The Villa at Parkridge

28 S Prospect Street, Ypsilanti, MI 48198 (734) 483-2220
For profit - Corporation 144 Beds VILLA HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
45/100
#346 of 422 in MI
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

The Villa at Parkridge has a Trust Grade of D, which means it is below average and raises some concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #346 out of 422 nursing homes in Michigan, placing it in the bottom half of facilities, and #8 out of 9 in Washtenaw County, indicating that there is only one local option that is better. Unfortunately, the facility's performance is worsening, with issues increasing from 9 in 2024 to 22 in 2025. Staffing is a significant weakness, with a rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 48%, which is near the state average but still concerning for continuity of care. While there have been no fines issued, the facility has lower RN coverage than 89% of Michigan facilities, which is a critical factor in ensuring residents receive proper medical attention. Specific incidents include a resident suffering a second-degree burn from food served at an unsafe temperature and ongoing complaints from residents about food quality and long wait times for call light responses, highlighting areas where the facility needs to improve.

Trust Score
D
45/100
In Michigan
#346/422
Bottom 19%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
9 → 22 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 21 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Michigan. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
40 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 9 issues
2025: 22 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Michigan average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 48%

Near Michigan avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: VILLA HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 40 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake # 2589332.Based on interview and record review the facility failed to immediately assess and no...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake # 2589332.Based on interview and record review the facility failed to immediately assess and notify the physician and responsible party of a fall with major injury for one Resident (#3) of three reviewed.Findings include:Review of the clinical record revealed Resident 3 (R3) was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and transferred to the hospital on 8/6/20 where a fractured right hip was discovered. Further review of the clinical record scored 13 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status. There was no documentation in the clinical record on 8/5/26 that indicated R3 had a fall. A late entry nursing progress note dated 8/07/25 revealed that on 8/5/25 R3 was observed sitting next to his bed and R3 was unable to articulate what happened. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) N and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) O placed R3 back to bed. LPN N documented R3 had no injuries, no pain and that a body assessment was conducted. There was no notation that R3's physician or Responsible party had been notified on 8/05/25 of the incident. Further review of the clinical record there was no documentation that range of motion to any extremities was assessed, no documentation regarding neuroglial checks. Review of Occupational Therapy Notes dated 8/06/25 revealed R3 was complaining of right hip and told the therapist that he fell the day before. Therapy had notified nursing. Nursing note dated 8/06/25 reflected nursing was notified by therapy that R3 reported he fell the day prior and had complaints of right hip pain. R3 guardian came to visit on 8/6/25 and was notified about R3's fall from R3's roommate. R3's guardian went to talk to Administration and requested R3 to be sent to the hospital immediately. Review of R3 fall investigation which included hospital records, revealed R3 sustained a right hip fracture that required surgical repair. On 8/20/25 at 9:25 am during an interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) C she reported nobody was aware that R3 fell until Therapy had notified her. LPN N was aware but forgot to document it and pass the information along. When queried why the Physician and Responsible party wasn't notified until the day after the fall, ADON C stated they had just found out and had not had a chance to contact them before R3's roommate told the Responsible party/guardian. On 8/20/25 at 12:01pm during a phone interview with LPN N she reported she observed R3 on the floor on his right side about 4:00pm on 8/05/2025. LPN N stated she helped R3 into bed and thought R3 was fine. When queried about assessment, LPN N stated R3 denied pain and neuro checks were initiated but wasn't sure if they were documented, LPN N also stated a body check was done and was ok when asked to elaborate about a body check, LPN N stated she looked over R3's body for cuts. abrasions, bruises. When queried if any type of range of motion had been done LPN N stated no. When queried why she did not notify R3's physician and Responsible party/guardian, LPN N stated didn't have a reason, she just didn't. On 8/20/25 at 11:50am during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) B she reported the expectation was that after a fall or any type of incident once the resident was fully assessed and safe the physician and responsible party were to be notified.
Feb 2025 18 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake MI00146710 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to make prom...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake MI00146710 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve grievances for one (R88) of 2 reviewed. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed R88 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included adjustment disorder with depressed mood and Alzheimer's Disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/14/24 revealed R88 scored 14 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). On 02/10/25 at 11:59 AM, R88 was observed sitting on the edge of their bed in their room. R88 reported they were missing a couple sweatshirts, half a dozen pair of pants (jeans and lighter pants), cotton t-shirts, and a green plaid jacket. R88 reported their clothing items go to laundry and don't come back. R88 reported their clothing items were labeled with their name and had been missing awhile. R88 reported they have told staff about the missing items and staff have told R88 they cannot find the clothing. R88 reported they were not sure if anyone filled out a missing items/grievance form for them. On 02/11/25 at 11:37 AM, R88's grievances and missing items forms for the last 12 months were requested from Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A. R88 had one grievance dated 10/3/24 pertaining to meal alternatives and preferences. In an interview on 02/11/25 at 1:59 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) X reported approximately two weeks ago, R88 reported that they were missing a pair of jeans and a plaid jacket. CNA X reported they went to the laundry room numerous times and have not been able to locate the items. CNA X reported they verbally told laundry staff about the missing items, but did not fill out a grievance form. In an interview on 02/12/25 at 9:54 AM, Environmental Services Director (ESD) Y reported all missing clothing items should go through the grievance process. When asked if they were aware of R88 missing clothing, ESD Y reported they thought we did a follow-up with [R88] but would have to double check. On 02/12/25 at 10:02 AM, NHA A reported R88 did not have any further grievances and nothing pertaining to missing items.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess bed bolsters as potential restraints for two (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess bed bolsters as potential restraints for two (Resident #25 and #63) of three reviewed. Findings include: Resident #63 (R63) Review of the medical record reflected R63 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder and unspecified dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/14/24, reflected R63 was rarely/never understood and had short-term and long-term memory impairments. Section P of the MDS, pertaining to Restraints and Alarms, did not reflect coding for restraint use. According to MDS question P0100. Physical Restraints, Physical restraints are any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. On 02/10/25 at 9:20 AM, R63 was observed in bed, with the head of the bed elevated, watching TV. The sides of the mattress were noted to be elevated. A black strap was observed hanging from each side of the mattress. R63 did not verbally respond when spoken to but was noted to verbalize, unrelated to being spoken to. On 02/10/25 at 10:22 AM, R63 was observed self-propelling their wheelchair in the hallway, using their arms and legs. On 02/12/25 at 9:12 AM, R63 was observed in bed, with the head of the bed elevated. Each side of the mattress was noted to be elevated, under the fitted bed sheet. R63's Falls Care Plan reflected bolsters were added to both sides of the bed on 10/14/24. During an interview on 02/12/25 at 9:14 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) C reported bolsters were used on R63's bed because R63 got up independently and was unable to walk or independently transfer into their chair. RN C reported R63 could roll out of bed without the bolsters in place. In an interview on 02/12/25 at 9:38 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) E reported R63 would attempt to transfer independently, and since having bed bolsters, they no longer attempted as often. CNA E reported R63 did not walk but could stand for short periods of time and transfer with the assistance of one person and a gait belt. They reported the bolsters prevented R63 from getting up independently. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 12:25 PM, RN/MDS Coordinator N reported bolsters were on R63's bed to prevent them from rolling out of bed and falling. RN/MDS Coordinator N reported the facility had restraint assessments, but R63's medical record did not contain one. They reported R63 could remove the bolsters from their bed but could not be asked to do so consistently due to cognitive deficits. RN/MDS Coordinator N reported the floor nurses would assess for potential restraints. R63's medical record did not reflect whether the use of bed bolsters were evaluated as a potential restraint. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 2:23 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported a restraint would restrict movement. According to DON B, if bed bolsters were used for fall prevention, they would not want the resident to be able to remove the bolsters, as they could fall and get injured. DON B reported R63's bed bolsters were for fall prevention. DON B reported if a resident had the ability to stand up and move, and bolsters were placed, that was a restraint. DON B reviewed R63's medical record and reported they did not see any type of restraint assessment. Review of the medical record reflected R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included history of falling, anoxic brain damage, and dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/13/25, reflected R25 did not meet the requirements for a Brief Interview for Mental status score due to rarely/never being understood. According to MDS question P0100. Physical Restraints, Physical restraints are any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. On 2/10/25 at 10:27 AM, R25 was observed in bed. A fall mat was observed on the floor adjacent to the bed. The left side of the bed was up against the wall with a bolster placed underneath the fitted sheet. The right side of the bed had a triangle, hard foam positioning wedge underneath the fitted sheet which was strapped to the bed frame. While speaking to R25, he attempted to wiggle himself off of the bed but was unsuccessful due to the implemented barriers. R25's soft touch call light was observed at the foot of the bed, out of reach. On 2/11/25 at 12:50 PM, R25 was observed in bed. The positioning wedge and bolster remained in the same spot as the previous observation the previous day. R25's call light remained at the foot of the bed, out of reach. On 2/12/25 at 8:40 AM. R25 was observed in bed with the positioning wedge and bolster in the same spot as the previous observations. Review of R25's Fall Care plan revealed an intervention dated 3/22/22 which stated ensure bolsters are in place and well connected. On 2/12/25 at 8:55 AM Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) K stated that R25 had some falls out of bed previously. CNA K stated that R25 was strong on his right side so the staff had placed the bolster and positioning wedge to ensure that he stays in bed and doesn't fall out. CNA K stated that it seems to work because R25 is unable to get himself out of bed. On 2/12/25 at 9:11 AM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) H reported that R25 had some falls out of bed in the past. LPN H confirmed that the positioning wedge and bolster were to prevent R25 from falling out of bed because it stops him from scooting out. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 12:25 PM, RN/MDS Coordinator N reported bolsters were on R25's bed to prevent them from rolling out of bed and falling. RN/MDS Coordinator N reported the facility had restraint assessments, but R25's medical record did not contain one. RN/MDS Coordinator N reported the floor nurses would assess for potential restraints. R25's medical record did not reflect whether the use of bed bolsters were evaluated as a potential restraint. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 2:23 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported a restraint would restrict movement. According to DON B, if bed bolsters were used for fall prevention, they would not want the resident to be able to remove the bolsters, as they could fall and get injured. DON B reported R25's bed bolsters were for fall prevention. DON B reviewed R25's medical record and reported they did not see any type of restraint assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tim...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment timely for one (R68) of 25 reviewed. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed R68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia. The census tab in the medical record revealed R68 began hospice services on 11/1/24 and ended hospice services on 1/21/25. Review of R68's MDS assessments, revealed a Significant Change MDS with an Assessment Reference Date of 1/27/25 that was still in progress as of 2/10/25. The Significant Change Assessment was completed on 2/11/25. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 12:25 PM, MDS Coordinator N reported a Significant Change Assessment had to be completed within 14 days. MDS Coordinator N agreed R68's Significant Change Assessment was completed late. According to the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, a Significant Change in Status Assessment must be completed within 14 days of the determination that a significant change in a resident's condition has occurred.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to revise the Care Plan for two residents (Resident #79 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 revise the Care Plan for two residents (Resident #79 and 374) of 25 reviewed. Findings include: Resident #374 (R364) Review of the clinical record, including the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference dated of 7/29/24 reflected Resident # 374 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission date of 7/22/24, diagnoses that included nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, multiple localized, muscle wasting and atrophy, anxiety, major depression. Of note, R374 was transferred to the hospital on 9/11/24 and did not return to the facility. Review of R374's weight record revealed R374 weighed 105.6 pounds on 7/23/2024. On 6/11/24 R374 weighed 117.4 pounds revealing an 11.7% weight loss in one month. Review of R374's 7/29/24 MDS section K queried for weight if there was a 5% or more in the last month or loss of 10% or more in 6 months. This question was coded as 0 meaning No or unknown. Review of R374's nutritional care plan dated 4/15/24 revealed R374 was at risk for malnutrition related to their medical condition. Revisions were made to the care plan on 6/05/24 which included allow sufficient time to eat, monitor and report signs and symptoms of pocketing food, choking, refusal to eat. Obtain and monitor blood work, provide regular diet with regular texture and provide assistance with meals as needed. There was no further revisions or added interventions made to R374's care plan after a significant weight loss of 11.7 % in July 2024. On 02/13/2025 at 10:33 am, during an interview with the facility's Registered Dietician (RD) M reported she worked at the facility for approximately one month and was not familiar with R374. Review of R374s weights, nutritional assessments and care plans were reviewed. RD M offered no explanation for why R374's care plan had not been updated/revised after R374's hospitalization and significant weight loss. Resident #79 (R79) Review of the medical record reflected R79 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition and gastrostomy status (artificial, external opening into the stomach, which can be used for nutritional support). The Admission/5-day Medicare Part A Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/1/24, and the Quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 11/1/24, reflected R79 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool) and received 51 percent or more of their total calories via tube feeding. On 02/10/25 at 11:43 AM, R79 was observed in bed and reported being told they had gained 20 pounds. R79 reported they ate breakfast and also consumed pudding and applesauce at lunch and dinner. R79 reported their tube feeding had not been adjusted, although they had been gaining weight. On 02/12/25 at 10:03 AM, R79 was observed lying in bed. Osmolite 1.5 Cal tube feeding formula was infusing at a rate of 50 milliliters (mL) per hour. R79 reported they ate one meal per day and consumed yogurt and two bowls of oatmeal that morning. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 10:55 AM, Registered Dietitian (RD) M reported R79's preference was to eat breakfast (by mouth), consisting of two bowls of oatmeal, and to receive tube feeding other than that. R79's Care Plan reflected they had a mechanically altered diet order in place and relied on enteral nutrition (tube feeding) to meet 100% of their nutritional needs. R79's Care Plan did not reflect their preference to consume breakfast by mouth. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 2:23 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported R79's meals were pleasure trays and should have been care planned.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intakes MI00146664, MI00146710 Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intakes MI00146664, MI00146710 Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide necessary care to assist two of five residents reviewed for grooming (R#29 and R#49) with necessary activities of daily living (ADLs), resulting in these residents not receiving the care needed to maintain their highest practicable well-being and potential for embarrassment and humiliation of residents. Findings Include: Resident #29 (R29) Review of the medical record reflected R29 was an initial admission to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses of Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure (a short term and long-term condition that is treated as an emergency and requires long term treatment), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Cerebral Infarction (stroke), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)(a lung condition caused by damage to the airways that limit airflow), Other Idiopathic Peripheral Autonomic Neuropathy (nerve damage with unknown cause), Acute on Chronic Combined Systolic and Diastolic Heart Failure (a condition where a patient experiences an acute exacerbation of heart failure that has both systolic (reduced ejection fraction) and diastolic (preserved ejection fraction) components), Chronic Pain Syndrome (characterized by pain that lasts beyond the expected healing time), Anxiety and Depression. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/30/2024, revealed R29 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 (cognitively intact) out of 15. Under section GG0100, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Assistance reveals R29 was dependent on all care and requires minimal/moderate assist with setting up for meals. During an interview on 02/10/25 at 10:47 AM, R29 stated she would like to go play Bingo, but the staff do not get her up out of bed until late afternoon and she misses Bingo. R29 also stated there are not many activities for her to do, but she would like to go to bingo. Record review revealed of R29's care plan: The resident needs reminders of time and location of activities and assistance to and from activities. Date Initiated: 01/28/2024 Resident will attend appropriate activities of choice through the review date. Provide large group activities. Date Initiated: 01/28/2024. Activities Provide resident with afternoon activities. Date Initiated: 01/28/2024 Activities Provide resident with morning activities. Date Initiated: 01/28/2024. Activities Provide resident with small group activities. Date Initiated: 01/28/2024 Activities Invite/encourage the resident's family members to attend activities with resident to support participation. During an observation on 02/11/25 at 2:00 PM, residents were lining up to play bingo outside of the dining room at the end of hall 200. Some staff would wheel residents down in their wheelchairs and some residents could wheel themselves down to bingo. Observation of R29 still in bed with her nightgown/hospital gown on. Writer did not observe a staff member go into R29's room to ask if she would like to join in on bingo. During an interview on 02/11/25 at 2:20 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) U stated they had to help residents get up to participate in activities. Writer asked CNA U how they would know who to get up? CNA U stated they would ask residents if they wanted to get up and attend the activity. Writer asked CNA U if they asked R29 if she wanted to get up, CNA U stated she was new here and doesn't usually work on this floor. During an interview on 02/11/25 at 3:27 PM, Activity Director T stated they do one on one activities with residents such as sensory stuff, different smells, music, visits, color books, try to engage the resident. Activity Director T also stated they will go into their room and ask residents if they want to go to an activity, and then they left the CNA know, so they can have them up. Activity Director T stated it would take longer to get her up since she is a 2 person and mechanical lift, and it takes time to get everyone down there. Activity Director T stated she would talk to this resident and staff so they can have her up for bingo. Activity Director T stated there were times R29 wanted to get up, so they got her up in her wheelchair for a while and then she wanted to go back to bed because her back was hurting. Writer asked Activity Director T if R29 would want to be up out of bed now and then. Activity Director T stated yes, but she likes to stay in bed. Record review revealed R29 did not have any planned activities for the last 30 days. R29 did not have any daily activities. The task record showed R29 did not have any interactions with activities at all during the last 30 days. The staff documented R29 watched TV every day. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 1:00 PM, with Director of Nursing (DON) B and Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNA) A writer asked to see what activities R29 had participated in during the last 30 days. DON B was looking through the task completed in R29's electronic medical record. DON B stated there wasn't anything documented for the last 30 days. DON B stated that activities had documented the involvement with residents but could not find were R29 had any activities in her room or else where during the last 30 days. Resident #49 (R49) Review of the medical record reflected R49 was an initial admission to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses of Cerebral Infarction (Stroke), Nontraumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (bleeding of the brain), Chronic Respiratory Failure, Unspecified whether with Hypoxia or Hypercapnia (when you cannot get enough oxygen into the blood or eliminate enough carbon dioxide), Cognitive Social or Emotional Deficit following Cerebral Infarction, Flaccid Hemiplegia Affecting Right Dominate Side (paralysis on the right side of the body due to damage in the brain or spinal cord), Muscle Wasting and Atrophy not Elsewhere Classified (Loss of muscle mass and strength), Cognition Communication Deficit ( deficits in communication skills that occur) Vascular Dementia, Unspecified Severity without Behavior Disturbance (brain damage from impaired blood flow to the brain), without Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance and Anxiety, End Stage Renal Disease (final stage of chronic kidney disease where the kidney function has deteriorated to the point that the kidneys and no longer effectively filter waste products from the blood) and Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood (excessive reactions to stress). The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/04/2024, revealed R49 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 03 (Severe Cognitive Impairment) out of 15. Under section GG0100, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Assistance reveals R49 was dependent on all care and requires minimal/moderate assist with setting up for meals. During an interview on 02/10/25 at 9:47 AM, R49 stated she had not had a shower in a long time. R49 stated she received 4 bed baths during the last month but did not have her hair washed during that time. R49 stated she wanted a shower, not all bed baths. During an interview and observation on 02/11/25 at 1:22 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) R was asked to see shower schedule for days residents get a bath/shower by this writer. Observed a paper with resident's name on it to receive a shower/bath 2 times a week. Writer asked if they got a shower or bath, LPN R stated she wasn't sure, but she would find out and let me know. LPN R reported back to this writer a short time following the inquiry, stating the CNA's ask the residents which one they would like a shower or a bed bath. LPN R also stated that the CNA's use a shampoo cap to wash the hair on residents that get a bed bath. During an interview on 02/11/25 at 1:45 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) Manager AA stated the CNA's ask the resident if they would like a bath or shower. If they want a bed bath, they can wash their hair with a shampoo cap. During an interview on 02/11/25 at 2:30 PM, CNA Q, stated he did give R49 a bath today. Writer asked if he gave her a bed bath or a shower. CNA Q stated he gave her a bed bath. Writer asked CNA Q if he offered her a shower instead of the bed bath. CNA Q stated he couldn't give her a shower because the shower bench is broken, the wheel was broken. Writer asked how long the shower bench had been broken. CNA Q stated for a few days. During an interview on 02/11/25 at 3:59, CNA Q stated the shower bench had been broken for a few days, stated it was reported to maintenance and just waiting now for it to be fixed. During an interview on 02/12/25 at 10:50 AM, Regional Maintenance Director S stated he was not personally aware of the broken shower bench, but he would check and see if a work order was put in. During an interview on 02/12/25 at 11:538 AM, Regional Maintenance Director S came back to conference room to report the maintenance guy noticed this was broke yesterday when he was touring the building with the sanitarian. Regional Maintenance Director S stated it would be fixed today. Record review revealed R49 had a bed bath on 01/17/25, 01/21/25, 01/24/25, 01/28/25, 01/31/25, 02/04/25, 02/06/25, 02/08/25 and 02/11/25. R49 did not get a shower for the last 30 days as preferred. Record review also revealed R49 received oral care in the middle of the night while sleeping on 01/17/25 at 5:10 AM, on 01/22/25 at 1:10 AM, on 01/23/25 at 3:51 AM, on 01/24/25 at 4:12 AM, on 01/30/25 at 5:49 AM, on 01/31/25 at 4:39 AM, on 02/02/25 at 4:10 AM, on 02/04/25 at 2:05 AM, on 02/05/25 at 4:26 AM, on 02/11/25 at 3:10 AM. Record review also revealed that R49 was in her wheelchair and wheeled herself 150 feet during the middle of the night, on 01/17/25 at 5:10 AM, on 01/22/25 at 1:10 AM, on 01/24/25 at 1:13 AM, on 01/30/25 at 5:49 AM, on 01/31/25 at 4:39 AM, on 02/02/25 at 4:10 AM, on 02/05/25 at 4:26 AM. Record review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE], section GG0170- self care revealed R49 is dependent on all care. Including the assessment that stated R49 is not able to wheel herself 150 feet in her manual wheelchair as documented above. R49 did not receive activities of daily living (ADL's) that was conducive to her preferences or during waking hours.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide meaningful, individualized activities to one r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide meaningful, individualized activities to one resident (#29) of two reviewed for activities, from a total sample of 25 residents, resulting in the potential for depression, boredom and feelings of lack of self-worth. Findings include: Resident #29 (R29) Review of the medical record reflected R29 was an initial admission to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses of Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure (a short term and long-term condition that is treated as an emergency and requires long term treatment), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Cerebral Infarction (stroke), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)(a lung condition caused by damage to the airways that limit airflow), Other Idiopathic Peripheral Autonomic Neuropathy (nerve damage with unknown cause), Acute on Chronic Combined Systolic and Diastolic Heart Failure (a condition where a patient experiences an acute exacerbation of heart failure that has both systolic (reduced ejection fraction) and diastolic (preserved ejection fraction) components), Chronic Pain Syndrome (characterized by pain that lasts beyond the expected healing time), Anxiety and Depression. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/30/2024, revealed R29 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 (cognitively intact) out of 15. Under section GG0100, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Assistance reveals R29 was dependent on all care and requires minimal/moderate assist with setting up for meals. During an interview on 02/10/25 at 10:47 AM, R29 stated she would like to go play Bingo, but the staff do not get her up out of bed until late afternoon and she misses Bingo. R29 also stated there are not many activities for her to do, but she would like to go to bingo. Record review revealed of R29's care plan: The resident needs reminders of time and location of activities and assistance to and from activities. Date Initiated: 01/28/2024 Resident will attend appropriate activities of choice through the review date. Provide large group activities Date Initiated: 01/28/2024. Activities Provide resident with afternoon activities. Date Initiated: 01/28/2024 Activities Provide resident with morning activities. Date Initiated: 01/28/2024. Activities Provide resident with small group activities Date Initiated: 01/28/2024 Activities Invite/encourage the resident's family members to attend activities with resident to support participation. During an observation on 02/11/25 at 2:00 PM, residents were lining up to play bingo outside of the dining room at the end of hall 200. Some staff would wheel residents down in their wheelchairs and some residents could wheel themselves down to bingo. Observation of R29 still in bed with her nightgown/hospital gown on. Writer did not observe a staff member go into R29's room to ask if she would like to join in on bingo. During an interview on 02/11/25 at 2:20 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) U stated they had to help residents get up to participate in activities. Writer asked CNA U how they would know who to get up? CNA U stated they would ask residents if they wanted to get up and attend the activity. Writer asked CNA U if they asked R29 if she wanted to get up, CNA U stated she was new here and doesn't usually work on this floor. During an interview on 02/11/25 at 3:27 PM, Activity Director T stated they do one on one activities with residents such as sensory stuff, different smells, music, visits, color books, try to engage the resident. Activity Director T also stated they will go into their room and ask residents if they want to go to an activity, and then they left the CNA know, so they can have them up. Activity Director T stated it would take longer to get her up since she is a 2 person and mechanical lift, and it takes time to get everyone down there. Activity Director T stated she would talk to this resident and staff so they can have her up for bingo. Activity Director T stated there were times R29 wanted to get up, so they got her up in her wheelchair for a while and then she wanted to go back to bed because her back was hurting. Writer asked Activity Director T if R29 would want to be up out of bed now and then. Activity Director T stated yes, but she likes to stay in bed. Record review revealed R29 did not have any planned activities for the last 30 days. R29 did not have any daily activities. The task record showed R29 did not have any interactions with activities at all during the last 30 days. The staff documented R29 watched TV every day. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 1:00 PM, with Director of Nursing (DON) B and Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNA) A writer asked to see what activities R29 had participated in during the last 30 days. DON B was looking through the task completed in R29's electronic medical record. DON B stated there wasn't anything documented for the last 30 days. DON B stated that activities had documented the involvement with residents but could not find were R29 had any activities in her room or else where during the last 30 days.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake MI00146664. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to honor pre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake MI00146664. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to honor preferences for weight management for one (Resident #79) and prevent weight loss for one (Resident #374) of six reviewed. Findings include: Resident #79 (R79) Review of the medical record reflected R79 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition and gastrostomy status (artificial, external opening into the stomach, which can be used for nutritional support). The Admission/5-day Medicare Part A Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/1/24, and the Quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 11/1/24, reflected R79 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool) and received 51 percent or more of their total calories via tube feeding. On 02/10/25 at 11:43 AM, R79 was observed in bed and reported being told they had gained 20 pounds. R79 reported they ate breakfast and also consumed pudding and applesauce at lunch and dinner. R79 reported their tube feeding had not been adjusted, although they had been gaining weight. On 02/12/25 at 10:03 AM, R79 was observed lying in bed. Osmolite 1.5 Cal tube feeding formula was infusing at a rate of 50 milliliters (mL) per hour. R79 reported they ate one meal per day and consumed yogurt and two bowls of oatmeal that morning. The Quarterly Nutrition Assessment, dated 10/28/24, reflected R79 received a pureed texture diet and enteral feeding (tube feeding). According to the assessment, R79's ideal body weight was 120 pounds, and they weighed 144 pounds on 10/23/24. According to the assessment, there was a slight uptrend in weight but no significant weight changes in 90 days. The assessment reflected the Registered Dietitian (RD) would continue to monitor weight trends and adjust the enteral nutrition regimen if needed. The Quarterly Nutrition Assessment, dated 2/3/25, reflected R79 received a pureed diet texture and enteral feeding. According to the assessment, R79's ideal body weight was 120 pounds, and they weighed 161.6 pounds on 2/3/25. The assessment reflected R79 had a significant weight gain of 8.2 percent, compared to their weight on 11/15/24. According to the assessment, R79 had a significant weight gain of 14.1 percent, compared to their weight on 8/6/24. The assessment reflected the Physician had not been consulted about R79's weight gain. There was notation that the accuracy of R79's weights was questioned, and R79 refused to be re-weighed. According to the assessment, the RD attempted to call R79's Responsible Party multiple times about R79's weight status but did not receive a response. According to the medical record, R79's weight history (not all-inclusive) reflected they weighed 137.2 pounds on 7/26/24, 148.4 pounds on 11/15/24, 151.8 pounds on 12/12/24 and 161.6 pounds on 2/3/25. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 10:55 AM, RD M reported R79 triggered for weight gain and had a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 27.7, which was overweight. According to RD M, R79's preference was to eat breakfast, consisting of two bowls of oatmeal, and to receive tube feeding other than that. RD M reported R79 did not want to gain weight and desired weight loss and weight maintenance. RD M reported R79 did not walk and spent their time in bed. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 1:55 PM, RD M reported R79 had a stage four pressure ulcer (full-thickness skin and tissue loss), and in order to receive the recommended calories and protein, their diet order needed to remain the same. The medical record did not indicate that the risks and/or benefits of weight gain/loss and continuation of the current diet orders were discussed with the responsible party and the resident. Resident #374 Review of the clinical record, including the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference dated of 7/29/24 reflected Resident # 374 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission date of 7/22/24, diagnoses that included nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, multiple localized, muscle wasting and atrophy, anxiety, major depression. Of note, R374 was transferred to the hospital on 9/11/24 and did not return to the facility. Review of R374's weight record revealed R374 weighed 105.6 pounds on 7/23/2024. On 6/11/24 R374 weighed 117.4 pounds revealing an 11.7% weight loss in one month. Review of R374's 7/29/24 MDS section K queried for weight if there was a 5% or more in the last month or loss of 10% or more in 6 months. This question was coded as 0 meaning No or unknown. Further review of the MDS revealed R374 scored 2 out of 15 (severe cognitive impairment). R374 was further coded as rarely/never able to make self understood and was rarely/never able to understand others. Review of R374's nutritional care plan dated 4/15/24 revealed R374 was at risk for malnutrition related to their medical condition. Revisions were made to the care plan on 6/05/24 which included allow sufficient time to eat, monitor and report signs and symptoms of pocketing food, choking, refusal to eat. Obtain and monitor blood work, provide regular diet with regular texture and provide assistance with meals as needed. There was no further revisions or added interventions made to R374's care plan after a significant weight loss of 11.7 % in July 2024. Review of facility Nutritional progress notes dated 4/15/2024 reflected R374 received tube feeding to meet nutritional needs. Nutritional progress note dated 5/6/24 reflected R374 oral intake had improved to approximately 50% and tube feeding was recommended to be trialed nocturnally to promote oral intake. Nutritional progress notes dated 5/9/24 reflected R374 was eating well and consumed 100% of her dinner meal on 5/8/2024 tube feeding rate was slowed and held during the day related to improved oral intake. Nutritional progress notes dated 5/17/24 reflected R374 had varied intake at meals and refusals of meals, recommendations were to continue diet as ordered and staff to provide encouragement and supervision at meals. readmission Nutritional progress note dated 6/5/24 revealed R374 had a 5.1 % unplanned weight loss over a 30 day period and R374 was interviewed on food preferences. Recommendations were 1. Continue current diet order as tolerated. 2. Osmolite 1.5 calorie for 1500 calories starting at 8:00 pm with stop when 1000 milliliters infused. 3. Provide assistance with meals. 4. Encourage tube feedings. 5. Monitor weight with goal of no significant weight changes, weight gain planned favorable. Review of Nutritional progress notes dated 6/14/24 reveled R374 current body weight was 117.4 and R374 continued to trigger for significant unplanned weight loss and continued to refused artificial nutrition. Recommendations were to 1. continue with liberalized diet, 2. Encourage tube feeding as tolerated. 3. Continue 8. ounce nutritional shakes, 4. Continue multivitamin. 5. Additional high calorie snacks and finger foods added to meal ticket. 6. Encourage family to bring in foods/snacks. 7. Staff to continue fluid intake. 8. Monitor weekly weights. None of the 8 recommendations listed in the Nutritional progress notes were reflected on R374's nutritional care plan or the [NAME] (a guide used by the certified nursing assistants on how to care for their resident). readmission Nutritional progress note dated 7/23/24 revealed R374 weight at this time was 105.6 and had a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 17.6. (underweight) the note reflected R374 had poor intake at meals, severe fat and muscle loss, tube feeding was no longer in place, nutritional supplements continued, high protein and caloric foods, supervision with meals, weekly weights and multivitamin. The Nutritional assessment dated [DATE] reflected R374's meal ticket was up to date with likes and dislikes but nowhere in the medical record R374's likes or dislikes were documented. The recommended interventions documented in the 7/23/24 Nutritional notes and assessment were the same as the 6/14/24 Nutritional progress notes, but none of the interventions/recommendations were implemented according to the care plan and [NAME]. There was no evidence any new or additional preventive measures were implemented to prevent weight loss. Review of the Nutritional progress notes dated 9/11/2024 revealed R374 weighed 99 pounds and BMI of 16.6. The nutritional progress note did not include any new recommendations or interventions to prevent R374's continued weight loss. On 02/13/2025 at 10:33 am, during an interview with the facility's Registered Dietician (RD) M reported she worked at the facility for approximately one month and was not familiar with R374. RD M stated the Dietician at the time of R374's stay at the facility was no longer employed by the facility. R374's medical record was reviewed with RD M who offered no explanation R374's continued weight loss without the former RD's recommendations fully implemented or why there was not any new/added interventions to prevent R374's continued weight loss.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessment and monitoring of a dialysis access site and updated Care Plans for one (Resident #75) of one reviewed. Findings include: Review of the medical record reflected Resident #75 (R75) admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease and dependence on renal dialysis. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/24/25, reflected R75 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). On 02/11/25 at 8:59 AM, R75 was observed lying in bed. They reported going to dialysis three times per week, on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. R75 reported their dialysis access site was in their left arm and denied that the nursing staff were monitoring the site routinely. R75 reported they were not to have blood draws or blood pressures taken from their left arm. R75 reported being on a fluid restriction. R75's [NAME] (Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Care Guide) was not reflective of R75 being on dialysis, nor the location of their access site or any care considerations pertaining to. The Special Instructions section of the main page of R75's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) reflected they were on a fluid restriction and were not to have blood pressures on their right arm. R75's medical record did not include an active Physician's Order for a fluid restriction. R75's January 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) reflected an order to check for a bruit/thrill (bruit-sound heard over dialysis fistula/thrill-palpable vibration felt over dialysis fistula) every shift, which was discontinued 1/16/25. The same MAR reflected an order for no blood pressure, lab draws or intravenous therapy on upper extremities, which was discontinued 1/16/25. R75's February 2025 MAR was not reflective of orders pertaining to monitoring or assessment of their dialysis access site or any care considerations pertaining to. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 1:25 PM, CNA P reported they had worked at the facility for three years but did not work on R75's floor often. CNA P reported the Care Plan and [NAME] were used to identify care needs of the residents. CNA P reported R75 was on a fluid restriction, which could have been identified by the color of their name tag on the outside of their room. CNA P reported the fluid restriction amounts should have been in the Care Plan, and they could also ask the nurse. CNA P believed R75's dialysis access site was in their left arm but reported they did not know that for sure. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 1:55 PM, Registered Dietitian (RD) M reported R75 was not on a fluid restriction. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 2:11 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) C reported R75's dialysis fistula (access site) was in their left arm. According to RN C, daily monitoring of the fistula was on the MAR and included listening for a bruit and ensuring the fistula was not open or hurting. During the interview, RN C was unable to locate the orders for monitoring and assessing R75's dialysis access site. RN C stated R75 was on a fluid restriction and only took sips of water with medication. RN C stated there would typically be an order for a fluid restriction, but they did not locate one in the medical record. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 2:23 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported the expectation was for daily monitoring of a dialysis access site, which included checking for a bruit and thrill and assessing for bleeding. DON B reported there should have been orders in place for the monitoring, and the nurses should have been documenting in the Progress Notes. When asked how CNAs would know the location of the dialysis access site and care considerations pertaining to, DON B reported it should have been on the [NAME]. DON B reported R75 went to the hospital on 1/16/25, and their orders were discontinued and not reimplemented upon return to the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide medically related Social Services for one resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide medically related Social Services for one resident (#375) of two reviewed for Social Services. Findings include: Resident #375 (R375) Review of the medical record reflected R375 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction. A Brief Interview for Mental Status had not been completed due to R375's refusal to participate in the assessment. On 02/10/25 at 12:02 PM, R375 was observed in bed. R375 was wearing a sweatshirt which had food debris on the front of it. R375 actively listened to questions, participated in the interview, and appropriately answered questions. R375 was able to accurately answer questions about who he was, his personal information, where he was currently located, the current date, his medical history, what facility he previously resided at, and who his guardian was. It was clear that R375 was cognitively intact. R375 stated extreme frustration with his situation stating that he currently had a legal guardian in place, did not want a legal guardian, and absolutely did not want to be at the facility. R375 shared that back in October, he had suffered a stroke and was admitted to the hospital. R375 stated that at the time of his stroke and hospitalization, he was out of it which led to the hospital pursuing legal guardianship for R375 due to his acute medical condition that resulted in the temporary confusion. R375 stated since then, his confusion had resolved and R375 felt that he no longer required a guardian. R375 was extremely frustrated with the fact that he was admitted to the facility, had not received his clothing, shoes or any personal supplies such as a razor, and despite being a cigarette smoker for years, had not been provided cigarettes. R375 stated that he had requested to speak to his guardian multiple times and requested these items several times, however, had not heard from his guardian. R375 stated that he had stated these same concerns to the facility social workers and nursing staff several times, however, no one had done anything. R375 felt completely helpless because he could not make his own decisions and felt very strongly that he had no one to advocate for him or provide him with the basic supplies. R375 stated that he had none of his personal clothing or shoes, stating that they had been left at his previous facility. R375 stated that he would like to go out and smoke a cigarette however, not having shoes, socks, and clothing prevented him from being able to go outside. R375 stated that he did not have a wheelchair due to staff removing it from his room to provide to another resident. R375 stated that he was stuck in bed. A wheelchair was not observed in R375's room. Review of a Psychosocial Note dated 1/31/2025 2:12 PM revealed SS (social services) met resident at bedside regarding psychosocial support. SS greeted the resident by name and he responded appropriate. Resident acknowledge refusing meals, showers, therapy and meds. Resident stated that he does not want to be here at the facility. Resident is aware that he has a guardian. Resident guardian is aware of his behaviors. Resident will continue to be followed by psych. Review of a Social Services note dated 1/31/2025 at 4:20 PM revealed SS spoken to resident at bedside regarding therapy. SS greeted the resident by name and he responded appropriate. Resident acknowledged his behavior refusing therapy, refusing meds (medications), refusing to eat. Resident express that he does not care. He wants to discharge. SS contacted resident guardian regarding resident behavior's. Guardian encourage resident to do his therapy and to eat his food. Resident told guardian no. However, guardian express that she is in the process of finding placement for resident. Resident guardian is aware of behaviors. Review of a Health Status Note dated 1/31/2025 9:42 PM revealed resident complained he want \s [sic] his guardian called and he wants to leave this facility. guardian was called at 21:25pm and she stated that she is still in the process of getting another facility for him and writer should let resident know about this . Review of a Physician Progress note dated 2/7/2025 at 1:33 PM stated Patient lying in bed alert verbal and no s/s (signs/symptoms) of distress noted .Patient continues to refuse care and treatment, refuses medications, refuses physical therapy and at times refuses to eat. Patient's guardian was called and she states she cannot help him at this time. Review of an Alert Note dated 2/10/2025 at 2:07 PM revealed Behavior was observed- at baseline. Guardian contacted and stated that she is working into providing the items that he requested. Review of a Social Services Note dated 2/10/2025 6:22 PM stated Social services met with resident regarding refusal of meals. Social services greeted resident by name and resident responded appropriately. Resident stated that he would like to discharge from the facility. Guardian is aware of the resident wanting to discharge and is working on placement. Review of a Behavioral Solutions Note dated 2/3/25 revealed Patient evaluated at bedside. He presents as calm, cooperative, and pleasant. Social worker requested patient to be evaluated for bipolar disorder, depressive type, which is ongoing. He denies any hallucinations, delusions, or paranoia .Per chart notes: few days ago, patient refusing physical therapy, refusing meds, and refusing to eat because he wanted to go home. Patient has been compliant lately. He reports feeling depressed and sad. In an interview on 02/12/25 at 11:23 AM, Social Worker (SW) I stated that the typical process for residents with a guardian that do not wish to have one anymore would be to perform a competency evaluation and take the concern to the judge for guidance and a decision. SW I stated that she was aware that R375 has a guardian, however, does not want a guardian. SW I explained that the guardianship had been in place when R375 admitted to the facility. SW I stated that R375 was refusing care because he was adamant about not wanting to be at the facility. R375 stated that she was aware that R375 was refusing medications, food and therapy because R375 was not happy here, not happy with having a guardian, not happy about not having his clothing and stated his clothing was still at the other facility . SW I stated that despite these concerns, no one felt that R375 should be reevaluated for guardianship because of his care refusals, despite R375 having the mental capacity to make his own decisions. SW I was also aware that R375 had expressed concerns about not having clothing or cigarettes but believed that those items had been provided to R375 by the guardian. SW I stated that the facility gives the guardian a week or two to provide resident requests. In an interview on 02/12/25 at 11:45 AM, Social Worker (SW) J stated that she has been discussing concerns with R375, however, he is reluctant to have a conversation with social work unless it is regarding how he can be discharged from the facility. SW J stated that she was aware of R375's dissatisfaction regarding not having his clothing, shoes or cigarettes. SW J stated that she was unaware of R375's Brief Interview for Mental Status score because he had refused the assessment, however, did no other attempts to determine mental capacity were attempted. SW J was unable to determine why a guardian was in place for R375, stating, he admitted to the facility with one so he must have required a guardian for some reason. On 2/12/25 at 11:55 AM, R375 was observed in bed wearing the same clothing as the last observation. Food debris were observed on the resident's sweatshirt. R375 confirmed that social services had not spoke with him regarding the guardianship, that he still had not received his basic supplies and requests from his guardian, despite being in the facility for nearly a month, and now had suicidal ideation with a plan. Review of a Social Services Note dated 2/12/2025 at 12:16 PM revealed Social services spoke with the guardian r/t (related to) suicidal ideation's. Social services informed the guardian that the resident will be getting petitioned out. Per guardian, she was heading to the facility to bring the resident cigarettes and will attempt to get to the (name of previous facility) facility to pick up the residents clothing. Per the guardian, she is fine with the resident being sent out and will get the resident his items and meet with the resident at the hospital .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe storage and administration of medications, in one of five residents (R#5) reviewed for sample of 25 resulting in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe storage and administration of medications, in one of five residents (R#5) reviewed for sample of 25 resulting in unsafe medication administration, unsafe medication access, and the potential for lost medications/medication errors. Findings include: Resident #5 (R5) During medication administration on 02/12/25 at 8:20 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) C was observed removing a pre-filled med cup from the top drawer of her medication cart. RN C had filled it prior to this time with the 8:00 AM medications and set in the top drawer of medication cart. RN C pulled the medication cup out of the top drawer and began to pour a glass of water to give these medications to R5. This writer stopped RN C and asked her to identify every medication she was administering to R5 from that med cup. RN C recalled the medications she put in the cup; however, RN C did not have R5's Lithium Carbonate Oral Capsule 150mg tablet in the medication cup. Resident did not receive this morning dose of Lithium, resulting in a medication error. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 1:00 PM, with Director of Nursing (DON) B and Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNA) A writer asked DON B what her expectations would be when nurses are administering medications. DON B stated the expectation would be to pull the medications out when they are due from the bubble pack and goes directly in the medication cup, and it is administered at that time and they would be signed out.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

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 accurately honor food preferences for one resident (#9...

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 accurately honor food preferences for one resident (#94) of six resident reviewed for food preferences. Findings include: Review of the medical record reflected R94 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included celiac's disease (gluten intolerance). The Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/4/24, reflected R94 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). On 2/10/25 at 12:21 PM, R94 was observed in bed. R94 was on an air mattress and had her heels floated. R94 explained that she had several pressure ulcers that she admitted with. R94 expressed her frustration with the meals that the facility had been providing her. R94 stated that she had a gluten free diet order and required extra protein due to her pressure ulcers. R94 stated that the dietician visited with her when she admitted to the facility in November and had not since visited her since despite her weight trending down. R94 stated that the kitchen is substituting her meals with hot dogs and hamburgers nearly daily, and at times, the bun is sent. R94 denied double portions, denied disliking anything however, had to avoid gluten. R94 stated that she loves fish, chicken, and pork but for unknown reasons, the kitchen regularly substitutes the meat of the day with a hot dog or hamburger. Review of the Physician Orders revealed an active order which stated Regular diet, Regular texture, Thin consistency GLUTEN FREE. for GLUTEN FREE. In an interview on 2/12/25 at 9:16 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) CC stated that she was familiar with R94. CNA CC stated that R94 usually gets sent a hot dog or hamburger. CNA CC stated that R94 is getting tired of the hamburger and hot dogs In an interview on 2/13/25 at 10:34 AM Registered Dietician (RD) M stated that meat should not be substituted for residents with a gluten free diet.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

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 collaboration of care and communication with th...

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 collaboration of care and communication with the hospice provider for one (Resident #112) of one reviewed. Findings include: Review of the medical record reflected Resident #112 (R112) admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included neuromyelitis optica and cerebral infarction. The Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/19/25, reflected R112 scored nine out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool) and received hospice services. On 02/13/25 at 1:06 PM, R112 was observed lying in bed. A staff member was present in the room, providing feeding assistance. A Physician's Order, with a revision date of 1/13/25, reflected R112 was admitted to hospice services. In an interview on 02/12/25 at 11:01 AM, Social Services Director (SSD) I reported they helped coordinate hospice services within the facility. According to SSD I, R112 received hospice services that included a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA), nurse, talk therapy and Social Worker. Review of R112's Hospice Binder, which was located at the nurse's station on 02/13/25 at 1:10 PM, reflected a hospice visit calendar, dated for 1/26/25 through 4/12/25. For the dates of 1/26/15 through 2/13/25, there were to be 14 scheduled visits from hospice staff. A Registered Nurse was to visit weekly, a CNA was to visit twice weekly, a Social Worker was to visit weekly and a Chaplain was to visit every other week. The Hospice Staff Collaboration Log, located in R112's hospice binder on 02/13/25 at 1:10 PM, reflected notation of four visits from hospice staff. The Hospice Binder was not noted to include any Progress Notes pertaining to hospice visits. Review of R112's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) reflected it was lacking documentation of their hospice services visits. Additionally, R112's Care Plan was not reflective of the hospice disciplines that were involved in their care. On 02/13/25 at 1:21 PM, an email was sent to Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A to request R112's Hospice Visit Calendar for January through April (2025), as well as the Hospice Communication Log. The Hospice Communication Log was not provided prior to the exit of the survey. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 2:23 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported hospice visit notes should have been in the Hospice Binder on the unit, as well as scanned into the EMR. DON B reported staff should have had hospice visit notes available to them.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer a pneumococcal immunization per consent for one (R48) of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer a pneumococcal immunization per consent for one (R48) of five reviewed. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed R48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/11/25 revealed R48 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and that their pneumococcal immunization was not up to date but was offered and declined. Review of the Vaccine Consent and Administration Form revealed R48's Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) for Healthcare gave consent on 4/17/24 for R48 to receive the pneumococcal immunization. R48 did not receive the pneumococcal immunization. In an interview on 02/12/25 at 10:33 AM, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/Infection Preventionist (IP) Z agreed R48's DPOA consented to the pneumococcal immunization on 4/17/24. ADON/IP Z was not sure why R48 had not received the pneumococcal immunization after consent was given.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

This citation pertains to Intake MI00146710 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to address and respond to a repeated concerns related to food palatability, satisfactory resolutio...

Read full inspector narrative →
This citation pertains to Intake MI00146710 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to address and respond to a repeated concerns related to food palatability, satisfactory resolutions to grievances, being offered and provided an evening snack, and call light response, brought forth by Resident Council. Findings include: Review of the Resident Council Minutes, dated 2/2024 through 12/2024, reflected ongoing concerns with food palatability and call light response times, mainly during the afternoon and night shifts. During a confidential resident group meeting on 02/12/25 10:08 AM, 7 out of 8 residents reported they had discussed food taste concerns and afternoon/night shift staffing concerns with no changes to correct addressed concerns. The Resident Council group reported long waits for call light response from 45 minutes to 60 minutes, mainly during the afternoon and night shift. One of eight confidential residents reported staff is often heard chatting at the nurse's station at night for several hours while his call light is on. 3 of eight residents stated that snacks are not offered to them and if they are brought up to the floor for distribution, staff will often consume the snacks. 4 of eight reported unsatisfactory resolution to grievances and concerns brought forth from resident council. During an interview on 02/13/25 01:53 PM, Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A reported that she was aware of the food and staffing concerns, and recently implemented a new process for tracking the concern to identify a resolution.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #374 (R374) Review of the clinical record, including the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference dated of 7...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #374 (R374) Review of the clinical record, including the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference dated of 7/29/24 reflected Resident # 374 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission date of 7/22/24, diagnoses that included nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, multiple localized, muscle wasting and atrophy, anxiety, major depression. Of note, R374 was transferred to the hospital on 9/11/24 and did not return to the facility. Review of R374's weight record revealed R374 weighed 105.6 pounds on 7/23/2024. On 6/11/24 R374 weighed 117.4 pounds revealing an 11.7% weight loss in one month. Review of R374's 7/29/24 MDS section K queried for weight if there was a 5% or more in the last month or loss of 10% or more in 6 months. This question was coded as 0 meaning No or unknown. On 02/13/2025 at 10:33 am, during an interview with the facility's Registered Dietician (RD) M reported she worked at the facility for approximately one month and was not familiar with R374. Review of R374s weights was completed with RD M who agreed section K weight loss question was inaccurate. On 02/13/2025 at 12:45 pm during an interview with MDS Nurse N she reported she did not complete R374's section K of the MDS dated [DATE] but did state section K was coded incorrectly for weight loss. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments were completed accurately for six (R25, R39, R48, R63, R103, and R374) of 25 reviewed. Findings include: Resident #48 (R48) Review of the medical record revealed R48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/11/25 revealed R48 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and that their pneumococcal vaccination was not up to date but was offered and declined. Review of the Vaccine Consent and Administration Form revealed R48's Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare gave consent on 4/17/24 for R48 to receive the pneumococcal vaccination. R48 did not receive the vaccination. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 12:25 PM, MDS Coordinator N reported when completing MDS Assessments, the vaccination information was obtained from the immunization tab in the medical record. MDS Coordinator N reported they do not review the consents/declinations when completing a MDS Assessment. Resident #103 (R103) Review of the medical record revealed R103 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included borderline personality disorder, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. The MDS with an ARD of 1/4/25 revealed R103 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). Review of the medical record revealed a Gradual Dose Reduction was documented as clinically contraindicated on 8/14/24. A GDR was not attempted. The MDS with an ARD of 9/18/24 was coded that a GDR was not documented as clinically contraindicated. The MDS with an ARD of 1/4/25 was coded that a GDR was attempted on 8/14/24 and was also documented as clinically contraindicated on 8/14/24. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 12:25 PM, MDS Coordinator N reported R103's GDR was documented as clinically contraindicated on 8/14/24. MDS Coordinator N reported R103 did not have a GDR attempted. MDS Coordinator N agreed the MDS Assessments with ARDs of 9/18/24 and 1/4/25 were coded incorrectly. Resident #63 (R63) Review of the medical record reflected R63 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder and unspecified dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/14/24, reflected R63 was rarely/never understood and had short-term and long-term memory impairments. Section P of the MDS, pertaining to Restraints and Alarms, did not reflect coding for restraint use. According to MDS question P0100. Physical Restraints, Physical restraints are any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. On 02/10/25 at 9:20 AM, R63 was observed in bed, with the head of the bed elevated, watching TV. The sides of the mattress were noted to be elevated. A black strap was observed hanging from each side of the mattress. R63 did not verbally respond when spoken to but was noted to verbalize, unrelated to being spoken to. On 02/10/25 at 10:22 AM, R63 was observed self-propelling their wheelchair in the hallway, using their arms and legs. R63's Falls Care Plan reflected bolsters were added to both sides of the bed on 10/14/24. In an interview on 02/12/25 at 9:38 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) E reported R63 would attempt to transfer independently, and since having bed bolsters, they no longer attempted as often. CNA E reported R63 did not walk but could stand for short periods of time and transfer with the assistance of one person and a gait belt. They reported the bolsters prevented R63 from getting up independently. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 12:25 PM, RN/MDS Coordinator N reported bolsters were on R63's bed to prevent them from rolling out of bed and falling. They reported R63 could remove the bolsters from their bed but could not be asked to do so consistently due to cognitive deficits. RN/MDS Coordinator N reported they were taught that the only restraints the facility had were wanderguard devices. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 2:23 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported R63's bed bolsters were for fall prevention. DON B reported if a resident had the ability to stand up and move, and bolsters were placed, that was a restraint. Resident #39 (R39) Review of the medical record reflected R39 was an initial admission to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses of Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia (impairment of gas exchange between the lungs and the blood), Bronchiectasis with lower respiratory infection (condition characterized by the widening and damage of the airways, making it difficult to clear mucus and leading to frequent infections), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)(a lung condition caused by damage to the airways that limit airflow), Chronic Atrial Fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm characterized by rapid and irregular beating of the atrial chambers of the heart), Muscle weakness, History of Falls, Chronic Pain Syndrome, Chronic Kidney Disease (condition characterized by a gradual loss of kidney function), Dementia without behavioral disturbance , mood disturbance and anxiety, and Chronic Pain Syndrome. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/13/2024, revealed R39 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 (cognitively intact) out of 15. Under section GG0100, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Assistance reveals R39 was dependent on showers, toileting, dressing lower body, minimal assist with setting up for meals and oral care. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 12:06 PM, MDS Nurse N, stated R39's sepsis diagnosis was put in last March by her boss, other one was put in by the prior to this MDS nurse. MDS Nurse N stated they had to remove these diagnosis's manually from the system as they do not fall off. Writer asked MDS Nurse N if this diagnosis should have been removed. MDS Nurse N stated she is looking that up now. MDS Nurse N also stated R39 was the hospital for some reason, he was on contact precautions. R39 went to the hospital on [DATE] and came back to the facility on [DATE]. MDS Nurse N stated she went off the hospital diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia and sepsis with hypotension from 11/14/24. MDS Nurse N also added he had a new quarterly, 5-day PPS on 11/19/24 and quarterly on 12/13/24. Writer asked if he was still being treated for these 2 diagnoses on 12/13/24. She was looking in her computer at electronic medical record Point Click Care (PCC). MDS Nurse N stated R39 tapered dose of prednisone, nothing else indicating he was being treated. MDS Nurse N stated his sepsis resolved as of 12/06/24. Pneumonia was resolved as of 12/06/24. SMDS Nurse N stated they should have been taken off and they were not. Stated she just removed them as we spoke. Resident #25 (R25) Review of the medical record reflected R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included history of falling, anoxic brain damage, and dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/13/25, reflected R25 did not meet the requirements for a Brief Interview for Mental status score due to rarely/never being understood. According to MDS question P0100. Physical Restraints, Physical restraints are any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. On 2/10/25 at 10:27 AM, R25 was observed in bed. A fall mat was observed on the floor adjacent to the bed. The left side of the bed was up against the wall with a bolster placed underneath the fitted sheet. The right side of the bed had a triangle, hard foam positioning wedge underneath the fitted sheet which was strapped to the bed frame. While speaking to R25, he attempted to wiggle himself off of the bed but was unsuccessful due to the implemented barriers. R25's soft touch call light was observed at the foot of the bed, out of reach. On 2/11/25 at 12:50 PM, R25 was observed in bed. The positioning wedge and bolster remained in the same spot as the previous observation the previous day. R25's call light remained at the foot of the bed, out of reach. On 2/12/25 at 8:40 AM. R25 was observed in bed with the positioning wedge and bolster in the same spot as the previous observations. Review of R25's Fall Care plan revealed an intervention dated 3/22/22 which stated ensure bolsters are in place and well connected. On 2/12/25 at 8:55 AM Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) K stated that R25 had some falls out of bed previously. CNA K stated that R25 was strong on his right side so the staff had placed the bolster and positioning wedge to ensure that he stays in bed and doesn't fall out. CNA K stated that it seems to work because R25 is unable to get himself out of bed. On 2/12/25 at 9:11 AM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) H reported that R25 had some falls out of bed in the past. LPN H confirmed that the positioning wedge and bolster were to prevent R25 from falling out of bed because it stops him from scooting out. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 12:25 PM, RN/MDS Coordinator N reported bolsters were on R25's bed to prevent them from rolling out of bed and falling. RN/MDS Coordinator N reported the facility had restraint assessments, but R25's medical record did not contain one. RN/MDS Coordinator N reported the floor nurses would assess for potential restraints. R25's medical record did not reflect whether the use of bed bolsters were evaluated as a potential restraint. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 2:23 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported a restraint would restrict movement. According to DON B, if bed bolsters were used for fall prevention, they would not want the resident to be able to remove the bolsters, as they could fall and get injured. DON B reported R25's bed bolsters were for fall prevention. DON B reviewed R25's medical record and reported they did not see any type of restraint assessment.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for four (R25, R48, R75, and R109) of 25 reviewed. Findings include: Resident #48 (R48) Review of the medical record revealed R48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bullous pemphigoid (a skin condition that causes large, fluid-filled blisters on the skin and mucous membranes). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/11/25 revealed R48 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. Review of the Physician's Order dated 7/25/24 revealed an order to monitor the alternating pressure mattress (APM), rotation on 2. Review of R48's Potential for Impairment to Skin Integrity care plan revealed an intervention of an air mattress dated 10/14/24. On 02/10/25 at 4:10 PM, R48 was observed in bed. The alternating pressure mattress was off. On 02/11/25 at 9:10 AM, R48 was observed in bed. The alternation pressure mattress was off. On 02/11/25 at 1:43 PM, R48 was observed asleep in bed. The alternating pressure mattress was off. In an interview on 02/11/25 at 1:59 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) R reported R48's alternating pressure mattress should be on. LPN R entered R48's room and agreed the mattress was plugged in, but not functioning. LPN R called in another staff member to trouble shoot the mattress. It was determined the plug on the side of the machine was not plugged in all the way. Resident #75 (R75) Review of the medical record reflected R75 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease and dependence on renal dialysis. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/24/25, reflected R75 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). On 02/11/25 at 8:59 AM, R75 was observed lying in bed. They reported going to dialysis three times per week, on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. R75 reported their dialysis access site was in their left arm and denied that the nursing staff were monitoring the site routinely. R75 reported they were not to have blood draws or blood pressures taken from their left arm. The Special Instructions section of the main page of R75's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) reflected they were not to have blood pressures on their right arm. R75's Kardex (Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Care Guide) was not reflective of R75 being on dialysis, nor the location of their access site or any care considerations pertaining to. According to the medical record, R75's Nutrition Care Plan was not created/initiated until 10/16/24, which was approximately six months after admission to the facility. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 1:25 PM, CNA P reported they had worked at the facility for three years but did not work on R75's floor often. CNA P reported the Care Plan and Kardex were used to identify care needs of the residents. CNA P believed R75's dialysis access site was in their left arm but reported they did not know that for sure. During an interview on 02/13/25 at 2:23 PM, when asked how CNAs would know the location of the dialysis access site and care considerations pertaining to, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported it should have been on the Kardex. DON B confirmed that R75's Nutrition Care Plan was not initiated until 10/2024. Resident #109 (R109) Review of the medical record reflected R109 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included generalized anxiety disorder, vascular dementia, non-suicidal self-harm, major depressive disorder, insomnia and adjustment disorder. The quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 1/2/25, reflected R109 scored 14 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the BIMS. Psychiatric Services visit notes for 8/5/24, 9/3/24 and 12/23/24 reflected the benefits of R109's antipsychotic regimen, which was controlling their agitation, aggressive behaviors and distressing delusions outweighed the risk. In an interview on 02/12/25 at 10:20 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) H reported R109 had times when they became frustrated and loud but were easily redirected. LPN H reported changing the conversation and talking about R109's mother and family made them happy. LPN H stated the Care Plan would reflect how to care for a resident, including any behavioral interventions. R109's Care Plan did not reflect behavioral interventions pertaining to changing the conversation topic or talking about R109's mother or family, as described by LPN H. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 2:23 PM, DON B reported their expectation was for the behavioral interventions, described by LPN H, to be on R109's Care Plan. Resident #25 (R25) Review of the medical record reflected R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included history of falling, anoxic brain damage, and dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/13/25, reflected R25 did not meet the requirements for a Brief Interview for Mental status score due to rarely/never being understood. On 2/10/25 at 10:27 AM, R25 was observed in bed. A fall mat was observed on the floor adjacent to the bed. The left side of the bed was up against the wall with a bolster placed underneath the fitted sheet. R25's soft touch call light was observed at the foot of the bed, out of reach. On 2/11/25 at 12:50 PM, R25 was observed in bed. The positioning wedge and bolster remained in the same spot as the previous observation the previous day. R25's call light remained at the foot of the bed, out of reach. Review of R25's Fall Care plan revealed an intervention dated 4/27/22 which stated ensure the resident's call light is within reach. On 2/12/25 at 8:55 AM Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) K stated that R25 had some falls out of bed previously. CNA K stated that R25 was strong on his right side so the staff had placed the bolster and positioning wedge to ensure that he stays in bed and doesn't fall out. CNA K stated that it seems to work because R25 is unable to get himself out of bed. CNA K stated that R25 was able to make his needs know and would answer some questions with one word responses. CNA K reported that R25 was able to use his call light if it was placed near his hand and providing R25 with his call light was a fall intervention.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #65 (R65) Review of the medical record revealed R65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #65 (R65) Review of the medical record revealed R65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction (stroke). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/20/24 revealed R65 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool), was always incontinent of urine, and frequently incontinent of bowel. Review of the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care plan revealed R65 required two people for care. On 02/10/25 at 10:54 AM, R65 was observed in bed. R65 reported the facility did not have enough staff after 11:00 PM. R65 reported when they used their call light at night to be changed, it takes hours for someone to come. R65 reported staff come into their room, say they will be right back and then never come back. R65 stated It's like the aliens came in and took them. In an interview on 02/13/25 at 2:16 PM, director of Nursing (DON) B reported call lights have been a concern and that the facility was working on the issue in Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI). DON B reported the expectation is that the call light is not turned off until the resident's need is met. Resident #109 (R109) On 02/10/25 at 12:08 PM, R109 reported facility staffing levels were poor to fair. R109 reported it sometimes took 30 to 45 minutes for their call light to be answered, and call light response times were extended around meal times and shift changes. Although it did not happen often, R109 reported they had urinated in their bed and soiled themselves due to waiting too long for staff assistance to the bathroom. This citation pertains to Intakes MI00146664, MI000146710 Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain sufficient staff to meet residents' needs timely for three (R41, R65, R109) and Resident Council of ten reviewed for staffing. Findings include: Review of the Resident Council Minutes, dated 2/2024 through 12/2024, reflected ongoing concerns with call light response times, mainly during the afternoon and night shifts. During a confidential resident group meeting on 02/12/25 10:08 AM, 7 out of 8 residents reported they had discussed afternoon/night shift staffing concerns with no changes to correct addressed concerns. The Resident Council group reported long waits for call light response from 45 minutes to 60 minutes. One of eight confidential residents reported staff is often heard chatting at the nurse's station at night for several hours while his call light is on. Resident #41 (R41) Review of the medical record reflected R41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included respiratory failure. The Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/3/2024, reflected R41 scored 13 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). On 2/10/25 at 11:49 AM, R41 was observed in bed. R41 reported that call light responses times were unreasonably long during the afternoon and midnight shifts. R41 stated that the employees play the light game. When asked for clarification, R41 stated that the staff will come in and shut off the call light without providing the requested service, and not return. On 2/13/25 at 10:59 AM, R41's call light was observed on. R41 stated light had been on for a while, over 20 minutes, however, this is the second time his light had been on for the same need. R41 stated that his brief hasn't been changed since 3:00 AM and needed a brief change. R41 stated he told staff however they shut the light off and exited the room without returning. R41 stated after waiting for some time, he reactivated his light. Moments later, Staff member O staff entered the room and shut R41's light turned off, stating that his certified nursing assistant knew he needed something and would be there to assist in a few minutes. When asked if R41's light had already been on, Staff Member O confirmed that the certified nursing assistant had bene in earlier and shut off R41's light without providing the requested service. In an interview on 2/13/25 at 1:53 PM, Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A stated that staff should not be shutting the call light off until care is rendered.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intakes MI00148581, MI00147352. Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, 7 of 8 from the co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intakes MI00148581, MI00147352. Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, 7 of 8 from the confidential group meeting, 3 (#65, #94, #103) of 25 sampled residents, and 1 (#105) non-sampled resident, the facility failed to provide palatable food products effecting 125 residents, resulting in the increased likelihood for decreased resident food acceptance and nutritional decline. Findings include: On 02/10/25 at 01:35 P.M., An interview was conducted with Resident #94 regarding facility food products. Resident #94 stated: The food could be better. Resident #94 also stated: They could do better than just hamburgers and hot dogs. Resident #94 was also queried regarding gluten free facility food products. Resident #94 stated: I receive gluten free food for the most part. On 02/10/25 at 01:45 P.M., An interview was conducted with Resident #105 regarding facility food products. Resident #105 stated: I want to eat specific vegetables that are nutritious (Zucchini, Asparagus, [NAME] Beans, (Grilled Onion and Bell Pepper), and fresh white rice. Resident #105 also stated: I've spit out their green beans more times than not. Resident #105 additionally stated: The rice is usually tough and congealed. Resident #105 further stated: The [NAME] beans served are generally very sour. On 02/11/25 at 10:58 A.M., An interview was conducted with Resident #103 regarding facility food products. Resident #103 stated: The food products don't taste good. and The salad cheese is wilted together and slimy. Resident #103 also stated: The breakfast food (scrambled eggs, sausage links, pancakes, French toast, etc.) is always cold. Resident #103 additionally stated: I prefer to buy my own food, because the facility food is generally cold, tastes bad, and is poor quality food. On 02/11/25 at 11:10 A.M., Resident #103's personal food products (One 32-ounce container of Cottage Cheese (one-eighth full), Two 6-ounce containers of Yoplait Yogurt, 1 medium Pizza, two small containers of Ranch Dressing, and six containers of soda pop) were observed resting directly upon the resident room windowsill, adjacent to the radiant heating unit. The window sash was also observed cracked open approximately 2-3 inches to supply limited refrigeration for the personal food products. On 02/11/25 at 11:13 A.M., Resident #103 was interviewed regarding how long the personal food products had been stored on the windowsill. Resident #103 stated: The pizza has been here for three days. Resident #103 further stated: The cottage cheese, yogurt, and ranch dressings have been here for two days. The 2022 FDA Model Food Code section 3-501.16 states: (A) Except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, or when time is used as the public health control as specified under §3-501.19, and except as specified under (B) and in (C ) of this section, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD shall be maintained: (1) At 57oC (135oF) or above, except that roasts cooked to a temperature and for a time specified in 3-401.11(B) or reheated as specified in 3-403.11(E) may be held at a temperature of 54oC (130oF) or above; or (2) At 5ºC (41ºF) or less. The 2022 FDA Model Food Code section 3-501.17 states: (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. On 02/11/25 at 11:16 A.M., An interview was conducted with Resident #65 regarding facility food products. Resident #65 stated: They make the world's worst grilled cheese. Resident #65 also stated: The hot dogs are burnt. and The hamburgers are tough and very dry. Resident #65 additionally stated: You can't talk to the Dietician or [NAME] or anybody. Resident #65 further stated: The pizza is very tough. and You could tile a house with the pizza. On 02/11/25 at 11:56 A.M., Resident lunch meal food trays (25) were observed leaving the food production kitchen, within a stainless-steel non-insulated transport cart. On 02/11/25 at 11:59 A.M., Resident lunch meal food trays (25) were observed arriving to second floor north, within a stainless-steel non-insulated transport cart. On 02/11/25 at 12:07 P.M., Resident lunch meal food trays (18) were observed leaving the food production kitchen, within a stainless-steel non-insulated transport cart. On 02/11/25 at 12:08 P.M., Resident lunch meal food trays (18) were observed arriving to second floor south, within a stainless steel non-insulated transport cart. On 02/11/25 at 12:15 P.M., Food product temperatures were monitored utilizing a ThermoWorks Super-Fast Thermapen model CR2032 digital thermometer. The following food product temperatures were recorded for Resident #65's lunch meal food tray: Pork Loin - 132.4* Au-gratin Potatoes - 141.5 Green Beans - 133.4* Pineapple Tidbits - 42.6* Beverage (Lemonade) - 43.8* Dannon Yogurt - 43.4* (*) The 2022 FDA Model Food Code section 3-501.16 states: (A) Except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, or when time is used as the public health control as specified under §3-501.19, and except as specified under (B) and in (C ) of this section, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD shall be maintained: (1) At 57oC (135oF) or above, except that roasts cooked to a temperature and for a time specified in 3-401.11(B) or reheated as specified in 3-403.11(E) may be held at a temperature of 54oC (130oF) or above; or (2) At 5ºC (41ºF) or less. On 02/11/25 at 12:20 P.M., A lunch meal food product palatability test was conducted by this surveyor. The following items and comments were noted: Pork Loin - The pork loin was observed to be moist and tender. Au-gratin Potatoes - The potatoes were observed to be bland, grainy, and starchy. Green Beans - The [NAME] beans were observed to be bland and tender. Pineapple Tidbits - The pineapple was observed to be tender and flavorful. Dannon Yogurt (Strawberry) - The yogurt was observed to be fresh and flavorful. Beverage (Sugar Free Lemonade) - The sugar free lemonade was observed to be cold, refreshing, and reflecting weak lemon flavor. On 02/11/25 at 01:02 P.M., A lunch meal food product palatability test was conducted by this surveyor. The following (Always Available Alternate Menu Option) item was noted: Hot Dog - The hot dog was observed to be discolored, starchy, grainy, reflecting a distinct aftertaste. On 02/11/25 at 02:35 P.M., An interview was conducted with Regional Dietary Director V regarding a specific Policy/Procedure for resident personal refrigerators. Regional Dietary Director V stated: We don't provide personal refrigerators for residents. Regional Dietary Director V also stated: We have a refrigerator in the Activity Room for resident specific food items. On 02/13/25 at 09:30 A.M., Record review of the Policy/Procedure entitled: Meal Distribution dated 09-01-2021 revealed under Standard: Meals are transported to the dining locations in a manner that ensures proper temperature maintenance, protects against contamination, and are delivered in a timely and accurate manner. Record review of the Policy/Procedure entitled: Meal Distribution dated 09-01-2021 further revealed under Guidelines: (4) The nursing staff will be responsible for verifying meal accuracy and the timely delivery of meals to residents/patients. (5) For point-of-service dining, the Dining Services department staff, under the supervision of the licensed nurse, will assemble the meal in accordance with the individual meal card and present it to the resident/patient or care staff for delivery to the resident/patient. On 02/13/25 at 10:00 A.M., Record review of the Policy/Procedure entitled: Safe Storage & Handling of Outside Food dated (no date) revealed under Can I Bring Food for Patients and Residents: Food can be brought into the facility as long as the food is safe. There can be a risk of foodborne illness when food is not properly prepared, transported, or stored. This can have serious consequences for the resident. Record review of the Policy/Procedure entitled: Safe Storage & Handling of Outside Food dated (no date) further revealed under Food Receiving and Safe Food Storage: You must check in at the nurse's station when you bring food in for a resident. Any food which is not going to be consumed immediately must be covered and labeled with the resident's name, and date the food the day the food was brought into the facility and placed into the unit refrigerator. Labels and the location of the refrigerator are available at the nurse's station as well as in the pantry area. All food that is stored in the refrigerator and not consumed within 3 days will be discarded by facility staff daily. Signage regarding this process is displayed on all fridges. Any food without the correct labeling will also be discarded. Resident #65 (R65) Review of the medical record revealed R65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction (stroke) and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/20/24 revealed R65 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). On 02/10/25 at 10:49 AM, R65 was observed in bed. R65 reported the facility's food was lousy, it's absolutely terrible. R65 reported he was often served grilled cheese sandwiches after telling the facility to quit giving them grilled cheese sandwiches. R65 reported the grilled cheese was awful. R65 reported they ate in their room and the food was always cold like it just came out of the refrigerator. R65 reported the meat was like rubber.
Jan 2025 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure hot liquid/food was served at a safe and approp...

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 hot liquid/food was served at a safe and appropriate temperature for one (Resident #101) of three reviewed for accident hazards, resulting in second-degree thermal burn (damage to outer and second layer of skin, causing blisters, pain and discoloration) on R101 abdomen, groin and right inner thigh, open wounds and increased risk for infection. Findings include: Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected R101 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus, cerebral infarct with hemiplegia affecting right dominant side, hypertension (high blood pressure), chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rate), kidney cancer with removal and weakness. The MDS reflected R101 had a BIM (assessment tool) score of 15 which indicated his ability to make daily decisions was cognitively intact, and he required set-up assist with eating, dependent on staff for dressing, toileting, transferring and bed mobility, and maximal assist (helper does more than half the effort) with hygiene and bathing. Review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) report, dated 12/18/24, reflected R101 was his own responsible party. Continued review reflected, On the evening on 12/17/24 at approximately 2045[8:45 p.m.] [R101 initials] asked for CNA to warm up a food item for him (cup of noodles). CNA warmed up the item in the microwave for 3-4 minutes per the residents request and then returned the food item to him and set up per resident request while he was in the bed. The resident was allowing the food to cool down when he reached to throw a napkin away in the trash and he accidentally knocked the food over onto himself . Review of R101 Skin Progress Note, dated 12/17/24 at 8:52 p.m., reflected, Resident has NEW skin issue(s) observed. 1 Abdomen - Open skin wound, Right thigh (front) -Burn skin . Review of R101 Nursing Progress Note, dated 12/17/24 at 8:55 p.m., reflected, Resident accidentally poured hot noodle on himself while eating in bed, and got burned-out with hot noodle. First aids provided, and resident was educated to avoid eating hot meals in bed. Review of R101 Care Plan, dated 4/10/24 through current (1/8/25), reflected interventions that included, Dining: Resident is independent. Requests assistance at times. Setup as needed. Review of R101 Skin Incident Report, dated 12/18/24 at 12:52 p.m. (over 15 hours after incident), reflected nurse description, Resident was eating cup bowl of noodles, in the action of throwing something away, resident mistakenly knocked off meal unto lap which contained hot liquid. The form included resident description, Resident able to verify and tell how he burned himself. The form included, Injuries observed at time of incident including abdomen, groin and right thigh. The incident report reflected the Physician, Director of Nursing, Nursing Home Administrator and family member were notified 12/18/24 at 2:02 p.m.(over 15 hours after burn incident). Review of R101 Interdisciplinary resident screen, dated 12/24/24, reflected R101 preferred to eat meals with plate on lab. Continued review reflected recommend over the lap tray when in bed with scoop plate and bowl with suction cup for safety with feeding self. During an interview on 1/8/25 at 12:50 p.m. Director of Nursing (DON) B and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A reported the FRI for R101 was reported to the State of Michigan on 12/18/24 and immediate plan of correction was implemented. NHA A reported Certified Nurse Aid did not check food temperature after heating R101 single serving of noodles prior to giving to R101 on 12/17/24 that caused burns to R101 abdomen, groin and thigh. NHA A reported there was not a thermometer available for staff to use at that time. NHA A reported the risk to residents was immediately removed 12/18/24 and the facility alleged compliance date was 12/26/24. NHA A reported the facility failed to follow facility reheating policy. DON B was unable to say what was expected of staff for immediate burn treatment other than to remove the source and was unsure if facility had policy to address. Review of R101 facility Skin Observation, dated 12/17/24 at 8:52 p.m., reflected new wound that included open skin wound to abdomen and burn to right thigh. Review of R101 Nursing Progress Note, dated 12/18/24 at 11:14 a.m., reflected, Followed up with patient skin incident to lower right abdomen, right thigh and right groin. Abdomen dermis layer of skin off, pink tissue observed, no drainage or bleeding. Right thigh and groin, blister observed, dark areas surround blister sites. Patient report minimum pain. Areas will remain open to air with aloe vera gel applied to them 3x a day. Patient aware of treatment in place. Patient aware of what occurred in incident and able to tell writer what happened. Patient able to handle hot liquids with no barriers. MD notified. Monitoring in place. Review of R101 Wound Care Consult, dated 12/20/24, reflected, Wound Assessment(s) Wound #1 Right Groin is an acute Partial Thickness Burn 2nd Degree .Initial wound encounter measurements are 4cm length x 4 cm width with no measurable depth, with an area of 16 sq cm .The wound margin is undefined Wound bed has no, granulation; no slough, eschar and no epithelialization present .fluid filled intact blister . Wound #2 Abdomen - RLQ [right lower quadrant] is an acute Partial Thickness Burn 2nd Degree .Subsequent wound encounter measurements are 8cm length x 3cm width x 0.1 cm depth, with an area of 24 sq cm and volume of 2.4 cubic cm .There is moderate amount of serous drainage noted which has no odor .The wound margin is undefined Wound bed has 100%, pink, granulation . Wound #3 Right Thigh is an acute Partial Thickness Burn 2nd Degree .Initial wound encounter measurements are 8cm x 6cm with no measurable depth, with an area of 48 sq cm .The wound margin is attached to wound base .fluid filled intact blister . Plan .Wound Cleansing Cleanse wound with Normal Saline Treatments Apply Silvadine (on ABD direct) QDay/PRN[every day and/or as needed]-Right groin, abdomen, right thigh .Secondary Dressing . Review of R101 Physician orders, dated 12/18/24 through 12/27/24, reflected, Apply aloe vera gel to lower abdomen, right groin, and right thigh every shift[three times daily] for wound care. Continued review of R101 Physician orders, dated 12/21/24 through 1/6/25, reflected, Apply silver sulfadiazine to abdomen, right thigh and groin and cover with clean dry dressing every evening shift for burn. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 12/1/24 through 12/31/24, reflected R101 received both aloe vera gel treatment three times daily to three burn areas and silver sulfadiazine every day on 12/20/24 and 12/21/24. Review of R101 Nursing Progress Note, dated 12/21/24 at 11:40 p.m., reflected, At approximately (21:30) treatment was completed on resident burn area. Resident called the nurse and requested for the cream wiped off, upon checking the area, a whitish looking like lotion was on the areas of the burn, that did not match the previous ointment applied to the area, upon querying the resident, a cream Dermasil was noted on the bed and open. Resident asked if he had applied the cream and he did not respond and as the writer cleaned up the sites, resident called 911 stating that the cream had entered his blood stream. [Named ambulance service] arrived, report was given to the attendants. Review of R101 Nurse Progress Note, dated 12/22/24, reflected, Wound care in place from ER visit, and to be kept for one week. Review of the Nurse Progress Note, dated 12/30/24, reflected, Resident burn sites cleansed with normal saline, resident refused for silver to be applied to sites. Collagen with silver material placed over sites with clean dry dressing to cover. Patient reported minimum pain during dressing change. Abdomen site pink and slightly moist. R[right] groin pink/red and moist. R thigh white and moist, no sloth, later of epidermis seen. Review of the facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 12/30/24, reflected R101 had a facility acquired thermal heat partial thickness 2nd degree burn to groin area that measured 5 cm length x 5 cm width with no depth with moderate amount serosanguineous drainage. Continued review of the document reflected the wound was 70% bright pink or red and 30% loose slough with 1/10 pain. Continued review of the document included pictures, dated 12/30/24 at 6:44 a.m., that appeared to have depth to wound (not reflected on assessment.) Review of the facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 12/30/24 at 6:43 a.m., reflected R101 had a facility acquired thermal heat partial thickness 1st degree burn to abdomen that measured 8 cm length x 4 cm width with no depth with scant serous drainage. Continued review of the assessment reflected the wound was 100% bright pink or red. Review of the facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 12/30/24 at 6:54 a.m., reflected R101 had a facility acquired thermal heat full thickness 2nd degree burn to right thigh that measured 8 cm length x 8 cm width x 0 depth with light serous drainage. Continued review of the assessment reflected 100% pale pink or red epithelial tissue. Continued review included pictures that appeared to be 80% pale/white area of slough (non-viable tissue). Review of the Burn Clinic Consult note, dated 1/6/25, reflected R101 abdomen burn had healed and thigh and groin wound had some eschar on wounds with no signs of infection. Continued review of the note reflected SSD[silver sulfadiazine] daily to groin and thigh burns and follow up with burn unit in one week. Review of R101 facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 1/8/25, reflected the following: ~Groin burn wound-5 cm x 5 cm x 0 cm with 60% red/pink tissue and 40% slough. Review of picture wound bed appeared to have black eschar(dead skin). ~Abdomen burn-healed. ~Right Thigh burn-7 cm x 7 cm x 0 cm with 50% epithelial and 50% slough. Review of picture wound bed appeared to have about 80% yellow slough. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 1:50 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse(LPN) C reported worked part time at facility and was not working at time of R101 burn. LPN C reported was educated prior to returning to the floor that microwaves had been removed from floors and if residents request for food to be heated/reheated to use microwave in staff breakroom. LPN C reported staff were educated on Heating/Reheating Policy including to check temperature of food prior to giving to residents. LPN C reported had not received education related to Heat/Reheating food prior to R101 incident including new hire education in November of 2024. LPN C reported did not receive education related to immediate response for burn treatment and was unaware of facility had policy. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 2:12 p.m., Certified Nurse Aid(CNA) D reported was made aware of R101 burn incident about a week after when education was received that microwaves had been removed from the each floor and moved to staff breakroom. CNA D reported educated that if residents request food be heated/reheated staff must check the temperature prior to serving to resident. CNA D reported was unsure what temperature to serve resident food or of what the facility policy was. CNA D reported temperatures should be on each resident chart. CNA D reported was a new hire in November 2024 and did not receive education for heating/reheating food at that time. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 2:34 p.m., CNA E reported was not working at the time of R101 incident. CNA E reported was educated upon returned that microwaves had been removed from floors and relocated to staff breakroom. CNA E reported education included heating/reheating resident food including staff required to temp food after heating and policy was on microwave and thermometer was available. CNA E reported R101's hands are stiff and often spilled food so seemed like common sense not to serve hot food in bed. CNA E reported often worked with R101 and had seen burn wounds and R101 had complained of pain at wound sites. CNA E reported R101 would remind CNA E to be careful of burn areas with care and positioning related to pain. CNA E reported did not receive education related to immediate care for burn. During an interview on 1/8/25 at 3:46 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) H reported was told by CNA I R101 had spilled noodles on himself 9:00 p.m. during medication pass. RN H reported was unsure when R101 spilled food on self but reported immediately went to R101 room and found R101 laying in bed and R101 told her he had spilled hot noodle in lap. RN H reported R101 did not have cloths on and was covered with sheet with no evidence of wet sheet or noodles on R101 and reported was unsure if CNA I had changed sheets. RN H reported R101 reported burned right thigh and abdomen and completed skin assessment. RN H reported R101 was African American and difficult to see if any red areas. RN H reported patted area with damp washcloth, applied petroleum jelly and ABD dressing, and called Nurse Manager J. RN H reported R101 did not report pain and areas were not open. When asked about Skin assessment completed on 12/17/24 for RN H that indicated open abdominal would, RN H reported she did not recall. RN H reported had not received education from facility about heating/reheating food for residents prior to incident but facility provided after. RN H reported did not Notify Physician, Nursing Home Administrator or Director of Nursing. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 4:19 p.m., Nurse Manager J reported was notified by RN H about R101 burn to right thigh and abdomen on the evening of 12/17/24 after she had gone to bed and was unsure of time. Nurse Manager J reported RN H applied normal saline and first aid at the time of the burn. When asked how she knew what RN H did for first aid, Nurse Manager J reported she did not tell her what to do but nurses are trained to clean with normal saline and perform first aid. Nurse Manager J reported observed R101 burn area 12/18/24 with blister noted to right thigh and groin and open skin to abdomen. Nurse Manager J reported would expect staff to perform first aid, contact physician, manager, and Director of Nursing and document in progress notes. Nurse Manager J reported received education 12/18/24 about facility reheating policy and had not received prior. During an observation and interview on 1/8/25 at 5:00 p.m., R101 was laying in bed and appeared able to answer questions without difficulty. R101 reported had burned self with hot noodle soup few weeks prior. R101 reported had own personal single cups of noodle soup and asked CNA I to heat up. R101 reported CNA I brought back to him and placed on hand held mirror in between legs in the bed. R101 reported was too hot so was letting cool down when he accidentally spilled and burned right inner thigh and abdomen area and groin area. R101 reported fortunately groin area was mostly protected by brief because that is a sensitive area. R101 reported he yelled out because it hurt when the soup spilled and used call light to alert staff and reported 10/10 pain on pain scale at time. R101 reported he immediately removed covers but had already burned skin and CNA I answered call light within about two minutes. R101 reported told CNA I what happened she notified RN H who looked at area and covered with dressings. R101 reported at no time did anyone place normal saline or cool cloths on areas. R101 reported no one else looked at burned areas until the next day. R101 reported he told CNA and nurses he had pain and stated, of course that hurt, it is a sensitive area. I told everyone that came in to look at area it hurt. R101 skin tone is black with area on abdomen that appeared scared and healed about 8cm x 4 cm of pink skin. R101 reported on 12/21/24 staff were arguing who was going to complete treatments and R101 lost trust facility was caring for areas appropriately and called 911 and was taken to university burn unit who placed dressing to remain in place for one week. R101 reported facility staff then provided routine treatment after that and followed up with burn unit yesterday with improvements. During an observation on 1/8/25 at 5:20 p.m., observed two microwave in locked first floor breakroom. The facility Heating and Reheating Guidelines were located on the front of one microwave with thermometer and alcohol swabs in area. During an observation and interview on 1/9/25 at 9:50 a.m., R101 denied any concerns and reported planned to leave for dialysis soon. R101 reported staff had provided him with small tray with perimeter that appeared about 12 by 8 inches to use in lap if needed. R101 reported did not like to use bedside table related to mobility. During an observation on 1/9/25 at 10:10 a.m., the third floor pantry had sign on it to keep door locked. This surveyor opened unlocked door and verified no microwave was in pantry. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 10:15 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) L was asked to sign a form after R101 burn incident but was not familiar with R101. LPN L reported was told if heating/reheating resident food to do so in 1st floor breakroom, and not to serve too hot. When queried what was too hot, LPN L reported was unsure and stated, maybe use glove and touch. LPN L reported or lifted temporal thermometer off medication cart and stated, not sure if I should check with this. LPN L reported was unsure of facility policy and where to locate. Review with the facility in-service and, Reheating Foods and Liquids in the Microwave, on 1/9/25 at 10:54 a.m., reflected LPN L met requirements for reheating food/liquids on 12/20/24. Continued review of the FRI investigation reflected Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) past non-compliance sign in dated 12/24/24, did not included the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A, Director of Nursing (DON) B or the Medical Director signature. During a telephone interview on 1/9/25 at 11:12 a.m., CNA I reported had worked at the facility for over one year and was present at time of R101 burn incident on 12/17/24. CNA I reported R101 asked her to heat R101's personal single serving cup of Ramón noodles for 4 minutes in the microwave. CNA I reported R101 requested staff to assist heat meals almost every night. CNA I reported after heating she placed towel on resident lab while laying in bed, with hand held mirror under towel as flat surface, and place cup of hot noodles on surface between R101 legs. CNA I reported R101 turned on light about 45 minutes to one hour later and told her he had spilt noodles on himself and thinks it caused burn. CNA I reported removed wet towel with few noodles on it and threw away empty cup of noodles. reported thinks he burn self. CNA I reported R101 did have open skin on abdomen R101 was pulling back skin. CNA I reported difficult to see if skin discolored because it was so ashy and dry. CNA I reported R101 appeared calm at the time and did not recall complaints of pain. CNA I reported sheet was wet that was on top of R101 and she changed sheet and R101 had brief on. CNA I reported she then exited R101 room and notified RN H what had happened and RN H went to R101. CNA I reported R101 told RN I what had happened, RN I looked at skin and R101 asked for bandaid and RN I told her it needed to dry out with no immediate fist aid observed, including cool compress. CNA I reported had not received prior education at facility for heating/reheating food and received education after R101 burn incident related to heating only not first aid for burns. CNA I reported shift ended on 12/17/24 at 11:00 p.m. and was unable to recall who shift report was given to and reported did not tell oncoming staff about R101 burn incident. CNA I reported did not provide any additional care for R101 on 12/17/24 between 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. Review of CNA I unsigned witness statement, dated 12/18/24, reflected CNA I saw noodles and liquid on floor when first entering R101 room when R101 reported had spilled soup on himself. CNA I reported management called her 12/18/24 on telephone for statement and did not say noodles and liquid were on the floor and had not seen statements. During an observation on 1/9/25 at 12:15 p.m., during meal service CNA filled coffee cup from insulated drink dispenser in 200 hall took to room [ROOM NUMBER] with no cover. During an observation on 1/9/25 at 12:17 p.m. the 300 pantry had sign posted on door keep door closed. Paper towel was stuffed in door lock to prevent door from locking. This surveyor opened door to pantry and verified no microwave in pantry and no call light. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 12:43 p.m., CNA M reported after resident was burned facility removed microwaves from all of the resident floors. If residents request to have food heated or reheated microwave is located in staff breakroom on first floor. CNA M reported staff should not serve residents food that is too hot. When ask what too hot meant CNA M was unable to answer and reported was unsure what facility policy was. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 1:04 p.m., Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) O reported had been in position over two years. ADON O reported first heard about R101 burn from 12/17/24 on 12/18/24 at morning meeting after reviewing skin assessment completed by RN H. ADON O was queried what was first aid included for burn and ADON O reported first aid should included cool down area with cool water and non adhesive dressing. ADON O reported would expect staff to provided immediate first aid, notify nurse, who would notify physician, responsible party, DON, NHA for all events including burns and document at time of the event. ADON O reported complete R101 pain and skin assessment 12/18/24 and was first to contact R101 physician on 12/18/24. ADON O reported would not expect petroleum jelly to be used for acute burn treatment. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 2:19 p.m., Wound Nurse (WN) P reported had been in position for two years. WN P reported was notified of R101 burn wound on 12/18/24 and observed two blistered areas to right thigh and right groin and pink open skin to abdomen. WN P reported called R101 physician who ordered aloe vera jell from plant they got from local grocery store daily and not to cover unless out to dialysis. WN P reported would not expect staff to apply petroleum jelly to acute burn. WN P reported completed R101 skin incident/accident report on 12/18/24 that should have been completed at the time of the incident on 12/17/24. WN P reported prior to observing R101 on 12/18/24 had removed foam dressing from right thigh, groin and abdomen. WN P reported staff should have immediately cooled site by adding cool water. WN P would expect staff to immediately cool down burn site, while also notifying nurse, physician, DON and NHA because immediate change of condition. WN I reported R101 had orders for aloe vera three times daily from 12/18/24 until silvadene cream arrived that was ordered 12/20/24 and verified MAR reflected R101 received both between 12/20/24 and 12/21/24 until sent to Emergency Room. WN P verified R101 had dressing placed at hospital on [DATE] that remained in place for 7 days. WN P verified staff had documented R101 was provided dressing changes between 12/22/24 and 12/28/24, however, reported the MAR was not correct because R101 would not allow staff to remove dressing for the ordered 7 days. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 3:31 p.m., DON B and NHA A reported were first notified of R101 burn incident on 12/18/24 at morning meeting by ADON O. NHA A reported would have expected staff to notify them immediately of R101 burn. DON B reported would expect CNA to notify nurse immediately, who would assess, notify physician, DON, NHA and state of Michigan if needed. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 4:45 p.m. DON B reported facility had no evidence of prior education provided to staff for heating/reheating resident food before R101 incident. Review of the facility, Heating and Reheating Guidelines, dated 2/20/24, reflected, Purpose: The facility will ensure that resident personal food is handled in a safe and sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination and to minimize the risk of food borne illness. The facility will follow any manufactures instructions when preparing food .Guideline 1. Only trained facility staff are authorized to hear and reheat food for residents. 2. Items being heated reheated will be checked for use-be-date .3. Packaged foods will be heated and reheated to microwave following package instructions 4. For reheating precooked food items, microwave to internal temperature of 165 degrees for 15 seconds. 5. Allow heated and reheated food to sit for 2 minutes or according to the manufactures instructions prior to serving to the resident . Review of the facility, Accidents Policy, dated 6/29/21, reflected, Accidents refers to any unexpected or unintentional incident, which results or may result in injury of illness to a resident .Avoidable Accident means that an accident occurred because the facility failed to: Identify environmental hazards and/or assess individual resident risk of an accident , including the need to supervision and/or assistive devices. Evaluate/analyze the hazards ad risks and eliminate them, if possible, identify and implement measures to reduce the hazards/risks as much as possible. Implement interventions, including adequate supervision and assistive devices, consistent with a resident's needs, goals, care plan and current professional standards of practice in order to eliminate the risk, if possible, and , if not reduce the risk of an accident . Review of the State of (State Name) Department of Community Health Alert, titled, Scalding Injuries Caused by Excessive Hot Water: Food and Hot Beverage Temperatures, Revised August 5, 2008, revealed, Background: In all age groups, tap water scald injuries have been cited as the second most cause of serious burns. A scald is a burn caused by spills, immersion, splash, or contact with hot water, food and beverages, or steam. The elderly are particularly at increased risk because their skin tends to be less sensitive and reaction times are reduced, causing a tendency to not pull away from hot water quickly enough to avoid scalding. Their thinner skin also burns full depth (through the skin layers and into tissue) more quickly .Although Federal and State agencies do not specify temperatures appropriate to the consumption of hot beverages, facilities should be aware of the risk for harm to a resident from contact or consumption of hot beverages.Scalds can commonly occur from hot food, beverages, or steam . The estimated time for a person to receive second-degree burns was noted as follows: 120 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 8 minutes. 124 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 2 minutes. 131 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 17 seconds 140 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 3 seconds. 150 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: Less than one second. The facility put into place processes implemented to prevent further occurences. Utilizing the facilities guidelines on heating and reheating food/saftey of hot liquids. Monitoring was inititated with audits and results reported to Quality Assurance. The facility was determined to be in compliance with the action plan as of 12-26-24.
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** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in condition for 1 of...

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 notify the physician of a change in condition for 1 of 3 sampled residents (R101) reviewed for physician notification, from a total sample of 3 residents, resulting in R101 having a delay in treatment of a burn and increased risk for pain and infection. Findings include: Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected R101 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus, cerebral infarct with hemiplegia affecting right dominant side, hypertension (high blood pressure), chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rate), kidney cancer with removal and weakness. The MDS reflected R101 had a BIM (assessment tool) score of 15 which indicated his ability to make daily decisions was cognitively intact, and he required set-up assist with eating, dependent on staff for dressing, toileting, transferring and bed mobility, and maximal assist (helper does more than half the effort) with hygiene and bathing. Review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) report, dated 12/18/24, reflected R101 was his own responsible party. Continued review reflected, On the evening on 12/17/24 at approximately 2045[8:45 p.m.] [R101 initials] asked for CNA to warm up a food item for him (cup of noodles). CNA warmed up the item in the microwave for 3-4 minutes per the residents request and then returned the food item to him and set up per resident request while he was in the bed. The resident was allowing the food to cool down when he reached to throw a napkin away in the trash and he accidentally knocked the food over onto himself . Review of R101 Skin Progress Note, dated 12/17/24 at 8:52 p.m., reflected, Resident has NEW skin issue(s) observed. 1 Abdomen - Open skin wound, Right thigh (front) -Burn skin . Review of R101 Nursing Progress Note, dated 12/17/24 at 8:55 p.m., reflected, Resident accidentally poured hot noodle on himself while eating in bed, and got burned-out with hot noodle. First aids provided, and resident was educated to avoid eating hot meals in bed. Review of R101 Care Plan, dated 4/10/24 through current (1/8/25), reflected interventions that included, Dining: Resident is independent. Requests assistance at times. Setup as needed. Review of R101 Skin Incident Report, dated 12/18/24 at 12:52 p.m. (over 15 hours after incident), reflected nurse description, Resident was eating cup bowl of noodles, in the action of throwing something away, resident mistakenly knocked off meal unto lap which contained hot liquid. The form included resident description, Resident able to verify and tell how he burned himself. The form included, Injuries observed at time of incident including abdomen, groin and right thigh. The incident report reflected the Physician, Director of Nursing, Nursing Home Administrator and family member were notified 12/18/24 at 2:02 p.m.(over 15 hours after burn incident). Review of R101 Interdisciplinary resident screen, dated 12/24/24, reflected R101 preferred to eat meals with plate on lab. Continued review reflected recommend over the lap tray when in bed with scoop plate and bowl with suction cup for safety with feeding self. During an interview on 1/8/25 at 12:50 p.m. Director of Nursing (DON) B and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A reported the FRI for R101 was reported to the State of Michigan on 12/18/24 and immediate plan of correction was implemented. NHA A reported Certified Nurse Aid did not check food temperature after heating R101 single serving of noodles prior to giving to R101 on 12/17/24 that caused burns to R101 abdomen, groin and thigh. NHA A reported there was not a thermometer available for staff to use at that time. NHA A reported the risk to residents was immediately removed 12/18/24 and the facility alleged compliance date was 12/26/24. NHA A reported the facility failed to follow facility reheating policy. DON B was unable to say what was expected of staff for immediate burn treatment other than to remove the source and was unsure if facility had policy to address. Review of R101 facility Skin Observation, dated 12/17/24 at 8:52 p.m., reflected new wound that included open skin wound to abdomen and burn to right thigh. Review of R101 Nursing Progress Note, dated 12/18/24 at 11:14 a.m., reflected, Followed up with patient skin incident to lower right abdomen, right thigh and right groin. Abdomen dermis layer of skin off, pink tissue observed, no drainage or bleeding. Right thigh and groin, blister observed, dark areas surround blister sites. Patient report minimum pain. Areas will remain open to air with aloe vera gel applied to them 3x a day. Patient aware of treatment in place. Patient aware of what occurred in incident and able to tell writer what happened. Patient able to handle hot liquids with no barriers. MD notified. Monitoring in place. Review of R101 Wound Care Consult, dated 12/20/24, reflected, Wound Assessment(s) Wound #1 Right Groin is an acute Partial Thickness Burn 2nd Degree .Initial wound encounter measurements are 4cm length x 4 cm width with no measurable depth, with an area of 16 sq cm .The wound margin is undefined Wound bed has no, granulation; no slough, eschar and no epithelialization present .fluid filled intact blister . Wound #2 Abdomen - RLQ [right lower quadrant] is an acute Partial Thickness Burn 2nd Degree .Subsequent wound encounter measurements are 8cm length x 3cm width x 0.1 cm depth, with an area of 24 sq cm and volume of 2.4 cubic cm .There is moderate amount of serous drainage noted which has no odor .The wound margin is undefined Wound bed has 100%, pink, granulation . Wound #3 Right Thigh is an acute Partial Thickness Burn 2nd Degree .Initial wound encounter measurements are 8cm x 6cm with no measurable depth, with an area of 48 sq cm .The wound margin is attached to wound base .fluid filled intact blister . Plan .Wound Cleansing Cleanse wound with Normal Saline Treatments Apply Silvadine (on ABD direct) QDay/PRN[every day and/or as needed]-Right groin, abdomen, right thigh .Secondary Dressing . Review of R101 Physician orders, dated 12/18/24 through 12/27/24, reflected, Apply aloe vera gel to lower abdomen, right groin, and right thigh every shift[three times daily] for wound care. Continued review of R101 Physician orders, dated 12/21/24 through 1/6/25, reflected, Apply silver sulfadiazine to abdomen, right thigh and groin and cover with clean dry dressing every evening shift for burn. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 12/1/24 through 12/31/24, reflected R101 received both aloe vera gel treatment three times daily to three burn areas and silver sulfadiazine every day on 12/20/24 and 12/21/24. Review of R101 Nursing Progress Note, dated 12/21/24 at 11:40 p.m., reflected, At approximately (21:30) treatment was completed on resident burn area. Resident called the nurse and requested for the cream wiped off, upon checking the area, a whitish looking like lotion was on the areas of the burn, that did not match the previous ointment applied to the area, upon querying the resident, a cream Dermasil was noted on the bed and open. Resident asked if he had applied the cream and he did not respond and as the writer cleaned up the sites, resident called 911 stating that the cream had entered his blood stream. [Named ambulance service] arrived, report was given to the attendants. Review of R101 Nurse Progress Note, dated 12/22/24, reflected, Wound care in place from ER visit, and to be kept for one week. Review of the Nurse Progress Note, dated 12/30/24, reflected, Resident burn sites cleansed with normal saline, resident refused for silver to be applied to sites. Collagen with silver material placed over sites with clean dry dressing to cover. Patient reported minimum pain during dressing change. Abdomen site pink and slightly moist. R[right] groin pink/red and moist. R thigh white and moist, no sloth, later of epidermis seen. Review of the facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 12/30/24, reflected R101 had a facility acquired thermal heat partial thickness 2nd degree burn to groin area that measured 5 cm length x 5 cm width with no depth with moderate amount serosanguineous drainage. Continued review of the document reflected the wound was 70% bright pink or red and 30% loose slough with 1/10 pain. Continued review of the document included pictures, dated 12/30/24 at 6:44 a.m., that appeared to have depth to wound (not reflected on assessment.) Review of the facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 12/30/24 at 6:43 a.m., reflected R101 had a facility acquired thermal heat partial thickness 1st degree burn to abdomen that measured 8 cm length x 4 cm width with no depth with scant serous drainage. Continued review of the assessment reflected the wound was 100% bright pink or red. Review of the facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 12/30/24 at 6:54 a.m., reflected R101 had a facility acquired thermal heat full thickness 2nd degree burn to right thigh that measured 8 cm length x 8 cm width x 0 depth with light serous drainage. Continued review of the assessment reflected 100% pale pink or red epithelial tissue. Continued review included pictures that appeared to be 80% pale/white area of slough (non-viable tissue). Review of the Burn Clinic Consult note, dated 1/6/25, reflected R101 abdomen burn had healed and thigh and groin wound had some eschar on wounds with no signs of infection. Continued review of the note reflected SSD[silver sulfadiazine] daily to groin and thigh burns and follow up with burn unit in one week. Review of R101 facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 1/8/25, reflected the following: ~Groin burn wound-5 cm x 5 cm x 0 cm with 60% red/pink tissue and 40% slough. Review of picture wound bed appeared to have black eschar(dead skin). ~Abdomen burn-healed. ~Right Thigh burn-7 cm x 7 cm x 0 cm with 50% epithelial and 50% slough. Review of picture wound bed appeared to have about 80% yellow slough. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 1:50 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse(LPN) C reported worked part time at facility and was not working at time of R101 burn. LPN C reported was educated prior to returning to the floor that microwaves had been removed from floors and if residents request for food to be heated/reheated to use microwave in staff breakroom. LPN C reported staff were educated on Heating/Reheating Policy including to check temperature of food prior to giving to residents. LPN C reported had not received education related to Heat/Reheating food prior to R101 incident including new hire education in November of 2024. LPN C reported did not receive education related to immediate response for burn treatment and was unaware of facility had policy. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 2:12 p.m., Certified Nurse Aid(CNA) D reported was made aware of R101 burn incident about a week after when education was received that microwaves had been removed from the each floor and moved to staff breakroom. CNA D reported educated that if residents request food be heated/reheated staff must check the temperature prior to serving to resident. CNA D reported was unsure what temperature to serve resident food or of what the facility policy was. CNA D reported temperatures should be on each resident chart. CNA D reported was a new hire in November 2024 and did not receive education for heating/reheating food at that time. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 2:34 p.m., CNA E reported was not working at the time of R101 incident. CNA E reported was educated upon returned that microwaves had been removed from floors and relocated to staff breakroom. CNA E reported education included heating/reheating resident food including staff required to temp food after heating and policy was on microwave and thermometer was available. CNA E reported R101's hands are stiff and often spilled food so seemed like common sense not to serve hot food in bed. CNA E reported often worked with R101 and had seen burn wounds and R101 had complained of pain at wound sites. CNA E reported R101 would remind CNA E to be careful of burn areas with care and positioning related to pain. CNA E reported did not receive education related to immediate care for burn. During an interview on 1/8/25 at 3:46 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) H reported was told by CNA I R101 had spilled noodles on himself 9:00 p.m. during medication pass. RN H reported was unsure when R101 spilled food on self but reported immediately went to R101 room and found R101 laying in bed and R101 told her he had spilled hot noodle in lap. RN H reported R101 did not have cloths on and was covered with sheet with no evidence of wet sheet or noodles on R101 and reported was unsure if CNA I had changed sheets. RN H reported R101 reported burned right thigh and abdomen and completed skin assessment. RN H reported R101 was African American and difficult to see if any red areas. RN H reported patted area with damp washcloth, applied petroleum jelly and ABD dressing, and called Nurse Manager J. RN H reported R101 did not report pain and areas were not open. When asked about Skin assessment completed on 12/17/24 for RN H that indicated open abdominal would, RN H reported she did not recall. RN H reported had not received education from facility about heating/reheating food for residents prior to incident but facility provided after. RN H reported did not Notify Physician, Nursing Home Administrator or Director of Nursing. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 4:19 p.m., Nurse Manager J reported was notified by RN H about R101 burn to right thigh and abdomen on the evening of 12/17/24 after she had gone to bed and was unsure of time. Nurse Manager J reported RN H applied normal saline and first aid at the time of the burn. When asked how she knew what RN H did for first aid, Nurse Manager J reported she did not tell her what to do but nurses are trained to clean with normal saline and perform first aid. Nurse Manager J reported observed R101 burn area 12/18/24 with blister noted to right thigh and groin and open skin to abdomen. Nurse Manager J reported would expect staff to perform first aid, contact physician, manager, and Director of Nursing and document in progress notes. Nurse Manager J reported received education 12/18/24 about facility reheating policy and had not received prior. During an observation and interview on 1/8/25 at 5:00 p.m., R101 was laying in bed and appeared able to answer questions without difficulty. R101 reported had burned self with hot noodle soup few weeks prior. R101 reported had own personal single cups of noodle soup and asked CNA I to heat up. R101 reported CNA I brought back to him and placed on hand held mirror in between legs in the bed. R101 reported was too hot so was letting cool down when he accidentally spilled and burned right inner thigh and abdomen area and groin area. R101 reported fortunately groin area was mostly protected by brief because that is a sensitive area. R101 reported he yelled out because it hurt when the soup spilled and used call light to alert staff and reported 10/10 pain on pain scale at time. R101 reported he immediately removed covers but had already burned skin and CNA I answered call light within about two minutes. R101 reported told CNA I what happened she notified RN H who looked at area and covered with dressings. R101 reported at no time did anyone place normal saline or cool cloths on areas. R101 reported no one else looked at burned areas until the next day. R101 reported he told CNA and nurses he had pain and stated, of course that hurt, it is a sensitive area. I told everyone that came in to look at area it hurt. R101 skin tone is black with area on abdomen that appeared scared and healed about 8cm x 4 cm of pink skin. R101 reported on 12/21/24 staff were arguing who was going to complete treatments and R101 lost trust facility was caring for areas appropriately and call 911 and was taken to university burn unit who placed dressing to remain in place for one week. R101 reported facility staff then provided routine treatment after that and followed up with burn unit yesterday with improvements. During an observation on 1/8/25 at 5:20 p.m., observed two microwave in locked first floor breakroom. The facility Heating and Reheating Guidelines were located on the front of one microwave with thermometer and alcohol swabs in area. During an observation and interview on 1/9/25 at 9:50 a.m., R101 denied any concerns and reported planned to leave for dialysis soon. R101 reported staff had provided him with small tray with perimeter that appeared about 12 by 8 inches to use in lap if needed. R101 reported did not like to use bedside table related to mobility. During an observation on 1/9/25 at 10:10 a.m., the third floor pantry had sign on it to keep door locked. This surveyor opened unlocked door and verified no microwave was in pantry. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 10:15 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) L was asked to sign a form after R101 burn incident but was not familiar with R101. LPN L reported was told if heating/reheating resident food to do so in 1st floor breakroom, and not to serve too hot. When queried what was too hot, LPN L reported was unsure and stated, maybe use glove and touch. LPN L reported or lifted temporal thermometer off medication cart and stated, not sure if I should check with this. LPN L reported was unsure of facility policy and where to locate. Review with the facility in-service and, Reheating Foods and Liquids in the Microwave, on 1/9/25 at 10:54 a.m., reflected LPN L met requirements for reheating food/liquids on 12/20/24. Continued review of the FRI investigation reflected Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) past non-compliance sign in dated 12/24/24, did not included the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A, Director of Nursing (DON) B or the Medical Director signature. During a telephone interview on 1/9/25 at 11:12 a.m., CNA I reported had worked at the facility for over one year and was present at time of R101 burn incident on 12/17/24. CNA I reported R101 asked her to heat R101's personal single serving cup of Ramón noodles for 4 minutes in the microwave. CNA I reported R101 requested staff to assist heat meals almost every night. CNA I reported after heating she placed towel on resident lab while laying in bed, with hand held mirror under towel as flat surface, and place cup of hot noodles on surface between R101 legs. CNA I reported R101 turned on light about 45 minutes to one hour later and told her he had spilt noodles on himself and thinks it caused burn. CNA I reported removed wet towel with few noodles on it and threw away empty cup of noodles. reported thinks he burn self. CNA I reported R101 did have open skin on abdomen R101 was pulling back skin. CNA I reported difficult to see if skin discolored because it was so ashy and dry. CNA I reported R101 appeared calm at the time and did not recall complaints of pain. CNA I reported sheet was wet that was on top of R101 and she changed sheet and R101 had brief on. CNA I reported she then exited R101 room and notified RN H what had happened and RN H went to R101. CNA I reported R101 told RN I what had happened, RN I looked at skin and R101 asked for bandaid and RN I told her it needed to dry out with no immediate fist aid observed, including cool compress. CNA I reported had not received prior education at facility for heating/reheating food and received education after R101 burn incident related to heating only not first aid for burns. CNA I reported shift ended on 12/17/24 at 11:00 p.m. and was unable to recall who shift report was given to and reported did not tell oncoming staff about R101 burn incident. CNA I reported did not provide any additional care for R101 on 12/17/24 between 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. Review of CNA I unsigned witness statement, dated 12/18/24, reflected CNA I saw noodles and liquid on floor when first entering R101 room when R101 reported had spilled soup on himself. CNA I reported management called her 12/18/24 on telephone for statement and did not say noodles and liquid were on the floor and had not seen statements. During an observation on 1/9/25 at 12:15 p.m., during meal service CNA filled coffee cup from insulated drink dispenser in 200 hall took to room [ROOM NUMBER] with no cover. During an observation on 1/9/25 at 12:17 p.m. the 300 pantry had sign posted on door keep door closed. Paper towel was stuffed in door lock to prevent door from locking. This surveyor opened door to pantry and verified no microwave in pantry and no call light. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 12:43 p.m., CNA M reported after resident was burned facility removed microwaves from all of the resident floors. If residents request to have food heated or reheated microwave is located in staff breakroom on first floor. CNA M reported staff should not serve residents food that is too hot. When ask what too hot meant CNA M was unable to answer and reported was unsure what facility policy was. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 1:04 p.m., Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) O reported had been in position over two years. ADON O reported first heard about R101 burn from 12/17/24 on 12/18/24 at morning meeting after reviewing skin assessment completed by RN H. ADON O was queried what was first aid included for burn and ADON O reported first aid should included cool down area with cool water and non adhesive dressing. ADON O reported would expect staff to provided immediate first aid, notify nurse, who would notify physician, responsible party, DON, NHA for all events including burns and document at time of the event. ADON O reported complete R101 pain and skin assessment 12/18/24 and was first to contact R101 physician on 12/18/24. ADON O reported would not expect petroleum jelly to be used for acute burn treatment. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 2:19 p.m., Wound Nurse (WN) P reported had been in position for two years. WN P reported was notified of R101 burn wound on 12/18/24 and observed two blistered areas to right thigh and right groin and pink open skin to abdomen. WN P reported called R101 physician who ordered aloe vera jell from plant they got from local grocery store daily and not to cover unless out to dialysis. WN P reported would not expect staff to apply petroleum jelly to acute burn. WN P reported completed R101 skin incident/accident report on 12/18/24 that should have been completed at the time of the incident on 12/17/24. WN P reported prior to observing R101 on 12/18/24 had removed foam dressing from right thigh, groin and abdomen. WN P reported staff should have immediately cooled site by adding cool water. WN P would expect staff to immediately cool down burn site, while also notifying nurse, physician, DON and NHA because immediate change of condition. WN I reported R101 had orders for aloe vera three times daily from 12/18/24 until silvadene cream arrived that was ordered 12/20/24 and verified MAR reflected R101 received both between 12/20/24 and 12/21/24 until sent to Emergency Room. WN P verified R101 had dressing placed at hospital on [DATE] that remained in place for 7 days. WN P verified staff had documented R101 was provided dressing changes between 12/22/24 and 12/28/24, however, reported the MAR was not correct because R101 would not allow staff to remove dressing for the ordered 7 days. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 3:31 p.m., DON B and NHA A reported were first notified of R101 burn incident on 12/18/24 at morning meeting by ADON O. NHA A reported would have expected staff to notify them immediately of R101 burn. DON B reported would expect CNA to notify nurse immediately, who would assess, notify physician, DON, NHA and state of Michigan if needed. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 4:45 p.m. DON B reported facility had no evidence of prior education provided to staff for heating/reheating resident food before R101 incident. Review of the facility, Heating and Reheating Guidelines, dated 2/20/24, reflected, Purpose: The facility will ensure that resident personal food is handled in a safe and sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination and to minimize the risk of food borne illness. The facility will follow any manufactures instructions when preparing food .Guideline 1. Only trained facility staff are authorized to hear and reheat food for residents. 2. Items being heated reheated will be checked for use-be-date .3. Packaged foods will be heated and reheated to microwave following package instructions 4. For reheating precooked food items, microwave to internal temperature of 165 degrees for 15 seconds. 5. Allow heated and reheated food to sit for 2 minutes or according to the manufactures instructions prior to serving to the resident . Review of the facility, Accidents Policy, dated 6/29/21, reflected, Accidents refers to any unexpected or unintentional incident, which results or may result in injury of illness to a resident .Avoidable Accident means that an accident occurred because the facility failed to: Identify environmental hazards and/or assess individual resident risk of an accident , including the need to supervision and/or assistive devices. Evaluate/analyze the hazards ad risks and eliminate them, if possible, identify and implement measures to reduce the hazards/risks as much as possible. Implement interventions, including adequate supervision and assistive devices, consistent with a resident's needs, goals, care plan and current professional standards of practice in order to eliminate the risk, if possible, and , if not reduce the risk of an accident . Review of the State of (State Name) Department of Community Health Alert, titled, Scalding Injuries Caused by Excessive Hot Water: Food and Hot Beverage Temperatures, Revised August 5, 2008, revealed, Background: In all age groups, tap water scald injuries have been cited as the second most cause of serious burns. A scald is a burn caused by spills, immersion, splash, or contact with hot water, food and beverages, or steam. The elderly are particularly at increased risk because their skin tends to be less sensitive and reaction times are reduced, causing a tendency to not pull away from hot water quickly enough to avoid scalding. Their thinner skin also burns full depth (through the skin layers and into tissue) more quickly .Although Federal and State agencies do not specify temperatures appropriate to the consumption of hot beverages, facilities should be aware of the risk for harm to a resident from contact or consumption of hot beverages.Scalds can commonly occur from hot food, beverages, or steam . The estimated time for a person to receive second-degree burns was noted as follows: 120 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 8 minutes. 124 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 2 minutes. 131 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 17 seconds 140 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 3 seconds. 150 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: Less than one second.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain the highest practical physical level of well being (adequate care after a burn) in 1 of 3 sampled residents (R101) reviewed for accidents, resulting in second degree burns to R101 after spilling hot soup in his lap. Findings include: Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected R101 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus, cerebral infarct with hemiplegia affecting right dominant side, hypertension (high blood pressure), chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis, heart failure, atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rate), kidney cancer with removal and weakness. The MDS reflected R101 had a BIM (assessment tool) score of 15 which indicated his ability to make daily decisions was cognitively intact, and he required set-up assist with eating, dependent on staff for dressing, toileting, transferring and bed mobility, and maximal assist (helper does more than half the effort) with hygiene and bathing. Review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) report, dated 12/18/24, reflected R101 was his own responsible party. Continued review reflected, On the evening on 12/17/24 at approximately 2045[8:45 p.m.] [R101 initials] asked for CNA to warm up a food item for him (cup of noodles). CNA warmed up the item in the microwave for 3-4 minutes per the residents request and then returned the food item to him and set up per resident request while he was in the bed. The resident was allowing the food to cool down when he reached to throw a napkin away in the trash and he accidentally knocked the food over onto himself . Review of R101 Skin Progress Note, dated 12/17/24 at 8:52 p.m., reflected, Resident has NEW skin issue(s) observed. 1 Abdomen - Open skin wound, Right thigh (front) -Burn skin . Review of R101 Nursing Progress Note, dated 12/17/24 at 8:55 p.m., reflected, Resident accidentally poured hot noodle on himself while eating in bed, and got burned-out with hot noodle. First aids provided, and resident was educated to avoid eating hot meals in bed. Review of R101 Care Plan, dated 4/10/24 through current (1/8/25), reflected interventions that included, Dining: Resident is independent. Requests assistance at times. Setup as needed. Review of R101 Skin Incident Report, dated 12/18/24 at 12:52 p.m. (over 15 hours after incident), reflected nurse description, Resident was eating cup bowl of noodles, in the action of throwing something away, resident mistakenly knocked off meal unto lap which contained hot liquid. The form included resident description, Resident able to verify and tell how he burned himself. The form included, Injuries observed at time of incident including abdomen, groin and right thigh. The incident report reflected the Physician, Director of Nursing, Nursing Home Administrator and family member were notified 12/18/24 at 2:02 p.m.(over 15 hours after burn incident). Review of R101 Interdisciplinary resident screen, dated 12/24/24, reflected R101 preferred to eat meals with plate on lab. Continued review reflected recommend over the lap tray when in bed with scoop plate and bowl with suction cup for safety with feeding self. During an interview on 1/8/25 at 12:50 p.m. Director of Nursing (DON) B and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A reported the FRI for R101 was reported to the State of Michigan on 12/18/24 and immediate plan of correction was implemented. NHA A reported Certified Nurse Aid did not check food temperature after heating R101 single serving of noodles prior to giving to R101 on 12/17/24 that caused burns to R101 abdomen, groin and thigh. NHA A reported there was not a thermometer available for staff to use at that time. NHA A reported the risk to residents was immediately removed 12/18/24 and the facility alleged compliance date was 12/26/24. NHA A reported the facility failed to follow facility reheating policy. DON B was unable to say what was expected of staff for immediate burn treatment other than to remove the source and was unsure if facility had policy to address. Review of R101 facility Skin Observation, dated 12/17/24 at 8:52 p.m., reflected new wound that included open skin wound to abdomen and burn to right thigh. Review of R101 Nursing Progress Note, dated 12/18/24 at 11:14 a.m., reflected, Followed up with patient skin incident to lower right abdomen, right thigh and right groin. Abdomen dermis layer of skin off, pink tissue observed, no drainage or bleeding. Right thigh and groin, blister observed, dark areas surround blister sites. Patient report minimum pain. Areas will remain open to air with aloe vera gel applied to them 3x a day. Patient aware of treatment in place. Patient aware of what occurred in incident and able to tell writer what happened. Patient able to handle hot liquids with no barriers. MD notified. Monitoring in place. Review of R101 Wound Care Consult, dated 12/20/24, reflected, Wound Assessment(s) Wound #1 Right Groin is an acute Partial Thickness Burn 2nd Degree .Initial wound encounter measurements are 4cm length x 4 cm width with no measurable depth, with an area of 16 sq cm .The wound margin is undefined Wound bed has no, granulation; no slough, eschar and no epithelialization present .fluid filled intact blister . Wound #2 Abdomen - RLQ [right lower quadrant] is an acute Partial Thickness Burn 2nd Degree .Subsequent wound encounter measurements are 8cm length x 3cm width x 0.1 cm depth, with an area of 24 sq cm and volume of 2.4 cubic cm .There is moderate amount of serous drainage noted which has no odor .The wound margin is undefined Wound bed has 100%, pink, granulation . Wound #3 Right Thigh is an acute Partial Thickness Burn 2nd Degree .Initial wound encounter measurements are 8cm x 6cm with no measurable depth, with an area of 48 sq cm .The wound margin is attached to wound base .fluid filled intact blister . Plan .Wound Cleansing Cleanse wound with Normal Saline Treatments Apply Silvadine (on ABD direct) QDay/PRN[every day and/or as needed]-Right groin, abdomen, right thigh .Secondary Dressing . Review of R101 Physician orders, dated 12/18/24 through 12/27/24, reflected, Apply aloe vera gel to lower abdomen, right groin, and right thigh every shift[three times daily] for wound care. Continued review of R101 Physician orders, dated 12/21/24 through 1/6/25, reflected, Apply silver sulfadiazine to abdomen, right thigh and groin and cover with clean dry dressing every evening shift for burn. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 12/1/24 through 12/31/24, reflected R101 received both aloe vera gel treatment three times daily to three burn areas and silver sulfadiazine every day on 12/20/24 and 12/21/24. Review of R101 Nursing Progress Note, dated 12/21/24 at 11:40 p.m., reflected, At approximately (21:30) treatment was completed on resident burn area. Resident called the nurse and requested for the cream wiped off, upon checking the area, a whitish looking like lotion was on the areas of the burn, that did not match the previous ointment applied to the area, upon querying the resident, a cream Dermasil was noted on the bed and open. Resident asked if he had applied the cream and he did not respond and as the writer cleaned up the sites, resident called 911 stating that the cream had entered his blood stream. [Named ambulance service] arrived, report was given to the attendants. Review of R101 Nurse Progress Note, dated 12/22/24, reflected, Wound care in place from ER visit, and to be kept for one week. Review of the Nurse Progress Note, dated 12/30/24, reflected, Resident burn sites cleansed with normal saline, resident refused for silver to be applied to sites. Collagen with silver material placed over sites with clean dry dressing to cover. Patient reported minimum pain during dressing change. Abdomen site pink and slightly moist. R[right] groin pink/red and moist. R thigh white and moist, no sloth, later of epidermis seen. Review of the facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 12/30/24, reflected R101 had a facility acquired thermal heat partial thickness 2nd degree burn to groin area that measured 5 cm length x 5 cm width with no depth with moderate amount serosanguineous drainage. Continued review of the document reflected the wound was 70% bright pink or red and 30% loose slough with 1/10 pain. Continued review of the document included pictures, dated 12/30/24 at 6:44 a.m., that appeared to have depth to wound (not reflected on assessment.) Review of the facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 12/30/24 at 6:43 a.m., reflected R101 had a facility acquired thermal heat partial thickness 1st degree burn to abdomen that measured 8 cm length x 4 cm width with no depth with scant serous drainage. Continued review of the assessment reflected the wound was 100% bright pink or red. Review of the facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 12/30/24 at 6:54 a.m., reflected R101 had a facility acquired thermal heat full thickness 2nd degree burn to right thigh that measured 8 cm length x 8 cm width x 0 depth with light serous drainage. Continued review of the assessment reflected 100% pale pink or red epithelial tissue. Continued review included pictures that appeared to be 80% pale/white area of slough (non-viable tissue). Review of the Burn Clinic Consult note, dated 1/6/25, reflected R101 abdomen burn had healed and thigh and groin wound had some eschar on wounds with no signs of infection. Continued review of the note reflected SSD[silver sulfadiazine] daily to groin and thigh burns and follow up with burn unit in one week. Review of R101 facility Wound Assessment Details, dated 1/8/25, reflected the following: ~Groin burn wound-5 cm x 5 cm x 0 cm with 60% red/pink tissue and 40% slough. Review of picture wound bed appeared to have black eschar(dead skin). ~Abdomen burn-healed. ~Right Thigh burn-7 cm x 7 cm x 0 cm with 50% epithelial and 50% slough. Review of picture wound bed appeared to have about 80% yellow slough. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 1:50 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse(LPN) C reported worked part time at facility and was not working at time of R101 burn. LPN C reported was educated prior to returning to the floor that microwaves had been removed from floors and if residents request for food to be heated/reheated to use microwave in staff breakroom. LPN C reported staff were educated on Heating/Reheating Policy including to check temperature of food prior to giving to residents. LPN C reported had not received education related to Heat/Reheating food prior to R101 incident including new hire education in November of 2024. LPN C reported did not receive education related to immediate response for burn treatment and was unaware of facility had policy. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 2:12 p.m., Certified Nurse Aid(CNA) D reported was made aware of R101 burn incident about a week after when education was received that microwaves had been removed from the each floor and moved to staff breakroom. CNA D reported educated that if residents request food be heated/reheated staff must check the temperature prior to serving to resident. CNA D reported was unsure what temperature to serve resident food or of what the facility policy was. CNA D reported temperatures should be on each resident chart. CNA D reported was a new hire in November 2024 and did not receive education for heating/reheating food at that time. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 2:34 p.m., CNA E reported was not working at the time of R101 incident. CNA E reported was educated upon returned that microwaves had been removed from floors and relocated to staff breakroom. CNA E reported education included heating/reheating resident food including staff required to temp food after heating and policy was on microwave and thermometer was available. CNA E reported R101's hands are stiff and often spilled food so seemed like common sense not to serve hot food in bed. CNA E reported often worked with R101 and had seen burn wounds and R101 had complained of pain at wound sites. CNA E reported R101 would remind CNA E to be careful of burn areas with care and positioning related to pain. CNA E reported did not receive education related to immediate care for burn. During an interview on 1/8/25 at 3:46 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) H reported was told by CNA I R101 had spilled noodles on himself 9:00 p.m. during medication pass. RN H reported was unsure when R101 spilled food on self but reported immediately went to R101 room and found R101 laying in bed and R101 told her he had spilled hot noodle in lap. RN H reported R101 did not have cloths on and was covered with sheet with no evidence of wet sheet or noodles on R101 and reported was unsure if CNA I had changed sheets. RN H reported R101 reported burned right thigh and abdomen and completed skin assessment. RN H reported R101 was African American and difficult to see if any red areas. RN H reported patted area with damp washcloth, applied petroleum jelly and ABD dressing, and called Nurse Manager J. RN H reported R101 did not report pain and areas were not open. When asked about Skin assessment completed on 12/17/24 for RN H that indicated open abdominal would, RN H reported she did not recall. RN H reported had not received education from facility about heating/reheating food for residents prior to incident but facility provided after. RN H reported did not Notify Physician, Nursing Home Administrator or Director of Nursing. During a telephone interview on 1/8/25 at 4:19 p.m., Nurse Manager J reported was notified by RN H about R101 burn to right thigh and abdomen on the evening of 12/17/24 after she had gone to bed and was unsure of time. Nurse Manager J reported RN H applied normal saline and first aid at the time of the burn. When asked how she knew what RN H did for first aid, Nurse Manager J reported she did not tell her what to do but nurses are trained to clean with normal saline and perform first aid. Nurse Manager J reported observed R101 burn area 12/18/24 with blister noted to right thigh and groin and open skin to abdomen. Nurse Manager J reported would expect staff to perform first aid, contact physician, manager, and Director of Nursing and document in progress notes. Nurse Manager J reported received education 12/18/24 about facility reheating policy and had not received prior. During an observation and interview on 1/8/25 at 5:00 p.m., R101 was laying in bed and appeared able to answer questions without difficulty. R101 reported had burned self with hot noodle soup few weeks prior. R101 reported had own personal single cups of noodle soup and asked CNA I to heat up. R101 reported CNA I brought back to him and placed on hand held mirror in between legs in the bed. R101 reported was too hot so was letting cool down when he accidentally spilled and burned right inner thigh and abdomen area and groin area. R101 reported fortunately groin area was mostly protected by brief because that is a sensitive area. R101 reported he yelled out because it hurt when the soup spilled and used call light to alert staff and reported 10/10 pain on pain scale at time. R101 reported he immediately removed covers but had already burned skin and CNA I answered call light within about two minutes. R101 reported told CNA I what happened she notified RN H who looked at area and covered with dressings. R101 reported at no time did anyone place normal saline or cool cloths on areas. R101 reported no one else looked at burned areas until the next day. R101 reported he told CNA and nurses he had pain and stated, of course that hurt, it is a sensitive area. I told everyone that came in to look at area it hurt. R101 skin tone is black with area on abdomen that appeared scared and healed about 8cm x 4 cm of pink skin. R101 reported on 12/21/24 staff were arguing who was going to complete treatments and R101 lost trust facility was caring for areas appropriately and call 911 and was taken to university burn unit who placed dressing to remain in place for one week. R101 reported facility staff then provided routine treatment after that and followed up with burn unit yesterday with improvements. During an observation on 1/8/25 at 5:20 p.m., observed two microwave in locked first floor breakroom. The facility Heating and Reheating Guidelines were located on the front of one microwave with thermometer and alcohol swabs in area. During an observation and interview on 1/9/25 at 9:50 a.m., R101 denied any concerns and reported planned to leave for dialysis soon. R101 reported staff had provided him with small tray with perimeter that appeared about 12 by 8 inches to use in lap if needed. R101 reported did not like to use bedside table related to mobility. During an observation on 1/9/25 at 10:10 a.m., the third floor pantry had sign on it to keep door locked. This surveyor opened unlocked door and verified no microwave was in pantry. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 10:15 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) L was asked to sign a form after R101 burn incident but was not familiar with R101. LPN L reported was told if heating/reheating resident food to do so in 1st floor breakroom, and not to serve too hot. When queried what was too hot, LPN L reported was unsure and stated, maybe use glove and touch. LPN L reported or lifted temporal thermometer off medication cart and stated, not sure if I should check with this. LPN L reported was unsure of facility policy and where to locate. Review with the facility in-service and, Reheating Foods and Liquids in the Microwave, on 1/9/25 at 10:54 a.m., reflected LPN L met requirements for reheating food/liquids on 12/20/24. Continued review of the FRI investigation reflected Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) past non-compliance sign in dated 12/24/24, did not included the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A, Director of Nursing (DON) B or the Medical Director signature. During a telephone interview on 1/9/25 at 11:12 a.m., CNA I reported had worked at the facility for over one year and was present at time of R101 burn incident on 12/17/24. CNA I reported R101 asked her to heat R101's personal single serving cup of Ramón noodles for 4 minutes in the microwave. CNA I reported R101 requested staff to assist heat meals almost every night. CNA I reported after heating she placed towel on resident lab while laying in bed, with hand held mirror under towel as flat surface, and place cup of hot noodles on surface between R101 legs. CNA I reported R101 turned on light about 45 minutes to one hour later and told her he had spilt noodles on himself and thinks it caused burn. CNA I reported removed wet towel with few noodles on it and threw away empty cup of noodles. reported thinks he burn self. CNA I reported R101 did have open skin on abdomen R101 was pulling back skin. CNA I reported difficult to see if skin discolored because it was so ashy and dry. CNA I reported R101 appeared calm at the time and did not recall complaints of pain. CNA I reported sheet was wet that was on top of R101 and she changed sheet and R101 had brief on. CNA I reported she then exited R101 room and notified RN H what had happened and RN H went to R101. CNA I reported R101 told RN I what had happened, RN I looked at skin and R101 asked for bandaid and RN I told her it needed to dry out with no immediate fist aid observed, including cool compress. CNA I reported had not received prior education at facility for heating/reheating food and received education after R101 burn incident related to heating only not first aid for burns. CNA I reported shift ended on 12/17/24 at 11:00 p.m. and was unable to recall who shift report was given to and reported did not tell oncoming staff about R101 burn incident. CNA I reported did not provide any additional care for R101 on 12/17/24 between 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. Review of CNA I unsigned witness statement, dated 12/18/24, reflected CNA I saw noodles and liquid on floor when first entering R101 room when R101 reported had spilled soup on himself. CNA I reported management called her 12/18/24 on telephone for statement and did not say noodles and liquid were on the floor and had not seen statements. During an observation on 1/9/25 at 12:15 p.m., during meal service CNA filled coffee cup from insulated drink dispenser in 200 hall took to room [ROOM NUMBER] with no cover. During an observation on 1/9/25 at 12:17 p.m. the 300 pantry had sign posted on door keep door closed. Paper towel was stuffed in door lock to prevent door from locking. This surveyor opened door to pantry and verified no microwave in pantry and no call light. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 12:43 p.m., CNA M reported after resident was burned facility removed microwaves from all of the resident floors. If residents request to have food heated or reheated microwave is located in staff breakroom on first floor. CNA M reported staff should not serve residents food that is too hot. When ask what too hot meant CNA M was unable to answer and reported was unsure what facility policy was. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 1:04 p.m., Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) O reported had been in position over two years. ADON O reported first heard about R101 burn from 12/17/24 on 12/18/24 at morning meeting after reviewing skin assessment completed by RN H. ADON O was queried what was first aid included for burn and ADON O reported first aid should included cool down area with cool water and non adhesive dressing. ADON O reported would expect staff to provided immediate first aid, notify nurse, who would notify physician, responsible party, DON, NHA for all events including burns and document at time of the event. ADON O reported complete R101 pain and skin assessment 12/18/24 and was first to contact R101 physician on 12/18/24. ADON O reported would not expect petroleum jelly to be used for acute burn treatment. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 2:19 p.m., Wound Nurse (WN) P reported had been in position for two years. WN P reported was notified of R101 burn wound on 12/18/24 and observed two blistered areas to right thigh and right groin and pink open skin to abdomen. WN P reported called R101 physician who ordered aloe vera jell from plant they got from local grocery store daily and not to cover unless out to dialysis. WN P reported would not expect staff to apply petroleum jelly to acute burn. WN P reported completed R101 skin incident/accident report on 12/18/24 that should have been completed at the time of the incident on 12/17/24. WN P reported prior to observing R101 on 12/18/24 had removed foam dressing from right thigh, groin and abdomen. WN P reported staff should have immediately cooled site by adding cool water. WN P would expect staff to immediately cool down burn site, while also notifying nurse, physician, DON and NHA because immediate change of condition. WN I reported R101 had orders for aloe vera three times daily from 12/18/24 until silvadene cream arrived that was ordered 12/20/24 and verified MAR reflected R101 received both between 12/20/24 and 12/21/24 until sent to Emergency Room. WN P verified R101 had dressing placed at hospital on [DATE] that remained in place for 7 days. WN P verified staff had documented R101 was provided dressing changes between 12/22/24 and 12/28/24, however, reported the MAR was not correct because R101 would not allow staff to remove dressing for the ordered 7 days. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 3:31 p.m., DON B and NHA A reported were first notified of R101 burn incident on 12/18/24 at morning meeting by ADON O. NHA A reported would have expected staff to notify them immediately of R101 burn. DON B reported would expect CNA to notify nurse immediately, who would assess, notify physician, DON, NHA and state of Michigan if needed. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 4:45 p.m. DON B reported facility had no evidence of prior education provided to staff for heating/reheating resident food before R101 incident. Review of the facility, Heating and Reheating Guidelines, dated 2/20/24, reflected, Purpose: The facility will ensure that resident personal food is handled in a safe and sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination and to minimize the risk of food borne illness. The facility will follow any manufactures instructions when preparing food .Guideline 1. Only trained facility staff are authorized to hear and reheat food for residents. 2. Items being heated reheated will be checked for use-be-date .3. Packaged foods will be heated and reheated to microwave following package instructions 4. For reheating precooked food items, microwave to internal temperature of 165 degrees for 15 seconds. 5. Allow heated and reheated food to sit for 2 minutes or according to the manufactures instructions prior to serving to the resident . Review of the facility, Accidents Policy, dated 6/29/21, reflected, Accidents refers to any unexpected or unintentional incident, which results or may result in injury of illness to a resident .Avoidable Accident means that an accident occurred because the facility failed to: Identify environmental hazards and/or assess individual resident risk of an accident , including the need to supervision and/or assistive devices. Evaluate/analyze the hazards ad risks and eliminate them, if possible, identify and implement measures to reduce the hazards/risks as much as possible. Implement interventions, including adequate supervision and assistive devices, consistent with a resident's needs, goals, care plan and current professional standards of practice in order to eliminate the risk, if possible, and , if not reduce the risk of an accident . Review of the State of (State Name) Department of Community Health Alert, titled, Scalding Injuries Caused by Excessive Hot Water: Food and Hot Beverage Temperatures, Revised August 5, 2008, revealed, Background: In all age groups, tap water scald injuries have been cited as the second most cause of serious burns. A scald is a burn caused by spills, immersion, splash, or contact with hot water, food and beverages, or steam. The elderly are particularly at increased risk because their skin tends to be less sensitive and reaction times are reduced, causing a tendency to not pull away from hot water quickly enough to avoid scalding. Their thinner skin also burns full depth (through the skin layers and into tissue) more quickly .Although Federal and State agencies do not specify temperatures appropriate to the consumption of hot beverages, facilities should be aware of the risk for harm to a resident from contact or consumption of hot beverages.Scalds can commonly occur from hot food, beverages, or steam . The estimated time for a person to receive second-degree burns was noted as follows: 120 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 8 minutes. 124 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 2 minutes. 131 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 17 seconds 140 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: 3 seconds. 150 degrees. Time to receive second-degree burn: Less than one second.
Aug 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

This citation pertains to intake MI00145665 Based on observation, interview, an record review the facility failed to notify one Resident (#2) out of three Resident reviewed of grievance investigation ...

Read full inspector narrative →
This citation pertains to intake MI00145665 Based on observation, interview, an record review the facility failed to notify one Resident (#2) out of three Resident reviewed of grievance investigation and resolution of grievances. Findings Included: Resident #2 (R2) Review of the medical record revealed R2 was admitted to the facility 09/13/2023 with diagnoses that included cirrhosis of liver (scarring and liver failure), constipation, anxiety, alcohol abuse, anemia (low red blood cells), hepatic encephalopathy (loss of brain function because liver damage does not remove toxins) , hypertension, gastro-esophageal reflux, chronic pancreatitis (inflammation of pancreas), low back pain, depression, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/20/2024, demonstrated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 (cognitively intact) out of 15. During observation and interview on 08/27/2024 at 11:56 p.m. R2 was observed sitting up on the side of her bed. R2 explained that she had made two concern forms for issues that she had during her stay at the facility. R2 explained that she had not been contacted regarding the grievances that she had completed. She expressed frustration that resolution of those grievances had yet to be shared with her. Review of R2 grievance form, dated 07/02/2024, demonstrated concerns with bathroom cleanliness, requested salads at dinner and much as possible, and concern with her roommate leaving the light on throughout the night. Resolutions were stated that the housekeeping manager had been notified, the dietary manager had been notified, and R2's resident had been spoken to regarding leaving the light on at night. The grievance form report failed to demonstrate that R2 had been notified of the resolutions. Review of R2 grievance form, dated 07/08/2024, demonstrated concerns with waiting for care, medication administration, emptying of trash cans, activities staff not asking resident to attend activities, request for antibacterial soap, staffing issues, and roommate leaving light on throughout the night. Resolutions were stated to had discussion with Activity Director, discussion with housekeeping manager, follow up with nursing staff regarding nursing issues. The grievance form failed to demonstrate that R2 had been notified of the resolutions. In an interview on 08/27/2024 at 11:30 a.m. Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A explained that residents are encouraged to complete a facility Grievance Form, that are available on each of the nursing units, if concerns are identified. NHA A explained that those concerns are placed in a computerized format. She explained that the computerized format does not demonstrate if the Resident had been notified of resolution. NHA A could not demonstrate the Grievance Form that R2 had completed, dated 07/02/2024 and 07/08/2024, and could only refer to the computerized documentation. NHA A could not identify if R2 had been notified of the grievance resolutions or if R2 had been satisfied with those resolutions. Review of the facility policy entitled Grievance Guideline, with an effective date of 11/28/2017, revealed section H-Resolution section b. The Grievance Official will complete a response to the resident or residents representative .
Feb 2024 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that grievances were promptly documented, investigated, tracked and resolved for the entire resident council members, re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that grievances were promptly documented, investigated, tracked and resolved for the entire resident council members, resulting in anger, frustration and feelings of being ignored and ongoing unresolved concerns. Findings include: Review of the Resident Council meeting minutes dated 10/12/23 reflected the resident council members had no concerns for Nursing, Social Services, Activities, Housekeeping/laundry, and Dietary. The Resident Council notes further reflected New business addressed immediately. The minutes do not reveal what the new business concerns were. Review of the 11/21/23 Resident Council meeting minutes reflected no concerns for nursing, Activities, Housekeeping/Laundry or Dietary. One resident requested to see the Optometrist in which Social Services was notified. Review of the Resident Council meeting minutes dated 12/27/23 had no concerns for Nursing, Social Services, Activities, Housekeeping/laundry, and Dietary. During the confidential group meeting held on 01/31/24 at 10:33 AM the Resident Council members reported they complain every month about staffing, call light response times (6 of the 7 group participants reported frequent wait times for a response to their call light exceed an hour), staff attitudes and not being treated with dignity was reported monthly per 6 of the 7 group participants. reported this too was brought up in Resident Council meetings on a monthly basis. The participants of the confidential group meeting reported they felt ignored by management staff as if their concerns were ignored and go unaddressed. Seven of the seven residents unanimously stated staff could and should be kinder. On 02/01/24 at 01:14 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) B she reported she was aware of resident complaints of long call light response times, DON B also stated she was aware of some staff having poor attitudes and have terminated staff as a result of these complaints. On 02/01/24 at 01:34 PM, during an interview with Nursing Home Administer (NHA) A she reported she too was aware of Resident Councils complaints of call light response time stating it was part of an ongoing quality assurance program. NHA A also stated she was aware of resident complaints of staff having a poor attitude and that she had mandatory in-services on customer service scheduled for next week. When queried why these concerns were not reflected in any of the Resident Council meeting minutes and no concern forms generated from these issues. NHA A offered no explanation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for three (Resident #41, #72 and #370) of 24 reviewed, resulting in the potential for inaccurate care plans and unmet care needs. Findings include: Resident #72 (R72): Review of the medical record reflected R72 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia. R72's MDS history reflected a quarterly MDS, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/18/23. A discharge return anticipated MDS, with an ARD of 1/1/24, reflected, Has the resident had any falls since admission/entry or reentry or the prior assessment (OBRA or Scheduled PPS), whichever is more recent? was coded for one fall without injury. During an interview on 02/01/24 at 02:07 PM, Registered Nurse/MDS Coordinator (RN) C reported R72 had fallen on 12/10/23 and 12/30/23. RN C reported R72's discharge return anticipated MDS, with an ARD of 1/1/24, should have been coded for two falls. Resident #370 (R370): Review of the medical record reflected R370 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included left acetabulum fracture, unspecified fall, diabetes and muscle weakness. A discharge return anticipated MDS, with an ARD of 1/16/24, reflected, Has the resident had any falls since admission/entry or reentry or the prior assessment (OBRA or Scheduled PPS), whichever is more recent? was coded for a response of No. During an interview on 02/01/24 at 11:25 AM, RN C reported information for MDS falls coding was obtained from daily clinical meetings, the clinical start-up file folder, post-fall evaluations, care plans and progress notes. If a fall occurred between the prior MDS and the current MDS, it was to be coded (on the current MDS). RN C reported the discharge return anticipated MDS, with an ARD of 1/16/24, was prompted by a fall (R370 was sent to the hospital). RN C acknowledged that she should have coded R370 for a fall on the discharge return anticipated MDS, with an ARD of 1/16/24. Resident #41 (R41) Review of the medical record revealed R41 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included major depressive disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/17/23 revealed R41 was coded as receiving an anticoagulant medication and not receiving an antidepressant medication. Review of R41's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated December 2023 revealed R41 received an antidepressant medication (Venlafaxine), but did not receive an anticoagulant medication. In an interview on 02/01/24 at 11:25 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) C reported she was the facility's MDS Coordinator. RN C reported she obtained medication information for MDS coding from the Medication Administration Record. When asked about R41's medication coding on the MDS with an ARD of 12/17/23, RN C agreed R41 was receiving an antidepressant and not receiving an anticoagulant. RN C reported R41 should have been coded as receiving an antidepressant and coded as not receiving an anticoagulant.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

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 follow-up with OBRA for one (Resident #110) of two reviewed, result...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow-up with OBRA for one (Resident #110) of two reviewed, resulting in the potential for mismanaged mental health services. Findings include: Resident #110 (R110) admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included manic episode, anxiety, suicidal ideations, adjustment disorder and brief psychotic disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/13/23 revealed R110 scored 13 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). Review of R110's Preadmission Screening (PAS)/Annual Resident Review (ARR) completed on 11/7/23 revealed R110's Level I screening was Hospital Exemption Discharge. Section II of the screen revealed yes was marked to question 3 the person has routinely received one or more prescribed antipsychotic or antidepressant medications within the last 14 days. The form revealed R110 was prescribed Seroquel (antipsychotic medication). The Level I screening instructions revealed DISTRIBUTION: If any answer to items 1 - 6 in SECTION II is Yes, send ONE copy to the local Community Mental Health Services Program (CMHSP), with a copy of form DCH-3878 if an exemption is requested. The nursing facility must retain the original in the patient record and provide a copy to the patient or legal representative. In an interview on 02/01/24 at 12:07 PM, Social Worker (SW) E reported she had up to 30 days to send level I screening to OBRA for residents who had a hospital exempted discharge. SW E pulled up the OBRA portal on her computer and showed that R110's level I screening was sent to OBRA. The portal included an OBRA PASARR Correspondence letter dated 12/8/23 that revealed Based on a review of the available information, the recipient was admitted to the nursing facility with a hospital exemption. Although the resident remains at the nursing facility, there is a tentative discharge date schedule with 2 weeks. Therefore, a Level II OBRA assessment will not be initiated at this time. If that plan changes, please notify the local OBRA office as soon as possible for appropriate follow up. When asked if OBRA was notified that R110 still resided in the facility, SW E reported OBRA was aware and the communication was done via email. Confirmation of the communication between the facility and OBRA was requested, but not received prior to the survey exit.
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 for one out of 24 residents (Resident #39) resident preferenc...

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 for one out of 24 residents (Resident #39) resident preferences were included in the plan of care, resulting in the potential for anxiety and resident preferences not being met. Findings Included: Per Resident 39's (R39) electronic medical record (EMR) R39 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. In an interview on 1/30/2024 at 11:13 AM, R39 stated that he wanted to get up every morning at 6:15 AM. R39 said staff were aware of his preference, however stated that there had been a few days when it was after 7:00 AM and around 10:00 AM before the staff assisted him with getting up out of bed. In an interview on 2/01/2024 at 10:48 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) J stated that R39 would always be up when she would arrive to work at 7:00 AM. RN J said the third shift staff would get R39 up out of bed. RN J further stated that R39 was routine, and would get anxious when his routine was not followed, and would get upset and anxious when he was not up out of bed at 6:00 AM. In an interview on 2/01/2024 at 12:15 PM, Certified Nurse Aid (CNA) K stated that R39 had a routine, and wanted to get up out of bed every morning at 6:00 AM. CNA K said R39 would get anxious and upset if he was not up at that time. In another interview on 2/01/2024 at 12:20 PM, R39 was asked if his preference was to get out of bed every morning at 6:00 AM. R39 stated no it is at 6:15 AM that he wanted to get up out of bed, which R39 said was his daily routine. R39 said if he is not assisted out of bed until after 6:15 AM, he would get upset. In an interview on 2/01/2024 at 2:26 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B stated that R39 wanted to get up at 6:15 AM, and keep his routine. DON B said she her expectation was that R39's preference to get up out of bed every morning at 6:15 AM would be documented on his care plan, and [NAME] (A document for CNAs to read to know how to provide each resident's care). DON B stated otherwise staff would not know his preference to get up at 6:15 AM. Review of all of R39's active care plans revealed no plan of care, or intervention in place regarding R39's preference to get up at 6:15 AM every morning.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure for one out of 24 residents (Resident #5) fall care plan was revised, resulting in the potential for additional falls to occur. Findi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure for one out of 24 residents (Resident #5) fall care plan was revised, resulting in the potential for additional falls to occur. Findings Included: Per the Resident #5's (R5) electronic medical record (EMR) R5 had resided at the facility since 6/16/2023. Review of a Post-Fall Evaluation dated 8/29/2023, revealed R5 had a fall on 8/29/2023. An immediate intervention put into place was. bed in low position, call light within reach, frequent rounding on resident (R5). However, the intervention of frequent rounding on resident was not added to R5's care plan, and the interventions of bed in low position and call light within reach were already interventions in place, but were both dated 2/27/2018, and did not have any revisions. Review of an Interdisciplinary Team note (IDT) dated 8/31/2023, revealed R5's fall on 8/29/2023 was reviewed. The note revealed, .Recent falls, no injury, interventions in place . No new fall intervention(s) were added to R5's care plans for fall prevention. Review of a Post-Fall Evaluation dated 10/21/2023, revealed R5 had a fall on 10/21/2023. An intervention put into place was to provide frequent rounding, resident by nurses station when up however the intervention was not on R5's care plans. Review of an IDT note dated 10/23/2023 revealed, R5 had an unwitnessed fall while in the lounge room, had a history of falls. The note revealed, Care plan updated (resident (R5) to be encouraged/assisted to supervised area when up), interventions in place. The interventions to .encouraged/assisted to supervised area when up . were not on R5's care plans. No new fall interventions were added to R5's care plans for fall prevention. Review of R5's fall care plan revealed, The resident (R5) is high risk for falls r/t (related to) decreased mobility and use of antipsychotic medication, history of CVA (stroke), dementia, schizophrenia, bradycardia (slow/low heart rate). resident wanders in others rooms dated 5/28/2022, revealed only the following fall prevention interventions in place: The residents risk will reduce risk of fall/ injury r/t fall will be reduced through the review date. Date Initiated: 11/06/2017, Bed brakes are locked Date Initiated: 07/12/2023, Bed in low position when in bed Date Initiated: 02/27/2018, Footwear fits properly and is non-skid. Date Initiated: 07/12/2023, Non-skid socks/footwear; no fluffy socks without grips Date Initiated: 11/06/2017, Anticipate and meet the resident's needs. Date Initiated: 11/06/2017, Educate the resident/family/caregivers about safety reminders and what to do if a fall occurs. Date Initiated: 02/27/2018, Ensure the resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed., During checks, observe placement of call light as resident has been observed numerous times removing call light from bed and throwing to the floor, staff replaces call light back within reach of resident an resident will remove again or wait until staff exits her room Date Initiated: 02/27/2018, Follow facility fall protocol. Date Initiated: 02/27/2018, PT to evaluate and treat as ordered or PRN. (as needed) Date Initiated: 11/06/2017, The resident needs a safe environment with: even floors free from spills and/or clutter; adequate, glare-free light; a working and reachable call light, the bed in low position at night; personal items within reach) Date Initiated: 04/25/2022. No revisions were made to R5's fall prevention care plan after her falls on 8/29/2023 and 10/21/2023. In an interview on 2/01/2024 at 10:36 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) J stated that she did not review care plans regarding resident falls, and said she did not put fall interventions on resident care plans, but only made the on call staff member and Director of Nursing (DON) B aware of a resident fall. In an interview on 2/01/2024 at 2:17 PM, DON B stated that some nurses will put interventions on a resident's the care plan after a fall, and some would not due to lack of knowledge of the EMR system. DON B stated that her expectation was that the interventions be added to a resident's care plan, and the care plan to be updated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prime an insulin pen per manufacturer guidelines for ...

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 prime an insulin pen per manufacturer guidelines for one (Resident #74) of one reviewed, resulting in the potential for medication errors and adverse effects. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #74 (R74) was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Review of the Physician's Order dated 9/9/23 revealed an order for Insulin NPH 70/30 inject 14 units subcutaneously one time a day for [diabetes mellitus] inject 14 units under the skin 2 (two) times a day before meals. Vials should be rolled between palms of hands ten times prior to each use. Administer 30 to 45 minutes before a meal. On 02/01/24 at 08:36 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D prepared Novolin 70/30 insulin pen by tilting it up and down. LPN D then dialed the pen to 16 units and pressed the button until the dial was at 14 units. There was not a needle on the pen. LPN D then applied a needle to the insulin pen. When asked what was done to prepare the pen, LPN D reported she primed the pen to 16 units and then pressed the button to 14 units because that was R74's dose. In an interview on 02/01/24 at 1:02 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported insulin pens should be primed by placing a needle on the pen, dialing the pen to two units, and then pushing the button and watching for a drop of insulin to come out of the needle. Review of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) instructions for the Novolin 70/30 flexpen revealed the flex pen may contain a small amount of air. To prevent an injection of air and make certain insulin is delivered, an air shot must be done before each injection . Giving the airshot before each injection: Small amounts of air may collect in the needle and insulin reservoir during normal use. To avoid injecting air and to ensure proper dosing, hold the syringe with the needle pointing up and tap the syringe gently with your finger so any air bubbles collect in the top of the reservoir. Remove both the plastic outer cap and the needle cap. Dial 2 units. Holding the syringe with the needle pointing up, tap the reservoir gently with your finger a few times. Still with the needle pointing up, press the push button as far as it will go and see if a drop of insulin appears at the needle tip. If not, repeat the procedure until insulin appears. Before the first use of each Novolin® 70/30 FlexPen prefilled insulin syringe you may need to perform up to 6 airshots to get a droplet of insulin at the needle tip. If you need to make more than 6 airshots, do not use the syringe, and return the product .A small air bubble may remain but it will not be injected because the operating mechanism prevents the reservoir from being completely emptied. Check that the dose selector is set at 0. Dial the number of units you need to inject. The dose can be corrected either up or down by turning the dose selector in either direction. When dialing back be careful not to push the push button as insulin will come out. You cannot set a dose larger than the number of units left in the reservoir. (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2001/19991s37lbl.pdf)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

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 properly assess and follow podiatry services orders fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to properly assess and follow podiatry services orders for one resident (R40) reviewed for foot care, resulting in resident frustration, the development of long thick brittle toenails, pain, skin breakdown and delay in needed treatment. Findings include: Resident #40(R40) Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected R40 was a [AGE] year old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure), spinal stenosis, osteoarthritis, dementia without behaviors, anxiety, and depression. The MDS reflected R40 had a BIM (assessment tool) score of 14 which indicated his ability to make daily decisions was cognitively intact, and he required partial to moderate assist with showering and substantial/maximal assist with hygiene and putting on and taking off foot wear. During an observation and interview on 1/30/24 at 3:01 PM, R40 was observed in his room sitting in a wheelchair engaged in a conversation with an outside one on one care provider(community resource). R40 appeared able to answer questions without difficulty. R40 reported left foot issues including long nails with history of nail fungus and painful. R40 reported facility staff do not cut or trim nails and pointed to nail clipper on bedside table. One on one care staff reported she did not work for the facility and was providing one on one attention to R40 provided by community resource and does not trim resident nails. R40 reported had long history of routine monthly podiatry visits but had not been seen for several months. Observed R40 left foot with thick, elongated nails and skin breakdown to first and second toe knuckles each about 0.25 inch in diameter with eschar and red areas noted. R40 reported had informed care staff as well as physician with no assist with nail care and continued foot pain. R40 observed putting on sock and shoe with facial grimacing and stated, ouch during process. Review of R40's Podiatry Consult, dated 10/22/23, located in the Electronic Medical Records(EMR), reflected notes, Toenails 1 through 5 bilateral foot are painful, mycotic-appearing, long thick, discolored, and crumbly with subungual debris, painful to palpation with incurved mails noted to the area of the ruft .Plan: Patient seen and evaluated, Podiatry visit w/lower extremity evaluation and assessment of foot care. Continue daily inspect feet. Surgical debridement of mycotic nails 1 through 5 bilateral feet utilizing sharp instrumentation with removal of painful subungual tissue. Areas of skin irritation were debrided. The nails were debrided to remove all fungal elements and debris leaving only healthy tissue. Failure to do so could result in infection, ulceration and/or painful ambulation, patient felt immediate relief following debridement of nails .Patent encouraged to elevate feet and encouraged to offload heels. Apply lotion to bilateral feet as needed. I did inform the nurse about the above care since patient might not remember or unable to follow task, I will follow up with patient as recommended. During an interview on 2/01/24 at 10:23 AM, Social Worker(SW) E reported there was a change in the facility Podiatry providers between December 2023 and January 2024. SW E reported R40 was routinely seen by podiatry services with last visit 10/22/23. SW E reported R40 should be seen every 60-90 days. SW E reported consult notes received under door followed by SW review for follow up appointment needs and sent to Medical Records to be scanned into EMR. SW E reported SW staff discuss consult plan notes with the Unit Managers(UM) at daily clinical meeting and/or provider speaks with UM or floor staff at the time of visit. SW E reported consult orders for R40 lotion and daily observation are part of standard care. SW E reported R40 should be seen by Podiatry soon and verified with scheduler was on the schedule to be seen 2/14/24. SW E was unable to say by R40 had not been seen in January 2024 and verified Podiatry provider had seen other residents in January. Review of the EMR including Physician Orders, Treatment Administration Record, and Progress Notes, dated 11/1/23 through current(2/1/24) reflected no evidence that R40 received daily foot observations or lotion. Review of R40 Physician orders, dated 11/24/23, reflected, Skin Checks Weekly - complete Skin Evaluation in PCC(EMR) on admission and weekly on assigned day every evening shift every Tue, Fri complete under evaluations tab. Continued review of the Orders reflected, TED Stockings ON in AM; Off in PM in the morning for VTE PX On-Start Date-11/30/2023. Review of the facility Skin Observations, dated 12/1/23 through current(2/1/24), reflected the last completed assessment was dated 1/13/24 with no abnormal skin noted. Continued review reflected 10 missing Skin Observation as evidenced by not completed. Review of the Treatment Administration Record(TAR), dated 1/1/24 through 2/1/24, reflected staff documented Skin Assessments as completed as evidenced by initials on TAR but not completed in EMR. Continued review of the TAR, dated 1/30/24, reflected Skin Assessment was completed by LPN R as indicated by LPN R initials. No evidence of completed Skin Assessment was located in the EMR for 1/30/23. During an interview and record review on 2/01/24 at 12:15 PM, Wound Nurse(LPN/WN) D reported facility process for new abnormal skin issues were reported to her immediately and she would assess residents skin. WN D reported staff are expected to complete weekly skin assessments on all residents that can be found in EMR under evaluations. WN D reviewed R40 EMR and verified the last completed Skin Evaluation was dated 1/13/24 with no skin concerns. WN D reported was unsure why R40 Skin Assessments were not completed and was not aware of any an skin concerns for R40. WN D reported podiatry services visits facility monthly. WN D reported change in Podiatry provider in January because of communication issues. WN D reported was unaware of plan to observe R40 feet daily and treatment or any abnormal skin issues. WN D reported to plan to observe R40 feet at that time. During an observation and interview on 2/01/24 on 12:40 PM, immediately after interview, WN D entered R40 room and requested permission to observe resident feet. R40 was observed sitting on edge of bed and removed sock and shoe from the left foot and stated, ouch. WN D observed left great toe and 2nd toe eschar(scabbed) areas and nails. WN D reported would make sure R40 was seen by podiatry and attempt to cushion toes till then. WN D reported R40 should have been seen by podiatry no later than January 2024 and reported she should have been notified of skin breakdown to left toes immediately. WN D reported podiatry orders should have been followed and skin evaluations should have been completed weekly. During an interview on 2/01/24 at 1:18 PM, Director of Nursing(DON) B reported Skin Assessments are expected to be completed two times weekly and documented in EMR under evaluations. DON B reported nurses are prompted to complete biweekly skin assessments in the TAR and by signing initials as completed indicate that they have completed Skin Assessment in the EMR. During an interview on 2/01/24 at 1:30 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse(LPN) R reported familiar with R40 and had worked at the facility for several years. LPN R reported staff are expected to complete resident Skin Assessments two times weekly located in EMR under Evaluations. LPN R reported was not currently R40 nurse and was not aware of any abnormal skin. LPN R was quarried how she completed a skin assessments. LPN R stated, I just know my residents and I know if they have any problems with skin. During an interview on 2/01/24 at 1:40 PM, LPN Q reported had worked with R40 for past three days. LPN Q reported when completing a Skin Assessment never looks at residents feet and was unable to say why. During an interview on 2/01/24 at 1:58 PM, Certified Nurse Aid (CNA) P reported completes skin assessment with every shower/bath and expected to report any abnormal or new skin issue to nurse immediately.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to effectively clean and maintain the physical plant effecting 123 residents, resulting in the increased likelihood for cross...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to effectively clean and maintain the physical plant effecting 123 residents, resulting in the increased likelihood for cross-contamination, bacterial harborage, and reduced illumination. Findings include: On 01/30/24 at 02:48 P.M., An environmental tour of the facility Laundry Service was conducted with Director of Housekeeping and Laundry Services M. The following items were noted: The flooring surface was observed soiled with (dust, lint, debris), directly behind the commercial washers (2) and commercial dryers (2). The ceramic tile wall surface was also observed raised and buckled, adjacent to the commercial washing machines. The damaged wall surface measured approximately 5-feet-high by 6-feet-long. The black vinyl coving strip was observed loose-to-mount and missing, adjacent to the commercial washers (2) and commercial dryers (2). On 01/30/24 at 03:10 P.M., An interview was conducted with Director of Housekeeping and Laundry Services M regarding the Laundry Aide schedule. Director of Housekeeping and Laundry Services M stated: My day shift laundry aide comes in at 5:00 A.M. and leaves at 1:30 P.M. Director of Housekeeping and Laundry Services M further stated: My second shift laundry aide comes in at 2:00 P.M. and leaves at 10:30 P.M. On 01/31/24 at 10:45 A.M., A common area environmental tour was conducted with Regional Manager L, Director of Housekeeping and Laundry Services M, Director of Maintenance N, and Regional Maintenance Director O. The following items were noted: Occupational Therapy/Physical Therapy: The NuStep exercise machine was observed soiled with accumulated and encrusted soil deposits. Service Corridor Employee Entrance Room: The exterior entrance door bottom sweep was observed severely worn, creating a gap between the metal threshold plate and door sweep assembly. The gap measured approximately 0.5-1.0-inches-wide by 42-inches-long. The perimeter door weatherstripping was also observed worn and missing. The damaged perimeter door weatherstripping measured approximately 36-inches-long. Women's Restroom: The wall surface was observed (etched, scored, particulate), directly behind the commode base. 2nd Floor Dietary Kitchen: The hydration ice chest plastic scoop was observed stored directly in front of the ice chest resting upon a towel. The clear plastic scoop storage caddy was also observed missing the top lid assembly. Shower Room: The call light pull string extension was observed broken, adjacent to the commode base. 3rd Floor Men's Restroom: The wall surface was observed (etched, scored, particulate), adjacent to the commode base. Women's Restroom: The wall surface was observed (etched, scored, particulate), adjacent to the commode base. Bathing Room: One 6-inch-wide by 6-inch-long ceramic corner tile was observed cracked and broken, adjacent to the hand sink basin. 4th Floor Men's Restroom: The wall surface was observed (etched, scored, particulate), adjacent to the commode base. Women's Restroom: The wall surface was observed (etched, scored, particulate), adjacent to the commode base. On 02/01/24 at 09:45 A.M., An environmental tour of sampled resident rooms was conducted with Regional Manager L, Director of Housekeeping and Laundry Services M, Director of Maintenance N, and Regional Maintenance Director O. The following items were noted: 211: The wall surface was observed (etched, scored, particulate), directly behind the Bed 2 headboard. 212: The flooring surface was observed soiled with dust and dirt deposits, adjacent to and beneath Bed 3. 218: The Bed 2 overbed light assembly 48-inch-long fluorescent bulb was observed non-functional. 222: The commode base toilet seat was observed loose-to-mount. The Bed A and Bed C overbed light assembly 48-inch-long fluorescent bulbs were also observed non-functional. The Bed A, Bed B, and Bed C overbed light assembly pull string extensions were further observed missing. 224: The Bed A overbed light assembly 48-inch-long fluorescent bulb was observed non-functional. 303: The restroom wall surface was observed (etched, scored, particulate), adjacent to the entrance door. The damaged drywall surface measured approximately 2-inches-wide by 36-inches-long. 311: The Bed B overbed light assembly 48-inch-long fluorescent bulb was observed non-functional. 312: The restroom commode base toilet seat was observed loose-to-mount. 317: The restroom commode base toiled seat was observed loose-to-mount. One 6-inch-wide by 6-inch-long ceramic tile was also observed missing, adjacent to the commode grab bar. The ceiling plaster surface was further observed chipped and cracked, directly above the commode base. 327: The restroom hand sink faucet assembly was observed loose-to-mount. 328: The Bed B overbed light assembly 48-inch-long fluorescent bulb was observed non-functional. 412: The Bed A and Bed B exterior windows were observed drafty. The windows were also observed with blankets, located within the windowsill. 424: One 24-inch-wide by 48-inch-long acoustical ceiling tile was observed stained from a previous moisture leak. The Bed B exterior window was also observed drafty. Newspaper and gray duct tape were further observed surrounding the window perimeter. The flooring transition piece between the room and hallway was additionally observed missing. On 02/01/24 at 12:55 P.M., An interview was conducted with Regional Maintenance Director O regarding the facility work order system. Regional Maintenance Director O stated: We have the TELS software system for tracking work orders. On 02/01/24 at 01:55 P.M., Record review of the TELS Work Orders for the last 60 days revealed no specific entries related to the aforementioned maintenance concerns. On 02/01/24 at 02:20 P.M., Record review of the Policy/Procedure entitled: Daily Cleaning Procedures dated (no date) revealed under Procedure: (5) Disinfect: Work your way clockwise around the room (starting at the door and finishing at the door) and disinfect flat surfaces and high-touch items. This includes, but is not limited to: doorknobs, light switches, call lights, TV remotes, bed siderails, bed frame, footboard and headboard, bedside tables, closet handles, windowsills, chairs, heating unit, and any flat surfaces. If the resident has a fan in his/her room, check and clean routinely to avoid buildup of dust.
Aug 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to review, revise and evaluate for the effectiveness of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to review, revise and evaluate for the effectiveness of the interventions as required for two (#8 and #97) of 24 sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed in a total sample of 24, resulting in a lack of care plan evaluation, revision, and implementation of appropriate interventions, and the potential for unmet care needs. Findings include: Resident #8 (R8) Review of the medical record reflected R8 was an initial admission to the facility on [DATE] and then admitted to hospice on 09/10/2020. Diagnoses of Stroke with right sided weakness, Dysphagia, Vascular Dementia, muscle weakness and muscle wasting. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/14/2022, revealed R8 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 0 out of 15 (severe impairment) and requires 2-person assistance for transfer and toileting. Record review of the hospice binder at the nursing station, revealed the hospice IDT Comprehensive Assessment and Plan of Care update report dated 02/14/23 through 04/14/23. The calendar in the binder was dated March 2022 and March 2022. Binder does not contain a current care plan, calendar or plan of care. Record review of the electronic medical records (PCC) did not have what days of the week R8 was supposed to received showers/bathes from the facility certified nursing assistant (CNA) and what days hospice CNA would be providing additional showers/bathes. The care plan did not include coordination of care between the facility and hospice organization. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 02:14 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Unit manager K stated that R8 got his bathes on Tuesday and Fridays. LPN K also stated that hospice also came in on Tuesday and Fridays to give R8 his showers/bathes. Writer asked if R8 had showers/bathes scheduled on his care plan for certain days of the week to collaborate with hospice scheduled days instead of being on the same day. LPN K stated the hospice staff communicate with the facility CNA during their visits, but nothing was on the care plan. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 02:31 PM, CNA L stated that hospice did the 2 showers a week for R8, on Tuesdays and Fridays. CNA L than stated that's the way it is supposed to be and if hospice could not do the showers/bathes then the facility CNA would give them. CNA L added that she washes him up in between those showers because he can make a mess eating. During an interview and observation on 08/23/23 at 10:57 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B stated that if hospice gives showers 2 times a week on the facilities scheduled shower days, then they count those showers as facility showers/bathes. If hospice comes in to provide showers/bathes on a different day, then the facility CNAs were to make sure they gave R8 his second shower/bath. Writer asked DON B if the facility was providing the showers/bathes for R8, and the hospice visits were additional care for R8? DON B stated that in the hospice binder, they had a calendar telling facility what day they were coming in. DON B also stated they did not count the shower/bathe on that day until hospice CNA come in and complete it. DON B stated that she did not want the facility CNA to not give a shower/bathe expecting hospice to do it. DON B stated that hospice disciplines communicate with her and the nurses on the floor, they wrote in the binder at the nurses' station. Recertification for hospice is in the binder or scanned in the PCC. DON B stated the hospice plan of care would be in the binder. Observation of DON B looking in PCC for the misc tab for the hospice care plan, it was scanned in on 08/02/23. DON B also stated that CNA did not have access to the misc file, so the nurses communicate and put it on the [NAME]. This is coordination of care with hospice. Also stated that the facility is responsible for meeting the ADL needs of the residents and the care provided and the care from the hospice staff is secondary. Record review of the care plan and [NAME] portion of the care plan did not reflect any coordination of care between facility scheduled showers/bathes and the hospice scheduled shower/bathes. Resident #97 (R97) Review of the medical record reflected R97 was an initial admission to the facility on [DATE], readmission on [DATE]. Diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Pacemaker for Heart Disease and legally blind. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/09/2023, revealed R97 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) and is dependent on assistance for transfer and toileting. During an interview on 08/21/23 at 10:46 AM, R97 stated he would like to get up out of bed now and then then added that the staff are not helping him get up out of bed as often as he would like. During an interview on 08/23/23 at 09:40 AM, LPN, N stated R97 often wanted to stay in the bed, it's his choice. LPN N added that they ask if he wanted to get up now and then and he wanted to stay in bed. During an interview on 08/23/23 at 09:55 AM, Social Worker (SW) O stated she saw R97 up sitting up on his bed yesterday and was surprised as he didn't do that often. SW O stated that R97 seemed to like spending time with his wife in their room. During an interview and observation on 08/23/23 at 10:08 AM, CNA P coming out of R97's room from providing care. CNA P stated R97 has been up a couple times. CNA P also stated R97 didn't ask to get him up. CNA P also stated R97 had problems sitting up for very long in his chair, so they put him back in bed. Most of the time he just wanted his wife moved over in her w/c beside his bed. So that's what they did. Observation of R97 holding hands with his wife sitting in her w/c next to him. During an interview on 08/23/23 at 10:52 AM, DON B stated R97 is verbal, and he can ask to get up. DON B also stated that when he got up and he had syncope in the past and had to go to the hospital. DON B stated that he would occasionally sit at the side of his bed, he could sit up independently, and he could walk independently, but choices not to. DON B stated that they encourage him to ask for help getting up. Has not asked him to get up. Record review revealed the care plan had not been updated to reflect R97 being independent with sitting at bedside and walking independently from being totally dependent of 1 staff on transferring. Care plan revealed R97 needs assist with turning and repositioning and to use a draw sheet to reposition and turn to R97 using an enabler bar to maximize independence with turning and repositioning in bed. Did not add that R97 has episodes of syncope with getting up at beside or walking. Review of the task completed from the care plan, revealed that R97 was being marked yes that R97 was up sitting in his wheelchair with the pressure reducing device was in the chair at the time R97 was sitting in it two to four times a day, when R97 stated he was not in his chair.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake number MI00135388. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to me...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake number MI00135388. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to meet individualized activity needs in one (Resident #67) of four reviewed, resulting in the potential for boredom and decreased quality of life. Findings Include: Resident #67 (R67) According to the facility's admission record, R67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified dementia and anxiety disorder. A review of the MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 07/21/2023 reflected R67 had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS), a short performance based cognitive screen for nursing home residents, score of 5 (0-7 severely impaired). Review of R67's MDS Annual assessment dated [DATE] section F-Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities question How important is it to you to go outside to get fresh air when the weather is good? indicates that it is very important to him. Review of the Activity Quarterly Assessment completed on 07/25/23 under resident leisure preferences indicated outdoor activities as an intervention and to invite resident to outdoor activities. Review of R67's Care Plan dated 07/24/2023 with focus on leisure preferences has an intervention of outdoor activities, invite resident to outdoor activities. During an interview on 08/21/2023 at 12:27 PM, R67 was observed lying in bed. He reported that they don't have anything for him to do there and staff don't ask him if he wants to go to activities. He mentioned that he wants to go to group activities. He has magazines in his room which he mentioned he gets from downstairs. R67 stated that he enjoys going outside but he can't go by himself because they won't let him. He indicated that they don't ask him if he wants to go outside. During an interview on 08/23/23 at 09:25 AM, R67 was observed lying in bed. He mentioned that he tried to go outside the other day by himself and they didn't let him go. R67 stated that there haven't been cookouts recently or activities outside. When he first came here, he would go outside and smoke, but he quit smoking, so he doesn't go outside now. He reported that he likes to go outside and talk with people. R67 said the facility took him out to a show last year but it's getting stricter now and they don't have trips planned. During an interview on 08/23/23 at 10:02 AM, Director of Activities (DOA) C stated that generally anything offered to R67 he will refuse. DOA C mentioned he likes going downstairs and going to the vending machine and he likes sitting in his doorway and watching people. DOA C stated he had reading material that he gets from two libraries in the facility. DOA C mentioned she tried to contact transportation to take residents to activities outside of the facility, but she is unable to find any companies that will do that. DOA C stated that she thought the last event outside of the facility was at least one year ago. The last outdoor event DOA C said occurred in July and they had barbeque, games, and karaoke. DOA C couldn't provide documentation of the last outdoor event, when the last trip to an event outside of the facility was, and the last time R67 went outside. Review of the Documentation Survey Report from March 2023 to August 2023 under daily routine activities revealed that R67 didn't go outside during this time period as an activity and mainly watched television and had 1:1 contact with activity staff.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI0013852. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess and monitor woun...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI0013852. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess and monitor wound dressings in one of three residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident #120), resulting in the potential for a wound infection not identified. Findings include: Resident #120 (R120) Progress Note dated 6/30/23 at 3:38 PM indicated R120 was not competent in making health decisions. Consultation Notes dated 6/19/23 indicated R120's wound treatments included Unna boots (compression dressing that could remain in place for up to seven days before changing), gauze and Ace wrap to both lower extremities. Hospital Progress Note dated 7/12/23 at 10:03 AM revealed R120 had a past medical history of neurocognitive disorder (decreased mental function). R120 was followed by burn service for chronic lower extremity wounds and underwent a below the knee amputation (BKA) of the right lower leg on 4/07/22. R120 was seen in the clinic on 7/03/23 and was placed in a surgical dressing, Unna boot, gauze and Ace wrap to both his lower extremities; there were no signs of wound infection. Physical examination of R120's right BKA on 7/12/23 at 10:03 AM revealed foul smelling drainage with maggots crawling within the BKA stump. R120 underwent scrubbing of his right BKA wound in the clinic. The same notes indicated R120 had scattered open wounds to his left lower extremity. The same note indicated the plan was to admit R120 to the hospital for a likely right lower extremity above the knee amputation (AKA). Discharge summary dated [DATE] at 2:43 PM revealed R120 underwent an AKA on 7/14/23 and wound care included dressing changes daily with staples in place for the right extremity and Unna boot dressing to the left extremity. Medical University of South Carolina's website at https://muschealth.org/medical-services/wound-care/education/boot-care, instructed it was important to keep the Unna boot dry, if it became wet could cause complications with the wound and skin. Avoid any activities that could result in the Unna boot getting wet. Wrap the Unna boot in a plastic bag prior to a shower/going out in inclement weather and to keep dressing dry. Shower in the quickest amount of time possible to reduce the risk of inadvertent Unna boot contact with water. Elevate legs as often as possible during the day to help reduce swelling. In review of July 2023's Medication Administration Record (MAR), Treatment Administration Record (TAR), and care plans from 07/03/23 to 7/13/23; there were no instructions to monitor the integrity of R120's Unna Boot dressings, to avoid getting the Unna boot dressings wet, to cover the Unna boots with plastic and tape during a shower or when outside in inclement weather. On 8/22/23 at 2:56 PM Director of Nursing (DON) B was interviewed and stated R120's dressings were changed at burn clinic. DON B stated she was aware maggots were found on R120's right stump wound during the visit on 7/12/23. DON B stated she did talk to the burn clinic, and they thought a fly got under the dressing and laid eggs. During an interview on 8/22/23 at 3:50 PM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Wound Nurse M stated she had not seen R120 for wounds or to assess the integrity of his dressings from January 2023 to July 12, 2023. LPN/Wound Nurse M stated R120 had as needed orders if R120's dressing needed to be changed that were ordered on 6/24/23 that indicated silver assist to open wounds Leave in place unless falls off extra supplied If falls off place silver assist cut to size of the wound wrap with kerlix cover with burnwetting [sic burn netting]. Treatment Orders for Unna boots were not transcribed on 6/19/23 following R120's appointment. R120's care plan did not reflect a change in R120's orders to Unna boots.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five perc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent when nine medication errors were observed from a total of 38 opportunities for three residents (Resident #2, #59 and #69) of four residents observed for medication administration, resulting in a medication error rate of 23.68%. Findings include: Resident #59 (R59) Review of the medical record revealed R59 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included osteoarthritis, diabetes, atril fibrillation, Alzheimer's Disease, hypertension, and dysphagia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/4/23 revealed R59 scored 00 out of 15 (severe cognitive impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). On 8/22/23 at 10:53 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D was observed preparing and administering medications to R59. LPN D mixed 17 grams of polyethylene glycol (Miralax) with approximately 2.5 ounces of water, crushed divalproex sodium (Depakote) DR (delayed release) 250 milligrams (mg), crushed Metoprolol ER (extended release) 100 mg, and opened two phenytoin EX (Dilantin)100 mg capsules before administering to R59. LPN D also applied a new Lidocaine 4% patch; however the patch from the previous day was still in place. LPN D did not administer R59's senna plus which was ordered and scheduled for this time. Review of R59's Physician's Order dated 1/20/23 revealed Medications may be crushed together in substance of patient's choice per manufacturer guidelines. An order dated 1/20/23 revealed an order for Lidocaine external patch 5% (4% was applied to R59) apply to affected area one time a day for pain. R59 did not have an order to remove the patch after 12 hours. An order dated 8/2/23 revealed senna plus 8.6-50 mg was to be administered twice per day. According to the Medication Administration Record (MAR), senna plus was scheduled for administration morning and evening. The Physician's Orders for divalproex sodium, Metoprolol ER, and phenytoin did not reflect that it was okay to crush tablets or open capsules. Review of the facility's Do Not Crush Medications list revealed divalproex sodium, Metoprolol ER, and phenytoin extended capsules should not be crushed. The Do Not Crush list also indicated if capsules could be opened prior to administration. Phenytoin EX was not included in the capsules that could be opened. According to www.miralax.com Use the MiraLAX® bottle top to measure 17g by filling to the indicated line in the cap. Mix and dissolve into 4-8 ounces of any beverage (hot, cold or room temperature). According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Apply LIDODERM to intact skin to cover the most painful area. Apply the prescribed number of patches (maximum of 3), only once for up to 12 hours within a 24 hour period. (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2015/020612s012lbl.pdf) Resident #2 (R2) Review of the medical record revealed R2 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, dysphagia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. The MDS with an ARD of 6/3/23 revealed R2 was serverely cognitively impaired. On 8/23/23 at 9:09 AM, LPN E was observed preparing and administering medications to R2. LPN E crushed two tablets of levetiracetam 750 mg. Review of the facility's Do Not Crush Medications list revealed levitiracetam should not be crushed. LPN E reported she was not aware of any list or resource available for medications that could not be crushed. Resident #69 (R69) Review of the medical record revealed R69 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included ulcerative colitis, gout, major depressive disorder, and hypertension. The MDS with an ARD of 8/3/23 revealed R69 scored 14 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the BIMS. On 8/23/23 at 9:28 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) F was observed preparing and administering medications to R69. The medications included aspirin 81 mg EC (enteric coated) and dorzolamide-timolol eye drops. RN F did not hold R69's inner canthus on either eye nor instruct the resident to do so. Review of the Physician's Order dated 11/23/22 revealed R69's aspirin was ordered to be chewable, not enteric coated. According to the Mayo Clinic, after administering dorzolamide-timolol, Let go of the eyelid and gently close the eyes. Do not blink. Keep the eyes closed and apply pressure to the inner corner of the eye with your finger for 1 or 2 minutes to allow the medicine to be absorbed by the eye. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/dorzolamide-and-timolol-ophthalmic-route/proper-use/drg-20061826?p=1) Review of the facility's Specific Medication Administration Procedures dated 5/2022 revealed H. Instruct resident to close eyes slowly to allow for even distribution over surface of the eye. The resident should also refrain from blinking or squeezing eyes shut. I. While the eye is closed, use one finger to compress the tear duct in the inner corner (inner canthus) of the eye for 1 minute. This reduces systemic absorption of the medication. Alternatively, the resident may keep his/her eyes closed for approximately three minutes. In an interview on 8/23/23 at 9:55 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported the facility's Do Not Crush Medications list was available to the nurses. DON B reported lidocaine patches are to be on for 12 hours and off for 12 hours and the inner canthus should be held after administering dorzolamide-timolol.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide backflow protection devices in two locations, resulting in the potential for contamination of the domestic water supp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide backflow protection devices in two locations, resulting in the potential for contamination of the domestic water supply, affecting two plumbing fixtures in the facility. Findings include: On 8/21/23 at 2:10 PM, during an inspection of the laundry facilities, a hose, connected to a spigot, was observed to extend down into the floor drain that is provided for the clothes washers, creating a cross connection between the potable water supply and sanitary sewer. A backflow protection device was observed to not be provided for the hose connection to preclude the backflow of solid, liquid, or gas contaminants. On 8/21/23 at 2:20 PM, during an inspection of the boiler room, a hose, connected to a spigot, was observed to be extend to a floor drain. The hose connection was observed to not be provided with a backflow protection device. At this time, Maintenance Director R stated they will remove the hoses until they acquire backflow protection devices for the two hoses. According to the 2018 Michigan Plumbing Code Section 608.2 Plumbing Fixtures. The supply lines and fitting for plumbing fixtures shall be installed so as to prevent backflow. Plumbing fixtures fittings shall provide backflow protection in accordance with ASME A112.18.1/CSA B125.1.
Feb 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act promptly on resident council grievances, in 7 of 7 residents that participated in a confidential interview, resulting in unresolved con...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act promptly on resident council grievances, in 7 of 7 residents that participated in a confidential interview, resulting in unresolved concerns and decreased quality of life. Findings include: A confidential resident council meeting was held on 1/31/23 at 1:30 PM with 7 residents in attendance. 7 of 7 residents had concerns with call light response time and wait up to an hour for a response. Resident Council stated call light response at night was more of a problem as well as when agency staff were working. Resident Council voiced concerns that agency staff do not wear name tags, and 7 of 7 residents suggested use of a whiteboard. 7 of 7 residents voiced concern that their food was always cold, including coffee, eggs and pancakes. Resident Council minutes reflected call light response concerns on 9/15/22, 11/10/22 and 1/12/23. Resident Council minutes indicated staff attitude/communication concerns on 9/15/22 and on 11/10/22 in that staff didn't introduce themselves. A Grievance Log was received on 1/30/23 at 11:36 AM. Food concerns reported by resident council on 11/10/22 and 12/19/22 did not appear on the Grievance Log. Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A was interviewed on 2/07/22 at 1:27 PM and stated missing items were discussed in the morning meeting and added to the SNF Metric program. NHA A stated concerns regarding cold food was followed-up on and management was on the floor conducting quality rounds. NHA A stated a resident complained of cold food last week and they did not check the temperature of his food. NHA A stated the meal carts were not insulated.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve grievances for 5 reside...

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 make prompt efforts to resolve grievances for 5 residents (Resident #65, 61, 49, 1, and 108) of 25 reviewed for grievances, resulting in the Nursing Home Administrator being unaware of a missing items concerns, complaints of food and staff call light response times and the potential for unresolved grievances. Findings include: Resident #1 (R1) Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #1 (R1) admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included repeated falls, congestive heart failure, depressive episodes, and unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with agitation. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/5/2022, reflected R1 scored five of out 15 (severe cognitive impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R1 required limited to extensive assist for activities of daily living. In an observation on 1/30/23 at approximately 11:30 AM, R1 was observed sitting in a wheelchair wearing one sock. R1 appeared to be emotionally distraught and crying out. R1 reported that someone stole [R1] dentures. R1's bed was stripped and had no linen on it. Trash was present on the floor and the overbed table was cluttered with old milk cartons, empty pudding cups, and two Styrofoam cups. In an interview on 01/31/23 at 10:37 AM, Family Member O reported that R1 had expressed concern over R1's false teeth missing, she had about a week. She told me someone had come into her room and stole them. In an interview on 02/01/23 at 03:51 PM, Unit Manager I reported that social work was aware that R1's teeth were missing and social work would be following up with it. In an interview on 02/02/23 at 11:38 AM, Social Worker (SW) H explained that the process for missing items was to add the missing item grievance to SNF Metrics (software used for grievances). The grievance form is a description of the family or residents concern, and staff will then follow up with the family. SW H reports if we don't find the items we typically reimburse or replace the item . the Administrator (Nursing Home Administrator) follows up on missing items and will decide if it needs reimbursed. SW H reports she found out about the missing dentures on Tuesday (1/31/2022). R1 was added to upcoming list to be seen by the visiting dentist. SW H followed up with Unit Manager I who reported she spoke to the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's). The CNA's looked in R1's room and couldn't locate the missing dentures. In an email to Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A, Grievance forms from SNF Metrics were requested and provided from the dates of 9/1/2022 to 2/1/2023 No grievance was located regarding R1 and the missing dentures. In an interview on 02/07/23 at 01:27 PM, NHA A reported missing items were discussed in morning meeting and then added into SNF metric. We typically have a 5 day turn around. NHA A reported that she was unaware of R1's items until recently. According to the facility policy titled, Grievance Guideline, with an effective date of 11/28/17, .It is the practice of this facility that each resident has the right to voice grievances to the facility or other agency or entity that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without fear of discrimination or reprisal. Such grievances include those with respect to care and treatment which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and of other residents, and other concerns regarding their facility stay. The facility will ensure prompt resolution to all grievances, keeping the resident and resident representative informed throughout the investigation and resolution process . Resident #61 (R61) Review of the medical record reflected Resident #61 (R61) admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included unspecified displaced fracture of surgical neck of left humerus, abnormalities of gait and mobility, unspecified dementia with agitation, weakness, and long term and current use of anticoagulants (blood thinning medication). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/16/22, reflected R61 scored two out of 15 (severe cognitive impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). The same MDS reflected R61 did not walk and required extensive assistance of two or more people for activities of daily living. In an interview over the phone on 01/31/23 at 10:15 AM, Family Member L reported that R61's laundry items go missing constantly in fact there was one month that I had brought in 7 pairs of pants for him to replace lost pants. Family Member L verified that R61's name is on all clothing items. Family Member L reported the biggest issue concerning lost laundry items were R61's pants and socks. The issue had been reported to staff but it hasn't done any good. [Staff] would come in and get a description on the missing clothing but [Family Member L] would never hear anything back. Family Member L reported that she could not recall all the dates that items had gone missing due to the frequency of the issue and was no longer able to recall descriptions on all of the missing items. In an interview on 02/02/23 at12:21 PM, Social Worker (SW) H reported she had heard about R61's missing clothing items one time, maybe like 3 months or so. SW H reported typically the facility will try to go a good 3 days to locate the items before proceeding to the next step which is reimbursed or replace the missing items. In an interview on 02/06/23 at 10:25 AM, Laundry Manager (LM) M reported that resident's clothing gets labeled upon admission and an inventory list was completed. When clothing items are reported missing, the missing items are entered into the grievance software called SNF Metrics. LM M reports they give it a couple days we can do a thorough search in laundry if we don't have it then we report it to administrator so she can follow up and replace if needed. LM K was unaware of any missing clothing items for R61 but reported he would check the logbook for missing clothing and follow up. In an email to Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A, Grievance forms from SNF Metrics were requested and provided from the dates of 9/1/2022 to 2/1/2023 No grievance was located regarding R61 and the missing clothing items. In an interview on 02/07/23 at 01:27 PM, NHA A reported missing items were discussed in morning meeting and then added into SNF metric. We typically have a 5 day turn around. NHA A reported that she was unaware of R61's items until the survey. According to the facility policy titled, Grievance Guideline, with an effective date of 11/28/17, .It is the practice of this facility that each resident has the right to voice grievances to the facility or other agency or entity that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without fear of discrimination or reprisal. Such grievances include those with respect to care and treatment which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and of other residents, and other concerns regarding their facility stay. The facility will ensure prompt resolution to all grievances, keeping the resident and resident representative informed throughout the investigation and resolution process . Resident #49 (R49) Review of the medical record reflected R49 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of heart disease, asthma, chronic pain, diabetes, obesity and weakness. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/07/2022, revealed R49 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 14 (cognitively intact) out of 15. During an interview and observation on 01/31/23 at 09:42 AM, R49 appeared to have hair messed up, did not look well kept. R49 stated, her call light was on for hours and nobody came to answer it. She had thrown up and slept in her vomit because nobody answered her call light. R49 also stated, she had a problem with diarrhea, and nobody came in while the call light was on to change her brief, wearing it all night. R49 also stated that staff told her that her call light was not working, that was why they didn't answer it. During an interview and observation on 01/31/23 at 09:50 AM, maintenance assistant X stated he was not told the call light was not functioning correctly in room [ROOM NUMBER], bed B. Call light test completed, appeared to be working properly. Record review of the concern/grievance form revealed the facility reviewed the documentation in the electronic medical record. The grievance report revealed the resolution and action taken were. 1) R49 had had multiple bed baths during her stay at the facility, all documented in plan of care. Record review revealed R49 received five bed baths, not eight in the 30 days look back from 01/11/23 to 01/28/23. Care plan also specified R49 prefers showers and did not receive one shower during this look back. 2) No documentation that R49 was experiencing emesis on this date (01/30/23) 3) Resident refused Free Style Libre device placement 01/30/23 stating she was going home on [DATE] and staff marked R49 unavailable in the look back period of the electronic medication administration record (eMAR). 4) Plan of care documentation indicated R49 had been changed daily on all shifts on a regular basis. 5) R49's family stated the call light was working when they came in on 01/31/23. On 02/01/23 initials identified as the administrator A, documented on the grievance form that f/u (follow up) with family, a voicemail was left. Left a voicemail to the family with results of investigation, did not have a conversation, nor specify which family member was called. No follow for resolution and outcome of family's response. During an interview on 02/07/23 at 10:25 AM, R49's daughter V, stated she never received a voicemail from the facility with the results of the concern/grievance process. Daughter V stated she was not happy at all. We waited for 2 hours at the nurse's station for the discharge. Also stated Social Worker (SW) H, came to R49's room, stated they are working on paperwork and discharge and will get back with her. Daughter V stated Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Y got the discharge paperwork ready, which were was not prepared, R49 did not receive her morning medications prior to discharge. R49 received thyroid med at 0600am, nothing else as of current date and time of 01/31/23 at 10:00 AM. Daughter V also stated she had concerns about R49's quality of care, she laid in her vomit all night, she would push her call light button, and nobody would show up. Resident #65(R65) Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected R65 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included non-traumatic brain dysfunction, dementia, hypertension (high blood pressure), and depression. The MDS reflected R65 had a BIM (assessment tool) score of 3 which indicated his ability to make daily decisions was severely impaired, and he required one-person physical assist with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion on unit, toileting, dressing, eating, hygiene, and bathing. During a telephone interview on 1/31/23 at 12:30 PM, R65's Durable Power of Attorney(DPOA)(Responsible Party) E had concerns about R65's broken glasses reported at R65's last care conference in December. R65's DPOA E reported R65's glasses had been broken for months and had difficulty seeing without them and facility had not followed up. R65's DPOA E reported was not notified by facility or physician group that R65 had any medication changes at most recent visit on 1/25/23. R65's DPOA E reported missing items including socks and jacket that had all been reported to facility several times including at December Care Conference. Review of R65's Physicians Orders, dated 1/25/23, reflected as order for Buspirone HCl Oral Tablet 7.5 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for Anxiety. The order was started on 1/25/23. During an interview on, 2/02/23 at 11:29 AM, Social Worker (SW) H reported had worked at the facility for five months. SW H reported conducted a telephone Care Conference for R65 on 12/23/22 with R65's DPOA E. SW H reported R65's DPOA E reported missing jacket and socks. SW H reported facility had found about 10 pair of R65's socks was still looking for jacket. SW H reported missing items to laundry and reported process was to fill out electronic SNF Grievance form that can be completed by any manager. SW H reported thought form was completed for R65's missing items. SW H reported had let family know found some socks and reported did not think they found the jacket. SW H reported if the items are not located staff report to Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A who would reimburse resident for missing items. SW H reported between Second Floor Unit Manager I and herself they follow up with resident or responsible party and document on SNF Grievance. SW H reported just received access to SNF Grievance documentation within last month so thought UM I had completed. SW H reported that R65's DPOA E reported R65's glasses were broken. SW H reported she coordinated all auxiliary services including vision every three to four months. SW H reported was unable to recall status of glasses and would have to follow up. During an interview and record review on 2/02/23 at 3:08 PM, SW H reported R65 received new glasses in September 2022 and were broken shortly after. SW H reported she added R65 to next scheduled ophthalmology consult list related to broken glasses that were located in her desk(missing lens and broken frame). SW H reported communicated with consulting ophthalmology group that day(2/2/23) who informed SW H there was no need for additional appointment and R65's glasses were under warranty and could be replaced and sent to facility within 10 to 14 days. Verified email communication dated 2/2/23 with ophthalmology group. SW H reported last grievance noted for R65's missing jacket was dated, 2/2022. SW H was unable to say why not resolved. During an observation on 2/06/23 at 11:21 AM, second floor had strong smell of urine, R65 was not in room and soiled brief was noted in bathroom trash. R65 was observed to be participating bingo in activity room with several residents and staff. R65 appeared to be engaged in activity and well groomed. During an interview on 2/07/23 at 1:27 PM, NHA A reported missing items discussed in morning meeting and put into SNF metric and reported typically resolved within five days and documented in SNF matrix. Resident #108(R108) Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected R108 was a [AGE] year old male admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included traumatic brain injury, hypertension (high blood pressure), and heart disease. The MDS reflected R108 had a BIM (assessment tool) score of 9 which indicated his ability to make daily decisions was moderately impaired, and he required one person physical assist with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion on unit, toileting, dressing, eating, hygiene, and bathing. During an observation and interview on 1/30/23 at 11:56 AM, R108 was in room sitting in chair and appeared well groomed, alert and oriented and able to answer question without difficulty. R108 reported had concerns with resident(R65), who he shared a bathroom with, repeatedly urinating on the toilet and floor every day and inside R108 room on one occasion. R108 also reported eggs are served cold to resident every day. R108 reported to staff including unit manager several times and continued to be an issue. During an interview on 2/01/23 07:51 AM, R108 reported Second floor Unit Manager (UM) I came in his room and argued with R108 about continued concerns related to resident who R108 shares bathroom with urinating on the floor. UM I continued to say the concern had been resolved and he reported to her it had not been resolved because it was still happening. R108 appeared very upset and raising voice and reported it made him upset and frustrated because there continued to be an issue and UM I continued to argue that is was fixed. R108 reported did not like how UM I addressed him and the situation was handled and reported did not feel threatened. R108 reported UM I said, this is not over, and exited his room. R108 reported Activity Manager (AM) J was present during part of the end of the conversation. During an interview on 2/01/23 at 8:41 AM, Activity Manager (AM) J reported working at the facility for about ten weeks. AM J reported was familiar with R108 who alert and oriented and was a very nice guy who was usually a quit resident. AM J reported entered R108 room yesterday when UM I and R108 appeared to be arguing back and forth about concern being resolved with UM stated concern was resolved and R108 said it had not been resolved. AM J reported UM I stated, how can you say it is not resolved, to R108. AM J reported UM I told R108, you don't have to worry about him pissing on your floor, before leaving the room. AM J spoke with R108 after UM I left the room and reported R108 spoke to her about being upset with the situation because resident who R108 shared the bathroom with continued to urinate on the floor and the issue had not been resolved. AM J reported R108's concerns needed to be addressed and stated, there is something there. AM J reported the situation could have been handled better with a different tone of voice or demeanor from the staff and reported should not of been argued with resident. AM J reported R108 was upset with another resident urinating in shared bathroom and now was upset with staff for arguing it was resolved. AM J reported spoke with UM I after leaving R108 and UM I said, you see, you see. AM J reported responded, no I don't get it. AM J reported R108 did not feel like R108 felt threatened. During an interview on 2/01/23 at 9:35 AM, UM I reported aware R108 had complaints of cold food and shared bathroom urine on the floor. UM I reported resident concerns are reported at morning meeting Monday through Friday and SNF grievance completed on the computer or documented in progress notes. UM I reported did not think R108 had grievance completed for reported concerns. UM I reported verbally reported food complaints at morning meeting with kitchen staff who reported had obtained food temperatures with range so concern was resolved. UM I reported does not use paper concern forms and reported was not aware they were located on wall wall across from second floor nurse station. UM I reported had spoke with R108 1/31/23 about urine on shared bathroom floor with history of resolved concern by moving R108 to another room. UM I reported R108 did not like new room and requested to move back to old room after three days. UM I reported another resident, who shared the bathroom with R108, had urinated on the floor. UM I reported did not have morning meeting that morning with plans to report and morning meeting tomorrow that will start the grievance process. Review of facility provided grievance log on 2/1/23 at 10:15 a.m., reflected no evidence of reported concerns for R108 between 9/1/22 and current (2/1/23). Request for six months of grievances/concern forms along with complete investigations for R108 on 2/1/23 at 2:26 p.m. was made to NHA A via email. Review of an email received by NHA A, dated 2/1/23 at 3:24 p.m., reflected R108 did not have any grievances or concerns for the past six months with exception of one concern entered 1/31/23 that was not finalized. During an interview on 2/07/23 at 1:27 PM, NHA A reported did not test R108 tray temperature after reported complaints of cold food and reported room trays are transported on un-insulated carts to each floor. NHA A reported cold food concerns continue to be an issue.
Jan 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00132211 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notice...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00132211 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notice of transfer for one resident (Resident #5) of one reviewed for transfer, resulting in the potential for residents and/or resident representatives being un-informed and the potential for inappropriate discharge. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 (R5) was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included fracute of the left calcaneus (heel bone), Parkinson's Disease, schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, and major depressive disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/20/22 revealed R5 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and expected to be discharged to the community. The Discharge Return Not Anticipated MDS with an ARD of 10/23/22 revealed R5 had an unplanned discharge to an acute hospital. Review of the SNF to ED [Skilled Nursing Facility to Emergency Department] Handoff Form dated 10/23/22 revealed R5 was transfered to the hospital due to hitting his head during a fall. Review of the medical record revealed no evidence that R5 receieved a written notice of transfer to include all 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. In an interview on 1/11/23 at 10:07 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported R5 did not receive a written notice of transfer to include all of the above information.
Nov 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00130884. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately report an ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00130884. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately report an allegation of abuse to state agency, in one of three residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1), resulting in the potential for abuse. Findings include: Resident #1 (R1) Psychiatry Evaluation dated 8/20/22 revealed prior to hospitalization, R1 was a [AGE] year-old that lived alone who presented to the hospital after sustaining a laceration to her forehead and nose after a fall at home. R1 was alert and orientated. Following sutures to R1's forehead and nose and physical therapy; subacute rehab placement was recommended after hospital stay due to increased risk for falls and need for supervision. R1's care plan with admission date of 8/27/22 revealed she had diagnoses of bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder. R1 had limited physical mobility and used a cane for ambulation. R1's progress notes dated 8/29/22 at 9:17 AM indicated she called 911 and insisted she go to hospital. There was no explanation in R1's electronic medical record (EMR) of a reason she insisted she go to the hospital. Registered Nurse (RN) manager C was interviewed on 11/17/22 at 11:52 AM and stated R1 had made a complaint that a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) attacked her. RN C stated following the allegation, the facility took statements from everyone, and cameras were checked. During an interview on 11/17/22 at 1:10 PM Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A stated she completed an investigation after it was reported to her that R1 alleged she was pushed down busted her head open near the elevator by Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) D. NHA A stated she reviewed camera footage that showed CNA D re-directing R1 from the elevator, there was no fall, no pushing, R1's head was not bleeding. NHA A stated she contacted R1's daughter, who reported R1 had a history of making those types of allegations and calling the police. NHA A stated she did not save camera footage from the alleged incident because she wasn't sure how to save it. NHA A stated she viewed the camera footage with the maintenance director and Director of Nursing. NHA A provided a soft file with summary titled Facility Investigation that was dated 8/29/22. The summary indicated CNA D was immediately suspended pending investigation. The same summary indicated NHA A spoke with the case manager at the hospital and was informed R1 did not wish to return to the facility and was referred for placement at a different facility. The same investigation summary revealed facility surveillance camera footage was reviewed and showed R1 was re-directed off the elevator and did not fall. Staff were in-serviced on the abuse policy following the investigation. Concierge staff E was interviewed on 11/17/22 at 3:30 PM and stated she recalled sitting in on the staff interviews regarding R1's allegation. Concierge Staff E stated she thought the purpose of the abuse in-service following R1's allegation on 8/29/22 was to just let the resident ride in the elevator and go down to the first floor, get them a pop or whatever, and don't try to stop them. The Abuse Policy dated 11/28/17 indicated the NHA was to report an allegation of abuse immediately to the State Agency.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
Concerns
  • • 40 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 45/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is The Villa At Parkridge's CMS Rating?

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

How is The Villa At Parkridge Staffed?

CMS rates The Villa at Parkridge's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at The Villa At Parkridge?

State health inspectors documented 40 deficiencies at The Villa at Parkridge during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 39 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates The Villa At Parkridge?

The Villa at Parkridge is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by VILLA HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 144 certified beds and approximately 121 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Ypsilanti, Michigan.

How Does The Villa At Parkridge Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, The Villa at Parkridge's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Villa At Parkridge?

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

Is The Villa At Parkridge Safe?

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

Do Nurses at The Villa At Parkridge Stick Around?

The Villa at Parkridge has a staff turnover rate of 48%, which is about average for Michigan nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was The Villa At Parkridge Ever Fined?

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

Is The Villa At Parkridge on Any Federal Watch List?

The Villa at Parkridge 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.