Froh Community Home

307 N Franks Avenue, Sturgis, MI 49091 (269) 651-7841
Non profit - Church related 65 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
43/100
#119 of 422 in MI
Last Inspection: May 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Froh Community Home in Sturgis, Michigan has a Trust Grade of D, which indicates below-average performance and some concerning issues. It ranks #119 out of 422 facilities in Michigan, placing it in the top half of the state, and is the best option among the four nursing homes in St. Joseph County. The facility is on an improving trend, having reduced its issues from seven in 2024 to four in 2025. Staffing is relatively strong, with a rating of 4 out of 5 and a low turnover rate of 15%, much better than the state average. However, the facility has accumulated significant fines totaling $125,564, which is higher than 94% of Michigan facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents of concern include a critical finding where a resident developed a severe stage 4 pressure ulcer due to inadequate care, requiring hospitalization and surgery. Additionally, another resident experienced unrelieved pain because the facility failed to monitor and manage their pain effectively, impacting their quality of life. While the facility has strengths such as good RN coverage, it is essential for families to weigh these alongside the serious deficiencies noted in the inspections.

Trust Score
D
43/100
In Michigan
#119/422
Top 28%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
15% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 33 points below Michigan's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$125,564 in fines. Lower than most Michigan facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 43 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Michigan. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (15%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (15%)

    33 points below Michigan average of 48%

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

The Bad

Federal Fines: $125,564

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
May 2025 4 deficiencies
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 ensure a Trauma Care Assessment was completed and care plan develop...

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 a Trauma Care Assessment was completed and care plan developed to mitigate triggers of trauma in 2 of 2 residents (R22 and R40) reviewed for history of trauma, resulting in the potential for unidentified re-traumatization. Findings include: Review of facility Matrix received at survey entrance (5/21/25), identified R22 and R40 with PTSD/Trauma. R22 According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], R22 scored 5/15 on her BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status), indicating she was cognitively impaired with diagnoses that included anxiety and depression. Section D-Mood indicated the resident had feelings of being down, depressed or hopeless with times of social isolation. Section A-Identification Information indicated the resident had been admitted [DATE]. Review of R22's medical records did not reveal a Trauma Care Observation Assessment had been completed upon admission or any other time. During an interview and record review on 5/20/25 at 3:29 PM, Social Services (SS) E stated during review R22's Care Plan and medical records, (R22's) has trauma related to her childhood. I've known her for a long time. I did not do a trauma assessment for (R22) and there are not any in her chart. Her Care Plan has a Psychosocial Well-Being focus that talks about her psychological needs. It is dated 5/1/25. It was noted R22's Care Plan was created for the residents' specific-treatment needs almost 5 months after admission without giving staff a treatment plan to follow and meet the residents' needs. R40 According to the MDS dated [DATE], R40 was unable to complete the BIMS, indicating she was not cognitively intact. Her diagnoses included anxiety and depression. Section D-Mood indicated she could be short-tempered and easily angered. Section A-Information Identification indicated R40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. During an interview and record review on 5/20/25 09:41 AM, Guardian CC' reported when the guardianship service received their referral from the facility in October 2023, trauma was not indicated on the referral, and they were unaware of care needs. During an interview and record review on 5/20/25 3:20 AM, Social Services E stated while reviewing R40's medical record, I do not have an admission trauma assessment form for (R40). I just had a conversation with the resident. When I do the PHQ-9 (depression/mood) her score was from staff assessment because she could not continue a conversation. There is a Care Plan focus related to neglect under cognition loss and dementia. During an interview and record review on 5/21/25 at 9:49 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B stated, A trauma assessment should be done for each resident. It would be in the Observation part of the medical records and titled Trauma Informed Observation. This form should be done within the first 14-days of a resident admitting. DON B reviewed R22's and R40's medical chart stating there was not a formal trauma assessment completed upon admission for either resident and No starting point for treatment. I don't know how the resident would be cared for if an assessment with their needs was not completed. Review of facility policy Trauma Informed Care dated 3/11/25, revealed, Goal: It is the policy of (name of facility) to ensure residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice .Trauma is defined as an event, a series of events, or set of circumstances experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life-threatening, that has lasting adverse effects on the individual's functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being .Trauma-Informed Care is defined as an organizational structure and treatment framework that involves understanding, recognizing, and responding to effects of all types of trauma .Procedures: Each resident will be screened for a history of trauma within 14-days of admission by Social Service Director or designee .
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure cleaning of respiratory equipment for two (R7 a...

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 cleaning of respiratory equipment for two (R7 and R22) of two residents reviewed for respiratory care, resulting in the potential of harboring bacteria and pathogens causing infection in a vulnerable population. Findings include: R7 According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], R7 scored 13/15 on his BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) indicating he was cognitively intact and had diagnoses that included heart failure and pneumonia. Section O-Special Treatments and Programs indicated R7 received oxygen therapy via a non-invasive mechanical ventilator (CPAP). Observed on 5/19/25 at 10:15, a CPAP machine ((continuous positive airway pressure) a machine that uses mild air pressure to keep breathing airways open while sleeping) was at R7's bedside with the mask lying on personal items without being protected from dust and debris. During an observation and interview on 5/20/25 at 2:25 PM, R7 was awake in bed with CPAP on dresser next to bed. The CPAP mask was lying on personal items without being protected from dust and debris. R7 stated, I need help getting my mask (CPAP) off in the morning. Staff help me. I don't think it was cleaned this morning. I came here from the hospital with pneumonia and the doctor tells me I am healed. I don't need to get sick again. I could if my CPAP mask is not clean. Is it dirty? Can you see it? During an interview on 5/21/25 at 9:28 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) P stated, My job duty for a CPAP is to remove it from the resident in the morning and the nurse will clean it. I do not know if the nurse cleaned (R7's) CPAP mask today. Observed on 5/21/25 at 9:33 AM, a CPAP was at R7's bedside with mask lying on personal items without being protected from dust and debris. During an interview on 05/21/25 09:37 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) EE stated, I clean CPAP masks but (R7) does not have CPAP, he has BiPAP. Review of R7's Order Summary dated 4/23/25 revealed, -Apply CPAP at night, Remove in AM Twice A Day 06:00 - 11:00, 18:00 - 22:00 - Clean CPAP Daily: 1. Remove facial oils from mask by wiping surface with damp cloth and mild detergent. 2. Rinse mask with water tap water. Once A Day 06:00 - 14:00 Review of R7's Care Plan, dated 5/13/25, with a focus on ADL (activities of daily living) Functional Status/Rehabilitation Potential from a short hospital stay for pulmonary embolism and pneumonia, indicated the resident wanted to remain safe using interventions that included using a CPAP at night and removing it in the morning. R22 According to the MDS dated [DATE], R22 scored 5/15 on her BIMS, indicating she was cognitively impaired with diagnoses that included dementia, partial paralysis, and Parkinson's disease. Section O-Special Treatments and Programs indicated R22 had a non-invasive mechanical ventilator (CPAP). Review of R22's Order Summary dated 1/29/25 revealed, -Apply CPAP at bedtime and remove it in the morning. Twice A Day 06:00 - 14:00, 19:00 - 22:00 -Clean CPAP Daily per policy. Remove facial oils from mask by wiping with damp cloth and mild soap, rinse with warm tap water. Once A Day 06:00 - 14:00 Observed on 5/19/25 at 10:26 AM, a CPAP machine was at R22's bedside with the mask covered with a fitted blue fabric. The mask was lying on personal items without being protected from dust and debris. Observed on 5/20/25 at 9:36 AM, a CPAP machine was at R22's bedside with the mask covered with a fitted blue fabric. The mask was lying on personal items without being protected from dust and debris. Observed on 5/20/25 at 2:30 PM, a CPAP machine was at R22's bedside with the mask covered with a fitted blue fabric. The mask was lying on personal items without being protected from dust and debris. Observed on 5/20/25 at 9:30 AM, a CPAP machine was at R22's bedside with the mask covered with a fitted blue fabric. The mask was lying on personal items without being protected from dust and debris. with a stuffed animal on top of the mask. During an interview and record review on 5/21/25 at 10:45 AM, Infection Preventionist (IP) I stated, A CPAP should be cleaned as ordered to protect the resident from respiratory infection. There is a policy for cleaning CPAPs. During an interview and record review on 5/21/25 at 9:39 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reviewed facility policy, The Cleaning of the C-PAP System (approved 2/10/2021), stating, The CPAP is cleaned daily wipe mask down with mild soap. I would think they (mask) would be in a bag to protect it and keep it clean. I ordered the fabric coverings for (R22's) mask. She gets a rash from wearing the mask. The staff should switch the fabric coverings out daily. (R7) still has a mask whether it is a CPAP or BiPAP. Review of R22's Care Plan for a comprehensive resident-focused treatment of the CPAP machine, did not indicate a treatment plan had been developed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the use of person protective equipment (PPE) (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the use of person protective equipment (PPE) (gown and gloves) by staff during high contact care activities for 1 (Resident #45) of 5 residents reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) resulting in the potential for the spread of infection, cross contamination, and disease transmission. Findings include: Resident #45 Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #45 was a male who was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had pertinent diagnoses which included: dementia, candidal sepsis (a fungal infection of the bloodstream), diverticulitis (a bulge in the large intestine) of large intestine with perforation (a break in the large intestine). Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #45, with a reference date of 4/10/2025 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2/15 which indicated Resident #45 was severely cognitively impaired. (BIMS score 0-7 indicates severe cognitive impairment). Review of Orders for Resident #45 revealed .Enhanced Barrier Precautions: For resident for whom EBP are indicated, EBP is employed when performing the following high-contact resident care activities in any setting in or out of room: Dressing, Bathing/showering, Transferring, providing hygiene, Changing Linens, Changing Briefs, or assist with toileting. Device care or use: central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator, wound care: any skin opening requiring a dressing, glove and gowns are to be utilized. Eye protection when splashing is possible. Every shift with a start date of 3/25/2025. On 5/19/25 at 8:06 am, no signage was noted outside of, nor in Resident #45's room indicated that staff should use EBP during cares. No PPE was observed available in Resident #45's room or bathroom. On 5/19/25 at 9:47 am, signage indicating that Resident #45 was in EBP was noted on the door frame to his room, and a three-drawer plastic bin with gowns, gloves, and masks was noted outside of the bathroom inside Resident #45's room. On 5/20/25 at 11:30 am, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) T was observed in Resident #45's room making his bed. CNA T was not wearing any PPE. In an interview on 5/20/25 at 11:35 am, CNA T reported the three-drawer plastic bin with PPE in it was for residents who were on isolation precautions. CNA T reported that Resident #45 was no longer in isolation and that PPE was not needed for any cares with Resident #45. CNA T indicated that the signage posted outside of Resident #45's door should have been taken down, as it was no longer needed for Resident #45. Review of Care Plan for Resident #45 revealed problem/goal/approach .start date 3/25/2025 Problem: Enhanced Barrier Precautions .has an MDRO (multi drug resistant organism) . acute or colonization, requiring enhanced barrier precautions . goal: to provide a safe sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Reduce the transmission of resistant organisms. Resident to show no signs & symptoms of infection .Approach: Gown and gloves to be worn during high-contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of MDROs to staff hands and clothing. In an interview on 5/21/25 at 1:31 pm, Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Preventionist (ADON/IP) I reported that Resident #45 was in enhanced barrier precautions and that her expectations were that staff wore PPE during high contact care activities. ADON/IP I reported linen changes were high contact care activities, and that CNA T should have worn PPE when she was making Resident #45's bed. Review of facility policy Transmission Based Precautions Enhanced Barrier Precautions with a revision date of 5/19/2024 revealed .1. Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities. High care activities include. changing linens .
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper label and dating of foods and discarding of foods in the kitchen and kitchenette resulting in the potential to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper label and dating of foods and discarding of foods in the kitchen and kitchenette resulting in the potential to spread food borne illness to all residents that consume food from the kitchen. Findings Include: During the initial tour of the kitchen with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) D on 5/19/2025 at 7:49 AM, the walk-in refrigerator was observed to have peaches in a large plastic container with no label and date. During the full kitchen tour with CDM D, Chef Manager (CM) C and Food Service Regional Director of Operations (RDO) BB on 5/20/2025 at 8:28 AM, the following was observed: The walk-in refrigerator contained a plastic container with yogurt with an open date of 5/17 and expiration date of 5/19. The reach-in refrigerator contained an open half gallon 2% milk jug with an open date of 5/17 and expiration date of 5/19. The reach in refrigerator also contained an open half gallon 2% milk jug with no label and date. On 5/20/2025 at 9:00 AM, the kitchenette by Maple and Oak Halls were observed to have an open bag of potato chips that was not sealed and did not have a label and date. According to the 2022 FDA Food Code section 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking. (A) Except when PACKAGING FOOD using a REDUCED OXYGEN PACKAGING method as specified under § 3-502.12, and except as specified in (E) and (F) of this section, refrigerated, READY-TOEAT, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and held in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 5ºC (41ºF) or less for a maximum of 7 days. The day of preparation shall be counted as Day 1. (B) Except as specified in (E) -(G) of this section, refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and PACKAGED by a FOOD PROCESSING PLANT shall be clearly marked, at the time the original container is opened in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT and if the FOOD is held for more than 24 hours, to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES, sold, or discarded, based on the temperature and time combinations specified in (A) of this section and: (1) The day the original container is opened in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT shall be counted as Day 1; and (2) The day or date marked by the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date if the manufacturer determined the use-by date based on FOOD safety .
May 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview the facility failed to preserve resident dignity in the dining room during meal service for 3 (Resident #5, Resident #17, and Resident #22) of 17 residents reviewed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to preserve resident dignity in the dining room during meal service for 3 (Resident #5, Resident #17, and Resident #22) of 17 residents reviewed for dignity resulting in the potential for a reasonable person to experience feelings of embarrassment, shame, and/or a loss of self-esteem. Findings include: Resident #5 Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #5 had pertinent diagnoses which included: Alzheimer's disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Resident #17 Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #17 had pertinent diagnoses which included: Neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies and psychotic disorder. Resident #22 Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #22 had pertinent diagnoses which included: Alzheimer's disease and cognitive communication disorder. Review of a list provided by the facility for residents who needed assistance with eating, Resident #5 and Resident #22 were listed as full assist and Resident #17 was listed as assist (need varies meal to meal). During an observation on 4/30/24 at 11:50 AM., Resident #5, Resident #17 and Resident #22 were present at different tables in the dining room with other resident with drinks in front of them, unable to consume any liquid without assistance prior to lunch meal service. During an observation on 4/30/24 at 12:01 PM., meal service in the dining room began. During an observation on 4/30/24 at 12:10 PM., there were two staff members present serving residents in the assisted side of the dining room. During an observation on 4/30/24 at 12:14 PM., a resident that was seated at the same table as Resident #5 and Resident #17 was served lunch. Resident #5 and Resident #17 were not served. During an observation on 4/30/24 at 15 PM., a resident that was seated at the same table as Resident #22 was served lunch. Resident #22 was not served. During an observation on 4/30/24 at 12:18 PM., Residents on the assistive side of the dining room were served desserts that included cookies and pudding. Resident #5, Resident #17, and Resident #22 were served desserts. All three residents were unable to consume the dessert without assistance. During an observation on 4/30/24 at 12:19 PM., a second resident seated at the same table as Resident #22 was served lunch. Resident #22 was still not served lunch. During an observation on 4/30/24 at 12:19 PM., meal service began on the independent side of the dining room. The assistive side of the dining room has 15 total residents seated at tables, all had drinks and desserts served to them. Resident #5, Resident #17, and Resident #22 were without a lunch meal served and were not consuming any food or drink on their own. During an observation on 4/30/24 at 12:27 PM., meal service on the independent side of the dining room was complete. During an observation on 4/30/24 at 12:29 PM., Resident #5, Resident #17, and Resident #22 were served lunch. During an observation on 4/30/24, Resident #5, Resident #17 and Resident #22 sat at tables in the dining room with other residents present who were consuming food and drinks and were unable to consume anything independently from 11:50 AM until they were assisted to eat at 12:30 PM. Resident #5, Resident #17, and Resident #22 sat for 40 minutes unable to eat or drink while others around them did eat and drink. Resident #5, Resident #17, and Resident #22 were not able to verbalize their feelings due to a diminished cognitive and communicative ability. In an interview on 5/1/24 at 12:32 PM., Family Member (FM) II reported that Resident #22 wound not like to be left out when eating with other people. In an interview on 5/2/24 at 11:35 AM., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) L reported that the dining room service is hall trays first, then the residents that need some assistance such as cueing, and then the independent side of the dining room and the last served are the residents that need full assistance, such as fed. In an interview on 5/2/24 at 12:07 PM., Director of Nursing (DON) B reported that the dining room is not done in any order. In an interview on 5/2/24 at 12:12 PM., CNA K reported that the dining room process is that hall trays come out first, the assistive residents who need more time to eat are served next, then the independent residents, and finally the resident's who need direct assistance are served last. CNA K reported that residents that require direct assistance are not served when the others at their table are served, because staff cannot sit to assist them then. CNA K reported that Resident #5, Resident #17, and Resident #22 were included as residents that needed assistance to eat. When CNA K was asked if the residents who need direct assistance watch their tablemates eat, she stated Yes, they do. In an interview on 5/2/24 at 12:15 PM., Registered Nurse (RN) O was asked if the residents who need direct assistance watch their tablemates eat, she stated There is no perfect way. In an interview on 5/2/24 at 12:17 PM., Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) X and DON B, DON B reported that residents should not be sitting in the dining room at a table while others eat waiting for food to be served to them. ADON X stated .I wouldn't enjoy that, and I don't think that residents would like it either.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer for 1 of 3 residents (Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #50) reviewed for hospitalizations, resulting in the potential for residents and/or resident representatives being uninformed of the reason for transfer and their rights. Findings include: Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed R50's original admission date was 3/6/2023. Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was a 14 which indicated his cognition was intact. Resident was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of myocardial infarction (heart attack). During an interview on 4/30/2024 at 11:13 AM, R50 stated that he went to the hospital several months ago because he wasn't responsive and was there for about a week. R50 couldn't remember if he received a written transfer notice when he went to the hospital. Review of the December 2023 Transfer Log revealed that R50 had an emergency transfer to an acute care setting (hospital) on 12/11/2023. Review of R50's chart revealed no evidence that R50 received a written notice of transfer to include the following information: (i) The reason for transfer or discharge; (ii) The effective date of transfer or discharge; (iii) The location to which the resident is transferred or discharged ; (iv) A statement of the resident's appeal rights, including the name, address (mailing and email), and telephone number of the entity which receives such requests; and information on how to obtain an appeal form and assistance in completing the form and submitting the appeal hearing request; (v) The name, address (mailing and email) and telephone number of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman; (vi) For nursing facility residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities or related disabilities, the mailing and email address and telephone number of the agency responsible for the protection and advocacy of individuals with developmental disabilities established under Part C of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and [NAME] of Rights Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-402, codified at 42 U.S.C. 15001 et seq.); and (vii) For nursing facility residents with a mental disorder or related disabilities, the mailing and email address and telephone number of the agency responsible for the protection and advocacy of individuals with a mental disorder established under the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act. During an interview on 5/01/2024 at 1:54 PM, Registered Nurse O stated that she didn't know about a transfer notice that should be given to residents or their responsible party at the time of transfer to the hospital. During an interview on 5/02/2024 at 10:32 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B presented paperwork that is sent with a resident to the hospital and it was observed that a transfer/discharge notice wasn't included in the paperwork. When asked about the transfer notice for R50, DON B said she wasn't sure if it was given to him and would have to talk to the business office. During an interview on 5/02/2024 at 12:51 PM, Financial Assistant (FA) W stated that a transfer/discharge notice hasn't been given to a resident or responsible party in a long time. FA W said that since R50 wanted to go to the hospital they didn't send a transfer/discharge notice with him. Review of the Discharge Planning Policy with a compiled date of 7/16/2020 and a reviewed date of 7/20/2022 under IV. Procedure: Emergency Transfers/Discharges revealed, initiated by the facility for medical reasons or for the safety and welfare of a resident. Under B. The Business Office will provide notice of transfer or discharge to the resident and/or representative within 24 hours or as soon as practicable when a resident is sent out on an emergency basis.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a licensed pharmacist completed a monthly medication regimen review for 1 (Resident #28) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a licensed pharmacist completed a monthly medication regimen review for 1 (Resident #28) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use resulting in the potential for medication irregularities in the indication for use, excessive dosage, adverse reactions, and/or medication errors. Findings include: Resident #28 Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #28 had pertinent diagnoses which included: vascular dementia (altered cognition), insomnia, and other chronic pain. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #28, with a reference date of 1/16/2024 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15 which indicated Resident #28 was mildly cognitively impaired. Review of Physician Orders for Resident #28 dated 1/26/24 with no end date revealed . lorazepam (Ativan, used for anxiety) tablet 0.5 mg; give 0.5 mg; oral every 6 hours PRN (as needed): PRN 1, PRN 2, PRN 3, PRN 4 . (may take 4 times a day) Review of Care Plan for Resident #28 dated 1/27/24 revealed . problem . receiving psychotropic meds for anxiety and agitation .goal . will be prescribed the lowest effective dose . approach .observe resident's mood and response to medication .pharmacy consultant review as indicated . Review of Resident #28's medical record revealed no monthly medication regimen reviews (MRRs). On 5/2/24 at 12:09 PM, monthly medication regimen reviews were requested for the time frame of January 2024 through April 2024 for Resident #5 from DON B. In an interview on 5/2/24 at 1:53 PM., DON B reported that Resident #5 did not have any monthly medication regimen reviews completed for the time frame of January 2024 to April 2024.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents of the facility were free from unnecessary psychotropic medication use in 1 (Resident #28) of 6 residents reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents of the facility were free from unnecessary psychotropic medication use in 1 (Resident #28) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use resulting in incomplete monitoring of the use, potential adverse reactions, and dosage adjustments of an as needed psychotropic medication. Findings include: Resident #28 Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #28 had pertinent diagnoses which included: vascular dementia (altered cognition), insomnia, and other chronic pain. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #28, with a reference date of 1/16/2024 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11/15 which indicated Resident #28 was mildly cognitively impaired. Review of Physician Orders for Resident #28 dated 1/26/24 with no end date revealed . lorazepam (Ativan, used for anxiety) tablet 0.5 mg; give 0.5 mg; oral every 6 hours PRN (as needed): PRN 1, PRN 2, PRN 3, PRN 4 . (may take 4 times a day) Review of Care Plan for Resident #28 dated 1/27/24 revealed . problem . receiving psychotropic meds for anxiety and agitation .goal . will be prescribed the lowest effective dose . approach .observe resident's mood and response to medication .pharmacy consultant review as indicated . In an interview on 5/2/24 at 11:17 AM., Registered Nurse (RN) Q reported that Resident #28 does not take PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg during the day shift. RN Q stated I don't give her that med. RN Q reported that PRN anxiety medication orders are only good for 14 days. RN Q reported that Resident #28's PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg was ordered on 1/26/24 and was listed as open ended with no stop date noted. In an interview on 5/2/24 at 11:59 AM., Director of Nursing (DON) B reported that PRN psychotropic medications should be prescribed for only 14 days. DON B reported that Resident #28's order for lorazepam should have been for 14 days only. In an interview on 5/2/24 at 1:53 PM., DON B reported that new medication orders were reviewed by the clinical team in the daily meeting and all medications were reviewed weekly. DON B reported that there were no audits completed on original orders. When asked if any gradual dose reductions (GDR's) had been completed for Resident #28 and her PRN use of lorazepam 0.5 mg orally as needed, DON B replied no, no GDR's have been done for Resident #28.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #5 had pertinent diagnoses which included: Alzheimer's disease, pressure ulcer to the left heel, unstageable, and type 2 diabetes mellitus with other skin ulce...

Read full inspector narrative →
Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #5 had pertinent diagnoses which included: Alzheimer's disease, pressure ulcer to the left heel, unstageable, and type 2 diabetes mellitus with other skin ulcer. During an observation on 5/1/24 at 1:50 PM., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) E and CNA F were observed transferring Resident #5 via a hoyer lift (mechanical lift used to assist people who have difficulty standing) in her room into her bed from a shower chair. During an observation on 5/1/24 at 2:01 PM., CNA F placed the hoyer lift used to transfer Resident #5 into the clean utility room on station 2. CNA F did not clean the hoyer lift. In an interview on 5/1/24 at 2:17 PM., CNA F reported that she tries to clean the lifts after each use but sometimes she forgets. When asked if CNAF cleaned the hoyer lift, CNA F stated she did not clean the lift after it was used. CNA F reported that the lift should be cleaned after each use. In an interview on 5/1/54 at 2:18 PM., Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) X reported that her expectation was that a hoyer lift should be cleaned after each resident use. During an observation on 5/1/24 at 2:03 PM., CNA E deposited bagged soiled linen into a barrel in the soiled utility room on Station 2. CNA E was then observed pushing the soiled shower chair used by Resident #5 into the spa room on station 2. While in the spa room, CNA E was observed taking a drink from a personal beverage cup that was sitting on a table inside the spa room on station 2. CNA E was observed exiting the spa room on station 2, gathered linen from the linen closet, and then entered another resident room. At no time did CNA E perform hand hygiene. In an interview on 5/1/24 at 2:13 PM., CNA E reported that she switches her gloves quite often and if she is soiled with feces or urine, then she will wash her hands with soap and water. CNA E reported that she will use hand sanitizer before she enters a resident room. When directly asked if she performed hand hygiene between residents, CNA E replied I did not use hand sanitizer this time or wash my hands. In an interview on 5/1/24 at 2:22 PM., Director of Nursing (DON) B and ADON X reported that hand hygiene should be completed before and after resident care. In an interview on 5/1/24 at 2:28 PM., DON B reported that staff's personal beverages should not be in the spa room or consumed in resident care areas. During an observation on 5/2/24 at 10:30 AM., Wound Nurse (WN) Z and CNA M were prepping to complete Resident #5's dressing change to her left foot. Noted in the room was a pedestal fan, at the foot of Resident #5's bed, that was turned on and was blowing air on Resident #5's feet. While observing WN Z position herself to complete Resident #5's left foot dressing change, the supplies on the over the bed table that WN Z was positioning into her reach prior to starting the dressing changed were blown around and disturbed by the fan. WN Z adjusted the position of the over the bed table with dressing supplies on it to be out of the air circulation created by the pedestal fan. WN Z was observed completing the dressing change to Resident #5's left foot while the pedestal fan was on, circulating air and was pointed directly at Resident #5's feet. In an interview on 5/2/24 at 10:45 AM., WN Z reported that the fan in Resident #5's room was not turned off before the dressing change was complete. WN Z reported should have been turned off before her dressing change was completed. In an interview on 5/2/24 at 10:47 AM., DON B reported that a fan should be turned off before completing any dressing change. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure proper infection control protocols and practices that included Enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and/or transmission based precautions per national standards of practice for 5 of 17 residents (#31, #50, #27, #261, #262, #5), 2. ensure adequate hand hygien and hygenic wound care for 1 of 1 resident, and 3. ensure no consumption of personal beverages in resident care areas, resulting in the increased potential for the spread of infection, bacterial harborage, cross contamination, and disease transmission for residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) dated March 20,2024, revealed, .Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities .EBP are used in conjunction with standard precautions and expand the use of PPE to donning of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of MDROs to staff hands and clothing .EBP are indicated for residents with any of the following: *Infection or colonization with a CDC-targeted MDRO when Contact Precautions do not otherwise apply; or *Wounds and/or indwelling medical devices even if the resident is not known to be infected or colonized with a MDRO .Effective Date: April 1, 2024 . Resident #31: Review of Orders dated 3/15/24, revealed, .Suprapubic catheter (tube inserted through the skin into the bladder to drain urine) - 12F/5cc . Review of Order dated 4/2/24, revealed, .Change catheter PRN (as needed) . Review of Resident #31's orders revealed no order for enhance barrier precautions. During an observation on 05/01/24 at 10:30 AM, observed no enhanced barrier precautions signage on the door or wall and no personal protective equipment (PPE) available for staff to don. Reveiw of Orders dated 04/01/24, revealed, .albuterol sulfate solution for nebulization; 0.63 mg/3 mL; amt: one; inhalation Special Instructions: BID for wheezing/SOB Twice A Day . During an observation on 05/01/24 at 03:14 PM, Resident #31's room observed in his room on his night stand next to his bed he had the nebulizer machine with the tubing and mask placed in his top drawer with other items. Noted the mask was not in a plastic bag or on a protective barrier in his drawer. Resident #50: Review of Orders dated 2/6/24, revealed, .Foley cath (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) 16 fr 10cc balloon; change monthly and PRN (as needed) .Once a day on 1st Tue of the Month . Review of Resident #50's orders revealed no order for enhance barrier precautions. During an observation on 05/02/24 at 09:48 AM, Resident #50's door to his room was open, no PPE and no signage on the door to indicate enhanced barrier precautions was needed for resident cares. Resident #27: Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #27 was a female with pertinent diagnoses which included pressure ulcer of left ankle, Review of Orders dated 2/17/24, revealed, .FOLEY CATH 16FR 10CC 16 FR; amt: one; Special Instructions: CHANGE AS NEEDED Every Shift - PRN (as needed) . During an observation 05/01/24 at 10:37 AM, noted there was no signage on the door for enhanced barrier precautions or personal protective equipment (PPE) available for staff to don prior to entering the room. Wound Nurse Z entered the room and did not don PPE to perform the treatment. In an interview on 05/01/24 10:45 AM, Wound Nurse Z reported the order was for her leg/ankle area as she had surgery on that area and everytime it rubbed on the sheets it breaks open, since she had been here it had been there. WN Z reported the doctor told her since the area keeps opening said to keep something on it to protect it. During an observation of catheter bag emptying on 05/01/24 at 11:56 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) K was noted to be wearing a faceshield and gloves but no gown. Observed CNA K removed the faceshield and placed it on a hook in the bathroom, she did not sanitize it prior to placing it there. In an interview CNA K reported with the type of catheter bag Resident #27 had the spout on it sometimes goes crazy and she reported she wore the mask to protect against being splashed in the face as that had happened before. Review of Resident #27's orders revealed no order for enhance barrier precautions. Resident #261: Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #261 was a female with pertinent diagnoses which included stroke, dementia, weakness, and displaced spiral fracture of shaft of humerus, right arm. Review of Progress Note dated 4/15/24, revealed, .Resident receiving skilled nursing care for ORIF (open reduction and internal fixation) of right humerus and radial nerve graft on 3/27/24 .Dressing to RUE (right upper extremity) clean/dry/intact . Review of Care Plan created on 4/2/24, revealed the focus, .(Resident #261) had surgery on her right humerus fx (fracture), She has incision to right upper arm . with the intervention .Perform wound care treatments per physician orders . Review of Orders revealed no orders for enhanced barrier precautions or contact precautions. Review of Lab results dated 04/22/24, revealed, resident positive for urinary tract infection. Review of Lab results received on 04/25/24, revealed, Result Final: Proteus Mirabilis . Review of Resident #261's orders revealed no order for Contact Precautions due to her urinary infection diagnosis. Review of Progress Notes dated 04/30/2024 at 6:53 PM, revealed, .1630 (4:30 PM) ATB Cipro continues for UTI. Will accept water as desires. 480cc taken @ evening meal. No frequency to use the BR. States It is uncomfortable sometimes for me. Temp-97.8 . Review of Progress Notes dated 05/01/2024 at 09:51 AM, revealed, .ABT continues for UTI . During an observation on 05/01/24 at 10:19 AM, there was no contact precautions signage or personal protective equipment (PPE) available for staff to don prior to entering Resident #261's room. During an observation on 05/01/24 at 10:23 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) E entered Resident #261's room to assist the resident's roomate to the shower. CNA C entered the room to assit with the transfer. Neither CNA had donned PPE prior to entering the resident's room. In an interview on 05/02/24 at 10:22 AM, Infection Preventionist (IFP) X reviewed the culture and sensitivity lab results and reported Resident #261 had proteus mirabilis which was a MDRO (multi drug resitant organism) and when she reported the facility did not have any residents on precautions she was incorrect as Resident #261 should have been on contact precautions due to her infection. Resident #262: Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #262 was a female with pertinent diagnoses which included cellulitis of right lower limb, pressure ulcer of rigth heel, stage 1, pressure ulcer of left heel, stage 1, celluitis of left lower limb, and malignant neoplasm of skin (skin cancer). Review of Orders dated 4/24/24, revealed, .Santyl ointment; 250 unit/gram; amt: small amount; topical. Special Instructions: Put on crusty areas of right shin .Once a day . Review of Orders dated 4/27/24, revealed, .Nystatin cream; 100,000 unit/gram; amt: to bottom of right foot; topical. Special instructions: Apply to bottom of right foot, cover with ABD, secure with ace wrap x2 weeks .Every shift . Review of Orders dated 4/24/24, revealed, .Cleanse left leg with ns pat dry apply calcium alginate to entire area cover with ABD, kling and cover with ace bandage and leave ace bandage in place till next drsg change .Once A Day . Review of Orders dated 4/24/24, revealed, .Cleanse right shin with ns pat dry apply calcium alginate to open areas (not crusty area) cover the whole shin with ABD wrap with kling and cover with ace bandage. Leave Ace bandage in place till next next drsg change . Review of Progress Notes dated 04/30/2024 at 10:53 AM, revealed, .Resident receiving skilled nursing post hospitalization for BLE (bilateral lower extremity) cellulitis. Oral ABT (antibiotic) completed yesterday .Reported right foot continues to be sore .and resident elevated BLE in recliner after breakfast . In an interview on 05/02/24 at 09:54 AM, RN O reported Resident #262 had cancer with a few open spots, growths to her leg, the nurses called them crusty areas. During an observation on 05/01/24 at 10:30 AM, Resident #262 was not currently in her room. There was no signage to indicate enhanced barrier precautions and no PPE available to use for staff. Review of Resident #262's orders revealed no order for enhance barrier precautions. Resident #5: Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #5 was a female with pertinent diagnoses which included: Alzheimer's disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and pressure wound to the left heel, unstageable. Review of Care Plan dated 4/23/24, revealed the focus, .(Resident #5) is at increased risk to develop skin breakdown due to limited mobility secondary to advanced age, dementia .Blood blister to left heel. Doctor in and it was dx as diabetic ulcer due to h/o diabetic ulcers. Wound on heel opened and doctor re-evaluated and determined it to be unstageable to left heel . Review of Progress Notes dated 04/23/2024 at 1:44 PM, revealed, .open are on right 3rd toe .heel drainage. Calcium alginate and 4x4 gauze was applied . Review of Progress Notes dated 04/24/2024 at 12:57 PM, revealed, .(Medical Doctor) in today to look at abrasion to R foot. During an observation on 05/01/24 at 02:56 PM, Resident #5 was in her room lying in her bed, supine position. There was no signage on the walls or door for enhanced barrier precautions and no PPE available for staff use. Review of Resident #5's orders revealed no orders for enhanced barrier precautions due to her pressure ulcers and open wounds. In an interview on 05/01/24 at 02:50 PM, Infection Preventionist (IFP) X reported the facility had no residents currently under precautions for infection control. In an interview on 05/02/24 at 10:27 AM, Infection Preventionist (IFP) X reported she was not aware of when the changes to implement enhaned barrier precautions had went into place. IFP X reported she had received the information a few days ago but had not read the guidance as of yet. IFP X reported according to the guidance the facility should have been implementing enhanced barrier precautions for those current residents with wounds, pressure ulcers, and indwelling devices.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to offer the pneumococcal vaccine for 4 (Resident #26, #50, #38, #24) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to offer the pneumococcal vaccine for 4 (Resident #26, #50, #38, #24) of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations, resulting in a delay in the residents being given the opportunity to receive or decline the pneumococcal vaccination. Findings include: Resident #26: Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #26 was a female with pertinent diagnoses which included heart failure, diabetes, dementia, chronic ulcer of buttock limited to breakdown of skin, urinary tract infection, and stroke. Review of Preventive Health Care dated 5/2/24, revealed, .Pneumococcal Vaccine: PCV13 given on 12/18/2013 and PPSV 23 given on 08/05/2015 . In an interview on 05/02/24 at 11:31 AM, Infection Preventionist (IFP) X reported she was not aware of the changes to the immunization requirement for the pnuemococcal vaccine. Review of the CDC Vaccine Schedule, the IFP X reported Resident #26 should have been offered the PCV 15 or PCV 20 vaccine. Resident #50: Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #50 was a male with pertinent diagnoses which included retention of urine, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, acute kidney failure, diabetes, acute cystitis without hematuria (inflammation of the urinary bladder). Review of Preventive Health Care dated 5/2/24, revealed, .Pneumococcal Vaccine: PCV13 given on 11/17/2016 and PPSV 23 given on 05/27/2014 . In an interview on 05/02/24 at 11:33 AM, Infection Preventionist (IFP) X reported Resident #50 should have been offered the PCV 15 or PCV 20 vaccine. Resident #38: Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #38 was a female with pertinent diagnoses which included dementia, parkinson's disease, high blood pressure, sleep terror, and edema. Review of Preventive Health Care dated 5/2/24, revealed, resident was provided the vaccine at an outside setting unknown. In an interview on 05/02/24 at 11:43 AM, Infection Preventionist (IFP) X reported since the resident's vaccine was an outside setting unknown the resident should have been offered the PCV 15 or PCV 20. Resident #24: Review of an Facesheet revealed Resident #24 was a female with pertinent diagnoses which included diabetes, paralysis affecting right dominant side, leukemia, dementia, and hydrocephalus (build up of fluid on the brain causing pressure and can cause brain damage). In an interview on 05/02/24 at 11:35 AM, IFP X reported in the medical record as had received in 2022 unknown outside. IFC X reported she should be in MICR if she had received her vaccines by an outside provider, hospital or pharmacy. IFP X reported she should have been offered the PCV 15 or PCV 20 and then one year after the PPSV23. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) PCV20 Vaccination for Adults 65 Years and Older dated 02/09/23, revealed, .Routine vaccination: Adults 65 years or older who have- Previously received both PCV13 and PPSV23, AND PPSV23 was received at age [AGE] years or older: Based on shared clinical decision-making, 1 dose of PCV20 at least 5 years after the last pneumococcal vaccine dose . and .Adults 65 years or older who have: - Not previously received a dose of PCV13, PCV15, or PCV20, or whose previous vaccination history is unknown: 1 dose of PCV15 OR 1 dose of PCV20. If PCV15 is used, administer 1 dose of PPSV23 at least 1 year after the PCV15 dose (may use minimum interval of 8 weeks for adults with an immunocompromising condition, cochlear implant, or cerebrospinal fluid leak) . www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/admin/downloads/job-aid- SCDM-PCV20-508.pdf
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meetings were held at least quarterly in a census of 62 residents, resulting in the pote...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meetings were held at least quarterly in a census of 62 residents, resulting in the potential for quality deficiencies not being identified or corrected. Findings include: During an interview on 5/02/2024 at 1:03 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B presented a QAA binder with meeting sign in sheets and notes dated 2/14/2024, 3/20/2024 and 4/10/2024. DON B stated that as of February 2024 the facility changed QAA meetings from quarterly to monthly. DON B was unable to locate the quarterly sign in sheets from September 2023 to January 2024 to show whether QAA meetings were held during that time and who attended. During an interview on 5/02/2024 at 1:30 PM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) X stated that the QAA meeting was scheduled in November 2023 and was cancelled and she didn't know if it was rescheduled. Review of the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Policy with a created date of 9/20/2017 and a review date of 4/14/2023 under III. Procedures and 2 a. revealed, Meet at least quarterly and as needed to coordinate and evaluate activities under the QAPI program, such as identifying issues with respect to which quality assessment and assurance activities, including performance improvement projects (PIP) under the QAPI program, are necessary.
Aug 2023 8 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake MI00138305. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to prevent t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake MI00138305. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to prevent the development of a stage 4 pressure ulcer that included physician lead care for the evaluation and treatment for pressure ulcers and facility staff trained in the treatment of pressure ulcers for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #27), reviewed for pressure ulcers, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy when Resident #27 developed a facility acquired pressure ulcer on the right gluteal (buttock) fold that worsened to an infected Stage 4 pressure ulcer that required hospitalization, IV antibiotics and surgical intervention. Findings include: On 8/2/23, the Nursing Home Administrator was notified of an Immediate Jeopardy that began on 6/7/23, when Resident #27 developed a facility acquired pressure ulcer, that worsened to a Stage 4 pressure ulcer, leading to hospitalization, IV (intravenous) antibiotics and surgical interventions. Review of a Face Sheet revealed Resident #27 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: dorsopathies (diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue associated with degenerative diseases of the spine) of the cervical (neck) region. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #27, with a reference date of 4/19/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, out of a total possible score of 15, which indicated Resident #27 was cognitively intact. Review of the Functional Status revealed that Resident #27 required extensive assistance of 1 person for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting, and that Resident #27 could stand and bear weight with assistance of 1 person. Review of Resident #27's assessment Braden scale for predicting pressure sore risk dated 4/21/23, indicated that the document was not complete, and was void of answers to the questions. This was the most recent assessment prior to Resident #27 developing the Stage 4 pressure wound on Right gluteal fold. Prior to the assessment on 4/21/23, the most recent was completed on 11/3/22, which indicated that Resident #27 was at risk, and the current assessment completed on 7/20/23 indicated that Resident #27 was at high risk. Per the facility policy, Braden assessments are completed quarterly. Review of Resident #27's Pain Care Plan revealed, .at risk due to diagnosis of Stage 4 pressure ulcer (no location) .Created 7/25/23. There were no interventions related to prevention/worsening of pressure ulcers. Review of Resident #27's Skin Care Plan revealed, .at increased risk to develop skin breakdown, due to limited mobility, secondary to severe cervical spine disease, paraplegia, chronic pain, and a history of stage 4 pressure ulcer to sacrum. She has a history of choosing to not lay down at times, frequently requesting to get up when in bed, resorting to outburst of yelling loudly, and crying. She has been educated why laying down is important for her, she states that she understands, but does not care. She is at times incontinent of bladder. She developed a stage 4 pressure ulcer to right sacrum even with interventions. She was readmitted from hospital with stage 2 on sacrum. Edited on 7/25/23 by DON. INTERVENTIONS: Blue boots to bilateral feet while in bed, start date 7/25/23. May be up in chair for therapy and appointments, start date 7/25/23. Wedge cushion to help with turning and repositioning, start date 7/25/23. CNA to check skin daily and PRN (as needed) during care, start date 8/24/21. Nurse to check and document skin condition weekly with first bath of the week. Notify MD and wound care nurse if any problems arise, start date 8/24/21. Moisture barrier cream to any excoriation/irritation PRN. Notify physician if not effective, start date 8/24/21. Perform treatments per physicians order, start date 8/24/21. Provide and encourage supplements as ordered, start date 7/25/23. Assist and encourage with eating and drinking at meal time prn to ensure nutritional and fluid intake are sufficient to maintain healthy skin integrity and promote healing, start date 8/24/21. Ensure that water is within reach at bedside, start date 8/24/21. Alternating pressure mattress to bed and roho (pressure relieving) cushion to wheelchair, start date 7/25/23. Assist/encourage to keep heels elevated off bed. Assist and encourage to turn and reposition every 2-3 hours and side to side and PRN. May be on back for meals, start date 7/25/23, edited 7/25/23. During an observation and interview on 07/31/23 at 11:06 AM Resident #27 was lying in bed on her back, positioned slightly on her left side, with the head of bed (HOB) at 30 degrees. There was a wound vac (a type of therapy for wounds) powered on at the bedside on the night stand, leading to Resident #27's buttock area. Resident #27 reported that she was too weak and too tired to talk. During an observation on 07/31/23 at 01:47 PM Resident #27 was in the same position as the previous observation, lying in bed on her back, positioned slightly on her left side, with the HOB at 30 degrees. During an observation on 07/31/23 at 03:23 PM Resident #27 was in the same position as the previous observation, lying in bed on her back, positioned slightly on her left side, with the HOB at 30 degrees, and there was a visitor in the room. During an observation and interview on 07/31/23 at 03:55 PM Resident #27 was lying in bed on her back in the same position as observed since 11:00 AM. Family Member (FM) J reported that Resident #27 had a large wound on her right lower buttock, and FM J was notified of the wound the first part of June, and informed that it was an abrasion (skin damage from scraping or wearing away) from the elastic of her incontinence brief. FM J reported was never updated that Resident #27's wound was worsening, until she was in the room during a wound dressing change on 7/8/23 and observed it herself. FM J reported that Resident #27 had ultimately became ill and required transfer to hospital on 7/8/23, then was sent to another hospital for surgery for an infected Stage 4 pressure ulcer. FM J reported that Resident #27 had drastically declined from her normal self since developing the wound, requiring her to be bedridden and have a urinary catheter, but that prior to was very active, regardless of being wheelchair bound. Review of Resident #27's Hospital Summary admission on [DATE] revealed, .Chief Complaint: Right gluteal decubital (relating to laying down) ulcer with possible infection. History of present illness: .transferred from (other hospital) to (this hospital) for possible gluteal ulcer infection. CT (imaging) at the outside hospital found irregular tissue with pockets of gas concerning for infection or abscess in the upper posterior right thigh extending to the level of the buttock. She was then transferred to (this hospital) .Plan: .will be admitted to hospital .Chronic right gluteal decubital ulcer, likely Stage 4, possible superimposed with infection with pockets of gas on CT .Vancomycin (antibiotic), Cefepime (antibiotic), and Metronidazole (antibiotic) .Operative Summary: .A scissor was used to cut away necrotic (dead) tissue overlying (covering) the wound .1.8 cm diameter wound with 5 cm undermining, unstageable, necrotic devitalized tissue debrided (removed), wound class dirty, PATOS (present at time of surgery). Excisional debridement with scissors down to level of subcutaneous (fat) tissue .Culture tissue/bone: Peptoniphilus asaccharolyticus (bacterial infection sometimes resistant to antibiotic treatment), Finegoldia [NAME] (bacteria) Hospital Course: .presented .from an outside hospital for a possible gluteal ulcer infection .General surgery consulted. Debridement, irrigation and Wound Vac placement was recommended .She was treated with antibiotics which were transitioned to p.o. (oral) antibiotics. Foley catheter placed to help with wound care . In an interview on 08/01/23 at 01:06 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that the wound on Resident #27's right buttock fold was noted by staff initially on 6/7/23, and that it looked like the top layer of her skin had pushed away from the surface and stated, .I thought it was from her incontinence brief being too tight .Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that she notified FM J at that time, but did not notify the physician of the new wound. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that the wound was not improving, and started getting worse on 6/22/23, with odor and slough (dead skin cells that accumulate in the wound bed) starting in the wound, and continued to deteriorate. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that the only notification to the physician would have been the written order changes that Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C made and stated, .he (MD D) had to sign them .I don't know if he physically assessed the wound .Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that Resident #27's wound got much worse on 7/6/23, and at that timeliest Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C notified the DON, and changed the wound treatment orders again. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that over the next couple days, nurses had to change the bandages frequently because of them becoming saturated with wound drainage. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that FM J was visiting during a wound treatment on 7/8/23 and insisted that Resident #27 be taken to the hospital due to the condition of the wound. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that Resident #27 had preferred to be up in her chair during the day and didn't like to lay in her bed, and that was the reason that MD D completed the unavoidable wound form on 7/21/23, after Resident #27 returned from the hospital. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that she did not document Resident #27's refusals to lay down and/or the efforts they had made to encourage her to lay down. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C was not able to describe any additional interventions that were attempted to relieve pressure when the resident declined to lay down in bed, other than asking Resident #27 to lay down. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that she did not involve Resident #27's responsible party for additional suggestions, when Resident #27 declined to lay down. In an interview on 08/02/23 at 03:47 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) Q reported that Resident #27 was compliant and the CNA's had not ever reported any trouble with refusing cares. RN Q reported that just prior to going to the hospital, Resident #27's wound dressing was completely saturated, the area around the wound was red and warm, she had spiked a fever, was confused and stated, .(FM J) was adamant that she be sent to the hospital . RN Q reported that she had called MD D and left a message for him regarding Resident #27's condition and that the on-call physician gave the orders to sent to the hospital. Review of Resident #27's Determination of Unavoidable Pressure Wound dated 7/21/23 (3 days after return from hospital) revealed, 1. Was a risk assessment completed upon admission? Yes - 9/12/19 and quarterly .3. Were nutritional interventions implemented and routinely evaluated? (no answer) .Does resident have 2 or more primary risk factors? Yes - Continuous urinary incontinence or chronic voiding dysfunction, Paraplegia (paralysis) .8. Did resident develop malnutrition and/or dehydration .NO .9. The physician has documented unavoidable pressure wound based on residents condition? (no answer). 10. List prevention and treatment implemented despite unavoidable criteria: turn side to side, elevate heels off bed, offer naps at 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, alternating air mattress, pressure relief cushion, WC (wheelchair) block to rest foot off put pressure to right gluteal fold. The pressure wound located on the right gluteal fold, stage 4, is determined to be unavoidable due to choosing not to lay down, she becomes very angry when even asked. (signed by MD D) In an interview on 08/02/23 at 09:49 AM, MD D reported that Resident #27 did not have a wound until she returned from the hospital and stated, .they found it at the hospital . MD D reported that new wounds may have orders started verbally over the phone, but that a physical assessment would be done the next time the physician was in the facility. MD D reported that he would expect the nurse to notify him of new wounds, but that if he saw an order for a wound treatment, MD D would question the order and stated, .but only if the order catches my eye .because I look at a lot of orders . MD D reported that he did not remember Resident #27 having any orders for wounds. MD D reported that Resident #27 is at very high risk to develop pressure ulcers due to her not cooperating with staff and stated, .I did not know about the wound, so no, I could not say that it was unavoidable . Review of Weekly Meeting notes provided by the DON indicated that Resident #27's right gluteal fold wound was discussed on 6/22/23 and 6/29/23. There was not a physician present for these meetings. In an interview on 08/01/23 at 02:42 PM, DON reported that she had saw the wound about 1 week after it was first identified and at that time agreed that it was an abrasion from the incontinence brief. DON reported that Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C was not certified in wound care, and to have a doctor look at new wounds was not part of their process and stated, .the doctors are usually ok with the orders that (LPN C) writes DON reported that Resident #27's wound was discussed in meetings every week, it was known that the wound was not improving and stated, .we normally have a doctor look at it if its changing .this fell through the cracks . DON reported that she did not think Resident #27's wound had been assessed but a physician, and that there was no documentation to indicate that it was. Review of Resident #27's Wound Sheets revealed the following nursing documentation: 6/7/23: Right gluteal fold, wound type-abrasion, facility acquired, 0.4 cm length x 0.3 cm width x 0.1 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, red, small amount of drainage, no odor. 6/15/23: Right gluteal fold, abrasion, facility acquired, 0.7 cm length x 0.5 cm width x 0.1 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, red, small amount of drainage, no odor. 6/22/23: Right gluteal fold, abrasion, facility acquired, 1.0 cm length x 1.1 cm width x 0.2 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, red, small amount of drainage, mild odor. 6/28/23: Right gluteal fold, abrasion, facility acquired, 1.8 cm length x 1.7 cm width x 0.7 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, 1/4 of wound yellow and red, medium amount of drainage, mild odor. 7/3/23: Right gluteal fold, (no type noted), facility acquired, 3.0 cm length x 3.2 cm width x 0.5 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, yellow, saturated with drainage, mild odor. 7/7/23: Right gluteal fold, (no type noted), facility acquired, 3.4 cm length x 3.8 cm width x 0.6 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, yellow, saturated with drainage, strong odor. Surrounding skin with hard edges and bruising. Review of Resident #27's Written Orders revealed the following orders for wound dressings: 6/7/23: Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS (normal saline) pat dry, apply Mepilex (foam bandage), change every 5 days/PRN (as needed). signed by MD D. 6/15/23: DC (discontinue) Mepilex, new order: Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS pat dry, apply Xeroform (bandage that maintains moist environment) change daily and PRN. signed by MD D. 6/16/23: DC Mepilex. Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS pat dry, apply Xeroform change daily. This was the same order as on 6/15/23. signed by MD D. 6/23/23: DC Xeroform. Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS pat dry, apply Calcium Alginate and border gauze change daily. signed by MD D. 7/3/23: DC Calcium Alginate. Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS pat dry, apply Hydrofera Blue (bandage that provides protection and addresses bacteria and yeast) 4 x 4 gauze, cover with border gauze and change every 3 days/PRN. signed by MD D. 7/6/23: DC Hydrofera Blue, Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS pat dry, apply Collagen (healing) Powder and cover with 4 x 4 border gauze. There was no physician signature on the order. All of these orders were written by Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C . Review of Resident #27's Physician Notes dated 6/23/23, indicated no documentation of a wound and or a skin assessment. Review of Resident #27's Dietary Notes dated 4/19/23 indicated that appetite was usually good, the skin was intact and that there were no supplements in place. There were no further notes until 7/12/23, which indicated appetite was good, skin wound, and resident in the hospital. Review of Resident #27's Hospital Dietician Consult dated 7/9/23 revealed, .PU (pressure ulcer) right buttock .does not meet criteria for malnutrition .maintaining weight. During an observation on 08/01/23 at 09:09 AM Resident #27 was lying in bed on her back, positioned slightly on her right side with the HOB at 30 degrees. During an observation and interview on 08/01/23 at 09:35 AM Resident #27 was lying in bed on her back, positioned slightly on her left side with the HOB at 30 degrees. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) P reported that she had just repositioned Resident #27 onto her right side and stated, .we try to turn her every 2 hours .it was supposed to be at 9:00, I was a little late . CNA J reported that she did not know how bad Resident #27's wound was until she saw the soaked bandage just prior to her hospitalization a few weeks ago. CNA J reported that CNA H is Resident #27's regular CNA, so she would know more about her. In an interview on 08/02/23 at 01:58 PM, CNA H reported that Resident #27's wound started small, like an abrasion, the incontinence briefs were not too small, but when Resident #27 was sitting, her buttocks pressed on the edge of the brief. CNA H reported that Resident #27 preferred to be up in her chair during the day, but understood that she needed to get off her bottom, and did not decline laying down for CNA H. CNA H reported that she had been Resident #27's aide for a long time and Resident #27 could stand up, with help to relieve pressure off her bottom and would ask to stand longer to stretch her legs. CNA H reported that she (CNA H) would toilet Resident #27 multiple times a day, just to relief the pressure and stated, .but I was off work a lot during the time her wound started and have been until today . CNA H reported that Resident #27 did drink supplements, but needed encouragement. During an observation on 08/01/23 at 10:40 AM in Resident #27's room, CNA P performed incontinence care on Resident #27. Resident #27's buttocks were observed with a wound vac covering the right lower buttock and a large bandage covering the coccyx (tailbone) area. In an interview on 08/01/23 at 10:57 AM, CNA F reported that she was not aware that Resident #27 had a wound until she went to the hospital for it a few weeks ago. CNA F reported that Resident #27 was very different before she was hospitalized and stated, .she could stand up .could use the bathroom .she liked to go to the dining room .always brushing her hair . Review of the facility policy Skin Assessment and Ulcer Prevention revealed, .Goal: To assess each resident upon admission and at least quarterly for the potential for skin breakdown utilizing the standardized scale (Braden). To assess each resident with wounds for changes and determine proper wound treatments .When a wound is identified the physician will be notified, the resident will be added to the weekly physician wound rounding sheet with wound details. Physician will sign and document that each resident was seen in (electronic health record). The policy was complied by DON on 8/2/23 and approved by NHA on 8/2/23. On 8/2/23, the survey team verified the facility completed the following to remove the Immediate Jeopardy. 1. Resident #27 will be seen by the attending physician and will have a consultation with the wound clinic on August 2, 2023. 2. Any resident with a Stage 1 pressure ulcer or higher will be seen by the attending physician to assess the wound and document review on August 2, 2023. 3. The Pressure Ulcer policy and procedure has been updated as of August 2, 2023, to include immediate notification of physician when a wound is identified and that the resident will be added to the physician's weekly rounds. All licensed nursing staff will be trained in person or over the phone on the updated policy and procedure and acknowledgement of the training will be tracked by signature of the nurse or documentation from the trainer on August 2, 2023. Although the immediate jeopardy was removed on 8/2/23, the facility remained out of compliance with a scope of isolated and severity of actual harm due to all nursing staff had not received training for wound care/skin prevention program and sustained compliance had not been verified by the state agency.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate pain monitoring and management for 1 of 1 ( Resident #31) resident reviewed for pain management, resulting in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate pain monitoring and management for 1 of 1 ( Resident #31) resident reviewed for pain management, resulting in unrelieved pain that impacted the resident's quality of life. Findings include: Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #31, was originally admitted to the facility with pertinent diagnoses which included sciatica (pain in the lower back that can spread to buttock, groin, and legs) and pelvic mass. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #31, with a reference date of 5/3/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12/15 which indicated Resident #31 was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #31's Care Plan revealed, ( Resident #31) has a potential for pain due to recent diagnosis of colitis (inflammation of the colon) and respiratory failure. Approach: Assess/record/report pain characteristics including intensity (0-10), location, onset, duration, and precipitating or relieving factors. Created: 4/27/23 . Observe for non verbal cues of pain, i.e., grimacing, crying, restlessness, irresistibleness, or moaning for possible need for pain intervention. Created: 4/27/23 . Staff will anticipate need for pain relief, instruct remind resident to request medication before pain becomes too great, providing better control of pain. Review of Resident #31's Medication Administration Record revealed, Orders: Morphine (medication to treat severe pain) 20 mg/mL (milligrams per millimeter) solution. Take 0.25 mL (5 MG) every 2 hours as needed for pain or sob (shortness of breath). Tramadol (medication used to treat moderate to severe pain) 50 mg P.O. (by mouth) TID (Three times a day). Review of Resident #31's Medication Administration Record revealed that Resident #31 had received one dose of morphine on 7/20/23, 7/21/23, 7/23/23, 7/26/23 and 7/31/23. During a care observation on 8/01/23 at 10:58 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C and Certified Nursing Assistant M completed incontinence care and a dressing change for Resident #31. LPN- WN C removed Resident #31's brief and began to wipe Resident #31's perineal area. As LPN-WN C started wiping, Resident #31 began screaming out in pain and begging for staff to stop stating Don't do that! Please don't do that!. CNA M reported that Resident #31 had a vaginal mass that was getting worse and anytime staff had to clean the area around the mass, Resident #31 would scream out in pain. Resident #31 had screamed so loud that another staff member knocked on the door and entered to check on Resident #31 and staff. LPN-WN C reported that she thought Resident #31 had scheduled pain medication but she did not know if Resident #31 had been given any additional as needed medication to provide pain relief prior to providing care for Resident #31. During an interview on 8/01/23 at 1:39 PM, Hospice Nurse (HN) K reported that Resident #31 had increased pain related to the pelvic mass. HN K reported that comfort care and pain management were the most important goals of care for Resident #31. HN K reported that Resident #31 frequently became agitated during care because of the pain that she experienced, so he would expect that staff were providing Resident #31 with the PRN Morphine due to the severity of her pain. During an interview on 8/2/23 at 7:38 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) V reported that Resident #31 did not get the PRN morphine often. RN V reported that Resident #31 often yelled out during care and refused care. RN V reported that she was unaware of staff reporting that Resident #31 was experiencing pain during incontinence care. RN V reported that Resident #31 had not received PRN morphine prior to incontinence care to help with pain. During an interview on 8/2/23 at 9:03 AM, CNA S reported that Resident #31 often yelled out during care, especially incontinence care. CNA S reported that she had noticed an increase in refusal of care and yelling out during incontinence care over the last few months. During an interview on 8/2/23 at 1:22 PM, CNA E reported that she had definitely noticed an increase in pain over the last month, and felt that it was related to Resident 31's pelvic mass. CNA E reported that after the pelvic mass was discovered, providing incontinence care on Resident #31 became much harder to complete because of the pain that Resident #31 experienced during care. CNA E reported that it was common for Resident #31 to scream and cry out during incontinence care. CNA E was unaware if nurses were giving medication prior to incontinence care to assist with comfort and reduce pain. During an interview on 8/2/23 at 11:44 AM, RN V reported that she had administered PRN morphine to Resident #31 at 11:30 AM on this day in preparation for incontinence care to determine if pre-medicating with morphine would assist with the pain Resident #31 experienced during incontinence care. During a care observation on 8/2/23 at 11:50 AM, CNA P and CNA Y removed Resident #31's brief and CNA P began to wipe Resident #31's perineal area. As CNA P wiped Resident #31, she softly said ow but she did not shout out. Resident #31 was relaxed, calm, and did not appear to struggle with perineal care. As CNA P and CNA Y finished completing care, Resident #31 stated see it's much better. CNA P reported that she felt that the morphine medication helped Resident #31 tremendously and that when she (CNA P ) had completed care earlier in the day that Resident #31 was screaming nonstop. CNA P reported that Resident #31 seemed to be able to tolerate incontinence care much better with pain medication. During an interview on 8/2/23 at 12:08 PM, HN K reported that he was under the assumption that Resident #31 was receiving the PRN morphine at least once per shift. HN K reported that the morphine was ordered for breakthrough pain, and that he would expect that the morphine would be given prior to cares anytime Resident #31 was experiencing pain with care. HN K reported he would expect nursing staff to assess Resident #31's pain prior to completing care to determine the need for pain relief due to Resident #31's frequent screaming out during care. During an interview on 8/2/23 at 1:35 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported that she was aware that Resident #31 experienced pain with care, but that staff had not reported any concerns related to Resident #31's increased pain with incontinence care since developing the vaginal mass.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0710 (Tag F0710)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #30 Review of the medical record revealed Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #30 was admitte...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #30 Review of the medical record revealed Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #30 was admitted with diagnoses that included diabetes, osteomyelitis of vertebra, thoracic region, depression, muscle weakness, cauda equina syndrome (nerve roots in the lumbar spine are compressed, cutting off sensation and movement), and fracture of left lower leg, and spinal stenosis, lumbar region. Review of Physician Note dated 5/17/23 at 12:45 PM, revealed, no documentation in the note of the resident admitting with pressure ulcers nor any assessment of the pressure ulcers by the physician. Note contained notation of .Review of system: 10 point review of system conducted and is negative except for stated above in HPI . Review of assessment and plan revealed no noted assessment or plan for Resident #30's pressure ulcers. Review of the medical record revealed the following physician entries dated 5/17/23, 7/12/23, 7/14/23, 7/19/23 and 8/2/23. Review of the full medical record revealed facility staff first documentation of a pressure ulcer in Resident #30's was in Nursing progress notes on 5/19/23 at 4:19 PM, which revealed, .Cleanse left proximal/medial and medial/distal ankle with ns pat dry apply Mepilex change every 7 days. Cleanse left second toe with ns pat dry apply small Mepilex change every 7 days. Moisture barrier cream to right to sacrum, right buttock, right gluteal fold, right upper thigh at all times. Nurses to ensure that this is done at least once a shift. Monitor left ankle daily Monitor right ankle/shin daily monitor back incision daily . Review of Nursing Progress Notes dated 6/16/23 at 00:04 AM, revealed, .Resident continues with tx to coccyx-area with darker spots in middle/pink, open areas noted surrounding darker sloughing tissue. Will continue to monitor . This note indicated that Resident #30's coccyx wound had worsened. Review of Order dated 6/16/23, revealed, .D/C monitor (L) ankle, (R) ankle, (L) shin and back .D/C moisture barrier cream .Cleans buttock .NS Pat dry Apply Calcium Alginate ABD, Tape Change Daily & PRN . Note: This order was not signed by the physician nor dated. Further review of the medical record showed no documentation of a physician note for the month of June 2023. Review of Physician Progress Note dated 7/12/23 at 1:00 PM, revealed, .Acute visit: [AGE] year-old female is being seen today to evaluate her decubitus ulcer. Patient has had a decubitus ulcer since admission. She is currently improving. She is doing well. She is having dressing change with calcium alginate and ABD pad to be changed daily. She has significant improvement since admission. Patient is currently on antibiotics for osteomyelitis/discitis, She is doing well with the antibiotics .On examination: Her vital signs are recorded as stable, She is afebrile .Examination of the decubitus lesions shows a large decubitus ulcer over the left gluteal area extending up to the inner margin. The margins are irregular and has healthy granulated tissue with yellow slough covering about 40% of the ulcer. The ulcer measures 11.5 cm in length 13.6 cm wide and 6 mm deep. This is a stage III ulcer .Assessment and plan. 1) large decubitus stage III ulcer .-Continue calcium alginate with ABD pad dressing secured and change daily . In an interview on 08/02/23 at 01:47 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported she would write out the orders and the doctor reviewed and signed the orders. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported the providers come in the facility three times per week. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported one physician comes in three times per week, then the other physician comes in three times per week. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported she started off treating the pressure ulcer with Calcium alginate started off as that on ABD. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported the order was changed to include the calcium alginate with silver to assist in cleaning up the wound and that was started on 7/6/23. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported she was unsure why there were black specks in the wound and a culture was not ordered. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported black specks would be seen occasionally, not very often, and the resident's whole buttocks were black when she admitted to the facility. When queried what she thought the black specks were, Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported she was unsure. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported the lateral ankle and shin ran together and now they were two different wounds as the middle of it had healed. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported the right buttock ulcer and sacrum ulcer merged on 6/22/23 and that was why the sacrum wound got bigger and then merging was not a bad thing. Review of the record on 8/2/23 showed a physician note entered for 6/16/23 at 2:33 PM recorded as a late entry on 8/2/23 at 2:33 PM. No assessment and plan of care for the pressure ulcer was mentioned in the note. Review of policy Physician Services revised on 2/28/21 revealed, .5. The Physician will see the resident .must review the resident's total program of care including medications and treatments each visit and date, write and sign a progress note for that visit .7. Sign and date all orders except for flu and pneumococcal vaccines which may be administered per physician approved policy after an assessment for contraindications . This citation pertains to Intake MI00138305. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician assessed and monitored a change in condition after reviewing and signing multiple orders for pressure ulcer treatment in 2 of 5 residents (Resident #27 and Resident #30), reviewed for pressure ulcers, resulting in the lack of physician assessment, monitoring, and ultimate hospitalization for Resident ##27 who developed a Stage 4 pressure ulcer with osteomyelitis and lack of consistent physician assessment and monitoring of a pressure ulcer for Resident #30. Findings include: Resident #27 Review of a Face Sheet revealed Resident #27 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: dorsopathies (diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue associated with degenerative diseases of the spine) of the cervical (neck) region. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #27, with a reference date of 4/19/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, out of a total possible score of 15, which indicated Resident #27 was cognitively intact. Review of the Functional Status revealed that Resident #27 required extensive assistance of 1 person for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting, and that Resident #27 could stand and bear weight with assistance of 1 person. During an observation and interview on 07/31/23 at 03:55 PM Resident #27 was lying in bed on her back in the same position as observed since 11:00 AM. Family Member (FM) J reported that Resident #27 had a large wound on her right lower buttock, and FM J was notified of the wound the first part of June, and informed that it was an abrasion (skin damage from scraping or wearing away)from the elastic of her incontinence brief. FM J reported was never updated that Resident #27's wound was worsening, until she was in the room during a wound dressing change on 7/8/23 and observed it herself. FM J reported that Resident #27 had ultimately became ill and required transfer to hospital on 7/8/23, then was sent to another hospital for surgery for an infected Stage 4 pressure ulcer. FM J reported that Resident #27 had drastically declined from her normal self since developing the wound, requiring her to be bedridden and have a urinary catheter, but that prior to was very active, regardless of being wheelchair bound. Review of Resident #27's Hospital Summary admission on [DATE] revealed, .Chief Complaint: Right gluteal decubital (relating to laying down) ulcer with possible infection. History of present illness: .transferred from (other hospital) to (this hospital) for possible gluteal ulcer infection. CT (imaging) at the outside hospital found irregular tissue with pockets of gas concerning for infection or abscess in the upper posterior right thigh extending to the level of the buttock. She was then transferred to (this hospital) .Plan: .will be admitted to hospital .Chronic right gluteal decubital ulcer, likely Stage 4, possible superimposed with infection with pockets of gas on CT .Vancomycin (antibiotic), Cefepime (antibiotic), and Metronidazole (antibiotic) .Operative Summary: .A scissor was used to cut away necrotic (dead) tissue overlying (covering) the wound .1.8 cm diameter wound with 5 cm undermining, unstageable, necrotic devitalized tissue debrided (removed), wound class dirty, PATOS (present at time of surgery). Excisional debridement with scissors down to level of subcutaneous (fat) tissue .Culture tissue/bone: Peptoniphilus asaccharolyticus (bacterial infection sometimes resistant to antibiotic treatment), Finegoldia [NAME] (bacteria) Hospital Course: .presented .from an outside hospital for a possible gluteal ulcer infection .General surgery consulted. Debridement, irrigation and Wound Vac placement was recommended .She was treated with antibiotics which were transitioned to p.o. (oral) antibiotics. Foley catheter placed to help with wound care. Found to have a poor appetite She has a history of severe protein calorie malnutrition but had improved and did not meet criteria for that during this hospitalization . In an interview on 08/01/23 at 01:06 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that the wound on Resident #27's right buttock fold was noted by staff initially on 6/7/23, and that it looked like the top layer of her skin had pushed away from the surface and stated, .I thought it was from her incontinence brief being too tight . Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that she notified FM J at that time, but did not notify the physician of the new wound. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that the wound was not improving, and started getting worse on 6/22/23, with odor and slough (dead skin cells that accumulate in the wound bed) starting in the wound, and continued to deteriorate. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that the only notification to the physician would have been the written order changes that Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C made and stated, .he (MD D) had to sign them .I don't know if he physically assessed the wound . Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that Resident #27's wound got much worse on 7/6/23, and at that time Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C notified the DON, and changed the wound treatment orders again, but did not notify the physician. In an interview on 08/01/23 at 02:42 PM, DON reported that she had saw the wound about 1 week after it was first identified and at that time agreed that it was an abrasion from the incontinence brief. DON reported that Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C was not certified in wound care, and to have a doctor look at new wounds was not part of their process and stated, .the doctors are usually ok with the orders that (Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C ) writes DON reported that Resident #27's wound was discussed in meetings every week, it was known that the wound was not improving and stated, .we normally have a doctor look at it if its changing .this fell through the cracks . DON reported that she did not think Resident #27's wound had been assessed but a physician, and that there was no documentation to indicate that it was. Review of Resident #27's Physician Notes dated 6/23/23, indicated no documentation of a wound and or a skin assessment. This was the only physician visit recorded following 6/7/23 when the wound was first identified. Review of Resident #27's Wound Sheets revealed the following nursing documentation: 6/7/23: Right gluteal fold, wound type-abrasion, facility acquired, 0.4 cm length x 0.3 cm width x 0.1 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, red, small amount of drainage, no odor. 6/15/23: Right gluteal fold, abrasion, facility acquired, 0.7 cm length x 0.5 cm width x 0.1 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, red, small amount of drainage, no odor. 6/22/23: Right gluteal fold, abrasion, facility acquired, 1.0 cm length x 1.1 cm width x 0.2 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, red, small amount of drainage, mild odor. 6/28/23: Right gluteal fold, abrasion, facility acquired, 1.8 cm length x 1.7 cm width x 0.7 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, 1/4 of wound yellow and red, medium amount of drainage, mild odor. 7/3/23: Right gluteal fold, (no type noted), facility acquired, 3.0 cm length x 3.2 cm width x 0.5 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, yellow, saturated with drainage, mild odor. 7/7/23: Right gluteal fold, (no type noted), facility acquired, 3.4 cm length x 3.8 cm width x 0.6 cm depth, no undermining, no tunneling, yellow, saturated with drainage, strong odor. Surrounding skin with hard edges and bruising. Review of Resident #27's Written Orders revealed the following orders for wound dressings: 6/7/23: Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS (normal saline) pat dry, apply Mepilex (foam bandage), change every 5 days/PRN (as needed). signed by MD D. 6/15/23: DC (discontinue) Mepilex, new order: Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS pat dry, apply Xeroform (bandage that maintains moist environment) change daily and PRN. signed by MD D. 6/16/23: DC Mepilex. Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS pat dry, apply Xeroform change daily. This was the same order as on 6/15/23. signed by MD D. 6/23/23: DC Xeroform. Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS pat dry, apply Calcium Alginate and border gauze change daily. signed by MD D. 7/3/23: DC Calcium Alginate. Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS pat dry, apply Hydrofera Blue (bandage that provides protection and addresses bacteria and yeast) 4 x 4 gauze, cover with border gauze and change every 3 days/PRN. signed by MD D. 7/6/23: DC Hydrofera Blue, Cleanse right gluteal fold with NS pat dry, apply Collagen (healing) Powder and cover with 4 x 4 border gauze. There was no physician signature on the order. All of these orders were written by Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C . In an interview on 08/02/23 at 09:49 AM, MD D reported that Resident #27 did not have a wound until she returned from the hospital and stated, .they found it at the hospital . MD D reported that new wounds may have orders started verbally over the phone, but that a physical assessment would be done the next time the physician was in the facility. MD D reported that he would expect the nurse to notify him of new wounds, but that if he saw an order for a wound treatment, MD D would question the order and stated, .but only if the order catches my eye .because I look at a lot of orders . MD D reported that he did not remember Resident #27 having any orders for wounds. MD D reported that Resident #27 is at very high risk to develop pressure ulcers and stated, .I did not know about the wound. Review of Weekly Meeting notes provided by the DON indicated that Resident #27's right gluteal fold wound was discussed on 6/22/23 and 6/29/23. There was not a physician present for these meetings.
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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake MI00138305. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake MI00138305. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in a condition (new and worsened wound) and failed to notify the resident representative of the worsening of a wound for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #27), reviewed for pressure ulcers, resulting in the lack of physician assessment, monitoring, and delay in treatment for a Stage 4 pressure ulcer, and the inability of the physician and resident representative to participate in medical decisions regarding care and treatment. Findings include: Resident #27 Review of a Face Sheet revealed Resident #27 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: dorsopathies (diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue associated with degenerative diseases of the spine) of the cervical (neck) region. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #27, with a reference date of 4/19/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, out of a total possible score of 15, which indicated Resident #27 was cognitively intact. Review of the Functional Status revealed that Resident #27 required extensive assistance of 1 person for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting, and that Resident #27 could stand and bear weight with assistance of 1 person. During an observation and interview on 07/31/23 at 03:55 PM Resident #27 was lying in bed on her back in the same position as observed since 11:00 AM. Family Member (FM) J reported that Resident #27 had a large wound on her right lower buttock, and FM J was notified of the wound the first part of June, and informed that it was an abrasion (skin damage from scraping or wearing away)from the elastic of her incontinence brief. FM J reported was never updated that Resident #27's wound was worsening, until she was in the room during a wound dressing change on 7/8/23 and observed it herself. FM J reported that Resident #27 had ultimately became ill and required transfer to hospital on 7/8/23, then was sent to another hospital for surgery for an infected Stage 4 pressure ulcer. FM J reported that Resident #27 had drastically declined from her normal self since developing the wound, requiring her to be bedridden and have a urinary catheter, and that previously was very active, regardless of being wheelchair bound. In an interview on 08/01/23 at 01:06 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that the wound on Resident #27's right buttock fold was noted by staff initially on 6/7/23, and that it looked like the top layer of her skin had pushed away from the surface and stated, .I thought it was from her incontinence brief being too tight . Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that she notified FM J at that time, but did not notify the physician of the new wound. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that the wound was not improving, and started getting worse on 6/22/23, with odor and slough (dead skin cells that accumulate in the wound bed) starting in the wound, and continued to deteriorate. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that the only notification to the physician would have been the written order changes that Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C made and stated, .he (MD D) had to sign them .I don't know if he physically assessed the wound .Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that Resident #27's wound got much worse on 7/6/23, and at that time Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C notified the DON, and changed the wound treatment orders again. Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C reported that FM J and/or MD D were not notified of Resident #27's wound worsening. In an interview on 08/01/23 at 02:42 PM, DON reported that she had saw the wound about 1 week after it was first identified and at that time agreed that it was an abrasion from the incontinence brief. DON reported that Licensed Practical Nurse Wound Nurse (LPN-WN) C was not certified in wound care, and to have a doctor look at new wounds was not part of their process and stated, .the doctors are usually ok with the orders that (LPN C) writes DON reported that Resident #27's wound was discussed in meetings every week, it was known that the wound was not improving and stated, .we normally have a doctor look at it if its changing, we did not .this fell through the cracks . DON reported that she did not think Resident #27's wound had been assessed but a physician, and that there was no documentation to indicate that it was. Review of Weekly Meeting notes provided by the DON indicated that Resident #27's right gluteal fold wound was discussed on 6/22/23 and 6/29/23. There was not a physician present for these meetings. Review of Resident #27's Physician Notes dated 6/23/23, indicated no documentation of a wound and or a skin assessment. In an interview on 08/02/23 at 09:49 AM, MD D reported that Resident #27 did not have a wound until she returned from the hospital and stated, .they found it at the hospital . MD D reported that new wounds may have orders started verbally over the phone, but that a physical assessment would be done the next time the physician was in the facility. MD D reported that he would expect the nurse to notify him of new wounds, but that if he saw an order for a wound treatment, MD D would question the order and stated, .but only if the order catches my eye .because I look at a lot of orders . MD D reported that he did not remember Resident #27 having any orders for wounds. MD D reported that Resident #27 is at very high risk to develop pressure ulcers and stated, .I did not know about the wound. Review of the facility policy Skin Assessment and Ulcer Prevention revealed, .When a wound is identified the physician will be notified, the resident will be added to the weekly physician wound rounding sheet with wound details. Physician will sign and document that each resident was seen in (electronic health record). The policy was complied by DON on 8/2/23 and approved by NHA on 8/2/23.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview the facility failed to minimize the risk of scalding and burns by allowing domestic hot water to exceed 120°F in one of two shower rooms. This resulted in an inc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to minimize the risk of scalding and burns by allowing domestic hot water to exceed 120°F in one of two shower rooms. This resulted in an increased risk of injury among residents who use the Station One Spa room. Findings Include: During an environmental tour of the facility, at 2:32 PM on 7/31/23, an interview with Certified Nurses Assistant CC found that it takes a while for hot water to reach the shower, so staff typically leave the hot water running at the sink in the showers. At this time, the sink was slowly running and the hot water temperature of station two spa was 113F. During a tour of the unlocked station one spa, at 2:36 PM on 7/31/23, it was observed that the sink was slowly running, as the surveyor turned the sink pressure higher and tested the hot water, it was found to reach 125.2F after being tested with a Thermoworks Rapid Read thermometer. During a tour of the unlocked station one clean utility room, at 2:37 PM on 7/31/23, it was observed that the hot water reached 120.7F. During a tour of the unlocked station one soiled utility room, at 2:38 PM on 7/31/23, it was observed that the hot water reached 122F. An interview with Assistant Maintenance Director AA, at 3:02 PM on 7/31/23, found that hot water should be between 105F and 120F An interview with Maintenance Director Z, at 4:00 PM on 7/31/23, found that hot water in the facility does not recirculate continuously, which leaves temperature variations as hot water travels to its source destination. With the boiler located above station one, the higher temperatures are found in this area. MD Z stated that its hard to achieve hot water on station two with the current set up and we have looked into adding recirculation pumps and return hot water lines to alleviate this issue.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to: 1. Ensure proper cooling methods of potentially hazar...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to: 1. Ensure proper cooling methods of potentially hazardous foods; 2. Thoroughly clean food and no-food contact surfaces to sight and touch; 3. Provide air gaps on all on drains originating from food contact surfaces; and 4. Properly store emergency food product. These conditions resulted in an increased risk of contaminated foods and an increased risk of food borne illness that affected 61 residents who consume food from the kitchen. Findings Include: 1. During the initial tour of the kitchen, starting at 10:20 AM on 7/31/23, an interview with [NAME] BB found that the facility does not routinely cool food and doesn't have anything cooling at this time. During a walkthrough of the walk-in cooler, at 10:25 AM on 7/31/23, it was observed that a full-size six-inch chaffing pan was found with the prepared ingredients for cooking au gratin potatoes. At this time, the dish was covered tightly with saran wrap with increased condensation and melted butter on the top. An interview with cook BB found that she added hot water to the pan to finish preparation this morning. Using an infra-red thermometer, the outside of the chaffing dish was found to be 46F. According to the 2017 FDA Food Code section 3-501.15 Cooling Methods. (A) Cooling shall be accomplished in accordance with the time and temperature criteria specified under § 3-501.14 by using one or more of the following methods based on the type of FOOD being cooled: (1) Placing the FOOD in shallow pans; (2) Separating the FOOD into smaller or thinner portions; (3)Using rapid cooling EQUIPMENT; (4) Stirring the FOOD in a container placed in an ice water bath; (5) Using containers that facilitate heat transfer; (6) Adding ice as an ingredient; or (7) Other effective methods. (B) When placed in cooling or cold holding EQUIPMENT, FOOD containers in which FOOD is being cooled shall be: (1) Arranged in the EQUIPMENT to provide maximum heat transfer through the container walls; and (2) Loosely covered, or uncovered if protected from overhead contamination as specified under Subparagraph 3-305.11(A)(2), during the cooling period to facilitate heat transfer from the surface of the FOOD. 2. During a tour of the facility, at 10:28 AM on 7/31/23, observation of the ice machine found increased amounts of black accumulation along the top portion of the white inside shield. When asked if she could see the accumulation, Registered Dietitian (RD) L stated yes. Further review of the ice scoop holder found increased amounts of crusted debris accumulation in the bottom of the holder. When shown to RD L she took the holder to get washed. When asked how the ice machine is cleaned, RD L stated that housekeeping takes care of the ice machines. During the initial tour of the kitchen, at 10:45 AM on 7/31/23, a review of the drink area found increased accumulation on the spout of the juice dispenser. When asked how often the juice machine gets cleaned, RD L stated that staff soak it in hot water overnight. Further review of the area found increased accumulation around the underside portions of the coffee and hot chocolate machines. During the initial tour of the kitchen, at 10:47 AM on 7/31/23, a review of the single door [NAME] and True reach in units found increased amounts of debris in the top portions of the gaskets. During a tour of the facility, at 11:01 AM on 7/31/23, it was observed that the microwave in the kitchen was found with bubbling, pitting, and scoring on the inside top seams of the unit. When shown to RD L she stated she has been meaning to get a new unit. During the initial tour of the facility, at 2:21 PM on 7/31/23, on station one clean utility, it was found that an increased amount of debris accumulation was evident on the inside right portion of the ice machine. According to the 2017 FDA Food Code section 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood-Contact Surfaces, and Utensils. (A) EQUIPMENT FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES and UTENSILS shall be clean to sight and touch. (B) The FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of cooking EQUIPMENT and pans shall be kept free of encrusted grease deposits and other soil accumulations. (C) NonFOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, FOOD residue, and other debris. 3. During the initial tour of the kitchen, at 10:35 AM on 7/31/23, it was observed that no air gap (a physical gap between the drain line and sewer line to prevent the backflow or backsiphonage of wastewater into equipment) was present on the sanitizer compartment of the three-compartment sink and that it was directly connected to the wastewater line. When asked if she knew why there was not an air gap installed, RD L stated that it's something that always gets brought up and she is unsure. When asked if there was a variance associated with the lack of an air gap, RD L could not remember, but stated it always comes up when they get inspected. During the initial tour of the kitchen, at 10:50 AM on 7/31/23, it was observed that the preparation sink was found with a direct connection of the wastewater line. Further review found an unapproved check valve installed on the direct connection. During the initial tour of the station 2 clean utility room, at 2:21 PM on 7/31/23, it was observed that the drains coming from the ice machine were found sunken into the floor drain, no longer making an air gap for proper protection from the backflow of wastewater. According to the 2017 FDA Food Code section 5-402.11 Backflow Prevention. (A) Except as specified in (B), (C), and (D) of this section, a direct connection may not exist between the SEWAGE system and a drain originating from EQUIPMENT in which FOOD, portable EQUIPMENT, or UTENSILS are placed. (B) Paragraph (A) of this section does not apply to floor drains that originate in refrigerated spaces that are constructed as an integral part of the building. (C) If allowed by LAW, a WAREWASHING machine may have a direct connection between its waste outlet and a floor drain when the machine is located within 1.5 m (5 feet) of a trapped floor drain and the machine outlet is connected to the inlet side of a properly vented floor drain trap. (D) If allowed by LAW, a WAREWASHING or culinary sink may have a direct connection. 4. During an interview with RD L, at 11:10 AM on 7/31/23, it was found that the emergency food used to be stored off site, but she is not sure where it is currently stored. During a tour of the emergency food product, with Maintenance Director Z, at 12:50 PM on 7/31/23, found that the product was stored underneath a wastewater line in the basement of an offsite facility. According to the 2017 FDA Food Code section 3-305.12 Food Storage, Prohibited Areas.FOOD may not be stored: .(F) Under sewer lines that are not shielded to intercept potential drips; .
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

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to have an active plan for reducing the risk of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens of premise plumbing (OPPP). This def...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to have an active plan for reducing the risk of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens of premise plumbing (OPPP). This deficient practice has the increased potential to result in water borne pathogens to exist and spread in the facility's plumbing system and an increased risk of respiratory infection among any or all of the 61 residents in the facility. Findings include: During an interview with Maintenance Director (MD) Z, at 12:45 PM on 7/31/23, it was found that staff flush minimal use fixtures, but have not been logging it down. When asked how often staff are flushing water, MD Z stated that weekly he would flush toilets in the unoccupied unit. When asked if there was a binder, policy, logs, or a checklist to go over and review, MD Z was unsure. At 1:50 PM on 7/31/23, the facility provided a policy entitled Water Management Program to Reduce Legionella Growth and Spread, dated 7/10/23. A review of the policy found that it requires documentation to be performed in a preventative maintenance log when tasks are completed. The policy also states that monthly checklist would be developed in order to know what areas of the facility should routinely be drained (or flushed) and that unoccupied rooms would get flushed twice weekly. At 2:38 PM on 7/31/23, observation of station one clean utility room found an old shower room that had been re-purposed over time to become a room for storage. At this time it was observed that the commode in the back corner of the room (behind a curtain and equipment) was found with little water in the bowl, indicating that the commode had not been flushed in weeks. At 2:40 PM on 7/31/23, observation of station one soiled utility room found that the mop sink faucet over the hopper discharged brown water when turned on, indicating a minimal use fixture that is not being routinely flushed. During a tour of Willowbrook, the unoccupied memory unit, at 3:02 PM on 7/31/23, with Assistant Maintenance Director AA, it was found that numerous resident rooms had fixtures that ran brown water during the first few seconds of flushing, indicating that these areas, that share the same water supply as the occupied portion of the building, are not being adequately protected with risk reducing measures. No time during survey did the facility show or submit a completed risk assessment or a completed CDC tool-kit, both of which are used to identify risk areas and minimize the risk of contamination.
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to submit the 5 day investigation to the State Agency for a facility reported incident in 2 residents (R19 and R38) out of 3 reviewed for abus...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to submit the 5 day investigation to the State Agency for a facility reported incident in 2 residents (R19 and R38) out of 3 reviewed for abuse, resulting in the potential for further allegations of abuse to not be thoroughly investigated and/or reported to the State Agency timely. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #19 revealed the resident was a female admitted with pertinent diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, delusional, anxiety, impulse disorder and dementia. Review of medical record for Resident #38 revealed the resident was a female admitted with pertinent diagnoses of diabetes, macular degeneration (loss in the cent of the field of vision), anxiety, depression, heart failure, and sleep disorders. Review of Incident submitted to the State Agency dated 7/11/23 at 11:23 AM, revealed, .Incident Summary: At approx both residents were in activity room. (Resident #19's) tweeter alarm sounded and resident tossed it towards (Resident #38). It landed on her and startled her. (Resident #19) was removed from the activity room away from other residents. Both residents were assessed for pain and injury no injury noted. (Resident #38) stated I'm fine it, just startled me, it was funny I thought it was a snake. When (Resident #19) asked why she did not answer. (Resident #19) was placed on 1:1 and assessed by (Name of Psychological Services) Services Social worker who was on campus at time. She is noted to be having increased delusions and hallucinations at this time. MD and family was notified. Granddaughter (Name of Granddaughter) is requesting to have resident seen at inpatient psychiatric services. Referral made as requested . Submitted by (Director of Nursing) B on 7/11/23. In an interview on 08/01/23 at 4:03 PM, DON B reported she realized the final five-day investigation was not in the report when she went into the state system to submit for something else and saw that it was not completed.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 15% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 33 points below Michigan's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $125,564 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $125,564 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Michigan. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 43/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Froh Community Home's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Froh Community Home an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Froh Community Home Staffed?

CMS rates Froh Community Home's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 15%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Froh Community Home?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at Froh Community Home during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 15 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Froh Community Home?

Froh Community Home is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 65 certified beds and approximately 58 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Sturgis, Michigan.

How Does Froh Community Home Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Froh Community Home's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (15%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Froh Community Home?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Froh Community Home Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Froh Community Home has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Michigan. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Froh Community Home Stick Around?

Staff at Froh Community Home tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 15%, the facility is 31 percentage points below the Michigan average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 10%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Froh Community Home Ever Fined?

Froh Community Home has been fined $125,564 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.7x the Michigan average of $34,335. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Froh Community Home on Any Federal Watch List?

Froh Community Home 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.