Fisher Senior Care and Rehabilitation

521 Ohmer Road, Mayville, MI 48744 (989) 843-6185
For profit - Limited Liability company 53 Beds NEXCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
75/100
#21 of 422 in MI
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Fisher Senior Care and Rehabilitation in Mayville, Michigan, has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good facility but may not be the top choice available. It ranks #21 out of 422 facilities in Michigan, placing it in the top half, and is the best option out of three nursing homes in Tuscola County. The facility is improving, with the number of issues decreasing from 9 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, boasting a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 30%, which is significantly lower than the state average. Although there are no fines recorded, there are concerning incidents, such as a serious fall that resulted in a resident suffering a shoulder dislocation and incomplete documentation regarding falls. Additionally, there were issues with maintaining a clean environment, including problems with soiled and clean laundry being improperly managed, which could lead to infection risks. Overall, while the facility has strengths in staffing and quality ratings, families should be aware of the specific incidents that raise concerns.

Trust Score
B
75/100
In Michigan
#21/422
Top 4%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
9 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
30% turnover. Near Michigan's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 48 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Michigan. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 9 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (30%)

    18 points below Michigan average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 30%

15pts below Michigan avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: NEXCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Feb 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation pertains to Intake Number MI00147136. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to hold a schedul...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation pertains to Intake Number MI00147136. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to hold a scheduled 72-hour care conference for one resident (R150) of one reviewed for care conferences, resulting in missing a care conference and lack of information for the family and resident. Findings include: Resident #150: R150 is [AGE] years old and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include pneumonia, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease and a malignant neoplasm of the bladder. R150 expired at the facility on [DATE]. R150 had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS score of 15, indicating they were cognitively intact. On [DATE] at 1:13PM, an interview was conducted with a confidential family member of R150. Family 'A' stated that a care conference was supposed to be held on Friday [DATE], Family 'A' wanted to join by phone and the facility said they would call her when it was time for the conference. Family 'A' stated that R150 eventually called them and said they never held the care conference on that day. Family 'A' said the care conference was completely omitted; we were ready for the conversation, but it just never happened. Family 'A' said they were told a time the conference would be held, and we were ready. Family 'A' stated she talked to R150 as well and R150 stated that the care conference never happened with her as well. On [DATE] at 11:32AM, an interview was conducted with Social Worker (SW) 'B'. SW 'B' was asked if they keep schedules for 72-hour care conferences. SW 'B' said that we schedule care conferences within 72hrs of admission. SW 'B' stated that another staff member schedules these care conferences, gives the family a card with the date and time and then lets us know. SW 'B' was asked when was R150 scheduled for a 72hr care conference. SW 'B' stated, I believe she was scheduled for [DATE], which was the day she passed away. SW 'B' then confirmed that R150 was scheduled on [DATE] at 7:30am for a care conference. SW 'B' verified with this surveyor that the meeting was set for [DATE]. SW 'B' was asked why the care conference wasn't held. SW 'B' stated, I don't know that answer, I truly don't know why it wasn't held. SW 'B' was asked what is discussed at the 72hr care conference. SW 'B' stated, we discuss the admission process, nursing is with us and they will review medications, dietary discusses diet, activities will discuss the activities in the facility and provide a calendar of events, and the director of therapy will discuss therapy's plan for the resident, we also discuss home evaluations for therapy and we discuss needs at home such as DME and home care. On [DATE] record review of the care conference calendar revealed that R150 had a care conference scheduled for [DATE] at 7:30am. Record review of the electronic medical record did not produce any record of the care conference being completed. Review of the policy titled, Resident/Family Participation- Assessment/Care Plans, revealed: 1. The resident and his/her family, and/or the legal representative (sponsor), are invited to attend and participate in the resident's assessment and care planning conference. 4. The social services director or designee is responsible for contacting the resident's family and for maintaining records of such notices. Notices include: a. The date of the conference, b. The time of the conference, c. The location of the conference, d. The name of each family member contacted, e. The date and time the family was contacted, f. The method of contacting the family (e.g. mail, telephone, email, etc.) g. Input from family members when they are not able to attend, h. Input from the resident when he/she is not able to attend, i. Refusal of participation, if applicable, and j. The date and signature for the individual making the contact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to revise care plans for two residents (R19, R39) of a tot...

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 revise care plans for two residents (R19, R39) of a total sample of 17 residents, resulting in missing care plan updates and the potential for unmet needs. Findings include: Resident #19: R19 is [AGE] years old and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include cerebral infarction, seizures, major depressive disorder and anxiety. R19 has a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment. On [DATE] at 09:20AM, observation revealed that R19 is thin looking in appearance. On [DATE] at 03:19PM, record review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R19's weight on [DATE] was 167.2lbs and on [DATE], R19's weight was 141.4lbs, this was a loss of 25.8lbs, 18% in 30 days. On [DATE] at 03:29PM, record review revealed that the care plan for nutrition didn't reflect weight loss until [DATE]. The last review of R19's nutrition care plan was [DATE]. Review of a dietary progress note indicates that the physician is aware of the weight loss, a physician note dated [DATE] addresses weight loss. On [DATE] at 12:13PM, an interview was conducted with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) 'D'. CDM 'D' was asked who is responsible for updating the care plans for nutrition and weight loss. CDM 'D' stated that the dietitian and myself are responsible for that. CDM 'D was asked why the care plan wasn't updated until [DATE] when the first weight loss was identified back in [DATE]. CDM 'D' stated, I am not sure, but I will get back with you. CDM 'D' then said, ultimately it would be my responsibility to update the care plan along with the dietitian. Urinary Catheter or UTI: On [DATE] at 11:10AM, R19 was observed with an indwelling catheter in place. R19 states they have had their catheter for a long time, currently has a leg bag in place. On [DATE] at 01:57PM, record review of the physician's order for the indwelling catheter revealed it was an 18fr with 30cc balloon for neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, dated [DATE]. Record review revealed an order to change the catheter monthly on the 15th, order dated [DATE]. On [DATE] at 02:07PM, record review revealed a care plan in place for use of an indwelling catheter, the last update was [DATE] and states the catheter is a 16fr with 30cc balloon. On [DATE] at 02:23PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The incorrect care plan was verified by the DON. The DON was asked who is responsible for updating care plans related to catheters. The DON stated that the infection control nurse is responsible for updating care plans for catheters. The DON was unsure why this care plan wasn't updated to reflect the correct catheter size. Resident #39: R39 is [AGE] years old and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include acute respiratory failure, major depressive disorder, hypertension and chronic kidney disease. R39 has a BIMS score of 7 indicating severe cognitive impairment. On [DATE] at 09:37AM, record review revealed that R39 has a physician's order, dated [DATE] for do not resuscitate (DNR). Record review revealed signed documents for DNR, dated [DATE]. Record review revealed a care plan for advance directives that R39 was electing to be a full code and receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the care plan was updated on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 11:42AM, an interview was conducted with SW 'B'. SW 'B' was asked who is responsible for updating the care plan for code status. SW 'B' stated that whoever has the new order for code status, whether on admission or a change in status will update the care plan. SW 'B' stated I will update the care plan on admission if the documents are available and I know what the code status is. Verified with SW 'B that the advance directive care plan is not matching the physicians order or signed documents. Review of the policy titled, Care Plans- Comprehensive, revised [DATE], revealed: 8. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the resident and the resident's condition changes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

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 Resident #13 received vision services and ...

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 Resident #13 received vision services and that recommendations were addressed for one resident (Resident #13) of one resident reviewed for vision services, resulting in the lack of follow-up care for vision issues and the potential for vision abnormalities to be untreated or unidentified. Findings include: Resident #13: A review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission into the facility on 8/25/23 and re-admission on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's Disease, dementia, heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. A review of the Minimum Data Set assessment revealed the Resident had intact cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13/15. On 2/12/25 at 8:50 AM, the Resident was dressed, seated in a wheelchair in their room. The Resident was interviewed, answered questions and engaged in limited conversation. The Resident was asked about any concerns he had and stated, My eyes are really bad. When asked what was wrong with his eyes, he reported difficulty with seeing good. The Resident indicated he did not need to see the eye doctor about glasses but that he needed to see the eye doctor and had not seen the eye doctor for extended period of time. A review of Resident #13's medical record of the document titled Eye Care Group, revealed date of exam: 11/30/2023; history of cataract, nuclear; Pseudophakia. Assessment: 1. Diabetes Type 2, without complications, 2. Cataract, nuclear; Both eyes, 3. Dry eye; Both eyes. Plan: 1. Continue bs (blood sugar) control, 2. Cataract surgery not recommended due to poor general health, 3. Medication Order; Artificial tears oph. Solution, apply 1 drop, Both eyes, three times daily for 90 days. Action Required By Nursing Home Staff: Glasses Required? No; Eyelid Care Required: Yes BID x 90 days; New Orders? Yes (see plan above). Recall: 5-6 Months. A review of Resident #13's medical record of the document titled Eye Care Group, revealed date of exam: 4/12/2024. Note: Patient was scheduled to be treated today, but was not treated. Reason: Patient was Unavailable. Signed by the Optometrist. A review of Resident #13's medical record of the document titled Eye Care Group, revealed date of exam: 1/14/2025; history of cataract, nuclear; Diabetes Type 2, without complications; Dry eye; Pseudophakia. Assessment: 1. Diabetes Type 2, without complications, 2. Pseudophakia,3. Dry eye; Both eyes. Plan: 1. Monitor, 1. Continue bs (blood sugar) control, 2. Monitor, 3. Continue present eye medications, 3. Medication Order; Artificial tears oph. Solution, apply 1 drop, Both eyes, twice daily for 90 days. Action Required By Nursing Home Staff: Glasses Required? No; Eyelid Care Required: Yes BID x 90 days; New Orders? Yes (see plan above). Recall: 5-6 Months. A review of Resident #13's orders revealed no order in the month of January 2025 for the recommended eye drops in the plan for Artificial tears. A review of the progress notes revealed a lack of documentation on the recommendations of the Optometrist. A review of the progress notes revealed no documentation on why or where the Resident was on 4/12/24 when the Resident was not available to be seen by the Optometrist. On 2/12/25 on 12:58 PM, an interview was conducted with Nurse B who was the Social Worker Designee and the Scheduler/Medical Records E regrading Resident #13's appointments for eye care. The Scheduler was asked if Recall meant when the next appointment was to be made and she stated, Yes, that is there recommendation, of when to be seen again. A review of the Resident seen on 11/30/23 and next appointment was for 4/12/24, with the recommendation to be seen after the 11/30/23 appointment in the next 5 to 6 months, but the Resident was not available and had not been see by the eye care group until 1/14/25, was reviewed with Nurse B and Scheduler E. The Nurse was asked why or where the Resident was at when they were supposed to be seen by the eye care specialist. The Nurse and Scheduler indicated they did not know where the Resident was and indicated he could have been in activities or somewhere else in the building. A lack of documentation of where the Resident was and a lack of any interventions to try to assist in having the Resident available to be seen for eye care was reviewed. The Scheduler was asked if the eye doctor had come in prior to the January visit. The Scheduler returned and indicated the eye group had been back in October of 2024. When asked if the Resident was on the list to be seen, they indicated he had been on the list but were unsure why he had not been seen. The Scheduler reported prior to the end of the interview that the eye doctor had run out of time and was unable to see the resident. The Nurse and Scheduler were asked how soon the documents come back from the eye group. The Scheduler reported that the notes were back within 7 days, depending on the service and the doctor and the documents get uploaded into the electronic medical record. The recommendations for the eye drops had not been written for in the orders. When asked who gets the recommendations to get the orders into the medical record, the Nurse stated, I don't have an answer for that, will have to find out. On 2/12/25 at 3:29 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding Resident #13's lack of eye care after an appointment was missed due to the Resident not available, with lack of documentation of why or where the Resident was, and the Resident not seen when eye care had returned October 2024 with recommendations to be seen every 5-6 months. The DON indicated that they don't know that the Resident was not seen until they get the communication form. When asked why the order for the eye drops, Artificial tears, apply 1 drop, both eyes, three times daily for 90 days, the DON reported that the eye doctor puts that for all his patients that he sees. It was reviewed with the DON of a lack of documentation regarding why the recommendation was not followed and if the Resident did not need them. A policy for Vision care was requested on 2/13/25 but was not provided by the facility prior to exit. A review of facility document titled Treatment Consent Form, revealed, .We offer a variety of services for our residents that will benefit their quality of life. Dental, Vision, and Podiatry consultation . services are available and will be provided as needed, if you choose .
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a clean and homelike environment for four resid...

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 a clean and homelike environment for four residents (#'s 28, 37, 100, 101), of seven reviewed for environmental concerns, resulting in personal items not labeled with Resident identification, food not labeled with an open date or refrigerated and the potential for spread of infection and food borne illness. Findings include: Resident #28: On 2/11/25 at 12:16 PM, an interview was conducted with Resident #28 who was sitting up in their wheelchair. The Resident answered questions and engaged in limited conversation. The Resident had a bathroom that was shared with the room next door. There was not a resident in that room at this time. There were a pair of TED hose (Anti-Embolism stockings used to reduce the risk of deep vein thrombosis (blood clot)). The Resident was asked if he wore the TED hose and reported sometimes them put them on, not sure why they are not on at this time. The TED hose did not have a room number or Resident identification on them. On 2/13/25 at 12:11 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding Resident #28's TED hose. During record review, there was no order for the TED hose, no discharge order from the hospital for the TED hose, and no care plan in place for the TED hose. An observation was made with the DON of the TEDs in the bathroom that was shared with another resident in the next room. The TEDs did not have any resident name or identification of who they belonged to. Resident #37: A review of Resident #37's medical record revealed an admission into the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included urinary tract infection, stroke, and dementia. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed moderately impaired cognition and was independent with eating and needed supervision or touching assistance with toileting hygiene, bathing, upper and lower body dressing and mobility of roll left and right and lying to sitting. On 2/11/25 at 10:40 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident #37 and Resident Representative G. The Resident answered some questions but answers were unreliable and the Resident Representative answered most questions and engaged in conversation. An observation was made in Resident #37's room of Resident #37's denture cup positioned underneath the towel dispenser. The denture cup was positioned that when taking paper towels out of the dispenser after washing hands, had the potential to come in contact with drips of water. On 2/12/25 at 12:10 PM, an observation was conducted with Resident #37 sitting on the side of their bed and had just received their lunch meal that was brought in by staff. The Resident had a bottle of cranberry juice that was partially used. The bottle had manufactures use by date but did not have a date of when the juice had been opened. The Resident did not have the cranberry juice in a cup at the bedside. The Resident was questioned about the juice but when asked when the juice had been opened, she indicated she was unsure what day the bottle was opened or how long she had the juice on her table. The Resident reported she preferred to have the juice cold but that it was not taken to the refrigerator and was left at the bedside. The Resident did not know who had brought in the juice for her. On 2/12/25 at 12:20 PM, an interview was conducted with Culinary Specialist H regarding facility policy of food brought into the facility. The Culinary Specialist indicated that the items should be dated when brought in and when opened and have a discard date. When asked about a juice bottle that was left on the Resident's bedside table, that was partially used, the Culinary Specialist reported that it should be refrigerated after being opened. An observation was made in the Resident's room of the juice opened and partially consumed. The Culinary Specialist indicated it should not be left opened and not refrigerated. Residents #100 and 101: On 2/11/25 at 11:40 AM, an observation was made in Resident #100 and 101's room. The two residents shared a room and bathroom. Resident #100 was sleeping at the time and Resident #101 was not present in the room. Resident #100 had a urinal on the bedside table that had urine inside. The urinal did not have a room number or identification on it. The bathroom had another urinal on the handrail that did not have any identification of the urinal of which resident it belonged to. On 2/13/25 at 3:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the Infection Control Preventionist (ICP) F regarding the facility policy in labeling personal items. The ICP reported that personal items should be labeled with resident identification. An observation was made in Resident #100 and #101's room with a urinal in the bathroom that was not labeled. The ICP indicated that the urinal should be labeled as well as the one at Resident #100's bedside. An observation was made with the ICP of the denture cup of Resident #37 stored under the towel dispenser near the sink in the room. The ICP indicated the cup should not be stored there and removed the denture cup from under the towel dispenser and indicated they would do education for the staff and the resident. An observation of Resident #28's urinal was observed to be at the Resident bedside. The Resident was sharing a bathroom with the Resident in the next room. The ICP indicated the urinal should be marked with identification and reported education would be provided to the staff.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure medications were accurately administered for three residents (R4, R14, R25) of four residents reviewed for medication ad...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure medications were accurately administered for three residents (R4, R14, R25) of four residents reviewed for medication administration resulting in a medication error rate of 7.69%. Findings include: On 2/12/25 at 7:41am, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 'C' prepared and administered medications for R25. The medications included: Acidophilus, Acetaminophen 500mg, pro-stat, Abilify 2mg, Buspar 5mg, Eliquis 5mg, Glipizide 10mg, Potassium Chloride 10mEq, Senna-S 8.6mg-50mg, Vitamin D 1000mcg, Metoprolol 100mg, Myrbetriq 25mg, Tamsulosin 0.4mg, Cymbalta 30mg, Lasix 40mg and Humalog 2units from an insulin pen. LPN 'C' prepared the insulin pens by dialing in the units to be administered to the resident. LPN 'C' did not prime the insulin pens prior to administering the prescribed units. On 2/12/25 at 8:02am, LPN 'C' prepared and administered medications for R4. The medications included: Novolog 7units from an insulin pen, Lantus 25units from an insulin pen, Amantadine 100mg, Chewable Aspirin 81mg, Gabapentin 100mg, Norvasc 5mg, Keppra 750mg, MagOx 400mg, Metformin 500mg, Myrbetriq 25mg, Senokot 8,6mg, Vesicare 10mg and Miralax 17gms in water. LPN 'C' prepared the insulin pens by dialing in the units to be administered to the resident. LPN 'C' did not prime the insulin pens prior to administering the prescribed units. On 2/12/25 at 8:15am, LPN 'C' prepared and administered medications for R14. The medications included: Gabapentin 400mg, Amlodipine 5mg, Fenofibrate 134mg, Fish Oil 1000mg, Hydrochlorothiazide 25mg, Metoprolol 25mg, Miralax 17gms in water, Multivitamin, Eliquis 5mg, Potassium 20 mEq, Flexeril 5mg, Vitamin D3 5000units, Tylenol Extra Strength 500mg and Lantus 40units in an insulin pen. LPN 'C prepared the insulin pen by dialing in the units to be administered to the resident. LPN 'C' did not prime the insulin pen prior to administering the prescribed units. On 02/12/25 at 11:08AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON was asked how do you determine how much insulin to prime for insulin pens prior to dialing in the dosage for administration. The DON stated, we default to the manufacturers recommendation, our policy doesn't specify the amount of insulin to prime prior to administration. I usually prime the pen with 2 units prior to administration. On 02/12/25 at 11:12AM an interview was conducted with LPN 'C'. LPN 'C' was asked how much insulin should you prime in the insulin pen prior to administration. LPN 'C' stated they were not aware of having to prime the insulin pens. LPN 'C' stated they were just informed by other staff members that we are to prime 2 units in the pen before administering it. Record review of the policy titled, Injectable Medication Administration, revised January 2018, does not reference the amount of insulin to prime in the pen prior to administration.
Feb 2024 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documentation of adequate notice of Medicare Part A benefits of non-coverage for one resident (Resident # 296) of three residents r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documentation of adequate notice of Medicare Part A benefits of non-coverage for one resident (Resident # 296) of three residents reviewed for notice of non-coverage of Medicare Part A benefits, resulting in the resident's inability to exercise the right to file an appeal in a timely manner. Findings include: During a review of the Notice of non-coverage for Medicare part A benefits on 2/21/2024 at 10:30 AM, the facility provided a document titled, Beneficiary Notice- Residents discharged Within the Last Six Months. The form revealed Resident #296 was discharged to Home/Lesser Care on 9/6/2023. On 2/21/2024 at 10:40 AM, during an interview with Accounts Coordinator A, she said (Resident #296) did not have a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage form. She provided an Active Discharge Planning Note dated 9/5/2023 that said the resident's LCD/Last covered day, was 9/5/2023 and the resident was to be discharged home on 9/6/2023. The note said, Resident and family aware. When asked who was responsible for providing the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage form to the residents or their representatives that included information to inform them of their rights to appeal the decision, the Accounts Coordinator A said it was either herself or the Director of Nursing. On 2/22/2024 at 9:20 AM, the Director of Nursing/DON was interviewed about the discharge from Medicare Part-A skilled coverage, she said she could not find the NOMNC (Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage) form for the resident. She said it was not in the resident's medical record and she could not find it elsewhere. There was no documentation that the resident received appropriate notification that Medicare Part A Services were ending. No policy was received related to notification of Medicare A completion of services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

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 complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments timely for two 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 complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments timely for two residents (Resident #13, Resident #97) of 19 sampled for MDS assessments, resulting in late annual and admission MDS assessments. Findings include: Resident #13: On 02/20/24 record review revealed that resident #13 is [AGE] years old, was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of hypertension(high blood pressure) gastroesphoageal reflux disease (heartburn), neurogenic bladder, stroke, dementia, anxiety and depression. On 02/21/24 at 04:10 PM, record review revealed an MDS assessment dated [DATE] Annual None PPS that was due by 2/21/24. On 02/22/24 at 08:05 AM, record review revealed the same MDS assessment dated [DATE] Annual None PPS that was due by 2/21/24 and was currently not completed. On 02/22/24 at 01:30 PM, record review revealed an MDS assessment dated [DATE] Annual None PPS was showing that the MDS assessment was completed on 2/20/24. Review of Section M revealed that answers from the DON were locked on 2/22/24 at 11:45 AM. On 02/22/24 at 01:45 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed and asked when an MDS admission assessment should be completed and they stated the assessment should be completed in 14 days from the admission date. The DON was also asked about the timing of the locked answers in Section M for resident #13 and if that meant the MDS was completed late and they replied yes. On 02/22/24 review of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services website revealed that the MDS is a standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents. MDS is an extremely valuable resource for studying function and disability on a large scale in vulnerable older adults. Resident #97: On 2/20/2024 at 10:46 AM, during a tour of the facility, Resident #97 was observed lying in bed, awake and alert; He readily answered questions. The resident said he was at the facility because he had sores on his left shoulder and bottom. An IV pole was near the bed and the resident said he was receiving IV antibiotics. The resident said he needed assistance with most of his care including turning and repositioning. He said that was why he had the infected wounds, because when he was home, he didn't have assistance. He said he had a lot of phantom pain from having both lower legs amputated, and it hurt to reposition. A record review of the Face sheet indicated Resident #97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses: Pressure ulcer left upper back(shoulder) Stage 3, Pressure ulcer sacral region Stage 2 (infected with a multi-drug resistant organism/MDRO), urine infection with an MDRO, left and right above the knee amputations, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, urine retention, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression, obesity and gastric reflux. On 2/20/2024 at 2:30 PM, a record review of the Minimum Data Set/MDS assessment indicated it was to be completed by 2/19/2024 to aid in developing a plan of care to assist the resident with his care needs and goals. The MDS was not completed by 2/20/2024. A record review on 2/21/2024 at 4:00 PM, indicated the admission MDS assessment for Resident #97 was still incomplete. On 2/22/2024 at 1:50 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing, she said she was responsible for completion of the MDS assessments. When asked when the admission MDS for Resident #97 was due for completion, she said it was due on 2/19/2024. She said it was completed on 2/21/2024. When asked if it was late, she stated, Yes.
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

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 transmitted quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments...

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 transmitted quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accepted for four residents (Resident #18, Resident #26, Resident #27, Resident #33) of 19 residents sampled for MDS concerns resulting in quarterly MDS assessments being rejected. Findings include:, On 02/22/24 at 01:50 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed about why some MDS assessment from 10/18/23 were showing as rejected, the DON replied that there was an issue with Section O of the MDS from October and that is why they were rejected. When asked if anyone was aware of the assessments being rejected the DON replied that a corporate office person usually audits to ensure that assessments were accepted and they must have missed these assessments. Resident #18: On 02/22/24 record review revealed that Resident #18 is [AGE] years old and was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), stroke, dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). On 02/22/24 record review revealed an MDS assessment for resident #18 dated 10/18/23 that was exported but rejected. Resident #26: On 02/22/24 record review revealed that resident #26 is [AGE] years old and was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), Alzheimer, anxiety, depression and psychotic disorder. On 02/22/24 record review revealed an MDS assessment for resident #26 dated 10/18/23 that was exported but rejected. Resident #27: On 02/22/24 record review revealed that resident #27 is [AGE] years old and was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of anemia, heart failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), seizure disorder, depression and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). On 02/22/24 record review revealed an MDS assessment for resident #27 dated 10/18/23 that was exported but rejected. Resident #33: On 02/22/24 record review revealed that resident #33 is [AGE] years old and was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), dementia, Parkinson, anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. On 02/22/24 record review revealed an MDS assessment for resident #33 dated 10/18/23 that was exported but rejected. On 02/22/24 review of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services website revealed that the MDS is a standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents. MDS is an extremely valuable resource for studying function and disability on a large scale in vulnerable older adults.
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the care plan, assess and monitor blood pressur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the care plan, assess and monitor blood pressure and the heartrate (pulse) for one resident (Resident #31, resulting in unassessed vital signs with the likelihood of blood pressure or pulse changes going unnoticed. Findings include: Resident #31: On 2/21/24, at 2:45 PM, a record review of Resident #31's electronic medical record revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Hypertension (HTN), Anemia and Diabetes. Resident #31 had intact cognition and required assistance with Activities of Daily Living. A review of the care plan actual alteration in oxygen exchange r/t COPD Date Initiated: 08/11/2023 Goal Resident will be free of respiratory distress Date Initiated: 08/11/2023 . Observe for s/sx (signs and symptoms) of respiratory distress and report to MD PRN (as needed): Abnormal respiratory rate, pulse ox, increased heart rate . A review of the vitals section revealed the resident hadn't had a blood pressure assessed since 11/11/2023 and their last heartrate check was on 12/25/2023. A review of the physician progress notes revealed Effective Date 2/7/2024 . She is a patient who has medical diagnoses currently of a recent UTI with overactive bladder, sciatica, anemia, COPD, diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal disease with depression, dyslipidemia and alcohol abuse . The patient also has history of hypertension and believes that for most part the blood pressure are stable. She however sometimes forgets to check it on a regular basis . EXAM Vitals reviewed . COPD. She continues to have some symptoms of shortness of breath with activity and exertion on account of her COPD. She does have some minimal wheezing also . On 2/22/2024, at 10:30 AM, Resident #31 was asked if they had their blood pressure checked and Resident #31 stated, they just did it this morning.
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 supervision, call light accessibility and docum...

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 supervision, call light accessibility and document an unassisted transfer for one resident (Resident #36), resulting in the likelihood of an injury and/or a fall and continued self-transfers going unassessed. Findings include: Resident #36: On 2/20/24, at 3:49 PM, Resident #36 was sitting in their wheelchair next to their bed. The foot pedals were hooked to the wheelchair. Resident #36 put their feet on the floor and was attempting to stand up. CNA G was asked if Resident #36 was able to get up on their own and CNA G stated, no, but tries to and we catch her. She's a sneaky one. On 2/21/24, at 9:30 AM, a record review of Resident #36's electronic medical record revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses that included CVA (Stroke affecting left dominant side), Aphasia and Multiple Sclerosis. A review of the most recent Minimal Data Set assessment revealed Resident #36 had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). A review of the care plan I have an actual ADL deficit R/T: (related to) recent CVA with left sided weakness. Multiple sclerosis . Date Initiated: 10/01/2023 . Interventions/Tasks Do not leave resident unattended in the bathroom Date Initiated: 11/10/2023 . A review of the care plan Risk for falls f/t left sided weakness, recent CVA Date Initiated: 10/01/2023 . Interventions . Call light accessible . A review of the care plan COGNITION: I am overall alert, however I need extra time to process and respond. I demonstrate short term memory deficits with impaired judgement r/t my dx (diagnosis) of Dementia. BIMS=7. Date Initiated: 10/03/2023 . Goal Resident will be comfortable safe and have needs met . Interventions . Anticipate Needs. Date Initiated: 10/03/2023 . On 2/21/24, at 1:51, an observation of Resident #36 overheard yelling Help me, Help from their bathroom. Entered Resident #36's room to find Resident #36 in their bathroom on the toilet. Their wheelchair was pushed straight forward into the wall. The wheelchair breaks were not engaged. Resident #36 attempted to pull the emergency call light on the wall. The resident lifted the string with their right hand and pulled in outward motion. The call light did not engage. From the resident's doorway into the hallway, three staff members were observed near the medication cart two rooms down in the hallway. The nurse stated she had medications in their hands and the two CNAs were asked for help. Infection Control Nurse C entered Resident #36's room and CNA F entered the bathroom and stated she was just in the activity as they applied a gait belt. Resident #36 stated, I'm sorry I had to go potty. Once CNA F assisted the resident to their wheelchair, Resident #36 was facing the call light and was able to engage the call light with both hands by pulling down on the call light string. A further record review of Resident #36's electronic medical record revealed no documentation of the resident noted in the bathroom on their own.
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 provide Nystatin (oral antifungal medication) timely 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 provide Nystatin (oral antifungal medication) timely for one resident (Resident #297), resulting in delayed treatment with the likelihood of continued infection and/or a return of the infection. Findings include: Resident #297: On 2/20/24, at 11:40 AM, during medication administration task, Nurse H prepared medications for Resident #297. Nurse H looked in the medication cart for the Nystatin medication. Nurse H was unable to locate the Nystatin. Nurse H was asked where the medication could be and Nurse H reviewed the order form in the electronic medical record which revealed On Order and stated, it should be here by 3:00 PM today. On 2/21/24, at 11:00 AM, a record review of Resident #297's electronic medical record revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Recurrent lung cancer, recent Acute Respiratory Failure and Hypertension. Resident #297 had intact cognition and required assistance with Activities of Daily Living. A review of the Physician orders revealed Nystatin Mouth/Throat Suspension 10000 UNIT/ML . Medication Class: ANTIFUNGALS . Created Date: 2/19/2024 18:59 (6:59 PM) . Signed Date: 2/20/2024 04:20 (4:20 AM) A review of the Medication Administration Record February 2024 revealed Tue 20 0600 1200 both times were marked OS (Other/See Nurses Notes. A review of the Nurse Notes revealed the following missed Nystatin doses: 2/19/2024 22:05 (8:05 PM) Note Text: Nystatin Mouth/Throat Suspension . Give 5 ml (milliliters) by mouth every 6 hours . for 3 days Pharmacy to deliver, not in E-kit. 2/20/2024 05:01 (5:01 AM) Note Text: Nystatin Mouth/Throat Suspension . Pharmacy to deliver, not in E-kit. 2/20/2024 11:40 (11:40 AM) Note Text: Nystatin Mouth/Throat Suspension . Not available, on order. There was no documentation notifying the physician of the three missed Nystatin doses. On 2/22/24, at 12:38 PM, Resident #297 was in their room and stated their mouth still hurt but wasn't as bad as when they were in the hospital. On 2/22/24 at 2:18 PM, Infection Control Nurse (IC) C was asked was asked why Resident #297's Nystatin was not given as ordered and IC Nurse C stated, it didn't come from the pharmacy and the e-kit (backup medication) was a different dose. IC Nurse C was alerted there was no note notifying the physician and possibly getting the dose changed and IC Nurse C stated, there will be an education given to the nurse.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that narcotic storage for the East Medication Cart and narcotic reconciliation was completed legibly for East and [NAME...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that narcotic storage for the East Medication Cart and narcotic reconciliation was completed legibly for East and [NAME] Medication Carts, resulting in scribbled numbers, unsafe narcotic storage with the likelihood of misappropriation going unnoticed. Findings include: On 2/21/24, at 8:31 AM, During medication administration task, Nurse E prepared medications for Resident #27. Nurse E opened up the bottom drawer and lifted up the narcotic drawer lid which was not locked. Nurse E removed 1 dose of Adderall medication, replaced the pack of Adderall and closed the narcotic drawer lid without engaging the lock. Nurse E closed the bottom drawer gathered the medications and provided them to the resident. Once Nurse E returned to the medication cart, Nurse E opened up the bottom drawer and was asked to open the narcotic drawer lid. The lid was not locked. Nurse E was asked why the narcotic drawer lid was not locked and Nurse E stated, we lock in every time with the medication cart but I'm not used to an audience. Nurse E was asked if the lock was broken and Nurse E pulled out their keys and locked the narcotic drawer lid with their keys. A record review of the CONTROLLED MEDICATIONS SHIFT CHANGE SIGN OUT SHEET along with Nurse E was conducted. For the date, 2/21/24 6 AM NUMBER REC'D (RECEIVED) FROM PHARMACY . There was a number 1 with a number 2 written over top. For the column NUMBER OF FULL CASSETTES It appeared it was a 14 with a 7 or a 2 written over top. For the column, NUMBER OF PARTIAL CASSETTES . There was a 25 with a 7 written over top of the number 5. Nurse E was asked if there was a discrepancy during Narcotic Reconciliation at shift change and Nurse E stated, we had to double check the total number but no to a discrepancy. Nurse E denied alerting the Director of Nursing (DON). On 2/22/24, at 12:12 PM, A record review along with the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted of the west medication CONTROLLED MEDICATIONS SHIFT CHANGE SIGN OUT SHEET which revealed 2/22/24 . NUMBER REC'D FROM PHARMACY . There was + 5 written over top of a 4 or a 1. For the column, NUMBER OF EMPTY D/C (DISCONTINUE) CONTAINERS RETURNED TO DON revealed a 0 with a 2 written over top or vice versa with a 1 written under the column on the form. For the date 2/14/24 3 AM revealed NUMBER OF FULL CASSETTES revealed a 9 8 both lined out with a 7 written in the column. For the column, NUMBER OF PARTIAL CASSETTES revealed + 6 or 16 with a line crossed through with a 7 written to the right. The DON was asked how often they review the narcotic reconciliation medications shift change sign out sheet's and the DON stated, monthly and further offered they are not supposed to do that. A review of the facility provided Medication Storage 01/23 revealed . Controlled medications should be stored separately from non-controlled medications (see state regulations for CIII-V). The access system (key, security codes) used to lock Schedule II medications and other medications subject to abuse, cannot be the same access system used to obtain the non-scheduled medications. Schedule II medications and preparations must be stored in a separately locked permanently affixed compartment .
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the ambient air temperature at a comfortable level, resultin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the ambient air temperature at a comfortable level, resulting in the potential for uncomfortable living conditions and a non-homelike environment, affecting resident's rooms (#'106, #104, #105, #101 and #203). Findings include: On 2/21/24 at 1:43 PM, Resident #11 was observed to be voicing a complaint to staff regarding their room being too hot. At this time, using an infrared thermometer, the hall outside of the resident's room was observed to be 81.1 degrees F. On 2/21/24 at 1:45 PM, the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed to be 86.0 degrees F. During an interview on 2/21/24 at 1:46 PM, Resident #11 stated that it is hot in their room and if they don't have a fan, they aren't able to sleep at night. Resident #11 continued to say that they talked to maintenance, and they tried to fix it a few months ago but they haven't heard anything else about it. Using an infrared thermometer, the residents bed area was observed to be 85.0 degrees F. On 2/21/24 at 2:10 PM, room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed to be 88 degrees F. On 2/21/24 at 2:11 PM, room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed to be 93 degrees near bed A. Resident #1, in bed A, has a diagnosis of Alzheimer's and a BIMS score of 0. Resident #13 in bed B has a diagnosis of Dementia and a BIMS score of 6. At this time, Resident #1 was asked how they were doing and did not reply. On 2/21/24 at 2:15 PM, Resident #297 stated that it is really hot in their room and could use some air conditioning. At this time, the area around Resident #297's bed was observed to be 83.3 degrees F, using an infrared thermometer. During an interview on 2/21/24 at 2:40 PM, Maintenance Director J was queried regarding the high temperatures and stated they are adjusting the temperatures to try to cool down the rooms. The Facility utilizes a floor heating system, and they are waiting for some parts/valves that need replacing. Maintenance Director J continued to say that the repair process began on January 18th, and they are hoping to get the parts in on Friday 2/23/24.
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** On 2/21/24 at 11:07 AM, during an observation of the laundry facilities, a specific designated soiled linen area was observed to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 2/21/24 at 11:07 AM, during an observation of the laundry facilities, a specific designated soiled linen area was observed to be unavailable to prevent contamination of clean linens. Four soiled linen carts, containing bagged and unbagged soiled linen, were observed to be surrounding the washers. At this time, Laundry Director (LD) I was queried on how they keep soiled linen separate from clean linen and she stated that they bring in the yellow clean cart from the dryer room to unload clean linen from the washers. An aisle in front of the washers was observed to be wide enough to accommodate for the clean linen cart, while it is sitting approximately 6 inches away from the soiled linen cart. No covers were observed on the soiled linen carts at this time and soiled laundry was observed to be hanging over the edge of the soiled linen cart toward the aisle in front of the washers. Additionally, the soiled linen carts to the right of the washers were observed to be blocking the hand washing sink. LD I was queried on the blocked hand sink and stated they can move the carts around to access the handwashing sink. During an interview on 2/21/24 at 12:38 PM, Corporate Consultant K stated that laundry processing is brand new to the facility as it used to be outsourced and the staff are still working on the new process. At this time, Corporate Consultant K stated that they will purchase new covers for the soiled linen carts and make adjustments to allow for more separation of clean and soiled linens. During an interview on 2/21/24 at 1:31 PM, Corporate Consultant K stated that they will reduce the number of soiled linen carts in the washer room and make plumbing adjustments to make the handwashing sink more accessible. Medication Administration Task On 2/21/24, at 8:31 AM, During medication administration task, Nurse E prepared medications for Resident #27. Nurse E grabbed a pair of gloves from the medication cart, placed them into their left pocket of their scrub bottoms, gathered the medications and entered the residents room. Nurse E offered the oral medications, pulled out the gloves from their pocket and put them on. Nurse E then administered the nasal medication. Nurse E left out of the room and was asked why they used gloves from their pocket and Nurse E stated, it's easier to just grab them. Nurse E' was asked if the facility provided enough PPE (personal protective equipment) and Nurse E stated, yes, it's so I didn't have to get them from the room. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Infection Prevention and Control standards of practice were followed for 1) Transmission Based Precautions, Hand Hygiene and Central Venous Catheter care for 1 resident (Resident #97), 2) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use during medication administration, and 3) Management of soiled and clean linen, resulting in the potential for spread of infection, which could cause serious illness. Findings Include: On 2/20/2024 at 10:46 AM, during a tour of the facility, Resident #97 was observed lying in bed, awake and alert; He readily answered questions. The resident said he was at the facility because he had sores on his left shoulder and bottom. An IV pole was near the bed and the resident said he was receiving IV antibiotics. The resident lifted his right arm and showed that he had a PICC (Peripherally Inserted Central Line) IV for his antibiotic therapy. A record review of the Face sheet indicated Resident #97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses: Pressure ulcer left upper back(shoulder) Stage 3, Pressure ulcer sacral region Stage 2 (infected with a multi-drug resistant organism/MDRO), urine infection with an MDRO, left and right above the knee amputations, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, urine retention, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression, obesity and gastric reflux. On 2/21/2024 at 10:45 AM, a sign was observed on Resident #97's door, Stop: See Nurse before entering. There was no additional information. This sign was not present on 10/20/2024 at 10:46 AM during the initial tour. On 2/21/2024 at 10:48 AM, Infection Control/IC Nurse C was interviewed in front of the door to Resident #97's room. She said she was on vacation when the resident came in 2/6//2024 and he was receiving IV antibiotics for MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus- an MDRO) in a shoulder wound and an ESBL (Extended spectrum bet-lactamase producing organism/an MDRO) in the urine. The IC Nurse said Resident #97 should have been placed in Contact Precautions on admission [DATE]). She said a sign should have been on the door and PPE was supposed to be worn with dressing changes and care of the Foley catheter. The PPE was observed to be in the resident room, she said it was in there because it only needed to be worn when providing the wound care/Foley care. No sign was observed indicating Contact Precautions were required. CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Transmission-Based Precautions, Last reviewed July 11, 2023, Contact Precautions: Use Contact Precautions for patients with known or suspected infections that represent an increased risk for contact transmission . Use personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately, including gloves and gown. Wear a gown and gloves for all interactions that may involve contact with the patient or the patient's environment. Donning PPE upon room entry and properly discarding before exiting the patient room is done to contain pathogens . On 2/21/24 at 2:20 PM, wound care for Resident #97 was observed with Nurse E and two nursing assistants. The resident had 3 wounds on the buttocks/sacral area: one small, one larger approximately 4 cm x 1 cm and one very large approximately 9 cm x 3.5 cm. The wounds were bleeding, the largest wound was bright red, with a moderate amount of blood. There were also 2 wounds on the resident's left shoulder one small about 0.5 cm x 1.0 cm and the other very large open with a packed dressing/gauze in place approximately 8 cm x 7 cm. The nurse removed the old dressings, removed her soiled and gloves and donned new gloves. She did not perform hand hygiene. Nurse E then cleansed the shoulder wound, packed the wound and applied new dressings. The nurse removed her soiled gloves and immediately opened several alcohol pads and started cleaning her bandage scissors bare handed. She did not perform hand hygiene. The nurse did not perform hand hygiene until she was done cleaning up the supplies with her bare hands. Reviewed hand hygiene with the nurse, she stated, Oh, I didn't wash my hands. The resident's wounds were infected with an MDRO. CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Last reviewed January 8, 2021, Healthcare Providers: Clean hands count for Healthcare Providers: Protect yourself and your patients from potentially deadly germs by cleaning your hands. Be sure you clean your hands the right way at the right times . Glove Use: . If your task requires gloves, perform hand hygiene prior to donning gloves, before touching the patient or the patient environment; Perform hand hygiene immediately after removing gloves . On 2/21/2024 at 2:55 PM, Nurse E was observed during administration of the IV antibiotic for Resident #97. The resident was receiving the antibiotic because he had 2 different Multi-drug Resistant Organisms (infections): one in a wound and the other in his urine. The resident was in Contact Precautions per the IC Nurse and gloves and gown were to be worn. The nurse did not wear gloves during administration of the IV antibiotic. Nurse E cleansed the IV port with her bare hands while holding a small alcohol pad (approximately 1 in x 1 inch). She did not let it the alcohol dry and immediately flushed the IV catheter with a saline syringe. The Nurse swabbed the IV port with another alcohol pad while holding it with bare hands and connected the IV tubing containing the IV antibiotic. She did not let the alcohol dry after cleansing the port, prior to connecting the IV tubing. A review of the policy titled, Medication Administration, dated 01/23 provided, Medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with manufacturers specifications, good nursing principles and practices . APIC (Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology), APIC Implementation Guide: Guide to Preventing Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections, dated 2015, . APIC Implementation Guides help infection preventionists apply current scientific knowledge and best practices to achieve targeted outcomes and enhance patient safety . Central venous catheters (CVC) or central venous access devices (CVAD's), often described by healthcare professionals as central lines, refer to a broad category of invasive devises used to administer fluids, medications, blood and blood products and parenteral nutrition . these central devices access major vessels that are most often located in the neck or adjacent to the heart . There are four general categories of CVAD's: non-tunneled (e.g., access via subclavian or internal jugular veins); peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC's) inserted via peripheral veins .; subcutaneously tunneled; and implanted vascular access ports . Central lines are a major risk factor for bloodstream infection . Research indicates that a majority of CLABSI's are preventable . Aseptic technique with all catheter access procedures . Failure to disinfect the needleless connector before accessing has been an important problem and area of concern. The catheter hub and needleless connector are known sources of microbial contamination . On 2/22/24 at 10:09 AM, IC Nurse C was interviewed about the observations during wound care and IV administration for Resident #97, she said she had heard about both and said the Nurses were trained in proper procedures and the nurse should have performed hand hygiene after removing her gloves and should wear gloves when disinfecting equipment, accessing the PICC line and cleansing the IV hub. She said she should have let the alcohol dry on the IV hub before accessing it.
Jan 2023 9 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

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** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and operationalize policies and procedures t...

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 implement and operationalize policies and procedures to ensure comprehensive analysis of falls, accurate documentation, and implementation of meaningful fall prevention interventions for two residents (Resident #2 and Resident #11) of four residents reviewed, resulting in a lack of root cause analysis of falls, inaccurate and incomplete documentation, and a lack of implementation of meaningful interventions following falls. Resident #11 suffered a left shoulder dislocation, fractured the greater tuberosity (head of the humerus bone which rotates in the shoulder joint), and suffered unnecessary pain and the loss of function. Findings include: Resident #2: On 1/19/23 at 10:04 AM, an observation occurred of Resident #2 in their room. The Resident's room was noted to be at the end of the hallway and the furthest from the nurses' station. The Resident was aimlessly wandering within the room independently. When spoke to, Resident #2 made unintelligible grunting sounds. On 1/19/23 at 10:50 AM, loud, indiscernible yelling was heard in the hallway of the facility. Upon inspection, Resident #2 was observed in their room yelling. When asked if they needed anything, Resident #2 stopped yelling but did not respond. The Resident immediately began yelling out again. Record review revealed Resident #2 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, schizophrenia, osteoporosis, and heart disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Resident was rarely/never understood and required extensive, one-person assistance for bathing but was independent with all other Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). The MDS further revealed the Resident displayed behaviors daily both directed and not directed towards others. On 1/20/23 at 2:03 PM, Resident #2 was observed ambulating independently in their room. The Resident repeatedly walked to the doorway, stopped, and then walked back to their bed. The Resident did not respond when spoke to. Review of documentation in Resident #2's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the following assessments: - 9/16/22: Falls Assessment . History of falls . Location of the fall . medications . Antipsychotics . Antidepressants . Cardiovascular . Fall risk assessed for quarterly assessment, resident remains at risk for falls r/t medications and poor safety awareness . - 1/3/23: Falls Assessment . medications . Antipsychotics . Antidepressants . Cardiovascular . Fall risk assessed for quarterly MDS. Resident at low risk for falls r/t medications and cognition. Resident remains independent for ambulation and ADL's . - 1/14/23 at 12:14 AM: Falls Assessment . Fall Review . Resident was observed on floor in bedroom at foot of bed sitting on bottom wearing only a brief. No footwear in place. Call light not in use. Resident is unable to give description of what happened. Nurse assessed resident for injuries, ROM (Range of Motion), vitals, pain WNL (Within Normal Limits). Resident did have abrasion/discoloration to abdomen extending up to armpit where it appears they slid down the footboard of bed. Resident was incontinent of bladder at time of incident . usually independent for toileting. Resident was assisted from floor and assisted with cleaning up, then back to bed. Care plan was reviewed and updated to encourage resident to wear nonslip footwear while out of bed as allows . IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) met to review resident, care plan was reviewed and updated . Review of Resident #2's care plans included a care plan entitled, SAFETY: risk for falls r/t (related to) hx (history) of falls, medications, cardiac diagnosis, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease. recent falls (Created and Initiated: 4/22/17; Revised: 11/4/17). The care plan included the following interventions: - I will wear non-skid footwear for all transfers and walking (Created and Initiated: 4/22/17) - Encourage resident to use nonskid footwear when out of bed as tolerated (Initiated: 1/14/22; Created: 1/17/23) - Unused chair removed from resident's room to reduce trip hazard (Created and Initiated: 7/22/20) - Orient to surroundings - Call light accessible (Created and Initiated: 2/18/20) Review of Resident #2's progress note documentation in the EMR detailed: - 1/13/23 at 11:20 PM: Nurses Note . Resident observed on floor at foot of bed by CAN (Certified Nursing Assistant). Upon observation, resident sitting on buttocks on floor wearing only a brief. Resident independently transferred from bed attempting to self-toilet at approximately 2320 (11:20 PM). Neuro checks initiated . Resident observed with discoloration noted on chest that extended down onto ABD (abdomen), discoloration to left upper arm near elbow, and discoloration to right wrist. Resident without any indication of pain at time of assessment. Resident incontinent of bladder at time of fall. On call NP (Nurse Practitioner) notified . Voicemail left with guardian . Will update CP (care plan) to encourage use of nonslip footwear when out of bed. - 1/14/23 at 12:33 AM: Incident Note . Resident unable to follow commands to observe hand grasps. Resident observed grasping edge of bed to pull self-up along with grasping sheets to cover self. - 1/16/23 at 8:52 AM: Incident Note . No s/s of pain or bruising noted due to recent fall . No additional documentation related to the bruising/abrasions documented following Resident #2's fall on 1/13/23 were noted in the EMR. Review of the facility provided Incident and Accident Report related to the Resident #2's fall revealed, Fall . 1/13/23 at 23:30 (11:30 PM) . Called into room by CNA to observe Resident sitting on floor in brief at end of bed near footboard. Call light not in use. Feet bare . Resident unable to give description . Injuries observed Abrasion: Abdomen . Other, Specify in Notes . Mental Status: Poor Safety Awareness . Notes: Abrasions noted to chest extending to Abd, LUE (Left Upper Extremity) near armpit and right wrist Injuries Report Post Incident: No injuries observed post incident . Predisposing Physiological Factors: Gait Imbalance .Predisposing Situation Factors: During transfer . Footwear not in place . On 1/24/23 at 10:46 AM, an interview was completed with CNA A. When queried if Resident #2 responds verbally and talks to them, CNA A replied, No, not really. I think it is part of their disease process. When asked if the Resident utilizes the call light, CNA A indicated they did not. An interview was conducted with Resident Care Coordinator Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B on 1/24/23 at 2:00 PM. When queried regarding Resident #2 not responding when asked questions and yelling out, LPN B revealed that was normal for the Resident. When queried regarding the Resident's fall on 1/13/23, LPN B indicated they were not working at the time. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/25/23 at 11:30 AM pertaining to Resident #2's fall on 1/13/23. When queried if the only intervention implemented following the fall was to encourage the Resident to use non-slip footwear when out of bed, the DON reviewed the Resident's EMR and revealed it was. When queried regarding Resident #2 already having an intervention on their care plan for non-slip footwear when that intervention was added and how added the same intervention would help to prevent future falls, the DON verbalized understanding. When queried regarding the documented skin abrasions/bruises documented at the time of the fall and facility policy/procedure for monitoring skin alterations following a fall, the DON indicated there should be documentation in the nursing progress notes. The DON reviewed Resident #2's EMR and indicated the areas were resolved per the note on 1/16/23. No further information was provided. Resident #11: On 1/19/23 at 10:40 AM, Maintenance Director C was observed in Resident #11's room placing a positioning device on the footrest of their wheelchair. An interview was completed with Resident #11 on 1/19/23 at 10:42 AM following Director C exiting the room. Resident #11 observed was sitting in a regular wheelchair with bilateral leg rests in place. A padded positioning device was present on the right footrest. When asked, Resident #11 revealed Director C had placed the positioning device on the footrest of their chair. Resident #11 was queried regarding the reason for having a padded position device on only one footrest and revealed it was due to pain. Resident #11 stated, I fell and hurt my feet and left shoulder. When queried regarding the fall, Resident #11 revealed they fell at the facility and broke their shoulder. When asked if they had recovered from the fracture, Resident #11 revealed they had pain and decreased ROM following the fall. When asked if they were able to move their left shoulder, Resident #11 lifted their arm from their lap forward and to their side less than 90 degrees. Record review revealed Resident #11 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included epilepsy, falls, schizophrenia, and greater tuberosity of left humerus fracture. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Resident was moderately cognitively intact and required extensive to total assistance to complete all ADL's with the exception of eating. The MDS further revealed the Resident had one-sided, impaired upper extremity Range of Motion (ROM). Review of prior MDS assessment documentation of Resident #11's Functional Limitation in ROM revealed Resident #11 had no ROM limitations in any extremity until 8/31/22. Review of the CMS-672 Resident Census and Condition Form revealed the facility had three Residents with contractures including one facility-acquired contracture. The DON was queried regarding the Residents with contractures including the facility-acquired contracture on 1/19/23. The DON replied via email on 1/19/23 at 4:24 PM and revealed Resident #11 had a facility-acquired contracture. Review of Resident #11's EMR revealed the following documentation: - 2/23/22 at 10:35 AM: eInteract Change in Condition Evaluation . Falls . Skin Evaluation . Face: Laceration . Chest: Abrasion . Pain (rating not documented) . Pain Location: Not applicable/Not assessed . - 2/24/22 at 11:08 AM: Nurses Note . Abrasion to forehead shows no sign of infection. - 2/25/22 at 12:33 AM: Incident Note . Resident skin tear above eye area well approximated with no s/sx (signs/symptoms) of infection or swelling noted or reported. - 2/25/22 at 8:22 AM: Incident Note . Resident with skin tear above eyebrow with no s/s of infection noted. Goose egg to forehead has decreased with bruising to area. Resident with bruising and scrap (sic) to right side and up under breast. - 2/25/22 at 6:21 PM: Nurses Note . resident alert and easy to arouse . no injuries, bruising, skin intact. Resident with no s/sx (signs/symptoms) of pain or discomfort post fall . -2/25/22 at 11:52 PM: Nurses Note . alert, resting in bed, has one steri strip over left eye . -2/27/22 at 11:07 PM: Nurses Note . resting in bed, no distress, has one steri strip over left eye, has purple bruising to both eye corners. no further injuries noted from fall . - 3/2/22 at 11:37 AM: Social Service Note . Resident's new glasses arrived at facility today . Note: Resident #11's MDS detailed the Resident did not wear corrective lenses. - 8/30/22 at 1:25 PM: eInteract Change in Condition Evaluation . Falls .Skin Evaluation . Contusion . Discoloration . left side of forehead . Is the Resident cognitively able to rate their pain: Yes . (pain rating not documented) . Pain location: Headache . Abrupt onset of progression of severe headache . change in mental status, or focal neurological abnormalities . location of pain . left side of forehead . left arm/shoulder . Resident was found on floor in room after attempting to self-transfer from wheelchair. C/o (complain of) right arm/shoulder pain - 8/30/22 at 1:30 PM: Nurses Note . Writer called to resident's room by CENA staff after resident was discovered on floor in room. Resident admits was attempting to self-transfer from wheelchair at time of incident. Resident was assessed and transferred from floor to bed via Hoyer lift by staff. Large raised purple contusion apparent to left side of forehead on initial assessment by writer. She also c/o (complain of) left arm pain, MD notified. No further abrasions/skin tears, etc. noted at this time. Pain reported and PRN (as needed) Tylenol administered. Resident is currently resting comfortable in bed at this time . - 8/30/22 at 2:10 PM: Nurses Note . Nurse reported resident fall in room and new orders for left arm Xray r/t pain following fall. Writer went into assess resident, who was laying in bed awake at that time. Resident's left elbow was bent with hand laying near left shoulder, when writer asked resident if could straighten arm said no. No bruising or swelling was observed on hand, wrist, forearm, or elbow. Writer lifted resident's short sleeve shirt to assess shoulder and it appeared shoulder was dislocated. Contacted physician to verify if we should obtain Xray at facility or send to ER for possible dislocation, physician ordered to send to ER for evaluation . - 8/31/22 at 5:01 AM: Incident Note . Resident has bruise to left forehead and right shoulder is painful post relocation. PRN (as needed) Tylenol given for a PAINAD (Pain Assessment IN Advanced Dementia- scale used to assess and determine pain level in individuals with dementia and/or other cognitive impairments who are unable to verbally communicate pain levels) of 4 for right (sic) shoulder . - 8/31/22: Physician's Note Late Entry . Fall with resultant shoulder dislocation unfortunately on the left side with a left femoral (sic) fracture for which was sent to the emergency room . They have put on a sling and then requested her to follow with orthopedic surgeon which we will arrange . does have discomfort and pain which is actually being controlled with the help of pain medication . Exam . 1. The patient actually is in the sling at the present time . 2. Left femur fracture . - 9/1/22 at 12:22 AM: Nurses Note .resting in bed, Tylenol given for c/o pain in shoulder, with noted effect. sling in place. bruise above left eye . - 9/2/22 at 12:14 AM: Nurses Note . resident resting in bed, assisted with meals, left arm in sling, bruise remains above left eye, denies c/o pain at this time . - 9/2/22: Physician's Note Late Entry . Follow-up on a recent event . fall with left humeral fracture. We are waiting for orthopedic evaluation for this patient . pain control seems to be adequate . was transferred to the hospital . had a shoulder displacement which was put in place in the ER but unfortunately sustained a humeral fracture also, for which is in a sling . - 9/6/22 at 3:46 PM: Nurses Note . Resident returned from f/u (follow up) appt with (orthopedic physician) this shift. Suggestions include PT/OT, NWB to left hand, finger, wrist with ROM to be completed in therapy. Sling to worn AAT (at all times) when not in therapy . - 10/10/22 at 12:11 PM: Nurses Note . Per ortho follow-up, resident may discontinue non-weight bearing status to LUE and discontinue sling use to left arm at this time. Weight bearing as tolerated to left arm . - 11/29/22 at 12:16 PM: Physician's Note Late Entry . Follow-up on fracture of the greater tuberosity of the humerus . continues to require some pain control . Impression/Plan .In addition for the non-displaced fracture of the greater tuberosity of the humerus, will continue to require pain control . Review of Resident #11's hospital medical record documentation revealed the Resident's dislocated shoulder was reduced (put back in place) in the ER. Diagnostic imaging reports dated, 8/30/22 at 5:21 PM detailed, XR (X-Ray) Shoulder Complete 2+ Views Left . Reason . fall, pain, trauma . Findings . 1. Anterior inferior dislocation (uncommon dislocation) of the humeral head in relation to the glenoid. 2. Acute displaced fracture (broken bone pieces do not line up) involving the greater tuberosity of the humeral head. Questionable irregularity of the underlying glenoid (hallow socket in the shoulder blade where the head of the humerus sits) which may also represent fracture . On 1/20/23 at 2:13 PM, Resident #11 was observed in their room, in bed. When queried if they had gotten out of bed today, Resident #11 replied, No. With further inquiry, Resident #11 revealed they were having pain. Review of Resident #11's Pain Level Summary documentation in the EMR revealed the last documented pain level was on 10/29/22. Review of Resident #11's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for January 2023 revealed no documentation of pain level assessment. Review of the facility-provided Incident and Accident (I and A) reports for Resident #11 revealed the Resident had two similar unwitnessed falls while sitting in their wheelchair in their room. The I and A details included: - 2/23/22 at 10:35 AM: Fall . Resident's room . Nursing Description: Called to resident room by activities staff, observed resident laying on floor on right side with CNA holding head up. CAN stated they entered the room, resident was laying face down next to bed with wheelchair flipped on top of them and foot pedals wedged between resident chest and floor. Prior to fall, resident was sitting in chair next to bed . Call light not in use. Footwear was in place. Laceration and bruising noted to residents left eyebrow. Large bruise and goose egg noted to resident's mid forehead. Abrasion and bruising noted to resident's right chest where foot pedal was wedged. Small abrasion noted to left pointer finger . Resident Description: Resident stated . was trying to get self to stand up but legs didn't work . Immediate Action Taken . Assessed resident for injuries . Neuros WNL although resident's pupils were not reactive. Laceration and bruising noted to residents left eyebrow. Large bruise and goose egg noted to resident's mid forehead. Abrasion and bruising noted to resident's right chest where foot pedal was wedged. Small abrasion noted to left pointer finger. Resident was cleaned up and assisted off the floor . Injuries Report Post Incident: No Injuries Observed Post Incident . Predisposing Environmental Factors: (Blank) . Predisposing Physiological Factors . Weakness/Fainted . Predisposing Situational Factors . Call light not used . Other Info: Resident attempted to self-transfer, although has not been ambulatory since admission . The I and A did not detail if Resident #11's call light was located within reach at the time of their call, if the wheelchair brakes were locked, the position of the footrests prior to the fall, and/or interventions implemented to prevent future falls. - 8/30/22 at 1:25 PM: Fall . Resident's Room . Nursing Description . Writer called to resident's room by CNA staff at 1325 (1:25 PM) to report resident found on floor . Upon entering room . observed resident lying on left side on the floor in front of wheelchair that was tipped in the forward position. Resident was lying on left shoulder/arm and left side of face was on the floor. Call light was not in use . Resident Description: Resident states . was getting up & 'trying to find out what was going on.' At the time of the incident, fire alarm test was performed and was attempting to get up and see what was happening, following door being closed during test . Immediate Actions Taken: Resident assessed . Large purplish contusion observed to left side of forehead and potential shoulder separation/dislocation noted following residents c/o pain to left arm/shoulder area . No further abrasions or known issues noted . Orders received transfer to hospital for further eval . Resident taken to hospital: N (No) . Injuries Report Post Incident: No Injuries Observed Post Incident . Predisposing Environmental Factors: (Blank) . Predisposing Physiological Factors . Drowsy . Impaired Memory . Incontinent . Predisposing Situational Factors . Ambulating without Assist . Notes . IDT met to review resident, front anti-tippers added to wheelchair and care plan. Tilted seat ordered for wheelchair . Review of Resident #11's care plans revealed a care plan entitled, Risk for falls r/t epilepsy, hx falls, muscle weakness, medications . (Created and Initiated: 8/19/19; Revised 2/18/20). The care plan included the interventions: - Call light accessible (Initiated: 8/19/19) - Make sure my brakes are locked before every transfer (Initiated: 8/19/19) - Encourage and assist resident to lay down after meals (Initiated: 9/13/20) - Dycem to between pants and total lift sling and coccyx cushion and total lift sling in wheelchair to prevent sliding (Created: 3/25/21; Initiated: 3/24/21) - Therapy eval r/t fall (Created: 2/24/22; Initiated: 2/23/22) - Front anti-tippers to high back wheelchair (Initiated: 8/30/22) - Drop (tilted) seat to wheelchair (Initiated: 9/12/22) Review of Resolved interventions in the care plan revealed there were no additional interventions implemented and discontinued following Resident #11's falls. An interview was conducted with the DON on 1/25/23 at 11:10 AM. When queried regarding Resident #11's falls, the DON confirmed the Resident had two unwitnessed falls in their room while sitting in their wheelchair. The DON was queried regarding the injuries Resident #11 sustained from their fall on 8/30/22 and revealed the Resident had dislocated and fractured their left shoulder. When asked about inconsistent documentation of which shoulder was painful/injured and Physician documentation indicated the Resident had fractured their femur (leg), the DON replied, They did not fracture their femur and indicated the documentation was in error and would need to contact the Physician to have them fix it. When queried what happened when the Resident fell, the DON stated it was right after a fire drill and revealed the Resident had attempted to get up out of their wheelchair by themselves. When queried if the Resident was made aware a fire drill was occurring and the reason for their door being closed, the DON replied, No and indicated staff and Residents are not alerted of upcoming drills for preparedness. When asked if staff tell residents the reason their doors have to be closed and if they provide any additional instructions, the DON did not provide a response. The DON was then queried what interventions were implemented following the fall and replied, Front anti-tippers and tilted seat (to wheelchair). When queried regarding Resident #11's fall on 2/23/22, the DON indicated the Resident had fell out of their wheelchair in the room but did not sustain any major injuries. When queried regarding the Resident's head laceration and if any diagnostic testing had been completed, the DON indicated the Resident was treated in the facility. When asked about the inconsistent documentation pertaining to the injuries including a note detailing the resident did not have any bruising or injuries, the DON was unable to provide an explanation. When queried regarding the Physician/Health Care Provider not assessing the Resident following the fall until 3/18/22 and not addressing the fall in their documentation, the DON did not provide an explanation. The DON was then asked what interventions were implemented following the fall in February to prevent future falls and injury. The DON reviewed Resident #11's EMR and stated, Referred to therapy. The DON was then queried regarding the location of the call light at the time of the fall, if the wheelchair brakes were locked, location of other items in the room, when the Resident had last been observed, and/or the position of the wheelchair foot pedals for both falls. The DON indicated the Resident would have been visualized by staff when they shut the room door for the fire drill on 8/30/22 but were unable to provide a specific time. No additional explanation was provided. When asked if they had any additional information regarding the falls and if an investigation had been completed, the DON indicated they did not think there was any additional information but would look. An interview was completed with Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) Therapy Director E on 1/25/23 at 1:32 PM. When queried regarding Resident #11's fall on 2/23/22 and referral to therapy services, Director E indicated they were not employed on a full-time basis until recently and were not familiar with the Resident's falls and/or treatments. Resident #11's therapy documentation including the evaluation following their fall on 2/23/22 was requested at this time. Review of Resident #11's provided therapy documentation included the following: - Evaluation and discharge documentation from 6/16/20 to 7/3/20 treatment certification period - 3/21/22: Occupational Therapy (OT) . Evaluation and Plan of Treatment . Prior Equipment . w/c with high back, elevating leg rests and side support . Safety Awareness = Impaired . RUE (Right Upper Extremity) ROM WFL (Within Functional Limits) . LUE ROM = WFL . Has Patient fallen in past year? Yes; How many times? = Exact number unknown; Was patient injured from fall? Yes; Injury description: minor injuries . Reason for Therapy . Pt. (patient) also has difficulty maintaining seated position in w/c and often has slid out of w/c secondary to becomes lethargic and unable to maintain upright position . - 8/31/22: Occupational Therapy (OT) . Evaluation and Plan of Treatment . Reason for Referral / Pt was referred to OT services secondary to falling out of w/c when fire drill went off. Pt was sent to hospital and was found to have dislocated L shoulder and L non-displaced fx of L greater tuberosity and large contusion on forehead . Pt does not have any orders for weight bearing and ROM precautions. will default to no ROM at shoulder and NWB (Non-weight Bearing) of LUE . RUE ROM = WFL; LUE ROM = DNT (Do Not Treat) (fx); Clinical Reason(s) = Severe fracture (Greater tuberosity and shoulder dislocation. However pt returned from hospital with no ROM or weight bearing orders. Building attempting to get pt in to see ortho and get further instructions) . Does Patient worry about falling? = Yes . Pt has poor safety and judgement and can be impulsive at times . Clinical Impressions/Reason for Skilled Services: Pt recently had a fall and it resulted in L shoulder dislocation and fx of greater tuberosity. Pt is Dependent with bed mobility and having difficultly feeding and oral hygiene secondary to unable to use LUE . - 9/26/22 (signed date): Skilled Interventions Provided: PROM (Passive Range of Motion)/ AAROM (Assisted Active Range of Motion) with LUE. Pt has difficulty following ROM and weight bearing restrictions . able to complete AAROM with therapist present to provide appropriate positioning of LUE . Pt was participating with therapy services however was sent out to hospital . - 10/3/22: Occupational Therapy (OT) . Evaluation and Plan of Treatment . Pt is resident of this facility and was recently on OT/ST services prior to going to hospital. OT was looking into Fx UE . was found to have aspiration pneumonia . has returned to this facility from hospital . Reason for Therapy . still under precautions for L shoulder restrictions. NWB of LUE and no Shoulder ROM. Pt was in sling however unable to locate sling upon return . - 10/27/22 (date signed): OT Discharge Summary . Assessment and Summary of Skilled Services . Direct, hands-on care with patient this reporting period focused on the following skilled interventions . now WBAT (Weight Bearing as Tolerated) and can use arm as appropriate . No documentation for therapy evaluation/treatment following the Resident's fall on 2/23/22 was provided. On 1/25/23 at 4:35 PM, an interview was completed with Clinical Care Coordinator (CCC)/Staff Development Registered Nurse (RN) D. When queried if Resident #11 was evaluated and treated by Therapy in February 2022, RN D revealed they would need to check. A follow-up interview was completed with RN D on 1/25/23 at 4:42 PM. RN D revealed they had spoke to Therapy and reviewed the EMR. RN D stated, Therapy did not do an evaluation in February because (Resident #11) was already on Speech Therapy. No further information was provided. On 1/25/23 at 4:47 PM, a second interview was completed with the DON. When queried why Resident #11 was not seen by Therapy services following the fall on 2/23/22, the DON revealed they were not aware the Resident had not been seen. The DON proceeded to review the EMR and indicated the Resident was seen by therapy as part of their quarterly (MDS) screen but did not receive services/treatment. The DON was then asked if any other interventions, including nursing interventions, had been implemented to prevent future falls and revealed no interventions had been implemented. When asked if the nursing staff had implemented any immediate interventions to ensure Resident #11's safety, the DON replied, No immediate interventions. With further inquiry, the DON revealed they would be working with staff regarding the importance of implementing immediate interventions following falls. When queried regarding investigation to identify potential causes of the falls in order to implement appropriate and meaningful interventions, the DON indicated falls are discussed in the IDT meetings. No additional investigation documentation was provided. When queried why the interventions implemented following the fall on 8/30/22 including front anti-tippers and a tilted seat to Resident #11's wheelchair were not implemented following the fall on 2/23/22, the DON was unable to provide an explanation. Review of facility provided policy/procedure entitled, Falls Reduction Program (Revised 9/25/16) revealed, Purpose: To provide a safe environment for residents, modify risk factors, and reduce risk of fall- related injury . Procedure . 2. Implement and indicate individualized interventions on Care Plan/Kardex . 3. If fall occurs Charge Nurse to complete the following: Physical assessment of resident and observation of environment . Immediate interventions as identified by physical assessment and environmental observation . 3.1. Initiate safety interventions and update care plan as applicable . 3.2. Charge nurse to monitor for delayed consequences of incident utilizing the following . Physical assessment and documentation . Neurological Assessment per directions, as applicable . 3.3. IDT to review each incident to complete root cause analysis . 3.4.2. Complete/review Fall Assessment . Discuss and determine root cause . Summarize IDT analysis in the incident[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop comprehensive, person-centered care plans for two 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 develop comprehensive, person-centered care plans for two residents (Resident #1, Resident #148)), with actual skin breakdown of a facility-acquired pressure ulcer for Resident #1 and Resident #148 with an actual wound/skin tear to the knee, of four residents reviewed for skin/wound care planning, resulting in the potential for unmet care needs, worsening of wounds and a decline in overall health and wellbeing. Findings include: Resident #1: A review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission into the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included atrial fibrillation, urethral stricture, diabetes, muscle weakness, morbid obesity, depression, anxiety, and heart disease. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/16/22, revealed the Resident had intact cognition and needed extensive assistance of 2-person physical assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and needed extensive assistance of one-person physical assist with personal hygiene. Further review of the MDS revealed the Resident did not have an unhealed pressure ulcer at Stage 1 or higher and was at risk of developing pressure ulcers. Further review of the medical record revealed the Resident had a supra-pubic catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder through the abdominal wall to drain urine). Review of the Wound Evaluation notes for Resident #1 revealed: -Dated 12/16/22, notes Resident with multiple open areas in skin fold near suprapubic catheter. Areas are small superficial open areas that appear to be caused by moisture and tubing sitting between the skin. Resident has a very large/heavy abdominal apron that lays on catheter tubing. Anchor applied to opposite side to allow healing and relieve pressure from open areas. Treatment put into place. Dimensions documented as Area 2.8 cm2 (centimeters squared), Length 8.22 cm (centimeters) Width 1.13 cm and Deepest Point 0.1 cm. The multiple areas though not attached to each other were not documented separately. A review of Resident #1's care plan revealed a focus for Skin management R/T (related to) Obesity and Recent Pacemaker Placement, date of revision on 11/9/22, with interventions that included: Braden as directed; encourage me to make small, frequent shifts in my position; I have pressure reducing device on bed; I have pressure reducing device on chair/wheelchair; and weekly skin assessment for duration of stay. Further review of Resident #1's care plan revealed a focus for Use of indwelling Suprapubic catheter r/t urethral strictures and scarring, revision on 11/11/22, goal of will have no acute complications of urinary catheter use, with interventions that included: Assure catheter and drainage bag are below the level of the bladder; Change catheter to leg bag as needed; Check catheter system every shift for patency and integrity; Document color, clarity and odor of urine PRN (as needed); Ensure that bag and tubing are not touching the floor when hanging from wheelchair/bed; Ensure the Foley catheter is anchored every shift; Foley Care every shift; maintain closed drainage system; report to MD (doctor) any signs of infection or trauma; blood, cloudy urine, fever, restlessness, lethargy, or complaints of pain or burning; supra pubic cath; 22F (French) with 10 cc (cubic centimeter) balloon. On 1/24/23 at 9:59 AM, a review of Resident #1's wounds and treatments were reviewed with Nurse N. The Nurse indicated that the Resident was to have a split dressing in place at the insertion site of the suprapubic catheter. The Nurse reported that Resident #1's abdominal folds was laying on the tubing of the suprapubic catheter causing the pressure to the area and the Resident developed inhouse pressure ulcer areas on the abdominal folds. The Nurse indicated that the Resident was to have a t-sponge (split dressing) in place after area cleansed with soap and water, and a pillowcase was to be placed under the abdominal folds to keep the skin from touching. The Nurse stated, Every time she is turned or changed, you have to look to make sure they are in place. On 1/24/23 at 2:39 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding Resident #1's facility acquired pressure ulcer to the suprapubic catheter area. The DON indicated the Resident was to have a barrier cream and a t-sponge (gauze with a slit) to put around the catheter tube and reported the area had healed up yesterday. When asked about the history of the wound, the DON indicated that the area had recurrent breakdown and that the areas had opened while at the facility. The DON was informed of the dressing not in place when wound care was observed with Nurse N and that the Nurse had was under the impression that the dressing was to be in place, was not aware of the order for the barrier cream and was queried regarding the intervention of the pillowcase in the abdominal fold. The DON reported she would follow up with the Nurse and reported that the pillowcase intervention was no longer in place due to keeping it more moist in there was part of the problem. The care plan for the focus of skin management related to obesity and recent pacemaker placement was reviewed with the DON. The DON was queried regarding actual skin integrity breakdown and a lack of focus and person-centered interventions for the pressure ulcers and wounds. The DON indicated she did not see a focus for the actual skin breakdown and interventions that addressed the skin breakdown and prevention/treatments or the interventions when the pillowcase was used as an intervention. Further review of the care plan revealed a care plan for the suprapubic catheter but lacked interventions for skin breakdown and skin care. Resident #148: A review of Resident #148's medical record revealed an admission into the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, cellulitis, morbid obesity, atrial fibrillation, pneumonia, and pleural effusion. A review of the MDS, dated [DATE], revealed intact cognition and the Resident needed limited assistance of two person physical assist with bed mobility and transfers and needed extensive assistance of one person physical assist with toilet use and personal hygiene. A review of Resident #148's progress notes revealed the following: -Date 11/27/22 at 3:53 PM, CNA (certified nursing assistant) called for writer to come to the residents room, Upon entering resident was sitting up in her wheelchair, her LLE (left lower extremity) had a laceration 13 cm (centimeters) in length, 2 cm in depth, 3 cm width. Laceration was bleeding significantly. Resident takes Eliquis 5 mg (milligrams). Resident sates that while in her wheelchair she leaned over to grab her glasses form off of her bed and her wheelchair tipped over to the side trapping her leg between the wheelchair and the bed, when the wheelchair was leveled back out the laceration was then noted by staff to her LLE. Writer applied a compression dressing to area. Dressing became saturated quickly with blood, resident was transport to ER for further eval, management, family, and physician notified. -Date 11/27/22 at 9:33 PM, pt (patient) returned from ER, no treatment on LLE and no paperwork, area pictured, and wound cleaned, applied Aquacell to open wound bed, used mefix as steristrips to help close wound, top with non adherent, secured with kerlix, pt denies pain at this time, call bell in reach. Updated NP (nurse practitioner) and NM (nurse manager) . -Date 12/1/22 at 4:07 PM, Physician's Note, . While at the SNG home patient was then sent to (Hospital) ER for a left leg laceration on 11/27/22 after running into a wheelchair and acquiring a significant 12 cm skin laceration. Multiple attempts were made with sutures to close the wound but were all unsuccessful. The active bleeding was able to be stopped with cauterizer and the wound was dressed with telfa . A review of Resident #148's care plan revealed a focus for Skin management R/T Obesity, initiated on 11/25/22 with interventions: Braden as directed; encourage me to make small, frequent shifts in my position; I have pressure reducing device on bed; I have pressure reducing device on chair/wheelchair; and weekly skin assessment for duration of stay. The Resident acquired the skin tear on 11/27/22 and continued with needed care and dressing treatments until discharge on [DATE]. The care plan did not address the actual skin wound or identify ongoing and comprehensive person centered interventions for wound care and prevention. On 1/24/23 at 2:49 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding Resident #148's care plan. The DON reported the Resident had sustained a skin tear to the leg, had gone to the emergency department, but they were unable to suture it. The care plan for skin management was reviewed with the DON with the lack of a focus for the skin tear and person centered care for the wound. A review of facility policy titled, Wound Management Program, revised 8/17/2017, revealed, .Policy: To assure that residents who are admitted with, or acquire, wounds receive treatment and services to promote healing, prevent complications and prevent new skin conditions from developing . Process [Prevention]: . 5.2 Initiate treatment according to physician guidance .7.1 Update Care Plan to reflect new risks and interventions . Process [Management of Pressure Ulcers/non pressure wounds]: .1.2 Develop an individualized plan of care/[NAME] .
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 F0660 (Tag F0660)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation pertains to Intake Number MI00133749. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Adult Pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation pertains to Intake Number MI00133749. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Adult Protective Services was notified of the Resident's discharge back into the community and provide written wound care instructions upon discharge for one resident (Resident (#148) of four residents reviewed for discharge, resulting in caregiver lack of instruction for dressing changes, and a lack of community resources and support to ensure safe and healthy living at home. Findings include: Resident #148: A review of Resident #148's medical record revealed an admission into the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, cellulitis, morbid obesity, atrial fibrillation, pneumonia, and pleural effusion. A review of the MDS, dated [DATE], revealed intact cognition and the Resident needed limited assistance of two person physical assist with bed mobility and transfers and needed extensive assistance of one person physical assist with toilet use and personal hygiene. A review of Resident #148's progress notes revealed the following: -Date 11/27/22 at 3:53 PM, CNA (certified nursing assistant) called for writer to come to the residents room, Upon entering resident was sitting up in her wheelchair, her LLE (left lower extremity) had a laceration 13 cm (centimeters) in length, 2 cm in depth, 3 cm width. Laceration was bleeding significantly. Resident takes Eliquis 5 mg (milligrams). Resident sates that while in her wheelchair she leaned over to grab her glasses form off of her bed and her wheelchair tipped over to the side trapping her leg between the wheelchair and the bed, when the wheelchair was leveled back out the laceration was then noted by staff to her LLE. Writer applied a compression dressing to area. Dressing became saturated quickly with blood, resident was transport to ER for further eval, management, family, and physician notified. -Date 11/27/22 at 9:33 PM, pt (patient) returned from ER, no treatment on LLE and no paperwork, area pictured, and wound cleaned, applied Aquacell to open wound bed, used mefix as steristrips to help close wound, top with non adherent, secured with kerlix, pt denies pain at this time, call bell in reach. Updated NP (nurse practitioner) and NM (nurse manager) . -Date 12/1/22 at 4:07 PM, Physician's Note, . While at the SNG home patient was then sent to (Hospital) ER for a left leg laceration on 11/27/22 after running into a wheelchair and acquiring a significant 12 cm skin laceration. Multiple attempts were made with sutures to close the wound but were all unsuccessful. The active bleeding was able to be stopped with cauterizer and the wound was dressed with telfa . -Date 12/16/22 at 1:10 PM, Nurses Note, .Spoke with son (name) regarding resident's discharge, Son with reservations about mother discharging home alone, states he cannot stay with her and her other children are not in her life due to the way his mother treated them in prior situations like this when they tried to help her. Prior to admission, resident lived in her trailer alone and APS was involved due to living conditions. Son states his mother has been off for about the last month, saying off the wall things. He stated she has always been awful and mean but has not said such off the wall things. Resident does jump from one subject to another frequently, but answers questions appropriately. BIMS is 15/15 and resident is her own person. Explained all of this to the son, which he understood but does not think she makes good decisions. Encouraged son to follow up with PCP (primary care physician) and HHC (home health care) if concerns continue once resident is home regarding options. A review of Resident #148's Treatment Administration Record, for December 2022, revealed the Resident had an order for Skin tear to LLE: cleanse with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply Silvadene to open area, cover with 5x5 foam. Two times a day, with a start date on 12/13/22. A review of Resident #148's medical record of discharge hospital records of a hospital discharge summary revealed, .Hospital Course: [AGE] year-old female presents the emergency department via EMS (ambulance) for shortness of breath and altered mental status. EMS states they were called out to earlier because she had trouble getting back into her chair. They state they called APS because her house was filthy . A review of Resident #148's Post-Discharge Plan of Care, with date of discharge on [DATE], revealed the Wound Care and Treatments section of the document was blank and did not give written instructions for wound care upon discharge. The medication section of the document did not list Silvadene for wound care. The section for appointments revealed instruction to make appointment with wound clinic for 2 weeks. The document was signed by Resident #148 on 12/16/22. On 1/23/22 at 1:44 PM, a call was made to Adult Protective Services (APS) staff P regarding Resident #148. The APS reported that the Agency had been notified by EMS but had not been notified by the Nursing Home upon the Resident getting discharged . The APS staff indicated if there were any concerns regarding the Resident being discharged home with a history of an unclean and unsafe environment then APS should be notified of the Resident returning into that environment. The APS staff indicated if there was question of competency, the Nursing Home would speak with family and the doctor to proceed with filing for a guardian. The Agency Staff indicated that the Nursing Home Social Worker should call central intake and file for an evaluation. When asked if the Nursing Home had contacted the Agency, the Staff reported there had been no calls documented from the Nursing Home. On 1/24/23 at 2:49 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding Resident #148's discharge. The DON reported the Resident was indecisive about going home with concerns of assistance when back at home and indicated it was a financial decision to return home. The DON was asked about Resident competency and indicated the resident had a BIMS of 15 (Brief Interview of Mental Status). When asked if the Resident had issues with psychological and/or mood disorders, the DON stated, She had some deficits there that were not diagnosed. The discharge instructions on the Post Discharge Plan of Care was reviewed with the DON. The DON indicated that document would be sent with the Resident home. When queried regarding the lack of discharge instructions on wound care, the DON reported that the Nurse could have verbally gone through the instructions and that the wound care orders would be sent to the home health care agency. On 1/24/23 at 4:42 PM, an interview was conducted with Nurse B who was the facility Social Service Designee. The Nurse indicated she had participated in discharge planning with Resident #148. The lack of wound care instructions on the Post Discharge Plan of Care was reviewed. The Nurse indicated that wound care instructions should be given upon discharge and the Resident had home health care referral and they would have been sent wound care orders. When asked to verify, the Nurse was unable to find the email of the sent wound care orders due to another staff that assisted with discharge planning. The Nurse was asked for verification. It was discussed with the Nurse that it was unknown when/if the home heath care agency would have a nurse out to the Residents home and the possible need for wound care prior to home health care arrival. The Nurse reported that wound care instructions should be sent with the Resident on discharge. A review of concerns of returning home and Physical Therapy recommendations for 24 hour care, and APS contacted by EMS regarding home conditions was reviewed with the Nurse. When asked if she had contacted APS on discharge of the Resident from the facility, the Nurse stated, No, I did not. A review of facility policy titled, Discharge or Transfer of Resident, revision date 8/5/21, revealed, . Purpose: To provide safe departure from the Center, and provide sufficient information for after care of the resident . Procedure: Discharge to Home or Lesser Level of Care: . 2. Complete Post-Discharge Plan of Care: .2.3 Include instructions for post discharge care . 3. Notify Adult Protection Services, or any other entity, as appropriate if self-neglect is suspected and document as needed .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

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 assessment and care planning for hearing servic...

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 assessment and care planning for hearing services for one resident (Resident #32) of one resident reviewed, resulting in a lack of documentation, assessment, and care planning/coordination for a resident with impairing hearing and the potential for communication deficits. Findings include: Resident #32: On 1/19/23 at 12:32 PM, Resident #32 was observed in their room. The Resident was in bed, positioned on their back. An interview was attempted to be completed at this time. When asked a question, Resident #32 stated they could not hear. After reducing physical distance, speaking louder and in different tones, the Resident was still unable to hear. An interview was completed with RN G on 1/19/23 at 12:38 PM. When queried if Resident #32 was hard of hearing, RN G stated, Yes. RN G was then asked if the Resident had hearing aids and replied, I don't think so. We (staff) just yell at (Resident #32). With further inquiry, RN G revealed the Resident was unable to hear them unless they spoke at the volume of yelling. Record review revealed Resident #32 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), fall, right lower leg displaced trimalleolar fracture (severe fracture of the ankle involving all three aspects of the tibia bone) of right lower leg, and reduced mobility. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Resident was cognitively intact and required extensive one-to-two-person assistance to complete ADL's. The MDS further revealed indicated the Resident was able to hear adequately and did not have assistive devices for hearing. Review of prior MDS assessments dated 6/3/22 and 9/2/22 revealed the Resident had minimal difficulty hearing. Review of Resident #32's care plans did not reveal a care plan in place pertaining to communication and/or alterations in hearing. Review of Resident #32's medical record revealed a signed consent for Audiology services dated 5/2022 but no documentation of the Resident having been seen and/or evaluated was noted in the record. On 1/20/23 at 2:06 PM, Resident #32 was observed in their room in bed. The Resident was asked if they had gotten out of bed today and replied, I get stuffy when I lay on my side. When queried if they were able to hear what I was saying, Resident #32 revealed they could not hear the question. On 1/24/23 at 2:38 PM, an interview was completed with Social Services Designee Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B. When queried if Resident #32 was hard of hearing, LPN B indicated they were and specified the Resident's age. When queried why the Resident did not have a care plan pertaining to communication and/or hearing loss, LPN B was unable to provide an explanation. When asked if the Resident had been seen by an Audiologist, LPN B reviewed Resident #32's medical record and indicated they had not been. When queried regarding the Resident's signed consent for audiology and why they had not been evaluated, LPN B was unable to provide an explanation. An interview was completed with the Director of Nursing (DON) and LPN B on 1/25/23 at 11:33 AM. LPN B indicated they had followed up regarding Resident #32's lack of audiology consultation documentation. LPN B stated, (Resident #32) said they can hear fine now. No explanation was provided for the sudden improvement in hearing ability. When asked about the signed consent for Audiology and why the Resident had not been evaluated previously, LPN B indicated the Resident no longer wanted Audiology services and stated, I had (Resident #32) sign another one (to refuse services). The DON did not provide any additional information. Review of facility provided policy/procedure entitled, Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) (Dated: 7/1/2008) revealed, To assist residents as needed in achieving maximum functional ability with dignity and self-esteem to improve quality of life . 3. Assistance will be provided and communicated to the resident in a manner they can understand which may include verbal, written, or by demonstration .
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent the development of a Stage II pressure ulcer ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent the development of a Stage II pressure ulcer and follow physician-ordered dressing treatment to prevent worsening and/or further pressure ulcers to develop for one resident (Resident #1) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, resulting in the potential for development of pressure ulcers, pain, infection, and deterioration in health status. Findings include: Resident #1: A review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission into the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included atrial fibrillation, urethral stricture, diabetes, muscle weakness, morbid obesity, depression, anxiety, and heart disease. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/16/22, revealed the Resident had intact cognition and needed extensive assistance of 2-person physical assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and needed extensive assistance of one-person physical assist with personal hygiene. Further review of the MDS revealed the Resident did not have an unhealed pressure ulcer at Stage 1 or higher and was at risk of developing pressure ulcers. Further review of the medical record revealed the Resident had a supra-pubic catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder through the abdominal wall to drain urine). Review of the Wound Evaluation notes for Resident #1 revealed: -Dated 12/16/22, notes Resident with multiple open areas in in skin fold near suprapubic catheter. Areas are small superficial open areas that appear to be caused by moisture and tubing sitting between the skin. Resident has a very large/heavy abdominal apron that lays on catheter tubing. Anchor applied to opposite side to allow healing and relieve pressure from open areas. Treatment put into place. Dimensions documented as Area 2.8 cm2 (centimeters squared), Length 8.22 cm (centimeters) Width 1.13 cm and Deepest Point 0.1 cm. The multiple areas though not attached to each other were not documented separately. A review of Resident #1's wound care treatment/orders for the pressure ulcers near the suprapubic catheter included the following: -Start Date 12/16/22 and D/C (discontinued) Date 1/3/23, Stage 2 pressure LLQ (left lower quadrant) near suprapubic site: cleanse with soap and water, pat dry, cover open area with hydrogel and Aquacell AG cut to size, fold nonadherent foam in half and place in crease covering open areas. Every day shift. -Start Date 12/16/22 and D/C date 1/3/23, Suprapubic site: cleanse with soap and water, pat dry, apply small amount of dermasepetin ointment to T-sponge and apply around tubing site. Every day shift. -Start Date 12/28/22 and D/C date 1/2/23, wash abdominal fold with soap and water, pat dry. Place folded pillowcase in fold and change daily to absorb moisture. -Start Date 1/3/23 and D/C date 1/23/23, Stage 2 pressure LLQ near suprapubic site: cleanse with soap and water, pat dry, Aquacell AG (silver) cut to size, cover with t-sponge used for suprapubic catheter site. -Start Date 1/3/23 and D/C date 1/23/23, Suprapubic site: cleanse with soap and water, pat dry, apply t-sponge around site, also covering open area just to the left. -Start Date 1/3/23 and D/C date 1/23/23, Abdominal apron: cleanse with soap and water, pat dry, apply thin layer of dermaseptin to entire fold, including around open area and suprapubic catheter site. -Start Date 1/23/23, Healed pressure LLQ near suprapubic site: after cleansing with soap and water, pat dry, apply skin prep barrier wipe to scarring. -Start Date 1/23/23, Suprapubic site: cleanse with soap and water, pat dry, apply t-sponge around site. On 1/24/23 at 9:59 AM, a review of Resident #1's wounds and treatments were reviewed with Nurse N. The Nurse indicated that the Resident was to have a split dressing in place at the insertion site of the suprapubic catheter. The Nurse reported that Resident #1's abdominal folds was laying on the tubing of the suprapubic catheter causing the pressure to the area and the Resident developed inhouse pressure ulcer areas on the abdominal folds. The Nurse indicated that the Resident was to have a t-sponge (split dressing) in place after area cleansed with soap and water, and a pillowcase was to be placed under the abdominal folds to keep the skin from touching. The Nurse stated, Every time she is turned or changed, you have to look to make sure they are in place. At 10:14 AM, Nurse N was observed while changing the dressing to Resident #1's suprapubic area. An observation was made with Nurse N of no t-sponge (split dressing) to the suprapubic catheter site. The Nurse reported that there should have been a dressing. The Resident reported that the dressing was removed last night and reported the Nurse said they would come back but had not returned to replace the dressing. When queried regarding report of a dressing needing to be placed, the Nurse indicated she had not gotten in report from the previous shift that there was no dressing in place. The area had multiple scarred areas, after cleansing and drying the area, the Nurse applied the skin prep barrier wipe to the scarred areas. An observation was made of no pillowcase between the abdominal folds and a barrier cream had been applied to the abdominal folds. The Resident indicated that they have not been using the pillowcases and preferred the barrier cream. The Resident was asked about the skin breakdown and indicated that the folds were rubbing on the tubing, caused the breakdown and that the dressing keeps it from rubbing. The Resident asked the Nurse for the barrier cream and the Nurse indicated that she would get an order for the barrier cream and reported not seeing the order for the barrier cream when the treatment orders were reviewed. On 1/24/23 at 2:39 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding Resident #1's facility acquired pressure ulcer to the suprapubic catheter area. The DON indicated the Resident was to have a barrier cream and a t-sponge (gauze with a slit) to put around the catheter tube and reported the area had healed up yesterday. When asked about the history of the wound, the DON indicated that the area had recurrent breakdown and that the areas had opened while at the facility. The DON was informed of the dressing not in place when wound care was observed with Nurse N and that the Nurse had was under the impression that the dressing was to be in place, was not aware of the order for the barrier cream and was queried regarding the intervention of the pillowcase in the abdominal fold. The DON reported she would follow up with the Nurse and reported that the pillowcase intervention was no longer in place due to keeping it more moist in there was part of the problem. The care plan for the focus of skin management related to obesity and recent pacemaker placement was reviewed with the DON. The DON was queried regarding actual skin integrity breakdown and a lack of focus and person-centered interventions for the pressure ulcers and wounds. The DON indicated she did not see a focus for the actual skin breakdown and interventions that addressed the skin breakdown and prevention/treatments or the interventions when the pillowcase was used as an intervention. Further review of the care plan revealed a care plan for the suprapubic catheter but lacked interventions for skin breakdown and skin care. A review of facility policy titled, Wound Management Program, revised 8/17/2017, revealed, .Policy: To assure that residents who are admitted with, or acquire, wounds receive treatment and services to promote healing, prevent complications and prevent new skin conditions from developing . Process [Prevention]: . 5.2 Initiate treatment according to physician guidance .7.1 Update Care Plan to reflect new risks and interventions . Process [Management of Pressure Ulcers/non pressure wounds]: .1.2 Develop an individualized plan of care/[NAME] 3.3 Inspect dressing to assure it is intact .
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 operationalize a comprehensive, interdisciplinary rest...

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 operationalize a comprehensive, interdisciplinary restorative nursing program as recommended for two residents (Resident #11 and Resident #32) of three residents reviewed, resulting in a lack of documentation, well-defined coordination with Therapy services, assessment and monitoring of Range of Motion (ROM) measurements, comprehensive care planning with measurable objectives and interventions,and a lack of the provision and documentation of purposeful ROM exercises, causing Resident #11 to experience a decline in ROM, and the likelihood for pain and further ROM limitations. Findings include: Resident #11: An interview was completed with Resident #11 on 1/19/23 at 10:42 AM. Resident #11 observed was sitting in a regular wheelchair with bilateral leg rests in place. A padded positioning device was present on the right footrest and a reacher device was noted on bed. The Resident did not have any braces/splints in place and a Hoyer (mechanical lift) sling was under them in the wheelchair. When queried regarding the reason for the padded positioning device on only one footrest, Resident #11 stated, I fell and hurt my feet and left shoulder. When queried regarding the fall and level of assistance needed to complete Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), Resident #11 indicated they needed increased assistance, experienced pain, and had decreased ROM following the fall. When asked if they were able to move their left shoulder, Resident #11 lifted their arm from their lap forward and to their side less than 90 degrees. When queried if they were receiving therapy, Resident #11 revealed they had in the past but not currently and did not understand why they were not. Resident #11 was then queried if they were receiving Restorative Nursing services and if the staff assisted and/or instructed them to complete ROM exercises and replied, No. Review of the CMS-672 Resident Census and Condition Form on 1/19/23 revealed the facility had three Residents with contractures including one facility acquired contracture. The Director of Nursing (DON) was queried regarding the Residents with contractures including the facility acquired contracture and replied via email on 1/19/23 at 4:24 PM. Per the email, Resident #11 had a facility acquired contracture. Record review revealed Resident #11 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included epilepsy, falls, schizophrenia, and greater tuberosity of left humerus fracture. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Resident was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive to total one-to-two-person assistance to complete all ADL's with the exception of eating. The MDS further revealed the Resident had one sided, impaired upper extremity Range of Motion (ROM) and received Restorative Nursing for bed mobility and dressing/grooming. Review of prior MDS assessment documentation of Resident #11's Functional Limitation in ROM revealed Resident #11 had no ROM limitations in any extremity until the MDS assessment dated [DATE]. Review of Resident #11's care plans did not reveal a care plan specific to Restorative Nursing Services. The Resident did have a care plan entitled, Actual ADL deficit R/T (related to): muscle weakness, epilepsy, obesity (Initiated: 8/19/19; Revised 2/18/20). The care plan included the interventions: - Nursing Rehab: ADL's: Provide verbal cues and assistance as needed every AM and HS (at bedtime) for brushing hair/teeth, washing hands/face, and dressing upper body 7 days per week (Created: 10/24/19; Initiated: 11/2/22; Revised: 11/8/22) - Nursing Rehab: Bed Mobility: Provide assistance/verbal cues per care plan to roll right and left in bed with care at least once per shift, 7 days per week (Created: 6/16/20; Initiated: 11/2/22; Revised: 11/7/22) - 2-person assist (PA) for bed mobility (Created: 8/19/19; Initiated and Revised: 3/10/21) - Transfers- 2 PA with total lift. Lift sling to remain under me when I am up in my chair to aid with positioning and transfers (Created: 8/19/19; Initiated and Revised: 3/11/21) - Toileting- 2P bed pan (Initiated: 1/30/20; Revised: 8/12/20) - Oral hygiene daily and PRN (as needed) (Initiated and Revised: 8/19/19) Resident #11 did not have an active care plan and/or interventions specifying the level of assistance required for dressing, brushing hair, washing hands/face, and/or oral care. Review of Resident #11's active Health Care Provider (HCP) orders revealed an order dated 9/30/22 which detailed, . May participate in restorative nursing as indicated . Resident #11's discontinued HCP orders included the following: - Pt to wear Bilateral wrist splints for 6 hours to maintain ROM and prevent pain (Ordered: 7/1/20; Discontinued: 8/8/22 due to discharge) Resident #11 returned to the facility on 8/18/22. No documentation related to the wrist brace was noted in the documentation following the Resident's readmission to the facility. On 1/20/23 at 2:02 PM, an interview was completed with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) H. When queried regarding the facility Restorative Nursing program, CNA H revealed the facility did not have a dedicated staff member who completes Restorative Nursing tasks. When asked, CNA H elaborated that floor CNA staff complete and document task completion. When queried if they received specialized training in order to complete Restorative tasks, CNA H indicated they did not. When asked about Resident #11, CNA H revealed the Restorative is part of ADL care and not specific dedicated tasks. When queried regarding documentation, CNA H indicated the amount of time staff spend assisting the Resident to complete ADL tasks are documented as Restorative. At 2:13 PM on 1/20/23, Resident #11 was observed in their room, in bed. When queried if they had gotten out of bed today, Resident #11 replied, No and revealed they were having pain. When queried if they had braces/splints for their wrists, the Resident indicated they used to but was unsure what happened to them. Review of Resident #11's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the following Restorative Nursing documentation: - 5/2/22 at 11:31 AM: Restorative Note . Nursing rehab program reviewed, resident participates in ADL's and bed mobility. A total of 1090 minutes for bed mobility and 709 minutes for ADL's completed in the month of March (sic). Current program remains appropriate at this time . - 5/31/22 at 2:01 PM: Restorative Note . Nursing rehab program reviewed, resident participates in ADL's and bed mobility. A total of 870 minutes for bed mobility and 654 minutes for ADL's completed in the month of March (sic). Current program remains appropriate at this time . - 7/5/22 at 9:32 PM: Restorative Note . Nursing rehab program reviewed, resident participates in ADL's and bed mobility. A total of 1191 minutes for bed mobility and 812 minutes for ADL's completed in the month of March (sic). Current program remains appropriate at this time . - 9/6/22 at 1:16 PM: Restorative Note . Nursing rehab program reviewed, resident participates in ADL's and bed mobility. A total of 553 minutes for bed mobility and 263 minutes for ADL's completed in the month of August. Current program remains appropriate at this time . - 10/25/22 at 10:23 AM: Restorative Note . Resident started skilled therapy the beginning of October, restorative will resume once . completed . - 11/2/22 at 11:27 AM: Restorative Note . Skilled therapy completed, restorative started today for ADL's and bed mobility . - 12/2/22 at 3:38 PM: Restorative Note . Nursing rehab program reviewed, resident participates in ADL's and bed mobility. A total of 838 minutes for bed mobility and 692 minutes for ADL's completed in the month of November. Current program remains appropriate at this time . - 12/14/22 at 3:25 PM: Restorative Note . Noted that there was a decline in bed mobility, s/w (spoke with) the staff and they stated resident has not been helping, s/w resident and encouraged to participate when the staff are rolling from side to side. Resident agreed to help more. Will continue to monitor . - 1/2/23 at 2:54 PM: Restorative Note . Nursing rehab program reviewed, resident participates in ADL's and bed mobility. A total of 804 minutes for bed mobility and 485 minutes for ADL's completed in the month of December. Current program remains appropriate at this time . Further review of Resident #11's EMR revealed the Resident had a fall in the facility on 8/30/22 which resulted in a left shoulder dislocation and humeral head fracture. An interview was completed with Restorative Registered Nurse (RN) D on 1/25/23 at 1:00 PM. When queried regarding the Restorative Program, RN D revealed they complete the monthly documentation and implement the care plan. When queried if facility residents are typically referred to Restorative after completing Therapy, RN D indicated they were. RN D was then queried regarding the facility process/procedure for Therapy referrals to Restorative and location of the documentation of the Therapy referral recommendations. RN D revealed there is no written documentation of Therapy referral and/or recommendations for Restorative. When asked how they know what Therapy recommends to maintain, improve, and/or prevent decline in ROM and/or functional status and what to implement for a Restorative program without a referral, RN D revealed it is discussed in the facility leadership morning meetings. When queried regarding Resident #11, RN D stated, (Resident #11) is getting bed mobility and ADL's for Restorative. When asked if the Resident completed a specific number of repetitions and/or ROM activities when completing the Restorative tasks of bed mobility and ADL's, RN D replied, Roll once per shift. RN D was queried if any specific ROM exercises were performed, either PROM or AROM. RN D revealed they were not, and reiterated Resident #11 was on Restorative for bed mobility and ADL's. When asked if the Resident received assistance when they were rolling in bed for the Restorative task, RN D indicated they did. When queried how staff monitor and evaluate the level of the Resident's self-performance of the task when their care plan indicates they require two- assist for bed mobility and how the task is accurately documented, RN D indicated staff document the amount of time they are in the room with the Resident assisting with the task and if the Resident assists the staff. When queried regarding the Restorative note in December indicating there was a decline and the cause of the decline, such as additional limitations in ROM, pain, acute illness, etc., RN D indicated the Resident was participating less in turning and ADL's. No further explanation was provided. When queried regarding Resident #11's wrist braces/splints not being reordered following their discharge and readmission to the facility, RN D did not provide an explanation. Review of Resident #11's therapy documentation included the following: - 6/19/20: Occupational Therapy (OT) Evaluation and Plan of Treatment . Pt (Patient) was referred to OT services secondary to increased pain in B (bilateral) wrists and decreased ability to feed self and participate in activities . RUE (Right Upper Extremity) ROM = Impaired; LUE (Left Upper Extremity) ROM = Impaired . RUE ROM . Wrist = Impaired . Hand = Impaired . LUE ROM . Wrist = Impaired . Hand = Impaired . - 7/3/20: OT Discharge Summary . Discharge Recommendations . Restorative Program Established . Restorative Splint and Brace Program . Functional Maintenance Program . Not indicated at this time . The evaluation detailed the following ROM measurements: Right Wrist Active Range of Motion (AROM): Ulnar Deviation- PLOF= WNL (Within Normal Limits); Baseline= 5 degrees; discharge: 20 degrees; Radial Deviation PLOF= 15 degrees; Baseline= 5 degrees; Discharge = 20 degrees; Flexion PLOF= 60 degrees; Baseline = 20 degrees; Discharge= 35 degrees; Extension PLOF = 50 degrees; Baseline = 25 degrees; Discharge = 35 degrees Left Wrist Active Range of Motion (AROM): Ulnar Deviation- PLOF=25 degrees; Baseline = 5 degrees; discharge: 15 degrees; Radial Deviation PLOF= 15 degrees; Baseline = 0 degrees; Discharge = 15 degrees; Flexion PLOF= 40 degrees; Baseline = 15 degrees; Discharge= 35 degrees; Extension PLOF = 50 degrees; Baseline = 15 degrees; Discharge = 25 degrees - 3/21/22: OT Evaluation and Plan of Treatment . Prior Equipment . w/c with high back, elevating leg rests and side support . RUE (Right Upper Extremity) ROM WFL (Within Functional Limits [abnormal but able to perform activities]) . LUE ROM = WFL . Reason for Therapy . Pt. (patient) also has difficulty maintaining seated position in w/c and often has slid out of w/c secondary to becomes lethargic and unable to maintain upright position . Note: The OT evaluation did not include wrist splints/braces as current or prior equipment. - 8/31/22: Occupational Therapy (OT) . Evaluation and Plan of Treatment . Reason for Referral / Pt was referred to OT services secondary to falling out of w/c . sent to hospital and was found to have dislocated L (left) shoulder and L non-displaced fx (fracture) of L greater tuberosity and large contusion on forehead . Pt does not have any orders for weight bearing and ROM precautions. will default to no ROM at shoulder and NWB (Non-weight Bearing) of LUE . RUE ROM = WFL; LUE ROM = DNT (Do Not Treat) (fx); Clinical Reason(s) = Severe fracture (Greater tuberosity and shoulder dislocation. However, pt returned from hospital with no ROM or weight bearing orders. Building attempting to get pt in to see ortho and get further instructions) . Does Patient worry about falling? = Yes . Pt has poor safety and judgement and can be impulsive at times . Clinical Impressions/Reason for Skilled Services: Pt recently had a fall and it resulted in L shoulder dislocation and fx of greater tuberosity. Pt is Dependent with bed mobility and having difficultly feeding and oral hygiene secondary to unable to use LUE . The evaluation did not include ROM measurements. - 9/26/22 (signed date): OT Discharge Summary . D/C Location . hospital . Skilled Interventions Provided: PROM (Passive Range of Motion)/ AAROM (Assisted Active Range of Motion) with LUE . able to complete AAROM with therapist present to provide appropriate positioning of LUE . Pt was participating with therapy services however was sent out to hospital . The discharge summary did not include ROM measurements. - 10/3/22: OT Evaluation and Plan of Treatment . Goals: (Resident #11) would like to return to PLOF (Prior Level of Function) with use of LUE . Assessment . Gross Motor Coordination = Impaired (L) shoulder; Finger/Nose; unable secondary to ROM restrictions . LUE ROM= Impaired . still under precautions for L shoulder restrictions. NWB (Non-weight Bearing) of LUE and no Shoulder ROM. Pt was in sling however unable to locate sling upon return (to facility) . The evaluation did not include ROM measurements. - 10/27/22 (date signed): OT Discharge Summary .Discharge Recommendations . 24/7 care and supervision for meals . Restorative Program Established/Trained = Restorative Range of Motion Program . hand out for UE exercises . Functional Maintenance Program . Not indicated at this time . Prognosis . Excellent with participation in RNP (Restorative Nursing Program) . The discharge summary did not include ROM measurements. Resident #32: On 1/19/23 at 12:32 PM, Resident #32 was observed in their room. The Resident was in bed, positioned on their back with their feet uncovered. Both feet were angled down with their toes pointed away from their head in a straight line. An interview was attempted to be completed at this time. When asked a question, Resident #32 indicated they were unable to hear. The Resident was still unable to hear after decreasing distance, speaking louder, and in a different tone. An interview was completed with RN G on 1/19/23 at 12:38 PM. When queried regarding the level of assistance Resident #32 requires, RN G revealed the Resident does not get out of bed and did not walk. When asked if the Resident's feet or ankles were contracted, RN G replied, No, (Resident #32) has foot drop (ankle contracture). Record review revealed Resident #32 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), fall, right lower leg displaced trimalleolar fracture (severe fracture of the ankle involving all three aspects of the tibia bone) of right lower leg, and reduced mobility. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Resident was cognitively intact and required extensive one-to-two-person assistance to complete ADL's. The MDS further revealed the Resident had impaired ROM on side of their lower extremities and was receiving Restorative Nursing for bed mobility, dressing and/or grooming. Review of Resident #32's care plans did not reveal a care plan specific to Restorative Nursing Services. The Resident did have a care plan entitled, Actual ADL deficit R/T CHF (Initiated: 5/24/22; Revised: 8/20/22). The care plan included the interventions: - Nursing Rehab: ADL's: provide verbal cues and assistance as needed every AM and HS for brushing hair/teeth, washing hands/face, and dressing upper body 7 days a week (Initiated: 9/27/22; Revised: 11/8/22) - Nursing Rehab: Bed Mobility: Assistance and/or verbal cues to roll right and left in bed with care at least once per shift, 7 days a week (Initiated: 9/27/22; Revised: 11/8/22) - Grooming/Hygiene: 1PA (Initiated: 5/24/22; Revised: 8/21/22) - Locomotion: 1 PA FOR Wheelchair Mobility (Initiated: 5/24/22) - Toileting: 2 PA (Initiated: 5/24/22) - Ambulation: non-ambulatory (Initiated: 5/24/22) - Transfer 2PA with 2ww (wheeled walker) (Initiated: 5/24/22) - Bed mobility 2PA (Initiated: 5/24/22) - Oral hygiene Q (every) daily and PRN, I sometimes do not like to soak my dentures overnight (Initiated: 5/24/22) On 1/20/23 at 2:07 PM, Resident #32 was observed in their room. The Resident was in bed, positioned on their back with their heels directly on the mattress. The Resident's feet were uncovered and with their feet bent straight downward and their toes pointed away from their head. Review of Resident #32's EMR revealed the following documentation: - 9/9/22 at 3:23 PM: Restorative Note . Resident reviewed for nursing rehab program. Restorative nursing started, bed mobility and ADL's, will continue to monitor. - 10/10/22 at 1:39 PM: Restorative Note .Nursing rehab program reviewed, resident participates in ADL's and bed mobility. A total of 472 minutes for ADL's and 12 for bed mobility completed in the month of September. Current program remains appropriate at this time . - 12/5/22 at 3:51 PM: Restorative Note . Nursing rehab program reviewed, resident participates in ADL's and bed mobility. A total of 720 minutes for ADL's and 732 for bed mobility completed in the month of November. Current program remains appropriate at this time . - 1/2/23 at 3:13 PM: Restorative Note . Nursing rehab program reviewed, resident participates in ADL's and bed mobility. A total of 502 minutes for ADL's and 548 for bed mobility completed in the month of December. Current program remains appropriate at this time . - 1/11/23 at 4:42 PM: Physician's Note . patient today for a follow up . history of a tri-malleolus fracture of the right ankle . Assessment and Plan . 3. Trimalleolar fracture of the right ankle; the seems to be well healed, does participate in restorative therapy, continue to monitor progress . An interview was completed with Restorative RN D on 1/25/23 at 1:03 PM. When queried regarding Resident #32, RN D stated, (Resident #32) is on Restorative. RN D was queried when Resident #32 started Restorative and replied, I'm not sure. RN D explained they recently started working at the facility again and stated, Resident #32 was on (Restorative) when I started back. When queried how they knew what specific ADL activities the Resident was participating in (dressing/grooming) from the task documentation in order to identify any potential concerns, RN D revealed the task documentation is grouped together as ADL's. Review of Resident #32's OT Discharge Summary (signed 8/27/22) revealed, Assessment and Summary of Skilled Services . Skilled treatment interventions included instructing and training patient in Functional Maintenance Program, proper body mechanics, safe transfer techniques and use of assistive device(s) in order to promote independence and decrease caregiver burden on nursing staff . Restorative Program Established/Trained = Restorative ADL Program . ADL Program Established / Trained: Daily ADL cares, facial hygiene, oral hygiene, dressing and transfers . Note: Resident #32's Restorative Nursing Program did not include transfers. An interview was conducted with Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) Therapy Director E on 1/25/23 at 1:25 PM. When queried regarding the facility process/procedure related to Therapy referrals to Restorative Nursing, Director E stated, We (Therapy) just tell them (Nursing). When queried if a referral form is completed or an order/recommendation for treatment is documented in the EMR for residents being discharged from Therapy, Director E replied, No. With further inquiry regarding how Restorative Nursing is made aware of any specific Therapy recommendations for Restorative to provide optimal treatment and care outcomes and how the facility ensures Therapy recommendations are followed, Director E stated there was no paperwork completed. When queried if Resident #32 had been seen by Therapy and if a Restorative Nursing Program had been recommended, Director D replied, I would have to look back in the Discharge Note. When queried regarding Resident #11, including their most recent discharge from therapy and referral to the Restorative Nursing program, Director E indicated they recently started working at the facility on a full-time basis and were not familiar with the Resident's treatment plans. At this time, Director D exited the room to obtain copies of Resident #11 and Resident #32's therapy documentation. Director D returned with Resident #11's Therapy documentation but not Resident #32's documentation. Director E was queried regarding Resident #11's the most recent OT Discharge Summary (signed 10/27/22). When queried what was included as part of a Restorative ROM program as identified in the OT Discharge recommendation, Director E did not provide a response. When asked if a Restorative ROM program typically involved completion of purposeful ROM exercises, Director E indicated it did. When queried regarding the handout for UE exercises mentioned in the Therapy Discharge including if the exercises on the handout were supposed to be completed as part of the Restorative Nursing Program tasks. Director E stated, It (handout) would have been given to Restorative. We would have Restorative work on it with them (Resident #11). Director E was then asked if they had a referral form and/or copy of the handout provided for Resident #11 and replied, No. With further inquiry, Director E reiterated all communication pertaining to Therapy recommendations for Restorative Nursing is communicated verbally. When asked the location of the handout, Director E did not provide an answer. When queried what had been verbally communicated to Restorative Nursing related to recommendations for a ROM program for Resident #11, Director E stated, I don't know what was supposed to be done. When asked if performing purposeful ROM exercises if more effective at maintaining ROM, preventing decline, and contracture development than participation in ADL activities, Director E stated, I agree. When asked to speak to the Occupational Therapist who has worked with Resident #11, Director E revealed the Therapist no longer worked at the facility and they were unable to contact them. Director E was then queried regarding Resident #11's wrist braces/splints previously recommended by Therapy, not included in subsequent Therapy evaluations, and not reordered following their readmission to the facility in August 2022. Director E was unable to provide an explanation. When queried if a Therapy staff member was available to evaluate and measure Resident #11's ROM, Director E replied, No and indicated they were unable complete assessments. When queried if Therapy assists to develop resident care plans for Restorative, Director E replied, No. At 3:57 PM on 1/25/23, Director E approached this Surveyor and stated, (Resident #11) had functional ROM. When asked to explain, Director E indicated a Therapy screen was completed and the Resident has functional ROM. Director E was asked how a screen was completed when they previously stated no therapy staff were available to complete an evaluation, Director E indicated they were unable to touch and assess the Resident but were able to observe DON. When queried what functional ROM meant, Director E stated, (Resident #11) can function. They probably have impaired ROM, but it is functional for them. When queried if ROM measurements were obtained, Director E revealed measurements had not been obtained. Director E was then asked if the Resident's ROM had remained the same, improved, or decreased. Director E did not answer the inquiry only stating the Resident's ROM was functional. When queried why the last set of ROM measurements completed and provided by therapy staff was completed in 2020, Director E indicated not all therapist's complete measurements. When queried how the facility was able to determine when a Resident's ROM was declining, maintaining, and/or improving without ROM measurements, Director E did not provide an explanation. On 1/25/23 at 5:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON and Regional Clinical RN J. When queried regarding the facility Restorative program policy/procedure for referrals to the Restorative Nursing program including communication, the DON revealed the residents and referrals are discussed during morning meetings. When queried regarding lack of well-defined coordination with Therapy services, Regional RN J indicated Restorative is completed by nursing and separate from Therapy. When asked about Resident #11 not receiving ROM as part of their Restorative, RN J stated Restorative did not need to include ROM. No further explanation was provided when queried regarding following Therapy recommendations for best outcomes. When queried regarding lack of measurements of resident ROM and comprehensive care plans with interdisciplinary involvement, the DON reiterated that Restorative was discussed with the IDT. When queried regarding the DON stating Resident #11 had a contracture, location of the contracture, and limitation in ROM but did not provide further explanation. Review of facility provided policy/procedure entitled, Restorative Program (Revised: 2/21/18) revealed, Purpose . Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident and consistent with the resident's needs and choices, the facility will provide the necessary care and services to ensure that a resident's abilities in activities of daily living do not diminish . Process: Candidates for a restorative nursing program may be identified in the following ways: After discharged from a skilled therapy service or in conjunction with a therapy service . Upon review during the admission process and/or RAI assessments identifying that the resident could benefit from restorative programming. 1. Following identification of need, the interdisciplinary team will put a plan in place that identifies the restorative approaches that will support the resident needs/choices. 2. The applicable restorative interventions will be assigned, which may include: ROM, ambulation, transfer, ADL's, adaptive equipment, splinting, bed mobility, bathing, dressing, oral care, toileting, communication and/or dining. 3. The program(s) will be identified in the resident's medical record. 4. Periodically the Restorative Nurse or designee will review and discuss progress or lack of progress toward restorative goals with caregivers and the resident/ representative. The resident's plan of care and restorative program will be revised as indicated. 5. Monthly, the Restorative Nurse or designee will document a summary of the resident's participation and progress and determine the need to continue, revise, or discontinue the program based on the resident's needs, choices, and goals.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that nutritional and hydration needs were met 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 that nutritional and hydration needs were met for one resident (Resident #19) of four residents reviewed, resulting in a lack of assistance with dining, adaptive equipment with dining, beverages being inaccessible, and the likelihood for feelings of frustration, and utilizing the reasonable person concept, altered nutritional/hydration status, and decline in overall health status. Findings include: Resident #19: On 1/19/23 at 10:04 AM, an observation of Resident #19 in their room was completed. The Resident was in bed, positioned on their back wearing a hospital styled gown. Resident #19's eyes were closed, and they were unshaven with an unkept appearance. The Resident's abdomen was visibly sunken with their rib cage markedly protruding. An indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag was present on the right side of the bed towards the hallway. An overbed table was positioned to the left of the Resident's bed with an untouched breakfast tray on it. The tray had regular silverware and a regular plate. The beverages on the tray were in small regular style cups without handles. The meal ticket present on Resident #19's food tray specified, Adapt. (Adaptative) Equip: Built Up Utensils, Plate Guard neither of which were present on the tray. At 12:37 PM on 1/19/23, Resident #19 was observed in their room. The Resident was in bed with the overbed table in front of them at a slight angle eating. The front of the Resident #19's clothes and hands were covered in food. Utensils on the tray were not all adaptable. The Resident was chewing on a banana with the peel still on. When asked if they were trying to peel the banana, Resident #19 replied, Yeah. Resident #19 was then asked how they get help if they need it but did not respond. When asked where their call light was, Resident #19 replied, I don't know. The call light was behind the Resident and not within their reach. Record review revealed Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included mood disorder with depression, cerebral infarction (stroke), falls, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Resident was severely cognitively impaired, required extensive to total assistance to complete Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) with the exception of set-up assistance for eating. Review of Resident #19's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a care plan entitled, Nutrition/Hydration: DX (Diagnoses): Acute kidney failure .Dementia, intake poor at risk for weight decline (Initiated: 5/4/22). The care plan included the interventions: - Adaptive Equipment: Built up utensils, plate guard as ordered, double handled cup for bed side water (Initiated: 11/3/22) - Encourage fluids, monitor/report s/s (signs/symptoms) of fluid imbalance: dry cracked lips, increased confusion, concentrated urine (Initiated: 5/16/22) - Monitor resident for tolerance of feeding and assist as needed while encouraging self-help (Initiated: 5/5/22) Review of Resident #19's Healthcare Provider orders included the order dated 5/4/22, Regular diet Regular texture, Thin consistency, Adaptive Equipment: large handled utensils and plate guard, double handled cup for bed side water; Magic cup BID (twice a day) for No added salt. On 1/20/23 at 1:53 PM, Resident #19 was observed in their room. The Resident was sitting in a wheelchair to the left side of the bed. Visible chucks of food and debris were present in the Resident's beard and their pants with soiled with multiple unknown substances. The overbed table was in front of them with two cups present. One cup was a two handled cup, and one cup was a regular cup without handles. At 10:44 AM on 1/24/23, Resident #19 was observed laying in their bed wearing a hospital gown. The Resident's lips were cracked and visibly dry. The Resident's bedside table was approximately two feet away from their bed and not within reach. There were two covered beverages, in regular cups, on the bedside table. The cups were full. Another cup with a straw was present. Resident #19 was asked if they were able to reach the drinks and shook their head to indicate, No. When asked if they were thirsty, Resident #19 closed their eyes and did not respond. An interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant L on 1/24/23 at 10:49 AM. When queried regarding if Resident #19 had eaten breakfast, CNA L stated, They had a banana this morning. With further inquiry, CNA L indicated the Resident did not typically eat much for breakfast and stated they were not a big morning person. On 1/24/23 at 5:05 PM, Resident #19 was observed sitting alone at a table eating. Regular eating utensils were present on the tray and the Resident was eating with their hands. Dietary Manager M was observed entering the dining room at this time. When asked if Resident #19 was supposed to have raised adaptive silverware, Manager M stated, Yes. When asked why they had regular silverware, Manager M obtained the adaptive equipment but did not provide an explanation. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/25/23 at 8:31 AM. When queried which staff are responsible to set up food trays and ensure Residents have the appropriate adaptive equipment, the DON stated, Kitchen sets up the silverware. The DON was then asked if floor staff should confirm residents have appropriate adaptive equipment for dining and beverages when serving trays in rooms and/or assisting and stated, Floor staff should definitely be checking. When asked what if Resident #19 needed specialized cups, the DON indicated they should have two handed cups with a special lid. The DON was then asked if Resident #19 should have raised silverware and revealed they should. The DON was then told about observations of Resident #19's food, including unpeeled banana, and regular cups. The DON stated they would address the concerns. Review of facility provided policy/procedure entitled, Hydration and Electrolyte Management Program (Revised: 7/15/15) revealed, It is the policy . to assure that residents receive sufficient amounts of fluids to prevent complications resulting from abnormal or undesired fluid levels . Purpose: 1. To assure that residents receive sufficient amounts of fluid based on individual needs to prevent dehydration . Procedure: 1. Resident will be provided fluids with meals and at bedside per choice and per physician order . The policy/procedure did not address adaptive equipment utilization. Review of facility provided policy/procedure entitled, Nutrition at Risk . (Revised: 5/20/19) detailed, Residents with altered nutrition status or with potential for nutritional risk will receive appropriate interventions to make sure nutritional needs are met to maintain/improve their quality of life .
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 assess, identify, and implement oxygen therapy interve...

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 assess, identify, and implement oxygen therapy interventions for one resident (Resident #26) of two residents reviewed, resulting in a lack of assessment for utilization of humidification with oxygen therapy, resident verbalization of discomfort, self-removal of oxygen tubing, and the likelihood of hypoxemia (decreased oxygen in blood), and decline in overall wellness and health. Findings include: Resident #26: On 1/19/23 at 10:24 AM, Resident #26 was observed sitting in their wheelchair in their room. The Resident's head was down, and their eyes were closed. Upon knocking, the Resident opened their eyes. The Resident was receiving oxygen therapy via nasal cannula at 2 liters (L) per minute. The oxygen concentrator did not have a humidification chamber on it. The nasal cannula prongs (section of the tubing which go inside the nostrils) were not in the Resident's nose and were positioned just above their mouth. Foam behind the ear cushions were present on the oxygen tubing but were positioned along the side of the Resident's face. When queried how long they have had oxygen, Resident #26 indicated they had worn it since they came to the facility. Resident #26 was asked why they did not have the oxygen in their nose and indicated it bothered them. Record review revealed Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included heart failure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), anxiety, and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Resident was moderately cognitively impaired and required supervision to limited assistance to complete Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). The MDS further revealed the Resident received oxygen therapy while a Resident. Review of Resident #26's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a care plan entitled, Actual alteration in oxygen exchange r/t (related to) Dx (diagnoses) COPD, CHF (Congestive Heart Failure), Obesity, Anxiety (Initiated: 4/29/22; Revised: 8/15/22). The care plan included the interventions: - Pulse Oximetry as ordered (Initiated: 4/29/22; Revised: 5/2/22) - Change tubing and clean filters/devices per protocol (Initiated: 4/29/22; Revised: 5/2/22) - Medications, inhalers and/or nebulizer treatments as ordered (Initiated: 4/29/22; Revised: 5/2/22) Review of Resident #26's Health Care Provider (HCP) orders included the order, O2 (oxygen) at 2L (liters) via NC (Nasal Cannula) continuously . (Start Date:4/30/22). On 1/25/22 at 9:19 AM, Resident #26 was observed sitting in their wheelchair in their room. The Resident's head was down, and their oxygen tubing was around their neck and not near their nose and/or mouth. The Resident did not open their eyes when this surveyor knocked on the door and/or said their name. Resident #26 opened their eyes briefly after saying their name louder but did not respond verbally. A Kleenex was noted in the Resident's hand. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) S was observed in the hall and was asked to check Resident #26. When queried if Resident #26 was supposed to have their oxygen on at all times, CNA S revealed they were. CNA S entered the Resident's room. Resident #26 opened their eyes when CNA S touched them but remained lethargic, frequently closing their eyes. CNA S was asked to check Resident #26's oxygen saturation (SPO2). Resident #26's SPO2 was 79% (low- normal is greater than 92%) and their oxygen was placed properly in the Resident's nose by CNA S. At 9:37 AM on 1/25/22, Resident #26's SPO2 had increased to 90% and the Resident was alert and talking. An interview was completed with the Resident at this time. When queried regarding the Kleenex observed in their hand, Resident #26 indicated they had to blow their nose. Resident #26 then stated, It (nose) hurts from the oxygen. With further inquiry regarding their nose hurting including the location of the pain, Resident #26 dry inside of their nose. When queried if they had talked to staff about the discomfort, Resident #26 revealed they had. At 9:38 AM on 1/25/23, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) G. When queried regarding Resident #26's oxygen, RN G indicated the Resident frequently pulled the oxygen tubing down to blow their nose. RN G was then queried regarding Resident #26 stating their nose was dry and if the facility had considered humidification for their oxygen. RN G indicated they did not utilize humidification on the oxygen concentrators. When asked why, RN G replied, Something about the machines (concentrators) already having them. RN G was asked where the humidification was on the concentrator and stated, I don't know. An interview was completed with the Director of Nursing on 1/25/23 at 11:51 AM. When queried regarding the use of humification for oxygen therapy, the DON replied, We can use humidification. When queried regarding observation of Resident #26, including their SPO2 levels, Resident #26 stating their nose was dry and hurt, and lack of humification, the DON indicated the Resident had only told staff their nose hurt but had not told them it was dry. When asked if staff had assessed to determine if the Resident's nose was dry, a response was not provided. When asked if it was reasonable that the Resident's nose may hurt and/or be uncomfortable due to being dried out, the DON indicated oxygen therapy can cause the nasal passages to become dry. When asked why humidification had not been attempted as an intervention to increase comfort and potential compliance, the DON did not provide an explanation. A policy/procedure pertaining to oxygen therapy was requested at this time but not received by the conclusion of the survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

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 nutritional and hydration needs were met 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 that nutritional and hydration needs were met for one resident (Resident #19) of four residents reviewed, resulting in a lack of assistance with dining, adaptive equipment with dining, beverages being inaccessible, and the likelihood for feelings of frustration, and utilizing the reasonable person concept, altered nutritional/hydration status, and decline in overall health status. Findings include: Resident #19: On 1/19/23 at 10:04 AM, an observation of Resident #19 in their room was completed. The Resident was in bed, positioned on their back wearing a hospital styled gown. Resident #19's eyes were closed, and they were unshaven with an unkept appearance. The Resident's abdomen was visibly sunken with their rib cage markedly protruding. An indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag was present on the right side of the bed towards the hallway. An overbed table was positioned to the left of the Resident's bed with an untouched breakfast tray on it. The tray had regular silverware and a regular plate. The beverages on the tray were in small regular style cups without handles. The meal ticket present on Resident #19's food tray specified, Adapt. (Adaptative) Equip: Built Up Utensils, Plate Guard neither of which were present on the tray. At 12:37 PM on 1/19/23, Resident #19 was observed in their room. The Resident was in bed with the overbed table in front of them at a slight angle eating. The front of the Resident #19's clothes and hands were covered in food. Utensils on the tray were not all adaptable. The Resident was chewing on a banana with the peel still on. When asked if they were trying to peel the banana, Resident #19 replied, Yeah. Resident #19 was then asked how they get help if they need it but did not respond. When asked where their call light was, Resident #19 replied, I don't know. The call light was behind the Resident and not within their reach. Record review revealed Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included mood disorder with depression, cerebral infarction (stroke), falls, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Resident was severely cognitively impaired, required extensive to total assistance to complete Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) with the exception of set-up assistance for eating. Review of Resident #19's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a care plan entitled, Nutrition/Hydration: DX (Diagnoses): Acute kidney failure .Dementia, intake poor at risk for weight decline (Initiated: 5/4/22). The care plan included the interventions: - Adaptive Equipment: Built up utensils, plate guard as ordered, double handled cup for bed side water (Initiated: 11/3/22) - Encourage fluids, monitor/report s/s (signs/symptoms) of fluid imbalance: dry cracked lips, increased confusion, concentrated urine (Initiated: 5/16/22) - Monitor resident for tolerance of feeding and assist as needed while encouraging self-help (Initiated: 5/5/22) Review of Resident #19's Healthcare Provider orders included the order dated 5/4/22, Regular diet Regular texture, Thin consistency, Adaptive Equipment: large handled utensils and plate guard, double handled cup for bed side water; Magic cup BID (twice a day) for No added salt. On 1/20/23 at 1:53 PM, Resident #19 was observed in their room. The Resident was sitting in a wheelchair to the left side of the bed. Visible chucks of food and debris were present in the Resident's beard and their pants with soiled with multiple unknown substances. The overbed table was in front of them with two cups present. One cup was a two handled cup, and one cup was a regular cup without handles. At 10:44 AM on 1/24/23, Resident #19 was observed laying in their bed wearing a hospital gown. The Resident's lips were cracked and visibly dry. The Resident's bedside table was approximately two feet away from their bed and not within reach. There were two covered beverages, in regular cups, on the bedside table. The cups were full. Another cup with a straw was present. Resident #19 was asked if they were able to reach the drinks and shook their head to indicate, No. When asked if they were thirsty, Resident #19 closed their eyes and did not respond. An interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant L on 1/24/23 at 10:49 AM. When queried regarding if Resident #19 had eaten breakfast, CNA L stated, They had a banana this morning. With further inquiry, CNA L indicated the Resident did not typically eat much for breakfast and stated they were not a big morning person. On 1/24/23 at 5:05 PM, Resident #19 was observed sitting alone at a table eating. Regular eating utensils were present on the tray and the Resident was eating with their hands. Dietary Manager M was observed entering the dining room at this time. When asked if Resident #19 was supposed to have raised adaptive silverware, Manager M stated, Yes. When asked why they had regular silverware, Manager M obtained the adaptive equipment but did not provide an explanation. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/25/23 at 8:31 AM. When queried which staff are responsible to set up food trays and ensure Residents have the appropriate adaptive equipment, the DON stated, Kitchen sets up the silverware. The DON was then asked if floor staff should confirm residents have appropriate adaptive equipment for dining and beverages when serving trays in rooms and/or assisting and stated, Floor staff should definitely be checking. When asked what if Resident #19 needed specialized cups, the DON indicated they should have two handed cups with a special lid. The DON was then asked if Resident #19 should have raised silverware and revealed they should. The DON was then told about observations of Resident #19's food, including unpeeled banana, and regular cups. The DON stated they would address the concerns. Review of facility provided policy/procedure entitled, Hydration and Electrolyte Management Program (Revised: 7/15/15) revealed, It is the policy . to assure that residents receive sufficient amounts of fluids to prevent complications resulting from abnormal or undesired fluid levels . Purpose: 1. To assure that residents receive sufficient amounts of fluid based on individual needs to prevent dehydration . Procedure: 1. Resident will be provided fluids with meals and at bedside per choice and per physician order . The policy/procedure did not address adaptive equipment utilization. Review of facility provided policy/procedure entitled, Nutrition at Risk . (Revised: 5/20/19) detailed, Residents with altered nutrition status or with potential for nutritional risk will receive appropriate interventions to make sure nutritional needs are met to maintain/improve their quality of life .
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
  • • 30% turnover. Below Michigan's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 23 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Fisher Senior Care And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Fisher Senior Care and Rehabilitation an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Michigan, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Fisher Senior Care And Rehabilitation Staffed?

CMS rates Fisher Senior Care and Rehabilitation's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Fisher Senior Care And Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at Fisher Senior Care and Rehabilitation during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 22 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Fisher Senior Care And Rehabilitation?

Fisher Senior Care and Rehabilitation is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by NEXCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 53 certified beds and approximately 50 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Mayville, Michigan.

How Does Fisher Senior Care And Rehabilitation Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Fisher Senior Care and Rehabilitation's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Fisher Senior Care And Rehabilitation?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Fisher Senior Care And Rehabilitation Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Fisher Senior Care and Rehabilitation has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Michigan. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Fisher Senior Care And Rehabilitation Stick Around?

Fisher Senior Care and Rehabilitation has a staff turnover rate of 30%, which is about average for Michigan nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Fisher Senior Care And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

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

Is Fisher Senior Care And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

Fisher Senior Care and Rehabilitation 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.