Bayside Village

832 Sicotte Street, L' Anse, MI 49946 (906) 524-6531
Non profit - Corporation 59 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
3/100
#363 of 422 in MI
Last Inspection: July 2024

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

Overview

Bayside Village in L'Anse, Michigan has a Trust Grade of F, indicating a poor reputation with significant concerns about care quality. The facility ranks #363 out of 422 in Michigan, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, but it is the only option in Baraga County. While the number of reported issues has improved from 17 to 5 in recent years, the facility still has a concerning record with $61,380 in fines, which is higher than 87% of similar facilities. Staffing appears to be a relative strength with a low turnover rate of 0%, although the staffing rating is only 2 out of 5 stars. Recent inspections revealed serious incidents, including a failure to properly care for a resident's catheter, which led to hospitalization and death, as well as inadequate assistance that caused another resident to suffer a pelvic fracture after a fall. Overall, families should weigh these serious issues against the facility's strengths when considering Bayside Village for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
3/100
In Michigan
#363/422
Bottom 14%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
17 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
$61,380 in fines. Lower than most Michigan facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 43 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Michigan. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
64 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 17 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Michigan average (3.1)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Federal Fines: $61,380

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 64 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 3 actual harm
Sept 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to update a comprehensive care plan for 1 Resident (#23) of 15 residents reviewed for care plans. Findings include:Resident #23 (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to update a comprehensive care plan for 1 Resident (#23) of 15 residents reviewed for care plans. Findings include:Resident #23 (R23)On 9/2/25 at 2:40 PM, an observation was made of R23 in his room, sitting in his wheelchair. R23 was observed with a bruise with various colors of yellow, green, and purple around his right eye and a scab above his right eyebrow. R23 was asked if he had fallen and how and replied by pointing to the bathroom and nodding yes. R23 was not able to say when he had fallen.Review of R23's incident and accident report, dated 8/18/25 at 3:20 PM, read in part Un-witnessed fall.Incident description: Nursing description: Was told by and aid ‘[Resident's name] fell and is bleeding from his head.' Upon arriving in room, resident was sitting on the edge of the bed with blood dripping from his forehead (sic). Resident description: Resident stated he fell and hit his head on the floor coming from the bathroom. Resident stated ‘I hit my head on the floor when I fell.' ‘I was coming from my bathroom.'.Immediate action taken: Description: Pressure applied, neuro check WNL (within normal limit).Ambulance was called to take resident to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. Review of R23's progress note, dated 8/18/25 at 10:38 PM, read in part .Resident fell in his room and has a laceration that required sutures.Diagnosis: Fall, right forhead (sic) laceration required 3 sutures.discharged at 6:00 PM. Review of R23's care plan, dated 11/6/23, read in part Focus: I had a fall with no injury. Revised on: 3/2/25. Goal: To minimize my risk of falls with serious injury thru the next review date. Revised on 3/2/25. Interventions/Tasks: I have been educated to call and wait for staff assistance when I transfer to minimize my risk for falls. Date initiated: 3/1/25. My bed has been positioned against the wall per my preference to establish boundaries. This does not restrict my movement in bed or my ability to get into and out of bed. Date initiated: 6/2/25. No other interventions, added interventions, or updated care plan for fall with injury to prevent further falls.Review of R23's fall risk assessment, dated 8/15/25, revealed a blank assessment which had not been completed.Review of R23's fall risk assessment, dated 6/1/25, revealed R23 was at risk of falling. Review of R23's progress note, dated 8/29/25 at 8:10 AM, read in part Writer educated by nurse that.ambulance coming to get resident to take (local ER name) to be evaluated.Review of R23's emergency room (ER) visit, dated 8/29/25 at 8:40 AM, revealed a return to the ER for adding an additional three sutures to stop bleeding. Review of a progress note, dated 8/29/25 at 11:56 AM, read in part Area to forehead with stitches from previous fall, bleeding without stopping. Pressure applied for 20 mins (minutes) with no relief. Res (resident) transported to (local ER name) for evaluation via ambulance.Res returned from ED (emergency department) with 3 new stitches to area.Review of a progress note, dated 9/1/25 at 5:34 PM, read in part Res has picked one if not two stitches out of forehead causing excessive bleeding. Compression dressing applied x 2 resulting in bleed throughs. Res continues on (brand name anticoagulant) [rivaroxaban] 20 mg (milligrams) daily.Review of ER visit, dated 9/1/25 at 8:35 PM, revealed R23 had stitches removed from his forehead, electrocautery was performed, and silver nitrate was applied to his forehead. A bandage was also applied to prevent R23 from picking at the area of his forehead. On 9/5/25 at 9:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) who was asked about the process after a resident falls and replied, Well first assess them, then treat them, completed and incident report, and update the care plan to prevent further falls. The DON was asked what added interventions were put in place for R23 after his fall and replied, I don't see a note from me in the risk management note. Review of policy titled, Fall Prevention Program, dated 6/12/25, read in part Policy: Each resident will be assessed for fall risk and will receive care and services in accordance with their individualized level of risk to minimize the likelihood of falls.Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines.g. Complete a fall risk assessment every 90 days and as indicated when the resident's condition changes.9. When any resident experiences a fall, the facility will.e. review the resident's care plan and update.Review of policy titled, Fall Risk Assessment, dated 6/12/25, read in part Policy: It is the policy of this facility to provide an environment that is free from accident hazards over which the facility has control, and provides supervision and assistive devices to each resident to prevent avoidable accidents. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The risk assessment will be completed by the nurse or designee upon admission, quarterly, or when a significant change is identified.3. An At Risk for Falls care plan will be completed for each resident.5. Monitor the effectiveness of the care plan interventions, and modify the interventions as necessary, in accordance with current standards of practice.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficient practice pertains to Intake 2565663Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficient practice pertains to Intake 2565663Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (R25) of one resident reviewed for significant medication errors received medications at the frequency ordered by the physician. This deficient practice resulted in inaccurate medication dosages and the potential for subtherapeutic drug levels, blood clot formation, and cerebrovascular accident (CVA - stroke). Findings include: Intake 2565663 alleged Resident #25 (R25) was administered Xeljanz (a medication for rheumatoid arthritis - a chronic, inflammatory disease of the joints that may damage other parts of the body including the lungs, heart, and blood vessels) instead of Eliquis (a blood-thinning medication used to treat or prevent blood clots) during the month of [DATE]. The intake alleged the facility was aware of the error but had not implemented interventions to minimize the risk of recurrence of the medication errors.The electronic medical record (EMR) of R25 was reviewed on [DATE]. The physician's orders included an order dated [DATE] that read: Eliquis Tablet 5 MG [milligrams] Give 5 mg by mouth two times a day for prevention related to ACUTE EMBOLISM AND THROMBOSIS OF UNSPECIFIED DEEP VEINS OF LEFT LOWER EXTREMITY (I82.402); UNSPECIFIED ATRIAL FIBRILLATION [an irregular and rapid heart rhythm that can lead to blood clots in the heart, stroke, and heart failure] (I48.91). The Eliquis was scheduled to be administered each morning and each evening.The physician's orders for R25 included an order dated [DATE] that read: Xeljanz XR Tablet Extended Release 24 Hour 11 MG (Tofacitinib Citrate ER) Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning related to RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, UNSPECIFIED.On [DATE] at 10:51 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Q confirmed the medication errors occurred and asserted she was the nurse who identified the errors. LPN Q said the evening shift nurses were administering Xeljanz XR instead of Eliquis and said the medication errors with these medications had occurred with R25 more than once across several doses. LPN Q was asked if she reported the errors. LPN Q said the first time the error was identified she verbally reported it to the Director of Nursing (DON), and the second time the errors occurred she texted the DON.LPN Q said she could not recall the date she initially became aware of the first medication error with the Eliquis and Xeljanz for R25 but said, It was within the past couple of months. LPN Q said R25 was prescribed Eliquis twice daily (once in the morning and once in the evening) and Xeljanz once daily (in the morning). LPN Q, who works the day shift, asserted she initially recognized the error when she repeatedly ran out of the supply of R25's Xeljanz but had an overabundant the supply of Eliquis in the medication cart. LPN Q said after the first time the errors were identified she began dating the individual tablet blisters of Xeljanz and Eliquis with the date to be administered. LPN Q said she also placed sticky-notes on the blister packs of Xeljanz that read NOT ELIQUIS to alert the evening shift nurses to the difference between the medications. LPN Q asserted the errors in the medication administrations recurred a few weeks later despite the medications being labeled. LPN Q said she independently made the decision to place the dates and sticky-notes on the medications. LPN Q surmised the errors occurred because the evening shift nurses were not looking at the medication label on the blister packs and were instead erroneously mistaking the Xeljanz for Eliquis because the medications had a similar color, shape, and appearance.LPN Q said the second time the medication administration errors occurred she realized the errors were made over a period of eight days - from [DATE] through [DATE]. LPN Q said she knew the error dates because she dated the medications in the blister packs and the dates did not match up. She said there continued to be additional availability of Eliquis in the blister packs with the dates [DATE] - [DATE] but a diminishing supply of Xeljanz. LPN Q said she was frustrated because the medication error recurred. LPN Q provided a text message she sent to the DON. The text was dated [DATE] at 7:53 AM. The text message read: They have been giving Xeljanz in steady [sic] of liquid [Eliquis] in the evening since [DATE]. Again. The text message included a photograph of the blister packs. LPN Q clarified that liquid in the text message was meant to be Eliquis and said the DON knew the medication to which LPN Q was referring because the error kept repeating with the same medications being given to the same resident, R25. LPN Q said she was unaware if anything was done in response to the recurring medication errors. She said she did not contact the physician. She said she was unaware if labs were obtained or if any increased monitoring was completed because of the medication errors. Registered Nurse (RN) I was interviewed on [DATE] at 11:05 AM. RN I confirmed she was the nurse manager. RN I was queried regarding knowledge of medication errors that occurred with R25. RN I said she was aware of concerns with the evening shift nurses administering Xeljanz instead of Eliquis. When asked how she became aware of the medication errors, RN I said, The first time it happened it was brought up in our morning meeting. She said she was unable to recall who brought it up in the meeting or if any interventions were discussed to mitigate recurrence of the medication administration errors. RN I said the second time she found out the medication errors recurred was on [DATE] when she was told by LPN Q when RN I arrived to work at the facility. RN I said there was also a text thread the morning of [DATE] among the DON, RN I, and two nurses who no longer were employed at the facility. RN I said, The text said the medication error was continuing and ongoing since [DATE]. RN I said when she got the text, she contacted the physician, and the physician asked what was going to be done to prevent recurrence of the medication administration errors. RN I said she told the physician the facility was looking into it. RN I said the physician did not provide any amended or additional orders. RN I said she and the Administrator (NHA) discussed contacting the consultant pharmacist but said she did not know if the pharmacist was ever notified. RN I confirmed nothing was documented in the EMR of R25 regarding the medication errors. RN I said an incident report should have been completed but said she never saw an incident report on the errors in medication administration of Xeljanz and Eliquis for R25. RN I said she was unaware if any follow-up or educational endeavors had been completed with the nurses involved in the errors. RN I said she did not know if an investigation had been completed to determine the cause of the error, the nurses who were involved, or what impact the errors may have had on R25. RN I was asked if R25 was monitored for potential ill-effects because of the error. RN I replied, Not to my knowledge. RN I reiterated she did not have knowledge of any further actions or follow-up with nurses on the evening shift who were involved in the medication errors. RN I said she was unaware of any monitoring or audits resulting from the medication administration errors. The EMR of R25 did not document medication errors with Eliquis and Xeljanz XR. There was no mention of a medication error in the progress notes or assessments of R25. The [DATE] Medication Administration Record (MAR) did not reflect errors with the administration of Eliquis or Xeljanz XR. The MAR indicated the medications were administered as prescribed. The most recent physician documentation in the EMR was [DATE].The facility's consultant pharmacist (RPh) was interviewed on [DATE] at 9:26 AM. When asked if the facility notified him of medication errors with Xeljanz and Eliquis administrations for R25, the pharmacist said he was never made aware of medication errors with R25. The DON was interviewed on [DATE] at 11:54 AM. The DON confirmed being made aware the evening nurses were administering Xeljanz instead of Eliquis to R25. The DON acknowledged she received a text from LPN Q about the ongoing medication administration errors. The DON said she could not recall the date of the text because she deleted the text. The DON was asked if a medication error report or incident report was filled out or if an investigation had been completed into the medication error or if any efforts were implemented to minimize the risk of the medication error occurrences. The DON said she thought a nurse who was no longer employed by the facility completed an incident report and investigated the medication errors. The DON was asked for contact information for the nurse, but the contact information for the nurse was not provided by the end of the survey.When asked if the medication error should have been documented in the EMR of R25, the DON replied, Absolutely. When asked why the EMR of R25 did not include follow-up documentation and interventions to prevent the risk of recurrence, the DON said, I couldn't tell you. The DON said all evening shift nurses were involved in medication errors with the Eliquis and Xeljanz for R25. The DON said the nurses received medication administration education and competency observations after the error was identified on [DATE]. The competencies and education were requested.Review of all provided nurse competencies for medication administration revealed only two medication administration competencies were completed after [DATE] - one for a nurse who was no longer employed at the facility and one for a nurse who worked the day shift. No medication competencies were completed for the nurses who work the evening shift.The DON indicated the facility utilized an online educational forum for continuing education for the nurses and said the nurses may have completed medication administration training through the online education venue after the medication errors were reported on [DATE]. A report for medication administration education via the online platform was requested. The report revealed no nurses were provided with education through the online training venue after the medication errors were identified.The July MAR was reviewed to determine the night nurses who administered Xeljanz, but documented Eliquis as administered from [DATE] - [DATE]. Four different nurses signed out the medication as administered. A handout was provided by the DON along with a document containing nurse signatures and the signatures of Certified Nurse Aides (CNA). The DON said the document with signatures reflected receipt of the education. The handout included a one-page document titled Medication Administration. The document contained bullet points indicating there were 6 Rights of Medication Administration. One bullet point read: Right Medication - Does the blister pack/bottle match the MAR. The signature page was reviewed and revealed three of the four nurses involved in the medication error did not sign or date indicating three of the four nurses did not receive the education.R25 was admitted to the facility [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of acute embolism (blood clot that lodges in a blood vessel and obstructs blood flow) and thrombosis (blood clot) of the deep veins of the left lower extremity. Additional diagnoses included but were not limited to rheumatoid arthritis, atrial fibrillation, and atherosclerotic heart disease (ASHD).According to https://www.xeljanz.com/ra: .Blood clots in the lungs (pulmonary embolism, PE), veins of the legs (deep vein thrombosis, DVT), and arteries (arterial thrombosis) have happened more often in people who are [AGE] years of age and older and with at least 1 heart disease (cardiovascular) risk factor taking XELJANZ 5 mg twice daily or XELJANZ 10 mg twice daily. Blood clots in the lungs have also happened in people with ulcerative colitis. Some people have died from these blood clots www.eliquis.bmscustomerconnect.com states the following, in part: . Take ELIQUIS exactly as prescribed by your healthcare provider. Take ELIQUIS twice every day, and do not change your dose. Eliquis lowers your chance of having a stroke by helping to prevent clots from forming. If you stop taking ELIQUIS, you may have an increased risk of a clot forming in your blood.The undated policy Medication Errors read, in part: .It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by ensuring residents receive care and services safely in an environment free of significant medication errors.The facility shall ensure medications will be administered as follows: a. According to physician's orders. B. Per manufacturer's specifications regarding the preparation and administration of the drug. 8. If a medication error occurs, the following procedure will be initiated: a. The nurse assesses and examines the resident's condition.b. Monitor and document the resident's condition.c. Document actions taken in the medical record.the nurse reports the incident to the appropriate supervisor and completes the incident or occurrence report.
May 2025 3 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · 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: 1. Proper care of a catheter, 2. Accurate and timely docume...

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: 1. Proper care of a catheter, 2. Accurate and timely documentation was entered for care decisions, and 3. Notification of significant changes were communicated to the physician for one Resident #5 (R5) of three residents reviewed for quality of care. This deficient practice resulted in harm when R5 was hospitalized due to a ruptured bladder, urinary tract infection, and septic shock (a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone.), with continued decline resulting in death. Findings include: Review of R5's admission Record, retrieved on July 3, 2025, revealed R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with active diagnoses that included the following, in part: benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, urine retention and type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia. R5 scored 15 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), reflective of intact cognition. Review of R5's Progress Notes revealed the following, in part: 5/24/25 22:33 (10:33 p.m.), Writer alerted by CNA that resident had blood in his brief, writer assessed, resident had blood coming from the pin point area at tip of penis . 5/26/25 19:16 (7:16 p.m.) ,Resident has a large area of swelling to his left inner thigh. It feels boggy, no pain to touch and no redness. His lower legs have increased edema . This was not seen on 5/25/25. This needs to be seen by the DR (doctor). 5/27/25 10:17 a.m., Physician Progress Note, included the following, in part: . He has an indwelling Foley catheter. Extremities with 1+ pitting edema to his bilateral legs. According to the nurses he has a small breakdown of skin behind his heel .Assessment/Plan: . 4. BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) with lower urinary tract symptoms with indwelling Foley catheter . 9. Lower extremity edema - start furosemide 40 mg daily x 2 weeks, follow weights, leg measurements and urine output. Check labs with a BMP in 2 weeks. There was no documentation related to the 2/24/25 blood in his brief and on the tip of his penis, and no mention of the large area of swelling to his left inner thigh that was boggy. 5/29/25 17:44 (5:44 p.m.) LATE ENTRY Nursing Progress Note, entered on 6/24/25 (26 days following the provision of care to R5.) Res (resident) started to c/o (complain of) lower abdominal discomfort around 11:00 (a.m.) and he did not have but 150 mls (milliliters) (of urine) in catheter bag. This writer asked if he felt like he needed to urinate and he said he did. So, this writer flushed foley with 60 mls of sterile water, and then urine immediately started to flow back into the drainage tubing. Then early afternoon res c/o lower abdominal pain again. This writer checked his foley bag and there wasn't much more urine in the bag since flush. Around 200 ml. Urine was yellow in color. So, after discussing what the resident wanted nurse to do, we decided on changing his foley catheter, When removing the old catheter there was blood at the tip (of the deflated balloon) of his foley. This writer then used sterile technique to insert the new foley . urine immediately started filling foley bag. Urine was bloody 5/30/25 04:52 (4:52 a.m.) Nursing Progress Notes Urine continues to be bloody. Had emesis x 3. Hasn't slept much, increasingly confused. Demanding to get out of bed now. 5/30/25 9:56 a.m., At 0940 (9:40 a.m.) CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) came to SN (skilled nurse) and stated resident had a facial droop and was pocketing his food. SN went to assess right hand grasp were not equal. Right side was greatly weaker. Right side of face is dropping (sic), and speech has changed, Vitals 104/69 (blood pressure), 126 (heart rate), 20 (respirations), Temp 98.4 . Resident was sick during the night and vomited 3x (times). Also, vomited this morning but states it was just drool . Tylenol was given for headache this am. Cath was changed yesterday and there is blood in urine. 5/30/25 10:25 a.m., Resident (R5) left facility with EMS (emergency medical services). 5/30/25 11:53 a.m., Report from local hospital (ER). Resident WBC (white blood cell count) is elevated around 18,000 (reflective of infection), and lactic acid at 7 . (indicative of sepsis). 5/30/25 15:12 (3:12 p.m.), Report from [ER]. Resident has a ruptured bladder - looking to send out to [Regional Medical Center]. ER Nurse will call me with up (update) on where resident will be shipped if [Regional Medical Center] can't take him. 5/31/25 10:43 a.m., .Resident was transferred to [Regional Medical Center] for further care. 6/16/25 11:38 a.m., . Resident arrived at facility via stretcher from [Regional Medical Center. On 6/16/25 at 3:00 p.m., R5's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was completed with a score of 15 out of 15, reflective of intact cognition . 6/17/25 2:43 a.m., .elevated temp 100.8 degrees . During an interview on 7/3/25 at 11:30 a.m., when asked if there was an incident report for R5's ruptured bladder, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, No the nurse did not do an incident report for that. When asked about the late progress note, entered on 6/24/25, for replacement of R5's foley catheter on 5/29/25, the DON stated, I have a huge problem with late progress notes, and I have a huge problem with this (absence of investigation documentation, including R5's urine outputs from the investigation file). During an interview on 7/3/25 at 12:43 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN)/Unit Manager M was asked why there was no documentation about the blood in R5's brief, and on his penis on 5/24/25. RN M stated, I don't think he (Physician P) was updated on the blood in the urine. RN/Unit Manager M confirmed RN S had placed a LATE ENTRY progress note in R5's medical record on 6/24/25, when R5's catheter change occurred on 5/29/25. RN M confirmed the facility was aware of R5's ruptured bladder, urinary tract infection, and septic shock diagnoses prior to documentation of the 6/24/25 nursing note by RN S. When asked if it was acceptable practice to document care in the medical record nearly one month late, RN M stated, I would say it is not acceptable . During a telephone interview on 7/3/25 at 1:30 p.m., following review of R5's Physician Progress Note on 5/27/25, Physician P was asked if he was informed by facility staff of any urinary issues, including blood in R5's brief and on his penis on 5/24/25, the large boggy area on R5's upper left thigh, bloody urine and decreased urinary output. Physician P responded, No, paused and stated, I did not know anything until I read the emergency room notes. Review of the local Hospital ED (Emergency Department) Provider Note: 5/30/25 10:42 a.m., Presents from . nursing home with a chief complaint of nausea and vomiting. [Facility] had initially expressed concern for some left-sided neurologic deficits but no evidence of this on arrival. Patient states he vomited last night after supper, a few times overnight and this morning after breakfast. He reports some vague lower abdominal discomfort. Chronically has an indwelling Foley, states it was replaced yesterday, noticed some blood in the tubing yesterday but he has not had any urine output yet today . Physical Exam: Abdomen . Mild tenderness across lower abdomen. ED Course: 100 mL saline flushed through foley easily, but no return of fluid or urine noted. Nursing home did confirm he has had normal urine output, 1200 mL (milliliter) yesterday and 700 drained before he was brought to the ER today . Labs show leukocytosis (elevated white blood cells) with WBC 18.0 . Lactic acid (measures tissue deprived of oxygen in severe illnesses) significantly elevated at 7.5. Patient meeting SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome [Septic Shock] criteria, no clear source of infection at this time .CT (Cat Scan) with findings concerning for bladder rupture . cystography (bladder imaging) confirms extraperitoneal bladder rupture with contrast extravasation (leakage of x-ray dye) into the anterior extraperitoneal (into the abdomen) space. [Urologist] updated, will consult on patient after transfer (to Regional Medical Center). ABX (antibiotic) coverage broadened to Meropenem 1 g and Vancomycin . We will give loading dose of 2.5 g vancomycin . Assessment: Sepsis, Lactic acidosis, UTI, Bladder rupture . condition at discharge: Fair. CT Abdomen and Pelvis: Marked diffuse bladder wall thickening with diverticulum formation. Extraperitoneal gas and large volume fluid appearing to extend from the anterior superior aspect of the ladder lumen. This is concerning for extraperitoneal rupture. Foley is in the urethra at the level of the prostate apex (entrance of the urethra into the lower part of the prostate) . CT cystogram (Cat scan of the bladder using dye) confirms extraperitoneal bladder rupture from the anterosuperior ladder which contains numerous diverticula (areas of abnormal pouching). Contrast extravasated (leaked) into the extraperitoneal space. During an interview on 7/8/25 at 8:16 a.m., when asked why a progress note detailing R5's condition and catheter change was entered 26 days late, RN S stated, That hall (R5's hall) is hectic. I just forgot that day, and then they called me the next day. I guess I don't know . my boss told me to put a note in . I told him [R5] he was not due to have his catheter changed for two weeks, but we can start with flushing it. I did 60 mls (flush) and I got urine back right away. Then he didn't have much more urine in the bag after that. Then I asked him again what I should do . We laid him down in bed and changed the catheter. The old (catheter) had blood on the tip for about an inch . He had more urine output after the new bag. Filled the bag with 200-300 mls, and it was bloody at the time it started coming out . At dinner he said he didn't feel good again . When asked if she had informed any physician that R5 had blood in his brief, on his penis, in the urine, or decreased urine output, RN S stated, I did not let the doctor know he was having bloody urine and blood on his removed catheter tip. RN S said she had informed Physician P at the time of R5's Physician Visit on 5/27/25 of the large, boggy area on R5's upper left thigh. RN S stated, I told him about it in the room too, and he didn't even look at his thigh. He had his sheet on, and he (Physician P) didn't pull the sheet down to look at his upper thigh. When asked what concern RN S would have with a Lactic Acid level of 7.0, RN S stated, I think inflammation at 7. When asked if sepsis would be a concern, RN S stated, I guess I don't know that. During an interview on 7/8/25 8:13 a.m., RN L reported she had received report on 5/30/25 that R5 had thrown up three times the previous night, and did say RN S had changed R5's catheter on 5/29/25 due to decreased urine output. RN L stated, It (the urine) was pink in the tubing, and pretty dark in the catheter bag, but there was only a very small amount of urine in there. Between 7:10 and 7:20 a.m. I emptied the 100 ccs of urine . I emptied it myself and then was kind of watching . I sent him out by 9:20 a.m., . I don't need a physician order to send him out on an emergency transfer .When I heard his lactic acid was 7, I immediately thought septic . I knew nothing about the blood in the brief and on his penis. RN L stated, The week prior to all of this (with R5) Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) F stomped down to the nurses' station and was so ticked because the night shift had not emptied the (R5's) catheter bag and it was the size of the football . CNA F was fuming about the football sized catheter bag. I know I walked down to [the Nursing Home Administrators (NHA's)] office and reported that to [the NHA] . The [DON] brought me the outputs, and she had pulled the (urine) outputs, but she didn't let me keep them .There was one 35 ml (urine output documentation), and that was 12 hours with only 35 mls! Why was there no bladder scan? RN L said that facility did have a bladder scanner that was available for use in the facility . During a telephone interview on 7/8/25 at 9:55 a.m., when asked if she had any knowledge of R5's Foley catheter bag being found overly full, CNA T stated, Yes, absolutely. I reported it to my nurse several times. I would come in at 7 a.m., at shift (change) and we would go and check the catheters. One time his catheter bag was so full it was the size of a football, and it was leaking. Another time I found it by myself, and it was the size of a football, like 3000 ccs at the beginning of (my) shift. I had to use the graduated cylinder three times to get it emptied. That catheter had not been dumped all night long .The second time I was back in that hall I noticed that there was blood in his catheter, and there was hardly anything in the catheter other than pure blood. It was also reported to us that he had been throwing up during the night . CNA T said she could not remember which nurse she reported it to, but R5's catheter was the only one that she ever remembered being that full, and noted it was the only hall she worked on. When asked when these observations occurred, CNA T stated, May/June - it was recent. During a telephone interview on 7/8/25 at 10:16 a.m., when asked about knowledge of R5's catheter being found overly distended, the NHA stated, I heard that last week, that the catheter had been ballooned, but the NHA was unaware multiple staff had reported the failure of staff in emptying R5's catheter bag. When asked about the very late nursing progress note placed in R5's medical record approximately one month following the provision of care, the NHA stated, That would not be a standard of practice to put in a month later. The NHA said she had not seen the investigation file compiled by the DON. During an interview on 7/8/25 at 11:14 a.m., when asked about R5's medical record documentation and care, RN N stated, I was looking at [R5's] chart and the hospital saying that he had a ruptured bladder. This is a huge concern . (floor staff) were making mention seeing his foley ag being ballooned out like a football . There was no documentation in the Investigation File. When we tried explaining that with the [DON], I felt that she was trying to justify the task for urine output. The numbers were not adding up to accurate numbers. I don't know what kind of follow-through [the DON] did . I feel like there is resistance (to doing the right thing) and hiding of data . One of my bigger frustrations - if something happens here the physician is not being notified . When asked about late progress notes, RN N stated, What about a nurse note entered a month late. It is hard to look back on that and how can you remember what happened a month ago. The [NHA said multiple times this investigation should not have been delayed. I have a big problem with it . I am here to do the right things for the residents . Staff Member (de-identified to prevent retaliation) U said that staff were told not to chart things, (and also) . to chart tasks even if you don't do them . I don't believe any of the numbers that are input on the urine output task. They are not checking before the shift. They are not paying attention to it. During an interview on 7/8/25 at 11:49 a.m., when asked about concerns with distended, over-filled urinary drainage bags, the DON stated, That would be backflowing because it was so full. I think our bags only go to 1000 mls. The DON retrieved a Foley catheter bag, which held 2000 mls, and a graduated cylinder for emptying the urine, which held 1000 mls. The DON provided the following information: 1. Resident care should not be documented if staff have not completed the care. 2. Nursing staff should be documenting nurse notes as soon as the task is completed. The DON agreed there would be the potential for inaccuracy when a note is delayed for approximately one month before being placed in the medical record. 3. The DON said a lactic acid level of 7 would mean a sepsis concern for herself. 4. The DON agreed the physician should be notified of changes in condition immediately. During a telephone interview on 7/8/25 at 12:03 p.m., CNA F was asked if she had observed R5's catheter overly filled with urine. CNA F stated, When I went into [R5's] room after breakfast his foley was like a water balloon, ready to burst open. It took two or maybe 3 graduated cylinders to empty the foley bag completely. The next day it was the same situation, his foley bag was like a water balloon about to burst open. I reported it to the floor nurse, and I reported that it had happened two days in a row. I said this was dangerous because it could back up into the tubing. Breakfast was done about 9:00 a.m., and he did not urinate 2000 ccs between the start of my shift and the end of breakfast. I spoke with [CNA V] (who had worked both night shifts prior to CNA F's day shift) . There was no reason someone could not have gone in and emptied the foley on night shift. During a return telephone call on 7/9/25 at 7:30 p.m., When asked if she had ever been instructed to document the completion of resident tasks, even if she had not performed the task, CNA W stated, I was told to do that, and I was very uncomfortable with it. I did it one night, and I have talked to other nurses about it, and I know that it is illegal to document that I did something when I didn't. I did it because my nurse told me to do that . CNA W provided the name of the nurse, and stated, To be honest I am afraid of her. When asked if she had ever seen R5's foley bag overly filled with urine, CNA W said there was a CNA who had been repeatedly hired and fired and was fired recently for not emptying R5's foley bag overnight. CNA W also provided a staff who were present at the same time when an RN told them to document uncompleted tasks. During a return telephone call on 7/9/25 at 7:56 p.m., when asked if she had ever observed R5's foley bag over-distended, CNA R stated, The night R5's bladder exploded, terminated CNA V was on that hall. Review of R5's Urine Output Task documentation revealed the following, in part: 5/21/25 Night shift (7 p.m. to 7 a.m.) - Blank, no documentation present. 5/22/25 Day shift (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) - 3000 ml. 5/26/25 Night shift - Blank no documentation present. 5/27/25 Day shift - 1200 mls. 5/29/25 Day shift - 35 mls. Review of R5's Weights documentation following Physician Ps physician progress note of 5/27/25, documenting Lower extremity edema - start furosemide 40 mg daily x 2 weeks, follow weights, leg measurements and urine output ., revealed no weights were documented between 5/27 and 5/31/25. No leg measurements were found within R5's medical record, and urine output values have the potential for inaccuracy, based on staff interviews obtained. Review of the Investigation Timeline, completed by RN N, revealed the following identified concerns by that investigator: 1. Need statement for [Nurse regarding her note from 5/30/25 stating the Cath was changed yesterday and there is blood in urine. 2. Who worked 5/29/25 - need statements. 3. Vital signs ordered to be checked twice daily and report abnormalities to the provider - 6/17/25 - Lack of documentation . 4. Mixed information . notes show he had a low-grade fever, but this is not reflected under the VS (vital sign) tab. 5. May 2025 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) not documented with a catheter change on 5/29/25 or 5/30/25. 6. Need to show we did some type of education with nursing regarding foley care/insertion. Review of Catheter Care policies revealed that no policies were in effect at the time of R5's ruptured bladder, UTI, and septic shock diagnoses following transfer to the local ED. Catheter polices provided by the facility were Implemented by the NHA on 6/23/25. Review of Notification of Changes policy, revised 7/18/24, revealed the following, in part: The purpose of this policy is to ensure the facility promptly informs the resident, consults the resident's physician; and notifies, consistent with his or her authority, the resident's representative when there is a change requiring notification . Circumstances requiring notification include: 2. Significant change in the resident's physical, mental or psychosocial condition such as deterioration in health, mental or psychosocial status. This may include a. Life-threatening conditions, or b. Clinical complications . 3. Circumstances that require a need to alter treatment. This may include: a. New treatment. B. Discontinuation of current treatment due to: i. Adverse consequences. Ii. Acute condition. Iii. Exacerbation of a chronic condition. 4. A transfer or discharge of the resident from the facility .
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficiency pertains to intake #MI00152671. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate assi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficiency pertains to intake #MI00152671. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate assistance and assistive devices were used to prevent a fall with major injury resulting in harm for one resident (R2), out of three residents reviewed for falls. This deficient practice resulted in hospitalization due to a pelvic fracture. Findings include: Review of R2's 4/19/25 Witnessed Fall Incident report, prepared by Registered Nurse (RN) C, revealed the following information, in part: . CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) was in residents room called out for nurse to help, res (resident [R2]) laying on floor in room on right side next to overbed table. Resident Description: Res states she was getting up to use bathroom and fell during transfer. Was this incident witnessed: N (No). Resident Taken to Hospital? N (No) .Notes: wound to right side of head, c/o (complaint of) right leg discomfort no increased disc (discomfort) with ROM (range of motion) . Statements: No Statements Found. Review of R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/26/25, revealed R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R2 scored 12 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. R2 required partial/moderate assistance with chair/bed-to-chair transfers and toilet transfers, and had active diagnoses that included arthritis, osteoporosis, seizure disorder, non-Alzheimer's dementia, unsteadiness on feet and repeated falls. R2 was noted to be their own decision maker on their Face Sheet. Review of a CNA Incident Report signed and dated by CNA A on 4/19/25, revealed the following Witness Statement Box information: I was helping [R2] into her wheelchair. She started to turn to sit down, her leg stopped, and she fell and hit her head on the bottom of her bed side table. During an interview on 5/7/25 at 11:20 a.m., R2 was asked about any recent falls. R2 said and aide was assisting her during a transfer, and she fell. R2 could not recall if CNA A used a gait belt during the transfer. R2 reported she has a fractured pelvis. Review of R2's 4/19/25 Investigative Summary form revealed the following, in entirety: Resident Name: [R2] . Female . Summary of interview with person(s) reporting the fall .: Helped getting into chair. Slipped out of gripped (sic). Holding her by butt and pants. Doing fine. Launched off of CNA. Between bed and w/c. overbed table. All other areas of the form were blank. R2's ADL care plan, included with the Investigative Summary, had the following Transfer intervention: Transfer limited assist of one to two a gait belt and my FWW (front wheeled walker) for transfers. Date Initiated: 3/6/16. Revision on:1/27/2025. Review of R2's Progress Notes revealed the following, in part: . 4/19/25 01:18 (1:18 a.m.) . CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) requested nurse assistance in residents room, nurse responded right away res (resident) laying on floor next to bed near overbed table, res on right side, bleeding noted from residents head, blood and hair noted on bottom of overbed table, res assessed and assisted to sitting to assess head, bleeding appeared to slow with change in position, dressing applied to res head, res further assessed and assisted to sitting on bed then w/c (wheelchair), see VS (vital signs) then assisted to bathroom, res sitting out at nurses station with staff, denied HA (headache), c/o (complained of) discomfort to right leg, ROM WNL (range of motion within normal limits). No c/o increased discomfort with movement, alert usual self. Author: RN C. . 4/19/25 02:14 (2:14 a.m.) . bleeding slowed to laceration to head, may need sutures, call placed to on call MD and order obtained to send resident to ED (emergency department). Ambulance called for transfer, res c/o pain to right leg with transfer, res to [ED] for eval at 0210 (2:10 a.m.) res did not want family notified of transfer. Author: RN C. . 04/19/2025 04:03 (4:03 a.m.) . Res admitted to [acute care hospital] pelvic fx (fracture). . 04/19/2025 09:25 (9:25 a.m.) . At the time of this fall Resident was being assisted by a CNA (CNA A) from her bed to her wheelchair. Per CNA 'I was helping [R2] turn into her wheelchair, she started to turn to sit down, her leg stopped, and she fell and hit her head on the bottom of her bedside table'. Author: RN/Director of Nursing (DON). Review of R2's Care Plans, retrieved 5/7/25 at 2:19 p.m., revealed the following, in part: Focus: I have an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) impaired mobility, muscle weakness, Dementia, need for staff assistance with ADL/s. I have a pelvic fracture secondary to a fall on 4/19/2025 . Interventions/Tasks: I am non-ambulatory. Date Initiated: 4.22.2025. Non-Weight Bearing to bilateral lower extremities x 12 weeks. Date Initiated: 4/22/2025. Transferring: I am dependent on staff assist of 2 using a full-body mechanical lift (Hoyer lift). Non-weight bearing on lower extremities x 12 weeks. Date Initiated: 4/25/2025. Review of R2's RESOLVED: I had a fall with major injury care plan, Date Initiated 3/6/2016, Revision/Resolved: 4/23/2025 had the following RESOLVED Intervention, in part: Staff need to use a gait belt and extensive assist when transferring me. I have a gait belt in my bag on my wheelchair. Date Initiated: 3/21/24, Revision/Resolved 4/22/25. The NHA acknowledged the facility had not performed monitoring audits of staff use of gait belts following the incident. Attempts were made to contact CNA A via telephone on 5/7/25 at 10:17 a.m., and on 4/7/25 at 2:30 p.m. Voicemail messages were left requesting a return call from CNA A. No return call was received from CNA A during or following the completion of the survey, therefore she was unable to be interviewed. During an interview on 5/7/25 at 2:33 p.m., the Five-Day Report to the State Agency regarding R2's fall with major injury was reviewed. The Five-Day Report revealed the following, in part: Investigation determined that at the time of the fall [R2's] plan of care was not followed. The NHA said CNA A had not been on the schedule since the incident and would be receiving education on proper use of a gait belt and also receive a written verbal warning upon her return to work. The NHA said she had spoken to CNA A who confirmed she was holding on to the back of R2's pants and her butt, not using the gait belt as an assistive device during the transfer, therefore not following the residents' plan of care. Review of the facility Use of Gait Belt policy, implemented 7/18/2024, revealed the following, in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to use gait belts with residents that cannot independently ambulate or transfer for the purpose of safety. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Each nursing department employee will use the gait belt assigned to each resident. 2. It will be the responsibility of each employee to ensure the use of gait belts . 4. Failure to use gait belt properly may result in disciplinary action up to termination.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficiency pertains to Complaint Intake #MI00150445. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficiency pertains to Complaint Intake #MI00150445. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error for one Resident (R1) of four residents reviewed for medication errors. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for adverse side effects and required transfer to an acute care hospital emergency department for monitoring. Findings include: Review of Complaint Intake #MI00150445 revealed an allegation that R1 was administered the wrong medications on 2/19/25 and was transferred to a hospital emergency department in the morning because they (facility staff and/or emergency room physician) were worried R1s' blood pressure would drop too low. R1 was allegedly alone at the hospital for eight hours worrying that she might have a reaction to the medications, with no notification to the family. Review of R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/13/24, revealed R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with active diagnoses that included heart failure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and depression. R1 scored 13 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of intact cognition. R1 was usually understood and usually able to understand others. During a telephone interview on 5/7/25 at 10:21 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) L was asked about R1's 2/19/25 significant medication error. RN L confirmed she had two medication cups prepared for administration to R1 and R4. Both residents had first names that began with the same alphabetical letter. RN L stated, I labeled the cup with initials. I learned I will do first initial and full last name. RN L said she grabbed the wrong cup and administered medications intended for R4 to R1. When asked if R1's family had been notified, RN L stated, I did not notify the family. Review of a facility typed document entitled AM Medications administered on 2/19/2025, received from the facility on 5/7/25 at 11:52 a.m. revealed the following list of medications administered to R1, including eight medications that were not prescribed for R1: Amiodarone HCL oral tablet 200 mg (medication used to treat abnormal heart rhythms). Amlodipine besylate oral tablet 5 mg (medication treats high blood pressure and angina). Empagliflozin oral tablet 10 mg (for diabetic management). Ezetimibe oral tablet 10 mg (cholesterol medication) Lisinopril oral tablet 30 mg (high blood pressure medication) Metoprolol succinate oral capsule ER 24-hour sprinkle 25 mg (high blood pressure medication) **Sertraline HCL oral tablet 100 mg (antidepressant) Acetaminophen ER tablet 650 mg (pain management medication) Haloperidol tablet 1 mg (antipsychotic medication) **Vancomycin HCL oral capsule 125 mg (antibiotic) **Medications also on [R1's] list** Review of R1's Incident Report, dated 2/19/25, included the following, in part: SN (skilled nurse) went to give resident medications but resident was being washed up by CNAs (Certified Nurse Aides) and with having C-diff (Clostridium Difficile bacterial infection of the colon) SN made decision to label med cup and put in top drawer (of the medication cart). SN moved on to hall 300 to give med and pulled another residents meds. CNA then came and told (SN) [R1] was ready for her meds. SN grabbed the wrong (medication cup). SN knew as she was pouring meds into resident (R1's) mouth she had made a mistake . IMMEDIATE ACTION TAKEN: Resident Taken to Hospital N (for no) . Agencies/People Notified: Resident Representative, Registered Nurse (RN) M . Review of R1's ED (Emergency Department) Provider Note, dated 2/19/25 at 9:35 a.m., revealed the following, in part: Chief Complaint: incorrect morning meds (medications). History of Present Illness: [R1] . reportedly received amlodipine 5 mg, amiodarone 200 mg, Jardiance 10 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg, Haldol 1 mg, lisinopril 30 mg, metoprolol 25 mg, and Zoloft 100 mg . Patient (R1) takes losartan 50 mg for her hypertension. She is not on any diabetic medications . On arrival [R1] reports some mild dizziness . does feel that she has a dry mouth this morning . ED COURSE: Patient does have hypertension but likely to be overtreated with what she was given this morning . Haldol certainly likely to make patient a bit sleepy today. Risks include hypotension, hypoglycemia, arrhythmia, stomach. Plan to monitor patient on telemetry and frequent blood pressure monitoring as well as check blood sugar every hour . Discharge home . PLAN: Continued monitoring at [facility] . During an interview on 5/7/25 at 11:30 a.m., R1 confirmed she was responsible for her own decisions prior to transfer to the ED for monitoring following consumption of another resident's medications. She said they took her to the hospital and monitored her and she was there all day. When asked if she was asked if she wanted her family to know when she was transferred to the ED, R1 stated, My daughter wants to know when they are sending me to the hospital . During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and NHA on 5/7/25 at 1:14 p.m., when asked if nursing staff are permitted to save medications dispensed into open 30 ml (milliliter) plastic cups, the NHA stated, No they are not allowed to save medication cups in the medication cart. When asked if the facility had performed monitoring of staff or audits of medication administrations following the significant medication error, the DON acknowledged they had not done medication monitoring or audits to ensure compliance following identification of this deficient practice. Both the NHA and DON confirmed the nurse involved with the medication error was the only staff person educated. During an interview on 5/7/25 at 4:30 p.m., when asked about the Incident Report showing RN B was the family member notified of R1's medication error and transfer to the ED, the NHA confirmed RN B should not have been listed as a family member notification. When asked if facility staff had asked R1 regarding notification to emergency contacts, the NHA reviewed the R1's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) and acknowledged there was no documentation showing R1 had been asked about family notification, or evidence that family emergency contacts had been notified. Review of the Medication Administration policy, implemented 8/3/2023, revealed the following, in part: Policy: Medications are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination . Identify resident by photo in the MAR (medication administration record) . Review MAR to identify medication to be administered . Review of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Five Rights of Medication Administration, 3/1/2007, revealed the following, in part: One of the recommendations to reduce medication errors and harm is to use the 'five rights'; the right patient, the right drug, the right dose, the right route and the right time.
Jul 2024 16 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate assessments, physician orders, ris...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate assessments, physician orders, risk education, medical justification, and care plans for restraints were in place for one Resident (R36) of one resident reviewed for restraints. Findings include: Resident #36 (R36) On 7/10/24 at 3:30 p.m., R36 was observed sitting in a wheelchair with a tray table in front of her. The tray table was attached to both sides of the wheelchair. The tray table extended across the width of the wheelchair, securing R36 in the wheelchair. R36 was unable to remove the tray table from the wheelchair. During the observation, R36 was also observed sitting on a pommel cushion (a cushion with a raised, center protuberance on the front of the cushion). The medical record revealed R36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment completed on 5/7/24 documented R36 as having short-term and long-term memory impairment with severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS did not code the use of physical restraints. The tray table was not documented in the care plan for R36. There were no physician's orders for a pommel cushion or tray table to the wheelchair. On 7/10/24 at 3:33 p.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) M was asked why R36 had a tray table across her wheelchair. CNA M said R36 used the wheelchair tray table during meals and the tray table was removed after meals. When asked how the tray table assisted with meals, CNA M shrugged her shoulders. When asked what time R36 had finished with the lunch meal, CNA M replied, I don't know. When asked what time the tray had been secured to the wheelchair, CNA M replied, I don't know. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 7/10/24 at 3:50 p.m. The DON was asked about restraint assessments and resident representative consent for the use of the pommel cushion and wheelchair tray table. The DON said restraint assessments were completed by the Occupational Therapist (OT) or by the Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA). The DON said the OT and PTA were not at work, but the Administrator (NHA) was calling them to obtain the information. At approximately 4:00 p.m. on 7/10/24, The DON provided an untitled, plain sheet of paper upon which was typed, To aid my mother with safety and positioning, it is my wish that we implement a tray on my mother's wheelchair. The sheet of paper contained the name of R36's daughter and was dated 4/9/24. The DON conveyed the sheet of paper was the Resident Representative consent. The DON was asked if the potential risks of the restraints had been conveyed to the Resident Representative. The DON said that information would be contained in the pending therapy documentation. The DON was asked why the wheelchair tray table was placed and she said to keep R36 from falling. The DON was asked what interventions had been attempted prior to applying the wheelchair tray table and the pommel cushion. The DON replied, nothing. The DON was asked if there was an assessment, consent, or order for the pommel cushion. The DON said she was waiting for the documentation from therapists. Physician documentation from December 2023 through June 2024 was reviewed. The physician did not document regarding a pommel cushion or wheelchair tray table for R36. On 7/11/24 at 9:34 a.m., the DON reported the OT and PTA did not have any information on the restraints for R36. The DON confirmed that prior to 7/10/24 there were no restraint assessments, no education to the resident representative on the risks of restraint usage, no physician's order to use the restraints, no documentation of the medical symptom for which the restraints were implemented, and no care plan for the wheelchair tray table. The policy Restraint Free Environment dated 6/21/23 read, in part: .'Physical Restraint' refers to .equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. Physical restraints may include, but are not limited to: .using devices in conjunction with a chair, such as trays .that the resident cannot remove . The facility is responsible for the appropriateness of the determination to use a restraint. 5. Before a resident is restrained, the facility will determine the presence of a specific medical symptom that would require the use of restraints .The care plan should be updated accordingly to include the development and implementation of interventions, to address any risks related to the use of the restraint .The facility shall explain to the resident/resident's representative, the potential risks and benefits of using a restraint, not using a restraint, and alternatives to restraint use. Potential negative outcomes should also be explained.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure collaboration and communication between the facility and hos...

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 collaboration and communication between the facility and hospice provider for one Resident (R56) of one resident reviewed for hospice services. Findings include: Resident #56 (R56) A family member of R56 was interviewed on 7/8/24 at 2:39 p.m. The family member said R56 was originally admitted to the facility for skilled therapy but was now in the facility for long-term care. The family member said R56 had a severe decline in health and was now receiving hospice services. R56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of R56's physician orders did not reveal an order for hospice, and the care plans for R56 did not contain a care plan for hospice. Hospice visit notes and hospice documentation were not located in R56's medical record. A progress note on 6/28/24 read, in part: .(resident's family member) and resident have been discussing hospice services. contacted hospice. There were no other progress notes that mentioned hospice. A hospice visit schedule was not located in the medical record. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 7/9/24 at 11:12 a.m. The DON confirmed R56 was receiving hospice services. The DON said the order for hospice, visit schedule, care plan for hospice, and hospice visit notes were in a binder at the nurses' station or in R56's room. The binder was obtained and reviewed with the DON. The binder did not contain a hospice order, schedule, care plan, or hospice documentation of assessments or visits. The DON said she would call the hospice representative for the paperwork. The DON was asked when the resident started hospice services. The DON replied, I'm not really sure - some time last week, maybe on the 2nd or 3rd [July 2024]. When asked how the facility correlated and coordinated plans of care with hospice, the DON did not provide a response. The DON agreed an order for hospice should be in the resident's medical record, and hospice documentation should be in the facility. The DON also conveyed the expectation for a hospice care plan in R56's medical record. Registered Nurse (RN) A was interviewed on 7/9/24 at 11:26 a.m. RN A confirmed she was a nurse manager. RN A said she contacted hospice for documentation and a care plan. RN A said she was told by hospice they would send a care plan, but the care plan was not signed by a physician. When asked how staff know the days and times of hospice visits, RN A said, They [hospice] call the day they are coming in and I put it on the staffing sheet for the day. Staffing sheets for 7/1/24 - 7/9/24 were reviewed. There was no documentation on the staffing sheets regarding hospice employees scheduled to visit R56. On 7/9/24 at 11:40 a.m., RN A said hospice called the facility and said they would visit twice a week and the schedule had been entered into the shower book. When asked when R56 went on hospice services, RN A replied, I'm not really sure. RN A was asked if there should be an order for hospice and the reply was yes. Hospice documentation was received and reviewed on 7/9/24 at 12:28 p.m. The documentation indicated R56 started hospice services on 7/2/24. The documentation included notes from RN's (Registered Nurses) dated 7/2/24 and 7/6/24, social worker documentation on 7/2/24, and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) documentation on 7/2/24 and 7/5/24. The hospice certification and plan of care did not contain the physician signature or date. The policy Coordination of Hospice Services dated 6/17/24 read, in part: Policy: When a resident chooses to receive hospice care and services, the facility will coordinate and provide care in cooperation with hospice staff in order to promote the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being .The facility and hospice provider will coordinate a plan of care and will implement interventions in accordance with the resident's needs .The care plan will identify the care and services that each entity will provide in order to meet the needs of the resident .The facility will maintain communication with hospice as it relates to the resident's plan of care and series to ensure each entity is aware of their responsibilities .
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate medically related social services to ...

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 adequate medically related social services to one Resident #15 (R15) of one resident reviewed for social services care. This deficient practice resulted in a lack of supportive visits, delayed referral to a behavioral care provider, and psychosocial decline. Findings include: Resident #15 (R15) Review of R15's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on [DATE], with active diagnoses that included: depression, heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. R15 scored a 15 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of intact cognition. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:35 p.m., R15 stated sometimes I miss my son . he passed away and I get depressed. He had cerebral palsy and I took care of him for most of his life . I couldn't be with him when he died. R15 was teary eyed and stated he passed away this past October .but the staff or social worker does not talk with me about it. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:10 p.m., Social Services Designee (SSD) N acknowledged there were no supportive services, outside services, or emotional support given to R15 regarding the loss of R15's son. SSD N stated I did not talk with R15 about grief counseling .R15's diagnosis of depression . I did not offer outside agency support to R15 to deal with the loss of R15's son. SSD N stated I did not put anything into R15's care plan regarding the loss of R15's son. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:37 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) acknowledged SSD N did not address the loss of R15's son, SSD N did not implement a care plan regarding the loss of R15's son, SSD N did not offer R15 support for loss of son, and SSD N did not offer outside services with the most recent assessment on [DATE]. Review of facility policy titled Social Services date implemented [DATE], read in part, the facility .will provide medically related social services to each resident, to attain or maintain the residents highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being . social service designee will complete . a quarterly assessment, identifying any need for medically relate social services of the residents.Services to meet the residents needs may include . making referrals and obtaining needed services from outside entities . providing or arranging for needed mental and psychosocial counseling services . meeting the needs of residents who are grieving from losses . the facility should provide social services or obtain needed services from outside entities during situation that include . difficulty coping with change or loss .of a loved one, need for emotional support .the residents plan of care will reflect any .social service needs, and how these need are being addressed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 the timely reorder and acquisition of pressure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the timely reorder and acquisition of pressure ulcer wound treatment medication for one Resident (R51) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcer treatment medication availability. This deficient practice resulted in the lack of prescribed medication and the potential for worsening of pressure ulcers for R51. Findings include: Review of R51's admission Record, acquired 7/8/24 at 3:23 p.m., revealed R51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a readmission on [DATE]. Diagnoses included the following, in part: Partial traumatic amputation of right great toe, present on admission. Review of R51's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) on 7/9/24 at 8:23 a.m., revealed the following physician orders that required Santyl for the prescribed wound dressing medication in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR). 1. #23 Left Heel: Clean wound bed with Dial soap and pat dry. Apply nickel thick Santyl to wound bed and cover with Tegaderm High performance circular dressing . Start Date 5/8/24 0700 (7:00 a.m.) 2. Cleanse middle toe on left foot nail area with dial soap and NS (normal saline), or wound cleanser. Dr. Apply nickel thick Santyl to wound bed. Apply 4x4 gauze. Then attach tegrederm (sic) tape to secure. Change daily. Every day shift for Wound care. Start Date: 6/21/24 0700 (7:00 a.m.) 3. Left posterior calf. Wash with soap and water. Apply nickel thick Santyl to wound bed then apply 4x4 adhesive foam dressing. Every day shift for Wound care. Start Date: 6/26/25 0700 (7:00 a.m.) 4. Wound #18, surgical, right foot, toes. Clean wound bed with dial soap and water. Apply nickel thick Santyl to wound bed. Apply skin prep to peri (area surrounding)- wound and cover with a superabsorb or foam dressing. Daily and prn (as needed) until healed. Every day shift for Wound care. Start Date: 6/21/24 0700 (7:00 a.m.) Review of R51's TAR revealed wound treatment orders and accompanying progress notes for R51 beginning 7/3/24, that documented the unavailability of Santyl for treatment of R51's wounds. During an interview and observation on 7/09/24 at 8:30 a.m., when asked about the unavailability of the Santyl (cream) to complete the physician orders for R51's pressure injuries RN B said the Santyl came from a pharmacy in Chicago. RN B was not aware of why there was none currently available for R51's wound treatments. RN B opened the 100- hall medication cart in the presence of this Surveyor and confirmed no Santyl was available for R51's wounds at that time. RN B said the Santyl was supposed to be auto shipped, but they still didn't have Santyl. When asked why there was no Santyl documented on the TAR beginning on July 3rd, RN B had no explanation. RN B said she had not worked on the 100-hall for about a week, and the last time she worked Santyl was available. During an interview on 7/09/24 at 10:35 a.m., when asked about the lack of Santyl (Wound debridement medication) beginning on 7/3/24 for R51's pressure injury treatment orders, the Director of Nursing (DON) said Registered Nurse (RN)/Unit Manager A was informed the previous day (7/8/24) that no Santyl was available in the medication cart for R51. RN A contacted [pharmacy name] to ensure delivery of Santyl. During this interview, the DON received a call from [pharmacy name] which informed her that the delivery of Santyl could not be delivered by 7/10/24 at noon. The DON was asked to review R51's progress notes and confirmed beginning on 7/3/24 progress note documentation showed Santyl was not available in the medication cart. The DON reviewed the TAR and confirmed three days between 7/3/24 and 7/9/24 were documented with two or three 9's indicating the medication was not available. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) J documented wound care per physician orders, with inclusion of Santyl nickel thick on during the time period when Santyl was not available in the medication cart. When the DON was asked how Santyl was placed on R51's wound by LPN J, the DON said she understood the question (How could Santyl be placed on the wound when none was available?), but she would have to talk to her nursing staff to figure out what happened. The DON acknowledged the physician order specified Santyl applied to R51's wounds, and none was available for apparently seven days, including that day (7/9/24). When asked if there was any documentation of contact with a physician for a change in the physician order based on the unavailability of the Santyl, the DON stated, I don't see any documentation that anyone was contacted for a change in orders. When asked if the DON understood the concern with the lack of pressure ulcer/wound physician prescribed treatment for one week, the DON confirmed understanding and the potential for worsening of the wounds, and the failure to follow physician orders. During an interview on 7/09/24 at 1:23 p.m., LPN J confirmed she did not have Santyl for R51's wound treatments on the days she worked for the past 7 days. LPN J said she thought the Wound Clinic ordered the Santyl from Chicago. LPN J confirmed that she did not ask anyone about the unavailability of Santyl when she identified it was not available in the medication cart, and confirmed there was no documentation in the EMR showing that anyone had attempted contact with the physician to inquire about a change in orders. When asked about going seven days without the prescribed wound treatment medication, LPN J stated, Yeah, it has been quite a while. Review of the Medication Cross Match policy, implemented 6/21/23, revealed the following: Policy: This facility will perform a medication cross match every week to ensure each resident has a sufficient supply of medications to meet their needs. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will utilize a systematic approach to provide routine medications in order to meet the needs of each resident. 2. The nurse assigned to the medication cart on Thursday night will perform a medication cross match. 3. The nurse performing the medication cross match will review and compare the MAR with the medications available in the cart and medication room. 4. Medications found to be at (6) doses or less will be reordered following the facility's medication reorder system. Review of the Medication Reordering policy, implemented 6/21/23, revealed the following, in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to accurately and safely provide or obtain pharmaceutical services including the provision of routine and emergency medications and biologicals in a timely manner to meet the needs of each resident . 1. The facility will utilize a systematic approach to provide or obtain routine and emergency medications and biologicals in order to meet the needs of each resident. 2. Acquisition of medications should be completed in a timely manner to ensure medications are administered in a timely manner. 3. Each time a nurse is administering medications and observes (6) or less doses left of one kind, that nurse will reorder the medication, time permitting. 4. The nurse that is assigned to each medication cart will perform a medication cross match every Thursday night .
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Part B: Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate antipsychotic medication dosage for one Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Part B: Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate antipsychotic medication dosage for one Resident (R26) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. This deficient practice resulted in R26 potentially receiving the incorrect dose of antipsychotic medication. Findings include: Resident #26 Resident #26 (R26) was observed in her room on 7/9/24 at 2:56 p.m. R26 displayed abnormal involuntary facial movement suggestive of antipsychotic medication use. R26 was admitted to the facility with a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented R26 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, indicating R26 was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS documented R26 received antipsychotic medication on a routine basis. Current active medication orders were reviewed. R26's orders included an order for an antipsychotic medication dosed at 3 milligrams (mg) twice daily. The order was entered by a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) on 6/20/24 but was not signed by a physician as of 7/9/24. R26 received services from the facility's contracted provider for psychiatric services. Visit notes from psychiatric services provider dated 6/12/24 documented the current medications for R26 included [name of antipsychotic medication] 0.5 mg tablet (take 4 tablet(s) by oral route 2 times per day) for a total of 2 mg twice daily. There were no visit notes from psychiatric services in the medical record after 6/12/24. The consultant pharmacist (RPh) conducted monthly Medication Regimen Reviews (MRRs) for R26 on 1/19/24, 2/23/24, 3/30/24, 4/30/24, 5/14/24, and 6/19/24. A review of the MRRs revealed no recommendations from the RPH regarding the antipsychotic medication. The last physician visit note in the medical record of R26 was dated 4/25/24. The note documented in part: .Decrease her [name of antipsychotic medication] to 1.5 b.i.d. (1.5 mg twice daily) . [name of antipsychotic medication] 2 b.i.d. (2 mg twice daily) for dementia or the psychosis . On 7/9/24 at 3:16 p.m., Staff N and Registered Nurse A (RN A) were interviewed. Staff N confirmed she was the social services designee, and RN A confirmed she was a nurse manager. Staff N confirmed the last psychiatric service consultation for R26 was 6/12/24. RN A confirmed the last MRR for R26 by the RPh was 6/19/24. Staff N and RN A were asked regarding the dosage discrepancy of the antipsychotic medication between the physician documentation and psychiatric service documentation, and the current order in the medical record. Staff N said the information would be in physician visit documentation. Staff N and RN A reviewed the record of R26 and confirmed the physician did not have progress notes or visit documentation in the medical record since 4/25/24. Staff N said the physician had visited in June (2024) but could not explain why there was no documentation from the physician in June in R26's medical record. Staff N said she would call to obtain the visit documentation notes from the physician for June. On 7/9/24 at 4:06 p.m., Staff N produced a nurse's progress note dated 6/6/24 at 11:01 a.m. that read in part, Dr. [name of physician] was in the facility today . reviewed resident's medications and new order to increase her [name of antipsychotic medication] from 1.5 mg BID (twice daily) to 2 mg BID . Staff N reported R26's physician did not have dictated visit documentation notes from a visit on 6/6/24. The Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) were interviewed on 7/10/24 at approximately 9:15 a.m. The NHA and DON were asked why the dose of antipsychotic medication R26 was receiving was 3 mg twice daily despite the psychiatric service provider and physician documenting 2 mg twice daily with no pharmacy recommendations regarding the antipsychotic medication dose. The NHA and DON were unable to explain the discrepancy. The DON said she would review the information. On 7/10/24 at 12:26 p.m., the DON reported she could not locate information regarding the reason R26 was being administered 3 mg of the antipsychotic medication twice daily. The DON was unable to explain the dose of 3 mg. twice daily. This deficient practice has two parts: A and B. Part A: Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for one Resident (R24) of five residents reviewed for medication regimen reviews. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for the administration of unnecessary medication or a medication dosage in excess of what was required to treat the resident symptoms. Findings include: Resident R24 Review of R24's admission Record revealed R24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included the following, in part: Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, hallucinations, psychotic disorder with delusions, depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of R24's Physician Order Summary, retrieved 7/11/2024, revealed R24 was prescribed the following psychotropic medications: quetiapine fumarate 25 mg related to psychotic disorder with delusions, and sertraline HCL 75 mg related to depression, Review of R24's [Company Name] Psychological Assessment & Plan, dated 2/8/24, revealed the following, in part: .Alzheimer's disease with late onset. Plan: Due for GDR Seroquel. No new behaviors noted, moods continue to be stable, does well with non pharm (pharmacological) interventions . Stable with Zoloft .Indication for Visit: Follow-Up per the request of patient, family, PCP (primary care provider) or facility staff, GDR, evaluate efficacy of medications and any prior changes. Review of R24's Progress Notes between 1/2024 and 7/2024 found no evidence of acceptance and/or declination of the GDR recommendation for R24's Seroquel. During an interview on 7/9/24 at 3:20 p.m., when asked about a GDR for R24's Seroquel, Social Services Designee (Staff) N, stated, 1/25/24 was the last time they looked at her for a GDR. It should be in [Physician K's] notes. We need to keep track (of the scheduled GDRs). We just did give this (GDR information to the Doctors in June. In January the note would have been contraindicated maybe . I don't know when he last saw her. Staff N and Unit Manager/RN A were asked for any documentation that provided evidence that a Seroquel GDR was attempted or declined by Physician K in the last year. During an interview on 7/9/24 at 4:00 p.m., Staff N and RN A, after review of R24's electronic medical record (EMR), confirmed no GDR was completed by the facility in the last year. No GDR documentation for R24 was available or provided for review. No documented clinical rationale for a lack of an attempted dose reduction for R24's Seroquel was provided by the facility. Review of the Gradual dose Reduction of Psychotropic Drugs, last reviewed 6/17/24, revealed the following, in part: Policy: Residents who use psychotropic drugs receive gradual dose reductions and behavioral interventions, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue these drugs . 1. Reducing the need for and maximizing the effectiveness of medications shall be considered for all residents who use psychotropic drugs. Therefore, dose reductions and behavioral interventions are part of medication management. This policy pertains to gradual dose reductions. 2. Within the first year in which a resident is admitted on a psychotropic medication or after the prescribing practitioner has initiated a psychotropic medication, the facility will attempt a GDR in two separate quarters (with at least one month between the attempts), unless clinically contraindicated. 3. After the first year, a GDR will be attempted annually, unless clinically contraindicated . 5. For any individual who is receiving a psychotropic medication to treat expressions or indications of distress related to dementia, the GDR may be considered clinically contraindicated for reasons that include, but that are not limited to: a. The resident's target symptoms returned or worsened after the most recent attempt at a GDR within the facility; and b. The physician has documented the clinical rationale for why any additional attempted dose reduction at that time would be likely to impair the resident's function or increase distressed behavior .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

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 revise care plans after multiple falls for four Residents (#17, #26,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to revise care plans after multiple falls for four Residents (#17, #26, #36, and #47) of fourteen residents reviewed for care planning. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for further falls and the potential for injury. Findings include: Resident #17 (R17) Review of R17's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/21/24, revealed admission to the facility on [DATE], with active diagnoses that included: unsteadiness on feet, schizophrenia, down syndrome, anxiety disorder, and depression. R17 scored a 99 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of an incomplete interview due to R17 not participating in the assessment or giving a nonsensical response. Review of the facility fall reports revealed R17 had two falls in January on 1/23/24 and 1/24/24, one fall in February on 2/16/24, and one fall in March on 3/2/24. The care plan for R17 was not revised after each fall. During an interview on 7/11/24 at 8:37 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged revisions should occur after each fall. The DON stated, sometimes I don't have interventions to add to the care plan. R17's care plan revealed no revisions were made to R17's care plan after any of the four falls. R17's care plan was initiated on 2/22/24 and last revised on 2/26/24. Resident #47 (R47) Review of R47's MDS assessment, dated 6/13/24 revealed admission to the facility on 3/6/24, with active diagnoses that included: Parkinson's disease, hypertension, anemia, anxiety disorder, and depression. R47 scored a 15 of 15 on the BIMS reflective of intact cognition. Review of facility fall report revealed R47 had a fall on 7/3/24. The care plan for R47 was not revised after the fall. During an interview on 7/9/24 at 1:52 p.m., the DON said, Our care plans have been bad regarding person-centered care plans. During an interview on 7/11/24 at 8:37 a.m., the DON acknowledged care plan revisions should occur after each fall. The DON stated, Sometimes I don't have interventions to add to the care plan. R47's care plan revealed no revisions were made to R47's care plan after the fall on 7/3/24. R47's care plan was initiated on 3/28/24 and last revised on 4/9/24. Resident #26 On 7/9/24 at 9:00 a.m., Resident #26 (R26) was observed with a large area of bruising to the left eye. Registered Nurse (RN) B said, (R26) has had a lot of falls. RN B said R26 fell on 7/3/24 and was sent to the hospital for evaluation as a result of the fall. R26 had a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. A BIMS examination dated 4/20/24 scored R26 as severely cognitively impaired. A quarterly MDS dated [DATE] documented R26 required moderate to maximal assistance from staff to complete Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The Falls care plan for R26 revealed the most recent intervention was initiated on 4/30/24. R26 experienced falls on 5/5/24, 5/11/24, 6/7/24, 6/17/24, 6/22/24, and 7/3/24. The care plan was not updated or revised with additional or amended interventions for any of the falls on those dates to minimize the risk of fall recurrence. Resident #36 Resident #36 (R36) was admitted to the facility with a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. A quarterly MDS completed on 5/7/24 documented R36 with a BIMS score of 99 indicating R36 was unable to participate in the cognitive assessment. On 7/10/24 at 3:30 p.m., R36 was observed sitting in a wheelchair with a tray table in front of her. The tray table was attached to both sides of the wheelchair. The tray table extended across the width of the wheelchair, securing R36 in the wheelchair. The care plans for R36 did not include the use of a wheelchair tray table. The falls care plan contained only one intervention initiated on 2/26/24 for a pommel cushion to the wheelchair. R36 experienced falls on 2/24/24 and 4/8/24. During an interview on 7/10/24 at 4:00 p.m., the DON was asked why the wheelchair tray table was placed on the wheelchair of R36. The DON responded the tray table was used to prevent R36 from falling and was placed after R36 fell on 4/8/24. When asked why the intervention for the fall on 4/8/24 was not added to the resident's care plan, the DON did not supply a response. The care plan history was reviewed with the DON who confirmed the wheelchair tray table was never added to the plan of care for R36. The policy Accidents and Supervision dated as revised 6/17/24 read in part: .Each resident will receive adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. This includes: .3. Implementing interventions to reduce hazard(s) and risk(s). 4. Monitoring for effectiveness and modifying interventions .Modification is the process of adjusting interventions as needed .Monitoring and modification process include: .b. Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions c. Modifying or replacing interventions as needed d. Evaluating the effectiveness of new interventions . The policy Fall Risk Assessment dated as revised 6/17/24 read in part: .care plans will include interventions, including adequate supervision, consistent with a resident's needs, goals, and current standards of practice in order to reduce the risk of an accident .5. Monitor the effectiveness of the care plan interventions, and modify the interventions as necessary .
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** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician visits accurately reviewed the total program of ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician visits accurately reviewed the total program of care for four Residents (R24, R26, R36, & R38) of four residents reviewed for physician visits. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for lack of comprehensive and supervised medical care. Findings include: Resident #24 (R24) Review of R24's admission Record revealed R24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included the following, in part: Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, hallucinations, psychotic disorder with delusions, depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of R24's Physician Order Summary, retrieved 7/11/2024, revealed R24 was prescribed the following, in part: melatonin 3 mg (milligrams) at bedtime and memantine HCL (hydrochloride) 10 mg related to Alzheimer's disease, quetiapine fumarate 25 mg related to psychotic disorder with delusions, and sertraline HCL 75 mg related to depression, Review a comprehensive list of R24's medications which had been discontinued or completed, provided by the facility on 7/10/24 by the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed R24 was last prescribed Lorazepam on 10/5/23, which was completed on 10/19/23. Lorazepam was not prescribed by a physician order by R24's Physician (K) since 10/19/23 per the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) physician order report. Review of R24's Physician Visit notes, dictated by Physician K in the last six months revealed the following monthly documentation: Date: 12/21/2023: Subjective: Patient is on LOA (leave of absence/out of the facility) but I end up seeing her at the [Local Restaurant] all the time. She is doing fine. Her husband is doing fine. No problems. Plan: She is on 25 of Seroquel bid for the psychotic features of her advancing Alzheimer's as well as 75 for depression. She also needs 0.5 of Ativan p.r.n. ( as needed-sic) for when she gets agitated, and she really does get agitated and violent. Signed by Physician K. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 01/25/24 . Plan: Continue Seroquel (quetiapine fumarate) 24 mg twice a day, Zoloft 75 mg daily, and Ativan 0.5 mg every 12 hours as needed . Dictated by Physician K. Date: 02/22/24 .Plan: Continue current management . Ativan 0.5 mg every 12 hours as needed for 14 days for her agitation and hallucinations . Dictated by Physician K. Date: 03/24/24 Subjective: Patient is on LOA (leave of absence/out of the facility) with husband, doing well. Taking Seroquel 25 b.i.d. (twice daily) from (sic) her dementia, 75 daily for depression, Ativan 0.5 mg every 12 hours p.r.n. (as needed) for another 14 days. Dictated by Physician K. This entry was the entirety of the physician visit note for March 2024. Date: 04/25/2024 Subjective: The patient was on leave (out of the facility). Assessment/Plan: [R24] is on Seroquel 25 mg twice a day for psychosis from her Alzheimer's, 75 mg daily for depression from Alzheimer's, and as needed Ativan 0.5 mg every 12 hours for her anxiety from her Alzheimer's. Signed by Physician K. This was the entirety of the physician visit note for April 2024. Date: 05/23/2024 Subjective: Patient has no complaints. Objective: (blank) Vital Signs: Vital Signs are stable. Patient is afebrile. Assessment: Advanced probable Alzheimer's disease. Plan: Continue Seroquel 25 b.i.d. for psychosis, 75 of Zoloft daily for depression, and Ativan 0.5 every 12 hours p.r.n. for her anxiety and panic attacks. (Entirety of Physician Visit May 2024 documentation) Date: 06/20/2024 Subjective: The patient is doing well. Husband has no concerns. (Husband is not the activated Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) for Care as documented on the admission Record retrieved on 7/8/24 at 2:57 p.m.) Plan: Continue current management. I will see her back for monthly rounds later. Dictated by Physician K. (Entirety of Physician Visit note) Date: 06/27/2024 Subjective: The patient was sleeping comfortably. Her crying out is minimal at this point. She is doing well. Plan: Continue the Xanax 0.25 mg twice a day for anxiety, Paxil 30 mg for anxiety and depression, Cymbalta 30 mg for anxiety and depression, and Risperdal (antipsychotic medication) twice a day for her dementia with psychosis. Dictated by Physician K on 6/27/24. (Entirety of Physician Visit note) During an interview on 7/11/24 at 8:31 a.m., Health Information Coordinator (HIC) V was asked about the adequacy of Physician K's 12/21/23 Physician Visit Note which was documented although Resident R24 was not present in the building. HIC V stated, They (physician visit notes) leave something to be desired. We get notes like that all the time. He (Physician K) will write up a note saying the patient was sleeping . It is not unusual for [Physician K] to do dictation on sleeping residents . During an interview on 7/11/24 at 8:43 a.m., Physician K was provided a copy of R24's 6/27/24 Physician Visit Note for their review. When asked if the medications detailed in Physician K's dictation were accurate, and prescribed for R24, Physician K stated, I presume those are her medications, but I don't know. Normally I would not dictate anything about their medications on a progress note. When asked about completion of physician visits notes on residents not in the facility or sleeping residents, Physician K stated, Oh no, I don't dictate and do a visit on a sleeping resident. If they are LOA, I usually say they are LOA and do not do a visit. When asked completion of a comprehensive review of systems and medications on physician visits, Physician K stated, I don't go into the computer (Electronic Medical Record). I sign things all the time. I don't know exactly what I sign. When asked about the continuation of Ativan in their physician visit notes from 12/2023 through 5/2024 when the Ativan had been discontinued in October of 2023, Physician K stated, When they give me the (physician) orders (of resident's medications) I sign them. I don't have time to audit them (to ensure their accuracy). Physician K was unaware that the medications identified in R24's June 2024 Physician Visit Note were medications that were not prescribed to her, but those of another facility resident. Physician K said the facility provided the medication information and he went by their information. When asked if he was responsible for the accuracy of information that he dictated into the medical record, Physician K did not respond. Resident R26 Review of R26's admission Record, retrieved 7/11/24 at 9:18 a.m., revealed R26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included the following, in part: Alzheimer's disease, dementia with psychotic disturbance, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and blindness of the left eye. R26 had an activated DPOA for both Care and Financial concerns. Review of Resident R26's Physician Visit Notes completed by Physician K in the last six months revealed the following, in part: Date: 12/21/2023 Subjective: Patient doing well. No complaints. Objective: Vital signs are stable. Patient is afebrile. Heart Regular. Lungs are clear. Assessment: Dementia, end stage with psychosis, depression, and anxiety. Plan: Continue the Xanax 0.25 b.i.d. the Paxil 30, the Cymbalta 30, and Risperdal 0.5 b.i.d. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 01/252024 Subjective: Patient was sleeping. Patient doing well. On Xanax 0.25 b.i.d., Paxil 30, Cymbalta 30 for depression, dementia, and anxiety. Risperdal 0.5 b.i.d. for psychosis or dementia. She is doing well on these, and GDR (Gradual Dose Reduction) is contraindicated. Dictated by Physician K. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 2/22/24 Subjective: The patient is getting bathed. She is doing well by report. Plan: Xanax 0.25 mg twice a day for anxiety as needed, Paxil 30 mg daily, and Cymbalta 30 mg for depression, and Risperdal 0.5 mg twice a day for psychosis she gets with her dementia. Dictated by Physician K. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date 03/28/24 Subjective: The patient is sleeping. No complaints reported. Objective: The patient is resting comfortably. Assessment: 1. Depression, 2. Dementia with psychotic features. Plan: Continue Xanax 0.25 mg twice a day for anxiety, Paxil 30 mg daily for depression and anxiety. Cymbalta 30 mg daily for anxiety and depression, and Risperdal 0.5 mg twice daily for psychotic features and dementia. Dictated by Physician K. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 4/25/24 Subjective: Apparently, she has been complaining about some back pain lately and has been rather restless. Objective: Vital Signs: Vital signs are stable. Patient is afebrile. Heart: Regular. Lungs: Clear. Assessment: Dementia with psychotic features, as well as having some back pain. Plan: Decrease her Risperdal to 1.5 b.i.d. She has been falling a bit, and instead will try her on 7.5 daily of Mobic. Continue the Xanax 0.25 b.i.d. for anxiety, the Paxil 30 daily, and Cymbalta 30 daily for depression. Risperdal 2 b.i.d. for dementia or the psychosis. Dictated by Physician K. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Review of all Physician Visit Notes in R26's EMR found no visits documented after 4/25/24. Review of R26's Physician Order Summary, retrieved 7/11/24 at 9:21 a.m., revealed R26 was prescribed Risperidone (Risperdal) 3 mg by mouth two times a day related to unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with psychotic disturbance starting 6/20/24. During an interview on 7/11/24 at 8:50 a.m., HIC V was asked about lack of physician visit documentation for R26 since 4/25/24. HIC V stated, I was just looking and that and I am going to call up there - to the Hospital Physician Practice - to see if there is a physician progress note we have not received yet. I think a visit must have been done but we just don't have the physician progress note yet. During an interview on 07/11/24 at 9:44 a.m., HIC V reviewed the list of Physician Visits Due on his computer in the presence of this Surveyor. The list showed R26 was due for a physician visit on 6/24/24. No documentation was present in the chart showing a visit had been completed. During an interview on 7/11/24 at 10:00 a.m., HIC V confirmed no Physician Visit Note for R26, from Physician K, was available for a visit in June of 2024. Resident R36 Review of R36's admission Record, retrieved 7/10/24 at 3:43 p.m., revealed R36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included the following, in part: Alzheimer's disease, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness (5/6/24 onset date), unsteadiness on feet (5/6/24 onset date), and other abnormalities of gait and mobility (5/6/24 onset date). R36 had an activated DPOA for both Care and Financial concerns. Review of R36's Physician Order Summary, retrieved 7/10/24 at 3:44 p.m., revealed the following medications as currently prescribed to R36: acetaminophen, Aquaphor ointment, aspirin, bisacodyl laxative suppository, Lasix (diuretic), melatonin (sleep aid), Milk of Magnesia (for constipation), nystatin (for rash), Risperdal 0.5 mg two times a day (for anxiety), and sertraline HCL (for depression). Diagnoses listed on the Physician Order Summary included the following: edema, arthritis, uterovaginal prolapse, major depressive disorder severe with psychotic symptoms, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, abnormalities of gait and mobility, dysphagia, Alzheimer's disease, and anxiety disorder. No diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was present on the Physician Order Summary, nor was it listed on R36's admission Record. Review of R36's Physician Visit Notes, dictated by Physician K in the last six months revealed the following: Date: 12/21/23 Subjective: Patient Sleeping comfortably, no complaints. Objective: Vital Signs: Vital signs are stable. Patient is afebrile. General: Patient is not agitated and sleeping comfortably. Assessment: Dementia, probably Alzheimer's type. Plan: Continue current management. She is on Zoloft 50 daily for depression and Risperdal 0.5 mg b.i.d. for anxiety and psychotic features of her dementia. Dictated b Physician K. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 1/25/24 Subjective: The patient is awake and joking. No complaints. Objective: Vita signs stable. The patient is afebrile. Heart is regular. Lungs are clear. Sensorium is rather clear for her today. She was describing us as pain. Assessment: End-stage dementia with depression and anxiety. Plan: 1. Continue current management. She is doing well. 2. Continue with Zoloft 50 mg daily and Risperdal 25 mg twice a day for anxiety and depression. It is contraindicated to adjust her dosages given the severity of her dementia. Dictated by Physician K. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Review of Risperdal Dosage per Drugs.com, last updated 8/31/2022, revealed the following, in part: Efficacy (of Risperdal dosage) has been demonstrated in a range of 4 mg to 16 mg per day. However, doses above 6 mg per day for twice daily dosing were not demonstrated to be more efficacious than lower doses, were associated with more extrapyramidal symptoms and other adverse effects, and are generally not recommended . Date: 02/22/2024 Subjective: The patient has no complaints today. Objective: Vital signs stable. The patient is afebrile. Heart is regular. Lungs are clear. Assessment: 1. Dementia, probably Alzheimer's, end stage. 2. COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Plan: 1. Continue current management. 2. Continue the Zoloft 50 mg daily for depression and Risperdal twice a day 0.5 mg for anxiety and hallucination. Dictated by Physician K on 2/22/24 at 9:20 a.m. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 03/28/2024 Subjective: Patient sleeping comfortably. Objective: Patient sleeping comfortably, not distressed at all. Assessment: Depression and advanced dementia. Plan: Continue the Zoloft 50 for the depression, and Risperdal 0.5 b.i.d. for agitation and hallucinations. Dictated by Physician K on 3/2824 at 10:20 a.m. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 04/25/2024 Subjective: The patient is doing well, no complaints. Objective: Vital signs stable. The patient is afebrile. Heart is regular. Lungs had an occasional expiratory wheeze, but she has severe COPD in addition to her dementia. Assessment: Dementia, probably Alzheimer's. Plan: Zoloft 50 mg for depression and Risperdal 0.5 mg twice a day for anxiety and hallucinations from her dementia. Dictated by Physician K on 4/25/24 at 9:40 a.m. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 05/23/2024 Subjective: The patient is doing well, did not want to talk to me today. This is usual for her. Objective: Vital signs stable. The patient is afebrile. Heart is regular. Lungs have occasional expiratory wheeze. She has end-stage COPD as well. Assessment: Dementia, end stage. Plan: Continue Zoloft 50 mg for depression and risperidone 0.5 mg twice a day for anxiety and psychosis. Dictated by Physician K on 5/23/24 at 11:30 a.m. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 6/27/24 Subjective: No complaints. Objective: Vital signs stale. The patient is afebrile. Heart is regular. Lungs clear. Assessment: Dementia with anxiety and hallucinations. Plan: Continue the Zoloft 50 mg daily for depression and the Risperdal 0.5 mg twice a day for anxiety and psychosis. Dictated by Physician K on 6/27/24 at 9:20 a.m. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Resident R38 Review of R38's admission Record, retrieved 7/10/24 at 3:19 p.m., revealed R38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included the following, in part: Parkinson's disease, dysphagia, erosive osteoarthritis, depression, pressure ulcer of sacral region, scoliosis, and pain in thoracic spine. R38 did not have an activated DPOA and was responsible for their own decisions. Review of R38's Physician Order Summary ,retrieved 7/10/24 at 3:20 p.m., revealed R38 was prescribed the following medications: acetaminophen, bisacodyl laxative suppository, Carbidopa-Levodopa Oral Tablet 25-100 (for Parkinson's disease), docusate sodium (for bowel management,) Effexor XR (extended release) 150 mg (for depression), Eliquis 5 mg (for cardiomyopathy), Entacapone 200 mg (for Parkinson's disease), ferrous sulfate (iron supplement), Lidocaine (pain management for wound treatments), Milk of Magnesia (for constipation), multivitamin, Rotigotine patch (for Parkison's), polyethylene glycol (for constipation), Simvastatin (for high cholesterol), and Vitamin D. R38 had physician orders for pressure ulcer wound treatment beginning 11/28/23 which read: Skin, Pressure Ulcer & Wound treatment Protocol - May follow facility protocol. Review of R38's Physician Visit Notes for the last six months, completed by Physician K, revealed the following: Date: 12/02/2023 (admission Assessment) Chief Complaint: Inability to perform ADLs (activities of daily living) at home due to Parkinson's disease. History of Present Illness: The patient is an [age and gender] who presents from [acute care hospital) for residential care seeing how she is unable to perform ADLS due to her Parkinson's disease. The patient otherwise is well. Has not complaints but staff has noted a mass [R38's] right anterior shoulder on admission last week . Past Medical History: Significant for . Parkinsonism . Stage 2 bedsore on the sacral region . Dictated by Physician K on 12/7/24 at 9:05 a.m. Date: 12/21/2023 Subjective: Patient is doing well today. Has no complaints. Wanted to chat a bit. Objective: Vital signs are stable. Patient is afebrile. Heart regular. Lungs are clear. Affect is fairly bright. Assessment: Dementia with depressive signs. Plan: Continue the 75 of Effexor daily for depression. Patient is getting over COVID and doing relatively well. Dictated by Physician K on 12/21/23 at 10:55 a.m., (Entirety of Physician Visit Note). Date: 02/22/2024 Subjective: Patient has no complaints today, doing well. Objective: Vital signs: Vital signs are stable. Patient is afebrile. Heart: Regular, Lungs: Clear. Assessment: Dementia end-stage. Plan: Patient's medical determination has been signed off on. For her depression she is taking Effexor 75 daily in the morning. Dictated by Physician K on 2/22/24 at 10:10 a.m. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Review of R38's Progress Notes, revealed a Physician Visit was completed on 2/23/24, by Physician W, for the purpose of capacity evaluation (capacity to make her own medical decisions) which read, in part: . she notes that she has scoliosis and example of identifying her own medical problems. Causes daily pain especially in her lumbar spine, she asked for medication for this. We discussed that this is not the point of interview, and I will talk to [Physician K] about possible pain medications .She is able to clearly identify medical problems, articulated choice, evaluate that choice and provide rationale to support her decision. Presently, she supports positive capacity evaluation and should remain able to make her medical decisions. Date: 03/28/2024 Subjective: No complaints. Objective: Vital Signs: Vital signs are stable. The patient is afebrile. Heart: Regular. Lungs: Lungs are clear. Assessment: 1. Parkinsonism with dementia. 2. Depression. Plan: continue the Effexor 75 for the depression. Dictated by Physician K on 3/28/24 at 10:53 a.m. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 4/25/2024 Subjective: Patient doing well, no complaints. Objective: Vital Signs: Vital signs are stable. Patient is afebrile. Heart: Regular. Lungs: Clear. Assessment: Dementia, probably Alzheimer's with some depression. Plan: Continue Effexor 75 daily. Dictated by Physician K on 4/25/24 at 10:40 a.m. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 05/23/2024 Subjective: The patient has no complaints. Objective: Vital signs stable. The patient is afebrile. Heart is regular. Lungs are clear. Assessment: Dementia with depressed features, severe. Plan: Continue Effexor 75 mg daily for control of her depression. Dictated by Physician K on 5/23/24 at 11:35 a.m. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Date: 06/27/2024 Subjective: Patient was sleeping comfortably. Continue the Effexor 75 for her depression. She is allowed 1 alcoholic beverage per day. Dictated 6/27/24 at 10:00 a.m. (Entirety of Physician Visit Note) Review of R38's above Physician Visit Notes completed by Physician K changed R38 from a Resident admitted with Parkinson's disease to being documented as having dementia with depressive signs on the 12/21/23 physician visit. Resident R38 was documented in the admission Physician Visit Notes, by Physician K with a stage two bedsore on her sacral region. No further reference was made in the next six months of Physician Visit Notes, dictated by Physician K, to document healing or worsening of R38's pressure injury, although treatments continued at the time of the recertification survey. During an interview on 7/10/24 at approximately 7:30 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was informed of this Surveyor's concerns with review of the Physician Visit documentation, completed by Physician K that did not include a comprehensive review of systems of medications for facility residents. The NHA expressed understanding of the concern and acknowledged she had spoken with Physician K in the past regarding concerns with their physician visit documentation. Review of the Physician Visits and Physician Delegation Policy, implemented 6/15/24, revealed the following, in part: It is the policy of this facility to ensure the physician takes an active role in supervising residents . The Physician should: a. See resident within 30 days of initial admission to the facility. b. The resident must be seen at least once every 30 calendar days for the first 90 calendar days after admission and at least every 60 days thereafter by physician or physician delegate as appropriate by State Law. c. Review the resident's total program of care including medications and treatments at each visit. d. Date, write and sign a progress note for each visit . 4. The Medical Director should: a. Visit residents who are not seen by their attending physician or alternate physician according to schedule. b. Document a progress note and orders for care as needed. c. Notify the attending physician and family of the results of the visit .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure inhalers and eye drops were labeled with dates when opened according to facility policy for two medication carts of tw...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure inhalers and eye drops were labeled with dates when opened according to facility policy for two medication carts of two medication carts reviewed for medication storage and labeling. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for administration of expired medications to nine residents receiving inhalers and five resident receiving eye drops. Findings include: The 100-hall medication cart was audited on 7/9/24 at 1:33 p.m. with Registered Nurse B (RN B). The cart was observed to contain five bottles of opened eye drops for four different residents. The bottles were not labeled with a date when opened. The cart contained three opened inhalers for two different residents. The inhalers were not labeled with a date when opened. One of the inhalers was inside a clear plastic bag that contained a pharmacy label indicating the pharmacy dispensed the inhaler on 5/30/24. RN B said, They're (inhalers) good for six weeks so that one is expired. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 7/9/24 at 1:42 p.m. The DON said eye drops and inhalers should be labeled with a date when they are opened because the discard dates of eye drops and inhalers are based on dates when opened and not the expiration dates. The 300-hall medication cart was audited on 7/10/24 at 8:21 a.m. with Licensed Practical Nurse H (LPN H). The cart was observed to contain two opened eye drop bottles for one resident. The bottles did not contain dates when opened. The cart contained four opened inhalers for two different residents. The inhalers did not contain dates when opened. LPN H said the eye drops and inhalers should be labeled with a date when opened. The policy Labeling of Medications and Biologicals dated 2/2/24 read, in part: .All medications and biologicals used in the facility will be labeled in accordance with current state and federal regulations to facilitate consideration of precautions and safe administration of medications .vials must include: a. The date the vial was initially opened .
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** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate numbers of staff to meet the needs of four (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate numbers of staff to meet the needs of four (Residents #47, #7, #15, and #24) of fifty-seven residents sampled for sufficient staffing and three [Resident #C1 (C1), Resident #C4 (C4), and Resident #C7 (C7)] of seven residents from a confidential resident council meeting. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for a decline in resident quality of life and/or quality of care, not receiving medications timely, and unmet care needs for all fifty-seven residents. Findings include: Resident #47 (R47) Review of R47's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed admission to the facility on 3/6/24, with active diagnoses that included: Parkinson's disease, hypertension, anemia, anxiety disorder, and depression. R47 scored a 15 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, reflective of intact cognition. During an interview on 7/9/24 at 8:34 a.m., R47 stated I fell last week when I tried to move, and there were not enough staff to help. It happened in the evening. around 7:30. I was on the floor for quite some time. Resident #7 (R7) Review of R7's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed admission to facility on 2/13/24 with active diagnoses that included: hypertension, and renal (kidney) insufficiency/renal failure/or end stage renal disease. R7 scored 15 of 15 on the BIMS reflective of intact cognition. During an interview on 7/8/24 at 2:31 p.m., R7 stated the facility is short staffed of nurses and aides. R7 said it sometimes takes 3 hours before R7 receives PRN (as needed) meds (medications) or before R7's call light is answered. R7 said meds are not given timely. Resident #15 (R15) Review of R15's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed admission to facility on 3/5/24 with active diagnoses that included: depression, heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. R15 scored 15 of 15 on the BIMS reflective of intact cognition. During an interview on 7/8/24 at 2:22 p.m., R15 stated It takes about a half an hour to have someone answer your call light. They do not have enough people to work. Resident #24 (R24) Review of R24's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed admission to facility 7/26/23, with active diagnoses that included: cancer, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, anxiety, depression, and Alzheimer's disease. R24 scored 4 of 15 on the BIMS assessment, reflective of severe cognitive impairment. During an interview on 7/8/24 at 2:15 p.m., the resident representative (RR) for R24 was queried if the facility had enough staff. RR stated, You know the answer to that. No, they don't have enough staff. During an interview on 7/10/24 at 9:59 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), the NHA acknowledged there are 11 positions open currently in nursing. During an interview on 7/10/24 10:18 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) H stated there is not sufficient staffing for residents between 3 pm and 11 pm and it probably happens a handful of times a week. During an interview on 7/10/24 at 10:23 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) L stated, Staffing is not the greatest. Sometimes we have a hard time. We just need more staff. The staffing on the weekends is horrible, we have to leave people in bed so that helps but we cut corners. During an interview on 7/10/24 at 10:39 a.m., CNA M stated, Staffing is short, we are short on night shift more than day shift, but it does happen on both shifts. There is one weekend that is normally bad and then one that is ok, this upcoming weekend is usually the tough one. We work short. When we are short staffed we don't do all the things we need to do. During a confidential group meeting on 7/9/24 at 11:00 a.m., C7 stated It does take a long time to answer lights in a timely manner. They are short staffed. There is only one staff on nights sometimes. C1 and C4 agreed that the facility is short staffed and call lights are not answered timely. Review of the Facility Assessment (FA) on 7/10/24 at 8:00 a.m., revealed the facility will schedule 4-5 CNA's on day shift, the facility will schedule 4-5 CNA's on afternoon shift and the facility will schedule 2 CNA's on night shift. Upon review of staffing assignments, the facility only scheduled 3 CNA's from 7 pm-11 pm on 2/11/24, 2/18,24, 2/24,24, 2/25/24, 3/2/24, 3/3/24, 3/9/24, 3/10/24, 3/16/24, 3/23/24, 3/24/24, 3/30/24, and 3/31/24. During an interview on 7/11/24 at 8:24 a.m., the NHA acknowledged 3 CNA's were scheduled from 7 pm to 11 pm which contradicted how many CNA's are needed according to the Facility Assessment.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure three Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) [P, S, and T] had the required yearly competency trainings, including demonstration in skills and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure three Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) [P, S, and T] had the required yearly competency trainings, including demonstration in skills and techniques necessary to care for Residents. This deficient practice has the potential for staff to lack the necessary training to adequately meet the needs of all 57 residents that reside in the facility. Findings include: A review of facility staff personnel records revealed CNA P was hired 2/25/22. CNA P's personnel record did not demonstrate dated competency skills since date of hire. A review of facility personnel records revealed CNA S was hired 4/13/21. CNA S's personnel record did not demonstrate dated competency skills after date of hire. A review of facility personnel records revealed CNA T as hired 5/27/23. CNA T's personnel record did not demonstrate dated competency skills after date of hire. During an interview on 7/11/24 at 08:24 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) acknowledged there were undated competency skills for staff. The DON stated, we should have had a date on our skills training. Review of Facility Assessment (FA) last revised 8/8/23 . read in part, employees are competency evaluated annually on . 23 areas regarding resident care and facility duties. This surveyor did not receive a checklist of the 23 areas listed in the Facility Assessment. The facility presented an incomplete and undated list of training on 13 areas the DON referenced as the staff's competency training.
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 complete performance reviews for three of three Certified Nurse Aides (CNA's) [P, S, and T] at least once every 12 months. This deficient p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete performance reviews for three of three Certified Nurse Aides (CNA's) [P, S, and T] at least once every 12 months. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for inadequate care and unmet resident care needs for all 57 residents living in the facility. Findings include: Review of facility personnel records demonstrated that CNA S was hired on 4/13/21 with no annual performance review. CNA T was hired on 5/27/23 with no annual performance review. CNA P was hired on 2/25/22 with no annual performance review. During an interview on 7/10/24 at 12:49 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged no performance reviews had been completed in the past year. During an interview on 7/10/24 at approximately 1:30 p.m., the Human Resource staff O stated No performance reviews have been completed since 2022. Review of facility policy titled Nurse Aide Training Program implemented on 4/11/24 . read in part, a review of the employee's .records shall be performed at least annually, such as at time of performance review. During an interview on 7/11/24 at 8:37 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and DON both acknowledged performance reviews had not been completed.
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

During the breakfast meal on 7/9/24 at 7:57 a.m., Staff U was observed removing a baseball-style cap from their head and scratching their scalp before placing the cap back on their head. Staff U began...

Read full inspector narrative →
During the breakfast meal on 7/9/24 at 7:57 a.m., Staff U was observed removing a baseball-style cap from their head and scratching their scalp before placing the cap back on their head. Staff U began scratching their facial hair before touching the condiments, tableware, and food on a tray next to the serving station. Staff U did not perform hand hygiene after touching their scalp and facial hair and beginning to touch items used or consumed by residents. On 7/9/24 at 8:15 a.m., Staff U began assisting with preparing resident meal trays without performing hand hygiene. At 8:28 a.m., Staff U was observed to be touching the front of their shirt, running their hand from their chest down to their abdomen. Staff U did not perform hand hygiene after touching their shirt and commencing with meal tray set-up. On 7/9/24 at 8:42 a.m., KM D confirmed Staff U was an employee of the Dietary department. KM D said Staff U was a dietary aide. On 7/10/24 at 12:26 p.m., The dining room observation was conveyed to the Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON). The NHA and DON were told Staff U did not perform hand hygiene at any time during the breakfast meal observation on 7/9/24. The DON confirmed Staff U was expected to perform hand hygiene after touching his scalp, face, and shirt and before touching resident food items and handling utensils. The policy Hand Hygiene dated 6/15/23 read in part: .All staff will perform proper hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors. This applies to all staff working in all locations within the facility . Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This deficient practice has the potential to result in food borne illness among any and all 57 residents. Findings include: On 7/08/24 at approximately 1:15 PM, Dietary Aide (DA) E was observed conducting dish washing activities in the dish room with the mechanical dish washer. DA E was observed wearing gloves and moving from the soiled side of the dish machine, handling soiled dishes, to the clean side of the dish machine, removing clean dishes from the racks as they exited the machine. DA E did not wash her hands between the soiled side activity and the clean side activity. The FDA Food Code 2017 states: 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 SINGLE-SERVICE and SINGLE-USE ARTICLES and: (E) After handling soiled EQUIPMENT or UTENSILS On 7/08/24 at approximately 1:20 PM, blue cooling collars were observed hanging from food racks in the walk in cooler (WIC). An interview with Kitchen Manager (KM) D was conducted at this time and learned the blue-ice cooling collars were worn around the neck of staff to assist in body cooling. When asked if the collars were cleaned, KM D stated that they wipe them down. It was further learned that the wiping process used a quaternary (quat) solution and did not include immersion for any period of time. The FDA Food Code 2017 states: 3-305.11 Food Storage. (A) Except as specified in ¶¶ (B) and (C) of this section, FOOD shall be protected from contamination by storing the FOOD: (1) In a clean, dry location; (2) Where it is not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination On 7/08/24 at approximately 1:35 PM, wiping cloths were observed being stored in buckets around the kitchen, including one at the three compartment sink. KM D was requested to demonstrate how the solution was tested to ensure that the proper concentration of sanitizer was present. KM D, pulled a 3 inch strip from the QT 40 test strip dispenser, dipped the strip in for 1 second, then looked at it and began to discard it. When asked what concentration she understood the quat to be from the test conducted, KM D stated about 20. KM D was then requested to read the directions on the dispenser to which she acknowledged that the strip was to be dipped and held in the solution for 10 seconds and the temperature range was to be 65°F to 75° F. The temperature had not been measured prior to the reading and when measured was found to be 101° F. Furthermore, a review of the container of Quat revealed that a minimum of 200 parts per million (PPM) was necessary for the proper sanitizing of food contact surfaces. The FDA Food Code 2017 states: 2-102.11 Demonstration. Based on the RISKS inherent to the FOOD operation, during inspections and upon request the PERSON IN CHARGE shall demonstrate to the REGULATORY AUTHORITY knowledge of foodborne disease prevention, application of the HAZARD Analysis and CRITICAL CONTROL POINT principles, and the requirements of this Code. The PERSON IN CHARGE shall demonstrate this knowledge by: (11) Explaining correct procedures for cleaning and SANITIZING UTENSILS and FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT; On 7/08/24 at approximately 2:10 PM, the walk in freezer was observed to have a large amount of ice build up on the inside of the door. The ice was indicative of the door seals being damaged or improperly sized which was allowing outside air into the unit, condensing the humidity on the door and contributing to the ice accumulation. During this same observation period, the wall mounted fan directed at the clean end of the dish machine, was observed with dust accumulation on the exterior blade guard. The FDA Food Code 2017 states: 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, NonfoodContact Surfaces, and Utensils. (C) NonFOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, FOOD residue, and other debris. and 6-501.11 Repairing. PHYSICAL FACILITIES shall be maintained in good repair. On 7/9/24 at approximately 8:15 AM, observations were made in the dining room where food was being served from a steam table. The only hand sink available to staff in the dining room was located behind the steam table. Clean plates were stored next to the hand sink and were subjected to splash from the sink when staff came in and washed their hands. Additionally, after staff washed their hands, they had to move their hands to the left, across and over the clean plates, to gain access to the paper hand towels.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement committee met at least once per quarter with the required committee members result...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement committee met at least once per quarter with the required committee members resulting in the potential for quality-of-care concerns for all 57 residents in the facility. Findings include: On 7/11/2024 at 7:11 a.m., a review of the available attendance documentation for the QAPI meetings with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) revealed the following: Meeting held on 4/30/2024: The Medical Director or designee did not attend. Meeting held on 1/10/2024: No attendance record found. Meeting held on 7/13/24: The Medical Director or designee did not attend. Meeting held on 8/10/23: The Medical Director or designee did not attend. November 2023: No meeting held. No attendance record found. December 2023: No meeting held. No attendance record found. Meeting held on 1/19/24: The Medical Director or designee, and Director of Nursing (DON) did not attend. Meeting held on 2/2/24: The Medical Director or designee did not attend. Meeting held 3/21/24: The Medical Director or designee did not attend. Meeting held 4/11/24: The Medical Director or designee did not attend. Meeting held 5/9/24: The Medical Director or designee and the DON did not attend. During this same interview, on 7/11/24 at 7:11 a.m., the NHA said she would look for any notes from QAPI meetings that may have been held in November and December of 2023. The NHA said the potential existed that no sign-in sheets were distributed for signing by all attending individuals. When asked about the lack of Medical Director participation in the QAPI meetings and process, the NHA said Physician K only received payment for dictation he provided for resident care. The DON stated, He (Physician K) didn't want payment for anything for (serving as the) Medical Director. The NHA acknowledged that the facility did not have the required QAPI committee members present during each quarter to meet the regulation pertaining to QAPI committee attendance. A copy of the QAPI Change Process policy, implemented 6/19/24, was provided by the facility in a binder of survey documentation, and also electronically submitted when a QAPI plan policy was requested. During this interview the facility QAPI plan policy was again requested. The QAPI plan policy which detailed the committee member attendance required per CMS (Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services) regulation and missing attendance records and confirmation of meetings were not provided by survey exit on 7/11/24 at 11:15 a.m. Review of the QAPI CMS regulations revealed the following, in part: .A facility must maintain a quality assessment and assurance committee consisting at a minimum of: (l) The director of nursing services; (m) The Medical Director or his/her designee. (n) At least three other members of the facility's staff, at least one of who must be the administrator, owner, a board member or other individual in a leadership role; and (iv) The infection preventionist . The committee must: (i) Meet at least quarterly and as needed to coordinate and evaluate activities under the QAPI program, such as identifying issues with respect to which quality assessment and assurance activities, including performance improvement projects required under the QAPI program, are necessary.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurse aide training of no less than 12 hours per year, for three Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) P, S, and T of five CNA's review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurse aide training of no less than 12 hours per year, for three Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) P, S, and T of five CNA's reviewed for nurse aide training hours. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for unmet resident care needs for all 57 residents in the facility. Findings include: During an interview on 7/10/24 at 11:19 a.m., Human Resource Staff O revealed the 12 hours of annual CNA training is based on the CNA's hire date. On 7/10/24 at approximately 1:30 p.m., a review of CNA P training log revealed P was hired on 2/25/22 and had only 9.5 hours of in-service training. A review of CNA S training log revealed S was hired 4/13/21 and had only 5 hours of in-service training. A review of CNA T training log revealed T was hired on 5/27/23 and had only 10.25 hours of in-service training. Review of facility policy titled Nurse Aide Training Program implementation date . 4/11/24 read in part, each nurses aide shall be provided at least 12 hours of in-service training annually, based on his/her employment date . Review of the Facility Assessment (FA) last updated . 8/8/23 read in part, required in-service training for nurse aides. In service training must: be sufficient to ensure the continuing competence of nurse aides but must be no less than 12 hours per year. During an interview on 7/11/24 at 8:24 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) acknowledged staff had not completed the 12-hours of training a year for CNA's
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0949 (Tag F0949)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure training on behavioral health care was provided for two of three staff reviewed for required behavioral health care training. This d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure training on behavioral health care was provided for two of three staff reviewed for required behavioral health care training. This deficient practice had the potential to result in unmet behavioral health care needs for residents, with the potential to affect all 57 residents in the facility. Findings include: Review of [Vendor] computer training logs on 7/10/24 at approximately 4:00 p.m., revealed the following staff had no behavioral health care training: Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) T was hired on 5/27/23 and CNA S was hired on 4/13/21. Review of policy titled Nurse Aide Training Program implementation date of 4/11/24 read in part, In-service training will be provided by qualified personnel and will be based on the special needs of the residents in the facility. Minimum training will include: . behavioral health . or other behavioral health conditions. Review of Facility Assessment (FA) did not include a requirement for the provision of behavioral health training for staff. During an interview on 7/11/24 at 8:37 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the absence of behavioral health training.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive Water Management Plan (WMP) for the control of Legionella in the potable water supply sy...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive Water Management Plan (WMP) for the control of Legionella in the potable water supply system. This deficient practice has the potential to lead to the growth and proliferation of Legionella in the water supply system and respiratory infections from the Legionella group bacteria affecting all 57 residents. Findings include; On 7/09/24 between 8:45 AM and 10:00 AM observations were made with Maintenance Supervisor (MS) G of the facility's potable water system. A humidifier was identified in the boiler room and explained by MS G that the device provided humidified air into the resident area by aerosolizing potable water via a steam and injected into ventilation air ducts. MS G was asked if this device had been assessed related to the facility's WMP for Legionella control, to which he replied No. When asked what task(s) was/were performed in the control of Legionella, MS G stated the facility collected one sample from the water supply system per year, submitted it to a local laboratory for testing of Legionella. On 7/10/24 a review of the document titled Waterborne Hazards/Legionella Water Management Program, Number ADM-06 ; Revised Date 6-15-23 was conducted. The following was pertinent to the review of the WMP for Legionella control: Section II: Purpose: 3. To implement a water management program that includes control measures such as physical controls, temperature management, disinfectant level control, visual inspections, and environmental testing for pathogens. 4. To specify testing protocols and acceptable ranges for control measures, and document the results of testing and corrective actions taken when control limits are not maintained. Section III. PROCEDURE: 2. Director of Environmental service will: b. Identify and control hazardous conditions that increase the chance of Legionella growth and spread. c. Assess how much risk the hazardous conditions in those water systems pose. d. List the building's water systems for which Legionella control measures are needed. e. Apply control measures to reduce the hazardous conditions, whenever possible, to prevent Legionella growth and spread. f. Monitor the program to ensure it is running as designed and is effective. g. Report findings monthly to the QA Committee. 3. Water Management team a. They will review the elements of the program at least once per year and meet during QAPI meetings at least quarterly 6. Environmental Services will: a. Monitor for internal factors that lead to Legionella, such as inadequate disinfectants, water stagnation, biofilm scale and sediment, fluctuations in water temperature and water pressure changes. c. Check water temperature in the hot water tanks weekly. If the hot water is not at 140° F adjust tempering valve to ensure temperature is at 140° F. Document actions taken. An interview with Maintenance supervisor (MS) G on 7/09/24 at approximately 2:30 pm related to the water management program. MS G stated that no documentation was maintained to disinfectant levels in the water supply, temperature control limits set in the plan or other risks including a humidifier used to increase facility wide humidity level. No policy or procedure was available for review related to the assessment, use or maintenance of the humidifier to reduce the potential for air borne pathogens. On 7/10/24 at approximately 9:45 AM an interview was conducted with MS G concerning the WMP. When asked what was discussed during the quarterly QAPI or monthly QA meetings, MS G stated Well, not Legionella.
Apr 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision to prevent an elopement f...

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 adequate supervision to prevent an elopement for one Resident (R1) out of three residents reviewed for elopement. This deficient practice resulted in an unsupervised exit from the facility and unsafe ambulation and wandering off facility property for a cognitively impaired Resident. Findings include: Resident #1 (R1) Review of the facility Incident Investigation of R1's elopement from the nursing home on 4/7/24 at 6:06 p.m., revealed the following information: Visitor entered building and allowed [R1] to exit. R1 was back in the building by 6:15 p.m.; with staff at 6:13 p.m. Staff were alerted to a possible resident outside of the facility . R1 was off facility property . (Elopement verified) . Administrator (NHA), had a discussion with the wife of the visitor who opened the door . She verified it was her husband who opened the door and stated that he doesn't visit regularly and isn't as familiar with the residents as she is (and allowed R1 to exit the building as he entered). Review of R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/4/24, revealed R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with active diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, depression, psychotic disorder, and hallucinations. R1 scored 4 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS)reflective of severely impaired cognition. R1 was noted to have clear speech and was sometimes able to be understood and to understand others. R1 was independent in ambulation, had no functional limitations to her range of motion and did not wear a wander/elopement alarm. R1 was documented to have Wandering behavior 1-3 days out of 7 days. R1's Section E - Behavior was documented that R1's wandering did not place them at significant risk of getting to a potentially dangerous place (e.g., stairs, outside of the facility) . Review of the Elopement Risk binder, located at the nurse's station, revealed R1's admission Record, including photograph, was placed in the binder with 13 other facility Residents identifying all residents in the binder as being an elopement risk. Review of the Weekly Code Alert Checks form, revealed seven residents who had a Code Alert transmitter placed on their person or wheelchair which would alarm when they were within approximately three feet of an exit door or the elevator door. R1's name was not on the Weekly Code Alert Checks form. During an interview on 4/22/24 at 9:41 a.m., the Code Alert policy was requested from Registered Nurse/MDS Nurse (RN) A who said the facility did not have a policy related to the placement of wander guard alarms on residents in the facility. Witness statements by facility staff were reviewed on 4/22/24 at 9;15 a.m. that included the following statements provided by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E, Certified Nurse Aide D, and Activity Aide F on 4/7/24 following R1's elopement. LPN E documented: Writer feeding resident at 1810 (6:10 p.m.) when a conversation was overheard about a resident and getting out of the building. Writer approached RN on the floor and we both decided writer would go get resident from the gas station - halfway there writer was stopped by a vehicle - person had resident in car - resident brought back to facility. CNA D wrote: .At the end of dinner when picking up trays, [Unidentified Resident's] daughter came up to me and asked if I was missing a patient and showed me a photo on her phone of [R1] at [nearby gas station]. [LPN E] came out of [a resident] room and ran after R1 (toward the gas station). Activity Aide F wrote: I brought her dinner into her room at 5:35 p.m., [R1] left the building at 6:05 p.m., I took my break at 6:08, and did not see patient in driveway/parking lot. During an interview on 4/22/24 at 9:55 a.m., R1's Family Member (FM) B was interviewed regarding R1's elopement from the facility. FM B stated, I don't feel like that alarm (Code Alert) is my responsibility. They (facility administrative staff) knew she had cut about five of them off . [R1] is sharp and they (Code Alerts) are plastic. I told them that the facility was liable if something happened to (R1) . They (facility staff) did not tell me who brought her back to the facility .They are lucky because R1 is something else . They should have somebody at the door when somebody (a resident) is watching the door, but on weekends you have nobody here . It is because they don't have enough help. Staffing is much less during the weekend than during the week . There are times I come up here, and there is nobody around the nurse's station . When I tried to call them back (after notification of R1's elopement) nobody answered the phone . During an interview on 4/22/24 at 10:25 a.m., RN A confirmed it was another Resident's Family Member (FM)G that took a picture of R1 at the gas station and upon arriving at the facility on 4/7/24 to visit her family member, asked staff if they were missing a resident. FM G provided a photograph of R1 she had just taken at the gas station. Staff were unaware that R1 had exited the building. Review of R1's Elopement Evaluations dated 6/28/23, 1/2/24, and 4/8/24 had the following scores, respectively: 5, 2, and 5. The 1/2/24 Elopement Evaluation had the second question: Does the Resident have a history of elopement or an attempted elopement while at home? question answered as NO, while the other evaluations prior and post elopement were documented with YES. The Elopement Evaluation form reads, in part: . Score value of 1 or higher indicates Risk of elopement. During an interview on 4/22/24 at 11:07 a.m., RN K confirmed the name of the individual who placed R1 in a vehicle and returned her to the facility on 4/7/24. The individual Witness J was a former employee of the facility and recognized R1 as a Resident from the nursing home. During a telephone interview on 4/22/24 at 2:05 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked how they determine if a Resident will have a Code Alert placement. The DON initially stated, Their risk assessment (elopement evaluation) determines if they get a code alert. The DON confirmed R1 did not have a Code Alert transmitter as she had cut it off multiple times, and it was care planned not to be placed on her. When asked about identification of elopement risk for residents whose documentation was in the Elopement Risk binder, the DON stated, We triggered the elopement risk off of assessments (elopement evaluations). Anybody who triggered (as an elopement high risk) went into that elopement book, until we can narrow down a process of who needs a wander guard. The DON confirmed that there was no consistent process, procedure, or policy for determination of the Code Alert placement on a resident who is an elopement risk. Observation of the surveillance video from R1's elopement from the facility on 4/7/24, showed the following: 6:03 p.m. R1 sitting by the front entrance, walked by entrance doors, pushed on entrance doors, and stands in front of the door. 6:03:59 p.m. - R1 walked away from the door and goes to sit by the front window where a table is located. Looking out front window. R1 appears to see a visitor approaching from outside and walks to the front entrance doors. 6:03:35 - Visitor enters code on exterior side of entrance doors, doors open, visitor enters, R1 immediately walks through the open set of entrance doors to the outside. No staff were present near the entrance doors at the time of R1's exit. 6:08:35 - Two staff members (including Activity Aide F) exit the building. Appears to be unrelated to elopement - as they slowly exited and did not appear in a hurry. 6:12:03 - FM G arrives at facility in vehicle and enters building (with photograph of R1 for staff to identify). 6:13:14 - LPN E runs out the entrance doors in the direction of the gas station. 6:14:11 - Car drives up. R1 gets out of passenger side of vehicle. Car driven by Witness J. 6:16:20 - R1 comes back inside of building. During a telephone interview on 4/22/24 at 2:51 p.m., Witness J confirmed she had returned R1 to the facility in her vehicle on 4/7/24. Witness J stated, .I was getting gas, and then she (R1) started walking right towards me . I told her to stay with me and I got done putting gas in my car and I asked [R1] to come with me for a ride. She just hopped in the car with me .When I started driving down (to the facility) [LPN E] was running up the hill with a terrified look on her face. I said, 'I got her' (R1). [LPN E] looked relieved. Two CNAs were getting into a car across the parking lot. I was ready to get her out of the car, but they (CNAs) got her out. Review of the Elopements and Wandering Residents policy, implemented 6/15/23, read in part: Policy: This facility ensures that residents who exhibit wandering behavior and/or are at risk for elopement receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents, and receive care in accordance with their person-centered plan of care addressing the unique factors contributing to wandering or elopement risk . 4. Monitoring and Managing Residents at Risk for Elopement or Unsafe Wandering. a. Residents will be assessed for risk of elopement and unsafe wandering upon admission and throughout their stay by the interdisciplinary care plan team. b. The interdisciplinary team will evaluate the unique factors contributing to risk in order to develop a person-centered care plan. c. Interventions to increase staff awareness of the resident's risk, modify the resident's behavior, or to minimize risks associated with hazards will be added to the resident's care plan and communicated to appropriate staff. d. Adequate supervision will be provided to help prevent accidents or elopements. e. Charge nurses and unit managers will monitor the implementation of interventions, response to interventions, and document accordingly. f. The effectiveness of interventions will be evaluated, and changes will be made as needed. Any changes or new interventions will be communicated to relevant staff .
Jul 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

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 notify the physician of abnormal vital sign results for 2 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 notify the physician of abnormal vital sign results for 2 residents (Resident #1 and #56) reviewed for notification of changes, resulting in the lack of assessment and monitoring, and the potential for the worsening of a medical condition and delay in treatment. Findings include: Resident #1 (R1) Review of an admission Record revealed R1 was a [AGE] year-old female, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: hypertension. Review of R1's Physician Order dated [DATE] revealed, Metoprolol Tartrate Tablet 25 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day (blood pressure medication that can cause decreased heart rate). Review of R1's Nursing Progress Note dated [DATE] revealed, During Sp02 (oxygen saturation) check noted to record a HR (heart rate) of 37 bpm (beats per minute). Checked apical HR and found to be 48 . Review of R1's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed no documentation that R1's provider was notified of the abnormally low heart rate. Review of R1's Pulse Summary revealed the following (Per Fundamentals of Nursing, a normal adult heart rate is between 60-100 beats per minute): *[DATE] a heart rate of 42 *[DATE] a heart rate of 44 Review of R1's EHR revealed no documentation that R1's provider was notified of the abnormally low heart rate on [DATE] or [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:34 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) reported that R1's provider was notified of the decreased heart rates and would be implementing parameters for the administration of R1's metoprolol. Resident #56 (R56) Review of an admission Record revealed R56 was a [AGE] year-old male, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: epilepsy and stroke. R56 was a Full Code (in the event R56 heart stopped cardiopulmonary resuscitation/CPR would be implemented). Review of R56's Physician Order dated [DATE] revealed, Check orthostatic Blood Pressure BID (twice a day) Laying to Standing two times a day for Low Blood Pressure. Document Blood Pressures. Review of R56's Blood Pressure Summary revealed that on [DATE] at 7:48 AM a blood pressure of 53/37 (Per Fundamentals of Nursing, Hypotension is present when the systolic BP falls to 90 mm Hg or below.) During an interview on [DATE] at 9:37 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A reported that she had assessed R56's blood pressure per the order. LPN A reported that R56's blood pressure while sitting was 111/68 and dropped to 53/37 when he stood. LPN A reported she had not notified the provider if the critically low blood pressure and had not reassessed the blood pressure for R56 since she obtained the blood pressure reading. LPN A reported that his blood pressure would be reassessed that evening and the provider would be assessing R56 on [DATE]. Immediately following the interview with LPN A the Director of Nursing (DON) was notified of the critical low blood pressure reading. The DON reported R56 would be reassessed immediately. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:35 AM, LPN E reported that a blood pressure of 53/37 was critically low and must be immediately reassessed and the physician notified. Review of Fundamentals of Nursing ([NAME] and [NAME]) 10th edition revealed, Orthostatic hypotension, also referred to as postural hypotension, occurs when a normotensive person develops symptoms and a drop in systolic pressure by at least 20 mm Hg or a drop in diastolic pressure by at least 10 mm Hg within 3 minutes of rising to an upright position . Assess for orthostatic hypotension during measurements of vital signs by obtaining BP and pulse in sequence with the patient supine, sitting, and standing. Obtain BP readings within 3 minutes after the patient changes position. In most cases orthostatic hypotension is detected within a minute of standing. If it occurs, help the patient to a lying position and notify the health care provider or nurse in charge. [NAME], [NAME] A.; [NAME], [NAME] Griffin; Stockert, [NAME] A.; Hall, [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing - E-Book (p. 486-488). Elsevier Health Sciences. Kindle Edition. Review of Fundamentals of Nursing ([NAME] and [NAME]) 10th edition revealed, An alteration in vital signs signals a change in physiological function. Assessment of vital signs provides data to identify nursing diagnoses, implement planned interventions, and evaluate outcomes of care .Use vital sign measurements to determine indications for medication administration. For example, give certain cardiac drugs only within a range of pulse or BP (blood pressure) values .Know the acceptable vital sign ranges for your patients before administering medications .Verify and communicate significant changes in vital signs. Baseline measurements provide a starting point for identifying and accurately interpreting possible changes. When VS appear abnormal, have another nurse or health care provider repeat the measurement to verify readings. Inform the charge nurse or health care provider immediately, document findings in your patient's record, and report changes to nurses during hand-off communication (TJC, 2020). [NAME], [NAME] A.; [NAME], [NAME] Griffin; Stockert, [NAME] A.; Hall, [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing - E-Book (p. 467-468). Elsevier Health Sciences. Kindle Edition. Review of Fundamentals of Nursing ([NAME] and [NAME]) 10th edition revealed, Responsibility and accountability are other critical thinking attitudes essential to safe medication administration. Accept full accountability and responsibility for all actions surrounding the administration of medications. Do not assume that a medication that is ordered for a patient is the correct medication or the correct dose. Be responsible for knowing that the medications and doses ordered are correct and appropriate. You are accountable if you give an ordered medication that is not appropriate for a patient. Therefore, be familiar with each medication, including its therapeutic effect, usual dosage, anticipated changes in laboratory data, and side effects. [NAME], [NAME] A.; [NAME], [NAME] Griffin; Stockert, [NAME] A.; Hall, [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing - E-Book (p. 607). Elsevier Health Sciences. Kindle Edition.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance for two residents (Resident #48 an...

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 assistance for two residents (Resident #48 and Resident #18) who depend on staff assistance to complete activities of daily living, resulting in the potential for skin break down and feeling forgotten for Resident #48 and the potential for dental caries for Resident #18. Findings: Resident #48 (R48) Review of an admission Record revealed R48 was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses of Muscular Dystrophy. R48 required extensive assistance from staff for transfers and going to the bathroom. During an interview on 07/16/23 at 10:01 AM, R48 reported she was on a bed pan and would use the call light shortly to alert staff when she needed assistance getting off the bed pan. During an observation on 07/16/23 at 10:13 AM, R48 activated the call light system, staff immediately responded to the room, the call light was turned off, and staff left R48's room within 10 seconds. During an interview on 07/16/23 at 10:15 AM, R48 stated staff came in to the room to answer the call light, turned off the call light, and told R48 there was a mess they needed to clean up down the hall and they would return shortly to assist R48 off the bed pan. During an interview on 07/16/23 at 10:29 AM, R48 indicated staff had not yet returned to the room to assist her off the bed pan. R48 apologized for the strong odor of bowel movement in the room. During an interview on 07/16/23 at 10:44 AM, R48 reported staff had not yet returned to the room to assist her off the bed pan. R48 indicated being on a bed pan for extended periods of time can be quite uncomfortable. R48 re-activated the call light at 10:45 AM and staff responded to the light within two minutes. R48 spent 30 minutes sitting on the bed pan after she finished having a bowel movement this morning. During an interview on 07/17/23 at 9:30 AM, R48 stated she was on the bed pan and would use the call light to alert staff when finished. During an observation on 07/17/23 at 9:32 AM, certified nurse aide (CNA) L entered R48's room to collect the breakfast tray. R48 told CNA L she was finished on the bed pan. CNA L advised R48 that her co-worker, CNA J went on break, and CNA L would look for other staff to assist. During an observation on 07/17/23 at 9:36 AM, CNA J returned to the unit after a break. CNA L then left the unit, and CNA J indicated that CNA L had left the unit on break. During an observation on 07/17/23 at 9:50 AM, R48's call light was activated and staff entered R48's room at 9:56 AM to assist R48 off the bed pan. During an interview on 07/17/23 at 2:11 PM, R48 sat in a wheelchair in her room, with the call light activated. R48 stated she requested staff put her on a bed pan, in the morning, just before breakfast, in case she has to go right after breakfast. That way I won't go in my pants waiting for them to come help. Resident #18 (R18) Review of an admission Record reflected R18 was a [AGE] year old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses of Down's Syndrome. Review of Care Plan for R18 reflected: I need assistance from one staff to brush my teeth daily. I like to be able to brush my teeth after every meal and at bedtime. Review of CNA Task Monitor- Oral Care for R18 reflected documentation that staff assisted R18 with oral care in the afternoon and evening on 07/16/23 and again the morning of 07/17/23. During an observation on 07/16/23 at 11:56 AM, R18 sat in her room. The plastic storage tower next to the sink in the bathroom contained R18's toothbrush and toothpaste. The cap was off the toothpaste and the end of the tube of toothpaste contained a dried piece of toothpaste. The toothbrush was coated in dried toothpaste. During an observation on 07/17/23 at 9:03 AM, R18 sat in her room. The plastic storage tower next to the sink in the bathroom contained R18's toothbrush and toothpaste. The cap was off the tube of toothpaste and the end of the tube of toothpaste contained a dried piece of toothpaste. The toothbrush was coated in dried toothpaste. Both were sitting in the same position and condition as they were found yesterday. During an observation on 07/17/23 at 1:32 PM, R18 sat in her room. The plastic storage tower next to the sink in the bathroom contained R18's toothbrush and toothpaste. The cap was off the toothpaste and the end of the tube of toothpaste contained a dried piece of toothpaste. The toothbrush was coated in dried toothpaste. Both were sitting in the same position and condition as they were found yesterday. During an observation on 07/17/23 at 3:06 PM, R18 sat in her room. The plastic storage tower next to the sink in the bathroom contained R18's toothbrush and toothpaste. The cap was off the toothpaste and the end of the tube of toothpaste contained a dried piece of toothpaste. The toothbrush was coated in dried toothpaste. Both were sitting in the same position and condition as they were found yesterday.
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** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an in-use oxygen tank was full and functional ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an in-use oxygen tank was full and functional for 1 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for oxygen/respiratory care, resulting in the potential for respiratory distress. Findings: Resident #1 (R1) Review of an admission Record revealed R1 was a [AGE] year-old female, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: hypertension. Review of R1's Physician Order dated 10/12/21 revealed, May use O2 as needed to maintain oxygen saturation >=89% (greater than 89%) as needed for Emergency use per Standing orders. During an observation on 07/16/23 at 10:35 AM, R1's was in the dining room, wearing nasal cannula oxygen tubing, which was connected to an oxygen tank. The needle gauge was pointing to the red indicating the tank needed to be refilled/changed. During an observation on 07/16/23 at 10:58 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D assisted R1 with her dentures and did not assess R1's oxygen tank. During an observation on 07/16/23 at 11:31 AM, R1's was in the dining room, wearing nasal cannula oxygen tubing, which was connected to an oxygen tank. The needle gauge indicated R1's oxygen tank was empty. During an observation on 07/16/23 at 12:10 PM, R1's was in the dining room, wearing nasal cannula oxygen tubing, which was connected to an oxygen tank. The needle gauge indicated R1's oxygen tank was full. During an observation on 07/17/23 at 12:26 PM, R1's was in the dining room, wearing nasal cannula oxygen tubing, which was connected to an oxygen tank. The needle gauge was pointing to the red indicating the tank needed to be refilled/changed. During an observation on 07/17/23 at 01:22 PM, R1's was in the dining room, wearing nasal cannula oxygen tubing, which was connected to an oxygen tank. The needle gauge indicated R1's oxygen tank was empty. During an interview on 07/17/23 at 02:56 PM, LPN E reported oxygen tanks should be checked by all facility staff each time they pass the resident. LPN E reported at a minimum should be assessed every 4 hours or more depending on the liters of oxygen the resident requires. LPN 'E reported when the needle gauge indicates it needs to be changed (in the red) a new oxygen tank should be obtained.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure systems were implemented to accurately account for controlled substances when licensed nurses were not signing out cont...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure systems were implemented to accurately account for controlled substances when licensed nurses were not signing out controlled substances from narcotic sheets prior to administration of the controlled substances, resulting in the potential for drug diversion. Findings: Review of a facility policy Medication Storage, undated, reflected It is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on our premises will be stored in the pharmacy and/or medication rooms according to manufacturer's recommendations and sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, light, ventilation, moisture control, segregation and security. During an observation on 7/17/23 at 9:06 AM, a narcotic count was conducted of the 300 Hall medication cart with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A. Discrepancies were discovered on the narcotic sheets for Resident #47's prescribed Gabapentin, R22's Lorazepam and R31's Gabapentin. When asked, LPN A reported she had forgotten to sign the narcotic sheet when she pulled the medication from the locked compartment prior to administering the controlled substances. During an interview on 7/17/23 at 1:30 PM, the Nursing Home Administrator/Registered Nurse (NHA/RN) reported the facility did not have a policy specific to narcotic logs and accounting. The NHA/RN said it is the expectation that licensed nurses who administer controlled substances sign the narcotic accounting sheet at the time the drug is prepared for administration to ensure the count of the drug is correct to prevent medication errors and quickly identify potential drug diversion.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #45) was free from significant medication errors when a medication was not administered accordin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident #45) was free from significant medication errors when a medication was not administered according to the physician orders. Findings: Resident #45 (R45) Review of an admission Record reflected R45 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included schizophrenia, dementia, major depressive disorder and weakness. During an observation on 7/17/23 at 8:35 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A prepared medications to be administered to R45. LPN A placed 1 tablet of Midodrine HCl 5 MG into a separate medication cup from the other medications R45 was to take that at that time. R45 explained that the midodrine was kept separate because she needed to check his BP prior to administration. LPN A took R45's BP which was 116/70. LPN A said that R45's blood pressure was not within the parameters ordered by the physician and the drug needed to be held. LPN A did not administer the midodrine to R45 and was witnessed wasting the drug in the sharps container on the medication cart. Review of a Physician Order reflected Midodrine HCl Oral Tablet 5 MG (Midodrine HCl) Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for Hypotension Hold for a B/P (blood pressure) 200/100 or higher -Start Date- 04/03/2023 1400 (2:00 p.m.) Review of the Medication Administration Records (MARs) for the months of April, May, June & July 2023 reflected that R45's prescribed Midodrine HCl Oral Tablet 5 MG (Midodrine HCl) Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for Hypotension Hold for a B/P (blood pressure) 200/100 or higher -Start Date- 04/03/2023 1400 (2:00 p.m.) had been held a total of 22 times in error as evidenced by recorded BP readings within the ordered parameters. During a follow-up interview on 7/17/23 at 9:55 AM, LPN A reported she held R45's prescribed Midodrine because his blood pressure was outside the ordered parameters. LPN A was observed reviewing the physician order for R45's Midodrine and confirmed it read Midodrine HCl Oral Tablet 5 MG (Midodrine HCl) Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for Hypotension Hold for a B/P (blood pressure) 200/100 or higher -Start Date- 04/03/2023 1400 (2:00 p.m.). LPN A said she was sure the order was to hold the drug if R45's BP was greater than 100/50 or higher and thought other nurses were doing the same thing.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

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 ensure adequate monitoring and documentation of psychotropic medica...

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 adequate monitoring and documentation of psychotropic medications for 4 residents (Resident #56, #36 #50 and #51) reviewed for unnecessary medications, resulting in the potential for unnecessary medication use with the increased potential for serious side effects and adverse reactions, and the inability to monitor the effectiveness of the prescribed treatment due to lack of documented supporting evidence. Findings include: Resident #56 (R56) Review of an admission Record revealed R56 was a [AGE] year-old male, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: altered mental status, generalized anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of R56's Order Summary revealed, RisperiDONE Tablet 0.25 MG Give 0.25 mg by mouth two times a day related to ALTERED MENTAL STATUS, UNSPECIFIED. Review of the FDA prescribing information revealed Risperdal indications for use: RISPERDAL is an atypical antipsychotic agent indicated for: Treatment of schizophrenia in adults and adolescents aged 13-17 years. Alone, or in combination with lithium or valproate, for the short-term treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes associated with Bipolar I Disorder in adults, and alone in children and adolescents aged 10-17 years. Treatment of irritability associated with autistic disorder in children and adolescents aged 5-16 years. Review of R56's Pre-admission Screening completed by hospital staff dated 6/20/23 (prior to R56's requiring a guardian) revealed R56 was not identified as having a current diagnosis of mental illness or dementia but was identified as receiving treatment for mental illness. Person has had a stroke and has some limitations Person has anxiety and depression listed under problem areas and takes risperidone. Review of R56's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed no behavior documentation which would be used/required to determine the need for antipsychotic medication during a gradual dose reduction review. The EHR revealed no psychological evaluation/consultation to assist in medication management and/or diagnosis of mental illness. The EHR revealed no risk versus benefit documentation or informed consent documentation to R56 and the guardian of R56. Review of R56's Baseline Care Plan revealed no behavioral care and behavioral interventions, or antipsychotic medication suggested monitoring parameters or strategies for the prevention and management of side effects. Review of R56's Care Plan revealed no behavioral care and behavioral interventions, or antipsychotic medication suggested monitoring parameters or strategies for the prevention and management of side effects. During an interview on 07/17/23 at 11:40 AM, Social Services (SS) C reported that psychotropic medication care plans are completed by the MDS (Minimum Data Set) Nurse prior to their admission and behavioral care plans are completed by SS C. SS C reported R56 is not receiving treatment from the contracted psychology group because he has not required it. SS C reported R56 hasn't had behavior monitoring documentation since his admission and hasn't exhibited any behaviors. SS C reported she was unsure what his diagnosis was for the use of Risperdal but confirmed he was admitted on the medication and presumed it was started in the hospital for difficulty adjusting. During an interview via email on 07/17/23 at 1:32 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked why R56 was prescribed Risperdal. Social Work reported it was started at the hospital but was unsure for the reason. He does not have a diagnosis that is typically used for that medication. It is not on his care plan. He does not have behavior monitoring. I cannot find a risk vs benefit form to confirm why he is on it. Clarification was requested. On 07/17/23 at 2:33 PM, DON reported R56 was admitted to the facility on ce a guardian was appointed. DON reported R56 was started on Risperdal in the hospital for absence seizures and was assessed by the facility provider after his admission. DON reported the facility will be implementing Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Psychotropic Medication Meetings going forward to ensure residents prescribed psychotropic medications are being properly monitored and assessed. (Absence seizures involve brief, sudden lapses of consciousness. More common in children than in adults.) Resident #36 (R36) Review of an admission Record revealed R36 was a [AGE] year-old female, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: dementia with agitation. Review of R36's Order Summary revealed, RisperDAL (antipsychotic medication) Oral Tablet 1 MG (Risperidone) Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, RECURRENT, SEVERE WITH PSYCHOTIC SYMPTOMS start dated 6/1/23. Review of R36's Order Note dated 2/23/23 revealed, (provider name omitted) gave verbal order to discontinue residents RisperDAL order effective now. Resident is on comfort care and is stable. Writer and nursing staff will monitor resident. Review of R36's Nursing Progress Note dated 6/1/23 revealed, (provider name omitted) in the facility for rounds and assessed resident. Resident was sleeping in bed at the time of visit. MD updated that resident is on the Risperdal 0.5 mg BID (twice a day), and she is still having increase manic talking. MD increased Risperdal to 1 mg BID. Residents daughter/DPOA updated. During an interview on 07/17/23 at 11:55 AM, SS C reported R36 failed the Risperdal gradual dose reduction. R36 became manic and was hyperverbal when the Risperdal was discontinued but was now stable on the medication. SS C reported would remain on Risperdal with no further gradual dose reduction attempts. Review of R36's Care Plan revealed no behavioral care and behavioral interventions related to R36's diagnosis of MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, RECURRENT, SEVERE WITH PSYCHOTIC SYMPTOMS and DEMENTIA IN OTHER DISEASES CLASSIFIED ELSEWHERE, UNSPECIFIED SEVERITY, WITH AGITATION. Review of R36's Care Plan revealed no antipsychotic medication suggested monitoring parameters or strategies for the prevention and management of side effects. (FDA prescribing information revealed Risperdal can cause the following adverse reactions: somnolence, appetite increased, fatigue, rhinitis, upper respiratory tract infection, vomiting, coughing, urinary incontinence, saliva increased, constipation, fever, Parkinsonism, dystonia, abdominal pain, anxiety, nausea, dizziness, dry mouth, tremor, rash, akathisia, and dyspepsia. The most common adverse reactions that were associated with discontinuation from clinical trials were somnolence, nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness, vomiting, agitation, and akathisia.) Review of R36's Order Summary revealed no side effect monitoring for antipsychotic/psychotropic medication. Resident #50 (R50) Review of an admission Record reflected R50 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and bipolar disorder. Review of physician orders reflected an order for ALPRAZolam Oral Tablet 0.25 MG (Alprazolam) Give 2 tablets by mouth every 6 hours as needed for Anxiety -Start Date-04/12/2023 1515 (3:15 PM). Review of Medication Administration Records (MARs) for the months of April, May, June and July 2023 reflected the same order had not been renewed every 14 days as required. During an interview on 7/17/23 at 1:27 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reported the physician did not want to mess with the as needed order due to this is how the resident was taking the medication at home. The DON reported that a review of the clinical record did not reveal any documentation from the attending physician that pertained to the ongoing PRN order. Resident #51 (R51) Review of an admission Record reflected R51 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease with late onset, anxiety, hallucinations and depression. Review of a Nursing Progress Note dated 3/15/2023 at 15:22 (3:22 PM) reflected R51 admitted to the facility on hospice care. Review of a Nursing Progress Note dated 6/12/2023 at 11:04 AM reflected Note Text: Resident (R51) discharged from hospice today per (name of Registered Nurse, (RN)) for the following reason: unable to deem as terminally ill with improving physical status. Per (name of RN) if any change in condition res (resident) is covered until 6/13/23 at 0800 (8:00 AM). If res declines, (name of hospice provider) would be happy to re admit. Review of physician orders reflected the following orders were in place for R51, despite R51's significant change in condition: Haloperidol Lactate Oral Concentrate 2 MG/ML (Haloperidol Lactate) Give 1 ml by mouth every 6 hours as needed for Agitation related to ANXIETY DISORDER, UNSPECIFIED (F41.9) started 6/1/23 LORazepam Oral Concentrate 2 MG/ML (Lorazepam) Give 0.5 ml sublingually every 4 hours as needed for Anxiety, Agitation, Restlessness related to ANXIETY DISORDER, UNSPECIFIED (F41.9) Take 0.5 Ml Orally Every 4 Hours As Needed For Anxiety, Agitation, Or Restlessness. Pharmacy Active 3/14/2023 10:30 Further review of the clinical record did not reflect a rational from the attending physician for maintaining the PRN orders for the antipsychotic Haldol or the sedative Lorazepam despite R51 no longer qualifying for hospice or end of life care. Review of a facility policy Use of Psychotropic Medication implemented on 6/21/2023 reflected Residents are not given psychotropic drugs unless the medication is necessary to treat a specific condition, as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record, and the medication is beneficial to the resident, as demonstrated by monitoring and documentation of the resident's response to the medication(s). The policy specified PRN (as needed) orders for all psychotropic drugs shall be used only when the medication is necessary to treat a diagnosed specific condition that is documented in the clinical record, for a limited duration (i.e. 14 days). If the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes that it is appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond the 14 days, he or she shall document their rational in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order.
Jun 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate and appropriate treatment and care fo...

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 adequate and appropriate treatment and care for diabetes mellitus in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one Resident (R5) out of four residents reviewed for quality of care. This deficient practice resulted in untreated diabetes mellitus, resident dissatisfaction with care, and the potential for delayed wound healing and worsening of condition. Findings include: This deficiency pertains to Intake #MI00135844. During an interview and observation on 6/7/23 at 11:26 a.m., Resident R5 was asked about the care received from the facility. R5 stated, When I first came here (9/17/2021) I told them I was diabetic, and I used to take [long-acting insulin (insulin glargine) injections to control high blood sugar]. R5 said he was scheduled for a heart ablation (procedure that scars tissue in your heart to block irregular electrical signals) due to atrial fibrillation. R5 said this procedure occurred about two weeks ago, during which hospital staff checked his blood sugar . The nurse at the regional hospital said R5's blood sugar was 410 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter) (normal fasting blood glucose is between 70 - 100 mg/dL) and asked if R5 was being treated for diabetes in the long-term care facility. R5 stated, I got there (to the facility) September of 2021 . and said he had never been treated for his diabetes since the day of admission, even though he told the facility several times he was diabetic and took [insulin glargine] daily prior to admission. R5 said he was diagnosed with diabetes after his first heart attack in May of 2018. R5 sat in a wheelchair during the interview, with both left and right legs bandaged up to just below the knees. A special foot brace was positioned on his right foot/ankle, due to a heel wound that resulted in loss of skin/tissue that would have previously provided support during ambulation. R5 was always observed in a wheelchair, and never observed walking during the survey. R5 was pleasant, well-spoken, and expressed understanding of the diabetes disease process. Review of R5's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed 4/25/23, revealed R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with active diagnoses that included: atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, history of pulmonary embolism, osteomyelitis, and amputation of right great toe. Under Section M: M1040. Other Ulcers, Wounds and Skin Problems, B. Diabetic foot ulcer(s) was documented with a check mark, as present. Section N: Medications, N0300. Insulin was absent any documentation for insulin injections or orders for insulin during the seven-day look back period. R5 scored 15 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), reflective of intact cognition. R5 was responsible for making his own decisions. Review of R5's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Medical Diagnosis list, printed 6/9/23 at 8:24 a.m., revealed the following, in part: Code: E11.9, Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, date 9/16/2021 . present on Admission, created date 9/16/2021, created by Registered Nurse (RN)/MDS Coordinator D. Review of R5's admission Record, with an initial admission date of 09/17/2021, revealed Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications was present on admission. Review of R5's Care Plans, retrieved electronically on 6/9/23 at 8:29 a.m., found no care plan specific to R5's Type 2 diabetes mellitus, although the diagnosis was identified on the Diagnosis list on the last page of the care plans. The Last Care Plan Review Completed: 04/28/2023 was documented on the bottom of every page of the care plans. Review of R5's same Care Plans, retrieved on 6/9/23 at 10:39 a.m., found a I have Diabetes Mellitus care plan, Date Initiated: 06/09/2023, Revision on: 06/09/2023, with 19 newly added interventions, all Date Initiated: 06/09/2023; the last day of the abbreviated survey. Interventions included, in part: - . Check all of body for breaks in skin and treat promptly as ordered by doctor. - Diabetes medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. - Dietary consult for nutritional regimen and ongoing monitoring. - Discuss mealtimes, portion sizes, dietary restrictions, snacks allowed in daily nutritional plan, compliance with nutritional regimen. - Don't use over the counter remedies for corns and calluses, refer to podiatrist to treat. - Education regarding medications and importance of compliance. Have resident verbally state an understanding. - Educate resident/family/caregivers as to the correct protocol for glucose monitoring and insulin injections and obtain return demonstrations. Continue until comfort level with procedures is achieved. - Encourage resident to practice good general health practices: lose weight if overweight, stop smoking, compliance with dietary restrictions, compliance with treatment regimen, adequate sleep and exercise, good hygiene, and oral care. - Fasting Serum Blood Sugar as ordered by doctor. - Identify areas of non-compliance or other difficulties in resident diabetic management. Modify the problem area so that it may be more manageable for the resident/family. Provide and document teaching to resident/family/caregiver, address identified roadblocks to compliance. - If infection is present, consult doctor regarding any change sin diabetic medications. - Inspect feet daily for open areas, sores, pressure areas, blisters, edema, or redness. - Monitor/document the resident/family's ability to manage the treatment program, i.e., medications, dietary, glucose monitoring, exercise, and knowledge of complications. - Monitor/document/report PRN (as needed) any s/sx (signs/symptoms) of hyperglycemia (high blood glucose levels); increased thirst and appetite, frequent urination, weight loss, fatigue, dry skin, poor wound healing, muscle cramps, abd (abdominal pain), Kussmaul breathing (deep, rapid, labored breathing), acetone breath (smells fruity), stupor, coma. - Monitor/document report PRN any s/sx of hypoglycemia (low blood glucose levels): Sweating, tremor, increased heart rate (tachycardia), pallor, nervousness, confusion, slurred speech, lack of coordination, staggering gait. - Monitor/document/report PRN any s/sx of infection to any open areas; Redness, pain, heat swelling or pus formation. - Offer substitutes for food not eaten. - Refer to podiatrist/foot are nurse to monitor/document foot care needs and to cut long nails. Review of R5's April 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARS) and Treatment Administration Records (TARS) found only one PRN physician order related to R5's Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Blood glucose levels may be checked, using glucometer, PRN, at nurse's discretion, as needed for signs of hyper and/or hypoglycemia. Start Date: 09/17/2021 . No diabetic medications were prescribed or administered during April 2023, nor was there any evidence of any routine diabetic medication since R5's admission until the 5/24/23 heart ablation. Review of R5's May 2023 MAR revealed the following physician orders, in part: - Blood Sugar Check daily in the morning related to TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS WITHOUT COMPLICATIONS, Start Date 05/26/23, D/C (discontinue) Date 05/28/2023 . - Blood Sugar Check daily in the morning related to TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS WITHOUT COMPLICATIONS, Start Date 5/29/23 0600. - [Insulin Glargine), Inject 12 unit subcutaneously in the evening for Diabetes, Start Date 05/30/2023, D/C Date 06/02/2023. - Semaglutide Oral Tablet 3 MG (milligrams) (Semaglutide) Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning related to TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS WITHOUT COMPLICATIONS for 30 days. Start Date 05/26/2023. - [Insulin Lispro] (fast-acting insulin) 100 unit/mL (Inject as per sliding scale: . subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime related to Type 2 DIABETES MELLITUS WITHOUT COMPLICATIONS . ATHEROSCLEROTIC HEART DISEASE OF NATIVE CORONARY ARTERY WITHOUT ANGINA PECTORIS; PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE, UNSPECIFIED: Start Date 05/30/2023, D/C date 06/02/2023. - Blood glucose levels may be checked, using glucometer, PRN at nurse's discretion, as needed for signs of hyper and/or hypoglycemia. Start Date 09/17/2021. - [Insulin Lispro] 100 UNIT/ML . Inject 4 unit subcutaneously one time only for IDDM (insulin dependent diabetes mellitus) for 1 Day, Start Date 05/30/2023. During a repeat interview on 6/9/23 at 9:32 a.m., R5 stated, I never got any insulin since I got here (before the heart ablation). I told them (upon admission) I took [long-acting insulin glargine] . My high blood sugar added to my legs not healing . I feel that the lack of diabetic treatment negatively affected my healing . I blame the admission process (not being treated for diabetes upon admission) . During an interview on 6/9/23 at 10:10 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) provided the following A1C (a test that measures average blood glucose levels over the past three months) and blood glucose results for R5: 09/19/21 No A1C, Glucose 114 (high), ordered by Physician Y. 10/21/21 Glucose 134 (high) . 2/17/22 Results 6.2 (normal range), Glucose 108 (high). 09/20/22 No A1C, Glucose 134 (high), ordered by Physician Y. 11/11/22 Results 6.8 (normal 0.0 to 6.5%), 01/27/23 No A1C, Glucose 135 (high), ordered by Physician Y. No further A1C test results were completed by the facility for R5. Review of R5's Progress Notes revealed the following, in part: Physician Visit Progress Notes: Effective Date 05/22/2023 17:41 (5:41 p.m.), Past Medical history: Diabetes on metformin . Assessment and Plan . Type 2 diabetes with Diabetic foot ulcer, continue metformin. Repeat A1C in 3-6 months . , by Physician C. Effective Date: 04/26/2023 18:53 (6:53 p.m.), . [R5] is a [age] year old . with a complicated history of prolonged hospitalization for heart failure, diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease . Past medical history: .Diabetes on metformin. Most recent A1c 6.8 .Assessment and Plan .Type 2 diabetes with Diabetic foot ulcer - continue metformin. Repeat A1C in 3 to 6 months . Effective Date: 03/21/2023 09:52 a.m., . history of prolonged hospitalization for heart failure, diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease . Past medical history: Diabetes on metformin. Most recent A1C 6.8 . Assessment and Plan: 2. Type 2 diabetes with Diabetic foot ulcer - continue metformin . Repeat A1C in 3-6 months . Effective Date 2/15/23 11:36 a.m., [R5] is a new patient to me, with a complicated history of prolonged hospitalization for heart failure, diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease . Past medical history: Diabetes on metformin. Most recent A1C 6.8 . Assessment and Plan . Type 2 diabetes with Diabetic foot ulcer - continue metformin. Repeat A1C in 3-6 months Date 11/17/2022 15:16 (3:16 p.m.), Assessment and Plan: . 3. Type 2 diabetes with Diabetic foot ulcer . continue current therapies, meds and check labs including a CBC (complete blood count), CMP (comprehensive metabolic profile), and lipid panel at this time. Date 4/14/22 11:54 (11:54 a.m.), [Physician Y] reviewed Zoloft and trazadone on 3/24/22, see progress note under documents tab. Review of the above physician visit progress notes indicated R5 was on metformin, which he did not receive during the months in question. Nursing Progress Notes: Effective Date 05/24/2023 18:22 (6:22 p.m.), Received call from [Regional Medical Center] . report fasting blood glucose (for R5) this morning was 410, res (resident R5) received 2 doses of insulin and BS (blood sugar) currently 192 in postop. HBGA1C (hemoglobin A1c) this morning was 12.0 (an average blood glucose of 298 for the past three months) and creatinine was 1.45 . resident needs to follow up with [Physician C] in the next few days regarding elevated blood glucose and renal insufficiency. 5/27/23 21:54 (9:54 p.m.), . Writer did check residents blood sugar and it was 461 . 5/30/23 14:01 (2:01 p.m.), N.O. (New Order) to begin SS (sliding scale) insulin due to IDDM (insulin dependent diabetes mellitus). Resident aware of new orders and voices familiarity with insulin usage. 6/3/23 21:01 9:01 p.m., Dietary Note: .A lengthy conversation was had with resident. He expresses frustration that his BG (blood glucose) is so high. He was recently started on long-acting insulin which was increased 6/2/23 . he reports that he has a good understanding of his diabetes . Improved blood glucose control will be very beneficial for [R5] for ongoing wound healing of his LE (lower extremities) . During interviews on 6/9/23 at 10:15 a.m. and 10:57 a.m., the DON was asked about the lack of diabetic care and treatment for R5, prior to a heart ablation on 5/24/23. The DON stated, Our lab monitoring (for A1Cs) is based off of medications prescribed, not off the physician visit note instructions. R5's Routine Lab Test documentation sheets were reviewed with the DON at this time, and she confirmed no A1C documentation was present on R5's Lab Monitoring sheets. During an interview on 6/9/23 at 12:20 p.m. the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and DON both agreed that the timeliness, nor the accuracy of the physician documentation on the progress notes available for review were appropriately timed or completed. The time frame between 11/17/22 and 2/5/23 exceeded the 60-day required time span between physician visits. The NHA said the inclusion in the physician progress notes that R5 was on metformin was inaccurate and allowed R5's diabetes to advance and worsen his condition until he went for the heart catheter ablation. The DON stated, He (R5) was never on [metformin] - ever. Review of the Physician Visits and Physician Delegation policy, provided by the NHA on 6/9/23 at 12:58 p.m. as the policy that would be implemented in the future (none was available currently in practice), revealed the following, in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to ensure the physician takes an active role in supervising the care of residents . The Physician should . b. The resident must be seen at least once every 30 calendar days for the first 90 calendar days after admission and at least every 60 days thereafter by physician or physician delegate as appropriate by State law. C. Review the resident's total program of care including medications and treatments at each visit .
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure and maintain a complete infection control program as evidenced by the failure to: 1. Identify, report, investigate and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure and maintain a complete infection control program as evidenced by the failure to: 1. Identify, report, investigate and control an outbreak of Human Parainfluenza Virus (HPIV) involving five Residents (R1, R6, R8, R9, and R10) of eight residents reviewed for Infection Control. 2. Maintain an accurate system of surveillance to identify and track infectious diseases. 3. Implement transmission-based precautions to prevent the spread of infections, and 4. Timely report an outbreak of HPIV to the local health department. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for transmission of HPIV to all residents in the facility. Findings include: During an observation and interview on 6/7/23 at 4:15 p.m., Resident R6, was lying in bed, wearing supplemental oxygen via nasal canula. R6 appeared thin, frail, and coughed intermittently during the interview. After approximately 10 minutes of conversation, R6 stated, I think you need to get out of here (the room) before you get sick. When asked why this Surveyor would become sick, R6 stated, Because I am really sick, and I have that disease. When asked what disease R6 had, she pointed to a piece of paper on the mattress near the end of the bed and stated, It is written on there. Observation of the paper found Human Parainfluenza Virus. When asked if she had Human Parainfluenza Virus (HPIV), R6 stated, Yes, if that is what is says on the paper. She again stated, You better get out of here before you get sick. Upon exit from the room, observation of the outside of R6's door found no documentation showing the need for any type of transmission-based precautions, or the potential presence of any infectious organism within the room. No personal protective equipment was positioned outside of the door to show any form of contact precautions was necessary. During an interview on 6/7/23 at approximately 4:30 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) were asked about the reported diagnosis of Human Parainfluenza Virus by R6. Both the NHA and DON were unaware of any diagnosis or testing and said R6 probably just thought she had HPIV. During a telephone interview on 6/7/23 at 5:40 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) T was asked if R6 had HPIV. RN T stated, [R6] might (have HPIV). It has been in the building. RN T said R9 and R10 tested positive for HPIV. RN T stated, For R9 we (staff) were masking up and everything (donning all PPE - gowns, gloves, and facemasks). R9 was sick for a week. R6 was allowed out of her room, and no PPE or signage was ever present on or near R6's door. Review of Respiratory Panels for Human Parainfluenza Virus testing revealed the following, in part: 05/21/23 Run Date, R9, Detected Parainfluenza Virus 3. 05/29/23 Run Date, R6, Positive Parainfluenza Virus 3. 05/30/23 Run Date, R8, Positive Parainfluenza Virus 3. Review of Progress Notes revealed the following related to testing for HPIV: R1: Physician Visit Note 05/30/2023, 1:02 p.m., Subjective: Patient is status post hospitalization for parainfluenza with acute exacerbation of COPD. She has been more tired since returning to the nursing home but does not experience any further cough, fever, or chills . Review of R1's 05/23/2023 History and Physical (Hospital) Notes revealed the following, in part: Chief Complaint: Parainfluenza with hypoxia .[R1] was transferred from the nursing home to the emergency department today with a [temperature] of 103, heart rate of 196, and O2 sat (oxygen saturation) of 74% . Patient had an antecedent cough and cold last week which now continues and seems to be worsening. She has a productive cough with audible wheezing, nasal congestion, and discharge from her eyes . Parainfluenza viral infection . R1 returned to the facility on 5/27/23, four days following hospital admission. 5/28/23 15:23 (3:23 p.m.), Resident (R1) has been up and about unit independently as desired . Review of R10's Physician Progress Note, dated 5/30/23, revealed the following: [R10] requested to see me [Physician] on rounds due to increased cough and congestion. She was recently tested positive for parainfluenza infection . She is requesting cough medication .Her cough does sound congested . Assessment/plan: URI (upper respiratory infection) with parainfluenza . Nursing Progress Note: 5/30/23 21:33 (9:33 p.m.), Resident has a fever of 101.2, hot, skin flushed. Resident is not feeling very well . Nursing Progress Note:5/30/23 22:00 (10:00 p.m.), Resident fever is down to 99.2, audible expiratory wheezing noted . Nursing Progress Note: 6/2/23 21:50 (9:50 p.m.), .Resident has a cough on expiration . Nursing Progress Note: 6/8/23 10:13 a.m., Physician Y in the facility and asked to assess resident due to cough, congestion and SOB (short of breath). [Physician Y] stated that he would update [ Physician EE]. [Physician EE] called and ordered chest x-ray and CBC. Resident updated. Respiratory Panel also completed on 6/8/23 with positive results for HPIV 3. Review of the May 2023 Transfer List, included R1, with transfer to the ER noted on 5/23/23 for acute care and return to the facility on 5/27/23. During an interview on 6/8/23 at 8:50 a.m., the NHA and DON reviewed the Infection Control Binder, with the May - Monthly Infection Surveillance Log for 2023. Both the NHA and DON confirmed R1's name, type of infection, signs/symptoms, testing results, precautions, or treatment were not included on the May 2023 Surveillance Log. The NHA and DON could not provide an explanation for why R1 was not included in the Surveillance Log, or the May 2023 Infection Mapping. When asked if the facility had a potential outbreak of HPIV in May 2023, the NHA said she was unaware that R1 had been diagnosed with HPIV. During an interview on 6/8/23 at 10:00 a.m., the DON said the May 2023 Infection Surveillance Log was completed by Infection Preventionist (IP)/Registered Nurse (RN) W. The DON confirmed that R8 and R9 should be on the May 2023 line listing for HPIV. When asked about what the facility's definition of an HPIV outbreak was, the DON said an outbreak was the same organism in three or more residents. The DON provided an Infection Outbreak Response and Investigation policy that she said was going to be approved today, but was not documented as implemented, reviewed, or revised by the facility. A copy of the active policy related to infectious disease outbreaks was requested, with the Infection Prevention and Control Program policy provided at 10:15 a.m. During an interview on 6/8/23 at 10:40 a.m., the DON provided copies of the April, May, and June 2023 Monthly Infection Surveillance Logs, and associated Infection Mapping. The DON expressed understanding of the facility deficiencies in failure to identify R1, R6, R8, R9, and R10 on the Surveillance Logs and the infection mapping for HPIV. The DON confirmed no outbreak investigation was completed and transmission-based precaution signage and associated PPE was not in place for all five Residents identified who contracted HPIV in the facility in May 2023. During interviews on 6/8/23 at 1:57 p.m. and 6/9/23 at 11:20 a.m., when asked why R1, R6, R8, R9 and R10 were not on the May 2023 Monthly Infection Surveillance Log and May 2023 Infection Mapping, IP/RN W stated, I was told . I was only to put people on the Infection Control (IC) log that had an infection and were on antibiotics. When asked if that is what she still believed related to the Surveillance Log, IP/RN W stated, No, that is not what I understand now . I asked [the DON] if there was anything that I needed to do. [DON] said No. I called for her because I didn't know if I had to post a sign, stop activities . IP/RN stated she was told by the DON she did not need to take any additional action related the HPIV outbreak. IP/RN W said the DON told her everything had been done correctly in addressing the outbreak of HPIV. However, IP/RN W confirmed positive HPIV residents were not included on the Surveillance Log, infection mapping was not completed, the local Health Department was not notified on the HPIV outbreak, residents with similar symptoms were not identified or tested for HPIV, and transmission-based precautions with necessary PPE was not implemented for all (only R8 and R9) confirmed HPIV positive Residents. IP/RN W acknowledged those steps should have been taken to mitigate the HPIV outbreak, but stated, That didn't happen. The Health Department was not notified until discovery of the HPIV outbreak by this Surveyor. They directed the facility to place HPIV positive residents on transmission-based precautions for seven days following development of their symptoms. IP/RN W said R8 and R9 had been placed in precautions, but R1, R6, and R10 did not have precautions and signage for HPIV implemented. IP/RN W stated, I do understand that if we get two or more individuals coming down with the same infectious disease (we) are supposed to contact the health department for direction. I was not aware so many were positive with HPIV 3 diagnoses. IP/RN W confirmed she was now aware that the facility did have an outbreak of HPIV 3, and that proper isolation precautions and PPE supplies were not in place to address the outbreak for all HPIV positive residents. Residents with no precaution signage or PPE for transmission-based precautions included R1, R6, and R10. IP/RN W stated, This fell through the cracks, and this will never happen again. Review of the Infection Prevention and Control Program policy, reviewed 12/2020, revealed the following, in part: Policy: This facility has established and maintains an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases, ectoparasites and infections .The designated Infection Preventionist is responsible for oversight of the program and serves as a consultant to our staff on infectious diseases, resident room placement, implementing isolation precautions, staff and resident exposures, surveillance, and epidemiological investigations of exposures of infectious diseases .3. Surveillance: a. A system of surveillance is utilized for prevention, identifying, reporting, investigating, and controlling infections, ectoparasites and communicable diseases for all residents, staff, volunteers, visitors, and other individuals providing services . b. The Infection preventionist serves as the leader in surveillance activities, maintains documentation of incidents, findings, and any corrective actions made by the facility and reports surveillance findings to the facility's QAPI committee .5. Isolation Protocol (Transmission-Based Precautions): a. A resident with an infection, communicable disease, or ectoparasite infestation shall be placed on isolation precautions as recommended by current CDC guidelines . Isolation signs are used to alert staff, family members, and visitors of isolation precautions . Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Human Parainfluenza Viruses (HPIVs), dated December 22, 2022, revealed the following, in part: In adults, upper respiratory infections and bronchitis are the most common illnesses caused by HPIVs; signs and symptoms may include fever, runny nose and sore throat. Pneumonia may occur, especially in older adults and people with weakened immune systems .Older adults and people with weakened immune systems have a higher risk for severe infections . HPIVs usually spread by direct contact with infectious droplets or by airborne spread when an infected person breathes, coughs, or sneezes. HPIVs may remain infectious in airborne droplets for over an hour and on surfaces for a few hours depending on environmental conditions . healthcare providers should follow contact precautions, such as handwashing and wearing protective gowns and gloves . During an interview on 6/8/23 at 3:03 p.m., the NHA, DON, and IP/RN W all expressed understanding of the deficiency concerns identified during the abbreviated survey related to infection control.
Sept 2022 34 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
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 .
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $61,380 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 64 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $61,380 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Michigan. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (3/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 3/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Bayside Village's CMS Rating?

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

How is Bayside Village Staffed?

CMS rates Bayside Village's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Bayside Village?

State health inspectors documented 64 deficiencies at Bayside Village during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 58 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Bayside Village?

Bayside Village is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 59 certified beds and approximately 56 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in L' Anse, Michigan.

How Does Bayside Village Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Bayside Village's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1 and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Bayside Village?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Bayside Village Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Bayside Village Stick Around?

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

Was Bayside Village Ever Fined?

Bayside Village has been fined $61,380 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Michigan average of $33,693. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Bayside Village on Any Federal Watch List?

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