibility of the facility . While the guidelines apply to all healthcare settings, (hospitals, nursing homes and at home), long-term care facilities have particular exposure since serious entrapment events typically involve frail, elderly, or dementia patients .
Resident #33
Review of Resident #33's MDS assessment, dated 7/27/22, revealed Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included the following, in part: cerebrovascular accident (CVA/Stroke), hemiplegia, disorientation, and dizziness and giddiness. Resident #33 scored 11 out of 15 on the BIMS, reflective of moderate cognitive impairment, and was independent in bed mobility and transfers. The Resident had functional limitations in range of motion on one side of the lower extremities and used a wheelchair for mobility. The use of bed rails was not documented on the MDS assessment.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at approximately 12:15 p.m., Resident #33's bed was found with bilateral T-bars installed on the left and right sides of the bed. The T-bars in use appeared old, without manufacturer's labeling or information, and were observed as a single chrome finished bar extending upward from the bed frame, with a single chrome finished, square handle (the area where the user holds the bar), approximately 2 inches x 2 inches in width and approximately 12 inches in length, attached perpendicularly to the top of the mounted bar. The square handle had distinct edges on all sides and ends, and allowed potential for injury, with square metal prongs (not rounded) sticking out at each end. The T-bar appeared as the image of a T. No T-bar identification of any similar bed rail was found in multiple internet searches for a similar appearing bed rail.
Review of Resident #33's progress notes revealed the following, in part:
8/4/22 12:05 (p.m.), Family Care Conference, Meeting Note: .When resident (#33) has to use the bathroom at night she tries to raise the back of her bed so she can get up. Resident (#33) ends up raising her whole bed in the air. Resident/Family are afraid of a fall. Family tried to cover the buttons that raise the bed up and down .
8/4/22 12:21 (p.m.), Social Service Progress Note . talked with maintenance. They can take the motor out of the controller that moves the bed up and down. The bed will be kept in the lowest position to prevent a fall .
8/5/22 14:26 (2:46 p.m.), Social Services Progress Note . Maintenance was not able to disconnect the controller on the bed resident had. Resident was given a different bed that allowed the up and down controller to be disconnected. Resident is not happy about the new bed - resident does not like the T-bars compared to the other bed (assist bars) .
On 9/26/22 at 12:38 p.m., Review of Enabler Bar Documentation completed 6/22/22 by maintenance staff, revealed Resident #33's bed had bilateral Enabler Bars (assist bed rails) on the top right, and top left of the bed, with a Gap in bar between bar and mattress of ¾ (3/4 inch) on each side. Only one measurement was performed, and other bed entrapment zones were not measured.
No resident assessment for bed rails was found in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR), either at the time of admission or at the time she received a different bed with T-bars instead of assist bed rails.
No physician order for bed rails was present in the Physician Order Summary for September 2022, retrieved 9/26/22 at 12:26 p.m.
Resident #34
Review of Resident #34's MDS assessment, dated 7/30/22, revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included the following: non-Alzheimer's dementia, muscle weakness, and polyosteoarthritis. Resident #34 scored 5 of 15 on the BIMS reflective of severe cognitive impairment. Resident #34 required extensive two-person assistance with bed mobility. Bed rail usage was not documented in Section P: Restraints and Alarms on the MDS assessment.
During an observation and interview on 9/26/22 at approximately 10:45 a.m., Resident #34's bed was observed with a T-bar bed rail on the right side of the bed. A gap (not measured) was observed and identified between the T-bar and the bed mattress in the presence of Staff E.
Review of Enabler Bar Documentation completed 6/22/22 by maintenance staff, revealed Resident #34's bed had one T-bar on the top right of the bed, with a Gap in bar between bar and mattress of 0 (zero inches). Only one measurement was performed, and other bed entrapment zones were not measured.
Review of Resident #34's Physician Order Summary for September 2022, revealed the following order, beginning on 3/14/22: Resident may use a TBar/assist bar on the right side of his bed to aide with bed mobility and repositioning due to s/s (signs and symptoms) polyosteoarthritis.
Review of Resident #34's Bed Rails Clinical Guidance assessment, dated 4/27/22, and noted as In Progress when retrieved on 9/26/22, revealed the following:
1. Multiple questions were blank, and not completed.
2. The Implementation Plan had questions that were unanswered or answered with NO, including:
a. Have you anticipated and planned for the Resident getting out of bed at night for such things as hunger, thirst, restroom, restlessness/pain, and/or need for skin care/hygiene? (unanswered)
b. Have you attempted transfer and mobility aides such as a trapeze? (NO)
c. Have you considered the use of floor mats for residents that are prone to rolling out of bed? (NO)
d. Have you considered a referral to therapy or restorative for exercises/interventions to enhance the resident's ability to stand, transfer, to reposition self safely? (NO)
If the answer is no to any of the above items go back and implement.
Education documented as provided to the Resident/Legal Representative did NOT include the following items included on the bed rail form:
- Residents who are frail, or elderly are at risk for entrapment.
- A resident with agitation, delirium, confusion, pain, uncontrolled body movement, hypoxia, and elimination issues are at risk for entrapment and/or suffering serious injury from a fall.
- A resident may try to climb through, under, or over bed rails or footboard which will greatly increase risk for injury.
- Ill-fitted mattresses and rails increase the risk for injury to a resident.
Review of the EMR list of all Bed Rails Clinical Guidance forms completed by the facility only showed the 4/27/22 In Progress assessment. No other bed rail assessments had been documented.
Review of Resident #34's Care Plans revealed the following ADL (activities of daily living) intervention: SIDE RAILS: I have a T bar on the right side of my bed to assist me with bed mobility. Observed for injury or entrapment related to side rail use. Reposition PRN to avoid injury. Date Initiated: 10/20/21 (Date of Admission) .
Residents (#1, #22, #31, #33, #34, and #46) all had old [Name Brand] beds with unidentified old T-bars mounted on the beds. The model was the same for all residents.
During an interview on 9/26/22 at 10:13 a.m., Environmental Services Manager (Staff E) was asked for documentation of bed measurements related to the use of bed rails and assessment of entrapment zone risks of resident beds. Staff E stated, (There are) no side rails in the building, so T-rail checks (are performed) on an initial install (of the bed rails) . We (Environmental Services staff) just do them (gap measurements) for the initial install, and do not do them for multiple days or times.
During a follow up interview that same day at 10:48 a.m., Staff E provided a pink Bedrail Book binder that he said documented Bed Rail Use and Measurements. Staff E stated, I was never aware or informed that T-bars or assist rails were considered bed rails. Staff E said because they were not considered bed rails, the small assist rails on the beds were not measured for multiple days and therefore measurements of the seven bed entrapment zones were not documented on the bed rail assessment form. The T-bars and assist bed rails were measured only one time and he said there were no measurements done for the T-bars because there was no risk of entrapment from those bed rails. Staff E acknowledged the lack of manufacturer's instructions for the T-bars and confirmed he did not know if the T-bar bed rails, and bed frames were compatible or incompatible as mobility support as currently used by facility residents. Staff E said the T-bars had been present in the building for many years. Staff E stated, I don't have any information on the T-bars. Staff E stated, You will see by the dates listed in here (Bedrail Book), that we just started measurements (of the assist and T-bar bed rail's one entrapment zone next to the bed rail) in June of 2022. Staff E acknowledged he was aware of one previous resident death, in another facility, due to entrapment in a bed rail, but because the facility didn't have bed rails (quarter rails, half rails, or full bed rails) Staff E said he was not aware bed entrapment zones had to be measured.
During an interview on 9/26/22 at 2:27 p.m., Staff E stated, We don't have any information on the T-bars. We don't have any information at all. Staff E confirmed Environmental Services (Maintenance) (Staff) II and JJ measured all the assist/T-bars (bed rails) on June 22, 2022. Staff E said all the beds currently with T-bars were old [Brand Name] beds, and stated, We don't have information on the beds or the bars (T-bars). Staff E provided a Parts Catalogue for the old [Name Brand] beds, but no instructions for use were available or provided by the facility for either the [Name Brand] bed or the T-bars that were absent manufacturer identification/information. Staff E was asked to provide the bed manufacturer, model, serial number, and type of rail on the bed.
Review of the Bed Rails policy, revised 12/20, revealed the following information related to bed rails:
Policy: Full and half bed rails will be safely used only as needed to treat a resident's medical symptoms.
Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines:
1. The IDT (interdisciplinary team) to complete the following items prior to initiating side rail usage.
a. Complete the resident bedrails consent form.
b. Complete the bedrails clinical guidance assessment.
c. Obtain a Physician order that contains statements and determinations regarding medical symptoms and is specific to the circumstances under which bed rails are to be used and time limit for use.
d. Initiate a Care Plan.
e. Complete the [Facility Name] Side Rail Measurement Monitoring UDA at the time of instillation (sic) and every day for 4 days (to total 5 days of measurement).
f. Document corrective action taken if measurements do not meet [State Name] guidelines for gaps.
g. Complete the [Facility Name] Side Rail measurement Monitoring UDA every quarter unless resident has any of the following: new/different mattress, new/different side rails, new/different bed frame and/or resident experiences weight loss.
2. Complete the [Facility Name] Bed Rail Clinical guidance assessment quarterly.
3. Prior to the discontinuation of side rails document reasons for the discontinuation in the medical record, to include resident choice and interdisciplinary team recommendations.
Review of the Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, Hospital Bed System Dimensional and Assessment Guidance to Reduce Entrapment, Document issued on: March 10, 2006, revealed the following, in part: Potential Zones of Entrapment: This guidance describes seven zones in the hospital bed system where there is a potential for patient entrapment. Entrapment may occur in flat or articulated bed positions, with the rails fully raised or in intermediate positions . The seven areas in the bed system where there is a potential for entrapment are .:
Zone 1: Within the Rail
Zone 2: Under the Rail, Between the Rail Supports or Next to a Single Rail Support
Zone 3: Between the Rail and the Mattress
Zone 4: Under the Rail, at the Ends of the Rail
Zone 5: Between Split Bed Rails
Zone 6: Between the End of the Rail and the Side Edge of the Head or Foot Board
Zone 7: Between the Head or Foot Board and the Mattress End
During a telephone interview on 9/27/22 at 12:46 p.m., Customer Service Representative (CSR) DD, from the old [Name Brand] bed corporation, confirmed the serial numbers of the [Name Brand] model beds in question showed the beds were [AGE] years old. CSR DD said the corporation no longer made the bed model or bed rails for the [Name Brand] bed. CSR DD said hospital beds had bed rails made exactly for the model of bed in use. When asked if a different bed rail could be attached to the bed frame, CSR DD stated, For safety reasons, I would not recommend it. CSR DD was able to provide the [Name Brand] bed Owner's Operator and Maintenance Manual, copyright 2003, via email to this Surveyor.
Review of the Owner's Operator and Maintenance Manual, copyright 2003, revealed the following, in part: WARNING: DO NOT OPERATE THIS EQUIPMENT WITHOUT FIRST READING AND UNDERSTANDING THIS MANUAL .The side rails when used with a Manual/Electric bed DO NOT fall within any weight limitations. Side rails can be deformed or broken if excessive side pressure is exerted on them. These side rails are for the purpose of preventing an individual from inadvertently rolling/climbing out of bed .Replacement mattresses and bed side rails with dimensions DIFFERENT that the original equipment supplied or specified by the bed manufacturer may not be interchangeable. Variations in bed side rail design and thickness or density of the mattress could cause entrapment. Use ONLY authorized [Name Brand] replacement parts .
Review of the policy, Bed Rails, revised 12/20/22, revealed, The IDT [interdisciplinary team] is to complete, a.the bedrail consent form. b. the bedrails clinical guidance assessment. c. obtain physician order .e. complete the [company name] side rail measurement monitoring at time of installation and every days for 4 days [to total 5 days of measurements] .
An Immediate jeopardy was identified on 9/26/22. It began on 6/22/22. The Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was verbally notified on 9/26/22 at 3:30 p.m. An abatement plan was requested from the facility at this same time.
The facility's IJ Abatement Plan included the following:
1. Identification of residents affected or likely to be affected
The facility took the following actions to address the citation and prevent any additional residents from suffering an adverse outcome. (Completion Date: 9/26/2022)
Beginning on 9/26/22, the facility Unit Managers identified all residents with devices fitting the definition of bed rails.
Beginning on 9/26/22, the facility EVS (Environmental Services) is removing any bed rails without accessible manufacturer's instructions for use.
Beginning on 9/26/22, the facility Unit Managers assessed the continued need for bed rails and discontinued any bed rails no longer warranted. Resident responsible party will be notified if bed rail removed.
On 9/26/22, the Regional Director of Plant Operations educated the facility EVS Director on the proper way to perform bed rail measurements in person via electronic platform.
Beginning on 9/26/22, the EVS performed measurements, per policy, on each bed with a device fitting the description of a bed rail.
The facility Unit Manager notified the Medical Director via phone of this event and the residents impacted.
2. Actions to Prevent Occurrence/Recurrence:
The facility took the following actions to prevent an adverse outcome from reoccurring. (Completion Date: 9/26/2022).
Beginning on 9/26/22, all facility policies and procedures regarding bed rails were reviewed/revised.
Beginning on 9/26/22, the DON educated all licensed staff, prior to their next scheduled shift, on the proper use of bed rails per facility policy, the process of determining proper use of side rails depending on resident's mental and physical status, and the increased risk of injury and death when bed rails are used improperly.
Beginning on 9/26/22, the IDT reviewed and assessed all residents with bed rails to determine the appropriateness of continued bed rail placement and risk of entrapment. Physician orders for the use of bed rails were obtained for residents considered appropriate for the use of bed rails.
Beginning on 9/26/22, IDT reviewed and revised the care plans of residents with bed rails to ensure they had resident specific interventions to reflect the identified need for bed rails.
Date Facility Asserts Likelihood for Serious Harm No Longer Exists: 9/26/22
An observation on 09/26/22 at 5:01 p.m. revealed Resident #46 was observed in her room, seated on the edge of her bed. Her T-bar bedrails had been removed.
During an interview on 09/26/22 at approximately 5:10 p.m., the NHA confirmed all T-bar style bedrails in the building had been removed as they and the facility management were unable to find any manufacture's name or any other information on these style of bedrails to determine if they were safe per regulatory and standards of practice guidelines.
Although the immediate jeopardy was removed on 9/26/22, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope and severity of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that has the potential to affect a large portion of the facility's residents due to the inability to verify staff education, all policy updates, system changes, and sustained compliance.
Resident 1
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 6/6/22, showed R1 with the following diagnoses: Alzheimer's disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 4 out of 15 which reflected severely impaired cognition. R1 had impaired vision and required one staff assistance for toilet use and personal hygiene. Balance during transitions and walking were not steady. R1 was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 9:44 a.m., R1 was lying in bed with a T-bar in the upright position to only the left side of the bed. The bed pendant was clipped to the top, left side of the headboard with the control options facing the bed and not the wall. The pendant options contained six, white square buttons which read HEAD, BED, FOOT printed with black triangles indicating the movements for up and down. R1 was wearing dark colored socks without anti-slip grippers to the soles of the feet. The left sock was pulled slightly off the foot.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 10:22 a.m., R1 was lying diagonally on his back, in bed with his head positioned to the right upper corner and his leg/feet positioned to the bottom left portion of the mattress. The bed pendant was wrapped around the T-bar and dangling just above the floor. The call light was also wrapped around the T-bar and dangling directly [TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an interview and observation on 9/21/22 at 5:19 p.m., RN M, in the presence of the Director of Nursing (DON), said the la...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an interview and observation on 9/21/22 at 5:19 p.m., RN M, in the presence of the Director of Nursing (DON), said the last time she had looked at Resident #38 there was no opening (pressure injury) on the coccyx or buttocks. RN M said as of 8/24/22 Resident #38's buttock/coccyx was healed, and as of 9/6/22 (two weeks prior) there was an unblanchable area (on the right buttock) but no openings. When the bed covers were removed, Resident #38's left heel was observed pressing on the bed mattress. The 2 x 2 hydrocolloid dressing on the right buttock was dated 9/14/22. When asked about the dressing not being changed for seven days, RN M stated, That is about right, we have been doing them (dressing changes) once a week if there is nothing there. The old dressing was removed, and the right buttock area was examined by RN M. RN M stated, It does look like it is open. A layer of skin was observed absent in a circular pattern on Resident #38's right ischial tuberosity (bony prominence on right buttock), with slight peeling of additional skin when the dressing was removed and the wound cleansed with normal saline. RN M removed her dirty gloves and donned new gloves without hand sanitation. RN M was stopped by the DON and this Surveyor with the failure to perform hand hygiene. RN M removed the gloves and placed the dirty gloves onto the clean field (barrier cloth) on the resident's bed. RN M performed hand hygiene, donned clean gloves and opened the wound dressing package that was now dirty from contact with dirty gloves previously placed on the clean field.
During this procedure, RN M ran out of clean gloves. The DON retrieved a box of gloves, handed the glove box to RN M, who set it down on Resident #38's dirty bed linens. RN M was directed by the DON to put out a clean barrier cloth by touching the inside of the clean barrier cloth only with new clean gloves. RN M touched her pants pocket with her ungloved right hand. RN M performed hand hygiene with that right hand only and donned clean gloves.
RN M measured the right buttock wound as 2.2 cm (centimeters) x 1.2 cm, with no depth. The Stage II pressure injury was on a bony prominence and appeared to be over Resident #38's right ischial tuberosity. RN M did not use a garbage can/container for disposal of dirty wound supplies but continued to place the dirty wound dressings removed from the resident onto the clean barrier cloth. During this observation there were numerous infection control breaches between clean and dirty, with verbal and nonverbal direction provided by the DON and this Surveyor to maintain a clean and appropriate wound change environment throughout the procedure.
Next, the DON retrieved additional clean barrier pads. RN M placed the clean barrier pads on top of the glove box sitting on Resident #38's dirty bed linens. RN M said [Resident #38] had a plantar pinkie wound and heel pressure injuries on the left foot. No dates were observed on either the plantar pinkie or left heel dressings. RN M removed the dressing from a circular wound on the left, lateral side of the left foot, near the little (5th) toe. The dressing appeared saturated with exudate prior to removal of the dressing. When the dressing was removed, yellow/brown purulent drainage was present with a foul order. The dressing was saturated with the exudate, and thick, strands of drainage were visible as the dressing was lifted from the wound. When asked about the type of exudate and smell, RN M said the drainage was purulent with an odor. The wound was not measured, as RN M said the left pinkie was considered a plantar wart, not a pressure injury. The wound dressing was removed from the left inside heel, revealing purulent yellow/brown drainage, again with strands of sticky, thick exudate clinging onto the dressing as it was lifted from Resident #38's left heel. The wound had a strong foul odor. When asked about the exudate and smell, RN M confirmed it was again purulent and odorous. Skin was peeling off the left heel wound. The heel wound was measured at 7 cm x 5 cm, with depth undetermined. RN M said there was yellow/brownish eschar in the middle of the wound bed, but the wound appeared to have increased in size and deteriorated. RN M said both left foot wounds would be considered unstageable at this time. Several small, reddened areas were newly identified on Resident #38's feet, and RN M was asked if Resident #38 had foot/heel protectors to reduce pressure on Resident #38's feet. RN M stated, The boots I thought would be a good idea, but it is, do we have any available? I will have to look in the basement and the laundry.
RN M stated, I tried to get him into the wound clinic but because of insurance they will not take him. RN M and the DON confirmed they were awaiting a disability determination that would provide additional payment alternatives for the wound clinic.
On 9/21/22 the facility provided wound care documentation for R38. An IDT progress note dated 9/21/22 at 2:09 p.m. revealed, Wounds are stable, bottom will be assessed today, heel not better. Discussed reaching out VA for further wound care. Reviewed weights stable, takes ensure TID (660 calories, 27 grams protein) to promote healing, with very good acceptance. No change to treatment plan at this time. Participants: RD, DON, MDS/RN, Wound nurse This note was written prior to the assessment of the right buttock wound, but indicated his wounds were stable despite evidence to show that they were not. No new interventions were discussed or implemented.
During an interview on 9/22/22 at 7:25 a.m., the DON was asked about Resident #38's wound care completed by RN M on 9/21/22. When asked about what concerns she identified during observation and the amount of assistance provided during the dressing changes for three separate pressure injury dressings, the DON stated, I spoke with her (RN M) very briefly. I stressed about clean (and) dirty, hand hygiene, don't shake your hands in the air, don't touch your clothes. The lack of the garbage can. I heard [RN M] say 'I will have to see if we have any (protective foot/heel boots)' and I thought 'Oh why did you say that'. I talked to her about saying the wound clinic would not schedule him . I would say both the heel and the left lateral (wounds) were unstageable.
During a follow up interview that same day at 10:20 a.m., the DON provided copies of the physician orders for Resident #38's pressure injury wound dressings. When asked if there was a physician order for the right buttock wound, the DON stated, Oh, you are right, there were two orders I printed (left plantar and left heel). The DON acknowledged there was not a physician order in place for the right buttock wound dressing at the time of the wound treatment completed on Resident #38's right buttock wound the previous day, nor the dressing applied on 9/14/22.
During an interview on 9/22/22 at 12:55 p.m., RN M said she had returned to work at the facility in November of 2021 but had only been doing wound care for about a month. RN M acknowledged she had never been given a clear-cut job description, and stated, The previous wound care nurse tried to give me some training, but she was not here long enough to get proper training - so I wing it. My understanding is they let me know about the wounds, I assess them, I do a wound assessment, I get orders to treat, and I go from there. RN M said she had no formal or informal wound care training.
During a continued interview that same day at 1:11 p.m., when asked about a physician order for the dressing change on 9/21/22, RN M stated, [The DON] asked me to put an order in (today, 9/22/22). I told her yesterday there was not an order because I was not aware of the wound on Resident #38's bottom. RN M said she picked the order from the wound dressing protocols available within the EMR. For [Resident #38's] butt I picked the Stage 2 pressure injury with no to moderate drainage. RN M said she normally left the Duoderm dressings on for 2-3 days. When asked why seven days elapsed between the dressing change time for Resident #38's right buttock pressure injury, RN M stated, I don't know.
RN M further stated the physicians just signed the wound dressing change orders she requested. RN M said, Normally it is every 2-3 days for most dressings (to be changed). I was in the hot seat yesterday, and I didn't know about the wound, and normally it would be every three days. When asked if she had completed wound assessment documentation for the dressing change on 9/21/22, RN M said she had not. When asked if the physician had been notified of the deterioration of the left heel wound and foul odor of both the pinkie plantar wound and left heel wound, RN M said she had not provided them any notification because there had not been any change. RN M said the purulent drainage and foul odor had been present previously. RN M confirmed she had not written a progress note. When asked about her thoughts on her ability to determine pressure injury wound dressing change orders and provide appropriate care to promote healing of Resident #38's pressure injuries and to prevent the development of further pressure areas, RN M stated, I feel that I am not qualified to take care of him (Resident #38) at this point. I need training and I have been asking for help with him, but I have been running into roadblocks. Even for his knee - I cannot get it to heal, and they said no (to wound care), and they said it could be drained, but the Dr. would have to come in and do that.
During an interview on 9/22/22 at 11:45 a.m., RN H was asked about the recent Physician Order for Resident #38's right buttock pressure injury that ordered a dressing change every seven days. RN H stated, I would not have done that. I don't know why you would leave a dressing on a wound for seven days. When asked if wound orders were formulated by the physicians, or if the nursing staff created the order and had them signed by the physicians, RN H stated, To be honest our physicians do not know very much about wounds . They will call us from the clinic and ask our nurses what they should do about their wounds. They sign the orders that our nurses send to them. They normally don't tell us what to do. RN H said their facility physicians normally refer them to wound care or sign what we (the nursing staff) suggest. When asked who was competent in wound care in the facility to be able to develop wound care treatment orders, RN H stated, Well [RN M], but I don't know what training [RN M] has.
Further review of R38's progress notes revealed the following: 9/23/22 Reached out to Wound Clinic RN, ., related to odor of pressure wound to resident's heel & concern for needing a culture of all current wounds & advice from wound clinic to further treat resident . 9/23/22 Sent resident to ER via non-emergent EMS . sent to have wounds evaluated due to no available physician, L heel wound is progressively deteriorating, possible infection, evaluation required immediately . 9/23/22 Updated . wound clinic RN that resident was sent to ER to have wounds evaluated due to no available physicians until Monday . 9/23/22 Resident has returned from ER evaluation . resident has confirmed pressure ulcer with skin infection. IV rocephin and oral Bactrim DS administered in ER. Resident to start new antibiotic in the morning. Cultures were taken of wounds on heel & knee, blood cultures obtained as well as labs .
A review of the 9/24/22 wound assessment for R38 revealed, Wound #1: Right knee (front). Type: Other. 1.7 x 1.7 . Stage: N/A . Wound #2: L Plantar Pinkie . 1.8 x 1.5. Unstageable . Wound #3: Left heel. Pressure. 7x5. Depth: Unknown. Unstageable. ER (Emergency Room) started on antibiotics. Amount of drainage: heavy . Purulent . Odor after cleansing: a) strong . Offload heels if possible, apply booties, reposition every 2 hours . Wound #6: Right buttock. Pressure. 2x 1.4. Depth 0.1 (cm). Stage: 2 . reposition q2hrs (every 2 hours) . Wound #7: New. Right Trochanter (hip). Blister. 2 x 0.4. (depth and stage were left blank) . reposition .
During an interview on 9/27/22 at 2:47 p.m., the DON confirmed no wound assessment was completed by RN M on 9/21/22. The DON agreed the assessment should have been documented in the medical record. The DON confirmed the both the pinkie plantar pressure wound and the left heel wound had a foul odor on 9/21/22 with purulent, thick, yellow-brownish exudate. The DON confirmed the heel wound had greatly increased in size, and the wound dressing, when removed, was saturated with exudate. The DON said she would have telephoned the physician and reported the type and appearance of wound drainage, the worsening of the wound, and the foul smell associated with both wounds.
Resident #19
Review of Resident #19's MDS assessment, dated 7/5/22, revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the most recent re-admission on [DATE]. Active diagnoses included: stroke, hemiplegia (paralysis of left dominant side of Resident #19's body) and muscle weakness. Resident #19 scored 12 of 15 on the BIMS reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #19 required extensive two-person assistance with bed mobility, with a resident transfer not performed during the assessment period.
During an observation on 09/20/22 at1:00 p.m., Resident #19 was observed with both bare feet positioned on the bed with bilateral heels in contact with the mattress. LPN P present during the observation, confirmed Resident #19 should have her heels floated (off the bed).
During an observation on 09/21/22 at 10:02 a.m., Resident #19's bilateral bare feet were found in contact with the bed/air mattress. CNA GG, present in the room, did not offer or act to float Resident #19's heels off the bed.
Review of Resident #19's Skin Integrity Care Plan revealed the following, in part:
.I am at risk for impaired skin integrity r/t (related to) risk for moisture d/t (due to) muscle weakness, impaired mobility, edema, cardiovascular disease, left-sided hemiplegia and hemiparesis r/t previous CVA, DM, anemia, risk for decreased activity d/t chairfast, hx (history) of MASD (moisture associated skin damage) and pressure injuries to my buttocks.
Date Initiated: 07/28/2021
Protective booties on bilateral feet at all times when in bed.
Date Initiated: 05/09/2022
Review of Resident #19's POC (Point of Care) Response History for Resident #19 regarding Task: Float heels as care planned, with protective booties on both feet at all times when I am in bed, for the last 30 days as of 9/20/22, revealed the following:
- Two refusals were documented during the 30 days.
- No documentation was present for 8/24, 8/26, 8/27, 8/30, 8/31, 9/2, 9/4, 9/6, 9/8, 9/9, 9/12, 9/14, 9/15, and 9/19/22.
- Only one shift documented on the following dates:8/25, 8/28, 8/29, 9/3, 9/5, 9/7, 9/10, 9/11, and 9/13/22.
During an observation and interview on 9/21/22 at 10:45 a.m., Resident #19 was observed in bed with both bare feet (without protective booties) positioned directly on the bed mattress. When asked about refusal to wear protective booties while in bed, Resident #19 stated, No I don't refuse to wear them, (protective booties) They (facility staff) don't put them on, and I haven't seen them since they were behind the TV which has been awhile now. No protective boots were observed anywhere in the resident room during this interaction.
Resident 22 (R22)
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 7/16/22, showed R22 with the following diagnoses: weakness, anemia, encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), primary biliary cirrhosis (liver damage), ascites (abdominal swelling), and depression. The BIMS reflected moderately impaired cognition. R22 required two staff assistance for bed mobility, toilet use, hygiene, and bathing. The same assessment showed R22 was always incontinent for bowel and bladder. R22 was at risk for pressure ulcer development but was identified as having no unhealed pressure ulcers.
During an observation on 9/19/22 at 3:47 p.m., R22 was observed lying on her back in bed. The bed was not equipped with an air mattress.
On 9/22/22 around 10:15 a.m., R22's skin was observed with the DON and Registered Nurse/Infection Preventionist (IP) H. This Surveyor turned on the overbed light and ceiling light. R22 was lying supine (on back) wearing a hospital gown and a brief. R22's feet were bare and lying directly on the mattress. The linens were soiled of yellow drainage and blood. When IP H was asked about the source of the blood seen on the linens, IP H did not answer. IP H lifted R22's gown and exposed the abdomen. A large hernia was noted to the left side. The right lower abdomen contained a square bandage. When the DON was asked about the physician order for a colostomy bag placement over the paracentesis site (which now contained the square bandage), the DON said the colostomy bag was originally ordered since the site had leaked but indicated the electronic medical record had not been updated to discontinue its use. When R22 was asked if the bandage had been wet due to continued leaking, R22 responded, Yes, it has.
R22 was turned to the left side (facing the door) to observe the heels. The right outer heel was red and flat when the DON pressed on the location. The right malleolus (ankle) had a circular red pattern noted. The DON was asked to check both areas for blanching. IP H directed the DON on the procedure. The DON confirmed the sites were non- blanchable (the skin did not turn white when touched with a finger indicating Stage 1 or 2 Pressure Injury). No heel protectors were noted within the room.
R22 was then repositioned, and the brief lowered. A very thick layer of white, barrier cream was noted to the buttocks, groin, lower abdominal fold, and upper thighs. IP H removed the cream which exposed bright redness, maceration, and pressure ulcers. The right upper thigh contained an area of missing epidermis (indicative of a Stage 2 pressure ulcer) which was the approximate size of a silver dollar. R22 was then turned to the right side, where a larger area of darkened red/purplish skin was noted to the left upper buttocks. Both the DON and IP H confirmed the pressure ulcer was considered unstageable. This Surveyor requested wound measurements when Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) L entered the room and said, I noticed her skin looked worse this morning. I showed (Registered Nurse/Wound Care Nurse M). The DON immediately left the room. After waiting approximately 10 minutes, and the DON had not returned, IP H measured the pressure ulcer to the left upper buttocks as 4.5 centimeters (cm) length by 2.0 cm width with depth 0 cm. IP H after obtaining the measurement proceeded to reapply the same brief. When asked about performing wound care to address the identified wounds, IP H said Wound Care M would later address the wounds.
During an interview on 9/22/22 at 12:54 p.m., Wound Care Nurse M said resident skin assessments were to be completed at least weekly or more often if a CNA identifies a skin care concern. Wound Care Nurse M said she had not been invited to participate in Interdisciplinary Team Meetings. When asked how skin concerns were relayed to her, Wound Care Nurse M said, No one told me to review Weekly Skin Sweeps (for potential concerns) .I did not have proper training. When asked about R22's skin, Wound Care Nurse M confirmed CNA L had approached her earlier that morning around 8:30 a.m. with worsening skin concerns. Wound Care Nurse M said R22's groin was red and noted a cluster of open wounds (left buttock) which she covered with Calmoseptime Ointment. When asked about R22's right heel and ankle, Wound Care Nurse M said she had not assessed them. When asked about R22's Care Plan interventions which had not been observed: placement of an air mattress, heel protectors, repositioning with pillows for bony prominences, etc. Wound Care Nurse M said, Yeah, they didn't train me that I needed to review the Care Plan.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 1:20 p.m., two Surveyors and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) N observed R22's skin. R22 was lying flat in bed (no air mattress). Lights were turned on in the room. A pillow was found underneath R22's shins but the feet were bare and lying directly on the mattress. R22's left foot crossed over the right foot causing additional pressure points. LPN N said the right heel was spongy and a dry patch was noted. The right ankle contained a circular red patch but determined to be blanchable. R22 was placed on the left side and the brief lowered which revealed bright red/excoriated inner thighs. The top right buttocks had an area of broken skin with a red base which LPN N identified as being a Stage 2 pressure ulcer. The left upper buttocks contained four, separate areas with defined borders of broken skin which LPN N identified as being Stage 2 pressure ulcers.
Review of R22's Care Plan, revision on 8/19/22, read in part, I am at risk for impaired skin integrity r/t (related to) pain with movement, incontinence and immobility .Interventions Assist me to position body with pillows/support devices, protect bony prominences .Assist and encourage me to elevate my heels off the bed .I have an air mattress on my bed .I wear bilateral protective booties on my feet daily for pressure prevention .
Review of R22's Physician Order, 4/20/22, read in part, Assess resident skin and chart the results of the assessment on the UDA form 'SKIN OBSERVATION TOOL' found in the residents' chart under the assessment tab, every day shift every Thu (Thursday).
Review of R22's EMR showed a Weekly Skin Sweep dated 8/25/22, which identified skin discoloration, open area (left gluteal fold), and rash/excoriation.
Review of R22's Physician Orders, dated 8/18/22, read in part, Place duoderm (type of dressing) to upper thighs (2x2) & buttocks (4x4) as needed for skin breakdown Calmoseptine Ointment 0.44-20.625 % (Menthol-Zinc Oxide) Apply to groin topically as needed for raw butt.
Resident 31 (R31)
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 7/23/22, showed R31 with the following diagnoses: diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic kidney disease, vascular dementia, macular degeneration (visual impairment), anxiety, and depression. The BIMS score reflected severely impaired cognition. R31 required two-person assistance for bed mobility and transfers and one staff assistance for toilet use. The same assessment showed R31 was always incontinent for bowel and bladder. R31 was at risk for pressure ulcer development but was identified as having no unhealed pressure ulcers.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 9:56 a.m., R31's left side of the bed was pushed against the wall and a T-bar was in the upright position to the right side of the bed. The bed pendant was coiled around the T-bar and accessible to R31. The bed contained an air mattress which was turned on to a firm setting. R31 asked this Surveyor if I was able to see the two birds and was pointing towards the foot of her bed. No birds were observed. A pressure fall mat was noted to the right side of the bed with the cord extending in the walk path and not secured underneath the bed.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 10:18 a.m., R31 was found in bed with the left side of her head leaning directly against the wall.
On 9/26/22 at 12:19 p.m., R31 remained in the same position as the earlier observation the same day at 10:18 a.m. The head of the bed remained at approximately 45 degrees and R31's head was leaning against the wall. The breakfast tray was removed, and a strong urine and feces odor was noted.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 1:48 p.m., two Surveyors, Wound Care Nurse M, and CNA L were present to assess R31's skin. A strong odor of urine and feces was still present since 12:19 p.m. R31 was positioned on the left side (same as earlier). Both feet were bare, and the heels were directly on bed. A pillow was under both shins. Once the top linens were removed, a large amount of greenish, liquid stool was noted outside the brief and saturated almost the entire lift pad and second lift pad. CNA L said R31's last brief was changed on night shift (over six hours prior). No disposable incontinence wipes could be located in R31's drawers or bathroom. CNA L removed her gloves and left room (after touching linens, furniture, and oral care supplies) without the performance of hand hygiene. Upon her return, CNA L assisted Wound Care Nurse M to cleanse R31's urine/feces. CNA L gloves were changed twice without hand washing before new gloves applied. Wound Care Nurse M was asked to assess R31's heels where a dry patch was identified to the back of right heel. Wound Care Nurse M confirmed a blister had dried out which was due to pressure. When asked about interventions to prevent pressure ulcers to heels, Wound Care Nurse M said R31's should wear booties and the heels should be elevated when in bed. Wound Care Nurse M during incontinence care changed gloves three times and only washed her hands for one of the three opportunities.
Review of the Skin and Pressure Injury Risk Assessment and Prevention policy, revised 7/2021, revealed the following, in part: .Interventions for Prevention and to Promote Healing .c. Evidence-based interventions for prevention will be implemented for all residents who are assessed at risk or who have a pressure injury present. Basic or routine care interventions could include, but are not limited to . i. Redistribute pressure (such as repositioning, protecting and/or offloading heels, etc.) . 8. Wound assessments are documented upon admission, weekly, and as needed if the resident or wound condition deteriorates. Wound treatments are documented at the time of each treatment.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to 1) perform routine skin assessments, 2) provide aseptic wound care, 3) prevent the development of pressure ulcers, 4) monitor wound healing, 5) ensure licensed staff were competent in wound care, and/or 6) implement interventions to prevent the development and worsening of facility acquired pressure injuries for four Residents (R38, R19, R22 and R31) out of five residents reviewed for pressure injuries resulting in development and or worsening of pressure ulcers.
Findings include:
Resident #38
A review of R38's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, delusional disorder, and major depression. A review of the 8/2/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 3 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severely impaired cognition. This MDS revealed he was at risk for pressure ulcer development.
A review of a 9/6/22 progress note for R38 revealed, Resident has a non-blanchable area on R (right) butt measuring 1&1/2 (centimeters) by 3/4 dark area, has a hard lump within. Repositioned off area, feet elevated off bed as well. Dressing intact.
A review of the Wound Assessments for R38 dated 9/6/22, 9/9/22, and 9/15/22 revealed no assessment of this new wound to the R buttock.
Further review of the wound assessments for R38 revealed the development of the wounds as follows:
9/4/22 Wound Assessment: Wound #1. New . Left heel. Blister. 2.5(cm) x 2.6 . Suspected Deep Tissue Injury. Comfort foam and heel protector booties applied .Education provided: repositioning, aid (CNA) states she told a nurse on Friday (two days prior) of injury .
9/9/22 Wound Assessment: Wound #1. New. Acquired in-house . Left Heel. Blister. 2.5 x 2.6. (Stage) 2. Instructed CENAs to position foot away from bottom .
A second Wound assessment dated [DATE] completed by Wound RN M: Wound #1. (Not marked as new). Right knee. Other (type) 1.6x1.5 . Stage: N/a (not available) . Amount of drainage: c) moderate. Type of Drainage: d) Purulent: thin, thick, opaque, tan/yellow . Education provided: repositioning often and using pillows to keep legs from pressing into each other . Wound #2: . Right elbow. Skin tear . Wound #3: (did not indicate if new or old). Left Heel. Pressure. 2.5 x 2.6. Suspected Deep Tissue Injury . Amount of Drainage: heavy . serosanguineous . Offload heel if possible, reposition resident so he is not on his heel; reposition every 2 hours .
9/15/22 Wound Assessment: Wound #1: Right knee . Wound #2: (does not indicate that it is new) L (left) Plantar pinkie toe. Type: Other. 1.5 x 1.5 . Stage: N/a . Education provided: keep clean & dry .Wound #3: Left heel. Pressure. 8x6. Depth: unknown. Suspected Deep Tissue Injury. Unable to get into wound clinic due to insurance. Amount of drainage: d) heavy . Serosanguineous .
On 9/20/22 at 12:00 p.m., Resident (R38) was observed lying in his bed on his back. R38's feet were curled up near his abdomen, and no boots or devices were observed in use to protect his heels from breakdown. R38 appeared very thin and gaunt, and the skin on his face and hands was red, dry, and flaky.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #35
During an observation on 09/20/22 at 8:41 a.m., the breakfast trays were being distributed on the resident care ha...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #35
During an observation on 09/20/22 at 8:41 a.m., the breakfast trays were being distributed on the resident care hall. Surveyor was interviewing Resident #35 in their room. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) V dropped off a room tray to Resident #35's roommate. CNA V looked at Surveyor and Resident #35, and stated, She's a feeder, indicating CNA V would return to the room later to feed Resident #35 breakfast.
Surveyor attempted to interview CNA V after the incident, and later during the afternoon, however they were unavailable as they had left the facility.
During an interview on 09/21/22 at 11:15 a.m., Unit Manager, Registered Nurse (RN) H, was asked about CNA V's comment to Resident #35. RN H reported they understood this was inappropriate and undignified communication towards Resident #35, and they had educated staff to use the word [needing] assistance instead of the term, feeder when speaking of a resident who required feeding assistance. RN H indicated they had heard facility staff use this terminology on other occasions, and had corrected them, stating, We encourage staff not to say that.
Review of the policy, Resident Rights, revised 08/21, revealed, The resident has a right to be treated with dignity and respect .Privacy and confidentiality. The resident has the right to personal privacy and confidentiality .personal privacy includes accommodations, medical treatment .personal care .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 .
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure respectful and dignified treatment and care for three Residents (#19, #1, and #35) of 17 residents reviewed for dignity. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for feelings of humiliation and embarrassment for the identified facility residents. Findings include:
Resident #19
Review of Resident #19's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/5/22, revealed Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the most recent re-admission on [DATE]. Active diagnoses included: stroke, hemiplegia (paralysis of left dominant side of Resident #19's body) and muscle weakness. Resident #19 scored 12 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of moderate cognitive impairment and required extensive two-person assistance with bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene.
During an observation of peri care performed by Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) V and GG, for Resident #19, on 9/21/22 at 10:45 a.m., Health Information Manager (HIM)/Scheduler (Staff) R knocked on the Resident's room door. The privacy curtain was also pulled around Resident #19's bed to provide privacy during this task. CNAs V and GG responded with Cares (indicating private care were being performed in the room). Staff R proceeded to enter the room, and without any further request to enter the area of Resident #19's bed surrounded by the privacy curtain, Staff R pulled the privacy curtain open, placed her head through the opening and asked if Resident #19 had (used) oxygen. Resident #19's pubic area was completely exposed at the time of Staff R's entrance through the privacy curtain. No permission to enter Resident #19's room had been given by Resident #19 nor the staff present.
During an interview on 9/21/22 at 11:23 a.m., Staff R confirmed she had knocked on Resident #19's door and didn't hear anyone say anything, so she entered the room while staff were performing peri care for the Resident.
During an interview on 9/27/22 at 1:31 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged it was a dignity concern for Resident #19 when Staff R knocked on the door, did not hear permission granted to enter the room, did not announce herself once inside the room and before she placed her head through the opening, she created in the closed privacy curtain.
Resident 1 (R1)
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/6/22, indicated R1 had the following diagnoses: Alzheimer's disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score reflected severely impaired cognition. R1 had impaired vision and required one staff assistance for toilet use and personal hygiene. R1 was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 1:11 p.m., R1 was sitting in his wheelchair facing the back wall (behind his bed) and to the left side of his bed. The overbed table was placed in front that contained his lunch which he was consuming. The room contained a strong odor of feces and urine. R1's bed, directly to his left elbow, contained large amounts of brown, liquid on his bed linens (lift pad and sheets). Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) L, who was in the room, confirmed R1 had been incontinent of both urine and stool. CNA L said she had to leave the facility due to a family emergency from 9:15 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and now was trying to catch up.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Advanced Directive was selected and signed by the approp...
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 Advanced Directive was selected and signed by the appropriate party for one Resident (#44) out of three reviewed for advanced directives. This deficient practice resulted in R44 being signed a Do-Not-Resuscitate by an inactivated Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) and the potential for undesired treatment options. Findings include:
A review of R44's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia and history of digestive system diseases. A review of his 8/17/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 15/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating intact cognition.
A review of a 9/15/21 revealed that Family Member (FM) RR had marked for R44 to have a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) and had signed the document.
A review of a copy of R44's DPOA paperwork revealed that FM RR was noted to be the designated DPOA once R44 was deemed to be incompetent to make medical decisions by two physicians.
A review of R44's face sheet revealed that FM RR was listed as DPOA- Care (Activated) but there was no documentation of a statement of incompetency that R44 had been deemed incompetent to activate the DPOA.
On 9/20/22 at approximately 5:30 p.m., R44's competency review was requested from the Director of Nursing (DON).
On 9/21/22 at 11:09 a.m., the DON was again asked for R44's competency review.
On 9/21/22 at 11:20 a.m., the DON provided the competency review for R44. Review of this document revealed a scribble signature with no date for the first physician. The second physician signature revealed a date of 9/21/22. The DON was asked why it was dated for that day and reported she would try to find out.
On 9/21/22 at 11:57 a.m., the DON reported that the facility had sent a courier to the hospital for the physician signatures. The DON confirmed that the physician had not been in the facility on 9/21/22. When asked if there should be some type of note or assessment regarding the incompetency review, the DON reported that there should be. The DON confirmed that the Resident was only deemed incompetent as of 9/21/22. The DON was informed that the Advanced Directive had been signed by Family Member RR despite the fact that R44 had been his own person up until 9/21/22.
On 9/21/22 at 12:10 p.m., an interview with Social Services Designee (SS) J revealed she had not been able to get in contact with FM RR until a week and a half prior to the survey. When asked for the process of determining competency, SS J reported she would let the care coordinators know and they would work with the doctors to do an evaluation. When asked if there should be documentation or a progress note, SS J stated, There should be. SS J was asked why she had sent the Advanced Directive form to FM RR if R44 was his own person, and should have signed it himself and reported that the computer said that the DPOA was activated, so she had just gone with what she read.
A review of the facility policy titled, Residents Rights (undated) revealed, . The resident has the right to be informed of, and participate in, his or her treatment decisions including: . f. The right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive .
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
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 that advanced notice was given to the appropriate party for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that advanced notice was given to the appropriate party for Medicare non-coverage for one Resident (R44) out of four residents reviewed for advanced beneficiary notice (ABN). This deficient practice resulted in the Resident being unaware of his non-coverage and the lack of opportunity to appeal. Findings include:
A review of the ABN for R44 revealed the services were set to end on 8/8/22. The notice had no signature, but noted, Left a phone message for (Name of Family Member (FM) RR). Also emailed forms to (Name of FM RR) with a date of 8/3/22.
A review of R44's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia and history of digestive system diseases. A review of his 8/17/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 15/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating intact cognition.
A review of a copy of R44's DPOA paperwork revealed that FM RR was noted to be the designated DPOA once R44 was deemed to be incompetent to make medical decisions by two physicians.
A review of R44's face sheet revealed that FM RR was listed as DPOA- Care (Activated) but there was no documentation of a statement of incompetency that R44 had been deemed incompetent to activate the DPOA.
On 9/21/22 at 12:10 p.m., an interview was conducted with Social Services Designee (SS) J. When asked about the unsigned ABN, SS J reported that she had not been able to reach FM RR until the last one and half weeks. SS J was asked why she had sent the form to FM RR if R44 was his own person, and should have signed it himself, and reported that the computer said that the DPOA was activated, so she had just gone with what she read.
On 9/21/22 at approximately 11:09 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked to provide a policy on ABN notices. Only a blank ABN form was provided, but not policy.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0608
(Tag F0608)
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 that reasonable suspicions of a crime were reported to the p...
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 that reasonable suspicions of a crime were reported to the police for one Resident (#44) out of five residents reviewed for abuse. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for continued financial distress and misappropriation. Findings include:
A review of R44's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia and history of digestive system diseases. A review of his 8/17/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 15/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating intact cognition.
A review of a 9/15/21 revealed that Family Member (FM) RR had marked for R44 to have a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) and had signed the document.
A review of a copy of R44's DPOA paperwork revealed that FM RR was noted to be the designated DPOA once R44 was deemed to be incompetent to make medical decisions by two physicians.
A review of R44's face sheet revealed that FM RR was listed as DPOA- Care (Activated) but there was no documentation of a statement of incompetency that R44 had been deemed incompetent to activate the DPOA.
On 9/20/22 at approximately 5:30 p.m., R44's competency review was requested from the Director of Nursing (DON).
On 9/21/22 at 11:20 a.m., the DON provided the competency review for R44. Review of this document revealed a scribble signature with no date for the first physician. The second physician signature revealed a date of 9/21/22. The DON was asked why it was dated for that day and reported she would try to find out.
On 9/21/22 at 11:57 a.m., the DON reported that the facility had sent a courier to the hospital for the physician signatures. The DON confirmed that the physician had not been in the facility on 9/21/22. When asked if there should be some type of note or assessment regarding the incompetency review, the DON reported that there should be. The DON confirmed that the Resident was only deemed incompetent as of 9/21/22. The DON was informed that the Advanced Directive had been signed by Family Member RR despite the fact that R44 had been his own person up until 9/21/22.
On 9/21/22 at 1:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with Business Office Manger (BOM) K. When asked about who was in charge of paying R44's bills, BOM K reported that FM RR was. When asked why he was getting and paying R44's bills if the DPOA was not activated. BOM K reported she was not in that role when R44 was admitted . BOM K reported that she thought that the courts had appointed FM RR to be guardian.
On 9/21/22 at 2:10 p.m., a phone call was made to FM RR. When there was no answer a voicemail was left to return the call. FM FF never returned the call.
A review of R44's progress notes revealed the following:
9/17/21 . Called (Name of FM RR) guardian to get DNR . left three messages, no return calls.
9/20/21 Phoned residents guarding (Sic) to see if her received the email containing . DNR paperwork. Voice mail box was full, unable to leave a message. 10/26/22 Several attempts have been made to reach residents DPOA for consent for the influenza vaccine . voicemails have been left with no return call .
3/7/22 Met with resident today. We wrote a letter to his son. The letter helped him express his feelings .
4/21/22 .informed resident that he does in fact have rectal cancer and will require surgical intervention at this time and will then need a colostomy post surgery due to location of tumor. Son (FM RR) will be contacted . to update/obtain consent .
4/22/22 . worked on a letter to his son about his recent doctor appointment. 4/29/22 Resident weeping stating he will not be able to go home with the colostomy bag. Resident worried about the colostomy .
5/2/22 . Plan to have surgery on 5/5/22 . due to rectal cancer. Plan is to have a permanent colostomy placed after removal of rectal cancer. Resident will have a colostomy placed and plans to be permanent . 5/20/22 Writer called DPOA message left to call facility back. 911 called for transfer to (Name of Emergency Room) .
5/22/22 . He is not tolerating his care well and states he wishes to die. Resident requested to speak with a priest & his son as he feels he will be dying soon .
5/24/22 E-mailed son (FM RR) regarding Covid-19 booster if he wanted resident to get it. No response yet.
9/7/22 Resident received a check in the mail over the weekend. Nursing gave the check to the business office. Business Office is mailing it out to his DPOA, (FM RR). Resident is worried about his check .
9/8/22 Resident upset because the doctor told him he will have the bag (colostomy) for the rest of his life. Resident was very weepy .
Five more progress notes dated 11/20/21, 3/1/22, 3/8/22, 5/25/22, and 8/22/22 revealed that FM RR was contacted regarding R44's care but no return call was received. There was no documentation that R44 was involved in the decision making regarding his surgery on 5/5/22 or any documentation that FM RR was including R44 in his decision making, despite R44 being his own person.
A review of a 1/27/22 social services progress note for R44 revealed, SSD (social services director) received this email and spoke to resident to explain the situation.I also have gotten voicemails from my dad wondering why I don't come see him. Most of his calls are either while I am at work or the call doesn't come through as I live in an area with poor cell service. I will not come visit as long as there is an issue with COVID. Masks do not work. My wife wears a KN95 mask all day at work and still got COVID from a client at work. I will send my dad's Xmas and birthday gifts via (mail). I will also send my dad a letter explaining my absence. His messages on my voicemail have prompted this email as it sounds like, according to his messages, that I am avoiding him, which is not the case. I am avoiding contracting COVID. In the meantime, if you could explain that to my dad, that would be greatly appreciated .
On 9/21/22 at 4:41 p.m., BOM K followed up to reported that she had checked and there was nothing to show that FM RR was the court appointed decision maker for R44. BOM K continued on to say that she was going to become Representative Payee as FM RR was having difficulty keeping up on payments and would pay sporadically. BOM K reported FM RR had never been to the facility, but that she had spoke with him one time on the phone but it was staticky and hard to hear. When asked for the status for R44's debt to the facility, BOM K reported it was .Like $20,000.00 . because FM RR hadn't signed R44 up for Medicaid timely. BOM K provided a document showing that R38 had received income from a retirement account, which showed that $10,574.24 had been dispersed to R44 since the first of the year, yet it was the first check that the facility had received. BOM K confirmed that she believed that FM RR was getting all of R44's income, mail, and bills. BOM K was asked to show the amounts that FM RR had paid. BOM K was asked if she felt that it was suspicious behavior, and reported that she had educated FM RR that the money was . supposed to be used for (Name of R44's) medical bills, and not for him to live on .
On 9/21/22 at 5:14 p.m., an interview was conducted with Social Service Designee (SS) J. When asked if FM RR had ever been in to visit R44 and reported that he had not. SS J also confirmed that despite R44 writing numerous letters to FM RR, they had never received any letters from FM RR in response. SS J reported she did not know the relationship between R44 and FM RR. SS J was asked if she felt that FM RRs behaviors of refusing to speak or see R44 or pay his bills was concerning, but SS J provided no comment.
On 9/21/22 at 5:51 p.m., a phone interview was conducted with Former Caregiver (CG) SS of R44 who was listed as Next of Kin on R44's facesheet. When asked how he was related to R44, CG SS reported he was not family, but was a previous caretaker at the assisted living facility that R44 resided at previously. CG SS also reported that R44 had been his own decision maker prior to coming to the facility.
On 9/22/22 at 8:56 a.m., BOM K was asked to provide the financial records for R44 again, but reported she was still working on it.
On 9/22/22 at 10:20 a.m., R44 was observed in bed wearing a hospital gown. R44 was asked when he had last seen his son, FM RR and stated, I don't know, a long time . I can't really remember. When asked if he received his letters, bills, or income, R44 reported that his son (FM RR) took care of all of that. When asked if he had any spending money to buy things like new clothes or pay for a haircut, R44 stated, I would like some (money). But I don't know if he (FM RR)has any money for me. He works for poor people and only makes $25 an hour.
A review of R44's Resident Personal Possessions Inventory dated 9/15/21 revealed only the following four items: 1 Sweatshirt, 1 Shoes, 1 Sweater, 1 Belt.
On 9/22/22 at 10:23 a.m., an interview was conducted with SS J who when asked about if FM RR had been providing R44 with new clothes or items over the past year, SS J reported that she was only aware of him purchasing a pair of headphones.
On 9/22/22 at 11:59 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Administrator, who when asked about the situation of R44 and FM RR lack of payment and care for R44 stated We are working with corporate on making a plan. When asked about why FM RR was designated as an activated DPOA if R44 was still his own person, the Administrator reported it was because the family had a fear that R44 would give all of his money to the church and not pay his bills. The Administrator was asked if she was aware that FM RR was in fact no paying R44's patient pay amount and reported that she was and would probably follow up with family services or Adult Protective Services. When asked how she was ruling out the potential for elder abuse and misappropriation, the Administrator reported they were trying to collect (payment) from the son and asked for any receipts to show how he had used R44's money. When asked if the facility would be reporting the concern to any other agencies, the Administrator stated, Not at this time.
A review of the document titled Activity Report for R44 revealed he currently owed the facility $26,832.28 and the only payment documented that FM RR had made was $1500.00 on 6/9/22. A review of a note dated 5/26/22 Received email form (FM RR) that read: (Name of Facility) will receive payments twice a month; the first week of the month and mid-month as my dad?s (sic) funds become available . Despite this note, there was no documented payments after 6/9/22 and R44 continued to accrue more debt to the facility.
A review of the facility police titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation revised 12/20 revealed, . 'Misappropriation of Resident Property' means the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful temporary or permanent, use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent . II. Employee Training . C. Training topics will include: . 3. Recognizing signs of abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property, such as physical or psychosocial indicators; . 1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g., law enforcement, when applicable) .
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 reasonable suspicions of a crime were reported to the p...
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 reasonable suspicions of a crime were reported to the police for one Resident (#44) out of five reviewed for abuse. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for financial abuse. Findings include:
A review of R44's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia and history of digestive system diseases. A review of his 8/17/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 15/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating intact cognition.
A review of a 9/15/21 revealed that Family Member (FM) RR had marked for R44 to have a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) and had signed the document.
A review of a copy of R44's DPOA paperwork revealed that FM RR was noted to be the designated DPOA once R44 was deemed to be incompetent to make medical decisions by two physicians.
A review of R44's face sheet revealed that FM RR was listed as DPOA- Care (Activated) but there was no documentation of a statement of incompetency that R44 had been deemed incompetent to activate the DPOA.
On 9/20/22 at approximately 5:30 p.m., R44's competency review was requested from the Director of Nursing (DON).
On 9/21/22 at 11:20 a.m., the DON provided the competency review for R44. Review of this document revealed a scribble signature with no date for the first physician. The second physician signature revealed a date of 9/21/22. The DON was asked why it was dated for that day and reported she would try to find out.
On 9/21/22 at 11:57 a.m., the DON reported that the facility had sent a courier to the hospital for the physician signatures. The DON confirmed that the physician had not been in the facility on 9/21/22. When asked if there should be some type of note or assessment regarding the incompetency review, the DON reported that there should be. The DON confirmed that the Resident was only deemed incompetent as of 9/21/22. The DON was informed that the Advanced Directive had been signed by Family Member RR despite the fact that R44 had been his own person up until 9/21/22.
On 9/21/22 at 1:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with Business Office Manger (BOM) K. When asked about who was in charge of paying R44's bills, BOM K reported that FM RR was. When asked why he was getting and paying R44's bills if the DPOA was not activated. BOM K reported she was not in that role when R44 was admitted . BOM K reported that she thought that the courts had appointed FM RR to be guardian.
On 9/21/22 at 2:10 p.m., a phone call was made to FM RR. When there was no answer a voicemail was left to return the call. FM FF never returned the call.
A review of R44's progress notes revealed the following:
9/17/21 . Called (Name of FM RR) guardian to get DNR . left three messages, no return calls.
9/20/21 Phoned residents guarding (Sic) to see if her received the email containing . DNR paperwork. Voice mail box was full, unable to leave a message. 10/26/22 Several attempts have been made to reach residents DPOA for consent for the influenza vaccine . voicemails have been left with no return call .
3/7/22 Met with resident today. We wrote a letter to his son. The letter helped him express his feelings .
4/21/22 .informed resident that he does in fact have rectal cancer and will require surgical intervention at this time and will then need a colostomy post surgery due to location of tumor. Son (FM RR) will be contacted . to update/obtain consent .
4/22/22 . worked on a letter to his son about his recent doctor appointment. 4/29/22 Resident weeping stating he will not be able to go home with the colostomy bag. Resident worried about the colostomy .
5/2/22 . Plan to have surgery on 5/5/22 . due to rectal cancer. Plan is to have a permanent colostomy placed after removal of rectal cancer. Resident will have a colostomy placed and plans to be permanent . 5/20/22 Writer called DPOA message left to call facility back. 911 called for transfer to (Name of Emergency Room) .
5/22/22 . He is not tolerating his care well and states he wishes to die. Resident requested to speak with a priest & his son as he feels he will be dying soon .
5/24/22 E-mailed son (FM RR) regarding Covid-19 booster if he wanted resident to get it. No response yet.
9/7/22 Resident received a check in the mail over the weekend. Nursing gave the check to the business office. Business Office is mailing it out to his DPOA, (FM RR). Resident is worried about his check .
9/8/22 Resident upset because the doctor told him he will have the bag (colostomy) for the rest of his life. Resident was very weepy .
Five more progress notes dated 11/20/21, 3/1/22, 3/8/22, 5/25/22, and 8/22/22 revealed that FM RR was contacted regarding R44's care but no return call was received. There was no documentation that R44 was involved in the decision making regarding his surgery on 5/5/22 or any documentation that FM RR was including R44 in his decision making, despite R44 being his own person.
A review of a 1/27/22 social services progress note for R44 revealed, SSD (social services director) received this email and spoke to resident to explain the situation.I also have gotten voicemails from my dad wondering why I don't come see him. Most of his calls are either while I am at work or the call doesn't come through as I live in an area with poor cell service. I will not come visit as long as there is an issue with COVID. Masks do not work. My wife wears a KN95 mask all day at work and still got COVID from a client at work. I will send my dad's Xmas and birthday gifts via (mail). I will also send my dad a letter explaining my absence. His messages on my voicemail have prompted this email as it sounds like, according to his messages, that I am avoiding him, which is not the case. I am avoiding contracting COVID. In the meantime, if you could explain that to my dad, that would be greatly appreciated .
On 9/21/22 at 4:41 p.m., BOM K followed up to reported that she had checked and there was nothing to show that FM RR was the court appointed decision maker for R44. BOM K continued on to say that she was going to become Representative Payee as FM RR was having difficulty keeping up on payments and would pay sporadically. BOM K reported FM RR had never been to the facility, but that she had spoke with him one time on the phone but it was staticky and hard to hear. When asked for the status for R44's debt to the facility, BOM K reported it was .Like $20,000.00 . because FM RR hadn't signed R44 up for Medicaid timely. BOM K provided a document showing that R38 had received income from a retirement account, which showed that $10,574.24 had been dispersed to R44 since the first of the year, yet it was the first check that the facility had received. BOM K confirmed that she believed that FM RR was getting all of R44's income, mail, and bills. BOM K was asked to show the amounts that FM RR had paid. BOM K was asked if she felt that it was suspicious behavior, and reported that she had educated FM RR that the money was . supposed to be used for (Name of R44's) medical bills, and not for him to live on .
On 9/21/22 at 5:14 p.m., an interview was conducted with Social Service Designee (SS) J. When asked if FM RR had ever been in to visit R44 and reported that he had not. SS J also confirmed that despite R44 writing numerous letters to FM RR, they had never received any letters from FM RR in response. SS J reported she did not know the relationship between R44 and FM RR. SS J was asked if she felt that FM RRs behaviors of refusing to speak or see R44 or pay his bills was concerning, but SS J provided no comment.
On 9/21/22 at 5:51 p.m., a phone interview was conducted with Former Caregiver (CG) SS of R44 who was listed as Next of Kin on R44's face sheet. When asked how he was related to R44, CG SS reported he was not family, but was a previous caretaker at the assisted living facility that R44 resided at previously. CG SS also reported that R44 had been his own decision maker prior to coming to the facility.
On 9/22/22 at 8:56 a.m., BOM K was asked to provide the financial records for R44 again, but reported she was still working on it.
On 9/22/22 at 10:20 a.m., R44 was observed in bed wearing a hospital gown. R44 was asked when he had last seen his son, FM RR and stated, I don't know, a long time . I can't really remember. When asked if he received his letters, bills, or income, R44 reported that his son (FM RR) took care of all of that. When asked if he had any spending money to buy things like new clothes or pay for a haircut, R44 stated, I would like some (money). But I don't know if he (FM RR)has any money for me. He works for poor people and only makes $25 an hour.
A review of R44's Resident Personal Possessions Inventory dated 9/15/21 revealed only the following four items: 1 Sweatshirt, 1 Shoes, 1 Sweater, 1 Belt.
On 9/22/22 at 10:23 a.m., an interview was conducted with SS J who when asked about if FM RR had been providing R44 with new clothes or items over the past year, SS J reported that she was only aware of him purchasing a pair of headphones.
On 9/22/22 at 11:59 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Administrator, who when asked about the situation of R44 and FM RR lack of payment and care for R44 stated We are working with corporate on making a plan. When asked about why FM RR was designated as an activated DPOA if R44 was still his own person, the Administrator reported it was because the family had a fear that R44 would give all of his money to the church and not pay his bills. The Administrator was asked if she was aware that FM RR was in fact no paying R44's patient pay amount and reported that she was and would probably follow up with family services or Adult Protective Services. When asked how she was ruling out the potential for elder abuse and misappropriation, the Administrator reported they were trying to collect (payment) from the son and asked for any receipts to show how he had used R44's money. When asked if the facility would be reporting the concern to any other agencies, the Administrator stated, Not at this time.
A review of the document titled Activity Report for R44 revealed he currently owed the facility $26,832.28 and the only payment documented that FM RR had made was $1500.00 on 6/9/22. A review of a note dated 5/26/22 Received email form (FM RR) that read: (Name of Facility) will receive payments twice a month; the first week of the month and mid-month as my dad?s (sic) funds become available . Despite this note, there was no documented payments after 6/9/22 and R44 continued to accrue more debt to the facility.
A review of the facility police titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation revised 12/20 revealed, . 'Misappropriation of Resident Property' means the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful temporary or permanent, use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent . II. Employee Training . C. Training topics will include: . 3. Recognizing signs of abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property, such as physical or psychosocial indicators; . 1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g., law enforcement, when applicable) .
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurate for one Resident (#44) out of 52 residents reviewed for accurate assessments. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for inaccurate care. Findings include:
On 9/19/22 at 3:55 p.m., Resident #38 (R38) was observed lying in bed with no tube feeding or other devices in his room.
A review of R38's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, delusional disorder, and major depression. A review of the 8/2/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 3/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severely impaired cognition. This MDS also revealed he had a feeding tube that provided more than 50% of his caloric needs.
A review of R38's medical record revealed no documentation that he had ever received a tube feeding at the facility.
On 9/22/22 at approximately 11:55 a.m., Registered Nurse(RN)/MDS coordinator X was asked about the coding of the tube feeding and reported it must have been an error. RN/MDS X confirmed that R38 was not receiving a tube feeding.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure interventions were in place to prevent decline...
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 interventions were in place to prevent declines in range of motion related to contractures for one Resident (#38) out of four reviewed for range of motion. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for a further decline in range of motion, pressure ulcer development, and skin infection. Findings include:
A review of R38's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, delusional disorder, and major depression. A review of the 8/2/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 3 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severely impaired cognition. R38 required extensive assistance of two or more staff for hygiene and was totally dependent on staff for showering/bathing.
On 9/20/22 at 12:00 p.m., R38 was observed lying in bed on his back with his feet curled up near his body. R38's left hand was observed with no palm protector or wash cloth in it.
On 9/22/22 at 9:23 a.m., R38 was observed lying in bed. There was no palm protector or washcloth in his left hand.
A review of R38's care plan for skin integrity dated 11/11/21 revealed, . I wear a left hand palm protector at all times. Staff to make sure this is on at all times. If palm protector needs to be washed, wash it by hand and place a rolled up wash cloth in place until it dries then put it back on the left hand . A review of the care plan for contractures dated 5/3/22 revealed, .Left hand palm protector on at all times .
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate catheter care per professional st...
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 appropriate catheter care per professional standards of practice for one Resident (#12) of two residents reviewed for catheter care. This deficient practice had the potential to result in a urinary tract infection. Findings include.
Review of Resident #12's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), and retention of urine. Resident #12 required extensive, two-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and hygiene. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) revealed Resident #12 scored 15/15, which indicated normal cognition. The assessment revealed Resident #12 had an indwelling (urinary) catheter.
An observation on 09/20/22 at 10:53 a.m. revealed Resident #12 in bed with the urinary catheter bag hanging from the bed off the floor in a privacy bag. The urine in the tubing appeared light pink in color, with minimal sediment in the tubing. Resident #12 reported mild intermittent pain at the insertion site, and had told nursing staff.
An observation on 09/21/22 at 9:11 a.m. revealed Resident #12 in bed with the urinary catheter bag hanging from the bed off the floor in a privacy bag. The urine in the tubing appeared a dark yellow in color, with no sediment observed. Resident #12 reported no pain or concerns.
Review of Resident #12's physician orders showed Resident #12's indwelling (foley) catheter drainage bag was scheduled to be changed on the 1st and 15th of every month, and as needed when non-functional.
Review of Resident #12's Medication Administration Records (MAR) and Treatment Administration Records (TAR) during the past three months revealed Resident #12's urinary catheter was not changed twice monthly per physician orders during the months of July and August (2022).
During an interview on 09/22/22 at 12:53 p.m., Unit manager, Registered Nurse (RN) H was asked to review Resident #12's MAR's and TAR's with Surveyor. RN H concurred on August 1st (2022) the catheter bag was not changed, and on July 1st and 15th (2022) the catheter bag was not changed. RN H reported they personally changed Resident #12's urinary catheter once in July (on July 8th). RN H concurred post review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR), Resident #12's urinary catheter was only changed once during each month (July and August, 2022). When asked if this was acceptable per standards of practice, RN H responded, It should be done [the catheter bag changed] twice a month. RN H acknowledged at that time they had nursing staffing challenges, and they had since assigned a nurse to keep track so this would not recur. RN H reported Resident #12 was sore on July 8th when she was working a midnight shift, and this was why she personally changed the catheter at that time (as it was missed on July 1st). When asked about a potential outcome, RN H reported a urinary tract infection could have occurred.
A policy was requested related to Catheter Care. The facility provided a document regarding the catheter care process, titled, Catheter Care Audit Tool, Infection Prevention and Control, Resident Care, undated and blank. The tool/checklist did not reference when the urinary catheter drainage bag should be changed.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #33
During an observation on 9/19/22 at 4:13 p.m., Resident #33's nebulizer mouthpiece, medication cup and tubing exten...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #33
During an observation on 9/19/22 at 4:13 p.m., Resident #33's nebulizer mouthpiece, medication cup and tubing extension were connected and sitting upright in the holder on the side of the nebulizer machine. Condensation was visible on the medication cup. The nebulizer inhalation components had not been separated, rinsed, and allowed to dry prior to storage.
Review of Resident #33's MDS assessment, dated 7/27/22, revealed Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with active diagnoses that included: cerebrovascular accident (stroke), hemiplegia, (paralysis of one side of the body), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and history of other disease of the respiratory system. Resident #33 scored 11 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of moderate cognitive impairment.
Review of Resident #33's Physician Orders, revealed the following, in part:
[Ipratropium-Albuterol] 0.5 - 2.5 (3) MG (milligrams)/3ML (milliliters), 3 ml inhale orally every 4 hours as needed for Shortness of breath (SOB). Start Date: 6/14/22.
[Albuterol Sulfate HFA] Aerosol Solution 108 (90 Base) 1 inhalation inhale orally every 4 hours as needed for SOB. Start Date: 4/22/22.
Review of the Nebulizer Therapy policy, reviewed/revised 1/2022, revealed the following, in part: .10. When the medication delivery is complete, turn the machine off. Treatment may be considered complete with the onset of nebulizer sputtering . 12. Disassemble and rinse the nebulizer and allow to air dry. Care of the Equipment: 1. Disassemble parts after every treatment. 2.Store dry nebulizers in mesh bags, clear plastic bag or proper clean storage per the facility's preference .
During an interview on 9/21/22 at 4:55 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the expectation that nebulizers would be taken apart, rinsed, and left to dry on a barrier cloth prior to placement in a plastic bag for storage, to prevent potential infectious organism growth inside of the medication cup following use.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain respiratory equipment by failing to change such equipment per their facility policy (weekly) and the facility failed to store the equipment by aseptic technique, for three Residents (R22, R29, and R33) of three residents reviewed for respiratory care. This deficient practice had the potential for the development for cross-contamination of respiratory equipment and possible transmission of infectious organisms. Findings include:
During the facility's initial tour on 9/19/22 at 3:37 p.m., R22 had oxygen in use via a nasal cannula (medical device used to deliver oxygen via the nose) at 2.5 liters per minute. The nasal cannula tubing contained a label dated 5/23 (no year) which was handwritten in black marker. The humidifier bottle also contained the same date of 5/23 which was handwritten on the top right side of the bottle.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 10:02 a.m., R29 had oxygen in use via a nasal cannula. The portable oxygen tank found in the pocket of her wheelchair contained connected oxygen tubing (nasal cannula) hanging freely and not contained within a plastic bag.
During an interview on 9/20/22 at 12:43 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the facility's policy was to change oxygen tubing/supplies on a weekly basis or more often if contaminated to prevent the risk of cross-contamination and infections.
Review of the facility's policy, Oxygen Administration and Concentrator Policy reviewed/revised 12/20, read in part, Infection control measures include: .Change oxygen tubing and mask/cannula weekly and as needed if it becomes soiled or contaminated and document in the medical record. d. Keep delivery devices stored in a sanitary manner.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0713
(Tag F0713)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 24 hour emergency physician care for one Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 24 hour emergency physician care for one Resident (#38) out of 17 residents reviewed for physician services. This deficient practice resulted in Resident #38 (R38) being transferred to the hospital due to lack of an available physician. Findings include:
Resident #38
A review of R38's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, delusional disorder, and major depression. A review of the 8/2/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 3/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severely impaired cognition. This MDS revealed he was at risk for pressure ulcer development, and during the assessment had two Stage 1 pressure ulcers and one Stage 2 pressure ulcer, neither of which were present upon admission.
A review of the 9/24/22 wound assessment for R38 revealed, Wound #1: Right knee (front). Type: Other. 1.7 x 1.7 . Stage: N/A . Wound #2: L Plantar Pinkie . 1.8 x 1.5. Unstageable . Wound #3: Left heel. Pressure. 7x5. Depth: Unknown. Unstageable. ER (Emergency Room) started on antibiotics. Amount of drainage: heavy . Purulent . Odor after cleansing: a) strong . Offload heels if possible, apply booties, reposition every 2 hours . Wound #6: Right buttock. Pressure. 2x 1.4. Depth 0.1 (cm). Stage: 2 . reposition q2hrs (every 2 hours) . Wound #7: New. Right Trochanter (hip). Blister. 2 x 0.4. (depth and stage were left blank) . reposition .
Further review of R38's progress notes revealed the following: 9/23/22 Sent resident to ER via non-emergent EMS . sent to have wounds evaluated due to no available physician, L heel wound is progressively deteriorating, possible infection, evaluation required immediately . 9/23/22 Updated . wound clinic RN that resident was sent to ER to have wounds evaluated due to no available physicians until Monday . 9/23/22 Resident has returned from ER evaluation . resident has confirmed pressure ulcer with skin infection. IV rocephin and oral Bactrim DS administered in ER .
On 9/26/22 at 10:49 a.m., a policy regarding 24 hour physician services was requested from the Administrator, but it was not provided by the end of the survey.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0741
(Tag F0741)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that staff received dementia training for four of five newly hired staff reviewed with the potential to affect all 52 residents resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that staff received dementia training for four of five newly hired staff reviewed with the potential to affect all 52 residents residing in the facility. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for unmet behavioral health needs for residents with dementia.
Findings include:
A review of five newly hired staff education records for dementia care training revealed the following:
Activities Aide PP was hired on 9/12/22 but had not completed the required dementia care education.
Registered Nurse (RN) BB was hired on 8/9/22 but had not completed the required dementia care education.
Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) OO was hired on 7/19/22, but had not completed the required dementia care education.
Nurse Aide (NA) NN was hired on 8/16/22, but had not completed the required dementia care education.
On 9/21/22 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with Human Resources (HR) I. When asked about Activity Aide PP's missing dementia education, HR I reported that she was out sick when Activity Aide PP was in orientation, and she needs to schedule for her to complete it. When asked if she was already working with residents, HR I reported that she was. HR I confirmed that she was unable to find the dementia care training for RN BB, CNA OO, and NA NN. HR I reported that she is new to the role and was not aware that staff needed the dementia training during orientation before they started working with residents. HR I reported she would change the policy to reflect that.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0745
(Tag F0745)
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 provide social services for one Resident (#44) out of 17 residents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide social services for one Resident (#44) out of 17 residents reviewed for social services. This deficient practice resulted in the unmet social service needs. Findings include:
Resident #44
A review of R44's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia and history of digestive system diseases. A review of his 8/17/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 15/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating intact cognition.
A review of R44's face sheet revealed that FM RR was listed as DPOA- Care (Activated) but there was no documentation of a statement of incompetency that R44 had been deemed incompetent to activate the DPOA.
A review of a 9/15/21 revealed that Family Member (FM) RR had marked for R44 to have a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) and had signed the document.
A review of a copy of R44's DPOA paperwork revealed that FM RR was noted to be the designated DPOA once R44 was deemed to be incompetent to make medical decisions by two physicians.
On 9/21/22 at 11:20 a.m., the DON provided the competency review for R44 dated 9/21/22. The DON reported that it was just brought to their attention that the form had not been signed, so they had it done that day. The DON confirmed that the Resident was only deemed incompetent as of 9/21/22. The DON was informed that the Advanced Directive on 9/15/21 had been signed by Family Member RR despite the fact that R44 had been his own person up until 9/21/22.
On 9/21/22 at 12:10 p.m., an interview with Social Services Designee (SS) J revealed she had not been able to get in contact with FM RR until a week and a half prior to the survey, only via email. When asked about the Advanced Directive signed 9/15/21 for R44, SS J reported that R44 should have signed it himself and reported that the computer said (on the face sheet) that the DPOA was activated, so she had just gone with what she read. SS J confirmed that she did not check when she started working at the building that the DPOA was activated.
On 9/21/22 at 9:14 p.m., SS J was asked if FM RR had ever come in to visit R44 and reported that she did not believe that he had ever come in to visit. SS J confirmed that she helped R44 to write letters to FM RR, but that FM RR had never returned a letter or called his father. When asked how an inactivated or activated DPOA could ensure they were following the Residents wishes for care and treatment if they refused to communicate with them, SS J provided no comment.
A review of the facilities job descriptions for Social Services Advocate - Bachelor's revised 1/16/18 revealed, . Assess and evaluate each resident's psychosocial needs and develop goals for providing the necessary services . Ensure completion of any required components of DPOA or guardianship paperwork .
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** Resident #22
According to the MDS assessment, dated 7/16/22, R22 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following dia...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #22
According to the MDS assessment, dated 7/16/22, R22 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: primary biliary cirrhosis (liver disease), ascites (abdominal swelling), edema, encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), anemia, weakness, and depression. The BIMS score was 11 out of 15 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. Resident #22 (R22) required two staff assistance with bed mobility, toilet use, hygiene, and bathing. The same MDS assessment indicated no condition or chronic disease that may result in a life expectancy of less than six months.
During an intial interview on 9/19/22 at 3:47 p.m., R22 indicated her code status was a full code.
During an interview on 9/20/22 at 11:13 a.m., Social Services (SS) J said R22 was her own person (able to make her own medical decisions) and confirmed R22's admission Record identified her as being a Full Code and the Advanced Directives, dated 9/9/22, reflected the same. When asked about the Attending Physician (MD) HH's Progress Note, dated 9/14/22, which read in part, The patient is a DNR (do not resuscitate-should not receive cardiopulmonary resucitation if that person's heart stops beating). SS J responded, I'm not sure why that would be in there. I'm wondering if it's a mistake in his charting.
Review of R22's MD HH's Progress Note, dated 4/12/22 read in part, CODE STATUS full.
Review of R22's hospital Discharge Summary electronically signed on 8/25/22, by MD HH read in part, admission DIAGNOSIS: .DNR .DISCHARGE DIAGNOSIS: .DNR.
Review of R22's hospital History and Physical electronically signed on 8/25/22 by MD HH read in part, She is a DNR.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that medical records were complete and accurate for two Residents (#22, #44) out of 17 residents reviewed for medical records. This deficient practice resulted in incorrect decision makers and the potential for lack of resuscitation. Findings include:
Resident #44
A review of R44's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia and history of digestive system diseases. A review of his 8/17/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 15/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating intact cognition.
A review of R44's face sheet revealed that FM RR was listed as DPOA- Care (Activated) but there was no documentation of a statement of incompetency that R44 had been deemed incompetent to activate the DPOA.
A review of a 9/15/21 revealed that Family Member (FM) RR had marked for R44 to have a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) and had signed the document.
A review of a copy of R44's DPOA paperwork revealed that FM RR was noted to be the designated DPOA once R44 was deemed to be incompetent to make medical decisions by two physicians.
On 9/21/22 at 11:20 a.m., the DON provided the competency review for R44 dated 9/21/22. The DON reported that it was just brought to their attention that the form had not been signed, so they had it done that day. The DON confirmed that the Resident was only deemed incompetent as of 9/21/22. The DON was informed that the Advanced Directive on 9/15/21 had been signed by Family Member RR despite the fact that R44 had been his own person up until 9/21/22.
On 9/21/22 at 12:10 p.m., an interview with Social Services Designee (SS) J revealed she had not been able to get in contact with FM RR until a week and a half prior to the survey. SS J was asked why she had sent the Advanced Directive form to FM RR if R44 was his own person. SS J stated R44 should have signed it himself and reported that the computer said (on the face sheet) that the DPOA was activated, so she had just gone with what she read. SS J confirmed that she did not check when started working at the building that the DPOA was activated.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
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 offer one resident (R31) the opportunity to be vaccinated with Pneu...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to offer one resident (R31) the opportunity to be vaccinated with Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines (PCV15, PCV20, or PPSV23), based on availability, of five residents reviewed for pneumococcal vaccinations. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for increased risk for pneumonia. Findings include:
Review of R31's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/23/22, showed an admission date of 10/13/21 with the following major diagnoses: diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, dementia, chronic kidney disease, anxiety, and depression. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 7 out of 15 which indicated severe impaired cognition. R31 required two staff assistance with bed mobility and transfers. The same MDS assessment showed R31 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder which required one staff assistance.
Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) showed R31 had not received any of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccines: PCV13, PCV15, PCV20, or PPSV23 in the past nor had a refusal and a declination been documented.
During an interview on 9/21/22 at 8:20 a.m., Registered Nurse/Infection Preventionist (IP) H was asked to provide evidence R31 was offered a pneumococcal vaccine upon admission and/or thereafter. IP H acknowledged several residents were in need for pneumococcal vaccinations and said the facility was planning a vaccination clinic in the coming weeks with the local health department.
A follow-up electronic transmission (e-mail) was sent on 9/21/22 at 2:22 p.m. to IP H to verify R31's pneumococcal immunization history and/or declination. No additional information was provided for R31.
During an interview on 9/22/22 at approximately 8:30 a.m., IP H was informed the facility provided policy, Pneumococcal Vaccine (Series) date reviewed/revised 12/20, had not been revised with the current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip) which was approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov). IP H said she was unaware of the vaccine recommendations hd changed.
Review of the (CDC's) Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2022 read in part, Pneumococcal vaccination- Routine vaccination age [AGE] years or older who have not previously received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose previous vaccination history is unknown: 1 dose PCV15 or 1 dose PCV20. If PCV15 is used, this should be followed by a dose of PPSV23 given at least 1 year after the PCV15 dose.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
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 track and ensure one current staff member, Licensed Practical Nurse...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to track and ensure one current staff member, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) P was vaccinated for COVID-19 from three staff reviewed with medical exemptions. This deficient practice resulted in the potential of increased risk of exposure of COVID-19 to all 52 residents residing in the facility. Findings include:
Review of LPN P's Medical Exemption letter, provided by the facility's, Department of Human Resources, dated [DATE], read in part, The healthcare provider's note that you provided to us on [DATE], stated that you have the following work restrictions: Medical contraindications to the COVID-19 Vaccine .(LPN P) will be given exemption from (the facility's) COVID-19 vaccine mandate .We will review this accommodation on or around February 17, 2022.
Review of LPN P's, facility provided, COVID-19 Medical Exemption Request dated [DATE], read in part, I am requesting exemption from vaccination until after XXX[DATE].
During an interview on [DATE] at 9:25 a.m., Registered Nurse/Infection Preventionist (IP) H confirmed LPN P's COVID-19 medical exemption had not been reviewed to determine it had expired nor had LPN P received vaccination for COVID-19. IP H said the facility's policy was for both medical and religious exemptions to be reviewed/approved at the corporate level and not locally by the facility's Medical Director and Infection Preventionist.
Review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Summary Document for Interim Clinical Considerations updated [DATE], https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/interim-considerations, supports LPN P's expired medical exemption required another physician's review to determine eligibility per current CDC's guidelines.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the State Ombudsman of acute hospital transfer notifications...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the State Ombudsman of acute hospital transfer notifications for one Resident (#46) of one sampled residents reviewed for notifications. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any facility resident transferred to the hospital. Findings include:
Resident #46
Record review revealed Resident #46 was sent to the emergency room on [DATE], with symptoms including sudden weakness, lethargy, and cyanosis (bluish skin color due to decreased oxygen), and was discharged from the hospital on [DATE], with a diagnosis of bacterial sepsis (a severe bacterial systemic infection). Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed no evidence of Ombudsman Notification of the acute hospital transfer.
During an interview on 09/21/22 at 11:40 a.m., the Admissions Director, Staff Q, confirmed one of their job responsibilities was to report acute hospital transfers to the Ombudsman on a monthly basis. Staff Q reported the monthly report had not been done since 2021. Staff Q stated, We will make sure that gets done going forward. Staff Q clarified it was necessary to notify the State Ombudsman when someone was leaving the facility and going to the hospital setting so the State Ombudsman was aware (per the regulatory guidance).
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #19
During an observation and interview on 9/19/22 at 4:34 p.m., Resident #19 was lying in bed dressed in a dirty hospi...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #19
During an observation and interview on 9/19/22 at 4:34 p.m., Resident #19 was lying in bed dressed in a dirty hospital gown. Resident #19 said she would prefer to be dressed, but they ran out of gowns, so they didn't change her into a clean gown. Resident #19 said she would prefer to be dressed in regular clothes.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 1:00 p.m., Resident #19 was found with long toenails on bilateral feet, and what appeared to be a toenail ripped off and bloody, the great left toe. All toenails did not appear as trimmed recently.
Review of Resident #19's EMR and MDS assessment, dated 7/5/22, revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the most recent re-admission on [DATE]. Active diagnoses included: stroke, hemiplegia (paralysis of left dominant side of Resident #19's body) and muscle weakness. Resident #19 scored 12 of 15 on the BIMS reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #19 required extensive two-person assistance with bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene.
Review of Resident #19's Physician Order Summary for September 2022, retrieved 9/20/22, revealed the following, in part: Trim Nails 2x (times) Monthly (on) 3rd and 23rd in the morning starting on the 23rd and ending on the 23rd every month per Policy. Start Date: 12/23/2021.
Review of Resident #19's Activities of Daily Living Care Plans on 9/21/2022 at 10:13 a.m., revealed the following, in part: I have Diabetes Mellitus . Refer to podiatrist/foot care nurse to monitor/document foot care needs and to cut long nails. Date Initiated: 5/15/2017. Revision on: 6/17/2021.
NAIL CARE - I have Diabetes. Nurse to trim my fingernails and toenails.
Date Initiated: 04/07/2022.
BED MOBILITY- I require staff assistance of 2 with bed mobility. Please assist me to reposition q (every) 2 hours and prn (as needed). I have refused to lay on my side however need encouragement and assist to lay on my side to offload pressure to buttock. Revision on: 06/13/2022.
Review of Resident #19's EMR POC (Point of Care) Response History for Task: Shower/Bath/Bed Bath revealed Resident #19 had one shower in the last 30 days, from 9/20/22, with no other types of bathing, refusals, or other documentation completed on the shower documentation sheet.
Review of Resident #19's EMR POC Response History for Task: Turned and Repositioned, for the last 30 days from 9/20/22, revealed no documentation was completed for the following dates: 8/26, 8/27, 8/28, 8/30, 8/31, 9/2, 9/3, 9/4, 9/6, 9/7, 9/8, 9/9, 9/11, 9/12, 9/14, and 9/19/2022. Documentation for the following dates included the following concerns:
8/22/22 - Documented as repositioned one time at 16:04 (4:04 p.m.).
8/23/22 - Documented by day shift only, with gaps greater the 2 hours.
8/24/22 - No Day shift documentation, one time at 00:06 (12:06 a.m.) (multiple checks at same time), and one time at 15:54 (3:54 p.m.)
8/29/22 - No day shift documentation.
9/1/22 - Only day shift documentation.
9/5/22 - No night shift documentation.
9/10/22 - 14 refusals documented at 16:41 (4:41 p.m.), eight refusals documented at 16:42 (4:42 p.m.).
9/15/22 - Only night shift documentation.
9/16/22 - No night shift documentation.
Resident #52
During an interview on 9/20/22 at 9:18 a.m., Resident #52's Family Member (FM) EE requested to speak with a survey team member, regarding grievances filed with the facility. FM EE said Resident #52's fingernails were usually caked full of poop all of the time. FM EE said last week Resident #52 was lying in bed with fruit flies climbing into and out of her mouth and nose, because she had food that remained on her mouth. FM EE stated, It made me feel like she is a rotten piece of fruit. FM EE said showers were one of the other grievances. FM EE stated, I came in and the residents were not getting bathed for three weeks at a time. FM EE stated, I don't want [Resident #52] eating her own feces. [Resident #52] needs to be clean and not having fruit flies landing in her mouth. I can only be here so much - what else is happening when I am not here. I lay awake and wonder if someone fed her dinner or is she laying in the same [incontinence brief] that they put on her this morning.
During an observation on 9/21/22 at 10:35 a.m., Resident #52 was lying in bed, with dirty gripper socks on her feet. [NAME] areas were clearly visible on the bottoms of both feet. Resident #52 wore what appeared to be the same yellow grippy socks yesterday.
During an observation and interview on 9/21/22 at 10:40 a.m., CNA L confirmed the yellow grippy socks on Resident #52 (previously seen on resident for the last two days) were filthy, with dark brown areas on both bilateral feet. CNA L confirmed the grippy socks looked very dirty. CNA L agreed they were dirty enough to look like the socks could have been worn for the past two days based on the amount of dirt on bottom of the grippy socks.
During an observation and interview on 9/26/22 at 10:15 a.m., Resident #52 was found with dark brown debris underneath all fingernails on both hands with the assistance of Registered Nurse (RN) M. When asked what was underneath all of Resident #52's fingernails, RN M stated, Food or feces. The consistent dark brown color of the debris appeared to be feces to this Surveyor.
During an interview on 9/27/22 at 1:28 p.m., the DON confirmed the dark brown debris under Resident #52's fingernails was feces. The DON acknowledged the family had expressed many grievances related to issues with feces. The DON said facility staff should be cleaning the nails when the nails were observed dirty.
Review of Resident #52's Care Plans revealed the following interventions, in part:
Assist me with keeping my nails clean and cut short. Please check my nails often for dirt. Date Initiated: 5/20/22.
Inspect and Clean fingernails daily and cut fingernails as needed. Revision on: 4/29/2022.
Make sure my nails are kept short and clean from feces. I will dig in my brief when I am soiled with B.M. (bowel movement) so please check on me frequently to make sure that I am clean. Date Initiated: 3/7/22.
Review of Resident #52's EMR Task: Personal Hygiene/Grooming. Check fingernails, do they need to be trimmed and is there dirt underneath the nail? Attempt to trim and clean, document if resident refuses assistance. The Look Back period was 30 days from 9/20/22. Extensive Assistance was provided on the following dates: 8/29, 9/2, 9/10, 9/11. 9/16, 9/17, and 9/18/22. No documentation of task completion or resident refusal was present for any of the other 23 days.
Review of Resident #52's EMR Task: Nail Care check cut nails as needed. Clean daily with cares and prn was absent any documentation. The EMR form was blank.
Review of Resident #52's EMR PRN (as needed) Shower Response History, for the last 30 days, as of 9/20/22, revealed Resident #52 had a shower on 8/23, 9/2, and 9/6/22 for a total of three showers in 30 days. No other refusals, bed baths, or baths were documented for this Resident.
Review of Resident #52's EMR Task: Dressing POC History Response form for the past 14 days revealed, the following: Documentation of dressing assistance was noted on 8/28, 8/29, 9/2, and 9/7 with either one- or two-person assistance, and a refusal on 9/7/22. No other documentation was present on the form for the remaining 10 days. Those dates had no documentation of dressing assistance for Resident #52.
During an interview on 9/19/22 at 4:05 p.m., CNA W stated, We don't have a shower nurse. When there are three aides, we try to get a couple (of showers done) when we can, but if there is only one person on a hall (three CNAs) it is pretty impossible to get the showers done.
During an interview on 9/26/22 at 8:06 a.m., when asked about completion of resident care, checking, and changing of incontinence briefs, and repositioning of residents to prevent or heal pressure injuries, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) N stated, That is really the worst part (of being short-staffed). We don't have enough staff to make sure people are getting repositioned, so even if we heal a pressure ulcer, they are reoccurring because staff do not have the time to reposition residents and ensure they are checked and changed (for incontinence) timely . I know toenails look terrible and showers most days - they don't get done.
This citation pertains to Intake #MI00129410
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) related to showering, oral care, incontinence care, and/or repositioning for seven Residents (R1, R22, R31, R20, R19, R38, and R52) of seven residents reviewed for dependent ADL care. This deficient practice resulted in the actual and potential for lack of proper hygiene, impaired self-esteem, and negative health outcomes related to poor hygiene. Findings include:
Resident 1
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/6/22, indicated R1 had the following diagnoses: Alzheimer's disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score reflected severely impaired cognition. R1 had impaired vision and required one staff assistance for toilet use and personal hygiene. R1 was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 9:44 a.m., R1 was lying in bed and wore dark colored socks without anti-slip grippers to the soles of the feet. The left sock was pulled slightly off the foot. R1 was unshaven.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 10:22 a.m., R1 was lying diagonally on his back, in bed with his head positioned to the right upper corner and his leg/feet positioned to the bottom left portion of the mattress. The call light was wrapped around the T-bar (type of bedrail) and dangling directly on the floor just underneath the bed. The call light clip, attached to the white cord, was visible on the floor directly next to the bed pendant. R1 was unshaven.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 1:11 p.m., R1 was sitting in his wheelchair facing the back wall (behind his bed) to the left side of his bed. The overbed table was placed in front that contained his lunch which he was consuming. The room contained a strong odor of feces and urine. R1's bed, next to his left elbow, contained large amounts of brown liquid on his bed linens (including lift pad and sheets). Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) L, who was in the room, confirmed R1 had been incontinent of both urine and stool. CNA L said she had to leave the facility due to a family emergency from 9:15 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and now was trying to catch up.
Review of R1's electronic medical record (EMR) 30-day lookback from 9/27/22 showed only one shower was completed on 9/26/22 with two separate times 17:03 (5:03 p.m.) and 18:59 (6:59 p.m.).
Resident 22
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 7/16/22, indicated R22 had the following diagnoses: weakness, anemia, encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), primary biliary cirrhosis (liver damage), ascites (abdominal swelling), and depression. The BIMS reflected moderately impaired cognition. R22 required two staff assistance for bed mobility, toilet use, hygiene, and bathing. The same assessment showed R22 was always incontinent for bowel and bladder.
During an observation on 9/19/22 at 3:47 p.m., R22 was observed in bed. The room was warm, and the sun was shining through the window. R22 had oxygen delivered through a nasal cannula. R22's tongue and lips were dry. The overbed table was free of ice chips, lip balm, sponge toothettes, and water. R22 said she was on a fluid restriction. R22 was lying on her back and no support pillows were in use.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 9:50 a.m., R22 was in bed. The overbed table was free of ice chips, lip balm, sponge toothettes, and water. R22 was lying on her back with the head of the bed elevated. No support pillows were in use.
During an interview on 9/21/22 at 10:56 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the facility had the availability of providing toothettes to moisten and cleanse R22's mouth.
Review of R22's EMR on 9/21/22 for a 30-day lookback period showed oral care was not performed. The 30 day lookback for the same time showed no showers were performed.
On 9/22/22 at 10:10 a.m., R22's skin was assessed by the DON and Registered Nurse/Infection Preventionist (IP) H. R22's white blanket was soiled with yellow drainage and the top sheet contained blood stains. Upon removal of R22's brief and removal of the excessive barrier cream, the exposed skin of the buttocks, inner thighs, upper back thighs, and groin were bright red and had areas of skin breakdown. R22's right heel contained a red, pressure area to the heel and malleolus (outer ankle). R22 feet were found lying directly on the mattress.
On 9/26/22 at 1:20 p.m., in the presence of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) N, R22 was found lying flat in bed. A flat, thin pillow was located underneath her shins and both heels were directly on the mattress. The brief was removed which exposed bright red inner thighs and areas of opened skin to the right and left buttocks, upper thigh, and continued redness to the right heel and ankle.
Resident 31
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 7/23/22, indicated R31 had the following diagnoses: diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic kidney disease, vascular dementia, macular degeneration (visual impairment), anxiety, and depression. The BIMS score reflected severely impaired cognition. R31 required two person assistance for bed mobility and transfers and one staff assistance for toilet use. The same assessment showed R31 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 9:56 a.m., R31's left side of the bed was pushed against the wall and a T-bar was in the upright position to the right side of the bed. The bed pendant was coiled around the T-bar and assessable to R31. R31's lower denture was on the nightstand floating in a plastic denture cup without a lid. The upper denture was in R31's mouth.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 10:18 a.m., R31 was found in bed with the left side of her head leaning directly against the wall. The breakfast tray remained over her lap on the overbed table. The head of the bed was elevated approximately 45 degrees. The T-bar, on the right side of the bed, was lowered. The fall pressure mat was several feet away from R31's right side of the bed.
On 9/26/22 at 12:19 p.m., R31 remained in the same position as the earlier observation the same day at 10:18 a.m. The head of the bed remained at approximately 45 degrees and R31's head was leaning against the wall. The breakfast tray was removed, and a strong urine and feces odor was noted.
On 9/26/22 at 1:48 p.m., R31 remained in the same position as observed earlier at 10:18 a.m. and at 12:19 p.m. RN /Wound Care Nurse M and CNA L were present. The strong odor of urine and feces remained. R31's bottom denture was sitting directly on the nightstand without a barrier in place. The upper denture was in R31's mouth. The linens were lowered and showed R31's heels were directly on the air mattress. A pillow was removed from under R31's right side which exposed urine and liquid feces (green-colored) which extended out of the brief onto the two separate lift pads. CNA L confirmed R31 had not had a brief change since the night shift. RN M identified a dried blister to R31's right posterior (back) heel. When asked about pressure prevention interventions in place, RN M indicated booties and elevating the heels off the bed.
Review of R31's EMR 30-day lookback from 9/27/22 showed two showers were performed on 9/14/22 and 9/21/22.
Review of R31's Care Plan, printed 9/27/22, read in part, Assist me to reposition approx (approximately) q2 (every two) hours and prn (as needed) when in my bed .Float heels on a pillow when in bed for pressure prevention .INCONTINENT: Check me every 2 hours and as needed.
Resident #20
A review of Resident #20 (R20's) medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic pain, adult failure to thrive, and major depression. A review of the 7/6/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 13/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating moderately intact cognition and required extensive assistance of two or more staff for hygiene and showering.
A review of R20's task section for showers revealed only two showers had been provided in the 30 days look back window. A review of the section for oral care revealed no oral care was provided in the 30 day look back window.
A review of a progress note dated 9/20/22 revealed, (Name of Physician) updated regarding residents c/o (complaints of) pain in her mouth and a white tongue noted. New order for 1tsp Nystatin (oral antibiotic, used to treat infections like oral thrush) 4x/day for 10 days.
A review of R20's care plan for ADLs developed 3/22/22 revealed, . Oral Care AM/HS (morning/hour of sleep) routine. Rinse dentures, clean gums with toothette, rinse mouth with mouth wash. Assistance needed: assist of one .
Resident #38
A review of R38's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, delusional disorder, and major depression. A review of the 8/2/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 3/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance of two or more staff for hygiene and was totally dependent on staff for showering/bathing.
On 9/20/22 at 12:00 p.m., R38 was observed lying in bed on his back with his feet curled up near his body. R38's hair was observed to be greasy and the skin on his face was flaky.
A review of R38's task section for showers revealed no showers or bed baths had been provided in the 30 day lookback window. A review of the section for oral care revealed no oral care had been provided for the 30 day lookback window.
A review of R38's care plan dated 11/22/21 revealed, .Bathing: I require one staff participation with bathing . Oral Care AM/HS routine. I need extensive assist from one staff to clean my mouth bid (twice per day) and prn (as needed) .
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** Resident #46
Review of Resident #46's MDS assessment, dated 08/30/22, revealed Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DAT...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #46
Review of Resident #46's MDS assessment, dated 08/30/22, revealed Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, kidney disease, and sepsis (a severe systemic infection). Resident #46 required limited one-person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, and toileting. The BIMS assessment revealed a score of 9/15, which indicated Resident #46 had moderate cognitive impairment. The health conditions section was marked as no falls since admission.
An observation on 09/21/22 at 9:52 a.m. revealed Resident #46 laying in her bed sleeping. Resident #46 was wearing white socks without a gripper surface. Resident #46's shoes were across the room on a chair, approximately 8' away. Resident #46's manual wheelchair (20 wide) was observed next to her bed. There was no non-rollback device on the wheelchair.
Resident #46 was not interviewed despite three attempts and on the last attempt, Resident #46 declined an interview.
Review of Resident #46's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed two facility falls in which Resident #46 was not wearing non-skid footwear, such as gripper socks or shoes.
Review of Resident #46's fall assessment reports dated 08/26/22 and 09/12/22 showed scores of 14, and 15, respectively. Both revealed Resident #46 was at high risk for falls, given a score of 12 or above indicated high fall risk.
Review of Resident #46's nursing progress note dated 08/23/22 at 10:36 a.m. revealed, .Nursing: Antigravity [Fall] Team Note. Date of Fall: 8/21/22 @ 2225 [10:25 p.m.]. Root Cause(s) of Fall: Resident did not have non-skid footwear on and slipped while trying to stand up from bed. Prior Interventions: call light within reach, non-skid footwear .
Review of Resident #46's Accident and Incident report, dated 08/21/22, showed Resident #46 was found sitting upright on the floor at her bedside, with her back resting on the bed. Resident #46 reported she fell trying to stand up from her bed and slipped onto her bottom, with no injury reported. The immediate action taken indicated non-slip grip socks were applied to Resident #46's feet.
Review of Resident #46's Accident and Incident report, dated 09/03/22, revealed Resident #46 was found laying on the floor of her bathroom next to the toilet, and had attempted to self-transfer from the toilet to her wheelchair. This fall resulted in a red area on the right iliac crest (the top of the pelvic bone), which resolved post the incident. The report showed improper footwear and ambulating without assistance were the causes of the fall.
Review of Resident #46's fall Care Plan, accessed 09/21/22, revealed Resident #46 was designated to wear non-skid footwear, and had a non-rollback device on their wheelchair.
During an interview on 09/21/22 at 10:11 a.m., CNA GG was asked if the wheelchair next to the bed was Resident #46's wheelchair. CNA GG reported she could not confirm this was Resident #46's wheelchair, as frequently a resident's wheelchair had a yellow tag identifying the occupant.
During an interview on 09/21/22 at 10:15 a.m., Resident #46's Physical Therapist, PT LL, was asked if the wheelchair without the non-rollback device was Resident #46's wheelchair. PT LL could not confirm this was Resident #46's wheelchair. PT LL was asked if Resident #46 should be in bed wearing the white socks without gripper surface. PT LL reported they should be wearing gripper socks ideally, and Resident #46 would not have been able to reach her shoes on the other side of the room. PT LL reported they would speak with a manager about obtaining gripper socks for Resident #46. PT LL confirmed Resident #46 was at risk for falls as she became lightheaded when she moved too quickly.
During an interview on 09/21/22 at 10:30 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) P confirmed the cause of Resident #46's fall on 08/21/22 was not wearing appropriate footwear, i.e. having nothing on her feet, and weakness.
During a phone interview on 09/27/22 at 2:14 p.m., LPN U confirmed the cause of Resident #46's fall on 09/03/22 was wearing regular socks on her feet, not gripper socks. LPN U reported Resident #46 had since been wearing slippers on her feet, which she believed were somewhat unsafe. Surveyor asked LPN U if they had reported this to a manager; LPN U thought she had notified a manager, however indicated she could not be certain. LPN U confirmed Resident #46 did have a reddened area on their pelvis after the fall, which disappeared once she was assisted off the floor. LPN U reported Resident #46 was sore after the incident but denied pain.
Review of Resident #46's September (2022) Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed pain was rated as a 1 (with 10 the highest pain level) on 09/03/22, with 0/10 pain the other days of the month. There was no (as needed) pain medication administered, such as Acetaminophen (Tylenol), which was available.
During an interview with the DON on 09/21/22 at 2:30 p.m., the DON reported they understood the deficient practice, and confirmed Resident #46 should have been wearing gripper socks when in bed, and when she had the two falls (reviewed with the DON).
During an observation with the DON on 09/21/22 at 2:44 p.m., Resident #46 was observed in bed with blue gripper socks on her feet. There was a pair of slippers on the floor next to the 20 manual wheelchair. The DON confirmed there was no non-rollback device on the wheelchair per Resident #46's Care Plan, and reported there should be a non-rollback device on the wheelchair, but would check with therapy. The DON observed Resident #46's slippers next to their bed, and confirmed they were slippery, without a safe grip surface. They planned to follow up with therapy regarding the slippers and safety concerns; the slippers were left in Resident #46's room at the bedside.
During an interview on 09/27/22 at 2:56 p.m., the Rehabilitation Director, Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) CC was asked about Resident #46's wheelchair. PTA CC confirmed Resident #46 should wear gripper socks, given her cognitive impairment and medical decline, and only wear the socks and shoes when leaving the facility. PTA CC could not confirm this was Resident #46's wheelchair, as there was no yellow tag designating the wheelchair was assigned to Resident #46, and reported her wheelchair may have been lost when she was transported out of the building. PTA CC reported the non-rollback device to prevent the wheelchair from rolling backwards when Resident #46 stood unassisted would be indicated for Resident #46. PTA CC confirmed this device could help prevent falls, given Resident #46 had cognitive impairment, and did not consistently recall safety recommendations, such as using the call light.
Further inquiry revealed Resident #46 was receiving physical therapy services, and required one-person assistance for transfers, and supervision to minimal assistance for ambulation with a walker. Despite a four-wheeled walker observed with PTA CC at Resident #46's bedside, PTA CC reported Resident #46 had been medically declining with increased weakness, needed encouragement to participate, and should not be using the four-wheeled walker for transfers. (A four-wheeled walker generally offers less stability than a two-wheeled walker.) PTA CC clarified a two-wheeled walker would be safest. It was unclear why there was not a two-wheeled walker at the bedside for Resident #46 to use if the 4 wheeled walker was deemed potentially unsafe. The four-wheeled walker was not removed or replaced with a two-wheeled walker at that time. Surveyor showed PTA CC Resident #46's slippers at the bedside, and confirmed these were not safe for Resident #46, as they did not grip the floor as they had a slippery sole, and would present a fall risk. Additionally, when asked about Resident #46's former T-bar bedrail, which had been removed by facility staff on 09/26/22, PTA CC reported Resident #46 would benefit from a curved enabler bar for safe bed mobility and transfers, verses the T-bar bedrail. PTA CC deemed the T-bar bedrail less safe for Resident #46's use, as it was outdated and presented an entrapment risk. There was no enabler bar on either side of Resident #46's bed during this observation. The slippers were also left at the bedside.
Review of the policy, Fall Reduction Policy, revised 08/21, revealed, Our residents have the right to be free from falls, or sustain no to minimal injury from falls .each residents risk factors and environmental hazards will be evaluated when developing the comprehensive care plan .interventions will be monitored for effectiveness. The Care Plan will be revised as needed .
Resident #19
Review of Resident #19's MDS assessment, dated 7/5/22, revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the most recent re-admission on [DATE]. Active diagnoses included: stroke, hemiplegia (paralysis of left dominant side of Resident #19's body) and muscle weakness. Resident #19 scored 12 of 15 on the BIMS reflective of moderate cognitive impairment and was documented with delusions (beliefs that are firmly held, contrary to reality) and behaviors that included physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others, and other behavioral symptoms not directed toward others. Resident #19 required extensive two-person assistance with bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene.
During an observation and interview on 09/21/22 at 10:45 a.m., Resident #19 was found in bed during peri care, with the electronic bed control (bed pendant) lying on the right side of the bed, next to the right bed rail accessible by Resident #19's active and functional right hand. Resident #19 verbalized hallucinations (where you hear, see, smell, taste or feel things that appear to be real but only exist in your mind) of cats being hung by their ears on the telephone line visible outside the room window.
Review of Resident #19's Care Plans revealed, in part: I may keep the bed control within my reach to assist with my independence in bed positioning. Date Initiated: 1/11/2022. During the facility's survey, the following intervention was added on 9/20/22, Please keep the bed controls out of my reach as I am not able to use them due to my confusion, intermittent hallucinations, and my BIMS score of 12 which is moderately impaired. I recognize this is for my safety. Date Initiated: 9/20/22. Created by: [Director of Nursing]. Both interventions remained in Resident #19's care plan.
Review of the [Name Brand] 'User-Service Manual, copyright 2020, revealed the following, in part: Warning: Possible Injury or Death. Resident/patients may become entangled in pendant cord. Resident/patients with reduced mental acuity should not be allowed access to pendant. Unsupervised use of pendant could result in injury or death . Creating a Safer Care Environment: While the guidelines apply to all healthcare settings, (hospitals, nursing homes and at home), long-term care facilities have particular exposure since serious entrapment events typically involve frail, elderly or dementia patients.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly store two oxygen cylinders, failed to assess cognitively impaired residents with access to electric bed controls (pendants) for four Residents (R1, R22, R31, and R19), and failed to prevent two falls for one Resident (R46) for five residents reviewed for accidents/hazards. These deficient practices resulted in safety risks and had the potential to result in physical injury. Findings include:
During Survey entrance on 9/19/22 at 3:05 p.m., two portable oxygen cylinders were observed in the facility's vestibule in the left corner which were not secured within stands to prevent a tipping hazard.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 8:05 a.m., the same two oxygen cylinders (not within stands) remained in the facility's vestibule.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 3:34 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was shown the two, unsecured oxygen cylinders in the facility's vestibule. The DON said the oxygen cylinders should not have been left there and confirmed the oxygen cylinders should have been stored upright within stands to prevent tipping and possible injury.
Review of the facility's policy, AL: Oxygen date implemented 6/1/22, read in part, Oxygen tanks and equipment will be stored in a central location, designated as the oxygen supply room .Oxygen tanks will be stored upright and kept secure.
Resident 1
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/6/22, showed R1 with the following diagnoses: Alzheimer's disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 4 out of 15 which reflected severely impaired cognition. R1 had impaired vision and required one staff assistance for toilet use and personal hygiene. Balance during transitions and walking were not steady. R1 was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 9:44 a.m., R1 was lying in bed with a T-bar (type of bedrail) in the upright position to only the left side of the bed. The bed pendant was clipped to the top, left side of the headboard with the control options facing the bed and not the wall. The pendant options contained six, white square buttons which read HEAD, BED, FOOT printed with black triangles indicating the movements for up and down. R1 was wearing dark colored socks without anti-slip grippers to the soles of the feet. The left sock was pulled slightly off the foot.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 10:22 a.m., R1 was lying diagonally on his back, in bed with his head positioned to the right upper corner and his leg/feet positioned to the bottom left portion of the mattress. The bed pendant was wrapped around the T-bar and dangling just above the floor. The call light was also wrapped around the T-bar and laying directly on the floor just underneath the bed. The call light clip, attached to the white cord, was visible on the floor directly next to the pendant. The overbed table was to the left side of the bed.
On 9/26/22 at 10:42 a.m., the DON provided an Incident and Accident Report which showed R1 sustained an unwitnessed fall on 7/22/22 which resulted in an emergent transfer and evaluation to the local hospital. The DON confirmed residents with impaired cognition and access to pendent use could pose a safety risk. The DON was asked to provide a policy/procedure to address pendant use. There was no policy provided before the end of the survey.
On 9/26/22 at 12:22 p.m., R1 was lying in the same diagonal position as seen earlier the same day at 10:22 a.m. The call light and bed pendant remained wrapped around the T-bar and dangling off the floor. A strong odor of urine and feces was noted. R1's eyes were closed.
During an interview on 9/27/22 at 8:44 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) confirmed the facility did not have a policy which addressed bed controls (pendants) via an electronic transmission.
Resident 22
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 7/16/22, showed R22 with the following diagnoses: weakness, anemia, encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), primary biliary cirrhosis (liver damage), ascites (abdominal swelling), and depression. The BIMS reflected moderately impaired cognition. R22 required two staff assistance for bed mobility, toilet use, hygiene, and bathing. The same assessment showed R22 was always incontinent for bowel and bladder.
During an observation on 9/19/22 at 3:47 p.m., R22 was observed in bed with the use of bilateral T-bars found in the upright position. The bed pendent was coiled around the left T-bar and assessable to R22.
During an observation on 9/22/22 at approximately 10:10 a.m., R22 was lying in bed. The bilateral T-bars were found in the upright position and the bed pendant was clipped to the headboard's left side.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 1:20 p.m., R22 was lying in bed with the bed pendant resting directly on the left side of the bed's fitted sheet within reach to R22.
Resident 31
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 7/23/22, showed R31 with the following diagnoses: diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic kidney disease, vascular dementia, macular degeneration (visual impairment), anxiety, and depression. The BIMS score reflected severely impaired cognition. R31 required two person assistance for bed mobility and transfers and one staff assistance for toilet use. The same assessment showed R31 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 9:56 a.m., R31's left side of the bed was pushed against the wall and a T-bar was in the upright position to the right side of the bed. The bed pendant was coiled around the T-bar and assessable to R31. The bed contained an air mattress which was turned on to a firm setting. R31 asked Surveyor if I was able to see the two birds and was pointing towards the foot of her bed. No birds were observed. A pressure fall mat was noted to the right side of the bed with the cord extending in the walk path and not secured underneath the bed.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 10:18 a.m., R31 was found in bed with the left side of her head leaning directly against the wall. The breakfast tray remained over her lap on the overbed table. The head of the bed was elevated approximately 45 degrees. The T-bar, on the right side of the bed, was lowered. The fall pressure mat was several feet away from R31's right side of the bed. The bed pendant was not secured to the headboard and was lying loosely over the edge of the mattress on the right side of the bed.
On 9/26/22 at 12:19 p.m., R31 remained in the same position as the earlier observation the same day at 10:18 a.m. The head of the bed remained at approximately 45 degrees and R31's head was leaning against the wall. The breakfast tray was removed, and a strong urine and feces odor was noted.
Review of R31's Care Plan, printed 9/27/22, read in part, As I cannot use the bed control, it should be kept out of my reach.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #12
Review of Resident #12's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/27/22, revealed Resident #12 was admitted to t...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #12
Review of Resident #12's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/27/22, revealed Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), and retention of urine. Resident #12 required extensive, two-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and hygiene. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment revealed Resident #12 scored 15 ou of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The nutritional assessment revealed Resident #12 was 77 tall, and weighed 197 pounds, with no significant weight loss, or unknown.
On 9/20/22 at 10:48 a.m., Resident #12 was observed in their bed. They appeared at a normal weight. Resident #12 reported their food preferences were not being honored, as they received too much chicken, which didn't taste good, as they [the kitchen] cut the budget. Resident #12 reported the food quality had gone down, and the kitchen would run out of eggs, adding that sometimes they did not receive a complete breakfast. They also reported the menu wasn't always accurate with what they received.
Review of Resident #12's weights revealed the following:
03/23/22: 206.0 pounds (wheelchair) - Admission
04/06/22: 206.0 pounds (mechanical lift)
05/10/22: 194.2 pounds (mechanical lift)
06/14/22: 197.0 pounds (wheelchair)
09/21/22: 201.0 pounds (mechanical lift)
Review of Resident #12's weights revealed Resident #12 was not weighed weekly after admission (on 03/23/22), and not weighed monthly consistently thereafter. Resident #12's weight was not taken per the weight review from 6/14/22 to 9/21/22 (missing weights for two months).
Review of Resident #12's Nutritional assessment summary, dated 06/28/22, revealed Resident #12's weight was stable, with appropriate intake, and they were receiving a nutritional supplement. There was no significant weight change since this assessment per review of Resident #12's weights.
Review of Resident #12's physician notes, received from the DON, revealed no review of weights, nutrition, or mention of missing weights.
During an interview on 09/22/22 at 8:51 a.m., CDM A reviewed Resident #12's weights with Surveyor, and reported Resident #12 should have been weighed weekly for the first month after admission, and then monthly thereafter. CDM A concurred given the missing weights, the weight charting should have been marked as a refusal if Resident #12 had refused to be weighed. When asked why the weights were not getting done, CDM A indicated it had to do with staff shortages, as the nursing aides were responsible for weighing the residents. CDM A reported they had brought the concern to the nursing management's attention, including the Director of Nursing (DON). CDM A acknowledged the concern and the importance of regular weights being taken, per facility policy.
Resident #30
Review of Resident #30's MDS assessment, dated 07/23/22, revealed admission to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including heart failure, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, and depression. Resident #30 required set-up for transfers, walking in their room, and toileting, and required one-person assistance for dressing. The BIMS assessment revealed Resident #30 scored 14/15, which indicated normal cognition. The nutritional assessment revealed Resident #30 was 75 tall, and weighed 246 pounds, with no significant weight loss, or unknown.
Review of Resident #30's Care Conference Note showed Resident #30 was unhappy with the facility food and food menu.
Review of Resident #30's census revealed one hospitalization, from 12/16/21 through 12/21/21. Otherwise, Resident #30 had been a resident at the facility since admission on [DATE].
Review of Resident #30's weights revealed the following:
3/04/22: 239.4 pounds (standing)
4/13/22: 225.0 pounds (standing)
4/27/22: 232.4 pounds (standing)
6/15/22 : 245.2 pounds (blank)
7/27/22: 245.6 pounds (blank)
08/03/22: 245.6 pounds (blank)
08/19/22: 252.4 pounds (blank)
09/18/22: 270.2 pounds (wheelchair)
10/07/22: 268.2 pounds (blank)
Review of Resident #30's weights revealed Resident #12 was not weighed in May, 2022. Five of the weights were not labeled as to whether Resident #30 was standing or seated in a wheelchair.
Review of Resident #30's Nutritional assessment summary, dated 07/05/22, revealed Resident #30's weight fluctuations were likely related to fluid changes. The assessment noted Resident #30 received nutritional and wound healing supplements.
Review of Resident #30's physician notes, received from the DON, revealed no review of weights, nutrition, missing weights, or weight gain.
During an interview on 09/21/22 at 10:44 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) P was asked about Resident #30's weight gain. LPN P indicated fluid retention and heart issues were the cause, and Resident #30 had significant edema and fluid build-up, with weeping legs (leaking) from excessive fluids. LPN P also indicated poor diet was a cause, as Resident #30 chose to drink alcohol when they wanted, and consumed candy and sugar frequently. LPN P reported Resident #30 was also not compliant with wound treatment consistently. LPN P was asked about the missing weights, and reported nursing aide staff must prioritize resident care over weights as they were short staffed.
Review of Resident #30's progress notes showed Resident #30 had a right great toe amputation on 04/22/22, had multiple wounds, wound infections, the COVID-19 virus, and recently had a wound vacuum placed. It was reported Resident #30 was not consistently compliant with dietary recommendations to limit additional sodium. It appeared Resident #30's significant weight gain may have been unavoidable, and/or related to fluctuating edema related to cardiac and wound status, lack of nutritional food choices, and may have been inaccurate due to lack of reweight with significant weight gain, and inconsistent documentation of position when being weighed.
During an interview on 09/22/22 at 1:07 p.m., Unit Manager, Registered Nurse (RN) H, was asked why some resident weights were not being missed, including for Resident #12 and Resident #30. RN H reported it was related to staffing shortages, and staff needed to focus was on getting the resident cares done (such as activities of daily living). RN H reported they had hired more staff and were addressing the concern, however, they could not confirm the residents' weights were all completed currently. RN H acknowledged all residents should be weighed regularly per facility policy when asked, and reported this could affect their nutritional and medical status, such as if the resident had edema, etc RN H confirmed residents should be weighed weekly upon admission for one month, and monthly thereafter, and the resident's position when being weighed could impact the weight, and should be consistent. RN H stated both Resident #12 and Resident #30 should be weighed regularly due to their medical diagnoses. RN H reported Resident #30 was a cardiac patient, and should be weighed regularly to monitor their nutritional status, for edema, etc.
Review of the policy, Weight Monitoring, revised 01/21, revealed, 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, and electrolyte [nutritional fluid] balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible or resident preferences indicate otherwise .Weight can be a useful indicator of nutritional status. Significant unintended changes in weight (loss or gain) or insidious weight loss (gradual unintended loss over a period of time) may indicate a nutritional problem .Weight will be obtained upon admission, readmission, and weekly for the first four weeks after admission, and at least monthly unless ordered by the physician .
Resident 22
Review of the MDS assessment, dated 7/16/22, indicated R22 had the following diagnoses: weakness, anemia, encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), primary biliary cirrhosis (liver damage), ascites (abdominal swelling), and depression. The BIMS reflected moderately impaired cognition. R22 required two staff assistance for bed mobility, toilet use, hygiene, and bathing. The same assessment showed R22 was always incontinent for bowel and bladder.
During an observation on 9/19/22 at 3:47 p.m., R22 was in bed. The room was warm, and the sun was shining through the window. R22 had oxygen delivered through a nasal cannula (medical device). R22's tongue and lips were dry. The overbed table was free of ice chips, lip balm, sponge toothettes, and water. R22 said she was on a fluid restriction.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 9:50 a.m., R22 was in bed. The overbed table was free of ice chips, lip balm, sponge toothettes, and water. R22 was lying on her back with the head of the bed elevated.
During an interview on 9/21/22 at 10:56 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the facility had the availability of providing toothettes to moisten and cleanse R22's mouth.
During an observation and interview on 9/21/22 at 2:39 p.m., R22's bedside did not contain any fluids, lip balm, or toothettes at the bedside. R22 said, How do the nurses expect me to swallow sixteen pills when they only give me enough water to fill a medicine cup? R22 continued to say that she felt thirsty all the time and wanted something to drink made available to her. During the same interview, Activity Aide (Staff) Z came to R22's opened doorway with the water cart and said, Nope, she doesn't get any.
During an interview on 9/21/22 at approximately 2:45 p.m., Staff Z was asked why R22 did not have access to toothettes, lip balm, water, or ice chips even though she was on a fluid restriction. Staff Z said, I see. I'll check with the nurses. These are life comforts.
Review of R22's Progress Note, dated 8/16/22, read in part, has complaints of fluid restriction states she is always so thirsty she feels like she should not be restricted.
Review of R22's Progress Note, dated 8/16/22, read in part, (Attending Physician HH) stated that we can increase the fluid restriction to 2000 ml (milliliters) a day.
Review of R22's Progress Note, 9/6/22, read in part, returned from paracentesis (at local hospital). New order for 1500 ml fluid restriction.
Review of R22's Progress Note, 7/25/22, read in part, Dietary providing 946 ml of fluids on res. (resident's) tray which allows nursing 554 ml for med pass & res. other needs.
Review of R22's 30-day lookback, from 9/21/22, for the amount of fluids consumed with meals showed the following: Beginning on 8/27/22 -360 ml, 8/28 -no recording, 8/29 -480 ml, 8/30 -1080, 9/1 -no recording, 9/2 -360 ml, 9/3-no recording, 9/4 -480 ml, 9/5 -240 ml, 9/6 -480 ml, 9/7 -600 ml, 9/8 -720 ml, 9/9 -480 ml, 9/10 and 9/11 no recordings, 9/12 -240 ml, 9/13 no recording, 9/14 -480 ml, 9/15 -360 ml, 9/16 -720 ml, 9/17 -840 ml, 9/18 -720 ml, 9/19 -720 ml, and 9/20 -480 ml. R22 had not consumed at least 946 ml of fluids per day for at least 23 days with her meals.
Review of R22's Care Plan, last review 7/18/22, read in part, I have the potential for a nutritional/hydration problem .Document my Daily Food Acceptance. Fluid restriction of 1500 ml in a 24 hour period. Monitor my weight.
Review of R22's 30-day lookback, from 9/21/22, for amount eaten, beginning on 8/27/22 showed the following: 8/27/22 -0% eaten, 8/28 left blank, 8/29 Breakfast 25%, Lunch 0%, Dinner 25 %, 8/30 Breakfast 25%, Lunch and Dinner refused, 9/1 left blank, 9/2 refused breakfast meal, 9/3 left blank, 9/4 Breakfast 0%, refused Lunch, Dinner no entry, 9/5 through 9/7 no intake and refused various meals, 9/8 Breakfast 25%, refused Lunch and Dinner. R22's Food Acceptance Records indicate very poor nutritional intake and several days of staff omissions to show consumption.
Review of R22's EMR on 9/21/22 for a 30-day lookback period showed oral care was not performed.
During an interview on 9/21/22 at 10:56 a.m., the DON was asked about R22's fluid restriction with regards to intake and output. The DON confirmed the facility had not been closely monitoring R22's hydration status with regards to oral intake, weights, abdominal girth measurements after reviewing the electronic medical record: Medication Administration Record, Treatment Records, Food and Fluid Acceptance Records, Progress Notes, and weights. The DON said ice chips and additional opportunities for oral fluids could be provided at the bedside.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that nutrition assessments and interventions were in place to prevent significant weight loss and pressure ulcer development/lack of healing, for four Residents (#12, #22, #30, #38) out of six residents reviewed for nutrition. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for significant weight loss and delayed wound healing. Findings include:
Resident #38
On 9/20/22 at 12:00 p.m., Resident (R38) was observed lying in his bed on his back. R38's feet were curled up near his abdomen, and no boots or devices were observed in use to protect his heels from breakdown. R38 appeared very thin and gaunt, and the skin on his face and hands was red, dry, and flaky.
A review of R38's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, delusional disorder, and major depression. A review of the 8/2/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 3/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severely impaired cognition. This MDS revealed he was at risk for pressure ulcer development, and during the assessment had two Stage 1 pressure ulcers and one Stage 2 pressure ulcer, neither of which were present upon admission. This MDS coded R38 as having a feeding tube in error.
A review of R38's weight log revealed the following:
11/15/21 115.0 pounds (on admission)
3/30/22 109.0 pounds
6/29/22 103.4 pounds
7/14/22 100.6 pounds
8/10/22 103.6 pounds
9/18/22 101.0 pounds
R38's weight trend shows an insidious weight loss of 14 pounds in less than a year since his admission.
A review R38's Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) progress note dated 8/24/22 revealed, Wounds and weights meeting held, scrotum and bottom healed, knee open area not a pressure injury. Intake good, has had some weight gain, getting back to normal weight, will dc (discontinue) med pass and continue with ensure (nutritional supplement) TID (three times per day). Participants: DON (Director of Nursing), admin (Administrator), RD (Registered Dietitian F, CCC (Clinical Care Coordinator), CCC, MDS coordinator, wound nurse.
A review of a 9/15/22 Wound Assessment revealed, Wound #1: Right knee . Wound #2: (does not indicate that it is new) L (left) Plantar pinkie toe. Type: Other. 1.5 x 1.5 . Stage: N/a . Education provided: keep clean & dry .Wound #3: Left heel. Pressure. 8x6. Depth: unknown. Suspected Deep Tissue Injury. Unable to get into wound clinic due to insurance. Amount of drainage: d) heavy . Serosanguineous .
On 9/21/22 the facility provided wound care for R38. An IDT progress note dated 9/21/22 at 2:09 p.m. revealed, Wounds are stable, bottom will be assessed today, heel not better. Discussed reaching out VA for further wound care. Reviewed weights stable, takes ensure TID (660 calories, 27 grams protein to promote healing, with very good acceptance. No change to treatment plan at this time. Participants: RD, DON, MDS/RN, Wound nurse This note was written prior to the assessment of the right buttock wound, but indicated his weight and wounds were stable despite evidence to show that they were not. No new interventions were discussed or implemented.
A review of R38's care plan for nutrition, developed 3/22/22, revealed no new interventions were implemented after 3/22/22. An intervention of Monitor my weight was dated 3/22/22, but did not indicate the frequency that R38 should be weighed in order to identify a weight loss. The nutrition care plan made no mention of increased protein or calorie needs due to the multiple areas of skin breakdown or the insidious weight loss.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0711
(Tag F0711)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #12
Resident #12 was reviewed for nutritional status. Review of Resident #12's weights revealed Resident #12 was not we...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #12
Resident #12 was reviewed for nutritional status. Review of Resident #12's weights revealed Resident #12 was not weighed weekly after admission (on 03/23/22), and not weighed monthly consistently thereafter. Resident #12's weight was not taken per the weight review from 6/14/22 to 9/21/22 (missing weights for two months).
The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) was absent physician progress notes.
Review of Resident #12's physician note, dated 04/25/22, received from the DON, revealed no review of weights, nutrition, or mention of missing weights.
Resident #30
Resident #30 was reviewed for nutritional status. Review of Resident #30's weights revealed Resident #12 was not weighed weekly after admission (on 09/18/21), and was not weighed during January, 2022, or May, 2022. Resident #30 was not reweighed when there was a significant weight gain, from 12/23/22 to 02/24/22. Five of the weights were not marked for Resident #30's position, as the others were, such as when they were weighed in standing, or when they were in a wheelchair.
Review of Resident #30's Nutritional assessment summary, dated 07/05/22, revealed Resident #30's weight fluctuations were likely related to fluid changes. The assessment noted Resident #30 received nutritional and wound healing supplements.
The EMR was absent physician progress notes.
Review of Resident #30's physician notes in their entirety, dated 09/15/22, 04/28/22, and 03/24/22, received from the DON, revealed no review of weights, nutrition, missing weights, or weight gain.
During an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 09/27/22 at approximately 3:40 p.m., the NHA was asked regarding concerns with the quality of physician visits. The NHA shared they had brought their concerns to their attending physician, Physician HH, and their Medical Director, Physician QQ. The NHA acknowledged being aware of the concern, and their plans to add a mid-level provider (such as a physician assistance or nurse practitioner) when one became available.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that physician visit notes were comprehensive for four Residents (#12, #30, #38, #44) out of seven reviewed for physician visits. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for lack of comprehensive and supervised medical care. Findings include:
Resident #38
On 9/20/22 at 12:00 p.m., Resident (R38) was observed lying in his bed on his back. R38's feet were curled up near his abdomen, and no boots or devices were observed in use to protect his heels from breakdown. R38 appeared very thin and gaunt, and the skin on his face and hands was red, dry, and flaky.
A review of R38's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, delusional disorder, and major depression. A review of the 8/2/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 3/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severely impaired cognition. This MDS revealed he was at risk for pressure ulcer development, and during the assessment had two Stage 1 pressure ulcers and one Stage 2 pressure ulcer, neither of which were present upon admission.
A review of R38's weight log revealed the following:
11/15/21 115.0 pounds (on admission)
3/30/22 109.0 pounds
6/29/22 103.4 pounds
7/14/22 100.6 pounds
8/10/22 103.6 pounds
9/18/22 101.0 pounds
R38's weight trend shows an insidious weight loss of 14 pounds in less than a year since his admission.
A review of the 9/24/22 wound assessment for R38 revealed, Wound #1: Right knee (front). Type: Other. 1.7 x 1.7 . Stage: N/A . Wound #2: L Plantar Pinkie . 1.8 x 1.5. Unstageable . Wound #3: Left heel. Pressure. 7x5. Depth: Unknown. Unstageable. ER (Emergency Room) started on antibiotics. Amount of drainage: heavy . Purulent . Odor after cleansing: a) strong . Offload heels if possible, apply booties, reposition every 2 hours . Wound #6: Right buttock. Pressure. 2x 1.4. Depth 0.1 (cm). Stage: 2 . reposition q2hrs (every 2 hours) . Wound #7: New. Right Trochanter (hip). Blister. 2 x 0.4. (depth and stage were left blank) . reposition .
On 9/22/22 at approximately 1:10 p.m., the Administrator was asked to provide all of the physician notes and documentation for R38.
A review of the physician notes for R38 provided by the Administrator revealed the physician notes dated 3/24/22, 4/28/22 and then no visit note until 9/5/22. These notes did not review his medication regimen, his diagnoses, or discuss the development of his pressure ulcers and insidious weight loss.
Resident #44
A review of Resident #44 (R44)'s medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia and history of digestive system diseases. A review of his 8/17/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 15/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating intact cognition.
A review of R44's physician progress notes provided by the Administrator revealed notes dated 3/24/22 and 9/15/22. In between these dates, on 5/5/22, R44 underwent surgery and had a colostomy placed. R44' was not seen by the physician for almost four months after he returned to the facility. These notes did not reflect his current status, nor discuss his current treatment plan. The 3/24/22 note only address R44's antipsychotic medication.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0712
(Tag F0712)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #12
Resident #12 was reviewed for nutritional status. Review of Resident #12's weights revealed Resident #12 was not we...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #12
Resident #12 was reviewed for nutritional status. Review of Resident #12's weights revealed Resident #12 was not weighed weekly after admission (on 03/23/22), and not weighed monthly consistently thereafter. Resident #12's weight was not taken per the weight review from 6/14/22 to 9/21/22 (missing weights for two months).
The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) was absent physician progress notes.
Review of Resident #12's physician note, dated 04/25/22, received from the DON, showed only one physician visit was completed since April, 2022.
Resident #30
Resident #30 was reviewed for nutritional status. Review of Resident #30's weights revealed Resident #12 was not weighed weekly after admission (on 09/18/21), and was not weighed during January, 2022, or May, 2022. Resident #30 was not reweighed when there was a significant weight gain, from 12/23/22 to 02/24/22. Five of the weights were not marked for Resident #30's position, as the others were, such as when they were weighed in standing, or when they were in a wheelchair.
Review of Resident #30's Nutritional assessment summary, dated 07/05/22, revealed Resident #30's weight fluctuations were likely related to fluid changes. The assessment noted Resident #30 received nutritional and wound healing supplements.
The EMR was absent physician progress notes.
Review of Resident #30's physician notes in their entirety, dated 09/15/22, 04/28/22, and 03/24/22, received from the DON, showed the physician visits were not completed at least once every 60 days, per the regulatory guidance, since April, 2022.
During an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 09/27/22 at approximately 3:40 p.m., the NHA was asked regarding concerns with the timeliness of physician visits. The NHA shared they had brought their concerns to their attending physician, Physician HH, and their Medical Director, Physician QQ. The NHA acknowledged being aware of the concern, and their plans to add a mid-level provider (such as a physician assistance or nurse practitioner) when one became available.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that physician visits were timely for four Residents (#12, #30, #38, #44) out of seven reviewed for physician visits. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for lack of comprehensive and timely medical care. Findings include:
Resident #38
On 9/20/22 at 12:00 p.m., Resident (R38) was observed lying in his bed on his back. R38's feet were curled up near his abdomen, and no boots or devices were observed in use to protect his heels from breakdown. R38 appeared very thin and gaunt, and the skin on his face and hands was red, dry, and flaky.
A review of R38's medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, delusional disorder, and major depression. A review of the 8/2/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 3/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severely impaired cognition. This MDS revealed he was at risk for pressure ulcer development, and during the assessment had two Stage 1 pressure ulcers and one Stage 2 pressure ulcer, neither of which were present upon admission.
On 9/22/22 at approximately 1:10 p.m., the Administrator was asked to provide all of the physician notes and documentation for R38.
A review of the physician notes for R38 provided by the Administrator revealed the physician notes dated 3/24/22, 4/28/22 and then no visit note until 9/5/22 (approximately four months later).
Resident #44
A review of Resident #44 (R44)'s medical record revealed he admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia and history of digestive system diseases. A review of his 8/17/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed he scored 15/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, indicating intact cognition.
A review of R44's physician progress notes provided by the Administrator revealed notes dated 3/24/22 and 9/15/22. No other provider notes were provided.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked...
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 all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments, under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys in one medication storage room, out of one medication storage room reviewed. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for reduced efficacy of medications not stored under adequately monitored temperature controls, and the potential for medication diversion with unsecured storage of resident medications from home. Findings include:
Observation of the facility medication storage room on 9/21/22 at 11:26 a.m., in the presence of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) P and LPN U found unsecured home medications for Resident #51, including a bottle of an unknown quantity of Arthritis Pain 8 Hour caplets and a purple weekly pill [NAME] filled with unidentified pills on the counter. Both LPN P and LPN U confirmed neither of them had inventoried the medications found unsecured on the medication room counter, nor knew what medications were in the purple pill [NAME]. The medication room door was often left open while staff were preparing their medications for administration to facility residents.
During this same observation, four pill bottles of home medications for Resident #14 were observed on the medication room counter. LPN P and LPN U acknowledged the medications in the bottles had not been counted upon their placement into the medication room. The medications found in bottles on the medication room counter included:
Finasteride 5 mg tab (tablets) 90 possible, number of pills unknown.
Omeprazole 20 mg ER (extended release), 90 pills possible, number of pills unknown.
Terazosin HCL 2 mg (milligrams) cap (capsules), 90 possible, number of pills unknown.
Metoprolol Tartrate 120 tablets, exact number of pills unknown.
Review of the Temperature Log for Refrigerator - Fahrenheit for August and September 2022 revealed the following instructions for form completion: Completing this temperature log: Check the temperature in the refrigerator compartment of your vaccine storage unit at least twice each working day. Place an X in the box that corresponds with the temperature, the time of the temperature reading, and your initials . Temperature measurements were only completed once daily, not twice daily as the instructions directed, on the following dates:
August 2022: 8/2, 8/4, 8/6, 8/7, 8/10, 8/12, 8/15, 8/16, 8/21, 8/23, 8/24, 8/25, 8/26, 8/27, and 8/28.
September 2022: 9/2, 9/7 (no temperature measurement), 9/8, 9/9, 9/12, 9/16, 9/18, and 9/20.
During an interview on 9/21/22 at 11:38 a.m., LPN U confirmed the refrigerator temperatures were to be monitored and documented twice daily. LPN U stated, Once on days and once on evenings.
During an observation and interview on 9/22/22 at 10:20 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN)/Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse X walked into the medication room through the open door and opened the bottom drawer of the 100-hall medication cart. RN X pulled out a single vial of what appeared to be a nebulizer treatment vial for an unidentified Resident. RN X placed the liquid nebulizer medication vial into her hand and started to walk out of the room with the medication. When asked if RN X had keys to the medication cart she had entered, RN X stated, No, I was just trying to help, and the resident asked for her nebulizer treatment to be set up. The Director of Nursing (DON), present in the room, was asked if another nurse (RN X) without key access to the medication cart, could enter the cart, take out supplies/medications and walk out of the medication room with the nebulizer vial for inhalation. The DON asked RN X if she had keys to the cart she had opened and removed medication from, and RN X acknowledged she did not have keys to the cart. The DON said RN X was not able to remove medication from a cart that she did not have keys for, and therefore not responsible for (that medication cart). RN X stated, Ok, I was just trying to help as she opened the cart, which was not locked, and placed the nebulizer treatment vial back into the bottom drawer of the cart.
Review of the Medication Storage in the Facility policy, dated June 2019, revealed the following, in part: Policy: Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. The medication supply is accessible only to nurses, pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians. Procedures . B. Only nurses, pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians are permitted to access medications. Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked when not attended by persons with authorized access . Temperature: A. Medications and biologicals are stored at their appropriate temperatures and humidity according to the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines for temperature ranges . The refrigerator or freezer in which vaccines are stored should be checked at least twice a day per CDC Guidelines .
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide nutritive, palatable food for seven Residents (#10, #12, #19, #28, #30, #33, #37) of seven residents reviewed for foo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide nutritive, palatable food for seven Residents (#10, #12, #19, #28, #30, #33, #37) of seven residents reviewed for food concerns, and for four (#C2, #C6, #C7, and #C10) Confidential group residents. This deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact Resident dining experience, and for decreased oral intake, weight loss, and worsening of medical condition. Findings include:
Resident #12
Review of Resident #12's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/27/22, revealed Resident #12 was able to feed himself with set-up. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, showed a score of 15/15, which indicated Resident #12 had normal cognitive impairment.
During an interview on 09/20/22 at 10:48 a.m., Resident #12 reported he received too much chicken at mealtimes, which did not taste good. He reported the overall food quality had gone down, and he wanted to have eggs more often, and didn't always receive a complete (nutritionally balanced) breakfast. Resident #12 reported feelings of frustration related to meals and the dining experience.
Review of Resident #12's progress note dated 07/07/22 revealed, Family Care Conference: [Family] talked to [former dietary staff member]. Family is worried resident is eating a lot of sandwiches at night for meals .Resident [#12] stated the food has gone downhill in the last six months .Resident [#12] says there are a lot of sandwiches for dinner .
Resident #28
Review of Resident #28's MDS assessment, dated 06/27/22, revealed Resident #28 was able to feed herself with set-up. The BIMS assessment showed a score of 14/15, which indicated Resident #28 had normal cognitive impairment.
During an interview and observation on 09/20/22 at 9:13 a.m., Resident #28 was observed with her breakfast tray in front of her, with large chunks of ham in a pile on her plate, which appeared too large to chew. Resident #28 reported she did not eat the ham because it was too tough, and reported there was a young man in the kitchen who doesn't cook the meat adequately. Resident #28 stated she sometimes cannot eat the meat at meals for this reason. Resident #28 expressed frustration with the dining experience as a result.
Resident Council Residents:
Review of the Resident Council meeting minutes from the June meeting, dated 06/30/22, revealed the six residents present expressed food concerns, including overcooked vegetables which tasted like water, dried up hamburger, and there were no food condiments provided with meals.
Review of the August resident council meeting minutes, dated 08/18/22, showed eight residents present, who reported there were too many were sandwiches served, the vegetables appeared to be floating in water, and meals were lacking in variety and nutritive value.
A group meeting was held on 09/20/22 at 11:03 a.m. to review the resident council meeting process and any concerns. There were ten residents present, who wished to maintain their confidentiality. Resident #C7 reported there was not enough variety with meals, and too much chicken. Resident #C2 reported the food was sometimes overcooked, sometimes their meal was not served warm, and their ice cream was always melted. Resident #C10 reported their meal was served too hot. Resident #C6 reported they did not receive sugar or other condiments when they asked, reporting it was an ongoing problem.
Review of grievance form, dated 06/01/22, completed for a resident (who appeared discharged ) by the Social Services Advocate, Staff J, revealed, Resident had two vegetables on her plate at lunch; no protein or meal alternate .Kitchen didn't have any soup .The kitchen brought up [the] last two veggie [vegetable] patties. Resident took one bite and spit it out .couldn't chew it .
Review of the policy, Food Quality and Palatability, dated 07/23/21, revealed, Food will be prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance. Food will be palatable, attractive, and served at a safe and appetizing temperature. Food and liquids are prepared and served in a manner, form, and texture to meet resident's needs Food palatability refers to the taste and flavor of food .Food and liquids/beverages are prepared in a manner, form, and texture that meets each resident's needs .
During an interview on 9/20/22 at 12:56 p.m., Resident #37 said she did not get butter on her lunch tray. Resident #37 picked up the meal tray card on her tray, and stated, Real Butter on Tray as she read from the tray card. Resident #37 said the CNA had to go and get it and commented that took a lot of time away from the aides providing resident care or assistance.
During an interview on 9/20/22 at approximately 12:57 p.m., Resident #33 was observed with a chicken tender salad with no salad dressing. Resident #33 stated, I wanted ranch dressing, and I didn't get any. They had to go and get that.
During an observation and interview on 9/20/22 at 1:00 p.m., Resident #19 was observed with a chicken tender salad with no salad dressing of any time. Resident #19 said she did not get any ranch dressing or salad dressing of any kind with her lunch meal.
During an interview on 9/21/22 at 2:26 p.m., Resident #30 provided the following unsolicited information related to the food in the facility. It is like a fifth-grade cafeteria. Hot dogs, hamburgers, bratwurst. They overcook everything in this place. When they send you a chicken breast and you can't cut it in half. The pork loin - they cook the living heck out of it, and you can't cut it and they serve it to you, with no gravy or au jus, and they do this with pot roast. How do you serve pot roast without gravy. Resident #30 stated, Chicken strips you could not cut. The tater tots were not cooked enough . When I go to wound care, they ask what is going on over there (at the facility) with the food - everybody that comes here b!tches about the food. On the weekends it is the worst. The managers blow out of here between 4 and 5 (p.m. on Friday afternoon) so don't stand near the door or you will have footprints on your face .
Observation of the meal tray of Resident #10 on 9/22/22 at approximately 8:50 a.m., found two uneaten pieces of what appeared to be turkey bacon, one slice of toast, and an insulated cup of cream of wheat. When asked about breakfast, Resident #10 stated, It is absolutely horrible. They gave us two pieces of greasy bacon (appeared to be turkey bacon), they didn't even wipe the grease off of it, and one slice of toast. Resident #10 said the cream of wheat was his favorite but It is only lukewarm, so I didn't eat that. Resident #10 state, I go to wound care, and they keep asking me about the food at this place, and I don't know how the hell you can cook like this for a facility. They don't even know what an open-faced sandwich is. It is awful.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently provide evening snacks for ten (#C1, #C2, #C3, #C4, #C5, #C6, #C7, #C8, #C9, and #C10) Residents of ten Confidential group res...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently provide evening snacks for ten (#C1, #C2, #C3, #C4, #C5, #C6, #C7, #C8, #C9, and #C10) Residents of ten Confidential group residents who attended the Group Meeting to review the Resident Council Process. This resulted in the residents occasionally not receiving their evening snack, with the potential for unmet food requests and inadequate nutrition. Findings include:
During the Group Meeting on 09/21/22 at 11:30 a.m., the residents collectively expressed concern they were not consistently being offered an evening snack. Residents reported they often did not see any nursing staff to even ask for an evening snack. Three of the residents (#C2, #C6, and #C9) reported they would like an evening snack and did not receive any. Residents reported there used to be an evening snack cart located on the unit, but this had not occurred for some time [unable to provide an exact time period]. Residents expressed concerns for those residents who could not ask for an aide to get them a snack being hungry without a snack. They collectively reported they had to ask if they wanted an evening or nighttime snack, and it would take considerable effort and sometimes multiple requests. They reported the snack refrigerator was locked and located elsewhere off the unit, which had the more nutritive snack choices.
Review of the Resident Council meeting minutes, dated 08/18/22, revealed Residents expressed, There has been no HS [evening or nighttime] snack cart passed in a long time. It was noted the Activity Director, Staff AA, was at this meeting.
During an interview on 09/21/22 at 11:20 a.m., Staff AA was asked about the residents reporting they were not receiving an evening or nighttime snack. Staff AA acknowledged being aware of the concern, and reported they were not aware of how long it had been occurring. Staff AA stated the dietary manager had been made aware, and the dietary department was in charge of preparing the evening snack cart, and the nursing (aide) staff were responsible for distributing the evening snack. They reported in the past a nighttime activity aide had distributed the evening snack, however this staff member had been off work for an extended period. Staff AA reported they had brought this concern to nursing management in the morning meeting on 09/08/22.
During an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 09/21/22 at 5:25 p.m., the NHA was asked who was responsible for passing the evening snacks via the snack cart to the residents. The NHA reported the dietary staff were in charge of setting up the snack cart, and the activity staff were responsible for passing out the evening snack. The NHA acknowledged since the evening activity aide had been off work, it was possible the evening snack cart was not being passed out on the resident care units, however, they had not been made aware of this being a concern. The NHA reported staffing concerns may have impacted this area as well.
During an interview on 09/21/22 at 5:35 p.m., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) GG was asked who currently distributed the evening snacks. CNA GG reported the nursing aides were supposed to pass the snacks around 8:00 p.m., from a snack cart provided by the dietary department. CNA GG reported they passed out the resident snacks when they worked the night shift, however there were times when there were frequently only two aides in the building on the night shift, who must run back and forth between halls meeting resident cares needs. CNA GG reported they had heard residents complain about missing their evening snack on occasion, and the snack choices were typically limited to cookies, crackers, chips, and ice cream, and in the past snacks had more nutritive value.
During an interview on 09/21/22 at 5:56 p.m., the Registered Dietician, RD F was asked if they were aware residents had not been offered evening snacks consistently. RD F reported the residents were supposed to be offered an evening snack, and she did not want the residents to go beyond the 14 hours without a snack being offered, per regulatory requirements and facility policy. RD F acknowledged she had been recently made aware of the concern, and she had newly been working with the dietary manager on developing some strategies to ensure residents were offered an evening snack. RD F reported the snack refrigerator was locked and off the resident care unit, which was observed by the Surveyor with RD F, and shared this refrigerator had more nutritionally balanced snacks, such as yogurt, pudding, juice, fruit, milk, cottage cheese, beyond the dry snacks being currently offered typically. RD F reported they believed the staff were not walking to the locked refrigerator off the unit to get the more nutritive snacks due to the distance off the unit most likely, and they were working with facility staff to have the refrigerator be more centrally relocated.
During an interview on 09/22/22 at 9:57 a.m., the Certified Dietary Manger, CDM A was asked about residents reporting they had not been receiving evening snacks. CDM A reported nursing staff were distributing the snacks, and they did not understand why snacks were sometimes not being offered, or why a variety of snacks were not being offered, as there were more than cookies and crackers (dry snacks) available, including refrigerated nutritive snacks. CDM A confirmed the facility planned to move the locked snack refrigerator into the nursing circle area, so it would be easily accessible from all the units, and they planned to have centrally located coffee and juice machines, so staff and residents could easily access them.
During an interview on 09/22/22 at 1:21 p.m., the DON was asked about the residents concerns about not receiving evening snacks regularly. The DON had recently been made aware of the concern, and reported they were working on ensuring a smooth process between dietary and nursing staff to ensure residents received their evening snacks. The DON reported they had not heard of the concern from residents when they had attended the resident council meetings monthly.
Review of the policy, Nourishments/HS [nighttime] Snacks, revised 01/05/21, revealed, Policy: All residents will be offered a HS snack according to menu, individual needs, and preference. Purpose: To provide snacks and promote quality of life. Procedure: HS snacks and nourishments will be: Prepared by the dietary department, delivered to the nourishment's rooms or nursing stations .A variety of food and beverages for all diet levels will be available for nursing staff to offer residents .
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0943
(Tag F0943)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all staff received annual abuse education with the potential to affect all 52 residents residing in the facility. This deficient pra...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all staff received annual abuse education with the potential to affect all 52 residents residing in the facility. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for abuse. Findings include:
A review of annual abuse education records revealed the following:
Physician QQ had no documented annual abuse education for the 2021-2022 year. No previous abuse education was provided.
Activities Aide PP was hired on 9/12/22 and had not completed the abuse training.
No annual abuse in-service training for 2021/2022 was provided for Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) MM, CNA W, CNA GG, CNA V, and CNA T.
On 9/21/22 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with Human Resources (HR) I. When asked about the missing abuse educations, HR I acknowledge that the facility was behind on their in-services. HR I reported she had just recently taken on the role and would work to correct the issue.
A review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation revised 12/20 revealed, . II. Employee Training. A. New employees will be educated on abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property during initial orientation. B. Existing staff will receive annual education through planned in-services as needed .
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #12
Review of Resident #12's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/27/22, revealed Resident #12 scored 15/15 on t...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #12
Review of Resident #12's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/27/22, revealed Resident #12 scored 15/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, which indicated normal cognition.
During an interview on 09/20/22 at 10:50 a.m., Resident #12 reported there were not enough staff at the facility to meet the care needs of the residents.
During a family care conference on 07/07/22 at 11:16 a.m., Resident #12 reported he had prior concerns with staff answering other call lights and waiting for them to return for his care.
Group Meeting:
During a group meeting to review the resident council process with interviewable residents on 09/20/22 at 11:03 a.m., Resident #C-1 reported they waited a longer time for their call light to be answered frequently. Resident #C-1 stated, There are not enough people [staff] here a lot of times to come [answer her call light]. The longest wait is an hour or so. They [staff] can't get to anybody. It happens anytime [of day, afternoon, or night] .It has occurred in the last couple weeks; it is ongoing . Resident #C-1 reported feeling frustrated.
Resident #C-4 stated, When they get busy, they just don't get to you. I'm not supposed to go to the rest room by myself, and if I do wait I have an accident. I've waited for a half hours sometimes; you can't wait when you have to go .Sometimes you have accidents . Resident #C-4 said this made her feel anxious.
Resident #C-1 and Resident #C-4 both reported a reasonable amount of time to wait would be 10 to 15 minutes.
Resident #C-3 reported they waited too long and may have an accident [incontinence] . They reported they had waited a half hour for assistance, and a reasonable amount of time to wait would be five minutes. They stated it doesn't make them feel good.
Resident #C-2 reported they had to wait too long for their call light to be answered. They stated they had waited 15 minutes or longer .That is too much.[time to wait] They reported they expected ten minutes would be the longest time to wait. They stated, It makes you feel like you're along and you need help. It makes you feel helpless .
Resident #C-6 stated, Granted, we don't have enough help [staff to answer call lights]. They [all staff] were told when a light [call light] is on anyone is to answer the light. I have looked out the door [from her room] and they [staff] make no effort to answer. They sit at the desk. I know they have their charting to do but if they're outside the nurses station they should answer .If that wasn't their assigned hall for giving care they don't answer it [the aides] . Resident #C-6 expressed frustration regarding other residents care needs not being met timely.
Resident #C-10 reported they push the call light and sometimes no one answered it. They reported yesterday (09/19/22) they had waited on the day shift at least an hour for assistance. They reported it made them feel frustrated and miserable.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staff to meet resident care needs based on their comprehensive assessments, individual care plans, and acuity level of the facility resident population based on the annual resident assessment. This deficient practice resulted in unmet care needs, a delay in the provision of care, and feelings of hopelessness and helplessness. Findings include:
Review of Shower documentation in the EMR (Electronic Medical Record) for Resident #19, and #52 revealed one shower was documented in the last 30 days for Resident #19, and three showers were documented in the last 30 days for Resident #52.
During an interview on 9/19/22 at 4:05 p.m., Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) W stated, We don't have a shower nurse. When there are three aides, we try to get a couple (of showers done) when we can, but if there is only one person on a hall (three CNAs) it is pretty impossible to get the showers done.
Review of Nurse Staffing Sheets, showing the names and job descriptions of the staff working during the last month, revealed the following, in part:
8/21/22 - No Afternoon shift CENAs listed on the Daily Staffing Sheet.
8/22/22 - Less than 4 FTE (full-time equivalents) for CNAs on Day Shift and Afternoon shift.
8/24/22 - Less than 4 FTE for CNAs on Afternoon Shift. (Nurse Staffing Sheets not provided until next date of 9/4/22).
9/4/22 - Sunday, Day Shift 3 FTE CNAs and 1 orientee CNA, Afternoon Shift, same three CNAs and orientee as Day Shift.
9/6/22 - Tuesday, Day shift 3 CNAs and 1 orientee, Afternoon Shift 2 CNAs and 1 orientee. Night Shift, 1 Nurse and 2 CNAs.
9/8/22 - Afternoon Shift, less than 3 CNA FTEs, Night Shift, 2 nurses, 1.5 CNAs.
Review of the remaining Nurse Staffing Sheets provided revealed staffing numbers that appear to be less than the Facility Assessment identified levels on the following days: 9/9/22, 9/11/22, 9/12//22, 9/13/22, 9/15/22, 9/16/22, 9/17/22. 9/18/22, 9/19/22, 9/20/22 (Night Shift, 2 nurses split shift, one CNA), 9/21/22, and 9/22/22.
During an interview on 9/20/22 at 9:18 a.m., Family Member (FM) EE voiced concerns related to staffing, FM EE stated, [Resident #52's] fingernails are . usually caked full of poop all the time .I am tired of hearing they are short-staffed . I came in (to the facility) and residents were not getting bathed for three weeks at a time . [the facility] keep(s) using the excuse that [they] are short-staffed. Last week I heard they were short-staffed .
During an interview on 9/22/22 at 8:04 a.m., when asked about staffing, Registered Nurse (RN) BB rolled her eyes and stated, Could be better. RN BB said she and her sister both came to work at the facility, and she had worked with her sister until 3:00 a.m., the previous night, and then RN BB was the only nurse on the floor from 3:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. There was one Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) who worked from 11:00 p.m. to 4 a.m., and then it was me and my sister the LPN who worked as an aide (for the rest of the shift). RN BB stated, They need CNAs badly . When asked about the day shift nurse showing up late, RN BB stated, This is not good. I was actually going to start passing meds myself. RN BB was still the nurse on the floor, as the day nurse did not arrive before breakfast. When asked if there were medications that needed to be passed before breakfast, RN BB said the Director of Nursing (DON) was going to be passing meds until the day shift nurse arrived. The DON was observed literally running around in the hallways to try to get everything covered per RN BB.
During an interview on 9/26/22 at 8:06 a.m., when asked about completion of resident care, checking, and changing of incontinence briefs, and repositioning of residents to prevent or heal pressure injuries, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) N stated, That is really the worst part (of being short-staffed). We don't have enough staff to make sure people are getting repositioned, so even if we heal a pressure ulcer, they are reoccurring because staff do not have the time to reposition residents and ensure they are checked and changed (for incontinence) timely . I know toenails look terrible and showers most days - they don't get done.
Review of Resident [Facility Name] Resident Assistance Form(s) revealed the following (de-identified) resident complaints with corresponding dates:
2/17/22 - Would like a shower when he is scheduled - on his shower day. Last shower resident had was given by [therapist). Resident stated shower days are Mon. and Fri.
3/1/22 - Not enough staff to care for clients. Often 1 CNA and 1 Nurse on night shift (and) 2 on day shift. Lights go hours waiting to get answered. I've seen people on the floor yelling for help but staff on other side of the building and can't even hear them. This is wrong for everyone involved, both staff and clients .
3/17/22 - It takes too long sometimes for call light(s) to be answered.
5/3/22 - . Roommate is having BM (bowel movement) accidents because call light not being answered.
5/5/22 - Resident was wet. [Name] turned the call light on @ 4 p.m. Let 5 different staff know resident needed to be changed. Staff responded they would get help - no one returned. Resident was still wet @ 7 p.m. when family left.
5/19/22 - Call light. Not being answered in a timely manner - Have to wait to (sic) long.
5/19/22 - Call light not answered in a timely manner - Waited in excess of 45 min (minutes) @ (at) times.
Review of the Facility Assessment, updated 7/14/2022, revealed the following staffing information, in part: Staffing plan 3.2: We practice consistent staffing; we use a combination that is well over staffing ratio requirements and gives us flexibility to accommodate a temporary increase in acuity. If Census decreases, staffing patterns & numbers are adjusted. Position and Total Number Needed or Average or Range included the following direct care staff numbers:
- Licensed nurses providing direct care: 2-RNs or LPN's day shift, 1 to 2 RNs or LPNs night shift.
- Nurse aides: 4-5-aides day shift, 4-5 aide's afternoon shift, 2 aides night shift. Staffing based on acuity of residents .
No reference, calculation, or explanation of the facilities method to determine the acuity of the current resident population was identified in the Facility Assessment.
Review of the level of Assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) required by facility residents (presumed as of the 7/14/22 Facility Assessment update), revealed the following:
- No residents were identified as Independent with performance of ADLs.
- One resident was identified as Independent with Mobility
- Assist of 1-2 Staff was documented for: Dressing (51), Bathing (45), Transfer (50), Eating (53), and Toileting (51), with 15 residents that used an assistive device to ambulate. The Facility Assessment identified that almost every resident in the facility required 1-2 assist with multiple ADLs.
- Dependent residents were as documented: Dressing (4), Bathing (10), Transfer (5), Eating (2), Toileting (4), and Mobility, in Chair Most of Time was (39).
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all nursing staff had the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing services, including evaluation, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all nursing staff had the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing services, including evaluation, development, and aseptic wound care treatment for one Residents (#38) of four residents reviewed for competencies with pressure ulcer care. This deficient practice resulted in the lack of clinical competency in the development of wound care orders, multiple infection control breaches with pressure injury treatments, the potential for the development of new pressure injuries, worsening of condition, and the spread of infectious organisms and increased potential for skin/wound infections. This deficiency had the potential to affect all 52 residents in the facility. Findings include:
Review of Clinical Competency Validations for four nurses on 9/22/22 at 10:49 a.m., revealed the following nurses did not have current annual nursing competencies validated: Registered Nurse/Wound Care Nurse (RN) M, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) U, LPN FF, and LPN N. RN M had orientation competencies evaluated 12/8/21, without evaluation of wound care competency.
No annual nursing competencies had been completed for any of the nursing staff during the past year.
During an observation on 9/21/22 at 5:19 p.m., RN M, in the presence of the Director of Nursing (DON), removed her dirty gloves and donned new gloves without hand sanitation. RN M was stopped by the DON and this Surveyor with the failure to perform hand hygiene. RN M removed the gloves and placed the dirty gloves onto the clean field (barrier cloth) on the resident's bed. RN M performed hand hygiene, donned clean gloves, opened the wound dressing package, now dirty from contact with the dirty gloves placed on the clean field previously. The DON retrieved a box of clean gloves, handed the glove box to RN M, who set the glove box down on Resident #38's dirty bed linens. RN M was directed by the DON to put out a clean barrier cloth by touching the inside of the clean barrier cloth only with new clean gloves. RN M touched her pants pocket with her ungloved right hand. RN M performed hand hygiene with that right hand only and donned clean gloves. RN M did not use a garbage can/container for disposal of dirty wound supplies but continued to place the dirty wound dressings removed from the resident onto the clean barrier cloth. During this observation there were numerous infection control breaches between clean and dirty, with verbal and nonverbal direction provided by the DON and this Surveyor to maintain a clean and appropriate wound change environment during this observation.
During a continued observation of wound care for Resident #38 on 9/21/22 at 5:39 p.m., the DON retrieved additional clean barrier pads. RN M placed the clean barrier pads on top of the glove box sitting on Resident #38's dirty bed linens. RN M said [Resident #38] had plantar pinkie wound and heel pressure injuries on the left foot. No dates were observed on either the plantar pinkie or left heel dressings. RN M removed the dressing from a circular wound on the left, lateral side of the left foot, near the little (5th) toe. The dressing appeared saturated with exudate prior to removal of the dressing. When the dressing was removed, yellow/brown purulent drainage was present with a foul order. The dressing was saturated with the exudate, and thick, strands of drainage were visible as the dressing was lifted from the wound. When asked about the type of exudate and smell, RN M said the drainage was purulent with an odor. The wound was not measured, as RN M said the left pinkie was considered a plantar wart, not a pressure injury. The wound dressing was removed from the left inside heel, revealing purulent yellow/brown drainage, again with strands of sticky, thick exudate clinging onto the dressing as it was lifted from Resident #38's left heel. The wound had a strong foul odor. When asked about the exudate and smell, RN M confirmed it was again purulent and odorous. Skin was peeling off the left heel wound. The heel wound was measured at 7 cm x 5 cm, with depth undetermined. RN M said there was yellow/brownish eschar in the middle of the wound bed, but the wound appeared to have increased in size and deteriorated. RN M said both left foot wounds would be considered unstageable at this time.
During an interview on 9/22/22 at 7:25 a.m., the DON was asked about Resident #38's wound care completed by RN M on 9/21/22. When asked about what concerns she identified during observation and the amount of assistance provided during the dressing changes for three separate pressure injury dressings, the DON stated, I spoke with her (RN M) very briefly. I stressed about clean (and) dirty, hand hygiene, don't shake your hands in the air, don't touch your clothes . I would say both the heel and the left lateral foot (wounds) were unstageable. The DON agreed that there were multiple infection control breaches that required stopping of the dressing change process due to lack of hand hygiene, contamination of the clean field, and failure to use a dirty garbage can/container.
During an interview on 9/22/22 at 12:55 p.m., RN M said she had returned to work at the facility in November of 2021 but had only been doing wound care for about a month. RN M acknowledged she had never been given a clear-cut job description, and stated, The previous wound care nurse tried to give me some training, but she was not here long enough (for me) to get proper training - so I wing it. My understanding is they let me know about the wounds, I assess them, I do a wound assessment, I get orders to treat, and I go from there. RN M said she had no formal or informal wound care training.
During a continued interview on 9/22/22 at 1:11 p.m., when asked about a physician order for the dressing change on 9/21/22, RN M stated, [The DON] asked me to put an order in. I told her yesterday there was not an order because I was not aware of the wound on Resident #38's bottom. RN M said she picked the order from the wound dressing protocols available within the EMR . For [Resident #38's] butt I picked the Stage 2 pressure injury with no to moderate drainage. RN M said she normally left the Duoderm dressings on for 2-3 days. When asked why seven days was included for the dressing change time for Resident #38's right buttock pressure injury, RN M stated, I don't know. I am stressed. RN M said the physicians just signed the wound dressing change orders she requested. RN M stated, Normally it is every 2-3 days for most dressings. I was in the hot seat yesterday, and I didn't know about the wound, and normally it would be every three days. When asked if she had completed wound assessment documentation for the dressing change on 9/21/22, RN M said she had not. When asked if the physician had been notified of the deterioration of the left heel wound and foul odor of both the pinkie plantar wound and left heel wound, RN M said she had not provided them any notification because there had not been any change. RN M said the purulent drainage and foul odor had been present previously. RN M confirmed she had not written a progress note. When asked about her thoughts on her ability to determine pressure injury wound dressing change orders and provide appropriate care to promote healing of Resident #38's pressure injuries and to prevent the development of further pressure areas, RN M stated, I feel that I am not qualified to take care of him (Resident #38) at this point. I need training and I have been asking for help with him, but I have been running into roadblocks .I need training. RN M brushed away tears from her eyes and pushed her glasses back up, and again said that she did not feel adequately trained. When asked if she had a full nursing competency evaluation completed, including wound dressing changes, upon hire or within the first 90 days of employment, RN M said she did not remember one being done.
During an interview on 9/22/22 at 11:45 a.m., RN H was asked about the recent Physician Order for Resident #38's right buttock pressure injury that ordered a dressing change of the wound every seven days. RN H stated, I would not have done that. I don't know why you would leave a dressing on a wound for seven days. When asked if wound orders were formulated by the physicians, or if the nursing staff created the order and had them signed by the physicians, RN H stated, To be honest our physicians do not know very much about wounds . They will call us from the clinic and ask our nurses what they should do about their wounds. They sign the orders that our nurses send to them. They normally don't tell us what to do. RN H said the facility physicians normally refer them to wound care or sign what we (the nursing staff) suggest. When asked who was competent in wound care in the facility to be able to develop wound care treatment orders, RN H stated, Well [RN M], but I don't know what training [RN M] has.
During an interview on 9/27/22 at 2:47 p.m., the DON confirmed no wound assessment was completed by RN M on 9/21/22. The DON agreed the assessment should have been documented in the medical record. The DON confirmed the both the pinkie plantar pressure wound and the left heel wound had a foul odor on 9/21/22 with purulent, thick, yellow-brownish exudate. The DON confirmed the heel wound had greatly increased in size, and the wound dressing, when removed, was saturated with exudate. The DON said she would have telephone the physician and reported the type and appearance of wound drainage, the worsening of the wound, and the foul smell associated with both wounds after the wound observation on 9/21/22.
Review of the Skin and Pressure Injury Risk Assessment and Prevention policy, revised 7/2021, revealed the following, in part: .Interventions for Prevention and to Promote Healing .c. Evidence-based interventions for prevention will be implemented for all residents who are assessed at risk or who have a pressure injury present. Basic or routine care interventions could include, but are not limited to . i. Redistribute pressure (such as repositioning, protecting and/or offloading heels, etc.) . 8. Wound assessments are documented upon admission, weekly, and as needed if the resident or wound condition deteriorates. Wound treatments are documented at the time of each treatment .
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Certified Nurses Aides (CNA's) were reviewed for competency and provided 12 hours of in-services annually for five of five CNA'...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Certified Nurses Aides (CNA's) were reviewed for competency and provided 12 hours of in-services annually for five of five CNA's reviewed. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for incompetent care and unmet needs. Findings include:
A review of five CNA's for competency and education hours revealed the following:
CNA MM was hired on 7/11/18 and had 0 hours of education logged in the previous year. The last completed skills competency for CNA MM was dated 3/24/21 and did not have an updated competency.
CNA W was hired on 5/24/04 and had 0 hours of education logged in the previous year. The last completed skills competency for CNA MM was dated 3/22/21 and did not have an updated competency.
CNA GG was hired on 2/15/19 and had only four hours of education logged in the previous year. The last completed skills competency for CNA MM was dated 3/22/21 and did not have an updated competency.
CNA V was hired on 8/25/20 and had 0 hours of education logged in the previous year. The last completed skills competency for CNA MM was dated 3/23/21 and did not have an updated competency.
CNA T was hired on 2/15/19 and had one hour of education logged in the previous year. The last completed skills competency for CNA MM was dated 3/23/21 and did not have an updated competency.
On 9/21/22 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with Human Resources (HR) I. When asked about the missing competency reviews and lack of education hours, HR I reported she was aware of the issue and that she would have to make a plan to get back on track. HR I reported that she was new to the role and that no one was overseeing the CNA education program prior to her starting.
A review of the facility policy titled, Online Training System . revised 9/26/17 revealed, . Certified Nurse Aides: Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) are required to complete 12 hours of in-servicing annually. Failure to complete this requirement could result in the loss of certification.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Resident #12
During an interview on 09/20/22 at 10:48 a.m., Resident #12 reported the menu was not always accurate, as he sometimes did not receive what was on the menu. Resident #12 reported the kitc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Resident #12
During an interview on 09/20/22 at 10:48 a.m., Resident #12 reported the menu was not always accurate, as he sometimes did not receive what was on the menu. Resident #12 reported the kitchen sometimes ran out of eggs, and he often didn't get a complete breakfast. Resident #12 reported he was tired of the same items, such as sweet potatoes, which he did not like and had asked for an alternate which he never received. Resident #12 expressed frustration with the dining experience.
During an interview on 09/21/22 at 9:14 a.m., Resident #12 was observed at breakfast, and stated, I finally got eggs!
Resident #28
During an interview on 09/22/22 at 9:13 a.m., Resident #28 reported she did not get a choice for lunch and dinner if she did not like what was on the menu, as she did in the past. Resident #28 expressed frustration with the dining experience.
Resident Council Meetings:
Review of Resident Council Minutes, dated 06/30/22, revealed Resident #30 stated, .I am not getting what is on the menu sometimes either. Last week we were suppose [sic] to have a cheeseburger and fries. Instead, we [residents] got two pieces of bread with an overcooked dried up hamburger patty and gravy all over it .There is no talent downstairs in dietary for cooking. Improve the menus, and train your employees. If you have good food, you're happy. The menu is like a 5th grade cafeteria. Please watch the likes and dislikes on residents tray cards. They are there for a reason .
During the Group meeting to review Resident Council on 09/20/22 at 11:03 a.m., Resident #C1 reported they had been told they could choose an alternative to the menu entrée, and when they did choose an alternate they still received the menu entrée anyway. Resident #C7 reported they received the main menu items too often, such as chicken, pasta, beets, pineapple, grapes, and would like more variety. The group residents collectively agreed they would like to see more variety with the menu. Resident #C6 reported they often did not get condiment's, and this had been a problem for some time, such as not getting sugar. Resident #C6 reported she and other residents still did not get what was marked on their trays cards as preferences and/or dislikes.
During an interview on 9/21/22 at 2:26 p.m., Resident #30 provided the following unsolicited information related to the food in the facility. Resident #30 stated, The menu planning is terrible. Something over the weekend they didn't serve it, and they didn't have it - so they changed the whole meal to something else . One night . we had goulash. There were no noodles in the goulash, and half the plate was corn. I went down to the basement and asked where the hell were the noodles for the goulash. They didn't have elbow macaroni, but they had noodles. Resident #30 provided a digital phone photo of the goulash without noodles and half a plate of corn for reviewed. Resident #30 stated, Things that are on the menu, and the day comes, and it is not even close to what you get. If they try to serve me another peanut butter and jelly sandwich! The alternatives are peanut butter and jelly, and tuna fish - no sliced lunch meat . No smoked sausage yesterday, no (we had) sauerkraut with chicken - because it was something quick
Observation of meal tray pass on 9/22/22 at 8:45 a.m., in Resident #26's room in the presence of Registered Nurse (RN) Y showed the Resident's breakfast plate included two pieces of what appeared to be turkey bacon and one slice of toast. The large meal plate was 3/4's empty. Resident #26 attempted to make a bacon half-sandwich with the small amount of food present on the plate. A portion of cream of wheat was in a small, insulated cup on the meal tray.
Observation of Resident #46's (roommates) breakfast plate on 9/22/22 at approximately 8:46 a.m., found one slice of toast and two small pork sausage links on the plate. Again, the plate appeared 3/4's empty, and an insulated cup of cream of wheat was on the tray.
Observation of the meal tray of Resident #10 on 9/22/22 at approximately 8:50 a.m., found two uneaten pieces of what appeared to be turkey bacon, one slice of toast, and an insulated cup of cream of wheat. When asked about breakfast, Resident #10 stated, It is absolutely horrible. They gave us two pieces of greasy bacon (appeared to be turkey bacon), they didn't even wipe the grease off of it, and one slice of toast. Resident #10 said the cream of wheat was his favorite but It is only lukewarm, so I didn't eat that. Resident #10 state, I go to wound care, and they keep asking me about the food at this place, and I don't know how the hell you can cook like this for a facility. They don't even know what an open-faced sandwich is. It is awful.
During an interview on 9/22/22 at 9:14 a.m., Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) A was asked about the amount of food served to residents for breakfast that day. CDM A confirmed the kitchen had served two ounces of turkey bacon or two ounces of sausage and one slice of toast. When asked if that amount of found would be adequate for a 200-pound man, CDM A paused and said that amount met the requirements. CDM A said she did not cook that morning and was not aware of what items were listed on the prepared menus for breakfast.
During an interview on 9/22/22 at 9:57 a.m., CDM A provided the prepared menus for the week, including the breakfast menu for 9/22/22 which listed, French toast, sausage links, syrup, margarine, orange juice, 2% Milk, Coffee/Tea. The menu was changed but not noted on the menu that it had been changed. CDM A stated, I am the one that marks things as different (from the scheduled menu food items), and I didn't do that.
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to follow menus and recipes, which had been prepared, reviewed and approved, by the facility's food vendor, and failed to ensure the facility Registered Dietitian (RD) reviewed changes made to the menus by dietary staff. This deficient practice had the potential to result in menus and meals which did not meet the nutritional needs of the residents and result in nutritional deficits and dissatisfaction among any or all 52 residents. Findings include:
On 9/22/22 a review of the facility menus was conducted and included the entire five week cycle for all three meals per day. The menus were observed to have been whited out and hand printing on the menu was done over the approved vendor supplied menus. Of the 35 breakfast meals, seven had been significantly altered to reduce the option of choices of cereal. Of the 35 lunches within the 5 week cycle, 7 meals had been whited out and replaced with significantly different main course menu items. These included as examples: Week 2 apple pork chop replaced with cabbage rolls; Week 3: Fish Sandwich (culturally significant) replaced with turkey sandwich; Chicken quesadilla replaced with chipped beef on toast; ham and cheese quiche replaced with pizza casserole; Turkey tetrazzini replaced with scallop potatoes; Week 5 significant changes included: Alaskan whitefish (culturally significant) replaced with tater tot casserole; Turkey casserole replaced with tomato Florentine.
On 9/21/22 at 10:30 AM an interview with Dietary Manager (DM) A was conducted related to the changes in the menu. DM A stated the department was always over budget and was trying to find ways to reduce costs. DM A stated also the residents had requested changes, but was unable to produce supporting evidence to demonstrate the changes had been discussed with the resident population.
DM A was requested to produce the production sheets for each meal for the previous eight weeks. These sheets are intended to document the actual amount of food prepared and served, as well as the resident census. The documents provided by DM A were identified and titled Food Usage and Meat Temperatures and included columns for food item, Amount used, meals served. The Food Usage sheets were compared to the actual planned menu, as well as looking at the amount of food prepared for the resident population, and a review of the associated recipes provided by the menu vendor. An interview with RD F was conducted on 9/22/22 at approximately 10:00 AM related to the Food Usage sheets. It was explained that meals served was not filled in on the majority of the sheets. RD F stated the average resident census was about 50, with variations of +/- 4, therefore looking at a range of 46-54 residents per meal. RD F also acknowledged the information absent on the Food Usage sheets.
The following information was gathered by reviewing the Food Usage documents from August 08/2/2022 to September 16, 2022.
8/08/22: Chicken alfredo served, recipe called for 9½# (pounds) of chicken, amount not recorded.
8/10/22: Beef macaroni casserole: 8½# ground beef called for, amount not recorded
8/11/22: Tuna salad sandwich and beef barely soup. Amounts not recorded.
8/14/22: Barbeque riblets (lunch), Turkey sandwich (dinner). Amounts not recorded.
8/15/22: Goulash on the menu, recipe calls for 8½# beef, Amounts not recorded.
8/16/22: Salad crispy chicken salad on menu, documented serving cottage cheese with peaches. Amount not recorded.
8/17/22: Braised Beef tips. Recipe called for 9½# beef, documented 3# pot roast used.
8/17/22: dinner menu stated chicken quesadilla and black bean salad, menu changed to chipped beef on toast, fried egg and frozen peas. Food usage sheet documented Shit shingles 4 boxes
8/18/22: Lunch menu stated BBQ Chicken thighs, recorded Boneless wings. Amount not recorded.
8/18/22: Dinner menu stated Ham & Cheese quiche, pizza casserole served. No recipe found, no amounts recorded.
8/19/22: Menu stated turkey tetrazzini, Food usage documented scallop potatoes/ham. Amount not recorded.
8/20/22: Chicken jambalaya. No amounts recorded.
8/24/22: Beef Terriyaki: recipe called for 8½# beef. No amounts recorded.
8/25/22: Goulash (lunch); Recipe called for 8½# ground beef. No amount recorded.
8/25/22: Chicken Rueben sandwich (dinner); Replaced with chicken on a bun, no amount recorded.
8/28/22: Menu = Pot Roast, recipe calls for 9½# beef roast. Amount not recorded.
8/29/22: Alaskan Whitefish sandwich on menu, food usage documented 1 bag of Mac/cheese.
9/4/22: Pork tenderloin: recipe calls for 10½#. Amount not recorded.
9/2/22: Chili. No amount of beef or beans recorded.
9/5/22: Taco salad. Recipe called for 6.4# beef. 4# beef documented being used.
9/6/22: Spaghetti. Recipe called for 8½# ground beef. No amount recorded.
9/9/22: Chicken quesadilla. Recipe calls for 6¼# chicken. 3 (no identifier) documented used.
9/11/22: Baked Ham. Recipe called for 9½#. 16 oz recorded on food usage
9/12/22; Chicken alfredo. Recipe calls for 9½# chicken. 5# documented being used.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordan...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by:
A. Failing to ensure staff washed their hands after touching contaminated surfaces.
B. Failing to ensure that staff wore hair restraints when in the kitchen during preparation and service times.
C. Failing to develop a system that identifies expiration dates on food product containers utilizing the [NAME] calendar coding system.
This deficient practice has the potential to result in food borne illness among any or all of the 52 residents in the facility.
Findings include:
A. On 09/19/22 at approximately 04:00 PM kitchen staff were observed conducting preparation for the evening meal. Dietary aides (DA) B and D were observed with their face masks down, then raising them with their bare hands. Both staff returned to preparation activities, including wrapping silverware, moving dishes and bowls, and handling dishes with food. Neither conducted hand washing after touching their faces and masks.
On 9/21/22 at approximately 12:00 noon, DA G was observed in the kitchen picking up broken plates from the floor, sweeping the floor, touching the face mask and adjusting the hair restraint. DA G then returned to the serving line and began handling clean dishes and food service utensils without any hand washing activities.
B. On 9/19/22 at approximately 3:55 PM, DA D was observed in the kitchen, conducting meal preparation activities, without a hair restraint. DA D was wearing a long sleeve sweatshirt with a hood. At the same time DA C was observed wearing a ball cap with large amounts of hair hanging below the cap.
On 09/21/22 at 8:11 AM DA C was observed in the kitchen without any hair restraint. When asked about the absent hair restraint, DA C put one on and returned to conducting preparation activities for the morning meal, including pouring juice, handling cups and utensils used by residents for their meals.
C. On 09/19/22 4:15 PM 15 plastic containers of soup base were observed in the walk in cooler, two door refrigerator in the main kitchen and on shelves in the dry storage room. None of the containers had an expiration date, rather, were marked with a code on the bottom, identifying the date of manufacture based on the [NAME] calendar. On 9/20/22 at approximately 8:30 AM, an interview was conducted with Dietary Manager (DM) A concerning the soup base products. DM A stated she was not aware how the containers were marked, nor was she aware how to read and identify the [NAME] code dates on the bottom. DM A acknowledged she was not aware of the shelf life of the product, as identified by the distributor and did not have a system to properly mark the products to ensure staff knew when to discard the product DM A was requested to contact the distributor to get information regarding the reading of the codes on the bottom and the shelf life of the product. This information was never presented prior to the exit from the survey.
The FDA Food Code 2013 states the following:
2-103.11 Person in Charge.
The PERSON IN CHARGE shall ensure that:
(D) EMPLOYEES are effectively cleaning their hands, by routinely monitoring the EMPLOYEES' handwashing;
2-301.14 When to Wash.
FOOD EMPLOYEES shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms as specified under § 2-301.12 immediately before engaging in FOOD preparation including working with exposed FOOD, clean EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS, and unwrapped SINGLESERVICE and SINGLE-USE ARTICLES and:
(A) After touching bare human body parts other than clean hands and clean, exposed portions of arms;
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. Pf
commercially processed food
o open and hold cold
(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: Pf
(1) The day the original container is opened in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT shall be counted as Day 1; Pf 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. Pf
(C) A refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD ingredient or a portion of a refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD that is subsequently combined with additional ingredients or portions of FOOD shall retain the date marking of the earliest-prepared or first-prepared ingredient.
(D) A date marking system that meets the criteria stated in (A) and (B) of this section may include:
(1) Using a method APPROVED by the REGULATORY AUTHORITY for refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD that is frequently rewrapped, such as lunch meat or a roast, or for which date marking is impractical, such as soft serve mix or milk in a dispensing machine;
(2) Marking the date or day of preparation, with a procedure to discard the FOOD on or before the last date or day by which the FOOD must be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded as specified under (A) of this section;
(3) Marking the date or day the original container is opened in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, with a procedure to discard the FOOD on or before the last date or day by which the FOOD must be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded as specified under (B) of this section; or
(4) Using calendar dates, days of the week, color-coded marks, or other effective marking methods, provided that the marking system is disclosed to the REGULATORY AUTHORITY upon request.
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** During an observation on 9/27/22 at 1:18 p.m., CNA GG was observed providing dining assistance to Resident #52, while sitting ou...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an observation on 9/27/22 at 1:18 p.m., CNA GG was observed providing dining assistance to Resident #52, while sitting out of view on Resident #52's bed behind a partially pulled privacy curtain. CNA's N95 facemask was below her nose, and the top elastic strap was not secured behind her head. Resident #52 was sitting upright in a chair approximately 3 feet from CNA GG, with a plate of food on the overbed table between them. CNA GG, upon this Surveyor's entrance into Resident #52's room, pulled her N95 facemask out from her face using her bare hands, positioned it upwards over her nose, and secured the back elastic strap behind her head. No hand hygiene was performed following bare hand contact with the front of the N95 mask, and continued dining assistance for Resident #52.
During an interview on 9/27/22 at 1:44 p.m., the DON was asked for the facility policy for PPE (personal protective equipment) usage, specifically facemasks for staff who were unvaccinated for COVID-19. The DON said she would have to double check the policy regarding what is being required for COVID-19 non-vaccinated staff. The DON confirmed all staff were currently wearing either surgical masks or N95 masks. The DON also acknowledged the infection control concern related to CNA GG with her facemask down while sitting close to Resident #52.
On 9/27/22 at 3:51 p.m., the COVID-19 vaccination status of CNA GG was requested from Infection Control RN H. The Vaccination Tracker form was provided for all facility employees detailing their current COVID-19 vaccination status. CNA GG was identified as unvaccinated for COVID-19 and had a documented exemption for the COVID-19 vaccination.
Review of the COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate policy, Reviewed/Revised 5/22, revealed the following, in part: .Guidelines: It is required that all individuals in the facility receive the designated COVID-19 vaccination or provide evidence of vaccine receipt or exemption. Guidelines have been established to assist with determining the course of action to be taken to reach compliance with this policy . 4. Until this provision of the policy is rescinded any employee who obtains an exemption will be required to wear PPE as a source control measure when in the facility which includes a N95 respirator and perform at minimum weekly rapid COVID testing .
This citation will have two deficient practice statements: A and B.
A. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control practices for: 1) perform proper health screenings for COVID-19 facility entrance; 2) adherence to mask use for COVID-19 precautions; 3) properly store medical equipment and supplies; 4) performance of hand hygiene during wound and incontinence care; 5) appropriate isolation for a multi-drug resistant organism in Transmission-based Precautions; and 6) completing staff surveillance for infection control compliance. These deficient practices had the potential to result in cross-contamination of organisms and the development of possible infections affecting all 53 residents. Findings include:
SCREENING CONCERNS
During an initial observation on 9/19/22 at 3:16 p.m., signage outside the facility's entrance vestibule says only one individual is allowed in the vestibule to maintain six feet social distancing. The vestibule lacked instructions for visitors to perform COVID-19 screenings such as: 1. perform hand hygiene 2. place on a mask 3. use the kiosk to complete health screening questions 4. ring the bell for staff assistance 5. use the manual thermometer and cleanse/disinfect after use. Additional signage, undated, was observed on a stand before the second set of doors which read, To help protect our residents we are currently asking our visitors to wear an N-95 (high filtration mask) that are provided for your convenience .
A handheld thermometer was placed directly on top of a round table located to the left of a hand sanitizing station. No cleaning and disinfecting supplies were available to cleanse the thermometer after use. Surveyors used the electronic kiosk station to perform COVID-19 health screening questions. The automated temperature function did not work and were instructed to take manual temperatures. No sticker printed from the kiosk or provided otherwise to show successful completion of the required COVID-19 screening was performed for facility staff.
The Director of Nursing (DON) opened the second set of doors to allow admission inside of the facility. The DON confirmed no cases of COVID-19 for facility staff and residents in the last 14 days. The DON said facility staff and visitors were currently able to wear surgical masks.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 8:00 a.m., an unidentified male visitor was observed in the vestibule as this Surveyor waited outside of the building. The visitor entered the vestibule without a mask. Disposable masks were noted on the round table located next to the hand sanitizing station but the visitor did not utilize one. The visitor touched the kiosk station without prior performance of hand hygiene. Staff eventually arrived and assisted the visitor.
During an interview on 9/20/22 at 3:34 p.m., the DON observed the entrance vestibule to review the COVID-19 entrance screening process. The DON confirmed step-by-step COVID-19 screening instructions were not available but needed for visitors/staff. The DON verified cleaning and disinfecting wipes were not present to cleanse the thermometer/table/ kiosk after use. The DON located a small box of 2x2 inch alcohol wipes which was located behind the kiosk station that was not plainly visible. The signage which indicated the need for visitors to wear an N-95 mask was pointed out and the DON said it was no longer in effect due to the facility's and community's current positivity rates.
During the same interview with the DON on 9/20/22 at 3:34 p.m., while in the vestibule, two visitors passed through separately, as they were exiting the facility, and were both without masks. The DON stopped the male visitor and educated on the need to wear one while in the facility. The male visitor responded, I was told that if I'm playing (music activity) that I don't have to wear a mask. It's too late now, I'm leaving but I don't have a problem with wearing one.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 4:35 p.m., R15 was observed reviewing the facility's hand-written COVID-19 Screening Log which was located on the ledge of the front office counter.
PROPER PERSONAL PROTECTION USE WITH FACEMASKS
During an observation on 9/19/22 at approximately 3:25 p.m., Staff I was observed in an opened door office without any face covering in use.
During an observation/interview on 9/20/22 at 12:07 p.m., Registered Nurse/Infection Preventionist (IP) H office door was closed. This Surveyor knocked and was verbally granted permission to enter. IP H and an unidentified female staff were observed with their masks pulled down under their chins. Both IP H and the other staff immediately repositioned their masks to cover the noses and mouths.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 10:08 a.m., an opened office door revealed Staff I who was sitting directly across a small desk (less than 6 feet distance) from Staff X showed both had their face masks hanging off one ear and not covering noses and mouths.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 12:50 p.m., Staff I was observed with a mask under the nose in an opened office door.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at approximately 12:52 p.m. Staff K and a female visitor were observed at the front office with face masks underneath their noses. Both were standing less than 6 feet apart from one another.
STORAGE OF MEDICAL SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 9:37 p.m. residents' room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom contained three opened boxes (size medium, size large, and size extra-large) of disposable gloves directly behind the uncovered toilet on top of the stainless steel handrail. The improper storage of the gloves above the toilet posed a risk of body waste backsplash to the gloves.
During an interview on 9/20/22 at 3:58 p.m., the DON confirmed opened boxes of disposable gloves should not be stored directly over residents' uncovered toilet since it posed a risk for cross-contamination of organisms.
During the facility's initial tour on 9/19/22 at 3:37 p.m., R22 had oxygen in use via a nasal cannula (medical device used to deliver oxygen via the nose) at 2.5 liters per minute. The nasal cannula tubing contained a label dated 5/23 (no year) which was handwritten in black marker. The humidifier bottle also contained the same date of 5/23 which was handwritten on the top right side of the bottle.
During an observation on 9/20/22 at 10:02 a.m., R29 had oxygen in use via a nasal cannula. The portable oxygen tank found in the pocket of her wheelchair contained connected oxygen tubing (nasal cannula) hanging freely and not contained within a plastic bag.
During an interview on 9/20/22 at 12:43 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the facility's policy was to change oxygen tubing/supplies on a weekly basis or more often if contaminated to prevent the risk of cross-contamination and infections.
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 1:48 p.m., R31's lower denture was stored directly on the nighstand and not inside a denture case. R31's upper denture was in her mouth.
HAND HYGIENE/WOUND CARE AND INCONTINENCE CARE
During an observation on 9/26/22 at 1:48 p.m., two Surveyors, Wound Care Nurse M, and Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) L were present to assess R31's skin. A strong odor of urine and feces was present. Once the top linens were removed, a large amount of greenish, liquid stool was noted outside the brief which extended and saturated almost the entire lift pad and second lift pad. CNA L said R31's last brief was changed on night shift. No disposable incontinence wipes could be located in R31's drawers or bathroom. CNA L removed her gloves and left room (had touch linens, furniture, and oral care supplies) without the performance of hand hygiene. Upon her return, CNA L assisted Wound Care Nurse M to cleanse R31's urine/feces. CNA L gloves were changed twice without hand washing before new gloves applied. Wound Care Nurse M during incontinence care changed gloves three times and only washed her hands for one of the three opportunities.
Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), October 25, 2022/Volume 51/ Number RR-16, Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings read in part, Indications for handwashing and hand antisepsis .G. Decontaminate hands if moving from a contaminated- body site to a clean-body site during patient care .I. Decontaminate hands after contact with inanimate ojects (including medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the patient .J. Decontaminatehands after removing gloves.
MULTI-DRUG RESISTANT ORGANISMS/TRANSMISSION-BASED PRECAUTIONS
During an interview on 9/21/22 at 8:20 a.m., IP H confirmed R45, who shared a room with R36, were both in contact isolation for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA-multi-drug resistant bacteria). IP H said R36 was currently being treated for an active MRSA infection to the foot. When asked if R45 had a history of MRSA colonization and/or active infection, IP H said no. When asked why R45, without a history of MRSA, would be placed in the same room with a resident with an active MRSA wound infection, IP H responded, Because they both holler out. IP H agreed, additional considerations should have been considered such as other residents with a history of MRSA, wounds, and types of invasive lines (indwelling catheters, intravenous lines, central lines, feeding tubes) when considering appropriate roommates in TBP.
Review of the facility's policy Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions date revised/reviewed 12/20, read in part, Isolation will be initiated for residents who are known or suspected to be infected or colonized with infectious agents that require additional controls to prevent transmission effectively.
INFECTION CONTROL STAFF SURVEILLANCE
During an interview 9/22/22 at 10 a.m., IP H was asked to provide any Infection Control staff monitoring for the last year such as for: wound care, hand hygiene, invasive procedures (i.e., catheter care/placement of intravenous devices) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use, and transmission based precautions compliance. IP H was only able to provide a handful of hand hygiene observations of staff conducted on May 22,2022. IP H confirmed no additional staff infection control monitoring logs were made over the last year for staff adherence to infection control policies and procedures.
B. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive Water Management Plan (WMP) to address the control and spread of Legionella bacteria in the facility water system, in accordance with QSO 17-30 Hospitals/CAHs/NH, Revised 7-6-2018. The facility failed to Develop and implement a water management program that considers the ASHRAE 188 (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) tool kit. The failure to develop a comprehensive Water Management Plan has the potential for the proliferation and transmission of Legionella in the circulating water of the building and the spread of Legionella infections in all 52 residents. Findings include:
On 9/21/22 at 8:30 AM, an interview with Maintenance Director (MD) E was conducted to review the facility's WMP for the control of Legionella in the water supply system. The facility produced the document: Policy Water Management Program, Revised 1/20, 12/20. Additionally, the document: Waterborne Hazards, with Effective Date 4-2018 and a Revised/Reviewed 6/14/18 was provided as the water management plan.
A review of the Waterborne Hazards document was conducted. The document failed to identify any specific measures, limits or data collection which would limit the spread of legionella.
A review of the Policy: Water Management Program was conducted. This policy directed the facility to:
* to establish a water management plans for reducing the risk of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in the facility's water system.
Under policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: the document states:
1. A water management team has been established to develop and implement the facility's water management program, and may include facility leadership .
2. The Maintenance Director maintains documentation that describes the facility's water system. A copy is kept in the water management program binder.
3. A risk assessment will be conducted by the water management team annually to identify where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens could grow and spread in the facility's water systems.
4. Data to be used for completing the risk assessment may include, but are not limited to:
a. water system schematic
b. legionella environmental assessment
c. Resident infection control surveillance data
d. Environmental culture results.
e. Rounding observation data
f. Water temperature logs
g. Water quality reports
5. Based on the risk assessment control points will be identified.
6. Control measures will be applied to address potential hazards
7. Testing protocols and control limits will be establlished for each control measure
8. The Water management team shall regularly verify that the water management program is being implemented as designed.
9. The effectiveness of the water management plan shall be evaluated annually
During the interview with MD E, On 9/21/22 at 8:30 AM, it was learned there had not been a risk assessment of the plumbing system conducted. Monitoring activities related to reducing the risk of waterborne pathogens, including Legionella, were not being conducted. MD E confirmed the facility was not collecting any environmental data or information on control measures or critical limits of control measures which would be instrumental in controlling legionella in the plumbing system. The facility did not produce evidence of any of the above nine components of the policy being developed or implemented into a Water Management Program.
The following components were absent from the facility WMP:
A. Designation of a Water Management Team (WMT), identifying names and their roles.
B. An assessment of the facility's water system to identify risk locations.
C. Identification of control points where effective monitoring and mitigation measures can used.
D. Identification of critical limits related to the risk areas identified and which can be controlled.
E. Implementation of regular scheduled monitoring program collecting data on limits set.
F. An evaluation process to determine how the WMP is functioning.
G. An annual review of the plan and collected information to ensure the plan was effective
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · 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 daily post required accurate and complete nurse staff...
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 daily post required accurate and complete nurse staffing information. This deficient practice resulted in the inability of residents and visitors to determine the number of staff available to provide resident care and had the potential to affect all 52 residents in the facility. Findings include:
During Initial Tour of the facility on 9/19/22 at approximately 3:00 p.m., Nursing Department Daily Staffing forms were found posted across from the main nurse's station on a bulletin board near the entrance door to room [ROOM NUMBER].
Observation on 9/20/22 at approximately 11:00 a.m., of Nursing Department Daily Staffing forms on the bulletin board, revealed incomplete documentation on the staffing forms posted for 9/18/22 - 9/20/22. A request was made for the previous two months of Nursing Department Daily Staffing forms.
Review of the Nursing Department Daily Staffing forms for the previous two months provided beginning August 11, 2022, through September 20, 2022, revealed the following, in part:
8/24/22 - No form was present.
9/6/22 - Two Nursing Department Daily Staffing forms with different information were provided.
9/7/22 - 9/17/22 - No forms were provided for review.
Review of all Nursing Department Daily Staffing forms received from the facility revealed the Daily Total for combined Nurses Shifts and combined C.N.A.s Shifts were not completed on any of the forms. Numerous forms had blank documentation for day shift, and/or afternoon shift nurse staffing information for either nurses, CNAs, or both.
During an interview on 9/20/22 at 12:05 p.m., Health Information Manager (HIM) R provided copies of the Nursing Department Daily Staffing sheets, the Daily Staffing Sheets that documented which staff worked a particular day, and the payroll schedule for nursing department staff. Business Office Manager (BOM) K said the Nursing Department Daily Staffing sheets were not being completed accurately because staff was new, and didn't know to complete the form, or how to complete the form. This Surveyor leafed back through August 2022 Nursing Department Daily Staffing forms and noted many forms that were not completed accurately.
Review of the Nurse Staffing Posting Information policy, Revised 12/2020, revealed the following, in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to make staffing information readily available in a readable format to residents and visitors at any given time. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines:
1. The nurse staffing information will be posted on a daily basis and will contain the following information:
a. Facility Name
b. The current date
c. Facility's current resident census
d. The total number and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed staff directly responsible for resident care per shift:
i. Registered Nurses
ii. Licensed Practical Nurses/Licensed Vocational Nurses
iii. Certified Nurse Aides
2. The facility will post the nurse staffing data at the beginning of each shift.
3. The information posted will be:
a. Presented in a clear and readable format.
b. In a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors.
4. The information posted is up-to-date and current.
a. The information shall reflect staff absences on that shift due to callouts and illness. After the start of each shift, actual hours will be updated to reflect such .
5. Nursing schedules and posting information will be maintained in the facility for review for at least 18 months or according to state law, whichever is greater .